Friends,

From AIAG.....

The Automotive Industry Action Group (AIAG) firmly believes that the use of formal management systems’ are necessary for the effective management of health safety and environmental programs, and thus fully endorse ANSI Z10 and International Organization of Standardization (ISO) programs such as ISO's 14001 environmental management standard.* We believe that management of safety and health as part of an existing management system is necessary to achieve overall HSE excellence.

We believe that the management of health & safety under the BSI OHSAS 18001 program is good practice, but less efficient in terms of both cost and time, as compared to managing health & safety as part of an existing management system. This is fundamental to making safety and health integrated within existing management systems and part of the day-to-day business activities.

In conclusion, AIAG:

believes that the International Labor Organization (ILO); OHSMS Guidelines of 2001 provide a sound basis for any nation or organization to develop an effective safety and health management system
is concerned when entities such as BSI issue 'standards' utilizing a numbering sequence that at the very least confuses many into believing the standard was issued by ISO, and
will work to integrate health & safety programs within a comprehensive and effective management system, but will not specifically mandate OHSAS 18001certification.


* Some member companies certify their environmental programs to ISO 14001 and other management systems, such as ISO-9001, while concurrently receiving a letter of conformance from the registrar advising that health & safety is managed in conformance with ISO 14001/9001 at no additional cost. In addition to reducing costs within the supply chain, this approach is arguably more effective in that a single management system is utilized to manage all HSE activities, so only a single system need be maintained and continually improved over time.

BSI-OHSAS 18001 (1999) has been superceded by the OHSAS Project Group OHSAS 18001:2007.

Friends,

From AIAG.....

This is fundamental to making safety and health integrated within existing management systems and part of the day-to-day business activities.



Well shoot if everything was integrated into the management system, quality and environmental as well, we wouldn't ever have any problems! The day we can trust folks to follow a standard, is the day I am out of a job ~ :notme: The fox in the hen's house is a revolving door...

BSI-OHSAS 18001 (1999) has been superceded by the OHSAS Project Group OHSAS 18001:2007.

Thanks, Jennifer - who is the OHSAS Project Group?

We believe that the management of health & safety under the BSI OHSAS 18001 program is good practice, but less efficient in terms of both cost and time, as compared to managing health & safety as part of an existing management system. Where do they get their data from, I wonder?

In conclusion, AIAG:

believes that the International Labor Organization (ILO); OHSMS Guidelines of 2001 provide a sound basis for any nation or organization to develop an effective safety and health management system
is concerned when entities such as BSI issue 'standards' utilizing a numbering sequence that at the very least confuses many into believing the standard was issued by ISO, and
will work to integrate health & safety programs within a comprehensive and effective management system, but will not specifically mandate OHSAS 18001certification.



Now it is my understanding that ILO requirements are included in OHSAS - can anyone correct me if I am wrong
What is AIAG's role in deciding what BSI does? Their point may be valid about the confusion in numbering though.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for quoting me...but I was just passing on the AIAG article...;)

I claim innocence...:D

Stijloor.

* Some member companies certify their environmental programs to ISO 14001 and other management systems, such as ISO-9001, while concurrently receiving a letter of conformance from the registrar advising that health & safety is managed in conformance with ISO 14001/9001 at no additional cost. In addition to reducing costs within the supply chain, this approach is arguably more effective in that a single management system is utilized to manage all HSE activities, so only a single system need be maintained and continually improved over time.I can only infer that this is another sign of the jockeying for position amongst industry standards for OHSMS...But I am not sure of how to read this last paragraph...

BSI-OHSAS 18001 (1999) has been superceded by the OHSAS Project Group OHSAS 18001:2007.BS OHSAS 18001:2007 (http://www.bsi-global.com/en/Shop/Publication-Detail/?pid=000000000030164695) is a British Standard, published by BSI (the Standards Body) and was a collective work by a group of stakeholders.

Wellllllllllllllllll, here we go again.

1st.........ANSI Z10 is an American Standard for OHSMS not an International one

2nd........ILO OHS Guidlines are just that guidelines...you see the word "SHOULD" not shall and we all know what should means I hope

3rd...Here are the folks that put OHSAS 18001:2007 together and you'll see that it wasn't BSI alone....

Acknowledgement

This edition of OHSAS 18001 has been developed with the assistance of the
following cooperating organizations:

American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA)
Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación (AENOR)
Association of British Certification Bodies (ABCB)
British Standards Institution (BSI)
Bureau Veritas
Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE), (Gerencia de la seguridad industrial)
Czech Accreditation Institute (CAI)
Det Norske Veritas (DNV)
DS Certification A/S
EEF the manufacturers’ organisation
ENLAR Compliance Services, Inc.
Health and Safety Executive1)
Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency (HKQAA)
Inspecta Certification
Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH)
Instituto Argentino de Normalización y Certificación (IRAM)
Instituto Colombiano de Normas Técnicas y Certificación (ICONTEC)
Instituto de Normas Técnicas de Costa Rica (INTECO)
Instituto Mexicano de Normalización y Certificación (IMNC)
Instituto Uruguayo de Normas Técnicas (UNIT)
ITS Consultants
Japan Industrial Safety and Health Association (JISHA)
Japanese Standards Association (JSA)
Korea Gas Safety Corporation (ISO Certificate Division)
Lloyds Register Quality Assurance (LRQA)
Management Systems Certification Limited
National Standards Authority of Ireland (NSAI)
National University of Singapore (NUS)
Nederlands Normalisatie-instituut (NEN)
NPKF ELECTON
NQA
Quality Management Institute (QMI)
SABS Commercial (Pty) Ltd.
Service de Normalisation Industrielle Marocaine (SNIMA)
SGS United Kingdom Ltd
SIRIM QAS International
SPRING Singapore
Standards Institution of Israel (SII)
Standards New Zealand (SNZ)
Sucofindo International Certification Services (SICS)
Swedish Industry Association (Sinf)
TÜV Rheinland Cert GmbH – TÜV Rheinland Group
Standards Association of Zimbabwe (SAZ)

4th.....Here is information about the working group.......

OHSAS Project Group
The OHSAS Project Group is an international association of national standards
bodies, certification, accreditation bodies, occupational health and safety institutes, industry associations, consulting organizations and government agencies.

I'd almost bet Sidney's paycheck (gotta be larger than mine;)) that AIAG is in cahoots somehow with ANSI over this because the Z10 has not really gained the attention or recognition to justify the effort taken to put it together

5th........The ILO-OHS document is numbered as well just like 18001 is, just different numbers

I'd like to know who the AIAG experts are. Probably experts in risk management and OHS:sarcasm:

So what is more palatable on the global stage, an American OHS standard or a real international one?

Hi Paul,

Thanks for quoting me...but I was just passing on the AIAG article...;)

I claim innocence...:D

Stijloor.

Hi, Stijloor. I realize the text isn't yours and have no wish to shoot the messenger! I just lazily hit the quote button and your name comes up. :D

Thanks to Randy for clarifying - it is the BSI committee (as I thought). The politics behind OHSAS being developed go a long way back! :notme:

Wellllllllllllll, I guess, but the working group or project group is made up of those 40 odd standards bodies in the acknowledgment

Wellllllllllllll, I guess, but the working group or project group is made up of those 40 odd standards bodies in the acknowledgment

Now I'm not going to get drawn into an argument :notme: because I don't know. It is unlikely that other standards bodies were involved in developing the BS. (Otherwise it would be joint badged by these other standards bodies).

From the list there are a number of other standards bodies that (like BSI) also have management systems certification arms and this part of the body will probably have contributed (somehow - again I don't have any details).

Well it did derive much of it's content from BS8800 that's for sure, and it is a BS, but there are countries other than the UK that have adopted it as their national standard...Not us of course, we have the Z10 which is hardly used or referred to.

Hi !


I allow myself to comment on your answers Brandy:

1st - "ANSI Z10 is an American Standard for OHSMS not an International one" > Same comment about BS OHSAS 18001 : it is a national standard too (not an international one)!

2nd - "ILO-OHS Guidelines are just that guidelines...you see the word "SHOULD" not shall and we all know what should means I hope" > Guidelines? These “guidelines” are much more explicit, professional and complete that a certain british standard, which besides has just improved while being precisely inspired by these ILO guidelines (whereas it initially only was "copied-stuck" of ISO 14001) !.

Concerning "should", I already avoided this objection: The only documents really compulsory are our laws and regulations (because these are “legal standards” and not voluntary standards). Neither BS OHSAS (ANSI-Z10, other national standard…) nor ILO-OSH formulate real bonds. All these voluntary standards have only the strength and the commitment of the management (the boss) of the entity which decides to use it as model for its OHSMS! It’s not words such “should” more than “shall”… Let us be serious, If I choose to apply ILO-OSH standard, I read “should” in the ILO requirements, as made by AFAQ-AFNOR (the French standardization and certification organization) with the approval of ILO!

3rd – "Here* are the folks that put OHSAS 18001:2007 together and you'll see that it wasn't BSI alone" > BS OHSAS remains and is confirmed as being a British national standard! ISO refused to create an international OHSMS standard, giving best opportunity to ILO (UN authority, as important as ISO) creating ILO-OSH 2001 (his contributors list is also considerable and much more representative of H&S recipients at international level).

* About your list (and OHSAS Project Group): In fact and without any logic, these national standardization organizations quite simply refuse legitimacy, representativeness and international significance of the ILO-OSH standard (“work” specificity of the ILO ; three-party government “states-companies-employees” ; same members “ILO and ISO”)… and prefer a national standard, curious !

4th – “… the Z10 has not really gained the attention or recognition to justify the effort taken to put it together”. > I think that If the US OHSMS specialists supported Z10, then the things would advance more quickly for the US OHSMS standard… I note that Z10 is a good OHSMS standard, and I note that Z10 refers to ILO-OSH (not to the british standard).

5th – “The ILO-OHS document is numbered as well just like 18001 is, just different numbers I'd like to know who the AIAG experts are. Probably experts in risk management and OHS. So what is more palatable on the global stage, an American OHS standard or a real international one?” > Sorry, but there I did not understand anything of your sarcastic ideas (smoothnesses of the language?)… please could you express this point 5 in a different way?

Good night.

I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain so here's the deal...If you don't like 18001 or Z10 or anything other than that incredibly weak ILO Guideline...Good! Ingnore them and fall behind a good piece of the rest of the world. Your illustrated lack of understanding when it comes to 18001 and managment systems has been well displayed and I will be the 1st to acknowledge it. Congradulations:applause:

As for the United Nations.....it's one of the last things on my list of things I concern myself with

Now lets run a survey of explicitness in language and let the world choose which document is more specific and demanding ILO-OSH-2001 or OHSAS 18001:2007. I will provide a brief extract of both documents from similar sections, 1st the ILO and 2nd the 18001.

ILO OSH 2001

3.3. Responsibility and accountability

3.3.1. The employer should have overall responsibility for the protection of
workers' safety and health, and provide leadership for OSH activities in the organization.

3.3.2. The employer and senior management should allocate responsibility,
accountability and authority for the development, implementation and performance of the OSH management system and the achievement of the relevant OSH objectives.

Structures and processes should be established which:

..........................................................................................................................................................................................

OHSAS 18001:2007

4.4.1 Resources, roles, responsibility, accountability and authority
Top management shall take ultimate responsibility for OH&S and the
OH&S management system.

Top management shall demonstrate its commitment by:
a) ensuring the availability of resources essential to establish, implement, maintain and improve the OH&S management system;

NOTE 1 Resources include human resources and specialized skills, organizational infrastructure, technology and financial resources.

b) defining roles, allocating responsibilities and accountabilities, and delegating authorities, to facilitate effective OH&S management; roles, responsibilities, accountabilities, and authorities shall be documented and communicated.

Now which is more explicit?

Oh golly, I forgot to mention that the ILO document is numbered as well.

Good evening,

I would like to illustrate how I find that the international reference frame of OH&S management ILO-OSH is more explicit than the national reference frame British BS OHSAS 18001. The most operational part of the control of the occupational hazards of these two standards standards are respectively their § 3.10 to 3.10. ILO-OSH devotes approximately X pages to this part but BS OHSAS only y pages. Overall the useful part of ILO-OSH counts approximately X pages against y pages in BS OHSAS.

An approximate “weighing”: the useful part of BS OHSAS 18001 counts less than ten pages against a big dozen for ILO-OSH (+ 20% especially benefits the professional aspects detailed in the part “dangers controls” of the ILO-OSH). When our colleagues neophytes read the ILO-OSH they understand better what they can make. This is why I said that ILO-OSH was more explicit.

But there are other standards (national) even more explicit (examples):
(GOST 12.0.230 = ILO-OSH)
AS/NZS 4801 and = roughly 20 useful pages.
ANSI Z10 and CSA Z1000 = roughly 50 useful pages.
BS 8800 = roughly 70 useful pages.

I particularly like BS 8800 and ANSI Z10, and I find the BS 18001 poorest of the principal reference frames. It is my analysis after having studied all these principal standards (majority referring to international standard ILO-OSH).

Cordially.

Good evening,

I would like to illustrate how I find that the international reference frame of OH&S management ILO-OSH is more explicit than the national reference frame British BS OHSAS 18001. The most operational part of the control of the occupational hazards of these two standards standards are respectively their § 3.10 to 3.10. ILO-OSH devotes approximately X pages to this part but BS OHSAS only y pages. Overall the useful part of ILO-OSH counts approximately X pages against y pages in BS OHSAS.

An approximate “weighing”: the useful part of BS OHSAS 18001 counts less than ten pages against a big dozen for ILO-OSH (+ 20% especially benefits the professional aspects detailed in the part “dangers controls” of the ILO-OSH). When our colleagues neophytes read the ILO-OSH they understand better what they can make. This is why I said that ILO-OSH was more explicit.

But there are other standards (national) even more explicit (examples):
(GOST 12.0.230 = ILO-OSH)
AS/NZS 4801 and = roughly 20 useful pages.
ANSI Z10 and CSA Z1000 = roughly 50 useful pages.
BS 8800 = roughly 70 useful pages.

I particularly like BS 8800 and ANSI Z10, and I find the BS 18001 poorest of the principal reference frames. It is my analysis after having studied all these principal standards (majority referring to international standard ILO-OSH).

Cordially.

Is it actual content (and intent) that counts or the number of pages? "Useful" is an ambiguous term because just as beauty, that's really in the "eye of the beholder." I enjoy the discussion. This topic obviously raises the interest of very passionate people. ;)

Stijloor.

Thank you for your reaction Stijloor.

To count the useful* pages it is right a short way to illustrate my idea concerning the more or less explicit character of a text (It would be besides less approximate, quantitatively speaking, to count the words). I know that there is not such an amount difference between these various standards OHSMS, and that it is not only question of quantity of pages. Qualitatively speaking, an important difference for example is the essential place given to the employees, or the precision in operational requirements (e.g. see BS OHSAS 18001 § 4.4.6 and ILO-OSH § 3.10.1, 3.10.2, 3.10.4, 3.10.5). Making this calculation of pages is faster and easier than a long exchange by email.

* My term "Useful" is not so ambiguous neither really in the "eye of the beholder", if I explain it (I always try to be as objective as possible) you will agree with me enough : the “useful pages” are those which contain the requirements of the standard (e.g. removing foreword, contents, introduction, acknowlogements, definitions, glossary…).

Best regards.

Post-Scriptum : You not that “this topic [and some others I think] obviously raises the interest off very passionate people”. I divide your opinion and I add that our exchanges must open the horizon and the reflexions of the neophytes without locking up them in a single vision of H&S management.