BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...! [Elsmar Cove Index (Ar)]

Henria

1st March 2009, 04:08 AM

HI Stijloor, Randy, Sidney, and Jennifer… nice to speak with you around the world !

(preliminary information: I am not a professional of quality management or standards, but I am a specialist in the occupational risks prevention and Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems).

Sorry my mistake… I am a new member of your discussion forums and I read it wrong : I believed that the OHSAS thread was in the “ISO” forum, but it is in the right forum “National and international standards”. It’s not very easy for me to discover and circulate between yours numerous threads.

Randy, I don’t understand what is your “power curve”, but I don’t agree with your when you says that ILO-OSH 2001 is a “very weak document” because this document writes “should” and not “shall” :
-The only documents (or requirements) really compulsory are our national (or international) laws and regulations. Neither BS OHSAS (ANSI-Z10, other national standard…) nor ILO-OSH formulate real bonds. The laws and the regulations are the only requirements of really compulsory application (because these are “legal standards” and not voluntary standards).
-All these voluntary standards have the same weakness, or more exactly, the same strength: it is the strength of the will 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” and not “shall”… Let us be serious, If I choose to apply me the ILO-OSH standard these is no importance to read “should” or “shall” in the ILO requirements. Moreover nothing prevents from replacing “must” for “would have”: it is what has AFAQ-AFNOR (the French standardization and certification organization)… with the approval of the ILO!
-When we quote OHSAS 18001 it is necessary to say exactly BS OHSAS to remind that it is a British standard of OHSMS (and we know that this standard is not the only one). Among these other standards there is an international OHSMS standard (the only one). It was created by a official entity considerably more representative than BSI: ILO is an agency of the UNO, so important as the ISO, his members (approximately 180 countries I think) are tripartite (in connection with occupational health and safety and on such an international scale, it is really very important to have the validation of states, employers and employees representatives !)

These are the principal reasons to consider ILO-OSH is a really powerful tool (without speaking about its other qualities like its great professionalism and its character clarifies…). Moreover the national standardization organizations are not mistaken there: now when a country creates its own OHSMS national standard, it refers to the ILO-OSH (e.g. from ANSI Z10 2005 in the United States of America, to ILO-OSH adopted as Gosstandart of Russia 12.0.230-2007 in the Commonwealth of Independent States...). Even BS OHSAS is aligned on ILO-OSH…

ILO-OSH is the international reference frame of the national reference frames. Moreover it is a strong model for the companies (international or not) and for the countries.

Best regards.

Paul Simpson

1st March 2009, 05:13 AM

Now here is some of the strength (and some of the weakness) of a 'voluntary' management systems standard. If an organisation chooses to go for certification they tend to go through a systematic process to understand their (legal and other) obligations, they put in place systems and processes that establish their controls at a level higher than their legal requirements and include a commitment to improve on areas of highest risk. If they do that properly they are in a good place whether it is quality, environment or health & safety.

If, however, you go into the process of seeking certification with a 'check box' approach and concentrate on the documentation rather than the underlying principles you will end up with a poor system.

A couple of examples of my experience as a 3rd party auditor. I have visited organisations that have fantastic documented systems with neat manuals and procedures coming out of their ears:

Who are breaking environmental law on a daily basis
A company applying for OHSAS had machinery and equipment that did not meet EU law for guarding
One company had not reported 3 separate serious injuries (as required by UK law)
One company were not even aware of a piece of legislation to do with product safety (under their quality system) and products they were shipping out every day were in breach

Although this is not necessarily a great advert for 3rd party certification (as I am convinced there are many other registered organisations out there who are in breach of environmental, health & safety and product safety (quality) legislation) at least these points were put right (with effective action to prevent recurrence)

Without an independent audit who is going to point these things out? If you speak to the regulators (at least those I have experience of) they will tel you they haven't got the people to do it. They just have to wait for an incident and resort to the courts as a deterrent.

Henria

1st March 2009, 10:28 AM

Hi Paul !

I guess that you are especially a specialist in quality, but me of health safety to work. I propose several remarks in connection with your message:

1-I don’t agree with you when (as often in quality) you confuses “management system” and “system certification” (you said “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to…”). In Quality, Environment or Health and Safety domains, “to tend to…” organize my management and improve my (Q, E or H&S) results, it’s better I adopt a Management System… but I don’t need to be certified… The bases of our discussion are the real elements of our management standards. However I observe that certification is absolutely not a requirement of these standards! And I affirm that a SMS certification is absolutely not a H&S objective or an risks reduction objective…

2-I don’t agree either with you if you think “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to go through a systematic process to understand their (legal and other) obligations…”. It’s not the standard which brings the competence to the company for knowledge and comprehension of legal (and other) requirements which are applicable to him (more, the standard requires to identify these applicable legal requirements, but those are already obligatory even without this standard and the organization must understand the legal requirements before to think to adopt a OHSMS).

3-I don’t agree with you to consider “the (OHSMS standards) controls at a level higher than the legal requirements and include a commitment to improve on areas of highest risk”. Short explanation (at least in the context of the European Union): the regulation imposes* a result (the essence), but the standards of management relate only to the organisational means (the form). The normative (volunteer) controls are not higher than the legal H&S requirements. The legal H&S prevention general principles comprise also the continuous improvement principle**. We cannot thus say that a OHSMS standard brings much more fundamental things than the “legal standards”, except if we don’t know the regulation in question as well as necessary.
Directive 89/391/EEC:
* Art 5 (point 1): The employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work.
** Art 6 (pont 2): The employer shall be alert to the need to adjust these measures to take account of changing circumstances and aim to improve existing situations.

4-I agree with you, the true bottom of simple and practical step of prevention H&S is much better than a beautiful unutilised documentary system (a large sorter full with procedures).

5-I don’t believe that a independent* OHSMS auditor replaces a H&S regulator because they don’t have the same capacities and the same things to control (we find again the difference between the world of the standards and the world of the regulations).
* but this auditor is paid by the entity wich is audited.

6-Without an independent audit who is going to point these things out? If you speak to the regulators (at least those I have experience of) they will tel you they haven't got the people to do it. They just have to wait for an incident and resort to the courts as a deterrent.

But I understand our difference in vision: the context of the quality specialists are the standards (because the companies do not need laws to want to improve their production…), the context of specialists H&S it is the regulation (because the civil community imposes H&S “legal standards” on the companies…).

Cordialy.

Randy

1st March 2009, 11:04 AM

As you have stated, you are no expert in standards or systems, but a better term would be "you lack competence".

The OHSAS standards are not meant to replace regulatory requirements, they are meant to compliment them and an OHS auditor (like me) does not audit compliance to the law or regulations but to conformance to system requirements.

You are taking on a subject that you yourself have declaired lack of knowledge to and your arguments illustrate that.

I myself am a trained and extremely experienced safety professional with about 35-40 years of risk management experience that goes well beyond fretting over what kind of glove to have people wear or having too many cords in an electrical outlet. Additionally I am a management systems professional, an auditor of management systems, and a particpant in the writing of the OHSAS 18001 document among other things, therefore my expertise in the field of OHS and OHSMS is well established and recognized globally, and I feel free to say "you are shouting aganist the surf" and you have gone down an incorrect pathway with your reasoning, and you are mixing apples and oranges.

I will also beg to differ about your argument that OHSAS 18001 is not an international standard.....On one hand you are correct, it is labeled BS OHSAS 18001, therefore it is a British Standard, but if you would take the time to look...or maybe even get your hands on a copy of 18001, you'll see in the Acknowledgements that 40 "International" standards producing bodies (many of whom are voting members of the ISO
My suggestion would be that you go to the very 1st Thread on OHSAS 18001 we have here and start reading. Then read the Threads about management systems and about auditing....or take some training, gain some expertise and develop competence in the field of OHSMS.

Additionally, you need to read the Acknowledgement section of OHSAS 18001 in order see that of the 40 international organizations that participated in its development many are voting members of the ISO.

Paul Simpson

2nd March 2009, 10:00 AM

Please excuse my selective quoting but as your words were mixed in with mine I have to do some pruning. :)
Hi Paul !

I guess that you are especially a specialist in quality, but me of health safety to work. I propose several remarks in connection with your message:You guess (partially) correct. My background is mechanical engineering that has to consider all aspects of a product - including safety. My first specialism was in quality and I am always interested in it. I have extended my areas of expertise into areas of environment and health & safety. Because I take H & S, in particular, so seriously I have taken additional qualifications in H & S.

1-I don’t agree with you when (as often in quality) you confuses “management system” and “system certification” (you said “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to…”). In Quality, Environment or Health and Safety domains, “to tend to…” organize my management and improve my (Q, E or H&S) results, it’s better I adopt a Management System… but I don’t need to be certified… The bases of our discussion are the real elements of our management standards. However I observe that certification is absolutely not a requirement of these standards! And I affirm that a SMS certification is absolutely not a H&S objective or an risks reduction objective… I do not confuse the two terms. I merely offered the example of an organisation going for certification as this is probably the most common use of a management system standard. I accept that certification should not, in itself, be an objective but there are many who believe that the 'aim' of certification helps drive implementation.

2-I don’t agree either with you if you think “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to go through a systematic process to understand their (legal and other) obligations…”. It’s not the standard which brings the competence to the company for knowledge and comprehension of legal (and other) requirements which are applicable to him (more, the standard requires to identify these applicable legal requirements, but those are already obligatory even without this standard and the organization must understand the legal requirements before to think to adopt a OHSMS).You have quoted selectively from my post. This is incorrect. There is a standard way to implement a management system starting with a gap analysis where an organisation looks at what its obligations are and then puts processes in place to make sure they have systems to meet requirements. I do not separate these two parts and nor should you when you are quoting my post back to me. You are, of course right the legal obligations existed long before the organisation went for certification but (as the examples in my post show - sometimes even good organisations are not aware of them).

3-I don’t agree with you to consider “the (OHSMS standards) controls at a level higher than the legal requirements and include a commitment to improve on areas of highest risk”. Short explanation (at least in the context of the European Union): the regulation imposes* a result (the essence), but the standards of management relate only to the organisational means (the form). The normative (volunteer) controls are not higher than the legal H&S requirements. The legal H&S prevention general principles comprise also the continuous improvement principle**. We cannot thus say that a OHSMS standard brings much more fundamental things than the “legal standards”, except if we don’t know the regulation in question as well as necessary.
Directive 89/391/EEC:
* Art 5 (point 1): The employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work.
** Art 6 (pont 2): The employer shall be alert to the need to adjust these measures to take account of changing circumstances and aim to improve existing situations.You are talking to someone from a country who introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in 1974 based on an approach of an absolute duty of care for employees and others. Supported (amongst other things by our national body's management systems approach to a H & S management system - HS (G) 65 that came years before OHSAS 18001 and is IMHO a better document. I agree with the directives but you have to understand that OHSAS says your management system has to meet legal requirements 'as a minimum' - hence my post.

4-I agree with you, the true bottom of simple and practical step of prevention H&S is much better than a beautiful unutilised documentary system (a large sorter full with procedures). We agree on something then. :agree:

5-I don’t believe that a independent* OHSMS auditor replaces a H&S regulator because they don’t have the same capacities and the same things to control (we find again the difference between the world of the standards and the world of the regulations).
* but this auditor is paid by the entity wich is audited. I never said they replace a regulator. Most countries do not have the luxury of sending an employee from their regulator in to a company once or twice a year to check on them. Certification bodies do this.

As for who pays them ... if you use this argument then all H & S professionals cannot be trusted because they are paid by the company and will be scared to go against the company in case they lose their jobs. :confused:

Not all auditors are perfect - but most want to do a good job and have a conscience for the employees of organisations they certify.

But I understand our difference in vision: the context of the quality specialists are the standards (because the companies do not need laws to want to improve their production…), the context of specialists H&S it is the regulation (because the civil community imposes H&S “legal standards” on the companies…).No, a quality specialist is interested in doing the right things. I believe and hope the same is true for H & S specialists.

Cordialy.A bientot. I hope you keep coming back to the cove. Your views are challenging - we are not that far apart but you have misunderstood in almost every way the things that I believe in.

Henria

2nd March 2009, 02:32 PM

Hi !

Thank you for this answer Paul answer. You develop arguments, it is perfect to have interesting exchange. But A problem for me is undoubtedly to express me and understand correctly an other language than my native language…

One of my ideas is that certification (of SMS) can bring good and bad specifique results if it is the principal objective of the compagny (as I see often see). The main part of the results wich are attributed to the certification itself (generally confused with the system certified) are in fact really produced only by the management (the system). If we have an "no certified OHSMS" we have good results nevertheless (it is the case general of the majority of companies… you do not believe?).

I propose to use the term certification (reminder : certification is not an element of the system of management standards) only when we speak indeed and specifically about this particular process of external recognition (this process is not H&S prevention). But the essential object about which we speak especially to build prevention H&S is the management system. To name it, it is necessary to say "management system " and not "certification". You understand what I want to say? (it's the management system wich produces and improves Q, E or H&S).

Nice to e-meet you Randy. I read again your answer, and I find that the evocation of your curriculum vitae* does not bring any real argument to my remarks. (* I am a H&S specialist myself, since almost as a long time as you, in various industrial sectors, I use OHSMS standards and I also manage or audite OHSMS of different compagnies).

But I have curiosity:
- Which is the topicality of the ANSI Z10 standard in the USA since its creation?
- Did you take part in his creation?
- How this US standard is accomodated? (does it developed in US?)
- Do companies pass from the OHSMS british standard to the OHSMS US standard?

Cordially.

pilchard

2nd March 2009, 03:23 PM

Is there a correlation somewhere between having OHSAS 18001 or ANSI Z10 implemented and the lowering of Total Recordable Incident Rates?:frust:

Randy

2nd March 2009, 03:57 PM

But I have curiosity:
- Which is the topicality of the ANSI Z10 standard in the USA since its creation? - It is not widley or used in the United States because OHSAS 18001 is the most widley used and recognized standard on the planet for 3rd party certifications in particular

Did you take part in his creation? Yes, to a small degree but nothing to brag about, just some comments. The Z10 document was the primary creation of the AIHA (the American Industrial Hygeine Association, a contributor to OHSAS 18001 as well and in conjunction with the American National Standards Institute, therefore it is an American Standard, just as Z1000 is Canadian). The chair of the Z10 committe was a person who managed me when I was with ITT INdustries in EHS - Dr. Alan Liebowitz

- How this US standard is accomodated? (does it developed in US?) This was answered above I think. As to the use of it.....very minor from what I have seen, heard and experienced...A fraction of a percentage point if I had to guess.

- Do companies pass from the OHSMS british standard to the OHSMS US standard? Not that I have seen. Normally a company elects to go by the 18001 standard without considering it to be a British Standard. Why? Because the fact that it is a BS is irrelevant to them. OHSAS 18001 has been adopted in some countries as the national standard for them for OHS managemnt purposes...You need to avoid confusing management with compliance by the way, they are 2 different and distinct creatures. I have yet to see a company use both the Z10 and 18001 even though they could very easily do so and achieve 3rd party certification attesting to that fact.

You may not fully inderstand that a management system standard does not tell an organization how to manage health & safety, environment, quality or whatever else, the standard just provides information related to what has been identified as the minimum elements neccessary to be able to do so effectively. The organization always has the ability to say how they will do what they need to do.

You English is fine;)

Randy

2nd March 2009, 03:59 PM

Is there a correlation somewhere between having OHSAS 18001 or ANSI Z10 implemented and the lowering of Total Recordable Incident Rates?:frust:

Not that anyone is making public, but I have seen it and personally experienced it in a program I managed a few years back.

pilchard

2nd March 2009, 04:49 PM

Thanks for the reply!

Henria

2nd March 2009, 08:15 PM

Good night everybody !

I will undoubtedly continue this discussion later but just a remark about the names used to quote the british OHSMS standards ("8800, 18001, 18002"): to avoid possible confusion between (e.g.) “18001” and the references ISO 9001 ou 14001 (confusion wich maintains easily the error to believe that "18001" would be "ISO 18001"…) we should not only name it “18001” but always quote it with its complete name “BS OHSAS 18001” (it is righter, it is more professional). You don't think so ?

Cordially.

Randy

2nd March 2009, 08:23 PM

Naaaaaaaaa, real professional in management system know the difference

Helmut Jilling

3rd March 2009, 12:28 AM

Is there a correlation somewhere between having OHSAS 18001 or ANSI Z10 implemented and the lowering of Total Recordable Incident Rates?:frust:

In the companies I work with, I generally see an improvement in safety rates, if they are serious about working their programs. But, often they were pretty good already, they just used the program to make it better.

Henria

3rd March 2009, 03:47 PM

Hello.

I agree with you Helmut. The genuine engine of progress it is the vision and the engagement of the top management (with or without formal “system”). It is besides why this vision (the policy) and engagement (e.g. by providing and organizing the necessary resources) are the head of the of our management system models. These models are only the tool of the top management, they produce only what one does: “the bad workman blames his tools”.

I agree with you Randy too, real professional in management system know the difference between standards even with incomplete quotation. But a forum is practised by two kinds of Net surfers : “neophytes” who seek informations and answers, and “specialists” who can bring them. To help the first I think that the seconds must allwaus use the good concepts, to employ the good vocabulary, and (e.g.) to quote exact references of standards (particularly if there is a risk of ambiguity about the source of these standards as we know).

Best regards.

JCVP1969

23rd March 2009, 05:07 PM

Not presently an ISO Standard but watch this space! Many organisations in the Far East are using it as their Health and Safety Standard and here in the UK you are increasingly being asked for some sort of SMS (Safety Management Standard) just if you were about to ask about text messaging! ;)

I am suprised it has not taken off more in the USA with the litigious culture but hey you are the lucky ones then!!

Randy

23rd March 2009, 05:36 PM

I am suprised it has not taken off more in the USA

What do you base this on? Do you really want to try and guess how much time I spend on 18001 here in the US either training or doing audits? Not only is it in wide use in industry but US Government organizations like NASA and the Army are using it as well.

Henria

23rd March 2009, 07:40 PM

Hi !

Do somebody knows why in the USA, Americain companies, but US Government organizations too, prefer to use an OHSMS British standard, rather than an American standard (ANSI/AIHA Z10 available since 2005) ?

Don't the advisers, consultants or the specialists about management systems make promotion on the OHSMS US standard ? Don't they ensure informations about ANSI/AIHA Z10 standard ? (instead of BS OHSAS 18001)

Cordially.

PS, all, please use the right standard names.

Randy

23rd March 2009, 07:47 PM

Hi !

Do somebody knows why in the USA, Americain companies, but US Government organizations too, prefer to use an OHSMS British standard, rather than an American standard (ANSI/AIHA Z10 available since 2005) ? Yes, and I have previously stated, if you care to read, the primary reason is that Z10 is not recognized outside the US but OHSAS is recognized and accepted as an international standard by those who choose to use it.

Don't the advisers, consultants or the specialists about management systems make promotion on the OHSMS US standard ? No, because of the reasons stated above.

Don't they ensure informations about ANSI/AIHA Z10 standard ? (instead of BS OHSAS 18001) Nobody really cares about the Z10...It is a non-factor

Cordially.

PS, all, please use the right standard names.

As an aside note....is there some problem with the document being BS OHSAS 18001?

Are there some issues that we are not aware of?

What's the deal here?

Henria

24th March 2009, 03:08 AM

Hi!
Thanks Randy.
Opinions and analyses of other people (outside and inside companies) ?
Bye.

Sidney Vianna

26th March 2009, 01:05 PM

Do somebody knows why in the USA, Americain companies, but US Government organizations too, prefer to use an OHSMS British standard, rather than an American standard (ANSI/AIHA Z10 available since 2005) ? In general, most organizations are oblivious to management system standards dealing with occupational health & safety issues. OH&S is typically managed from a strict regulatory compliance perspective; i.e., what do we need to do in order to "comply". Not an iota more. For those "enlightened organizations" that aspire to better manage their OH&S risks and decide to follow a model aligned with a recognized standard, OHSAS 18001 is a much more popular document. The ANSI Z-10 document was created due to political pressure. Some of the American establishment decided to "show those ISO Europeans" that we too, can develop standards. Don't the advisers, consultants or the specialists about management systems make promotion on the OHSMS US standard ? Don't they ensure informations about ANSI/AIHA Z10 standard ? (instead of BS OHSAS 18001)Nope, basically because most consultants (as well as the safety professionals) are blissfully ignorant about the ANSI Z-10 document. Take as evidence the fact that, try as they might to increase the numbers, there is only one CB accredited for certification against the Z-10 document in the US.

JCVP1969

26th March 2009, 01:29 PM

Wish I could understand a word Henria was on about! ;)

Anyway most organisations are forced to do it here as they cannot bid for large local authority or government tenders / contracts without it.

There are a minority that go for it out of the goodness of their own heart but these are the exception.

JCVP1969

29th March 2009, 04:55 AM

Well Randy I am always happy to be proven wrong!

Need any help :D

JP

Randy

29th March 2009, 09:22 AM

You're correct;)

Henria

29th March 2009, 11:59 AM

Hi !

It is really interesting to cross our opinions and points of view between professionals of different countries. But please use simple and clear sentences because it’s difficult to me well understanding if you use allusions or insinuations. English is not my natural language.

Sidney, you said "For those "enlightened organizations" that aspire to better manage their OH&S risks and decide to follow a model aligned with a recognized standard, OHSAS 18001 is a much more popular document", OK. Two comments :
- I think popularity is not inevitably a criterion of excellence of a model of OHSMS. Isn't this? I prefer to put all the models available in front of me and study their characteristics compared to my project.
- But if popularity is a criterion, it is enough that you US guys use your US standard Z10 instead of the British one, and Z10 will be popular too in USA.

You said too "The ANSI Z-10 document was created due to political pressure. Some of the American establishment decided to "show those ISO Europeans" that we too, can develop standards".
If you are thinking to BSI, I can say BSI is only one of the national standard organizations in Europe (it’s not either the European committee for standardization). I don't believe that it is reaction to ISO Europeans because ISO is not only European, and because the reference of Z10 is the international standard ILO-OSH (ILO ISO are very important international organizations but they are not the same one).

You say finally "Take as evidence the fact that, try as they might to increase the numbers, there is only one CB accredited for certification against the Z-10 document in the US".
It’s not a problem because on the one hand certification is not the finality of a OHSMS, and on the other hand if US companies enlarge the request for certification Z10 and the offer of CB will grow bigger.

JCVP you said “Anyway most organizations are forced to do it here as they cannot bid for large local authority or government tenders / contracts without it” and “There are a minority that go for it out of the goodness of their own heart but these are the exception”… but I don’t identify which are the standard in question in each phrase. Can you confirm them ?

Bye.

Randy

29th March 2009, 01:33 PM

Well Henria here's what has probably escaped you....Both Sidney and I work for 2 of the largest Certification Bodies on the planet...Sidney for DNV and I work for BSI...both of our organizations were involved in the development of 18001 from the beginning........we both have extensive background and experience in the subject and what we've been stating isn't based on guesswork or suspicion, it's based on fact.

The utilization of the word "popular" in the context that it was used means that 18001 is the most widely and universally recognized and utilized document for establishing a Health & Safety Management System and achieving or being granted a 3rd party certification....regardless of what "you" think. The numbers speak for themselves.

As Sidney stated, there was some politics involved in the Z10 program as well as some hopes of financial return for those involved. I personally have been ready since 2005 to provide Z10 training services but we (BSI) have not recieved one call as far as I know. Why? Because the whole world is using OHSAS 18001 (except maybe you)

Everyone is curious...Why do you seem to detest OHSAS 18001?

Henria

3rd April 2009, 05:02 PM

Hello Randy !

It did not have escaped me you were related to an organization having direct interests in the diffusion of national BS OHSAS 18001 (ISO 14001 inspired in the beginning, but ISO did not wish to create at the international level with the profit of the ILO). If I would be in such a situation about ILO-OSH I believe you would say: “Henria, your opinion is not completely objective to observe and compare the various appearing OHSMS standards as a specialist in the prevention of occupational H&S”.

In addition the British standard is indeed very known at international level but it’s not a proof of superiority of this H&S model (rather force of its promotion by certification market) and ILO-OSH reputation is growing (if not, why BS OHSAS would take it as reference?).

Another thing, I don’t “hate” BS OHSAS 18001, but I “prefer” ILO-OSH for already evoked reasons (Z10 or BS 8800 seems to me also excellent). And I know I am far from being alone in this case on our planet.

Finally I think that it is necessary to always looking around us the various proposals offered on a given subject and benefitting from opinions of other professionals concerned. A specialized Internet forum is a good means to have this kind of vision. It is what I endeavour to do, “discussing” ideas without “discussing” people.

Cordially.

SteelMaiden

3rd April 2009, 05:30 PM

Henria, it appears that you have studied all the various incarnations of the safety standards. I am not an expert, nor have I really read any of them, but we have discussed the possibility of someday registering to one of them. Can you give us some information as to your preferences and likes and dislikes of each? enquiring minds want to know. thanks.

Randy

3rd April 2009, 08:03 PM

The love of the ILO document is indicitive of one who does not have to committ to anything...The ILO document doesn't have any requirements, it has only suggestions and recommendations...as does the BS8800 (Which by the way formed the basis for 18001)

And yes, you are far from alone about the Z10 because 1 whole company in the United States, which probably has 20 million or so business entities has chosen to use it as a way to demonstrate their undying committment to OHS by seeking a 3rd party certification.

It has not once been stated that 18001 is better than anything else, except for the ILO-OHS which in itself has no strength nor mandates, the message has and continues to be 18001 is the most widely recognized and used method to systematically manage health and safety risk in the workplace.

Paul Simpson

4th April 2009, 05:32 AM

Hello Randy !

It did not have escaped me you were related to an organization having direct interests in the diffusion of national BS OHSAS 18001 ...Now that is verging on a cheap shot. You will find that Randy hass built up a lot of respect on the Cove for his views. One thing he is not known for is keeping his views to himself! :lol:

He may be a part of the organization that developed OHSAS but I am sure he would say if the model was flawed.
... (ISO 14001 inspired in the beginning, but ISO did not wish to create at the international level with the profit of the ILO). Now just because ISO hasn't yet developed a management systems standard for H & S doesn't mean there isn't demand for it (including within some ISO participating countries). The standards development process requires a clear majority in favour and is based on demonstration of need. As more organizations seek OHSAS certification the need is more clearly demonstrated.
If I would be in such a situation about ILO-OSH I believe you would say: “Henria, your opinion is not completely objective to observe and compare the various appearing OHSMS standards as a specialist in the prevention of occupational H&S”. I'm personally not clear what you are trying to say here, Henria. Are you saying that people will accuse you of bias because you are involved in H & S? :confused:

In addition the British standard is indeed very known at international level but it’s not a proof of superiority of this H&S model (rather force of its promotion by certification market) and ILO-OSH reputation is growing (if not, why BS OHSAS would take it as reference?). OK. We know you are against OHSAS as the definitive model but don't yet know what you see as being wrong - as Steel Maiden has said perhaps you can outline where you think the problems are?

Another thing, I don’t “hate” BS OHSAS 18001, but I “prefer” ILO-OSH for already evoked reasons (Z10 or BS 8800 seems to me also excellent). And I know I am far from being alone in this case on our planet. I can't speak for Z10 as I haven't read it.The others I agree provide good guidance for a H & S management system. As Randy has mentioned they are not requirements standards but nevertheless are extremely useful. The guidance and requirements standards are not mutually exclusive. You can design a system around all the best practice and it will be OHSAS compliant (should you wish to go for certification).

Finally I think that it is necessary to always looking around us the various proposals offered on a given subject and benefitting from opinions of other professionals concerned. A specialized Internet forum is a good means to have this kind of vision. It is what I endeavour to do, “discussing” ideas without “discussing” people.

Cordially.
Agreed! :agree:

Randy

4th April 2009, 01:28 PM

It's too bad that Henria doesn't know that one of the organizations that was stongly opposed to the ISO developing an OHS standard was the representative for the USA, ANSI - American National Standards Institute on the basis that there are already too many standards, it would be burdensom for business and employee organizations (unions and such) opposed such a document...

I'd also wager that Henria doesn't know or has failed to recognize that the Z10 document is published by none other than the American National Standards Institute - ANSI, the same organization that opposed an ISO OHS standard and it was ANSI along with the AIHA - American Industrial Hygeine Association that developed Z10 because of the "need" for an OHS standard.

AIHA-ANSI did use ILO-OSH as their guidance tool for the Z10 and there are some very good features that I personally like about Z10 that are much better than 18001, but Z10 does have weakness as does 18001. During the OHSAS18001:2007 revision process there were many comments made during the drafting ( I was a commentor) that some of the Z10 guidance/requirements be adopted as well and the 18001 committee also referenced the ILO-OSH during the revision work...I'll bet Henria didn't know that either. OHSAS 18001:2007 wasn't created in a dark vacum and the INTRODUCTION helps to illustrate this....

From the introduction of OHSAS 18001:2007...
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.

Oh well..................:frust:

Henria

8th April 2009, 04:57 PM

Hi SteelMaiden !

Me (specialist in OH&S prevention since more than 30 years) I have read the principal standards of OHSMS which I could identify. I compared them, and I preferred the international one for various reasons (i.e. his international and tripartite origin giving it a very great legitimacy compared to the employees; its professionalism of prevention and its character clarify makes it available even for the small entities…).

Moreover, my industrial group is french origin* but it is international too. Additional reason to adopt a truly international standard (which it reference frame of all the new national standards of OHSMS or improvement of old).

* note: AFNOR, our French organization of standardization, does not have national OHSMS standard but made promotion of the ILO-OSH.

I advise you the ILO-OSH, but ANSI Z10 and BS 8800 are excellent also (see mainly the appendices and tools).

You said “we have discussed the possibility of someday registering to one of them” but choice of an OHSMS standard concerns primarily the top management of your firm, and not the CB around. Moreover it is not necessary to be “registred” to choose and adopt a OHSMS model and progress in your company about OH&S: periodic auditing of your MS by a qualified and independent auditor (but not inevitably external) is a requirement of all the MS standards, but not the certification, even if many CB tend to induce or maintain confusion between audit and certification of a MS).

Best regards.

Randy

8th April 2009, 06:28 PM

You're an expert on management systems and the 3rd party management system certification process?

I can easily understand using the ILO or BS8800 because neither one requires anything, they just say "should, should, should" over and over again. Should means "you don't hafta if you don't wanna":frust:

Yep, takes a bunch of committment.

Henria you need to understand that neither ILO-OSH or BS8800 mandate that an organization do anything...There has to be some type of disconnect here somewhere.:confused:

Henria

8th April 2009, 06:34 PM

Hi Randy !

You said...

"BS8800 (Which by the way formed the basis for 18001)"
You are right, BS OHSAS 18001:1996 is based on BS 8800:1996, saying more precisely BS OHSAS 18001:1996 is based on the part of BS 8800:1996 presented according to ISO 14001:1996, and not on its part presented according to HS (G) 65 (now disappeared part). This is why when we compare BS OHSAS 18001:1999 and ISO 14001:1996 we see the same thing.

"The ILO document doesn't have any requirements, it has only suggestions and recommendations"
All MS standards are valid strictly voluntary… except the legal standards! Then which difference between choose a model which says to me “you must” or another wich says to me “you would have”?
Indeed:
- on the one hand why choose a voluntarily apply model which says to me “you would have” if I don't try to do it…?
- in addition even those who choose to voluntarily apply a model which says us “you must”, always don't do all that it would be necessary…
- finally, the only standard which can really says “you must” is the legal standard of our country !
- we can say that ILO-OSH (which as others is not a legal standard*) is more realistic while advising “you would have” than others which say “you must” but which is not obligatory legal application!
* I agree with you, no standard has of force or mandate as you says, except our national legal standards...(as OSHA).

I agree with you too when you said that british BS OHSAS 18001 is the most widely used OHSMS standard. But it is not a reason necessary to choose it among the other available ones, because regarding management (it is its exclusive prerogative of the top management of each company) it's not a necessity to be “compatible” formally with the choice of other companies. But is not true for the compatibility of our industrial products with products of other companies (from this the interest of technical standards).

For my part when a partner (even if he choosed BS OHSAS 18001 without knowing ILO-OSH) is interested about my H&S management, he quickly understands what is ILO-OSH and reassured as much as if I had chosen a British, American or Russian OHSMS standard...

I use one of your own sentence to say "It's too bad that You Randy doesn't know that two of the organizations that was stongly opposed to the ISO developing an OHS standard was the representative for USA and France, ANSI and AFNOR"... USA and France (and some other contries refusing to vote OHSMS ISO creation) in same choose to developpe ILO-OSH with other countries through the International Labour Organization. All that is very coherent finally.

Very sincerely Randy I like to divide arguments with you (and the few others which also find interest on my subjects), that leads me to push my own reflexion or analysis on the development and the context of the OHSMS, but personally I don't have anything special to sell.

Cordially.

Randy

8th April 2009, 06:45 PM

Wow:cool:

You really write nice. Thanks for the last, it was the clearest thing you have posted and good as well.

Yeah, you're right about the "voluntary" part of what we call the ISO MS standards. But when there is a "volunteer" that "volunteer" is accepting the whole nine yards (shalls), which except for some minor allowable exclusions become absolutes for that organization who "volunteers"

Except for the Z10,the other documents you mention do not have clearly written within them that strength....Each and every element of the ILO or BS8800 is optional for the organization.

I feel though like I need to aim downwind because my cuffs are starting to drip;)

Henria

8th April 2009, 08:06 PM

Hi Paul !

I do not dispute the person of Randy, and I hope you notes I address to him (and others) with respect, but I have the right to put forward ideas and arguments different of him. My ideas and proposals are also respectable. Are they ?

You says "The standards development process requires a clear majority in favour and is based on demonstration of need", I know that. I also know that almost ten years ago ISO voted "no" BS proposal to create ISO OHSMS standard. ISO refused too collaborate with ILO to ILO-OSH 2001 creation, what a pity ! In at this moment ISO don't want a third vote (in spite new BS proposals).

On the other hand, we know ILO collaborate to ISO 26000 drafting on social responsability (edition soon ?) with many ILO text quotations (of witch ILO-OSH 2001).

You says "Are you saying that people will accuse you of bias because you are involved in H & S?" about my sentence "If I would be in such a situation about ILO-OSH [as Randy about BS OHSAS 18001 for example] I believe you would say: “Henria, your opinion is not completely objective to observe and compare the various appearing OHSMS standards as a specialist in the prevention of occupational H&S”.

You did not understand me, because my English is not controlled. I wanted to say that if I had a direct personal interest dependent on a certain OHSMS standard (if I worked for example for a CB which recommanding only this standard) you will be able to doubt about my objectivity on its qualities compared to other standards. But I am not a CB, I am a H&S officer, I am just a user of OHSMS standards.

You said " We know you are against OHSAS as the definitive model ", I repete : I am not against BS OHSAS 18001, I am in favour of ILO-OSH, I prefere ILO-OSH, I vote for ILO-OSH, what else ? I choose ILo-OSH...

But you Paul, you are prefering BS OHSAS 18001 I think (right ?), I respect your choice, and I don't allow myself to say to you that you would be against ILO-OSH or ANSI Z10 or so and so...

You says " You can design a system around all the best practice and it will be OHSAS compliant (should you wish to go for certification)" thanks ! I can say exactly the same with ILO-OSH ! And effectivly I adopte ILO-OSH in my company (corporate level) and help ours plants and subsidiary companies to design their local OHSMS and to progress with compliance to this international standard. Ours plants wish or not go for ILO-OSH certification (it's not my corporate requirement), and some of them go even from BS OHSAS certification to ILO-OSH certification !

Bye, it's late for me in France !

Paul Simpson

15th April 2009, 04:48 PM

Hi Paul !

I do not dispute the person of Randy, and I hope you notes I address to him (and others) with respect, but I have the right to put forward ideas and arguments different of him. My ideas and proposals are also respectable. Are they ?Sometimes your posts may be read as implying more than you probably mean.

You says "The standards development process requires a clear majority in favour and is based on demonstration of need", I know that. I also know that almost ten years ago ISO voted "no" BS proposal to create ISO OHSMS standard. ISO refused too collaborate with ILO to ILO-OSH 2001 creation, what a pity ! In at this moment ISO don't want a third vote (in spite new BS proposals). If you selectively quote then you miss the point. Now just because ISO hasn't yet developed a management systems standard for H & S doesn't mean there isn't demand for it (including within some ISO participating countries). The standards development process requires a clear majority in favour and is based on demonstration of need. As more organizations seek OHSAS certification the need is more clearly demonstrated.So what I said was just because there isn't a requirements standard for OH & S doesn't mean there won't be one. As more organisations around the word choose to go for certification then ISO may decide the current BS deserves to be adopted in its current or adapted form as an ISO requirements standard - there that's not so difficult, is it? :)

On the other hand, we know ILO collaborate to ISO 26000 drafting on social responsability (edition soon ?) with many ILO text quotations (of witch ILO-OSH 2001).

You says "Are you saying that people will accuse you of bias because you are involved in H & S?" about my sentence "If I would be in such a situation about ILO-OSH [as Randy about BS OHSAS 18001 for example] I believe you would say: “Henria, your opinion is not completely objective to observe and compare the various appearing OHSMS standards as a specialist in the prevention of occupational H&S”. You did not understand me, because my English is not controlled. I wanted to say that if I had a direct personal interest dependent on a certain OHSMS standard (if I worked for example for a CB which recommanding only this standard) you will be able to doubt about my objectivity on its qualities compared to other standards. But I am not a CB, I am a H&S officer, I am just a user of OHSMS standards.I think I understand a bit better now. Randy and others are promoting certification to OHSAS 18001 above ANSI Z 10 (the two requirements standards). It may be because he works for BSI - I personally don't think so.

Nobody is putting ILO - OSH forward for certification as it is guidance - not requirements. Full stop - period - point! :)

You said " We know you are against OHSAS as the definitive model ", I repete : I am not against BS OHSAS 18001, I am in favour of ILO-OSH, I prefere ILO-OSH, I vote for ILO-OSH, what else ? I choose ILo-OSH... We are in violent agreement. My question was why - you have not yet answered that question for me.

But you Paul, you are prefering BS OHSAS 18001 I think (right ?), I respect your choice, and I don't allow myself to say to you that you would be against ILO-OSH or ANSI Z10 or so and so... My personal favourite OH & S management systems standard is the HSE's HS (G) 65 but it is not a requirements standard. I only know OHSAS as a requirements standard so (if pressed :D) will have to say it is my number one cast iron favourite!

You says " You can design a system around all the best practice and it will be OHSAS compliant (should you wish to go for certification)" thanks ! I can say exactly the same with ILO-OSH ! And effectivly I adopte ILO-OSH in my company (corporate level) and help ours plants and subsidiary companies to design their local OHSMS and to progress with compliance to this international standard. Ours plants wish or not go for ILO-OSH certification (it's not my corporate requirement), and some of them go even from BS OHSAS certification to ILO-OSH certification !

Bye, it's late for me in France !Again we are in violent agreement. If you design a good system it will meet any requirements standard and any guidance. That was my point!

Marc

15th April 2009, 05:28 PM

"There is more than one way to skin a cat" my grandmother used to say.

What is right and works in one company is not necessarily the best way for another company to do it. It's just like implementations. Each consultant has their own methodology. Each surely believes their methodology is 'best', but we all know there is no single 'best' way, just as we know one implementation method which is 'best' for one client company may not be the 'best' implemtation strategy in a different client company.

Just some tempering thoughts.

Randy

15th April 2009, 06:19 PM

Wow, this has been fun:notme:

My answer back about my lack of enthusiasm with the Z10 has been and is this...out of the hundreds of people I meet and talk with every year and since the Z10 was published in 2005 the grand total interest with Z10 that I have seen and heard is -0-, zero, none, nichts, nada...there is little to no interest with Z10 in the USA that has come my way. On the other hand interest in and use of 18001 in the US and globally is on the increase. The money, time and emphasis is going to go where the interest is. This has nothing to do with my employer, the title of the document or who prints it.

SK Vision

17th April 2009, 06:00 PM

Does anyone have a template for a gap analysis for 18001?

Would love to take a look.

Sarah

Randy

17th April 2009, 09:11 PM

Hey, welcome:bigwave:

Template? Yep, it's called turning the shalls into questions....

The organization shall... = Has the organization....?

That's all anybody does, including CB's

Henria

18th April 2009, 03:51 AM

Hi Paul !

Nice to continue our exchange.

“Sometimes my posts may be read implying more than I probably mean”, undoubtedly also because my English level is not subtle enough (and contrary it obstructs me to well understanding your subtleties of language).

In connection with your sentence “Nobody is putting ILO - OSH forward for certification as it is guidance - not requirements. Full stop - period - point! “: my 1rst objective as specialist about H&S prevention is H&S employees, the 1rst objective of an OHSM too. I inevitably use obligatory tools (legal standards) but also of the no-obligatory tools (standards of voluntary application). Among the seconds there are particularly the OHSMS. I compare them and I choose which one seems me the best. I observe two important points (to answer you):
1- none of these standards contains certification requirement (certification is an added accessory, plated, on the system, but is not a structural element).
2- all these standards are exclusively councils contrary to the legal standards they are only of volunteers application (verbs conjugation don’t change anything with that).
(3- moreover CB can practise ILO-OSH certification)

I ask you to consider item 2 well: no standard of management system (except if it were legal!) has really authority to impose requirements* to the company managers. Consequently saying “shall” or “should” don’t have any importance to help the companies to use well such or such council (on this point ILO-OSH is more realistic and respectful of company mangement). In both cases, what is important is the quality of elements of the management system proposed to us. The companies can use different models of OHSMS, so I think whereas external consultants should enrich their offer and their councils with the companies compared to these various standards existing (the international one or the different nationals which are developed) instead of proposing only the British one as it is often the case. * Accepted guidance or volontary requirements… which real difference if legal requirements? Moreover OHSMS are not mistaken there car they recognize and use the supremacy of legal standards of our countries… (which besides often constitutes a true OHSMS as it is the case in Europe of which France).

Why I am prefering ILO-OSH? I already evoked it for example as of my message of the 1rst March, but I summarize:
- my country did not create one OHSMS standard (choosing rather ILO-OSH), then I look at all that exists elsewhere, the international standard ILO but also standards of countries around.
- comparing this international standard and the British national standard (most practised because double of ISO 14001) I note that ILO-OSH is more explicit and more professional (recall: I am H&S specialist), but other national standards are also very good (it does not have always great differences there; if ILO-OSH did not exist I would hesitate between BS 8800 and ANSI Z10…).
- ILO-OSH source (UN context) is a specialized tripartite organism (states, companies, employees), mandating precisely about working in ours companies at the international level, and thus this reference frame is more legitimate to treat OHS.
- it gives a better place to the employees and to the health aspects too (what is particularly judicious for OHS subject).
- it is the reference towards which converge national standards existing (when a country has which it or creates one).

And you Paul, which are the reasons of your HS (G) 65 preference?

Bye.

Sidney Vianna

30th April 2009, 05:26 PM

Conspicuously absent from the ISO portfolio: An OHSMS Standard.

ISO standards support objectives of World Day
for Safety and Health at Work (http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1220)

International Standards developed by ISO for topics ranging from protective clothing and machine safety to safety signs and ergonomics support the objectives of today's World Day for Safety and Health at Work, an initiative of the International Labour Organization (ILO).
According to ILO statistics, every 15 seconds, a worker diesfrom a work-related accident or disease and 160 workers have a work-related accident. Many such accidents can be prevented by the implementation of ISO standards and this is reflected by ILO having liaison status with 35 ISO technical committees (TCs) and subcommittees (SCs).
ISO Secretary-General Rob Steele comments: "ISO's portfolio of more than 18 000 standards includes hundreds whose implementation can increase safety and promote health in the workplace. In addition to protecting workers they provide guidance for employers when making purchasing decisions as well as state-of-the-art technical detail to underpin regulations and legislation. Because they are International Standards, they help to harmonize safety and health requirements around the world and thus facilitate cross-border trade."
ISO technical committees and subcommittee whose work is particularly relevant to the concerns of the World Day for Safety and Health at Work include the following.
ISO/TC 94, Personal safety – Protective clothing and equipment develops standards which, when implemented, can ensure that protective clothing meets the level of protection needed by employees and provide guidance for purchasing managers and regulators. ISO/TC 94 has developed 97 standards and 28 countries participate in its work with another 35 as observers.
Standardization of general principles for safety of machinery incorporating terminology and methodology is the main activity of ISO/TC 199, Safety of machinery.
The main parties involved in the work are industry (manufacturers and designers), governmental health and safety bodies, national boards for occupational health and safety, public authorities, trade union confederations and employers' associations. Both the ILO and the World Health Organization have liaison status with ISO/TC 199.
ISO/TC 199 has developed 35 standards and has 27 participating countries and 23 observer countries.
The general public, workers and/or the environment can be exposed to hazardous substances in air, whether occuring naturally or released by industrial processes or household appliances and products. Therefore, the presence of these substances in air, emissions to air, and in indoor air needs to be limited. Developing standardized methods for measuring the concentration of air pollutants is the work of ISO/TC 146, Air quality,and especially of its subcommittee SC 2, Workplace atmospheres. It has developed 27 standards and has 21 participating countries and 13 observer countries.
Standardization in the field of graphical symbols is the work of ISO/TC 145/SC 2, Safety identification, signs, shapes, symbols and colours. Graphical symbols are an important means of conveying danger and safety related information in the workplace, concisely and independently of language – an important consideration in view of today's mobility of labour.ISO/TC 145/SC 2 has developed 14 standards; it has 14 participating countries and 16 observer countries.
Thestandards developed by ISO/TC 159, Ergonomics/SC 4, Ergonomics of human-system interaction, helps to meet requirements for designing work systems, work equipment, and products according to human characteristics in order to enhance the usability of these products and thus the productivity, health, safety and well-being of the operator or user. ISO/TC 159/SC 4 has developed 50 standards; 22 countries participate in its work with another 11 as observers.
Exposure of workers to intense noise or noise over long periods can lead to hearing damage and other physiological impairments. The standards developed by ISO/TC 43, Acoustic, and especially its subcommittee SC 1, Noise, can lead to lower noise exposure levels in the workplace therefore reduce the risk for hearing damage and annoyance. ISO/TC 43/SC 1 has developed 117 standards and has 25 participating countries and 18 observer countries.
ISO/TC 108, Mechanical vibration, shock and condition monitoring, and its subcommittees, particularly SC 4, Human exposure to mechanical vibration and shock, develops International Standards which can help reduce the harmful effects of vibration on humans in the workplace. These standards are also useful for the design and monitoring of workplace machinery. ISO/TC 108/SC 4 has developed 26 standards; 19 participating countries participate in its work and another 14 have observer status.
Other ISO standards with relevance to safety and health in the workplace address topics as varied as equipment for fire fighting and fire protection, welding, tractors and machinery for agriculture and forestry, competency requirements for crane inspectors, risk management in cold workplaces and new subjects such as safer ship recycling and the manufacturing and handling of nanomaterials.


	Web Elsmar.com