Can a Quality Policy include Health and Safety as an Objective?

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by pldey42

For the auditor, why not audit quality aspects against ISO 9001 and safety against their own safety procedures - which might be incomplete by ISO 18000standards, but surely better than nothing. I'd rather a safety harness without a hazard assessment, than none at all.

Hope this helps,
Pat

No, it does not help. Firstly, there is NO ISO 18000. Unless you are talking about RFID devices. You probably mean OHSAS 18001.

How can you ensure that a QMS auditor is competent to assess the effectiveness of an organization OHSMS? Because if their OHS procedures are inadequate and a QMS auditor "gives them a clean bill of health" (pun intended), while the workforce is subjected to unacceptable hazards and risks, the QMS auditor is doing them a disservice, and exposing him/her and his/her employer to liability issues.

[howste]

I realize that this thread is in the ISO 9001 forum, but consider this: TS 16949, a quality management system standard, does address personnel safety.

In Reply to Parent Post by ISO/TS 16949:2009

6.4.1 Personnel safety to achieve conformity to product requirements

Product safety and means to minimize potential risks to employees shall be addressed by the organization, especially in the design and development process and in manufacturing process activities.

Would it be inappropriate to include anything relevant to safety in a quality policy, when some of the QMS requirements are safety-related?

[Sidney Vianna]

In Reply to Parent Post by howste

I realize that this thread is in the ISO 9001 forum, but consider this: TS 16949, a quality management system standard, does address personnel safety.

I wonder if that requirement ever gets assessed against and written up, during an TS16949 audit. The new AS9100C has a similar requirement as well in the note under product quality objectives. It just proves the point that standard developers are from perfect.

[John Broomfield]

In Reply to Parent Post by Ron tollett

Was wondering if a Quality policy could include Health and Safety as an objective?

Ron,

Why not? QA is defined as providing confidence that requirements will be fulfilled.

Therefore the QMS can deliver assurance of:

1. Customer requirements being fulfilled
2. Employee requirements being fulfilled
3. Other stakeholder requirements being fulfilled
4. Objectives being fulfilled

In this context you may prefer to change your QMS to a BMS as is required by the IRIS standard for the rail industry.

The BMS runs the business and everyone is engaged in determining, reconciling and meeting requirements for A, B, C and D.

All of the system is subject to internal audit.

The BMS may have a wider scope than the scope you have also defined for certification purposes.

Do not limit your management system by worrying about the external auditor.

Focus on the needs of your organization instead.

John

[Randy]

In Reply to Parent Post by Sidney Vianna

I wonder if that requirement ever gets assessed against and written up, during an TS16949 audit. The new AS9100C has a similar requirement as well in the note under product quality objectives. It just proves the point that standard developers are from perfect.

Sidney! What you saiiiiiiid. You're gonna get reported and it's going to go on your permanent record if you keep talking like that

[Groo3]

For my site, we put the EHS&S piece into a separate Responsible Care policy statement. That is what works best for us.

The only time we blur the line between our QMS and our RCMS is on our internal audits, those may combine elements of each.

[Ettore]

In Reply to Parent Post by Ron tollett

Was wondering if a Quality policy could include Health and Safety as an objective?

There are some company where there is one quality manager and one Health and safeth manager. If you are in this situation. pay attention before to do it.

[foiley]

It is not advised to have them intergrated.

From HB39-2003 - Guidance on integrating the requriements for Quality, Environmental and Health and Safety... (realise that it is an AS/NZS standard for safety, but there is no ISO Safety Standard).

All three Standards require that a policy relevant to their subject matter be established. The Quality Stndard and the Environment Standard require that the top management define the relevant policy while the Heatlh and Safety Standard simply requires that the policy be approved by top management.

For an integrated approach to policy, it should be clear that all your policies are a part of the overall corporate polciy. It may be appropriate to have some combined organsiational policies, however, it is often better to have specific quality for Quality, Environmental and Health and Safety as each of the standards has some specific requriemetns which are related to their focus. All your policies must be complementary and compatible

(My Emphasis). Reference to ISO 9001 - 5.3; ISO 1001 4.3 and AS/NZS 4801 4.3

I guess, you could have some level of integration, you cannot have a Quality business that has no commitment to Safety or Environment.

But I look at the use of the Policies - their use are for strategic direction; compliance; and fulfilling client requirements.

While not in direct answer to your questions - I have had to split an integrated Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Policy in the past because it was rejected by some clients. I still think in terms of HSE, because the collaration between AS/NZS 4801 Safety and ISO 14001 Environmental.