Sustainability Data Management

Approaches to Managing
EHS & Sustainability Data
February 2013
© NAEM 2013
Proudly presented with support from these sponsors:
* Leading global provider of

Environment, Health & Safety
and Quality Software
*Sustainability Inside
Approaches to Managing EHS & Sustainability Data © NAEM 2013. All rights reserved. 1
About this Report
NAEM is pleased to present the Approaches to EHS & Sustainability Data report, which examines the
primary tools environment, health and safety (EHS), and sustainability leaders use to ensure regulatory
compliance, increase efficiency and support public disclosure of sustainability achievements. Putting these
systems in place requires a great deal of collaboration, time and effort.
NAEM first began tracking the question of how companies manage EHS data at its early workshops about
management information systems in the late 1990s. Beginning in 2001, NAEM expanded its efforts to
also include a formal biennial benchmarking survey that looks at how companies are managing EHS and
sustainability data as well as the capabilities of available software tools.
Over the years, the survey has continued to evolve to reflect changes in usage and the maturation of
the software marketplace. This year’s report is a snapshot of how companies are using management
information systems to track progress, improve performance and facilitate external communication.
NAEM is providing this free of charge with the primary goal of advancing the collective understanding of
this important issue.
As a non-profit association focused on increasing the success of all EHS and sustainability managers,
NAEM does not recommend any one approach or vendor, but rather aims to illuminate common data
management practices. We hope the report will contain valuable insights for anyone working on EHS
and sustainability data management, whether it is with the purpose of implementing a new system,
benchmarking a current system, or expanding the offerings of a commercial solution.
We would like to gratefully acknowledge the support of our advisory committee, who helped shape the
questionnaire as well as our financial supporters whose contributions made the research possible.
Sincerely,
Carol Singer Neuvelt

Executive Director
NAEM
2 © NAEM 2013. All rights reserved.

Contents
1. Glossary of Terms 4
2. List of Figures 5
3. Executive Summary 7
4. Methodology and Demographics 13
5. Research Results:
Data Management Approaches 17

Integration with Other Business Information Systems 23
Business Objectives for Selecting a Data Management Approach 27
System Capabilities and Effectiveness 31
Implementation and Maintenance 41
6. Acknowledgments 47
About NAEM
The National Association for Environmental Management (NAEM) empowers corporate

leaders to advance environmental stewardship, create safe and healthy workplaces,
and promote global sustainability. As the largest professional community for EHS and
sustainability decision-makers, we provide peer-led educational conferences and an active
network for sharing solutions to today’s corporate EHS and sustainability management
challenges. Visit NAEM online at www.naem.org.
Glossary of Terms
Approaches: Respondents were asked to indicate which approach their company primarily uses to manage its EHS and
sustainability data. They were given the option of:
• Commonly available tools: This option was used to indicate when a company primarily uses programs such
as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Microsoft SharePoint, Microsoft Outlook, etc. to manage its EHS and
sustainability data.
• Internally developed system: This option was used to indicate when a company primarily uses a system that was
built by the company itself rather than an off-the-shelf solution or a commonly available tool.
• Off-the-shelf solution: This option was used to indicate when a company buys a commercially available software
system. This does not include tools such as Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Access, Microsoft Share Point, Microsoft
Outlook, etc.
• Combination: This option was used to indicate when a company does not have a primary data management
system, but instead uses a relatively equal combination of internally developed systems, commonly available tools
and/or off-the-shelf solutions.
Business Objectives: This term is used to refer to the goals a company hoped to achieve with the implementation of its
current data management system. For respondents who indicated they are in the market for a new system, they were asked
to rank the goals they hoped to achieve with the implementation of a new system.
Capabilities: The data points that information management system allows a company to track.
Data management: This term is used to denote the business management process associated with collecting, tracking and
reporting data.
EHS: Environment, health and safety
Facility: This term includes manufacturing sites, office buildings and other physical locations where business operations
take place.
Implementation: This includes all activities until the date the system goes live. Implementation costs are therefore those
incurred until the system goes live, excluding licensing or subscription fees.
Maintenance: This refers to all activities that keep the system updated and functioning properly on an ongoing basis.
Maintenance costs may include licensing or subscription fees.
Sustainability: The survey did not define this term for respondents.
System: This term refers to the type of software, database or tool a company uses to manage its data.

List of Figures
Methodology and Demographics
Figure 1: Annual Revenue 14
Figure 2: Total Number of Employees 15
Figure 3: Geographic Presence of Operations 15
Figure 4: Industry 16
Figure 5: EHS Risk Profile 16
Data Management Approaches

Figure 6: Data Management Approach 18
Figure 7: Approach by EHS Risk Profile 19
Figure 8: Approach by Industry 20
Figure 9: Approach by Number of Employees 21
Figure 10: Approach by Number of Facilities 21
Figure 11: Average Age of System by Approach 22
Level of Integration with Other Business Information Systems

Figure 12: Integration 24
Figure 13: Integration by Risk 25
Figure 14: Access to System 26
Business Objectives for Data Management Systems

Figure 15: Top Five Business Objectives for Implementing a Data Management System 28
Figure 16: Business Objectives for Implementing a New Data Management System 28
Figure 17: Top Five Business Objectives by EHS Risk Profile 29
Figure 18 Percent of Respondents Who Are Shopping for an Off-the-Shelf Solution 29
Figure 19: Prospective Buyers by Approach 29
Figure 20: Top Five Business Objectives for Prospective Buyers of Software 30
System Capabilities and Effectiveness

Figure 21: Alternative Approaches to Primary Systems: Commonly Available Tools 32
Figure 22: Alternative Approaches to Primary Systems: Internally Developed Systems 32
Figure 23: Alternative Approaches to Primary Systems: Off-the-Shelf Solutions 32
Figure 24: Breakdown of Approaches for Combination Users 32
Figure 25: Approaches Used for Health and Safety Capabilities 33
Figure 26: Approaches Used for Incident Tracking and Management Capabilities 34
Figure 27: Approaches Used for Environmental Capabilities 35
Figure 28: Approaches Used for Compliance Regulations 36
Figure 29: Approaches Used for Other Capabilities 37
Figure 30: Top Five Unmet Needs 38
Figure 31: Top Five Most and Least Effective Capabilities 38
Figure 32: Top Five Most and Least Effective Capabilities by Approach 39
List of Figures
System Implementation and Maintenance
Figure 33: Implementation Time 42
Figure 34: Function Responsible for Building Internally Developed Systems 42
Figure 35: Implementation Time by Number of Employees 43
Figure 36: Median Implementation Cost by Approach 43
Figure 37: Implementation Cost by Number of Employees 44
Figure 38: Function Responsible for System Maintenance 45
Figure 39: Maintenance Cost by Approach 45
Figure 40: Maintenance Cost by Number of Employees 46

Executive
Summary
Executive Summary
Companies use a variety of approaches to meet all their EHS and sustainability data
management needs
Among respondents, 34 percent use a combination of approaches to meet all of their data management needs. The remaining
two-thirds of respondents said their companies have a ‘primary’ approach, which consists of either commonly available tools,
an internally developed system or an off-the shelf-solution. Even those that have a primary approach, however, use alternative
approaches at least some of the time, according to the results.
Data Management Approach

Figure ES1
ES1. Data Management Approach
Commonly-Available Tools 25%
Internally-Developed System 18%
Off-the-Shelf Solution 24%
Combination 34%
N = 106
A company’s approach to data management strongly correlates to its size

and level of EHS risk
Companies with a high level of EHS risk are much more likely to use an off-the-shelf solution to manage their EHS and
sustainability data. Size also seems to play a role in determining a company’s approach to data management: Larger companies
tend to use internally developed systems more often than other approaches.
Off-the-shelf solutions are the newest systems

While the average age of an EHS and sustainability data management system is about eight years, the average age of an off-the-
shelf solution is about four years old, according to respondents. Internally developed systems and commonly available tools are
about nine or ten years in age.
Respondents use different approaches for different needs

When respondents were asked to indicate which approach they use for each of 41 different types of data, a portrait of the relative
strengths of each approach begins to emerge. Commonly available tools seem to be most often used for keeping track of permits,
risk assessments and inspections, while internally developed systems tend to be used more comprehensively. Off-the-shelf
solutions seem to dominate specialty areas, such as MSDS tracking, regulation tracking, and monitoring and document tracking.
These newer software systems also seem to be most often used to manage core EHS tasks. It’s important to note that companies
with a high degree of risk tend to use off-the-shelf solutions more so than other approaches.
The following chart shows the top ten capabilities most frequently managed by each approach.

Executive Summary
Top 10 Capabilities Most Frequently Managed by Each Approach
Figure ES2
Percent of Respondents
Commonly Available Tools
Using this Approach
SARA Title III reporting (Tier II, TRI) 35%
Wastewater permit management 31%
Environmental reporting 30%
Hazard identification and assessment 30%
Stakeholder communications (internal/external) 30%
Waste management 29%
Environmental auditing/inspections 29%
Job hazard/Risk assessment (JHA) 29%

Safety auditing/inspections 29%
Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.) 28%
Internally Developed System
Using this Approach
Accident/Incident management 47%
Incident reporting, investigation and tracking 47%
Job hazard/Risk assessment (JHA) 45%
Injury/Illness reporting 43%
Hazard identification and assessment 43%
Compliance reporting, investigation and tracking 42%
Environmental auditing/inspections 41%
GHG inventory and reporting 40%
Performance metrics/dashboards/scorecards 39%
Safety auditing/inspections 37%
Off-the-Shelf Solution
Using this Approach
Chemical/MSDS management 62%
Accident/Incident management 37%
Injury/Illness reporting 37%
Regulation tracking and monitoring 36%
Employee health and wellness 35%
Incident reporting, investigation and tracking 34%
Equipment tracking 32%
Document management 30%
Training (EHS) 30%
Corrective action tracking 28%

N = 80
Executive Summary
Supply chain monitoring and product footprinting are the greatest unmet needs
Respondents seem to be satisfied with the core EHS capabilities of their chosen approach, particularly in the areas of injury and
illness reporting, incident management and auditing. Emerging issues such as supply chain monitoring, product footprinting, on
the other hand, remain unmet needs. Managing lifecycle data, for example, is an unmet need for 38 percent of respondents; 30
percent of respondents reported that material traceability and supply chain transparency is also data they would like to collect
but currently cannot.
Top Five Unmet Needs

Figure ES3
Unmet Need
1. Life-cycle assessment (LCA)/product footprinting
2. Material traceability and supply chain transparency
3. Product liability/REACH/RoHS/TSCA
4. Stakeholder communications (internal/external)
5. Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.)
N = 73
Companies using a combination of approaches are more likely to be shopping

for a new system
Half of all respondents indicated that they are in the market for some type of off-the-shelf solution. Among prospective buyers,
those using a combination approach or an internally developed system are most likely to be shopping for a new system.
In the Market by Data Management Approach

Figure B. In the Market by Data Management Approach
Figure ES4
Commonly-Available Tools 50% 42% 8%

Yes
No
Internally-Developed System 53% 42% 5%
Don’t
YesKnow
Off-the-Shelf Solution 32% 64% 4%
Combination 61% 36% No
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N = 106
Don't know

Executive Summary
Continuous improvement seems to drive prospective buyers of off-the-shelf solutions
Those who are in the market for off-the-shelf software seem to seek a solution that will help them advance their programs. For
those who currently use commonly available tools, these objectives include risk and injury reduction. Respondents that use
internally developed systems seem to seek a system that will save time, standardize processes and improve productivity. Those
who already have an off-the-shelf solution seem most ambitious in their goals, seeking a transition to tracking leading indicators,
as well as improving visibility and communication about their EHS and sustainability activities. For the majority of buyers,
who are using a combination of approaches, the purchase drivers are a mix of the aforementioned goals, ranging from process
improvements and injury reduction to facilitating communications.
Top Five Business Objectives for Potential Purchasers of an

Off-the-Shelf Solution by Current Data Management Approach
Figure ES4
Rank Commonly Available Tools Internally Developed System Off-the-Shelf Solution Combination
Improve EHS and Transition to tracking leading Improve EHS and

1 Save time
sustainability performance indicators sustainability performance
Improve communication Improve communication

Improve EHS and
2 about EHS and sustainability about EHS and sustainability Standardize processes
sustainability performance
activities activities
Improve corporate-level
3 Reduce injuries and illnesses Standardize processes visibility on EHS and Reduce injuries and illnesses
Improve communication
4 Reduce risks about EHS and sustainability Save time Reduce risks
activities
Improve corporate-level Improve facility-level visibility Improve communication
5 visibility on EHS and Increase productivity on EHS and sustainability about EHS and sustainability
sustainability performance performance activities
N = 75
Larger companies have higher implementation and maintenance costs

Data management systems cost more for larger companies in both the implementation and maintenance stages. Implementation
costs range from less than $20,000 for companies with fewer than 1,000 employees to more than $175,000 for companies with
more than 80,000 employees. The median for all respondents was $100,000. Large companies also spend more on annual
maintenance; the median cost for companies that employ more than 80,000 employees was $75,000 per year.
This page intentionally left blank

Methodology &
Demographics
Methodology & Demographics
Objectives
Since 2001, NAEM has conducted an EHS and sustainability data management survey in conjunction with the biennial EHS and
sustainability software conference. The purpose of this benchmark study is to understand:
• How companies manage EHS and sustainability data

• What types of systems companies use to manage data and the shelf life of those systems
• The business objectives that affect how a company approaches data management
• The level of integration between the EHS and sustainability data management systems and other business information systems
• The most valued capabilities and unmet needs of data management systems
• How long it takes and how much it costs to implement a system
Survey Design
This study reprises core concepts from NAEM’s previous research on EHS and sustainability management information systems
and incorporates input from an advisory committee composed of senior EHS and sustainability leaders. The committee helped to
shape the project and additionally served as beta-testers, completing an initial draft of the questionnaire.
The resulting online survey consisted of 31 questions, which were broken into sections similar to those in this report.
Respondents and Timing

The respondents were drawn from primarily U.S.-based EHS and sustainability professionals. Only respondents in full-time, “in-
house” EHS or sustainability roles were eligible to complete the survey; consultants and service providers were excluded. This
report reflects the inputs from the 116 respondents who met the eligibility criteria.
The online survey was fielded between Dec. 20, 2012 and Jan. 18, 2013.
Figure 1. Annual Revenue
Company Demographics
The survey asked respondents a number of identifying questions to facilitate effective benchmarking. The following charts provide
a profile of responding companies:
• The respondents represented companies with revenues ranging from less than $250 million to more than $50 billion. The
largest group (49 percent) reflected the perspective of companies with revenues of between $1 billion and $10 billion.
Annual Revenue
Figure 1
49%
20%
10%
9%
6% 7%
Less than $250M $250M - $1B $1B - $10B $10B - $25B $25B - $50B More than $50B
N = 105
N = 105

Figure 2. Total Number of Employees
• Respondents represented large companies with high headcounts.
Total Number of Employees

Figure 2
25% 25%
24%
16%
11%
Less than 1,000 1,000 - 10,000 10,000 - 20,000 20,000 - 80,000 More than 80,000
N
N == 1106
06
• Responding companies have a broad geographic reach, covering all of the world’s major economies and regions.
Geographic Presence of Operations

Figure 3. Geographic
FigurePresence
3 of Operations
United States 99%
European Union 68%
Asia Pacific 66%
Canada 62%
Mexico & Central America 56%
South America 53%
Other Europe & Russia 47%
Middle East & Africa 47% N == 1107

N 07
Methodology & Demographics
• Responding companies operate in a wide variety of industries, with the strongest representation from manufacturing
(42 percent).
Industry
Figure 4.4Industry
Figure
Manufacturing 42%
Retail and Services 16%
Utilities 15%
Chemicals 11%
Pharma and Biotech 8%
Consumer Products 8%
N = 106
• Most respondents self-identified as operating with a medium level of EHS risk relative to companies operating in other
industries.
EHS RiskFigure
Profile
5. EHS Risk Profile
Figure 5
Low degree of EHS risk
Medium degree of EHS risk

14%
21%
High degree of EHS risk
65%
N = 107 N = 107

Data Management
Approaches
This section addresses how respondents currently approach their data management needs. The information is segmented by risk,
revenue, headcount and industry to facilitate benchmarking.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to data management

According to respondents, companies are using a variety of systems to manage EHS and sustainability data. These include
internally developed systems (those created in house); off the shelf systems (software developed by, and purchased from, an
external firm); and commonly available tools, such as Microsoft Excel or Microsoft SharePoint. While many respondents indicated
that they primarily use one of the above approaches, about a third reported that their company relies on a combination of these
different approaches to meet all of their data management needs.
Results from later questions on how specific needs are met by different types of systems reveal that even the two-thirds of
respondents who reported having a primary approach use different types of systems to meet all of their EHS and sustainability
data management needs. A company that primarily uses an internally-developed system, for example, may turn to an off-the-
shelf solution for a specific set of capabilities. The ‘System Capabilities and Effectiveness’ section of this report provides more
granularity and further explores how companies diversify their data management portfolios to meet the multitude of EHS and
sustainability needs.

Figure 6. Data Management
Figure 6
Approach
Internally-Developed System 18%
Off-the-Shelf Solution 24%
Combination 34%
N = 106

High risk companies rely more on off-the-shelf systems
The results in Figure 7 illustrate that a company’s chosen approach to data management strongly correlates with its level of EHS
risk. High-risk companies tend to manage EHS and sustainability data using an off-the-shelf solution (45 percent) while low-risk
companies typically use an internally developed system (40 percent).
Data Management Approach by EHS Risk Profile

Figure 7. Data Management
Figure 7
Approach by EHS Risk Profile
High EHS Risk 14% 14% 45% 27% Commonly Available

Tools Commonly-Available T
Internally Developed Internally-Developed S

Medium EHS Risk 28% 15% 18% 39% System
Combination
Low EHS Risk 20% 40% 13% 27%
Combination
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N N== 1104
04
Reasons for Current Approach

In an open-ended question to all respondents about why their company chooses to manage its EHS and sustainability
data the way it does, most respondents cited cost and resources as key considerations.
In order to justify the expense, companies tend to weigh cost against avoidance of risk. According to one respondent that
primarily uses commonly available tools, the biggest driver for choosing this approach was, “perceived level of risk based
on rate of return for off-the-shelf solution or time spent developing an internal system.” Another respondent echoed
with, “Cost has been a limiting factor. The present system works, so justifying the cost is justifying avoidance of risk. The
perception of risk is low.”
Companies that primarily use an off-the-shelf solution tended to cite ‘ease of use’ as the primary driver behind their
decision to purchase software. Other reasons included the ability to customize the solution, along with increased
efficiency, consistency and transparency. Most companies that have chosen to manage data using an internally
developed system also cited customization as a primary driver.
For those who are using a relatively equal combination of systems, a decentralized EHS structure was often cited as the
deciding factor behind adopting this combination approach. As one respondent explained, “We are a siloed company
and each business unit determines what technologies are needed to best manage data and maintain compliance.”
Another deciding factor for a combination approach was the lack of a coherent data management strategy, according to
respondents. “Systems were developed at different times,” one respondent said. “Various components were selected to
meet the needs at that point in time.” Another significant driver for companies to adopt a combination approach was the
fact that they couldn’t find a single solution that met all of their needs.
While lack of funding seems to be keeping companies reliant on commonly available tools, some respondents advocate
for these tools. As one respondent explained, “familiarity, portability, ease-of-use/training, remote access and cost,” were
the biggest drivers behind their company’s decision to use commonly available tools.
Consumer-facing industries tend to use commonly available tools or a combination
of systems
Respondents from companies in the consumer products industry tend to manage EHS and sustainability data using a
combination of approaches, while retail and services companies stick with commonly available tools. Utilities, along with
companies in the pharmaceuticals and biotech industries, are the most likely to employ off-the-shelf solutions for their EHS and
sustainability data management needs.
Data Management Approach by Industry

Figure 8. DataFigure
Management
8 Approach by Industry
Chemicals 42% 8% 50% Commonly Available

Commonly-Available
Tools
Internally-Developed
Internally Developed
Utilities 19% 44% 38% System
Off-the-Shelf Solutio
Combination
Consumer Products 13% 13% 13% 63%
Combination
Retail & Services 50% 6% 13% 31%
Pharma & Biotech 25% 13% 38% 25%
Manufacturing 14% 35% 23% 28%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N = 103
N = 104

Larger companies use internally developed systems or a combination approach
Whether you measure a company’s size by number of employees or number of facilities, larger companies are more likely to
use internally developed systems (42 percent) or a combination of approaches to manage their data. Companies with fewer than
1,000 employees are more apt to use commonly available tools (41 percent).
The number of facilities a company has may also suggest a decentralized structure1, which is another potential driver for using
a combination of systems. Indeed, in response to an open-ended question about the primary driver for using a combination of
systems, one respondent wrote, that it was “primarily the result of the decentralized operation structure of the company.”
Data Management
Figure 9. DataApproach by Number
Management of by
Approach Employees
Total Number of Employees
Figure 9
More than 80,000 8% 42% 17% 33% Commonly Available

Tools
Internally Developed
20,000 - 80,000 8% 21% 21% 50%
System
10,000 - 20,000 28% 12% 24% 36%
Combination Co
Too
1,000 - 10,000 32% 4% 32% 32%

Inte
Sys
Less than 1,000 41% 24% 18% 18%

Off
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N N= =103
103 Co

Figure 10. Data by Number
Management of Facilities
Approach by Number of Facilities
Figure 10
More than 200 13% 13% 19% 56%
100-200 8% 32% 24% 36%

Commonly-Availa
50-100 25% 13% 38% 25%

Internally-Develo
System
20-50 29% 13% 17% 42%

Off-the-Shelf Sol
Less than 20 43% 17% 22% 17%

Combination
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N
N== 1104
04
1. NAEM’s December 2012 benchmark on EHS & Sustainability Staffing and Structure revealed that companies with a large number of
facilities tend to be decentralized.
Off-the-shelf solutions are the newest systems
The average age of an EHS and sustainability data management system is a little more than eight years. Off-the-shelf solutions,
however, tend to be newer, with an average age of four years. The age of other data management approaches averaged nine or
ten years.
Figure 12. AverageAge

Average Age of
of System by by Data Management
Approach
Approach (Years)
Figure 11
Commonly-Available Tools 8.9
Internally-Developed System 10.1
Off-the-Shelf Solution 4.4
Combination 9.7
N
N == 998
8

Integration with Other
Business Information
Systems
Integration with Other Business Information Systems
Integration is rare
On average, about 50 percent of companies expect to integrate, or have already integrated, their data management system with
other business information systems. Companies that have plans to integrate, however, do not seem to know when the integration
will occur, and very few expect it to happen in the next year.
Integration
Figure 17.
Figure 12 Integration
Already integrated
Third party data 12% 7% 28% 53%
Expected to be
Already integrated
integrated by the
Risk Management 20% 5% 27% 48%
end of 2013
Plans to integrate,
Manufacturing 16% 5% 24% 54% but a date is not
yet set to be integrated by the
Expected
end of 2013
Maintenance 18% 8% 25% 49% No plans to
integrate
Supply Chain/Inventory/Purchasing 14% 5% 31% 50%

Plans to integrate, but a date is no
yet set
Human Resources 24% 9% 15% 51%
Accounting and ERP 13% 5% 28% 54% No plans to integrate
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N = 98
N = 98

Integration is much more common for high-risk companies
Integration with other business information systems was much more common among high-risk companies. Among low-risk
companies, for example, only 36 percent report integration with risk management systems compared to 71 percent of high-
risk companies. Risk plays a much smaller role when it comes to integration with accounting and enterprise resource planning
(ERP) systems. Regardless of the EHS risk level, about 45 percent of companies integrate their EHS and sustainability data
management system with accounting and ERP systems.
Integration by Risk
Figure 13
Figure X. Integration by EHS Risk profile
62%
Third party data 43%
36%
71%
Risk Management 47%
36%
65%
Manufacturing 41%
40%
62%
Maintenance 45%
55%
57%
Supply Chain/Inventory/Purchasing 47%
55%
High EHS Risk
57%
Human Resources 46%
55% Medium EHS Risk
High EHS Risk
48% Low EHS Risk Medium EHS R

Accounting and ERP 46%
45% Low EHS Risk
N = 97
Integration with Other Business Information Systems
On average, about 20 percent of employees access EHS and sustainability data systems
The level of access to a company’s data management system varies according to approach. On average, 20 percent of employees
have access to a company’s system. Those that use a combination of systems give access to 27 percent of employees; those with
internally developed systems only provide access to 10 percent of employees.
When it comes to compiling, analyzing and reporting data, the results show that only about three percent of employees access
the data for this purpose. Companies using commonly available tools provide the greatest level of access to employees for data
analysis and reporting (4 percent), while companies using internally developed systems provide the least (2 percent).
Access to System
Figure 13. Percent of Total Employees
Figure 14 who have Access to the
System
Access the system in any way 18.7%
Access the system to compile, analyze and report data 3.0%
N == 95
N 95

Business Objectives for
Selecting a Data
Management Approach
Business Objectives for Selecting a Data Management Approach
Better data management is expected to improve performance, communication
Respondents were asked to rank a set of 14 business objectives in terms of how important they were to their company when
considering the implementation of a new EHS and sustainability data management system. Improving performance rose to the
top, as did improving communication about EHS and sustainability activities.
Top Five Business Objectives for Implementing a Data Management System

Figure 15
Business Objective
1. Improve EHS and sustainability performance
2. Improve communication about EHS and sustainability activities
3. Improve corporate-level visibility on EHS and sustainability performance
4. Standardize processes
5. Improve facility-level visibility on EHS and sustainability performance
N = 75
Business Objectives for Implementing a Data Management System

Figure 16
• Reduce injuries and illnesses

• Improve EHS and sustainability performance
• Improve communication about EHS and sustainability activities
• Improve corporate-level visibility on company EHS and sustainability
performance
• Improve facility-level visibility on company EHS and sustainability
performance
• Save time
• Change culture
• Reduce risks
• Reduce costs
• Increase productivity
• Standardize processes
• Improve quality
• Increase accountability
• Transition to tracking leading indicators

Risk affects business objectives for implementing a data management system
The most important business objectives for implementing a system change depending on the EHS risk under which a company
operates. High-risk companies also rank objectives such as ‘transitioning to tracking leading indicators’ and ‘increasing
productivity’ higher than low-risk companies. On average, companies with a high degree of EHS risk are least concerned about
saving time, changing culture and reducing costs when it comes to implementing a data management system.
Top 5 Business Objectives by EHS Risk Profile

Figure 17
Rank Low EHS Risk Medium EHS Risk Low EHS Risk
Improve communication about EHS Improve EHS and sustainability Improve EHS and sustainability
1
and sustainability activities performance performance
Improve communication about EHS
2 Save time Standardize processes
and sustainability activities
Improve EHS and sustainability Improve corporate-level visibility on
3 Reduce risks
performance EHS and sustainability performance
Improve corporate-level visibility on Improve facility-level visibility on EHS Improve corporate-level visibility on
4
EHS and sustainability performance and sustainability performance EHS and sustainability performance
Improve communication about EHS
5 Reduce injuries and illnesses Standardize processes
and sustainability activities
N = 74
Half of respondents are shopping for off-the-shelf solutions
Half of all responding companies indicated they are in the market for some type of off-the-shelf solution. Among prospective
buyers, the largest segment (41 percent) is composed of those with a combination of systems. It’s not clear, however, whether these
potential purchasers are looking for a comprehensive solution to replace their primary system or are seeking another addition to
their diverse portfolio of data management software.
Percent of Respondents Who Are Shopping

for an Off-the-Shelf Solution? Prospective Buyers by Approach
In the MarketFigure
for an
18 Off-the-Shelf Solution? Figure 19
Breakdown of Prospective Buyers
5% Yes
Yes Commonly
Combination Available
No
Tools
No Off-the-Shelf Solution
Don't know 25%
Don’t Know Internally Developed
41% System
50% Internally-Developed
45% System
19% Off-the-Shelf
Commonly-Available Solution
Tools
15%
Combination
N = 106 N = 106
Business Objectives for Selecting a Data Management Approach
Continuous improvement seems to drive prospective buyers of off-the-shelf solutions
Those who are in the market for off-the-shelf software seem to seek a solution that will help them advance their programs. For
those who currently use commonly available tools, these objectives include risk and injury reduction. Respondents that use
internally developed systems seem to seek a system that will save time, standardize processes and improve productivity. Those
who already have an off-the-shelf solution seem most ambitious in their goals, seeking a transition to tracking leading indicators,
as well as improving visibility and communication about their EHS and sustainability activities. For the majority of buyers,
who are using a combination of approaches, the purchase drivers are a mix of the aforementioned goals, ranging from process
improvements and injury reduction to facilitating communications.
Top Five Business Objectives for Prospective Buyers of Software

Figure 20
Rank Commonly Available Tools Internally Developed System Off-the-Shelf Solution Combination
Improve EHS and Transition to tracking Improve EHS and

1 Save time
sustainability performance leading indicators sustainability performance
Improve communication Improve communication

Improve EHS and
2 about EHS and sustainability about EHS and sustainability Standardize processes
activities activities
Improve corporate-level
3 Reduce injuries and illnesses Standardize processes visibility on EHS and Reduce injuries and illnesses
Improve communication
4 Reduce risks about EHS and sustainability Save time Reduce risks
activities
Improve corporate-level Improve facility-level visibility Improve communication

5 visibility on EHS and Increase productivity on EHS and sustainability about EHS and sustainability
sustainability performance performance activities
N = 75

System Capabilities
and Effectiveness
In this section, respondents were no longer asked questions about their primary approach. Instead, they were asked to indicate
which type of system they use to collect data among a list of 41 different capabilities. Because the results represent the
perspective of all respondents, regardless of primary approach, they offer a more detailed look at how companies use different
EHS and sustainability data management systems to meet different needs.
Even companies with a primary approach may use different systems for different needs
While two-thirds of the survey respondents reported having a primary approach to managing data, the results from this section
demonstrate that few companies depend on a single system to meet all of their EHS and sustainability data management needs.
A company that primarily uses an internally developed system, for example, may turn to an off-the-shelf solution for a specific set
of capabilities.
It’s important to note that while the following charts weigh each capability equally (i.e. injury/illness reporting is weighed the
same as carbon tracking), some of the capabilities are much more important to the EHS function and companies spend much
more time on some than on others. Therefore, even though respondents who primarily use commonly available tools only use
those tools for 32 percent of the 41 capabilities listed below, that small percentage could be the handful of that consumes 90
percent of their time and energy.
Alternative Approaches to Primary Systems:
Commonly Available
Average Percent Internally
of 41 Capabilities Being Met Developed Off-the-Shelf Breakdown for
Tools
by Each Approach Systems Solutions Combination Users
Figure 21 AverageFigure
Percent
22 of 41 Capabilities Beingn
AverageMet by Figure
Each
Percent Approach
of 41
23Capabilities Being MetAverage
by EachPercent
Approach
Figureof24
41 Capabilities Being Me
Primary Approach = Commonly-Available Tool
Primary Approach = Internally-Developed Syste
Primary Approach = Off-the-Shelf Solutio Primary Approach = Combin
20% 18%
30%
Commonly-Available Tools
28% 29%
32%
Internally-Developed System
Internally-Developed System
Commonly-Available Tools
Off-the-shelf Solution
61% 17%
Off-the-shelf Solution Internally-Developed System
47% 52% 43%

Off-the-shelf Solution
N = 19 N = 17 N = 19 N = 29
Commonly Available Tools
Internally Developed System

Companies still rely on internally developed systems for many core health
and safety capabilities
Internally developed systems are most often used for ‘risk assessment’, ‘hazard identification and assessment’, and ‘safety
auditing and inspections’. Commonly available tools are also frequently used for managing this type of data. Off-the-shelf
solutions were most often used for ‘employee health and wellness’ data management (35 percent) and ‘industrial hygiene’ data
management (25 percent).
There are very few unmet needs in this category of health and safety capabilities, but 44 percent of the respondents reported that
voluntary protection programs do not apply to their company.
Approaches Used for Health and Safety Capabilities

Figure 25
Figure 25. Data Management Approaches Used for Health and Safety Capabilities
Safety auditing/inspections 29% 37% 21% 4% 9% Commonly

Available Tools
OHSAS 18001/Voluntary protection program 23% 12% 3% 18% 44% Internally

Developed
System
Job hazard/Risk assessment (JHA) 29% 45% 8% 8% 11%
Commonly-Available To
Off-the-Shelf
Industrial hygiene data 21% 25% 25% 17% 12% Solution
Unmet Need
Internally-Developed Sy
Hazard identification and assessment 30% 43% 6% 10% 10%
N/A
Employee health and wellness 14% 15% 35% 20% 16%
Emergency management and preparedness 27% 30% 6% 17% 19% Unmet Need
Behavior based safety (BBS) 27% 23% 13% 21% 17%

N/A
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N
N == 880
0
Internally developed systems and off-the-shelf solutions often used for incident data
Internally developed systems, followed closely by off-the-shelf solutions, are the primary ways companies manage data related
to ‘injury and illness reporting’, ‘incident management’, and ‘corrective action tracking’. Very few respondents reported using
commonly available tools for these types of capabilities.
This category of capabilities also has the lowest rate of respondents with unmet needs. In most cases, less than 10 percent of
respondents are struggling to meet these needs.
Approaches Used
Figure 26. Data for Incident
Management TrackingUsed
Approaches and for
Management Capabilities
Incident Tracking and Management
Figure 26
Capabilities
Corrective action tracking 21% 37% 28% 9% 5% Commonly

Commonly-Available
Available Tools
NOV tracking 22% 34% 17% 14% 13%
Internally
Developed
Non-Conformance statistics 18% 31% 19% 14% 19% System Internally-Developed
System
Off-the-Shelf
Injury/Illness reporting 11% 43% 37% 8% Solution
Off-the-Shelf Solutio
Incident reporting, investigation and tracking 14% 47% 34% 4% Unmet Need
N/A
Accident/Incident management 9% 47% 37% 3%4%
Unmet Need
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N = 80
N = 80
N/A

Greenhouse gas and environmental auditing are most commonly tracked by internally
developed systems
According to respondents, environmental data is most often tracked using internally developed systems. This is particularly
true for greenhouse gas reporting, in which 40 percent of respondents turn to internally developed systems. To a lesser extent,
companies also tend to rely on internally developed systems for their energy and carbon data management needs. A notable
exception is in the area of chemical/MSDS management, in which 62 percent of respondents reported using an off-the-shelf
software system. Results from this category of capabilities suggest that unmet needs are not much of an issue.
Approaches Used for Environmental Capabilities

Figure 27
Figure 27. Data Management Approaches Used for Environmental Capabilities
Waste management 29% 28% 19% 18% 5% Commonly

Available Tools
Wastewater permit management 31% 24% 10% 19% 15%
Internally
Developed
Stormwater permit management 28% 22% 12% 21% 18% System
Off-the-Shelf
GHG inventory and reporting 14% 40% 23% 12% 12%
Solution
Environmental reporting 30% 33% 16% 15% 5% Unmet Need
N/A
Environmental auditing/inspections 29% 41% 23% 4% 4%
Energy and carbon management/metrics 14% 37% 23% 18% 9%
EMS/ISO 14001 management system 19% 31% 8% 13% 29%
Chemical/MSDS management 9% 16% 62% 6% 6%
Chemical inventory 28% 29% 28% 10% 6%
Air emissions management (Title V) 26% 23% 17% 10% 23%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N = 80
N = 80
Managing product regulations a key unmet need for respondents
Although particular types of systems are commonly used to track particular compliance and regulatory data, no one approach
seems to dominate this area for most respondents. The key unmet need for this category is data management for product
regulations such as REACH, RoHS and TSCA (26 percent).2 A nearly equal number of respondents, however, said this issue does
not apply to their company.
Figure 28. Approaches

Data Management
UsedApproaches
for ComplianceUsedRegulations
for Compliance and
RegulatoryFigure
Capabilities
28
SARA Title III reporting (Tier II, TRI) 35% 25% 16% 16% 9% Commonly
Commonly-
Available
Tools
Available
Tools
Regulation tracking and monitoring 23% 15% 36% 18% 8%
Internally
Developed
Product liability/REACH/RoHS/TSCA 18% 24% 5% 26% 27% System
Internally-
Developed
System
Compliance reporting, investigation and tracking 24% 42% 21% 8% 5% Off-the-Shelf
Solution
Compliance calendar 26% 30% 26% 14% 4% Off-the-
Unmet
Shelf Need
Solution
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N/A
N
N == 880
0
Unmet
Need
N/A
2. Registration, Evaluation, Authorization and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive
(RoHS), and the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA).

No single data management approach dominates training, document management and
performance metrics
The final category of capabilities includes everything from sustainability reporting and stakeholder communications, to training
and management of change. A relatively equal number of respondents use each approach to manage data on EHS training,
performance metrics and document management. Off-the-shelf solutions, however, do seem to be most often used for equipment
tracking, while internally developed systems tend to handle performance metrics and scorecards. Commonly available tools very
rarely rise to the top except in the area of stakeholder communications.
Approaches Used for Other Capabilities

Figure 29. Data ManagementFigure
Approaches
29 Used for Other Capabilities
Training (EHS) 23% 31% 30% 14% Commonly

Available Tools
Annual sustainability reporting 26% 30% 6% 22% 16%
Internally
Stakeholder communications (internal/external) 30% 21% 24% 23% Developed
System
Risk management 27% 28% 14% 19% 12%
Off-the-Shelf
Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.) 28% 30% 7% 23% 12% Solution
Performance metrics/dashboards/scorecards 18% 39% 27% 13% Unmet Need
Life-cycle assessment (LCA)/product footprinting 7% 12% 11% 38% 32% N/A
Material traceability and supply chain transparency 10% 22% 11% 30% 27%
Management of change (MOC) 20% 35% 7% 23% 15%
Equipment tracking 12% 19% 32% 18% 19%
Document management 19% 30% 30% 17% 4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N
N == 8
800
Supply chain monitoring and product footprinting issues are the largest unmet needs
The largest unmet needs, according to the results, are in the areas of ‘life-cycle assessments/product footprinting’, ‘material
traceability’ and ‘supply chain transparency’. This may be due to the fact that product stewardship is still emerging area of focus
for many companies. It’s important to note, however, that almost the same number of respondents indicated that these data
management issues do not apply to their company.
Top Five Unmet Needs

Figure 30
Unmet Need
1. Life-cycle assessment (LCA)/product footprinting
2. Material traceability and supply chain transparency
3. Product liability/REACH/RoHS/TSCA
4. Stakeholder communications (internal/external)
5. Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.)
N = 73
Respondents seem most satisfied with how their systems manage health and safety data
On average, respondents rate their systems that manage data related to accident and incident management as most effective.
Other areas where respondents are most satisfied include ‘chemical and MSDS management’, ‘air emissions management’ and
‘environmental reporting’.
Respondents are less satisfied with their data management systems when it comes to issues related to ‘material traceability’,
‘supply chain transparency’, ‘product footprinting’ and ‘product liability’. This explains why companies see these areas as the
biggest unmet needs (Figure 30).
Top Five Most and Least Effective Capabilities

Figure 31
Rank Most Effective Least Effective
1 Accident/Incident management Material traceability and supply chain transparency
2 Incident reporting, investigation and tracking Life-cycle assessment (LCA) product footprinting
3 Injury/Illness reporting Product liability REACH/RoHS/TSCA
4 Chemical/MSDS management Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.)
5 Air emissions management (Title V) Equipment tracking
N = 73

Off-the-shelf solutions are considered more effective than other systems
On average, respondents rated off-the-shelf solutions as more effective than internally developed systems or commonly available
tools. Thus said, this doesn’t apply to each and every capability. Internally developed systems are rated higher for capabilities
such as ‘internal and external stakeholder communications’ and commonly available tools are rated highest for ‘supply chain and
product footprinting’ capabilities as well as ‘equipment tracking’.
Top Five Most and Least Effective Capabilities by Approach

Figure 32
Rank Commonly Available Tools Internally Developed System Off-the-Shelf
Most Effective
Incident reporting, investigation and

1 Equipment tracking Wastewater permit management
tracking
2 Accident/Incident management Accident/Incident management EMS/ISO 14001 management system
OHSAS 18001/Voluntary protection

3 Injury/Illness reporting Air emissions management (Title V)
program
Material traceability and supply chain

4 Injury/Illness reporting Accident/Incident management
transparency
5 NOV tracking Air emissions management (Title V) Stormwater permit management
Least Effective
Life-cycle assessment (LCA)/product Stakeholder communications (internal/

1 Management of change (MOC)
footprinting external)
Responding to external requests for Material traceability and supply chain Emergency management and
2
information (CDP, DJSI, etc.) transparency preparedness
3 Annual sustainability reporting Regulation tracking and monitoring Equipment tracking
4 Industrial hygiene data Equipment tracking Risk management
5 Regulation tracking and monitoring Job hazard/Risk assessment (JHA) Annual sustainability reporting
N = 73
This page intentionally left blank

Implementation
and Maintenance
Implementation and Maintenance
Implementing a data management system takes about 20 months
The average implementation time for a data management system is about 20 months, a rule of thumb that is shaped by a
company’s chosen data management approach. For those companies using internally developed systems or an off-the-shelf
solution, the average implementation time is about a year. A company that uses commonly available tools or a combination of
systems should expect implementation to last about twice as long.
The longer implementation times for companies using a combination of systems may be due to the fact that these companies
tend to integrate their EHS and sustainability data management systems with other business information systems. Respondents
may also report longer implementation times with a combination of systems because all of the systems are not developed at the
same time.
Figure 18. Average Implementation Time by Data Management
Implementation Time
Approach (Months)
Figure 33
Commonly-Available Tools 23
Internally-Developed System 12
Off-the-Shelf Solution 13
Combination 26
N
N= = 80
80
Who builds internally developed systems?

When a company decides to build a data management system internally or use a set of commonly available tools
to meet their needs, the EHS function is most often responsible for the project (52 percent). Another approach
is for EHS to team up with IT to build the system (27 percent). Very rarely does IT build the system for EHS or
independently of EHS.
Figure 11. Function Responsible for Building Internally-

Function Responsible for Building Internally Developed Systems
Developed
Figure 34 Systems
EHS 52%
IT 9%
EHS and IT 27%
Consultant(s) 7%
Other 5%
N N
= 4= 4
44

The larger the company, the longer the implementation
Company size also affects the length of the implementation process for EHS and sustainability data management systems. For
companies with fewer than 20,000 employees, the average implementation time is about 14 months. Those with more than
20,000 employees report implementation times of two years or more, on average. Finally, companies with more than 80,000
employees reported an average of 41 months for implementation of their EHS and sustainability data management systems.
Figure 19. Average Implementation

Implementation Time by NumberTime by Total Number of
of Employees
Employees
Figure 35 (Months)
41
25
16
14
13
N
N == 8
800
A system implementation typically costs $100,000

Although the median cost of an implementation is $100,0003, a company’s chosen data management approach is also an
important determinant of implementation cost. Companies that are using commonly available tools reported a median
implementation cost of only $1,000. At the other end of the spectrum, companies that employ an off-the-shelf solution typically
spend more than $130,000 during the implementation process. The median implementation cost for internally developed
systems is $125,000.
Median
Figure Implementation
20. Median Cost Cost
Implementation by Approach
by Data Management Approach
Figure 36
Commonly-Available Tools $1,000
Internally-Developed System $125,000
Off-the-Shelf Solution $131,950
Combination $100,000
N
N == 556
6
3. It is important to note that respondents were asked not to include licensing or subscription fees when calculating implementation
costs. These types of costs were included in the annual maintenance costs, which are discussed on pages 45 and 46.
Implementation costs are driven by company size
As previously mentioned, the number of employees affects implementation time more so than a company’s current approach
to data management. Companies that employ fewer than 1,000 people tend to experience the lowest implementation costs
($20,000), which makes sense, since smaller companies most frequently use commonly available tools (Figure 9). Companies
with more than 80,000 employees typically have the highest implementation costs ($175,000).
The same is true of implementation costs. In Figure 36, the data shows that implementation costs are typically the same for
all approaches other than commonly available tools. The results in Figure 37, however, show a very strong relationship between
company size and implementation costs.
Figure 21. Median Implementation

Implementation Cost by NumberCost by Total Number of
of Employees
Employees
Figure 37
$175,000
$100,000 $100,000
$35,000
$20,000
N
N == 5
566
Training is among the most important—yet overlooked—aspects of implementation

When asked about the lessons they learned from the implementation process, most respondents said they wish they had focused
more on training. “Provide initial training and then follow up training within six months,” one respondent suggested. Similarly,
respondents advocated for the use of pilot sites and recommended getting more users involved early on.
Another lesson that respondents said they learned about the implementation process was the value of working with a non-biased
third party to help with software selection, developing a detailed requirements document and ensuring “full backing of business
leadership.” Respondents also reported underestimating how much time and resources were necessary for the implementation
of their data management system.

The EHS function takes the lead in system maintenance
Consistent with how internally developed systems are built, the results in Figure 38 show that the EHS function is primarily
responsible maintaining the company’s EHS and sustainability data management systems. The second most common approach
to system maintenance is through a collaboration between EHS and the Information Technology (IT) function. Again, few
companies have an IT department that does this for them, and even fewer use external consultants to maintain their systems.
Function Responsible for System Maintenance

Figure 22. Function Responsible
Figure 38 for System Maintenance
EHS 59%
IT 15%
EHS and IT 18%
Consultant(s) 2%
Other 6%
N N== 997
7
Off-the-shelf systems and combination approaches cost more to maintain

Annual maintenance costs, which include licensing or subscription fees, are highly dependent on a company’s data management
approach. Those respondents using an off-the-shelf solution or a combination of systems spend the most on annual maintenance
($48,000 and $50,000, respectively). Companies using commonly available tools reported the lowest annual maintenance costs
at only $500.
Figure 36 shows very little difference in implementation costs between the different types of data management approaches
(except for commonly available tools). Maintenance costs tend to be much lower for companies using internally developed
systems ($11,000); the other three have very similar implementation costs (Figure 39).
Figure 23.Maintenance
Median Annual
CostMaintenance
by Approach Cost by Data
Management Approach
Figure 39
Commonly-Available Tools $500
Internally-Developed System $11,000
Off-the-Shelf Solution $48,000
Combination $50,000
N N= =61
61
Larger companies spend more on annual maintenance
Maintenance costs, like implementation costs (Figure 37), are higher for larger companies. Although larger companies tend to rely
on internally developed systems (which have lower annual maintenance costs), companies employing more than 80,000 people
reported annual maintenance costs of $75,000. This suggests that the size of a company, not its approach to data management,
is a better determinant of annual maintenance costs.
On the opposite end of the spectrum, companies with fewer than 1,000 employees typically experience annual maintenance
costs of only $4,000. This is most likely due to the fact that smaller companies tend to primarily use commonly available tools to
meet their EHS and sustainability data management needs (Figure 9).
Figure 24.Maintenance
Median Annual
Cost Maintenance Costs by Total Number
by Number of Employees
of Employees
Figure 40
$75,000
$47,500
$30,000 $30,000
$4,000
N
N == 6
611

Acknowledgements
Publisher
The National Association for Environmental Management (NAEM)
1612 K St., NW Suite 1002
Washington, DC 20006
(202) 986-6616
www.naem.org
Advisory Committee
NAEM would like to thank the members of the benchmarking advisory committee for their input into the survey design:
David Asplund, Jim Cline, Hal Ehrhardt, Ana Fernandez, Luke Freeman, Josh Gibson, Deb Hammond, Ellen Huang, Grant
Hilbers, Kimberly Jackson, Joanne Jones, Marty Moran, Laura Murphy, Tim Puyleart, Kelvin Roth, Laura Scott and Tony
Shea.
Report Sponsors*
NAEM gratefully acknowledges the following sponsors, whose support is helping to advance the collective knowledge of our
profession on the topic of data management trends and approaches:
Credit360
Enablon
Intelex
KMI
Analyst
Virginia Hoekenga
Deputy Director
NAEM
Report Design
Ellie Diaz
Chaos Studios
Report Editor
Elizabeth Ryan
Manager, Interactive Media and Communications
NAEM
Media Inquiries
For more information about this report or to request an interview with an NAEM analyst, please contact NAEM at (202)
986-6616.
* Financial sponsorship of this report supported the costs of production and dissemination only. The survey design and results were developed
by NAEM in partnership with an advisory committee of members.

Sustainability Data Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Data Management

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability Data Management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Approaches to Managing

EHS & Sustainability Data

Proudly presented with support from these sponsors:

* Leading global provider of

Carol Singer Neuvelt

2 © NAEM 2013. All rights reserved.

4. Methodology and Demographics 13

Data Management Approaches 17

The National Association for Environmental Management (NAEM) empowers corporate

EHS: Environment, health and safety

4 © NAEM 2013. All rights reserved.

Data Management Approaches

Level of Integration with Other Business Information Systems

Business Objectives for Data Management Systems

System Capabilities and Effectiveness

6 © NAEM 2013. All rights reserved.

Data Management Approach

Commonly-Available Tools 25%

Internally-Developed System 18%

Off-the-Shelf Solution 24%

A company’s approach to data management strongly correlates to its size

Off-the-shelf solutions are the newest systems

Respondents use different approaches for different needs

8 © NAEM 2013. All rights reserved.

Wastewater permit management 31%

Environmental reporting 30%

Hazard identification and assessment 30%

Stakeholder communications (internal/external) 30%

Waste management 29%

Environmental auditing/inspections 29%

Job hazard/Risk assessment (JHA) 29%

Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.) 28%

Incident reporting, investigation and tracking 47%

Job hazard/Risk assessment (JHA) 45%

Injury/Illness reporting 43%

Hazard identification and assessment 43%

Compliance reporting, investigation and tracking 42%

Environmental auditing/inspections 41%

GHG inventory and reporting 40%

Performance metrics/dashboards/scorecards 39%

Safety auditing/inspections 37%

Accident/Incident management 37%

Injury/Illness reporting 37%

Regulation tracking and monitoring 36%

Employee health and wellness 35%

Incident reporting, investigation and tracking 34%

Equipment tracking 32%

Document management 30%

Training (EHS) 30%

Corrective action tracking 28%

Top Five Unmet Needs

1. Life-cycle assessment (LCA)/product footprinting

2. Material traceability and supply chain transparency

4. Stakeholder communications (internal/external)

5. Responding to external requests for information (CDP, DJSI, etc.)

Companies using a combination of approaches are more likely to be shopping

In the Market by Data Management Approach

Commonly-Available Tools 50% 42% 8%

Off-the-Shelf Solution 32% 64% 4%

Combination 61% 36% No