Dear
I am looking for ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 specific for Occupational Health and safety management system .
is there any information available for such standard
thank you

Dear
I am looking for ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 specific for Occupational Health and safety management system .
is there any information available for such standard
thank you


You can find the standard here

http://www.ansi.org/

Dear
I am looking for ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 specific for Occupational Health and safety management system .
is there any information available for such standard
thank you

Welcome to the Cove. :D
The standard is available direct from ANSI (http://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FAIHA+Z10-2005). We don't share copyright documents here. Is there something in particular you want to know about it?

Dear
I am looking for ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 specific for Occupational Health and safety management system .
is there any information available for such standard
thank you


If you are looking for information, read the attachment in this post (http://elsmar.com/Forums/showpost.php?p=143899&postcount=5) and threads in this search (http://Elsmar.com/Forums/search.php?do=process&titleonly=1&query=z10).

Hi.

The american OHSMS standard ANSI/AIHA Z10 is an excellent standard. It takes as a starting point the international ILO-OSH standard.

For me* ILO-OSH if there is not national standard in your country (or if you are an international compagny), ANSI/AIHA Z10 in the USA and BS 8800 if british, are better OHSMS frames than british BS OHSAS 18001 for built a relevant OHSMS.

* analyzes, reflexions and experiments of an old H&S officer in an international group (many.

Bye.

thanks for help
actually I would like to know about the main differences between ANSI-AIHA Z 10-2005 and OHSAS 18001 .

thanks for help
actually I would like to know about the main differences between ANSI-AIHA Z 10-2005 and OHSAS 18001 .

Very few organizations use the Z-10, especially in the USA.

OHSAS 18001 is used by thousands of organization all over the globe.

And regardless of what some may say...OHSAS 18001:2007 has been recognized as an international standard for health and safety management and is the most widely recognized.

The ILO document is nice, but it's kinda wishy-washy because it mandates nothing other than saying organizations should instead of must.

Hi !

Mohameda1979, if you want to know the main differences between ANSI-AIHA Z 10-2005 and OHSAS 18001, the best way is to read and analyse yourself the OHSMS standards you want to compare. It will be very teaching. It is what I did myself (including by confronting them with international QMS and EMS standards).

Randy, in other discussion we already exchanged our arguments. ANSI/AIHA is young in the USA and thus still little known, but it is the standard of your country and it is a good standard (more explicit and more professional than the British one). The British standard although known internationally is a British standard and is not an international or ISO standard. The international one it is ILO-OSH. It is increasingly known (the different national standards are inspired some and refer to him, even ISO!). All these standards applies are strictly voluntary and nonobligatory, then making difference between "shall" and "should" is without effect (moreover only the legislation of a country can really say “must”). This vocabulary argument is perhaps the last chance argument regarding consistency and relevance of the various standards.

Mohameda1979, the offer of OHSMS standards is more open than in the past. Analyze them and make your choice (mine is the international ILO-OSH but ANSI/AIHA Z10 or BS 8800 are good too). If your country does not have a national OHMSM standard you can choose international standard ILO-OSH or the national standard of another country which will appear you most relevant to implement OHS management in your company. There does not need to choose the same model as others. There is not no need for choosing what others chose in the past, or to choose what certain consultants want to make you choose. It is only about your internal choice.

Bye.

It's really a pity when an expert doesn't understand the intent of the documents being discussed and the difference between shall and should.

Here's a small example of the difference between the ILO-OSH and OHSAS 18001

ILO-OSH 2001; 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.


OHSAS 18001; 4.4.1 Resources, roles, responsibility, accountability and
authority - Top management shall take ultimate responsibility for OH&S and the OH&S management system.

In use, the word "should" allows one to choose either to do or not to do, whereas the word "shall" doesn't allow that choice, "shall" is a requirement to do what is required.

Simply put, any organization can claim to meet the guidelines of ILO-OSH 2001 while at the same time exercising the option (should) to pick and choose which portions it wants to do or not do.

Because an organization "voluntarily" chooses to apply either the Z-10 or 18001 as its method for managing OHS issues it, the organization, makes either one of those documents a mandate that it must meet by fulfilling the "shalls" contained within them. This has nothing to do with the law or legislative requirement to do so. Because neither Z-10 or 18001 allow an organization to exclude itself from meeting all requirements (shalls), the documents have greater strength.

Additionally it is much easier to audit and verify that "shalls" have been met than "shoulds" for purposes of 3rd party certification...which is probably what you might be looking for.

Here is another part of 18001;

OHSAS 18001 now refers to itself as a standard, not a specification, or document, as in the earlier edition. This reflects the increasing adoption of OHSAS 18001 as the basis for national standards on occupational health and safety management systems.

OHSAS 18001 is being used by multiple nations as the template for OHS systems....Multiple nations means International and it is a standard so therefore it is an International Standard. Sooner or later the "duh" factor has to kick in on this.

I work for a major 3rd party certification body and I am an OHS management systems auditor and I do not believe that we do ILO-OSH 2001 certification, we do perform OHSAS 18001 and we will perform ANSI Z-10 system certification.

And oh yes, to cut Henria off before she goes completely nuts, my employer's global headquaters is in the United Kingdom and it's called BSI, and yes it is the same BSI that prints the 18001 standard (But there were an additional 40+ other organizations from around the globe that worked on the contents that were not under the control or management of BSI). I was a minor particpant in both ANSI Z-10 and OHSAS 18001, so I've done a bit more than just read them. (If Henria wasn'rt invited to those parties I'm sorry)

All of the documents have strengths and weaknesses, none are perfect. If you have to choose then a correct choice might be what a good majority are choosing.

In use, the word "should" allows one to choose either to do or not to do, whereas the word "shall" doesn't allow that choice, "shall" is a requirement to do what is required.

Simply put, any organization can claim to meet the guidelines of ILO-OSH 2001 while at the same time exercising the option (should) to pick and choose which portions it wants to do or not do.While I agree with Randy's underlying premise, I would offer that a well-intended organization, using a guidance document can have a much more robust system, reaching a higher system performance, compared to a marketing-seeking company, attaining "façade certification" against a requirements-driven standard.

In my experience, the biggest differentiation is the driver behind the effort: Is this certification just a marketing ploy, or is top management really serious about having a robust system to improve the occupational health & safety performance of the organization?

Is this certification just a marketing ploy, or is top management really serious about having a robust system to improve the occupational health & safety performance of the organization?


This is always the question with any certification. Is it for real or is is to just punch a ticket?

Hi !

It is a pity really to not understand there is no difference between “should” and “shall” in a volontary standard (a normative organization don't have legislative power to realy sau "shall" and be obeyed, "shall" is just a hope as "should")… A proof: our audits reveal every day nonsatisfied requirements of a "shall" standard in many companies. In a way ILO is more realistic while saying "should". Why a company preferring the ILO-OSH (standard “should”) for its qualities wouldn't then satisfy its "should" requirements? Perhaps Randy you don't understand*, but more and more of companies understand the ILO-OSH interest perfectly. And opposed to what you says it's as easy to audit any “should” as to audit “shall” OHSMS requirements.
* But as John Lennon was singing : "imagine"... these no should just shall... it's easy if you try... and you have exactly the same ILO-OSH requirements (as made by AFNOR with ILO blessing...). Myself I can imagine the reverse in connection with ANSI Z10 or BS 8800, without denaturing the interest of these models.

You said "OHSAS 18001 now refers to itself as a standard, not a specification, or document, as in the earlier edition". Yes. It's not a big difference for a company which chooses this standard. But you forget still and always to quote the true reference of this standard : BS OHSAS 18001. Curious on behalf of a standards specialist, but comprehensible from a BSI epresentative to avoid recalling that OHSAS is British (but not international even many companies in the world use it). "There were an additional 40+ other organizations from around the globe that worked on the contents that were not under the control or management of BSI"... Yes. But standards of really international organizations are representative of a greater number of members. In addition ISO (a really international organization) don't decide to create an ISO OHSMS stantard (because ILO-OSH) and its very next standard on the social responsibility (ISO 26000) quotes the ILO-OSH… (ILO, a other really international organization).

I don't have anything to sell and no commercial interest to defend, just some ideas, of a senior H&S officer experienced belonging to an international group, to share and confront with other people interested by occupational health & safety management in our compagnies :
- now there are several national standards OHSMS available, it is a fact.
- there is only one international OHSMS (produced by ILO ; often taken as reference by the national standards ), it is another fact (as the fact these is only one EMS standard for example).
- for me ILO-OSH and BS 8800 or ANSI/AIHA Z10 are better than BS OHSAS 18001, it is not a fact but it is my personal judgement and I am not alone to do it.
- choice of an OHSMS model depends on the top management in each company (and its internal specialists), because this kind of text is a internal voluntary act (i.e. not imposed by standardization organization or certification body or by other companies) contrary to legal obligations (imposed from outside).

Cordially Randy.

Post Scriptum : Sorry I don't understand what was the "duh" factor (please do you want explain to me ?)

Hi !

Post Scriptum : Sorry I don't understand what was the "duh" factor (please do you want explain to me ?)

Duh (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/duh)!

More "Duh (http://www.think-ink.net/doh/meaning.htm)!"

Stijloor.

Hi again !

I agree with you Sidney, and I prefer no certification rather to risk a “alibi” certification (I know that is opposed to CB interests). The finality of a management system is certainly not the certification (certification is neither an element of the management system nor a requirement of the standards). It is perhaps why standards as ILO-OSH or ISO 26000 don't aim certification.

Thanks Stijloor about "duh" definition...

Good night (for me).


Post-Scriptum for Randy about your phrase "And oh yes, to cut Henria off before she goes completely nuts..." (6th October 2009, 08:54 AM) : I cannot really translate this formula to French, but I have impression that it's not very respectful towards me. I never use this kind of matter towards a Net-surfer because I think that we shall-should (!) sharing or confrontind ideas without attacking the person. I invite you to respect me as I respect you.
Information: I am a man (my name is Henri, but there is another "Henri" at elsmar.com then I added “a"…). Cordially nevertheless, because to discuss OHSMS interests me much.