ISO 45001:2018 - Occupational Health and Safety Management Standard

Randy

Super Moderator
#21
How can you say that? I've already listed to you all the organizations that co-wrote the OHSAS 18001 standard and many of them are from Europe.
So, the OHSAS 18001 standard is a truly international standard, with more than 100,000 organizations certified to it. So much revenue stream that ISO decided to get in the game...

Au revoir...
It's a cultural thing probably:lol:
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#23
Found this online:

A second draft international standard (DIS2) is expected to be published in April of this year; there will then be a 4 month period to allow for translations and a ballot to be held on the DIS2.

The results of the ballot should be known by the end of July 2017 with the results of this being reviewed in September 2017.

If DIS2 is approved and the final draft international standard (FDIS) stage is not required, publication of the new standard could be as early as November 2017.
However, if an FDIS is required, the publication is more likely to be in Q2 2018
 
#24
Below is an article I published on LinkedIn covering the development of ISO 45001 and why it takes so long to produce a new standard like this.
This article was published today on Bywater's site and covers the latest stage of development of the first ISO standard for occupational health & safety management.

3rd Apr, 2017 | Auditing, OHSAS 18001 The latest news from PC 283, the project committee developing the ISO 45001 standard, indicates development is returning to course and it could even be published by the end of 2017. Even though this news is welcomed in many parts the process from here is not assured and, in much the same way that true love never runs smooth, I am sure there will be hiccoughs along the way and more heated discussion behind closed doors.

DIS ISO 45001 is a new management system standard (MSS) and there is huge interest in the first ISO standard for occupational health & safety management. There are 67 countries participating in development, as well as liaisons including other ISO committees with an interest in management systems and conformity assessment and a further 10 independent organisations involved in occupational health & safety, both Nationally and Internationally. Each participating country and liaison organisation has a view of what ISO 45001 should look like and, when the 60 or so delegates arrive at each meeting to work on the text to appear in the standard it is not surprising that there should be disagreement. Whatever background the technical expert attending the ISO committee has will influence the position they take at the working group and, in the background, most national standards bodies will have a mirror committee or group debating what the country position should be. It is easy for different approaches to lead to difficulties in getting to the consensus that all standards require before they can proceed. If you represent an NGO interested in promoting occupational health, for example, you may be pushing for higher standards while another group member represents a conformity assessment body interested in ensuring the standard can be assessed easily with existing auditors.

You only have to look at a selection from common text used in ISO Directives to see the scale of some of the challenges to standards development. Any MSS should:

be applicable to organisations of every size, across sectors and cultures
permit free trade of goods and services in line with WTO rules
be easily understood, unambiguous, and easily translatable
It is no surprise a standard can sometimes bog down, in fact it is more surprising that any meaningful standard is ever produced.

If you would like to be kept updated on the progress of ISO 45001 please email contact@bywater.co.uk

Paul Simpson

Bywater Associate

Providing consultancy and training on quality strategy and implementation.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#25
A very telling interesting article concerning accreditation of CB's involved in certification of organizations systems against standards such as OHSAS 18001 and (the upcoming) ISO 45001 can be read here.

A couple of paragraphs in the article state:
The recent worldwide increase of OH&SMS certifications saw different approaches to the accreditation of OH&SMS CBs by the national Accreditation Bodies (ABs):

• some ABs focused more on the market opportunities, applying the requirements of ISO/IEC 17021, not considering that the risk of an OH&SMS certification is much higher than any other MS certification

• a few other ABs considered the risk of OH&SMS certification to be much higher than any other MS certification, and applied requirements more stringent then ISO/IEC 17021

Different approaches could lead to unfair competition, with significant differences in audit times and costs for organizations, and might cause possible damages to the credibility of accreditation.
In other words, different Accreditation Bodies use different criteria to "approve" CB's involved with certification of occupational health & safety management systems. So, the goal of "one certificate recognized everywhere" is at risk.

One of the things that the article does not clarify is: why are the risks of OH&SMS certification much higher than any other certification? Why are certifications of quality systems (ISO 9001, AS9100, etc.), information security systems (ISO 27011, etc.), food safety systems (ISO 22000, etc.) less risky than OHSMS? :confused:

If a QMS has a significant breakdown and products are allowed to be sold, in violation of product safety standards, many consumers could be injured or die. If contaminated food products are allowed to reach the kitchen of the populace, people might die...So, why, in the eyes of the AB's, accreditation of CB's for OHSMS is riskier? Risk? Just thinking...:notme:
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#26
Good questions Sidney, I'm trying to figure out where the factoring comes in differentiating between initial OHS risk and residual OHS risk. Also, organizations that fall into lower risk categories on the chart could be in reality higher risks because of crappy management and culture...Surely something like that will be able to be factored..

This whole process has become more convoluted than a goat or pig trail in the hills.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Staff member
Admin
#29
I just wish someone who ascribe to the idea that OHSMS carry, intrinsically, a higher degree of risk would come here and defend, or attempt to, this line of thought.

As a byproduct of the text, it is good to see exposed the "philosophical" differences amongst AB's. It gets reflected very clearly in places like the IAQG ICOP Scheme, where CB suspensions are unheard of in the APAQG sector and very rare in the EAQG sector.

One certificate, recognized everywhere. :agree1:
 

Top Bottom