Definition Corrective and Preventive Action definitions - ISO 9001 vs. ISO 14001

E

energy

#11
Re: Re: I'm Slow

Originally posted by Marc
No. That is not what I'm saying. I'm suggesting that the roadmap for the standards is that when ISO 9001 is revised again 14001 will be integrated into ISO 9001 and they will become one and the same - probably retaining the ISO 9001 'name'.
Uh Maybe I'm real slow!:frust: If they become one and the same, can I register to ISO9001:200X without going through the environmental crap?:ko: :smokin:
 
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
B

Bruce Wade

#12
It is our understanding, from our registrar, that the next iteration of ISO 14001 will be voted on and issued sometime in the fall of 2002. It will remain, at that time, a separate document requiring its own unique certification. This will continue allowance of registration to one standard, independent of the other.

(BTW: We hold dual, simultaneous certification. Our three year cycle has come to a close, so we are attempting ISO 9001:2000 on our re-certification, coming soon! The topic of the new ISO 14001 standard came up in meetings with our registrar, who questioned if we wanted to "re-up" with ISO 9002:1994 and ISO 14001:1996 certification in the short-term and only "modify" our documentation once, when the new ISO 14001 standard was released. We opted to recert to the new QMS standard and modify again, as necessary...)

The ISO 9001:2000 standard took into account the structure of ISO 14001:1996 in numbering aspects, etc., to ease integration of the standards. The new ISO 14001 will continue on this path. However, it is our understanding while the systems may be more closely integrated in the documentation, they remain separate and distinct.

We further understand a potential "hang up" slowing the process is the more "leftist" direction the European community wants to take the standard, with respect to interactions with third parties. The USA apparently desires a more "closed" standard...
 
A

Alf Gulford

#13
Hi, Bruce-

Re:
"We further understand a potential "hang up" slowing the process is the more "leftist" direction the European community wants to take the standard, with respect to interactions with third parties. The USA apparently desires a more "closed" standard..."

Can you clarify this a little for me? I've been convinced for some time that, somewhere around 2005, ISO 14001 will be part of the price of doing business in Europe (and later on, some of the other geo-political regions). But I'm not following your 'third party interaction' and 'closed standard' references.

I appreciate your input. It sounds like you've got excellent sources of information.

Thanks.

Alf
 
B

Bruce Wade

#14
Alf,

The comment, regarding the reaction of the European community to modification of ISO 14001, came from our registrar during our last surveillance audit. The registrar noted we we still quite fuzzy in our procedure for communication of environmental aspects and impacts to interested third parties.

The difference in opinion between the European and USAian members of the technical advisory group modifying the standard revolves around how available "proprietary" information is made to third parties. THe example our registrar used was: if Greenpeace showed up in our lobby and demanded evnironmental impact data, it is perfectly permissable to deny access, provided we documented this in a procedure denying non-regulatory third parties access, under ISO 14001:1996. The European contingent views this as inappropriate while the USAian contingent views this as important to continue including as it allows control of information regarding proprietary manufacturing processes.

In the USA, the issue is essentially moot as any interested third party, given enough resources, can get the information from regulatory bodies. In essense, the USA position is, "why make it easier for third parties to get information they already have limited access to?". Apparently, this access is not as available in Europe...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Alf Gulford

#15
Thank you. That helps a lot.

Guess I'd better print out some of the discussion from the 14001 thread and start reading up on this.

Alf
 

Marc

Hunkered Down for the Duration with a Mask on...
Staff member
Admin
#16
That is why (IMHO) in the US ISO 14001 has not 'taken off'. We have regulatory 'departments' at the local, state and federal levels. For the most part, ISO 14001 - understanding the intent to be to reduce pollution, etc. - doesn't add to what they're already doing.

I'm working with a transportation company which has been ISO 9001:1994 for about 3 years. In April 2002 we have planned an ISO 'upgrade to the 2000 version as well as 14001 (Ford is requiring it). As I started going through the requirements - from identification on - they were already identifying and reacting. The process is going quickly and well.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#17
It's all an issue of interpretation and language differences with both the old and revised standards.

The Europeans are more concerned with hugging trees and protecting little furry things and we are more concerned with turning a buck ($) while at the same time trying to address environmental issues.

The existing standard allows a lot of leeway in how 3rd parties are addressed and we (USA) don't want to change that. Some of the same stuff came up when the EPA came our with Part 112.(r) Risk Management Plan requirements a few years back. It was decided that public disclosure of nasty chemical quantities was not a real smart thing to do.
 
J

JodiB

#18
Criminey cricket

Europeans aren't more interested in "hugging trees". All you have to do is look at their geographics to understand why they want and *need* a more open policy. Whereas we have one contiguous political structure, with pollutants thrown into the river upstream governed essentially the same as the pollutants thrown into it downstream - the Europeans have multiple polical environments.

We get a little bit of acid rain that we want to blame on Canada and go crazy. Imagine if we had many other countries doing their own thing and polluting the air we have to breathe and the water we have to use for both personal and manufacturing use. :rolleyes:

It's all about trying to agree on principles that we can all live with. It's about agreeing to do as little harm to our neighbors as possible. The US is a terrible global neighbor in sucking up the earth's resources. Let's not compound our arrogance by casting distain on countries who don't have the luxury of being able to say "[email protected] you" with regard to environmental performance.:mad:
 

Kevin Mader

One of THE Original Covers!
Staff member
Admin
#19
I have to agree with Randy that Europeans are interested in hugging trees and in protecting the fury critters. I also agree that the US and Asia are more interested in money than in preserving our air and our streams. I also agree with Lucinda that our (US) arrogance clouds our understanding and judgment of things, well beyond any ISO standard.

Lucinda is also right about the way Americans play the ‘blame game’. We blame other nations when it’s ‘convenient’ and attack ourselves when they aren’t. Instead of focusing on a System, we work twice as hard to lay blame here and there with our noses upturned.

I doubt a standard will ever be created that will guide mankind to do the right thing every time, everywhere. Consider the success of the Bible, the Koran, or any other similar guide and the unresolved differences between them. Will we ever iron out all the wrinkles?

Organizational greed has led us to the point that we will buy goods from countries where they exploit their people and their natural resources. Until we do what is right and refuse to buy from these countries, this wickedness will continue. Nevertheless, it wont end there. If we can’t buy product at rock bottom prices, then our Lobbyists will work hard to reverse legislation that was put in place to correct the wrongs of yesteryear. Evidence: our clean water act. We need to find Appreciation for a System.

Lucinda’s point on agreeing to principles is the right idea and although we will likely never agree on everything, every time, everywhere: it shouldn’t stop us from trying. System’s Thinking is the key ingredient as presented by CI Lewis and promoted more recently by Deming, Senge, Scholtes and a host of others. Without it, we won’t survive.

Regards,

Kevin
 
B

Bruce Wade

#20
I do not believe the distinctions of "tree hugger" or "terrible global neighbor" are to the point. The main issue is the number of regulatory bodies and amount of reporting that are present in the USA without requirement of an international standard.

I work for a commercial printer. We are regulated and issue reports to the EPA and NJDEP and local regulatory bodies including county, city and a local development council regarding environmental aspects and impacts. In order to reduce overall release of VOCs into the environment, the Company replaced an effective afterburner unit with a newer, even more efficient model. To do such required significant permitting and inspection by the State and EPA. My understanding is that in Europe, such regulatory oversight is not presently in place to control pollution, especially in regard to interests across international borders. Hense, the increasing popularity of ISO 14001 in Europe and the general response in the USA of, "Oh, great... More paperwork to fill out..." At our Company, we hold ISO 14001 cetification as our owners - and the employees - view such certification as the right thing to do to communicate our continuing concern for the environment. We do many things beyond the basics required by the regulatory bodies and report these effeorts through the ISO 14001 program.

As for environmental impact and concerns of our sovereign country, I believe if you go back about twenty five years or so, the overriding concern amoung environmentalists and the media was not "global warming" but the inevitable coming ice age as predicted by scientists...

I believe the USA has, in general, been incredibly responsive in changing environmental policy and improving responsiveness. It has not and will not completely turn around in a day. However, give us some credit. Things are much better now than they were twenty years ago. And, I hope, things will be even better twenty years from now.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
L Separate Corrective Action and Preventive Action Procedures ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 13
R Non conformance (NC) or Corrective & Preventive action (CAPA) CE Marking (Conformité Européene) / CB Scheme 7
B Stakeholder Initiated Corrective and Preventive Action Misc. Quality Assurance and Business Systems Related Topics 5
B Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA) A Key Process of the Quality Management System Dec 17... Training - Internal, External, Online and Distance Learning 0
J If Corrective and Preventive Action were truly Effective IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 3
K CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) - ISO 13485 Nonconformance and Corrective Action 1
J Software and Methods for Tracking CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) items US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 3
A Preventive Action or Corrective Action - Paper cuts Nonconformance and Corrective Action 14
M Corrective and Preventive Action - Prevent Recurrence is not Preventive Action? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 24
K Definition Correction, Corrective Action and Preventive Action - Definition of terms Definitions, Acronyms, Abbreviations and Interpretations Listed Alphabetically 28
F Software recommendations for corrective and preventive action Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 2
K Corrective and preventive action for Non Conformance on PFMEA FMEA and Control Plans 30
W Compliance to 8.5.2 Corrective action 8.5.3 Preventive action ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 13
T Corrective Action and Preventive Action in a Holding Company Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
M What is Preventive Action taken as part of a Corrective Action? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
C The prudence of combining non-conformance reports with corrective/preventive action Nonconformance and Corrective Action 10
N Corrective and Preventive Action in 8D Problem Solving Nonconformance and Corrective Action 21
D CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Flow Chart example wanted Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 3
J Can Corrective Action be the same as Preventive Action? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 33
sagai Preventive Action vs. Corrective Action as defined by 21CFR820 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 10
C Nonconformance, Corrective and Preventive Action Procedure(s)? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
Q Recommendations for criteria on creating a CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 8
L How to deal with too many CARs (Corrective Action Requests), PARs (Preventive Action) Nonconformance and Corrective Action 25
N Combining both Corrective Action and Preventive action procedures into one SOP Nonconformance and Corrective Action 4
sagai Should Corrective Action be segregated from Preventive Action? ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 10
B Electronic Corrective/Preventive Action Report for our Customer Service Department Nonconformance and Corrective Action 9
B Corrective and Preventive Action Procedure for Customer Service Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
Q Recover a Damaged CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Project Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 6
P FDA Part 820 Clause 820.100 Corrective and Preventive Action 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 3
C Corrective Action and Preventive Action for Operator Error (Cosmetic - Handling) Preventive Action and Continuous Improvement 15
B Questions regarding Non-Conformance, Corrective Action and Preventive Action ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 7
E CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Plan Templates Nonconformance and Corrective Action 5
M CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Standards & Templates for Tier 1 Supplier IATF 16949 - Automotive Quality Systems Standard 4
kedarg6500 Horizontal Deployment of Corrective Action - is it Preventive Action? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 21
W Are CAPAs (Corrective Action Preventive Action) Input or Outputs ISO 13485:2016 - Medical Device Quality Management Systems 6
Q CAPA (Corrective Action and Preventive Action) after Correction always? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 10
Q CAPA (Corrective Action Preventive Action) NC recommended for IT, HR, ACC.? ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 3
Icy Mountain Continual Improvement, Preventive Action and Corrective Action Database Quality Tools, Improvement and Analysis 23
Q Calibration Failure - CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) General Measurement Device and Calibration Topics 3
P When is an issue a CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) request? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
C FDA - CAPA (Corrective Action and Preventive Action) & Complaint Database 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 1
T Suggestions for a CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Software Program Quality Assurance and Compliance Software Tools and Solutions 17
Q CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Guidance Needed 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
P Issue Tracking and CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) Management Nonconformance and Corrective Action 6
N Nonconformance and Corrective Actions vs. Preventive Action - Problem Supplier Nonconformance and Corrective Action 24
A When to take Corrective / Preventive Action and Continuous Improvements ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 4
Q Corrective and Preventive Action (CAPA), 820.100 21 CFR Part 820 - US FDA Quality System Regulations (QSR) 4
W Corrective Action, not Preventive Action? Nonconformance and Corrective Action 10
V CAR (Corrective Action Request) vs. PAR (Preventive Action Request) ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 12
D CAPA (Corrective Preventive Action) Form for critique ISO 9000, ISO 9001, and ISO 9004 Quality Management Systems Standards 8

Similar threads

Top Bottom