AIAG - OHSAS 18001 Certification May Not Be Money Well Spent

[Paul Simpson]

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 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).

 

[Randy]

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.

 

[Henria]

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.

 

[Randy]

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

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.

 

[Henria]

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.

 

[Stijloor]

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.

 

[Henria]

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.

 

[Zubin]

Hi, I know this is an old thread, but think my question is relevant and will be answered here.

I would like to know if it is mandated to have an accreditation for OHSAS 18001 standard?. I was of the impresion that it was not needed, but a discussion with one from a certifying body created little confusion. If the certificate is from one among the project group (listed above by Randy), is it not valid internationally?. Will there be a trouble while changing the certification body if the certificate in not from an accreditation body?.

Thanks
Zubin

 

[Henria]

Hello;
In national models of OHSMS (one of the two BS, ANSI/AIHA, CSA, AS/NZS, GOST ...) or in the international model (ILO-OSH), all voluntary, there is no certification requirement ... and I know no country whose regulations require certification of OHSMS of the compagnies... So you're free to your independant OSHMS audit as you wants, with who you wants.

Bye.