BA- FACULTY BUSINESS AND MANAGEMENT

BA232- BACHELOR IN OFFICE SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (HONS.)

PHY520 - QUALITY MANAGEMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SAFETY

GROUP ASSIGNMENT 2:

PREPARED BY:

NAME MATRIC NO.

NADHIRAH BINTI MOHD KAMAL 2021843258

SITI NUR NAJIHAH BINTI MOHD AZHARI 2021889036

NUR ALIAA SYAZANA BINTI NORZAINI 2021477966

GROUP:
BA2322A

PREPARED FOR:
SIR NAZREE BIN AHMAD @ MUHAMAD

SUBMISSION DATE:
30 JAN 2022
TABLE OF CONTENT
Acknowledgment 1

Objective 2

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Presentation of Data 4

2.1 Company 1 (INAGRO SDN. BHD) 4
2.2 Company 2 (LENNOR METAL SDN. BHD) 5
2.3 Company 3 (NESTLE SDN. BHD) 6
2.4 Company 4 (BISMARAYA SDN. BHD) 7
2.5 Company 5 (DKV AUTOMOBIL SDN. BHD) 8

3.0 DISCUSSION 9

4.0 CONCLUSION 10

REFERENCES 11

APPENDICES 13
Acknowledgment

Firstly, we are grateful and would like to thank the Almighty God for giving us
strengths and and because of His blessing, we finally managed to accomplish this assignment
2. Without His blessing, we would not have gone this far. This assignment 2 cannot be
completed without effort and cooperation from our group members, which are, Siti Nur
Najihah binti Mohd Azhari, Nadhirah Binti Mohamad Kamal and Aliaa Syazana Binti
Norzaini. We managed to complete this assignment 2 with full responsibility and
commitment.

Last but not least, not to be forgotten, we really appreciate our lecturer, Sir Nazree bin
Ahmad @ Muhamad for his guidance during the completion of this assignment 2. Without
his guide, we will not be able to complete this assignment properly. We also like to thank
him for teaching us for PHY520.

1
Objective

The objective for this assignment is to find out the companies that have been fined by
the Department of Environment (DOE) and under the acts of the Department of Environment
(DOE). There are few acts that have been mentioned in this assignment such as
Environmental Quality Act 1974, Environmental Quality (Clean Air) Regulations,
Environment Quality (Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009, and the Environmental Quality
Act (Schedule Waste) 2005.

First, we need to identify five companies in Malaysia that have been fined under the
act by the Department of Environment (DOE). We decided to do research on these
companies, which is, Inagro Sdn. Bhd, Lennor Metal Sdn. Bhd, Nestle Sdn. Bhd, Bismaraya
Sdn. Bhd and the last one is, DKV Automobil Sdn. Bhd. These companies were fined by the
Department of Environment (DOE).

Last but not least, we study the extent of the causes and methods on how companies
in Malaysia operate or apply the environmental performance in their organization to prevent
environmental pollution. We also include the discussion of environmental requirements for an
environmental management system that can be used by a company to improve its
environmental performance.

2
1.0 Introduction

The Department of Environment (DOE) is an organization responsible for promoting,

conserving, and sustaining excellent environmental management as part of the
nation-building process, as well as ensuring that the environment is healthy, always clean and
secure for the people’s well-being. (Malaysia.gov.my., 2021).

The DOE's primary objective is to protect, destroy, and reduce environmental

pollution, as well as to improve the environment, in accordance with the goals of the
Environmental Quality Act of 1974 and the regulations that accompany it. DOE is also
responsible for the implementation of international environmental convention resolutions
such as the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985), the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (1987), the Basel Convention on the
Transboundary Movement of Hazardous Waste and Their Disposal Act (1989), and others, as
well as the success of bilateral and multilateral cooperation programmes between Indonesia
and other countries.

Last but not least, The vision of The Department of Environment (DOE) is
Environmental Conservation for the Well-being of the people. DOE’s mission to ensure
sustainable development in the process of nation building. (doe.gov.my., 2022).

3
2.0 Presentation of Data

2.1 Company 1 (INAGRO SDN. BHD)

A paint manufacturing business and its director were fined RM190,000 by the Klang
Sessions Court for contaminating the environment in Jalan Kapar. After pleading guilty to all
six charges, Syarikat Inagro Sdn Bhd and its director, Lim Yoke Soo, were forced to pay the
fine. In July, 2019, Inagro and Yoke Soo reportedly committed five offenses under the
Environmental Quality Act 1974 and one charge under the Environmental Quality (Clean
Air) Regulations at the premises at Lot 6493 Batu 5 3/4 , Jalan Kapar.

At first, the premise were reportedly used as a spot for the recovery of scheduled
waste, namely ink, paint, pigment, lacquer, dye or varnish, which is classified as SW 417
under Schedule 1 of the Environmental Quality Regulations 1974 (Scheduled Waste), without
obtaining a license from the Director General of the Department of Environment (DOE).

They were also accused of polluting the ground surface without a license with
scheduled waste designated as SW 417 and fined RM10, 000, while the fifth and sixth were
fined RM 10,000 apiece for engaging in air pollution-causing activities. The offense was
investigated after public complaints were received from painting the ground and floor of the
premises using waste ink, pigment, paint and others. Selangor DOE Prosecuting Officer
Zulaikha Mokhtar asked the court to give an appropriate punishment based on consideration
of the public interest. Residents in the surrounding area also reported vomiting, fainting and
dizziness, and chemical tests revealed that the samples obtained included heavy metals that
were hazardous to public health. (Hafiz Aziz, 2021).

4
2.2 Company 2 (LENNOR METAL SDN. BHD)

A company processing and collecting scrap metal was fined RM 25,000 by the
Section Court for failing to control dust pollution at its premises at Jalan Ladang Datuk
Harun, Section 36. The defendant, Lennor Metal Sdn. Bhd. (OKS), was charged with two
counts of failing to control dust pollution and failing to submit a notice of instruction imposed
on the premises.

For the first charge, the company was accused of failing to ensure dust pollution
control procedures when handling scrap metal at its premises, as represented by its Director,
Ng Yong Seng, 28. The premises have been charged with violating Section 31 (1) of the
Environment Quality Act 1974 (Act 127) and are subject to punishment under section 31 (3)
of the same act.

The second complaint alleges that the company, which was established in July 2015,
failed to submit feedback in the form of written reports, documents and images regarding the
action taken against it. The premises was charged with an offense under Section 37 (1) of the
Environment Quality Act 1974 (Act 127) that is punished by Section 37 (2) of the same act,
according to the charge. On August 5, 2019, at 11:15 a.m., the premise was charged with
committing a felony at his workplace. Yong Seng, who was not represented by a lawyer,
asked for the fee to be reduced because the construction of a water drainage system for dust
pollution control work on his property had cost him a lot of money.

However, Judge Rofiah Mohamad emphasized in her ruling that the offense was in the
public interest and impacted the community because it was located near a driving school.
Nor Faizura Mohd. Ali, Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Selangor Department of
Environment (DOE), was in charge of the case (Siti Rohaizah Zainal, 2021).

5
2.3 Company 3 (NESTLE SDN. BHD)

Nestle Manufacturing (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (Nestle Manufacturing) became fined

RM90,000 via the Sessions Court in Shah Alam on counts of freeing business effluent in
addition to the proper restriction. Judge Rofiah Mohamad meted out the exception after the
business enterprise, represented via way of means of its Nestle Manufacturing Safety and
Health manager, K Arunan, 47 modified his plea to be responsible to each charge. When
allotting the exceptional, Rofiah stated she took into account the seriousness of
environmental pollution, as well as the fact that this is a matter of public interest.

On the first count, the company was charged with dumping five types of industrial
effluent into inland waters with biochemical oxygen demand requirements exceeding the
standard limit, according to Regulation 11 (1) (b) of the Environment Quality (Industrial
Effluent) Regulations 2009.

The second was for exceeding the standard limitations for releasing concentrated
chemical oxygen demand requirements into inland waters. On May 21, 2019, between 10:10
a.m. and 1 p.m., the offenses were committed at its premises in Jalan playar 15/1, Section 15
Shah Alam.

For the first charge, the company was fined RM50,000 and for the second charge, it
was fined RM40,000. Nestle Manufacturing was represented by lawyer J Rao, while the
prosecuting officer from the Selangor Department of Environment (DOE), Nor Faizura Mohd
Ali, prosecuted (Bernama, 2020).

As additional information for the statement above, The Environment Quality

(Industrial Effluent) Regulations 2009 apply to any establishment that discharges or releases
industrial pollution or mixed fluid into or into any soil or inland water (Leap.unep.org.,
2009).

6
2.4 Company 4 (BISMARAYA SDN. BHD)

Bismaraya Sdn Bhd pleaded for failing to pay a fee for four violations relating to
environmental contamination, a seafood processing firm was penalized a total of RM60.000,
or eight months in prison. After the manager of Syarikat Bismaraya Sdn Bhd pled guilty to
the four charges read against him, Session Court judge Elsie Prims handed down the
punishment. If the corporation does not pay the fee, it will be penalized RM15,000 or
sentenced to two months in prison.

The corporation was found to have disposed of industrial effluent with a concentration
of 3020 mg/L, which was more than the authorized standard limit of 50 mg/L for the first
violation. The corporation has discharged industrial wastewater into inland waters for the
second time, with suspended solids levels above the permitted limit of 1290 mg/L and
exceeding the allowed limit of inland waters of 100 mg/L. The firm was caught dumping
industrial effluent into interior water that had oil and grease characteristics with a
concentration of 72 mg/L, surpassing the permissible limit of 10 mg/L.

For the third time. The three offenses are defined under Regulation 11 (1)(b) of the
Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Act 2009, and are penalized by Regulation 32 of
the same act, which allows for a fine of up to RM100,000 or a sentence of up to five years in
jail, or both, if committed. Additionally, a fine of not more than RM1,000 per day for each
day that the offense continues after the notification has been given.

The corporation was discovered to have discharged industrial effluent into inner
waterways with chemical oxygen characteristics with a concentration of 3840 mg/L, which
was more than the stipulated limit of 200 mg/L. The corporation was prosecuted under
Regulation 12 (b) of the Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Act 2009 and is
penalized under Regulation 32 of the same act for the infraction. (Eviana Mazinal, 2020)

7
2.5 Company 5 (DKV AUTOMOBIL SDN. BHD)

DKV Automobil Sdn Bhd's representative Chua Kok Lip pleaded guilty to on two
charges of breaking Environmental Quality Regulations, a corporation was fined a total of
RM6,000 on discharging industrial effluents which exceeded standard limits into inland
waters. The allegations against the firm on Wednesday, and Sessions Judge Elsie Primus
handed down the penalty.

On the first count, the company was fined RM3,000 and sentenced to a month in
prison for failing to clearly label containers filled with scheduled wastes containing lubricant
oil and filter that had been contaminated between 2.15pm and 2.45pm on April 23, 2019 at
the company's premises in Jalan Tuaran, Inanam.

A punishment of up to RM10,000 is imposed for violating Regulation 10(2) of the

Environmental Quality Act (Schedule Waste) 2005, which is punished under Section 41 of
the Environmental Quality Act 1974. If convicted, they might face two years in prison or
both. On the second count, the company was asked to pay another RM 3,000 or a month in
jail for failing to store the latest inventory in accordance with the fifth schedule categories
and quantities of scheduled waste produced.

During reduction, the representative requested and pleaded for mercy, but the
prosecution demanded a fair sentence for this company. The prosecution was represented by
Prosecuting Officer Hashim Awang of the Environmental Department. Which is in charge of
the Environmental issues. (Cynthia Baga, 2020)

8
3.0 DISCUSSION

ISO 14001 defines the requirements for an environmental management system that
can be used by a company to improve its environmental performance. ISO 14001 is designed
for organizations that want to manage their environmental responsibilities in a systematic
way that result in an environmental pillar of sustainability. ISO 14001 assists an organization
in achieving the desired objectives of its environmental management system, which benefit
the environment, the enterprise, and interested parties. The expected outputs of an
environmental management system must be aligned with the organization’s environmental
policy (Anon, 2021). The organization must build an environmental management system
(EMS) that meets the required provisions of the 14001 standard and demonstrates continuous
improvement on an ongoing basis. There are a few tips that may be used to improve the
performance of the environmental management system.

The company can improve the performance of the environmental management system
by the stakeholder engagement. When it comes to environmental goals, many organizations
just look within. The company should also look outwards and consult stakeholders, whether
they are members of the local community or organizations that the company itself has
provided. A more complete image of the internal and external dangers and opportunities can
assist you in developing more comprehensive aspects and objectives. Furthermore,
increasing knowledge of upcoming ISO 14001 accreditation and objectives can only be good
news for a company's nearby community and can lead to new business.

Another fantastic method for enhancing the environmental management system

(EMS) is to form a group with regular members and possibly some rotating members to try
and incorporate as many employees as possible, depending on the size of the company. The
exchange of ideas, the collaborative development of strategies for improvement, and the
enhanced communication that employee involvement offers will all be extremely beneficial
to the EMS. Lastly, the people in the company should be more transparent and
communicative. For instance, many companies just report and discuss key performance
indicator findings, rather than internal audit or risk management thinking processes and
outcomes. The employee involvement and empowerment will ensure that the flow of ideas
and the feeling of working collaboratively toward the goals will keep EMS performance at
the forefront of the employees’ minds, facilitating improvement (Nolan, 2015).

9
4.0 CONCLUSION

Overall, based on the DOE’s findings, it is concluded that using the DOE’s act and
best practices to avoid or minimize adverse environmental impacts, which environmental
impact includes cumulative environmental impact during all phases, is not considered
important except in the event of a specific worst case for which some environmental impacts
can be significant but highly unlikely. This has also demonstrated the widespread tolerance of
waste impacts, implying that sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the new project will be
successfully protected.

Although the DOE has the authority and responsibility for environmental
enforcement, it is impossible to make a single good decision in protecting the environment
that will provide comfort to humans, plants, animals, and other natural inhabitants without
help from other parties, particularly the public.

Although manufacturers contribute to a country's development and advancement, they

must be conscious of environmental concerns to ensure that all development is carried out
with environmental considerations in mind. In addition, it has been concluded that if the
instructions are followed, the operations will not have any serious waste effects on the
environment if they follow the existing standard criteria, which have been in use since the
DOE’s inception.

As a result, it is suggested that the enterprises that have been sued to continue to
comply with environmental requirements in accordance with recommendations by employing
appropriate means to ensure statutory requirements and recommended criteria are met.

10
REFERENCES

Ilah Hafiz Aziz. (2021). Syarikat cat, pengarah cemar alam sekitar didenda RM190,000 |
Berita Harian. Berita Harian.
https://www.bharian.com.my/berita/kes/2021/01/773536/syarikat-cat-pengarah-cemar-alam-se
kitar-didenda-rm190000

Anon. (2021). ISO 14001:2015. ISO.

https://www.iso.org/standard/60857.html#:~:text=ISO%2014001%3A2015%20specifies%20t
he,to%20enhance%20its%20environmental%20performance.&text=ISO%2014001%3A2015
%20can%20be,to%20systematically%20improve%20environmental%20management

Nolan, J. (2015). ISO 14001: 5 tips to improve your EMS performance. 14001Academy.
https://advisera.com/14001academy/blog/2015/07/27/5-tips-to-improve-your-environmental-
management-system-performance/

Bernama. (2020, December 24). Nestlé fined RM90,000 for environmental pollution. MalaysiaNow.
https://www.malaysianow.com/news/2020/12/24/nestle-fined-rm90000-for-environmental-pol
lution/

Siti Rohaizah Zainal. (2021, January 12). Pencemaran habuk, syarikat didenda RM25,000. Utama -
Utusan Digital.
https://www.utusan.com.my/nasional/2021/01/pencemaran-habuk-syarikat-didenda-rm25000/

Leap.unep.org. (2009). Environmental Quality (Industrial Effluent) Regulations, 2009. UNEP Law
and Environment Assistance Platform.
https://leap.unep.org/countries/my/national-legislation/environmental-quality-industrial-efflue
nt-regulations-2009#:~:text=The%20Regulations%20set%20forth%20procedures,of%20indus
trial%20or%20mixed%20effluent.

Malaysia.gov.my. (2021). MyGOV - The Government of Malaysia's Official Portal.

https://www.malaysia.gov.my/portal/content/30725

Department of Environment. (2022). Department of Environment | Ministry of Environment And

Water. https://www.doe.gov.my/portalv1/en/

11
Baga, C. (2020, May 28). Daily Express. Retrieved from Company fined Rm6,000 for environmental
violations:
https://www.dailyexpress.com.my/news/153472/company-fined-rm6-000-for-environmental-v
iolations/

Mazinal, E. (2020, January 21). Nabalu News. Retrieved from Environmental pollution: Company
fined RM60,000:
https://www.nabalunews.com/post/environmental-pollution-company-fined-60-000

12
APPENDICES

SYARIKAT INAGRO SDN BHD

LENNOR METAL SDN. BHD.

13
 NESTLE SDN. BHD.

BISMARAYA SDN.BHD

14
DKV AUTOMOBILE SDN.BHD

15