Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
c
c
÷ ÷
÷ ÷ ÷
÷
OVERVIEW
You can use the following check-list to analyse the completeness and quality of your draft environmental
statement/report.
B.1 Credibility 25 5%
B.2 Relevancepand clarity 25 5%
B.3 Continuity and comparability 25 5%
C.1 Text/language 25 5%
C.2 Visual design 25 5%
1. EVALUATE SUB-TOPICS
To get the score for the main topics A.1, A.2, etc. add up the score for each of the sub-
topics A.1.1, A.1.2, etc. and divide by the number of sub-topics.
Example:
A.4.1 - 5 points
A.4.2 - 3 points
A.4.3 - 1 point
Each of the main criteria has been given a specific weighting factor. The score for each of the main topics is
multiplied by this factor. Example:
Calculation of score 3 10 30
The total score is calculated by adding up the weighted scores for each section.
Overall evaluation
The total score can be between 0 and 500 points. The higher the score, the better the report.
÷
÷
Points evaluation
÷
A.2 Environmental
policy/guidelines
A.2.1 statement from management 5 > The statement from the Managing Director
containing brief history of the printing
industry, main sources of environmental
pollution and proffered solutions is
comprehensive.
> This environmental policy sets out the
overall aim of the organisation with respect
to the environment, but fails to give an
appropriate description of the operational
EMS.
A.2.2 environmental 1
guidelines/principles
A.3.2 information, involvement 1 > Given that the staff strength is low,
and training of the intention to train staff was
employees mentioned. However, the adopted
method alongside other relevant
factors was not discussed.
A.6.1 comparison with legal obligations, 0 > Legal obligations were not
reference to and analysis of discussed in the statement.
accidents and environmental fines This statement did not discuss
the environmental fines it is
liable to pay for any non
conformance to
environmental consents.
> There was no observable
basis for comparison or trend
discussed in the statement.
> Environmental indicators
were not used to assess the
environmental performance of
the organisation.
> There was insufficient
information in the discussion
of the interpreted data
considering the identified
aspect and impacts.
A.7.1 realisation of objectives over time 3 > The date, timeline and the
period to which report refers approach for achieving the set
objectives were not
mentioned.
A.7.2 description of objectives 3 > The objectives were listed
but they were not described.
> The description of the line of
actions to be adopted for
achieving these set objectives
was not included.
Calculation of score 0 5 0
A.9.2 company address, contact person, 1 > The statement did not
request for feedback contain details of contact
person(s). In addition, no
feedback form was attached.
> There was no reference to
information in other relevant
and /or related document such
as the previous environmental
statement.
A.9.3 offer of further information and 0
cross reference
Points evaluation
B.1 Credibility
B.2.1 focus on important quantitative 1 > The available data was tabulated
and qualitative aspects but not qualitatively evaluated.
The simple explanations given
were for selected categories, as
others were considered self-
explanatory.
> The document had to be revised
continuously to assimilate and
extract the required information.
> The statement was not properly
structured, hence some relevant
information were not included, for
instance, an organogram.
÷
÷
&" #$ %#%#
C.1 Text/language
C.2.4 typeset 5
28
Overall evaluation