The older version of OHSAS (1999) did make a reference to 'Targets' associated with 'Objectives' but the new version (2007) doesn't talk about targets. It says only 'Objectives & Programs'.

Most other management systems like 9001 & 14001 do talk about 'Objectives & Targets'.

What was the basic idea behind not having 'Targets' in respect of safety related objectives ?

Valuable inputs are welcomed.

Best regards,

Objectives are OH&S performance goals that organizations set for themselves and wish to achieve. Isn't the same as 'target'?

Let's see what others have to add.

there is no sense for thast reference in my understanding because for any functioning system ob jectives have to be SMART. and the issue of TARGET is spelt in that SMART.
by having a target would be a repetition
Respicious

As a person who follow's Dr. Deming's 14 Points, I am extremely pleased to hear about any reference to "targets" being disposed of. The more generic phrase allows those who use SPC for trending and establishment of goals to be able to "legally" do that without having a numerical target specified.

there is no sense for that reference in my understanding because for any functioning system objectives have to be SMART. and the issue of TARGET is spelt in that SMART.
by having a target would be a repetition
Respicious

In SMART, 'T', in my opinion, refers to 'Time bound plan' which may be a part of any particular objective.

Secondly, 'Target' is not a repetitive term since it is not synonymous to an objective which is quite close to 'INTENTION' (Ref: Merium Webster Thesaurus) while a Target is 'an objective towards which efforts are directed'. Hence, in nut shell, a 'Target' is a point to shoot at and with this definition, the 'Point' in question is the 'Objective'.

OK, even if we ignore the difference between the two, my question is why other standards have treated them separately.

Hope to have more thoughts from other experts.

Regards,

In SMART, 'T', in my opinion, refers to 'Time bound plan' which may be a part of any particular objective.

Secondly, 'Target' is not a repetitive term since it is not synonymous to an objective which is quite close to 'INTENTION' (Ref: Merium Webster Thesaurus) while a Target is 'an objective towards which efforts are directed'. Hence, in nut shell, a 'Target' is a point to shoot at and with this definition, the 'Point' in question is the 'Objective'.

OK, even if we ignore the difference between the two, my question is why other standards have treated them separately.

Hope to have more thoughts from other experts.

Regards,

You have to be careful when using a thesaurus. While some pairs of synonyms have the same basic meaning (denotation), there are sometimes subtle differences in the way they're used (connotation). Just because a pair of words are listed as synonyms in a thesaurus doesn't mean that they're interchangeable in all contexts. Moreover, the list of synonyms you'll find under a given entry word shouldn't be considered exhaustive or exclusive.

There is no significant difference between "objective" (what you hope to achieve) and "target" (what you're aiming for) in the sense used in the standard, and using two different terms to mean the same thing causes confusion, which is probably why "target" was dropped in the case you're asking about.

Below are the entries for the words "target" and "objective" in the American Heritage Dictionary, 4th edition. See sense #4 for the former and #2 for the latter.

(Target) 1a. An object, such as a padded disk with a marked surface, that is shot at to test accuracy in rifle or archery practice. b. Something aimed or fired at. 2. An object of criticism or attack. 3. One to be influenced or changed by an action or event. 4. A desired goal. 5. A railroad signal that indicates the position of a switch by its color, position, and shape. 6. The sliding sight on a surveyor's leveling rod. 7. A small round shield. 8a. A structure in a television camera tube with a storage surface that is scanned by an electron beam to generate a signal output current similar to the charge-density pattern stored on the surface. b. A usually metal part in an x-ray tube on which a beam of electrons is focused and from which x-rays are emitted.

(Objective)1. Something that actually exists. 2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See synonyms at intention. 3. Grammar a. The objective case. b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case. 4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.

:thanx:Thank you Sir, for the explanation which I do agree with in its entirety but, with all due regards, what still bothers me is that the word 'target' has been dropped from the latest OHSAS standard released in 2007 but the same word is retained in 9001 released in late 2008.

Best regards,

:thanx:Thank you Sir, for the explanation which I do agree with in its entirety but, with all due regards, what still bothers me is that the word 'target' has been dropped from the latest OHSAS standard released in 2007 but the same word is retained in 9001 released in late 2008.

Best regards,

ISO 9001 is an ISO-produced document; OHSAS is not. It's probably a bit much to expect that documents produced by different sources would be in complete harmony.

...someone has to correct me on this, but as far as I know, OHSAS 18001:2007 is still not an ISO standard, right?

...and if that is the case, they will always have differed in some definition being used... I don't know, but OHSAS probably considered "target" as the same as "objective"... unless, of course they adopted the precise meaning as defined by ISO...

...someone has to correct me on this, but as far as I know, OHSAS 18001:2007 is still not an ISO standard, right?

...and if that is the case, they will always have differed in some definition being used... I don't know, but OHSAS probably considered "target" as the same as "objective"... unless, of course they adopted the precise meaning as defined by ISO...

You are correct that they are not ISO standard.

OHSAS working group members essentially were from certification bodies and several safety groups (for 2007 version).

Bases on the OHSAS 18001: 2007 standard in the introduction page, it stated the below:

".......The second edition of this OHSAS Standard is focused on clarification
of the first edition, and has taken due consideration of the provisions of
ISO 9001, ISO14001, ILO-OSH, and other OH&S management system
standards or publications to enhance the compatibility of these
standards for the benefit of the user community."

So most probably the definition used should be somehow tied with it, I guess? :2cents:

In fact, if you looked into the previous version of OHSAS 18001: 1999 and comparing with current one (2007) on the objectives defined, there's no major changes or any changes on the definition of "objectives". I don't know where the OP did the reference on the "target" was made reference in previous version of OHSAS 18001. I think he might have compared it with ISO 14001:confused:.....

From 1999 version:

"4.3.3 Objectives
The organization shall establish and maintain documented occupational health and safety objectives, at each relevant function and level within the organization.
NOTE Objectives should be quantified wherever practicable.
When establishing and reviewing its objectives, an organization shall consider its legal and other requirements, its OH&S hazards and risks, its technological options, its financial, operational and business requirements, and the views of interested parties. The objectives shall be consistent with the OH&S policy, including the commitment to continual improvement."

In 2007 version:

"4.3.3 Objectives and programme(s)
The organization shall establish, implement and maintain documented
OH&S objectives, at relevant functions and levels within the
organization.
The objectives shall be measurable, where practicable, and consistent
with the OH&S policy, including the commitments to the prevention of
injury and ill health, to compliance with applicable legal requirements
and with other requirements to which the organization subscribes, and
to continual improvement.
When establishing and reviewing its objectives, an organization shall
take into account the legal requirements and other requirements to
which the organization subscribes, and its OH&S risks. It shall also
consider its technological options, its financial, operational and
business requirements, and the views of relevant interested parties.

The organization shall establish, implement and maintain a
programme(s) for achieving its objectives. Programme(s) shall include
as a minimum:
a) designation of responsibility and authority for achieving objectives
at relevant functions and levels of the organization; and
b) the means and time-frame by which the objectives are to be
achieved.
The programme(s) shall be reviewed at regular and planned intervals,
and adjusted as necessary, to ensure that the objectives are achieved."
:tg:

Now if you guys are all done with "guessing", maybe we can actually supply a correct answer.

1st....The word Target has never been used with 18001 either in the original document or current revision.

2nd...To Mr. Wynne....The document is in harmony with ISO documentation when it comes to format and content.

Now here is the "Target" answer and ya'll would normally pay a whole bunch of money to hear me say this...........

The organization has to have documented Occupational Health & Safety Objectives..........no question here. Why is there no mention of targets? Targets (of a sort) are mentioned........in Section 3 "Terms and Definitions"....actually in 3.14-OHS Objective & 3.15-OHS Performance.

YOU HAVE TO USE THE WHOLE DOCUMENT! The words mean something and you have to get past using the "shall's alone.

Let's look at what the Standard says..............

3.14 OH&S objective
OH&S goal, in terms of OH&S performance (3.15), that an organization (3.17) sets itself to achieve
NOTE 1 Objectives should be quantified wherever practicable.
NOTE 2 4.3.3 requires that OH&S objectives are consistent with the OH&S policy (3.16).

3.15 OH&S performance
measurable results of an organization’s (3.17) management of its OH&S risks (3.21)
NOTE 1 OH&S performance measurement includes measuring theeffectiveness of the organization’s controls.
NOTE 2 In the context of OH&S management systems (3.13), results can also be measured against the organization’s (3.17) OH&S policy (3.16), OH&S objectives (3.14), and other OH&S performance requirements.

As you can see we have an Objective (What) and Performance (How much) which is exactly the same as ISO 14001:2004's Objectives and Targets.....ergo, harmony (for you Jim)...If you don't believe me check it out.


Guy's, I've found it best to use the tools that are supplied and not to try and guess.

Now if you really want to be messed up ask how an objective actually turns into a requirement thhat has to be met in 4.2 & 4.3.2 and evaluated in 4.5.2..

Thank you Sir, for a wise explanation well supported with evidence & justifications.

I was wrong with my presumption for the older version having reference to word 'Target'. Your post now makes it quite clear.

Now if you really want to be messed up ask how an objective actually turns into a requirement that has to be met in 4.2 & 4.3.2 and evaluated in 4.5.2..

It is really a very good question and I guess that it refers to the organization's policy commitment for 'Prevention of injury & ill health' which, infact, is a legal requirement, almost in all national laws. Hence, the objective of preventing injury & ill health automatically becomes a 'requirement' which has to be in met in 4.2, 4.3.2 & finally its evaluation is warranted under 4.5.2.

Best regards,

Thank you Sir, for a wise explanation well supported with evidence & justifications.

I was wrong with my presumption for the older version having reference to word 'Target'. Your post now makes it quite clear.



It is really a very good question and I guess that it refers to the organization's policy commitment for 'Prevention of injury & ill health' which, infact, is a legal requirement, almost in all national laws. Hence, the objective of preventing injury & ill health automatically becomes a 'requirement' which has to be in met in 4.2, 4.3.2 & finally its evaluation is warranted under 4.5.2.

Best regards,

Good guess, but not quite.........

We see many times that organizations with higher corporate governance are told to reduce, eliminate or improve something.....lets say a "10% reduction in Injury Rate" is a corporate objective.

If the organization then establishes "their" objective as a "10% reduction in Injury Rate" they have not met the requirements of 4.3.3. You ask "why"? Have they not established an objective as required?

Nope, not even close, and here's why.

When a higher organization, in this case "The Corporation" establishes an objective or some other specified performance criteria like the objective we have above the lower level organization does not have any options...it must meet the corporate requirement....therefore claiming the coprorate objective as your own does not meet the definition of an Objective provided in clause 3.14...."..performance it sets itself to achieve"...
The Corporate Objective falls in line with the requirements of clause 4.3.2-Legal and other requirements..."other OH&S requirements that are applicable to it..." These "other requirements" are referred to in the policy (4.2) and have to be evaluated for compliance (4.5.2.2)

Now if the organization establishes an objective for a "11% reduction in Injury Rate" then they meet the requirement of 4.3.3 because they set it themselves, and they also meet the 4.3.2 piece and they are on the way to meeting 4.2 committment for other requirments and improvement as well.

See what I mean? Some folks would view this as interpretation when actually it is just applying the standard to itself.

And there you have it.

:applause: Excellent piece of information which, among other things, makes one more thing clear to me "YOU HAVE TO USE THE WHOLE DOCUMENT! The words mean something" . I really never thought on these lines.

Cove is a great platform to learn & learn & gain a lot.

Best regards,

We see many times that organizations with higher corporate governance are told to reduce, eliminate or improve something.....lets say a "10% reduction in Injury Rate" is a corporate objective.

If the organization then establishes "their" objective as a "10% reduction in Injury Rate" they have not met the requirements of 4.3.3. You ask "why"? Have they not established an objective as required?

Nope, not even close, and here's why.

When a higher organization, in this case "The Corporation" establishes an objective or some other specified performance criteria like the objective we have above the lower level organization does not have any options...it must meet the corporate requirement....therefore claiming the coprorate objective as your own does not meet the definition of an Objective provided in clause 3.14...."..performance it sets itself to achieve"...
The Corporate Objective falls in line with the requirements of clause 4.3.2-Legal and other requirements..."other OH&S requirements that are applicable to it..." These "other requirements" are referred to in the policy (4.2) and have to be evaluated for compliance (4.5.2.2)

Now if the organization establishes an objective for a "11% reduction in Injury Rate" then they meet the requirement of 4.3.3 because they set it themselves, and they also meet the 4.3.2 piece and they are on the way to meeting 4.2 committment for other requirments and improvement as well.

See what I mean? Some folks would view this as interpretation when actually it is just applying the standard to itself.
I'm one of those folks. I view it as incorrect interpretation, because it makes no sense, and seems to be an overly-legalistic reading of "...sets itself to achieve." "Sets itself" could reasonably be interpreted as meaning the company "readies itself," and in terms of grammar, this is probably a more logical interpretation because if it means what you say it does, the "...to achieve" part is redundant. In other words, if it said "[Objectives] the organization sets itself," with emphasis on "itself" it would mean what you want it to mean.

The idea that the lower-level company must have objectives/targets/things it wants to achieve that are more stringent that those of a parent organization makes no sense on any level, and invites waste.

The idea that the lower-level company must have objectives/targets/things it wants to achieve that are more stringent that those of a parent organization makes no sense on any level, and invites waste.

There is nothing about a "must" in here. An organization that is under corporate mandate has no choice in the matter and the lack of choice makes the mandate a requirement...like compliance to the law, it's not optional. The reason for Objectives on the otherhand is for the organization to establish its own level of performance improvement beyond those mandated...this is where part of the "voluntary" aspect of these management systems approaches comes into play.

One has got to get out of playing "it depends on what is is game"

There is nothing about a "must" in here. An organization that is under corporate mandate has no choice in the matter and the lack of choice makes the mandate a requirement...like compliance to the law, it's not optional. The reason for Objectives on the otherhand is for the organization to establish its own level of performance improvement beyond those mandated...this is where part of the "voluntary" aspect of these management systems approaches comes into play.

One has got to get out of playing "it depends on what is is game"

No games involved--there's absolutely no reason that a parent company can't set objectives (or whatever you want to call them) for its subsidiaries. If a subsidiary believes that some other objective is more reasonable, there should be wiggle room in the parent's policy to allow for it, whether the subsidiary's objective(s) is/are more or less stringent.

Ok...so I can figure out who I agree with. What about the following situation.

corporate objective - 0 Lost Time Accidents/Incidences

Divisional objective - 2 Lost Time Accidents/Incidences (the reason for this is that last year they had 15 Lost Time Accidents - wasn't considered reasonable to go from 15 to 2 as a yearly goal - long term 0 is the goal)

Would this meet the requirements of the standard or not?

No games involved--there's absolutely no reason that a parent company can't set objectives (or whatever you want to call them) for its subsidiaries. If a subsidiary believes that some other objective is more reasonable, there should be wiggle room in the parent's policy to allow for it, whether the subsidiary's objective(s) is/are more or less stringent.

There is wiggle room as you call it, but an objective established by a higher organization is a requirement the organization has to meet...it ain't optional

Now if the higher structure wants to allow the organization to perform at a lower level of performance that it has established that's their business and the standard couldn't care less...but understand, the lower level of performance established by the higher organization is still a requirement that must be identified, committed to and evaluated by the lower organization, it's not an objective as defined by the standard.

There is wiggle room as you call it, but an objective established by a higher organization is a requirement the organization has to meet...it ain't optional.


It is not "...a requirement the organization hasto meet..." (emphasis mine) An objective is something the organization must work towards, and there are many times when objectives aren't attained and indeed there are times when they can't be. You're confusing "objective" (in the sense used in the standards) with "mandate."

Hi Jim !

OHSAS is not an ISO-produced document indeed.
The good way of pointing out it is simply to mention the exact name of this british standard: BS OHSAS 18001.

Best regards.

Ok...so I can figure out who I agree with. What about the following situation.

corporate objective - 0 Lost Time Accidents/Incidences

Divisional objective - 2 Lost Time Accidents/Incidences (the reason for this is that last year they had 15 Lost Time Accidents - wasn't considered reasonable to go from 15 to 2 as a yearly goal - long term 0 is the goal)

Would this meet the requirements of the standard or not?

Which 2 people are we going to choose to have the accident....?

The Division is required to meet the corporate objective of -0- under 4.3.2 ...it is a "other" requirement regardless of Mr. Wynne says. If the higher organization madates a performance level then the lower organizations are automatically obligated to achieve that level as well or decide themselves to commit to a even higher level of performance, meeting the definition of "OHS objective"

Jim, I would suggest that you get your hands on a copy of 18001 and read Section 3 "Definitions" because you're a bit off base with your "interpretations"....Oh yeah, what I have stated about objectives and requirements in this Thread has been appealed to higher bodies and I have been shown to be correct...

As for the comment from Henria... OHSAS is not an ISO-produced document indeed.
The good way of pointing out it is simply to mention the exact name of this british standard: BS OHSAS 18001.

...she's beginning to sound like a broken record and a person with an personal agenda.

Henria, please keep on topic.

Hi !

Just an instantaneous observation: in the synopsis of the cove page “Threads Discussion: OHSAS 18001 Occupational Health and Safety" which propose 23 discussions, I count 18 “OHSAS 18001” titles and only 1 “BS8001 OHSAS 18001” title. If I quoted the international quality management system standard with reference “BS 9001”, the specialists would correct my error. They would be right, and I would thank them. Because we always improve ourself when we analyse remarks gived by our interlocutors.

Cordially.

So basically, the division would get penalized because upper management (corporate) decided that 0 was the goal regardless of how reasonable it was for the entire company?

I guess this is why I hate setting goal to absolute numbers. Why not aim for 75% reduction in accidents instead? When the numbers get so small that only absolute numbers will work - great. But, in my scenario corporate would be completely defeating the premise of "making goals acheiveable". Are you going to feel driven to meet a goal that is seemingly impossible?

As much as I agree with you Randy (and it is how I train people regarding the setting of business objectives), I have a hard time with this one in that the situation is being caused by possibly misguided corporate objectives.

Help me to be able to resolve this...you know since I agree with you and all. :lol:

Hi !

About this old discussion (where I had intervened in a badly adapted way because I had answered the first page of the messages without seeing the others) I have two comments to make:

- I agree with Jim. Refusing a corporate objective as being an objective of a subsidiary company seems to me a extremist position. To have to increase the objective corporate a little so that it is acceptable it is really an artificial subterfuge! (but if corporate said 10, then 10.01 is good for the subsidiary ?)

To adopt an objective corporate is at contrary completely in agreement with British Standard OHSAS 18001 requirements (paragraph 4.3.3 - third subparagraph) : “When establishing and reviewing its objective, legal year organization shall take into account the requirements and other requirements to witch the organiszation subcribes, and its OH&S risks. It shall also consider its technological options, its financial, operational and business requirements, and the views off depending interested left".

Actually, as long as subsidiary company did not adopt in its own OHSMS objectives the objective X indicated by the group, this objective X is not the objective of the subsidiary company.

- As Jim, I also prefer relative objectives rather than absolute objectives. But moreover, personally as H&S officer, I don't like result objectives (reactive objective).

I prefer preventive actions objectives of : i.e. occupational risks reduction objectives (to lower the level of noise, to substitute carcinogenic substances, to limit weight of manual handling operations…) rather than occupational disease or accidents numbers reduction objectives … Thus one is really in the action of prevention.

Cordially.