Briefing paper: The Business Case for Environmental Management
Systems in the United Nations
Table of contents
Executive summary
p2
1. Why the UN system is considering EMS
2. Overview of EMS
3. The UN’s environmental impacts and the ‘value at stake’
4. Evaluating the costs and saving of implementing EMS
5. Environmental management experience in UNU and ADB
6. EMS for the UN system
7. Recommendations
p3
p4
p6
p12
p17
p19
p22
1
Executive Summary
A range of internal and external drivers has prompted UN entities to consider systematic adoption of
Environmental Management System (EMS) for measuring and managing environmental risks, costs and
impacts in their organizations. In September 2012 the High Level Committee for Management (HLCM)
asked UNEP to present an “elaborated cost benefit analysis” of EMS approaches, to help UN system
agencies to understand whether and how the UN could realize a range of financial and intangible benefits,
and what commitment would be required.
This paper provides an overview of EMS and how it can add value to public sector organizations. It
outlines potential costs and benefits for UN organizations, including meeting stakeholder expectations of
accountability and efficiency, and enhancing reputation, organizational resilience and staff morale. The
paper highlights achievements from best-practice environmental projects in UN organizations to date and
notes that the best way to replicate these successes and realize further gains is through systematic
measurement, management and reporting, integrated into existing organizational frameworks (an EMS).
The precise nature and extent of the financial savings that each agency might achieve will require more
detailed and case-specific investigation. Using available data, however, this paper finds that systematic
measurement and management of environmental impacts through an EMS could help the UN system as a
whole to achieve reductions in operating costs of US$ 250-335 million per year through improved
management of electricity and other utilities, fuel, travel and some office-related procurement, which
collectively cost the UN an estimated US$ 2.7 billion1 in 2010. Significant further savings could be
realized through inclusion of certain additional high-risks and potentially high cost activites for which
UN-wide data is lacking, including waste disposal, wastewater management, construction of UN
premises, and vehicle procurement/maintenance.
The one-off costs of implementing EMS, which would identify and prioritize improvement actions, could
be spread over several years, with each agency working at its own pace. A high-level estimate puts the
required total investment at US$ 23 to 40 million (as a rule of thumb, US$ 110-187 per capita for
organizations with 1,000 or more staff, or 1.36% of one year’s turnover for small organizations). A UNwide approach to EMS, as advocated by the ‘Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the United
Nations System’ approved by EMG members in September 2011, would help contain these costs by
avoiding duplicate research, seeking efficiencies of scale when outside expertise is required, including for
staff training, and promoting collaboration in addressing common issues at a single location.
The cost of implementing improvement projects will vary significantly between agencies and is highly
dependent on local costs and operating conditions. However, a systematic approach will help the UN to
prioritize management of the biggest risks and to support realization of the most cost effective
projects first, thus containing overall costs. The experience of various government programmes and UN
case studies reported in this paper indicate that the annual savings above can be achieved through projects
with an average payback period of three years or less. As with EMS development, investments in
implementing projects would be made over several years and can be made most cost-effective through
UN-wide collaboration.
Data extrapolated from “Moving Towards a Climate Neutral UN” GHG inventory data from 2010 and reported results in the
2010 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement.
1
2
1
Why the UN system is considering EMS
The UN system has pursued policies and strategies that demonstrate its commitment to sustainability in
operations and premises, advancing elements of environmental management and sustainability thinking in
practices ranging from energy efficient facilities to green meetings and sustainable procurement. These
initiatives however are disparate, ad hoc in nature, and not yet well integrated with the main business of
the organizations.2 Crucially, by failing to systematically assess all significant impacts (including energy,
waste and water management, and air pollution emissions), the UN may be missing opportunities to save
scarce financial resources and failing to manage significant risks to staff and to beneficiary nations and
communities.
The UN’s commitment to “Delivering as One” calls for a systematic approach in which policies,
strategies and resources are aligned to achieve common goals – in this case, improvements in
environmental sustainability. United Nations Executive Heads approved in September 2011 a “Strategic
Plan for Sustainability Management in the UN System” that provides a model for the systematic
integration of environmental sustainability into the management of UN facilities and operations. In
particular they committed “to move towards the introduction of organization-specific sustainability
management systems and to endeavour to identify appropriate resources for implementation”.
This action builds on the highly successful Climate Neutral initiative launched by the UN SecretaryGeneral in 2007, reiterated in his letter of 13 June 2012 to the members of the Chief Executives Board for
Coordination (CEB). Member States are also looking to the UN to lead by example on sustainability
management. The GA resolution 67/226 on the Quadrennial comprehensive policy review of operational
activities for development of the United Nations system (para 15) echoes the Rio+20 outcome document
“The future we want”, and calls on the UN system to “improve the management of facilities and
operations, by taking into account sustainable development practices, building on existing efforts and
promoting cost effectiveness in accordance with legislative frameworks while maintaining
accountability”.3 The Secretary General has been asked by member states to periodically report on
progress in this field4.
The need to take into account environmental sustainability for internal management is increasingly
recognised by governing bodies, including: the Governing Body of ILO asked in 2009 the organization to
adopt Climate Neutrality by 2015; WFP’s Executive Board requested acceptance of the Joint Inspection
Unit recommendation regarding adoption of EMS; UPU Postal Congress in 2008 demanded a more
efficient use of resources and further efforts to ‘regularly measuring and reducing its environmental
impact’ were requested in 2012.
These policy pronouncements provide a strong system-wide impetus for adopting organization-specific
environmental management systems (EMS) by UN organizations. Individual agencies stand to benefit
from EMS, widely recognized as a means of realizing efficiency gains and operational savings, driving
innovation and creating public value. These internal motivations are especially relevant and timely for
public sector bodies in the prevailing climate of reduced fiscal spending and austerity.
2See
JIU Report (2010). Environmental profiles of UN system organizations (JIU/REP/2010/1)
See UN General Assembly Resolution 66/288 ‘The future we want’ accessed at http://daccess-ddsny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pdf?OpenElement on 30 January 2013
4 http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/226, page 5,
3
3
2
2.1
Overview of EMS
Definition of Environmental Management Systems (EMS)
Rising global concern over the need to protect the environment has led to calls for greater responsibility
and diligent care, not only among businesses but also in public sector organizations. Concurrently,
organizations have recognized the strong synergies to be realised between enterprise management and
environmental protection, through environmental management. The practice of environmental
management enables public institutions to mainstream environmental and sustainability goals into their
service delivery processes. Environmental management encompasses aspects of strategy, policy,
procedures and activity that form an organization's response to environmental issues. It also
describes the methods that enable organizations to assess their operations, identify and manage risks, and
commit to continuous improvements in both the practices adopted and the results achieved.
An Environmental Management System (EMS) is one of the most widely used tools of environmental
management. Since 1996, more than 250,000 organizations in 150 countries have achieved EMS
certification5. Although originally intended to help private sector companies demonstrate compliance with
environmental legislation, EMS have also been embraced by the public sector as a best-practice business
tool for managing diverse and competing environmental issues. International organizations that have
already implemented EMS include the European Commission (42 certified buildings in Brussels) and the
EU Parliament6 as well as the Asian Development Bank. Within the UN system, UNU and the publishing
services of the UN Secretariat have already obtained ISO14001 certification, while WFP and the World
Bank Group have committed to developing an EMS consistent with accepted standards.
2.2
Summary of Benefits of EMS
The adoption of EMS enables public institutions such as UN organizations to achieve the following:
 better stewardship of resources by identifying efficiency improvements and cost savings;
 maintain transparency and accountability on how environmental performance is integrated in the
delivery of mandates; this builds credibility and reputation among stakeholders (member states,
donors, beneficiaries and staff);
 identification and management of environmental risks which, left unchecked, could significantly and
adversely impact the local environments of the very people the UN was created to assist;
 reducing the organizations’ environmental footprint and
5
See statistical compendium on ISO 14001 by ISO accessed from http://www.iso.org/iso/iso-survey2010.pdf and similar report
from http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2187008/iso14001-environmental-standard-continues-global-march
6 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/emas/emas_ec/index_en.htm and
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/emas/environmental_Statement_EN.pdf
4

2.3
fostering a sustainability culture within organizations, which makes it easier to secure behavioural
changes such as reducing travel, fuel-efficient driving, recycling and sustainable procurement.
Implementation approaches and formal standards for EMS
An EMS is intended to assist organizations to determine the environmental impacts of their activities,
propose planned actions to address these, and periodically verify their effectiveness. It can be
implemented in a single process or broken down into more manageable pieces.
EMS can be developed as a standalone management
tool, or elements can be incorporated into existing
organizational frameworks for policy development, risk
management, monitoring and reporting. The most
important element in EMS is a commitment to
continuous improvement, characterized by a cycle of
Plan-Do-Check-Act, illustrated above.7
An organization can choose whether to have its EMS
formally certified to an existing standard. The most
common standard, ISO 14001, has been adopted by
250,000 organizations worldwide since its introduction
in 1996. In Europe, the EMAS standard imposes higher
requirements including public reporting of results and
more rigorous criteria for performance improvement
over time.
ISO 14001 is the reference used for the environmental sustainability management model proposed by the
Strategic Plan for Environmental Sustainability Management in the UN System, (see section 6).
Diagram of PDCA cycle taken from the Introduction of ISO 14001:2004 Environmental management systems – Requirements
with guidance for use. International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
7
5
3
The UN’s environmental impacts and the ‘value at stake’
The United Nations (UN) achieves its mandates through approximately 214,0008 civilian and peace keeping
personnel in more than 50 organizations9. In performing their work, UN system organizations invariably
consume energy and natural resources and generate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and waste, which can
affect often-vulnerable local environments.
Understanding the activities of each organization and their potential impacts on the environment is crucial to
establishing EMS. The Strategic Plan for Environmental Sustainability Management in the UN System
identifies three indicators: a) Greenhouse Gas emissions/energy use, b) consumption of water resources and
c) use of materials (measured as waste generation). A fourth, qualitative, indicator covers efforts made for
increasing staff awareness and capacity. This paper analyses the UN activities that give rise to these impacts
(eg electricity that causes greenhouse gas emissions) to estimate the “value-at-stake” of EMS: the direct
financial costs and the potential environmental risks associated with them.
3.1
The value-at-stake: the cost of the UN's expenditure on energy, water, fuel, procurement
Sources of information for this section include consumption data used to provide the Climate Neutral UN
GHG inventory and the centrally reported values of procured goods and services. The quantifiable values
associated with the environmental aspects are summarized in the following table:
Table 1:US$ value of annual cost of electricity, water, waste, materials and travel
Total (estimated minimum for the UN system)
2,790,102,645
10
Purchased electricity: at least 337 million kilowatt hours per year
Petroleum and fuel products (based on data from GHG reporting)
of which, cost for vehicle fuel
of which, cost for generators and heating
Chartered trips and aviation fuel: 105,565,000 litres per year 11
Commercial air travel: at least 571,000 trips per year
Other materials (paper, toner, IT equipment, packaging materials reported 13
Water consumptions: estimated cost of 4,721,928 m3 potable water used14
Waste generation in offices estimated at 77,562 tonnes Municipal Solid
Waste in 201015 (361 kg per capita)
8
41,511,182
738,593,903
94,484,051
644,109,851
70,521,611
1,100,000,00012
836,690,000
2,785,949
unknown
http://www.greeningtheblue.org/sites/default/files/2011CNeutral_UN_final_0.pdf
http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/structure/index.shtml
10 Data extrapolated from GHG inventory report of 2011
11 Based on annual average price of aviation fuel in 2010 derived from 5 year data in
http://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=jet-fuel&months=60 accessed on 01 Feb 2013
12 JIU Report: Review of Travel Arrangements within the UN System (JIU/REP/2010/2)
13 Materials considered have short life cycle, are high volume and represent “low-hanging” reduction opportunities: (1) paper
&office stationery, (2) furniture, (3) IT equipment, (4) toners, detergents, and cleaning products, (5) rubber and plastic products,
and (6) wood/timber pallets and crates..
14 Average annual per capita water consumption as reported in2010 and 2011 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement.
Global water price :Ecosystem Economics for UN FAO The Economic Value of Water for Agricultural, Domestic and Industrial
Uses: A Global Compilation of Economic Studies and Market Prices accessed from
http://cbwtp.org/jsp/cbwtp/library/documents/FAO_Water_Values.pdf on 05 January 2013
15 2010 Annual Statistical Report of UN Procurement indicates average per capita waste generation of 361 kg.
9
6
This analysis addresses only those areas for which reasonable and high-level cost data was publicly and
readily available. The volume of waste generated by UN operations is not uniformly reported and cost is
not reported at all. There are some omissions from the data above: for example, no data is available on the
water use and waste generation of UN residences and guest houses, warehouses or other light industrial
premises (such as workshops, vehicle maintenance garages and fuel depots run by UN agencies to service
their own vehicles and operational needs). Extrapolations assume all staff are employed in offices, cost
estimates make use of global average figures, which in many cases will be well below the costs of
operating in large capital cities.
Crucially, no data was available for some key areas in which environmental impacts and financial costs
are likely to be high, namely the construction, leasing, purchasing or maintenance of UN buildings, or the
purchase and maintenance of vehicle fleets (the GHG inventory provides fuel consumption only). It does
not include impacts from purchased services such as freight (for food or medicines). It includes no costs
associated with projects financed by UN entities, as they are beyond the scope of this paper.
As individual agencies assess their own operations and associated environmental impacts, they may
discover additional priority areas, such as procurement and waste disposal associated with construction,
or air pollutants associated with diesel generators and older vehicles.
3.2
Risks from not managing environmental impacts
The UN operates in some of the world’s most marginal environments, in countries with vastly different
levels of environmental protection legislation and sustainable development capacity in their institutions.
The UN should at all times meet and exceed the legislative requirements of the host governments of
countries in which the UN serves. Failure to do so risks tangible damage to the capacity of the local
environment to support the people who live in it, as well as loss of reputation, loss of donor funds in the
event of an incident, and even claims for compensation from affected beneficiaries or staff. Increasingly,
UN donors require evidence of risk management measures as a pre-condition of providing funds,
including for the provision of UN premises.
The lack of quantifiable information in categories identified above represents critical unmitigated
environmental impacts. These impacts include exacerbating local air pollution via UN vehicles and
generators in cities, contributing to climate change through significant greenhouse gas emissions; and
excessive consumption of locally available potable water and other scarce natural resources.
By far the most critical, non-quantified impact is waste. The UN’s principle waste streams include:
Municipal Solid Waste (MSW); redundant equipment, furniture and e-waste; ‘consumables’ such as tyres,
motor oil, toner cartridges and construction offcuts; sewage (grey water from kitchens/bathrooms and
black water from toilets). In developing countries where infrastructure is poor, landfill sites (waste
dumps) may pose a risk to the health and wellbeing of local people. In such countries, the price UN
agencies pay for waste removal may be artificially low, because it does not reflect the full cost to the
community (in pollution or human health impacts) of the waste impacts. Landfilled items represent
wasted resources, some of which may be non-renewable (such as metal, or plastic made from fossil fuels)
or toxic and many can be reused or reprocessed. Diverting waste from landfill also cuts disposal costs.
7
Illegal waste dumping is a problem in many countries. In many countries, and particularly during
emergencies, the UN must provide its own infrastructure for sewage treatment and/or disposal.
The UN should seek to minimise all its waste streams and to ensure waste that cannot be avoided is
disposed of in a safe and responsible manner. Unmitigated risks can have very real consequences for UN
beneficiary communities and adversely impact local economic development. They should be managed
even if they have a net cost: cleaning up after an incident could cost far more and some impacts are
irreversible. EMS provides a system that routinely identifies and mitigates risks and provides procedures
in the event of an incident.
3.3
Opportunities for realizing benefits and optimizing savings
Many environmental impacts can be managed in ways that bring financial benefits. Financial benefits of
EMS are best realized when an organization systematically sets targets and then identifies and implements
projects to reduce resource consumption and reduce or divert waste. Performance against targets is
periodically reviewed to confirm progress made and to identify new techniques or technology by which
further gains might be cost-effectively made. Savings may accrue from:





Reduction of water consumption;
Reduction of fuel consumption;
Reduction in energy use;
Reduction of materials consumption; and
Reduction of waste generation.
As a management system, an EMS does not prescribe specific environmental performance targets.
Instead, it offers the means for organizations to set their own targets based on their capabilities and
readiness. Examples of integrating environmental considerations into operations include systematically
considering energy efficient lighting and heating/cooling when refurbishing a building, or periodic
assessments of new technologies to confirm their cost-effectiveness. LED lights, for example, can reduce
lighting costs by 80%, and cost just one quarter as much as they did 5 years ago, when the technology
was new. A conventional bulb still costs less, but the electricity it uses costs up to 20 times its purchase
price each year. (The simple payback on LEDs can be as little as 5 months).
By considering multiple environmental impacts simultaneously, an EMS can identify projects with
multiple environmental benefits, such as fitting water efficient taps that reduce both water use and the
energy needed to heat water. An EMS can also evaluate projects involving competing environmental
demands, such as replacing paper towels (reducing waste) with hand dryers (increasing energy use).
The potential savings available through EMS adoption have been estimated below through a combination
of reviews of academic literature, surveys of government advisory bodies such as the UK Carbon Trust or
the US Environmental Protection Agency, leading non-government programmes such as ICLEI, and
interviews and surveys of environmental focal points in UN organizations. Table 2 presents both
theoretical reductions typically found in organizations that are new to environmental management, and
actual targets and results adopted by UN and other agencies. Some organisations report reductions of 50%
8
or more in one or more of the four areas. Dozens of examples exist in the private sector of achieving a
“factor of four” improvement: halving resource use while doubling revenue16.
Table 2: Practical and achievable targets for environmental improvement and efficiency
Energy efficiency
(purchased
electricity, heating
fuels, onsite
generation)
Vehicle fuel
conservation
Travel
Consumption of

UK Carbon Trust: energy surveys commonly identify 20-50% savings through energy
efficiency measures, with 20% considered readily achievable via actions with an
average payback period of 3 years or less.

A 20% reduction also considered feasible for organizations new to energy
management by: the EU17, US EPA18 and the Clinton Global Initiative19.

UNU reported 18% reduction in energy consumption in 2011 compared to 2010,
resulting in savings of US$ 24,400.

UPU achieved reduced energy use from a lighting retrofit by 70% with a payback
period of around two years.

WFP Senegal implemented no-cost measures, including switch-off campaigns and
energy awareness among staff, and saved 22% of electricity costs, or US$ 14,000.

FAO: An elevator upgrade is saving US$ 142,000 per year and 288 tCO2e, with a
payback period of 3.3 years. A new workstation energy scheme required US$ 1,000
and saved an estimated US$ 100,900 per year. The payback period was 3.6 days.

The UK’s Automotive Association indicates savings of 10% from fuel-efficient driver
training. A similar programme at TNT obtained 20% savings.

Guidance from the Canadian government indicates a poorly tuned vehicle will emit
“up to 50% more emissions” and use “considerably more” gas”

WFP is seeking to reduce fuel consumption by 17% over 3 years through low cost
measures such as driver education training, improving vehicle maintenance, and
selecting more efficient vehicles on replacement , saving US$ 1.9 million per year in
fuel costs.

In 2011, UN Secretariat members were asked to make a 3% annual reduction in
administrative costs, including travel.

Sustainable UN research indicates significant savings can be achieved through low
and no-cost changes including reducing multiple attendees at conferences and
increasing use of low-cost virtual meeting technologies (Skype, Arkadin).

UNIDO: directors have undertaken to reduce their own travel by up to 30%. 20

UNCTAD: aims to reduce travel by 500 flights per year (1 per staff member) through
better teleconferencing, reducing total emissions (93% are from travel) by 20%. 21

UNAIDS: Committed to reducing travel by 25% over two years.22
Significant variations exist according to type of materials purchased, however the
16
Von Weizsacker, E.; Lovins, A; Lovins L.H (1997) Factor Four: Doubling Wealth, Halving Resource Use - A Report to the
Club of Rome; Earthscan Publications, London.
17 http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2013/january/energy-efficiency-investments-not-cost-effective/76147.aspx accessed
15/02/13
18 http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/documents/suca/ee_and_carbon.pdf
19 http://press.clintonglobalinitiative.org/press_releases/bbc-cgi-announcement/
20 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/unido-directors-leading-top
21 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/unctad-promoting-videoconferencing
22 http://www.greeningtheblue.org/case-study/unaids-walk-talk-and-travel-less
9
following serve as a guide:
materials
Water consumption
Waste generation

Best practice in the UK and US is to install one printer per 10-12 staff: Many UN
agencies still have ratios of 1 per 5 staff or even 1 per 2 staff. 23

Printing can be reduced by 30% through double-sided copying, and up to 90% by
redesigning workflows to enable electronic invoices, payslips and other transactions.

Ordering precise quantities of stationery, maintenance materials and other goods on
demand (rather than stockpiling) can reduce total volumes. This may be offset by
complementary increases (i.e. to achieve lower annual paper consumption, a one-off
purchase of scanning equipment is necessary).

From 2009-2011 the General Assembly reduced printed parliamentary documents
from 336 million pages to 150 million, saving US$ 10 million.

Government studies in Canada and Australia indicate potential 40-50% savings from
‘low-hanging-fruit’ water efficiency improvements (cost recovery in 2 years or less).

In the UN system, 10 agencies report water consumption. Their average consumption
(22m3/person/yr) is 3x higher than the UK government’s ‘poor practice’ mark for
government buildings (6.5m3/person/yr). Savings from low flush toilets, low flow
taps, drought-resistant landscaping and other low cost actions, could exceed 80%.

UNEP implemented water efficiency installations as part of its facilities improvement
programme, realizing over 10% return on investment.

ADB implemented a water conservation programme as part of its facilities
improvement that included rainwater harvesting and an on-site wastewater treatment
system. Through this programme, it was able to reduce water consumption by 20%
and realized cost savings of US$ 47,316 .

FAO installed flow restrictors on basins and showers, aiming to cut water use in
bathrooms and the cafeteria by 40%. The €3,000 installation cost should save 16,000
m3 of water per year and € 5,760/year in water costs and € 222/year in electricity
from reduced pumping. Payback period is 6 months.

UK Government recommends reduction of waste generation by 25% from a 2009/10
baseline and to increase the recycling rate to 75% by 2020.

ILO reduced the volume of most of its waste streams by up to 46% with realized
savings of approximately US$ 44,000 / year from recycling and use of a compactor.

ADB implemented waste management as part of its EMS (3R programme) reducing
waste paper by 35% and overall waste volume by 41.5%, realizing total savings of
US$ 358,335 or US$ 39,815 per year
Data in the table above, which shows the full scale of technologically feasible reductions, has been used
to provide conservative estimates for the financial savings that could realistically be achieved within the
first 3-5 years of implementation, allowing for time to design the EMS, identify priority areas at each
agency, and carry out the identified projects. The figures for reduction potential have been estimated
assuming that all UN agencies pursue adoption of EMS and recognizing that for reasons of budgeting,
lease agreement or staff rotation, UN organizations are most likely to implement only those projects with
short pay-back periods averaging 2-3 years.
23
See http://bigissues.nottinghamshire.gov.uk/index/bigissues/improvement-programme/quick-wins/print-strategy/ and
http://www.gsa.gov/portal/content/103809
10
Table 3: Potential global financial savings from resource efficiency improvements
Component
Purchased electricity
Petroleum and fuel products –
vehicle fuel
Petroleum and fuel products –
generator and heating
Chartered trips and aviation fuel:
Commercial air travel:
Other materials (paper, toner, IT
equipment, packaging materials
reported in 2011 Annual
Statistical Report of UN
Procurement)
Water consumption
Waste generation in offices and
other premises
TOTAL
Value-at-stake,
in US$ (est)
41,511,182
Potential
reduction (%)
20
94,484,051
10 - 40
644,109,851
20
70,521,611
1,100,000,000
(excl. DSA)
836,690,000
10
5 - 10
2,785,949
20 - 50
Potential savings, in US$
Lower range
Upper range
8,302,236
9,448,405
128,821,970
55,000,000
5
Unknown
37,793,620
7,052,161
110,000,000
41,834,500
557,190
25
Unknown
251,016,463
1,392,975
Unknown
335,197,463
The experience of UN system organizations in implementing various environmental initiatives mirrors
that of private sector organizations: organizations with a poor baseline performance stand to make the
biggest gains with the least outlay. It is therefore possible that actual gains realized could significantly
exceed the conservative estimates in Table 3, and achieve much better payback periods.
In addition, EMS implementation has the potential to yield significant non-financial benefits. Commonly
reported changes such as improvements to reputation, or staff satisfaction, or better knowledge retention,
may not confer direct financial returns but nevertheless impart advantages in terms of enhanced
stakeholder relationships and improved institutional processes. Many others cannot be quantified in
advance, but can be measured over time through Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), such as reduced
incidents in workplaces, reduced impact on vulnerable local environments, improved staff comfort,
productivity and retention. Improved reputation can lead directly to increases in funding and can help
mitigate punitive costs and losses if an incident later occurs.
Table 4: Intangible Benefits of EMS
Description of benefits of EMS
Improvement of environmental performance and reduction of
environmental impacts; Streamlined communication through centralized
policies and procedures; Better cross-facility cooperation
24
References
Psomas et al.(2011)24, Proto &
Supino (2000)25, Zutshi, et al.
(2008)26, Soyka (2006)27
Psomas et al. (2011) Motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing the ISO 14001 Environmental Management System.
Management of Environmental Quality, 22(4):502-521
11
Minimise environmental liabilities, build awareness, gain better
understanding of environmental operations; Improved compliance,
retention of institutional knowledge
Enhancement of business efficiency by maximising efficient use of
resources and reducing waste;
Build good corporate image and improvement of stakeholder relationship;
Recognition as environmental steward;
Creation of new markets and building of competitive advantage
25
Chavan, M. (2005)28, Soyka (2006)
Psomas, et al. (2011),
Chavan (2005),
Rezaee & Elam (2000)29
Proto, M. & Supino, S. (2000) Ecomanagement quality system: ISO 14001. The state-of-the-art in Italy. Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence, 11(4):767-772
26 Zutshi et al. (2008) Environmental management system adoption by government departments/agencies. International Journal of
Public Sector Management, 21(5):525-539
27 Soyka, P. (2006) Designing environmental management systems to create financial value: A benefit-cost estimation
methodology. Environmental Quality Management (Winter 2006): 1-18
28 Chavan, M. (2005) An appraisal of environmental management systems: a competitive advantage for small business.
Management of Environmental Quality, 16(5):444-463
29 Rezaee, Z. & Elam, R. (2000) Emerging ISO 14001 environmental standards: a step-by-step implementation guide. Managerial
Auditing Journal, 15(1/2):60-67
12
4
Evaluating the costs and savings of implementing EMS for the UN
“In most cases, developing and maintaining an EMS will not require large capital outlays. What an EMS
will require is time”30
Implementing an EMS requires human resource and a range of specialist environmental, technical and
project management capacities which not all UN agencies currently have in-house. Implementing
improvement projects will involve some diversion of funds in order to realise lasting (yearly) gains.
Smaller agencies are particularly concerned about whether the costs of setting up and maintaining an
ongoing management system will justify the likely savings. Having assessed the potential gains from
systematic environmental management, it is also necessary to understand potential costs. Techniques to
maximise cost effectiveness are discussed in Section 6.
4.1
Analytical framework and methodology
The range of available studies listing quantitative costs for EMS implementation is surprisingly limited.
Within those limitations, a selection of studies and cases is used in this analysis to define and identify the
costs involved in EMS. Adopting EMS is expected to change the way the UN system allocates resources.
Establishing the business case for EMS is intended to help determine those differences. In this discussion,
the ‘Business as usual’ scenario is defined as “not implementing EMS”. Comparing the case for action
against the base case seeks to define the order of magnitude of the costs and benefits relative to the
overall value-at-stake.
4.2
The costs of EMS
The costs involved in establishing an EMS comprise four parts: development, certification,
implementation and maintenance, outlined in table 5.31
Table 5: EMS cost description
Cost item
Description
Elements of cost
EMS
development
Resources allocated for planning activities, capacity
building, and setting-up of management
programmes, systems and procedures. Most of the
expenses for these activities are considered one-off
particularly the establishment of policies, forms and
templates.
This includes the cost of third party audits (multistage and surveillance) as well as registrars’ fees.
The cost of certification is considered as one-off
Composed of direct labour cost (cost
of new and existing staff time),
consultants’ and trainers’ fees; Most
of the costs involved are considered
one-off such as policy development,
gap analysis, management plan etc.
The cost is composed of direct labour
costs, fees of auditors, and registrars’
fees. Costs of the initial certification
EMS certification
(if undertaken)
NSF International (1996); “EMS: an Implementation Guide for Small and Medium Sized Organizations”; Michigan, p.28.
Alberti et al. (2000) Evaluation of the costs and benefits of an environmental management system. International Journal of
Production Research, 38(17):4455-4466
30
31
13
Cost item
EMS
implementation
EMS maintenance
Description
Elements of cost
and the re-certification as recurring every 3years.
Includes the cost of activities needed to put the
EMS in place such as monitoring and measurement,
internal audit, stakeholder communications,
continuing capacity development. These activities
are conducted regularly even after the EMS has
been developed.
Covers the cost of updating the policies, manuals
and procedures. These costs are also considered
recurring as the activities are conducted regularly.
is considered one-off
Costs include direct labour costs,
consultants’ and trainers’ fees, and
third party analytical testing;
Implementation costs are considered
as recurring except for the cost of
monitoring equipment
Maintenance costs include recurring
direct labour costs
Once implemented, an EMS requires ongoing staff resources to collect data for regular reporting of
progress against goals and, if wished, undertaking recertification and further studies to facilitate
continuous improvement of the system.
Practitioners of change management identify various intangible costs of EMS that may increase the
investment required to implement the management system. These include overcoming resistance to
organizational change and addressing perceptions that EMS will “add bureaucracy”.32 Early and
comprehensive communications strategies can minimise these transactional costs, manage expectations
and promote buy-in across the organization.
Studies on the implementation of EMS among public sector organizations in US and Canada identify
internal and external labour costs as making up the bulk of expenses in their EMS programmes,
accounting for approximately 80% of the total costs of implementation, as shown in Table 6 below.
Table 6: Breakdown of estimated cost of EMS per category,
Labour cost
Staff time cost
Consultants’ fees
Others (equipment, testing services, trainers, auditors)
Proportion
80% of total EMS cost
70% of labour cost
30% of labour cost
20% of total EMS cost
Many organizations choose to disregard the cost of internal staff resources, explaining that the staff
engaged in EMS are considered the ‘process owners’ and the EMS is seen as improving their
processes. At UN University (UNU), staff involvement in EMS is seen as part of their terms of reference.
The Asian Development Bank (ADB), in setting up its EMS in 2003, assigned most of the work such as
write-up of procedures to appropriate in-house staff supported by a team of technical consultants, to
promote staff ownership of their processes. In such instances, the reported cost of EMS is significantly
reduced, reflecting only certification, consultants’ fees, and equipment as the upfront investments. Some
manuals33 suggest further minimizing staffing costs by delegating time consuming tasks such as data
32
See Psomas, E., Fotopoulos, C. & Kafetzopoulos, D. (2011) Motives, difficulties and benefits in implementing the ISO 14001
Environmental Management System. Management of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 22(4): 502-521
33 NSF International (1996); “EMS: an Implementation Guide for Small and Medium Sized Organizations”; Michigan, p.28.
14
collection or process documentation to interns or other junior and administrative staff, which also engages
them.
To indicate the scale of the resources involved in establishing an EMS, the range of investment costs
experienced in a number of organizations is presented in the table below. The estimates are normalised
based on the number of employees covered by each EMS. The median per capita cost is US$ 148.
Table 7: Comparison of the cost of EMS in US$
Organization/Cases
34
GETF (2002)
NASA (2001)35
Other studies, US local government (2004)36,37, 38
Overall cost range
Cost per capita
27,000 – 195,000
445,000 – 1,450,000
80,000 – 280,000
130-180
111 – 138
158 – 187
In the studies the cost of developing and implementing EMS varied according to organizational size, with
smaller enterprises spending proportionately more for EMS than medium sized ones. The UK’s
Department for Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) conducted benchmarking of the costs
and benefits of EMS as applied to small and medium enterprises in UK in 2011.39 The study indicated that
the average annual cost of developing an EMS is US$ 1,362 per million US$ turnover, while yielding
average yearly savings of US$ 4,785 per US$ 1 million of turnover within two years of implementation.
The cost of EMS for UN system organizations can be estimated using the normalised cost per capita
of US$ 110-187. This range accounts for differences in the activities related to certification, level of
organizational readiness, existing change management practices within the organization, and other
circumstances specific to the organization that can affect unit prices of labour and consultants. Another
key factor is the level of technical support required, estimated at 25-30% of the total cost. These are oneoff costs, spread over 1-2 years.
Across the UN system (based on number of staff only), the total cost is estimated to be US$ 23-40
million. This estimate is based on assumption that the EMS will be certified to a standard such as the ISO
14001. Should organizations decide against certification, the cost would fall by approximately 24%.
Once implemented, an EMS requires staff resources to co-ordinate improvement projects, undertake
monitoring and identify and prioritize new opportunities. Various studies40,41,42 suggest that yearly
34
Global Environment and Technology Foundation
ICF Consulting (2001) NASA Environmental Management Systems (EMS): Costs and Benefits accessed at
http://www.denix.osd.mil/ems/upload/NASA_EMS_costs.pdf on 30 October 2012
36 City of Toronto (2004). Municipal Environmental Management System: Benchmarking Survey Results accessed at
http://www.toronto.ca/teo/pdf/benchmarking_survey_results_report.pdf on 20 December 2012
37For local governments, an average of 140 employees per 10,000 population was used. Data accessed at
http://www.ccsce.com/PDF/Numbers-Sept-2012-Where-Does-California-Rank-2011.pdf
38 See case studies at http://www.peercenter.net/case_studies/
39 Hillary, r. & Burr, P. (2011) Evidence-based study into the benefits of EMSs for SMEs. DEFRA. Accessed at
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16942 o30
January 2013
40 ICAO; 2012: “Report on EMS practices in the Aviation Sector”; accessed http://www.icao.int/environmentalprotection/Documents/Publications/Doc%209968%201st%20Edition%20alltext%20en%20FINAL.pdf, 15/2/2013.
41 ICF Consulting (2001) NASA Environmental Management Systems (EMS): Costs and Benefits accessed at
http://www.denix.osd.mil/ems/upload/NASA_EMS_costs.pdf on 30 October 2012
42
MacLeod, D. & Leetham, K. (2004) Municipal Environmental Management Systems: Benchmarking Survey Results. City of
Toronto Environmental Services
35
15
maintenance costs amounts to between 12% and 40% of the total cost. At UNU, a working group of up to
10 staff are involved in EMS, but spend just 10-20% of their time on it.
4.3
Comparing costs and benefits
Even when applied to a limited value-at-stake of US$ 2.79 billion per year (noting that total activities, and
therefore benefits, could be significantly higher), it is clear that the costs of adopting EMS for the UN
system, a one-off cost of US$ 23-40 million, are modest compared to the conservatively estimated yearly
savings of US$ 251-335 million. The estimate does not include the further one-off costs of implementing
improvement projects, which would require detailed analysis by each agency, but it is also clear that it is
possible to define cost-effectiveness parameters that contain implementation costs while still facilitating
sufficient opportunities to achieve the projected savings within 3-5 years of commencing implementation.
Annex A and B provide tangible examples of cost-effective project implementation in the UN system.
These findings are consistent with those of other evaluations of EMS. An ICAO43 survey found 96% of
senior managers of aviation organisations with EMS in place “would recommend that other organizations
establish EMS”. Paramasevam44 found that benefits of EMS overtake costs within four years. UNU, the
first UN agency to obtain a certified EMS, reports that savings from lower utilities and other bills “have
more than offset” the costs of implementing and maintaining EMS certification.
The proportion of savings that might be achieved through current ad hoc initiatives and standalone
projects (for example, in response to donor or host government requirements, or unintended consequences
of other work) is considered to be low. Current UN consumption indicators for all natural resources
are well above national averages of many member states, suggesting that the UN is not effectively
managing its use of materials, nor, as a consequence, its environmental impact. The Climate Neutral UN
initiative, which uses a measurement and management model, has potential to produce more consistent
results in energy management. However, without a structured framework by which all environmental
impacts can be compared, UN agencies lack a means to choose which other impacts to address first, and
risk diverting resources from more productive to less productive projects. This study, and that of the JIU
in 2010, finds that current in-house environmental management practices of most UN organizations leave
ample potential for further efficiency gains and greater cost savings.
To estimate the savings, it has been assumed that EMS takes 1-2 years to develop (as indicated by
numerous studies, including DEFRA and ICAO), with project implementation following over at least 3-5
years, and a review in year 4 or 5. In the absence of data on the UN system’s global operating budget,
normalized per capita values were used to compare the cost of EMS with the per-capita value-at-stake.
Table 8: Per capita figures of costs of EMS
ICAO; 2012: “Report on EMS practices in the Aviation Sector”; accessed http://www.icao.int/environmentalprotection/Documents/Publications/Doc%209968%201st%20Edition%20alltext%20en%20FINAL.pdf, 15/2/2013
44 Paramasevam, G. et al (2001) “Cost benefit analysis for implementation of environmental management systems”, published in
Environmentally Conscious Design and Inverse Manufacturing (Proceedings). Accessed from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/login.jsp?tp=&arnumber=992464&url=http%3A%2F%2Fieeexplore.ieee.org%2Fxpls%2Fabs_all.js
p%3Farnumber%3D992464 17 February 2013.
43
16
US$ per staff member
Value-at-stake , per year
13,037
Cost savings, lower range, per year
1,173
Cost savings, upper range, per year
1,565
EMS cost, one off
148
Figure 1: Comparison of per capita cost of designing an EMS with the UN system’s per capita valueat-stake and cost savings, in US$
Expressed in this way, the yearly savings shown above are estimated to be in the order of 8-9 times
the one-off implementation costs. Further savings could be achieved (with limited additional costs) if
additional areas such as waste, vehicles and construction are included in future. Opportunities also exist to
reduce costs: for example not all agencies will choose to be formally accredited, and levels of in-house
technical expertise will vary. The Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the UN System, which
seeks to reduce costs by maximising collaborative working, is discussed further in section 6.
4.4 Cost of improvement projects
The cost of implementing improvement projects will vary significantly between agencies, depending on
such diverse factors as initial baseline performance, local operating conditions, local costs of utilities,
materials and labour, organizational appetite for change, local and organizational leadership, competing
priorities and availability of funds. A single initiative implemented in two different locations may yield
very different cost recovery periods, and individual initiatives for each agency can and should be subject
to separate investment analyses well beyond the scope of this paper. However, the UN examples in table
2 above and in Annex B make clear that substantial scope exists to realize significant environmental
improvements even if very short cost-recovery (simple payback) periods are adopted. Further options for
maximizing the cost-effectiveness of improvement projects are discussed in Section 6.
A systematic understanding of impacts, costs and benefits, such as that provided through an EMS is
instrumental in identifying and prioritizing investments.
17
5
EMS for the UN system
Significant opportunities exist for the UN organizations to adopt a collaborative approach and reduce
costs from implementing both an EMS and the improvement projects identified. Such mutual support
would be particularly beneficial for smaller agencies, which may face disproportionately high resource
requirements45.
5.4
The UN Common Model for EMS
A common model for systematically integrating environmental sustainability into the management of UN
facilities and operations, an EMS, was first advocated by the Joint Inspection Unit in 201046. The
“Strategic Plan for Environmental Sustainability Management in the UN System”, provides minimum
requirements for all agencies to ensure robust and comparable work:

EMS will be developed following the requirements of ISO 14001. Organizations can choose to
implement EMS following the full requirements of ISO 14001 or develop a simplified framework
that is still consistent with the principles of the standard.

The Strategic Plan advocates a ‘phased and clustered’ approach in which agencies start with
headquarters-based operations and functions as a minimum, then are encouraged to progressively
include other locations over time. By limiting the boundaries of EMS to initially cover only the
core functions or the major facilities such as headquarters, UN organizations can gain experience
and lessons from planning and implementing the system.47.

Milestones against which progress can be reported, particularly in the early stages of
establishment:
o Obtain executive management commitment and allocate resources (staff/budget)
o Define environmental sustainability policy
o Undertake initial review of environmental impacts, risks and requirements
o Prepare an environmental action plan: including goals/targets, identifying priority actions
and allocating responsibility, resource and timeframes
o Implement the plan, including preparing documentation as required and undertaking
improvement projects to reduce impacts/realize savings/benefits
o Report yearly and periodically review results to identify corrections in any areas where
goals have not been met, and to continuously identify new opportunities.
These elements are summarized in the figure below.48
45
Hillary, r. & Burr, P. (2011) Evidence-based study into the benefits of EMSs for SMEs. DEFRA. Accessed at
http://randd.defra.gov.uk/Default.aspx?Menu=Menu&Module=More&Location=None&Completed=0&ProjectID=16942 o30
January 2013
46
“Environmental profile of the United Nations System organizations – review of their in-house environmental management
policies and practices” (JIU/REP/2010/1
47
Further guidance and support on each phase is available through existing published guidance such as the ISO 14005
“Guidelines for the phased implementation of an environmental management system”, and the Acorn Scheme of the Institute of
Environmental Management and Assessment (IEMA)
48
UNEP: Strategic Plan for Sustainability Management in the United Nations System: 23 August 2011; p.6
18
To facilitate common reporting, UN agencies have identified four common indicators:
a) greenhouse gas emissions/energy use,
b) consumption of water resources
c) waste generation
d) training provided for staff awareness raising/capacity building.
UN agencies may also report on additional parameters as wished.
This approach provides a range of opportunities for agencies to save time and money through sharing
resources, information and experiences, particularly for smaller organizations. As noted earlier, the costs
related to building organizational capacity through outsourced service providers accounted for 25-30% of
the total cost of EMS implementation. These costs can be minimized through collaborative working:
 Centrally developed training modules in EMS for nominated organizational focal points (EMS
co-ordinators, technical specialists such as facilities, fleet or travel managers) and awareness
raising materials/campaigns for staff;

Sharing externally-hired technical experts at the initial review, action plan development and
implementation stages. For example, a single consultant who reviews all of the environmental
impacts of all the agencies in a city (or country, or group of countries) will involve lower travel
costs than if each agency brings in their own consultant. A consultancy company awarded a
sizable body of work may be willing to negotiate a lower day rate.

Delegating to single focal points the researching of legislative frameworks in the countries where
the UN operates, and sharing the findings.

Developing common templates and forms (which may themselves be based on existing published
materials, tailored to UN-specific requirements) will save time and money at each agency while
also facilitating efficient reporting.

Sharing case studies and other research among focal points will dramatically cut time spent by
each agency on researching solutions to individual impacts and challenges.
19
At the same time, flexibility is built into the common model so that each EMS can be tailored to the needs
of each agency.
 Agencies adopting EMS are free to determine their own minimum performance standards, targets,
objectives, and priority areas for action. This flexibility is widely seen as contributing to the
success of EMS across many industries and helps them to address the most significant
environmental impacts first.

Agencies can implement at their own pace, reporting progress against milestones over time.

The UN strategic plan does not propose mandatory certification of EMS. Instead it provides a
reference model that can be used by organizations to help determine their interest in certification.
20
6
Recommendations
Benchmarking undertaken as part of this reporting process indicates that the UN consumption of
resources and management of waste lags some way behind that of many member states and donor
governments. The UN must be encouraged to reform its resource use and reallocate funds away from
unsustainable consumption by investing in efficiency projects that will repay themselves in the short to
medium term. This report has found that an EMS covering even a limited range of UN activities stands to
reap hundreds of millions of dollars in savings, an order of magnitude greater than the cost of setting up a
system to identify them. This report therefore makes the following recommendations:

UN system organizations should implement Environmental Management System, following
the requirements of the ISO 14001 standard, whether or not eventual certification is pursued.

Collaborative working: Organizations should seek to reduce costs and maximize capacity
building by working collaboratively as advocated in the Strategic Plan. The vehicles for this
should be the Sustainable UN facility and the EMG network of sustainability focal points.

Prioritization of cost-effective measures: Agencies implementing EMS are strongly encouraged
to focus on environmental improvement activities that allow short payback periods such as 2, 3,
or 5 years, depending on local drivers and appetite for change.

Integrate EMS into key business processes, including corporate reporting. A key challenge
for many UN agencies engaged in implementing the UN climate neutral strategy is that
greenhouse gas reporting often stands apart from other organizational performance reporting, and
the means for identifying and implementing improvements are therefore not always well
integrated into strategic planning and operational processes. This can lead to expensive and labor
intensive data collection and reporting processes and ultimately loss of momentum across the
organization as managers decide there is too little reward for the effort.

Selecting the right people for the right work: Agencies that already have an EMS, highlight the
importance of putting together a team of people. Most agencies will require at least one full time
co-ordinator or project manager during design and rollout of the EMS system. Involving people
with sufficient technical knowledge or previous experiences in implementing large scale EMS
reduces delays due to missteps and adds value to the institutional learning on EMS
implementation. At the same time, agencies can reduce overall costs by making use of in-house
staff to document current practices and collect data. Involving staff from key functional areas also
helps promote buy-in and embed the EMS throughout the organization.

Adequate allocation of resources: The strategic plan speaks of organizations’ difficulty in
securing sufficient staff resources to enable regular collection and analysis of data for the UN
Climate Neutral strategy, let alone earmarking funds for in-house climate mitigation measures. A
decision to adopt EMS in the pursuit of significant efficiency and financial gains must be
accompanied by adequate investment in staff, expert knowledge, data management systems and
associated implementation costs. These will repay themselves over time and ultimately represent
a reprioritizing of UN funds that is more in line with UN sustainable development mandates.
21
Annex A
Environmental management experience in UNU and ADB
The two case studies below represent organizations that have a fully certified EMS. Examples of
individual projects with short payback periods are listed in Annex B.
United Nations University
The United Nations University (UNU) is the first UN-system organization to obtain an ISO 14001
certification for its EMS. The EMS initiative of UNU began in 1999 was certified to ISO 14001 in 2001.
The EMS covers the headquarters in Tokyo and an institute in Yokohama. *
Drivers
 Initiated at the staff level and supported by the top leadership
 Improvement and efficiency in how UNU is organized
 A good step forward in promoting environmental sustainability
EMS implementation
 Strong management support
 Focused on energy, water and waste management, legal compliance, green procurement,
emergency preparedness, and internal working environment.
Examples of observed benefits of EMS
 EMS systematized and guaranteed the conduct of monitoring and emergency drills.
 Identified irregularities in water consumption through its monitoring programme.
 Reduced electricity consumption in 2011 by 18% compared to 2010 realizing savings of US$ 23,000
 Achieved reductions in consumption of water by 28%, electricity by 9%, and gas by 25% in 2009
compared to 2004 levels
Resources
The general conclusions on the implementation of EMS suggest that the savings from the reduction in
utilities usage more than covers the cost of implementing the management system.
Key lessons learned
 An EMS need to fit very tightly with what the organization is already doing.
 Certification to ISO 14001 is symbolic of efficiency and good practice of UNU and a message to
society of UNU’s practicing what it preaches.
22
Asian Development Bank
The Asian Development Bank (ADB) is a multilateral development finance institution based in the
Philippines. It employs over 4,000 personnel in its HQ and supports 30 offices around the world. The ADB
obtained ISO 14001 certification in 2003. From EMS, the bank introduced other management systems: (1)
OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety management system; (2) Six Sigma in 2006; (3) LEED Gold
standard at its HQ in 2011; and (4) ISO 50001 energy management system certification in 2012
Drivers
 Demonstrate ‘walk the talk’ and present seal of good corporate governance
 Encourage borrowers to mainstream sustainability in their operations.
 Increase awareness of the staff and promote sustainable procurement within the bank
Benefits of EMS
Electricity, water consumption, paper waste and solid waste generation were identified as environmental
aspects of the bank. Since its inception and up to 2011, ADB has realized cost savings of approximately
US$ 648,000 from initiatives including:
 water and materials conservation (200 m3 rainwater storage and re-use of treated wastewater)
 Energy demand management, efficient lighting installation, motion sensors, solar PV installation
 Reduction by 90% of solid waste – only 10% residual waste go to landfill
Cost of EMS
ADB considers that cost was not significant as it was mainly labour cost performed by inhouse staff to
promote ownership of processes. Also, some EMS elements were already in place.
Key lessons
 ‘The cost justifies the means’. The financial benefits of EMS did not come from big ticket
projects but from small improvements and changes in the way the staff were doing their work
 Involving the staff and contractors from the beginning. ADB instituted working groups to ensure
that EMS elements are prepared for each departments
 EMS and ISO 14001 can be a building block towards other management systems such as LEED
building certifications, OHSAS 18001, and ISO 50001
23
Annex B
Cost saving investments in UN organisations
Reduction in energy consumption
The Universal Postal Union (UPU)
employs 256 staff and its
headquarters (HQ, International
Bureau) is based in Berne,
Switzerland.




Reduction in energy consumption
The United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP) employs 1,275
staff in Nairobi HQ.





Zero cost energy reduction
programme

World Food Programme



In 2007, UPU replaced the building’s lighting system with high-efficiency
lamps, with sensors in rarely frequented rooms. The US$ 610,000 upgrade
reduced electricity used for lighting by 70%.
In 2011, the organization’s IT equipment was replaced with Energy Starcompliant equipment. Virtual servers reduced the need for climate controlled
server rooms.
These improvements in energy consumption resulted to reduction in diesel fuel
consumption by 55% and purchased electricity by 30%.
Lessons learned: Energy efficient lights and virtual servers are two of the
most cost effective options in offices.
The landmark UNON building is designed to reduce energy consumption by
54% compared to UNEP’s previous premises, from 99 kWh/m2 per year down
to 44 kWh/m2. It includes low energy servers with reduced cooling
requirements, energy efficient lights, light wells to maximise natural light and
presence detection and daylight sensors. Laptops, using two-thirds less energy
than PCs, are replacing them on a rolling basis. Yearly energy savings are
more than US$ 92,000.
The building also features water efficient dual-flush toilets and droughtresistant landscaping, fed by rainwater collected from the roof.
Many of the resource efficiency features were donated, reducing the
implementation cost.
A 6,000m2 solar PV installation cost US$ 1.4 million. The solar PV generated
cost savings of US$ 90,000 in 2011 and US$ 126,000 in 2012. The estimated
payback period of the solar PV alone is 10 years however, when combined
with the energy saving measures the cost of energy systems for the building is
less than 7 years.
Lessons Learned: Solar power can be cost effective when complemented by
energy efficient technologies.
An energy efficiency campaign in WFP’s regional bureau in Dakar, Senegal,
saved an estimated 46,000 kWh per year (22%), saving 34 tonnes of CO2 and
US$ 14,000 in energy bills, with no cash outlay.
Changes made: desks repositioned to make best use of natural ventilation,
reducing the need for air conditioning; staff stopped leaving windows open
when the air conditioning is switched on; thermostats reprogrammed to 23oC
(some had been set as low as 16oC); ICT reprogrammed printers to double
sided; reminders helped staff to switch off lights and equipment.
Awareness materials included comprised emails, posters designed by the WFP
Climate Neutral team and reminders at staff meetings.
Lessons learned: small changes from everyone can make a big difference.
24
Waste management
The Asian Development Bank
(ADB) is a multilateral development
finance institution based in Manila. It
employs over 4,000 people at its
headquarters (HQ) alone.

Waste management
The International Labour
Organization (ILO) is a tripartite
UN organization employing over
3,500 staff in its Headquarters (HQ)
in Geneva and in 62 offices
worldwide.
 In 2010, ILO generated equivalent cost savings of US$ 43,212 from the use of
compactor for its incinerable waste. This reduced number of waste transport
trips from 249 to just 30 or 88%.
 ILO also qualified for a local government financial incentive for paper and
cardboard recycling, worth US$ 8,823 in 2010 and 2011.
 The intangible benefits include: (1) reduced liability and risk from poorly
managed waste; (2) improved organizational image; (3) improved quality in
waste management; (4) reduced GHG emission from waste decomposing in
landfill; and (5) social benefits from reduction of pollution.
 Lessons learned: Many resource efficiency projects yield intangible
‘downstream’ savings, such as reducing GHG emissions because
delivery/refuse trucks make fewer journeys
Waste management
World Food Programme (WFP)






Water conservation
Asian Development Bank’s (ADB)
water conservation measures include
rainwater harvesting and on-site
wastewater treatment facility
Waste recycling and a programme to reduce generated waste yielded a
cumulative reduction of 41.5% of general waste and 35.5% of paper waste
from 2004. This is translated to total savings of US$ 358,335.
Lessons learned: reducing total waste generated, for example by reducing
packaging, food waste and donating old IT equipment and furniture, can yield
more cost effective savings than simply recycling.
A fleet management review by Logistics staff at WFP Chad yielded changes to
maintenance schedules that have saved US$ 74,000 per year in reduced waste
oil, lubricants and air filters without affecting vehicle performance. There was
no cash outlay required.
Simultaneously, a lubricant procurement contract required used motor oil to be
taken back by the supplier for reprocessing.
The new supplier also agreed to take WFP’s entire stockpile of waste oil,
accepting the first batch of 4,400 litres in May 2012. This provided a zero-cost
option for disposal of this potentially hazardous waste stream, and mitigated a
significant risk: WFP had been storing the used oil onsite because of concerns
about waste handling practices locally, creating a spill hazard.
The team is now negotiating with other companies to enable the recycling of
used tyres and vehicle batteries.
Lessons learned: making eventual disposal part of the original procurement
decision can significantly cut costs down the line.

ADB installed a 200 m3- storage and Class-C compliant wastewater treatment
facility for collected rainwater at its HQ. The water is used for irrigation and
cleaning purposes.
 Cost savings from the water conservation initiative : US$ 47,316 since 2004.
 Lessons Learned: Rainwater harvesting provides a free resource that requires
only minimal treatment to be fit for gardens or toilet flushing, and conserves
potable water which has been treated to a higher standard.
25