Since the final publication in late 1996 of the International Organization for Standardization's (ISO's) environmental management systems (EMSs) standard, ISO 14001, the cacophony of claims and counterclaims about the standard has grown louder. The commentary is wide-ranging, with some of the more noteworthy claims being that ISO 14001:

. is a "green passport" signifying environmental excellence;

. is a plot by industry to undercut more deserving international environmental initiatives;

. is a plot by consultants to make money off of industry;

. is a plot by governments and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to push a "green agenda";

. is a basis for eliminating environmental regulations;

. is irrelevant to compliance assurance;

. is useless as a tool for improving environmental performance;

. does not represent the "leading edge" of thinking in the EMS area;

. represents a completely "new paradigm" for thinking about environmental issues;

. is too complicated and expensive for implementation by small and medium-sized enterprises;

. will be used as a nontariff trade barrier; and

. will facilitate trade.

But the range of opinion on ISO 14001 provides public and private organizations with little useful advice on fundamental questions such as why, whether, where, when, and how to implement ISO 14001, and what decisions about ISO 14001 might mean for purposes of environmental protection, public policy, and trade.