ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2015 Amendment 1 Published - Determination of Climate Change Relevance

[Golfman25]

I've notified my clients for the next 6 months (all standards) and I did that back when all this started.

The answer was "not relevant", but they would continue to evaluate as part of the ongoing risk assessment process, it's included in the "Context" and was part of the MR.

But here’s the thing. How does the auditor know it isn’t relevant? What’s to stop them from going further and questioning the reasoning?

 

[Randy]

But here’s the thing. How does the auditor know it isn’t relevant? What’s to stop them from going further and questioning the reasoning?

Their determination, not mine. Unless proven otherwise from objective evidence, what is stated is true. An auditor is required to objective & impartial, going further than from what is stated is going outside the boundaries of objectivity and impartiality. 99.99999999% of quality auditors have no business going into the realm of CC and wouldn't know causal factors if a potato sack full of them landed on their head.

 

[Scanton]

But here’s the thing. How does the auditor know it isn’t relevant? What’s to stop them from going further and questioning the reasoning?

For some reason, all I had ringing round my head when I read this is that line from the film JFK "How do you know who your daddy is?, Cos your mumma told you so!"

Now I know that some people have the DNA evidence that shows them that the person that they believe is their father, actually is the father.
The rest of us just take our mum at her word and move on with our lives.

Would you ask for the video evidence from the day of the internal audit to make sure they actually witnessed everything they documented or just believe what they have written down for you?

How far should you take the evidence of any clause? I think that Randy has answered that question.

 

[Paul Simpson]

I've notified my clients for the next 6 months (all standards) and I did that back when all this started.

The answer was "not relevant", but they would continue to evaluate as part of the ongoing risk assessment process, it's included in the "Context" and was part of the MR.

I know this is a 9001 thread, @Randy - but you said this was an EMS audit, no?

Not sure how they can say CC is not relevant. I could understand an organisation saying that they have higher priorities for action at the current time.

But not relevant to the environmental context?

 

[Bev D]

Not to feed the paranoia (of course just because you are paranoid, that doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you), the answer to Golfman’s question is: there isn’t anything to stop them and the guidance even opens the door to further questioning…the only thing that avoids a biased ‘finding’ is to contest it or find another auditor/registrar, or throw out your cert.

 

[Ed Panek]

The challenge is not "Yes, as an auditor I see evidence they did X." but with the opposite. As an auditor, I don't see evidence they considered CC and it is a Minor/Major finding.

How to address this finding? Form a team to respond. Who and what capabilities must they have individually or collectively?

1) Understand the requirement(s)
2) Understand product manufacturing and sourcing stream
3) Have the ability to implement and direct change at a corporate level (C Suite)
4) Understand feasibility and costs of alternate technologies for the same product(s)
5) Understand CC to make a decisive statement about the impact
6) Persuade shareholders and investors to buy in
7) Know what competitors are doing about this

That's not 1 or 2 people. That's probably a large group of people.

 

[Randy]

I know this is a 9001 thread, @Randy - but you said this was an EMS audit, no?

Not sure how they can say CC is not relevant. I could understand an organisation saying that they have higher priorities for action at the current time.

But not relevant to the environmental context?

Yeah I know. We're looking at an Arkansas facility, making aftermarket products that has not a single customer making any kind of enquiries or requirements on them. This "newfangled CC thing" isn't relevant because they've been addressing climate protection and prevention of pollution that could lead to negative impact for 24+ years of certification anyway as can be validated through past and ongoing objectives, improvements and planning, therefore CC isn't any big deal to get wrapped around the axel over. (As the Env manager put it "We're not getting our "t** in the wringer trying to jump through hoops".

CC or its potential is important, but their definition of "relevant" may be different than someone else's definition, so this recent emphasis isn't relevant, their focus on environment (climate) has been imbedded in their organizational culture. (Oh yeah many of the nearly 1,000 employees grew up on local farms and still farm as well (heavy, heavy farm country in the Mississippi river valley delta region) and these folks understand "climate", it's in their DNA).

 

[Randy]

Sitting here outside DEN (that Denver International) typing up Day 1 of a QMS recertification and lightning struck me.................I'm doing a multi-site with 29 locations with a virtual MS where every location uses all the same level 2 type docs, may or may not have localized level 3 instructions and common records identified party by the individual location identifiers using the exact same database for everything. Each location will do their own localized MR per QTR and feed up to the high corporate level as inputs into the overall MS reviews.

I could go on and on, but what I'm getting at is a multi-site that functions as a large single entity .... even the carpet, paint schemes & pictures/art are the same. Every location even has a spiral staircase that ends in a large breakroom up from the lobby and the culture does not change from Long Beach & Greensboro to La Le Bourget. What I'm getting at is this, the determination of CC doesn't rest with the locations and their management to do as parts of a multi-site, it rests solely on the top level to flow out and down.

I may have been addressing this incorrectly up until now (3 locations out of 5 for this year not counting the HQ) and I'm passing my thoughts on to my leadership as well as passing on to you guys.

I'm curious as to how Sidney and some of the other 3rd party folks think about this. It's not going away, so we need to do it as painless and sensible as we can.