Définition de management environnemental :

Définition de management environnemental :

For many decades, Zimmermann’s (1933) interpretation of “resources” was generally accepted: he
stated that neither the environment, as such, nor parts of the environment are resources until they
are, or can be considered to be, capable of satisfying human needs. Thus, coal was not a resource
without people whose wants and capabilities allowed them to recognize coal and thereby give it u
tility. In other words, attributes of nature or the environment are no more than “neutral stuff” until
humans are able to perceive their presence, to recognize their capacity to satisfy human wants or
needs, and to devise means to utilize them. As a result, in his view, the concept of a resource was
subjective, relative and functional.

The interpretation by Zimmermann has been criticized as being too “anthropocentric”, i.e. human
centred. That is, in his view, aspects of nature are only considered to be resources if they have direct
u tility to human beings. Critics of Zim m erm anns perspective argue that such a view does not
recognize that aspects of nature deserve to be recognized as resources sim ply because they exist,
and that they have value even if they do not offer u tility to humans. As a result, today many
interpret resources much more broadly than in a functional or utilitarian sense. In that context,
resources are the abiotic, biotic and cultural attributes on, in or above the Earth. Environment is
broader than resources, as it includes ali of the surrounding conditions and influences which affect
living and non-living things. In that regard, environment includes the atmosphere, hydrosphere,
cryosphere, lithosphere and biosphere. At the same tim e, we should appreciate that, as Beate Ratter
explains in her guest statement,

culture is very influential in determ ining what people consider to be resources, and how they w ill
use them.Planning and m anagement are two other terms that deserve comment. Planning is usually
interpreted as a process used to develop a strategy to achieve desired goals or objectives, to resolve
problems and to facilitate action. As Brickner and Cope (1977: 203) observed, “Planning is a process
by which an individual or organization decides in advance some future course of action. The process
consists of a series of steps, . . . to reach desirable ends”. In contrast, management is normally
defined as the capacity to control, handle or direct. In other words, while the role of a planner is to
identify a desirable future and prepare a course of action to achieve it, a m anager has the
responsibility and

authority to allocate capital, technology and human resources to reach the desired future State.

W hen the concepts of resource, environment, planning and management are combined, the
following meanings emerge:

• Resource a n d environm ental planning'. w ith regard to resources and/or environment,

identification of possible desirable future end states, and development of courses of action to reach
such end states.

• Resource and environmental management', actual decisions and action concerning policy and
practice regarding how resources and the environment are appraised, protected, allocated,
developed, used, rehabilitated, remediated and restored, monitored and evaluated.

B.Mitchell (2013) : « Resource and Environmental Management », 2 éme édition, Ed.Routledge,

London,P.6
The `How’ Question: Towards an Operational Model of IEM
Integrated environmental management promotes a holistic view that requires looking at the full
range of activities and programmes that affect a system or region and developing strategies for
managing critical components and interre- lationships. A single organization or individual cannot
adequately provide that perspective. A holistic view of the problem requires a wide variety of
stakehold- ers contributing their perspective to a problem (Vickers, 1965; Gray, 1989; Innes, 1993).
Furthermore, multiple perspectives are important for identifying goals and identifying the most
critical issues that should be addressed. ªSuf® cient variety in the information gathered is needed
to match the complexity inherent in the problem itselfº (Gray, 1989, p. 64). Therefore, the key
operational component to achieving integration is interaction throughout a process of planned
change . Interaction must occur at every stage, from the scoping process to strategy or plan
development to implementation. The form of interaction will vary at different phases, but as Gray
(1989) points out, involving stakeholders through- out the process is important because power
manifests itself during each phase. Sharing this power not only helps address the complexity of
issues and reveals new options, but it also makes them more viable and supported (Wondolleck,
1985; Gray, 1989). Interaction can generally be divided into two forms: with the general public; and
with more directly affected stakeholders (see Figure 1). Involving the general public occurs
throughout the process, but it generally takes the form of information dissemination, feedback and
reaction. This extensive exchange is important as a supplement to more intensive interaction that
takes place through stakeholder involvement. We focus our attention on better de® ning and
under- standing interaction among stakeholders, and refer interested readers to the rich literature
on public participation (Arnstein, 1969; Fagence, 1977; Rosener, 1978; Glass, 1979).

378 R. D. Margerum & S. M. Born

Figure 1. Interaction during the planning process.

Stakeholders are individuals who hold some vested interest in the system being addressed, such as
agencies, governments, interest groups and affected parties (Gray, 1989; Pasquero, 1991). They are
intensively involved throughout the process; thus interaction requires a process of exchanging
information and resolving con¯ icts. This requires understanding the theory and practice of co-
ordination.

Co-ordination in Theory Co-ordination can be divided into two essential dimensions:

communication; and con¯ ict resolution (Parker et al., 1975; Lang, 1986a, 1986b). Communication
among the participants is necessary to share information, analyses, goals and objectives. In their
study of state environmental programmes, Parker et al. (1975) found that the lack of co-ordination
among programmes could often be traced to a simple lack of information of other programme
areas, and a failure ªto develop new or more effective channels for the exchange of such
informationº (ibid., p. 97). As Sanford et al. (1976) note, the transfer of information is what
enables a system to operate. Con¯ ict resolution is necessary for co-ordination because multiple
participants bring together multiple ideas, perspectives and biases (Fisher & Urey, 1981;
Wondolleck, 1985; Susskind & Cruikshank, 1987; Pasquero, 1991). Parker et al. (1975) found that
an absence of co-ordination in intergovernmental settings

Integrated Environmental Management 379

could be directly attributed to con¯ icts or inconsistencies in the policies and objectives of different
programmes. ªWhat is needed in such cases are mecha- nisms capable of mediating or
authoritatively resolving these differencesº (ibid., p. 97). Mitchell (1986) points out that even if
participants communicate effec- tively and reach consensus on goals, con¯ ict will inevitably appear
between collaborating agencies during the implementation stage. We do not suggest that con¯ ict
resolution under an integrated approach is a panacea for solving all environmental problems,
because it often cannot resolve fundamental policy differences or value con¯ icts (Molnar &
Rogers, 1982). Con¯ ict resolution in the context of IEM is a process of adjustment in which policies
and actions are better aligned to meet common goals.

Co-ordination in Practice In practice, the two co-ordinative functionsÐ communication and con¯ ict
resol- utionÐ are not carried out using separate tools or mechanisms. Instead, the functions are
intertwined and pursued through two types of tools: (1) those that communicate and share
information; and (2) those that resolve differences and con¯ icts. Based on a description of tools by
Parker et al. (1975) and our own research (Born & Margerum, 1993), we have developed lists of
these tools (see Table 2). These are the elements of IEM that are used by practitioners to make the
concept operational. ( intégration des parties prenantes et des citoyen dans le management
environnemental schema)

Mergerum, R.M., & Born, S.M. (1995). Integrated Environmental Management: Moving from
Theory to Practice. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 38(3), p.377

Définition :Le SME est un outil qui fournit aux organisations une méthode afin d’arriver à gérer et
améliorer les aspects environnementaux de leurs processus de production, et ce, de manière
systématique. Il aide les organisations à atteindre leurs obligations environnementales et les objectifs
de performance (Essid, 2009). L'Organisation internationale de normalisation (ISO) définit le système
de management environnemental comme étant : « la partie du système de gestion global qui inclut
la structure organisationnelle, les activités de planification, les responsabilités, les pratiques, les
procédures, les processus et les ressources pour développer, mettre en œuvre, réaliser, analyser et
maintenir la politique environnementale ». Le British Standards Institute le définit comme : « la
structure organisationnelle, les responsabilités, les pratiques, les procédures, les processus et les
ressources pour déterminer et mettre en œuvre la politique environnementale » donc le SME suit
généralement l'adoption d'une politique environnementale.

file:///C:/Users/Dell%2015/Downloads/le-syst%C3%A8me-de-management-environnemental-
comme-outil-durable-pour-le-bon-d%C3%A9veloppement-de-la-pme.pdf

Champs d’application :
Dans le contexte du système de management environnemental (SME), la distinction entre les
secteurs public et privé est importante car chacun a des motivations, des objectifs et des enjeux
spécifiques en matière de gestion environnementale. Voici une vue d'ensemble des applications du
SME dans les secteurs public et privé :

Secteur Public

Objectifs et Motivations :
Leadership en matière de durabilité : Montrer l'exemple en adoptant des pratiques de gestion
environnementale.

Conformité réglementaire : Assurer que toutes les opérations respectent ou dépassent les normes
environnementales légales.

Politiques publiques : Développer et mettre en œuvre des politiques qui encouragent la durabilité
environnementale dans la communauté.

Éducation et Sensibilisation : Éduquer le public sur l'importance de la protection de l'environnement

et promouvoir des pratiques durables.

Champs d'Application :

Gestion des infrastructures et services publics (eau, déchets, transports) avec une approche
écologique.

Planification urbaine et gestion des espaces verts pour améliorer la qualité de vie et réduire les
impacts environnementaux.

Politiques d'achat vert pour promouvoir l'acquisition de produits et services écologiquement

responsables.

Secteur Privé

Objectifs et Motivations :

Avantage compétitif : Se différencier par des pratiques durables et une responsabilité

environnementale.

Réduction des coûts : Minimiser les coûts opérationnels par une gestion efficace des ressources et
des déchets.

Conformité et Réduction des Risques : Éviter les sanctions légales et minimiser les risques
environnementaux.

Réputation et Responsabilité Sociale d'Entreprise (RSE) : Construire une image positive et répondre
aux attentes des clients et des investisseurs concernant la durabilité.

Champs d'Application :

Optimisation de la chaîne d'approvisionnement pour réduire les émissions de carbone et améliorer

l'efficacité énergétique.

Développement de produits et services écologiques pour répondre à la demande croissante des

consommateurs pour des options durables.

Mise en œuvre de pratiques de travail vertes, y compris l'utilisation efficace de l'énergie et la

réduction des déchets dans les opérations quotidiennes.

Points Communs et Différences

Points Communs :

Les deux secteurs visent à intégrer des pratiques de gestion environnementale pour réduire leur
impact écologique.

Ils cherchent à respecter, voire à surpasser, les réglementations environnementales en vigueur.

L'amélioration continue et l'engagement envers la durabilité sont au cœur de leurs démarches.

Différences :

Le secteur public se concentre davantage sur la réglementation, l'éducation et le leadership en

matière de pratiques environnementales, influençant ainsi les individus et les organisations au sein
de sa juridiction.

Le secteur privé est motivé par l'efficacité opérationnelle, la réduction des coûts, la compétitivité et
la réponse aux demandes des parties prenantes.

En résumé, le SME offre un cadre flexible et adaptable pour les organisations des secteurs public et
privé, permettant à chacun d'adopter des stratégies personnalisées pour améliorer leur performance
environnementale tout en poursuivant leurs objectifs spécifiques.