ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2015 Amendment 1 Published - Determination of Climate Change Relevance * Poll added May 2024

How has been your experience during ISO 9001 audits in relation to Climate Change?

  • Auditor has asked a few questions but not really delved much into it.

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Auditor did not mentioned CC whatsoever.

    Votes: 1 50.0%
  • Auditor was thorough in the investigation concerning our QMS and CC

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • We did not allow the discussion to take place

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Auditor wrote us up for failing to address CC in our QMS

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
  • This poll will close: .

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
It is dreadful that you don't even recognize it.
OK. I have checked.

There is no jargon in my OP. There are a lot of abbreviations, specifically around terms commonly used in ISO (The International Organization for Standardization). As they have all been used before on this thread or are all available through a quick search I don't see the value in spelling them out each time.
 

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Leader
Super Moderator
The APG guidance document may signify a crisis-management mode against the likely backlash as never before, a paper has been developed this fast. One might even hope they would also issue an amendment to the TS 9002 Guidance elaborating on the interpretation of this issue. It would be interesting if ISO 9001 registrants could report on their experiences here, although the overwhelming majority is totally oblivious to this issue. Added in edit. I went over the APG paper and the funny thing is if an organization wanted to play games with the auditor, they could go over the material suggested in the paper and literally waste 3 to 4 hours discussing the potential impact of CC on to the QMS. And end up with zero consequential conclusions. Meanwhile those 3-4 hours would not be used to delve into issues that could be really relevant to product conformity and customer satisfaction. Excellent risk based not thinking.

But, as I said earlier, in my estimation, the ONLY time this issue will be seriously discussed during a QMS audit is when the CB audit team is being witnessed by an AB. Pity the auditors in that scenario.
Exactly. Opportunity cost. Cybersecurity? Sure, everyone has an IT guy on hand....that makes sense. Its possible to make meaningful changes to IT security in 10 minutes.

Few CC experts exist so imposing opportunity costs on clients is risky. They can spend energy with no valuable return and miss opportunities to improve product quality. There are no free lunches.

Any other global challenges like Restriction of Hazardous Substances (ROHS) or conflict materials are handled at a very high strategic level with national and global initiatives....not at Joe's sheet metal ISO 9001 fabrication shop.
 

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
Leader
Admin
It is a tough subject because ours is a "show me" species and so we're not always prepared to believe in something we haven't seen or touched. Sometimes that's good, for sure... but other times it isn't. For example: "Have you ever seen or touched a million dollars? No? Then how do you know it is real?" (I have, I held a packet of one million dollars during an audit at the Bureau of Engraving and Printing) Ancient Romans prized clothing made from asbestos though in 4th century BC Hippocrates identified respiratory problems in people who worked with the stuff. Only what, this week, did we manage to outlaw the remaining type (chrysotile asbestos) in manufactured goods.

The difficulty is not yet knowing all that is inclined to influence the unnaturally accelerated warming of our planet. It has ever been thus. When inspecting oxygen system valves onboard submarines back in the late 1980s, I would very occasionally find it necessary to do an emergency cleaning via hosing the thing down with a stream of trichlorotrifluoroethane from a picnic ketsup-style bottle. We weren't using any different type of detergent yet, this liquid freon was what was prescribed. Well, the submarine didn't blow up at any rate, but I'm pretty sure I personally punched a hole it the ozone layer. The point is: we did not yet all know it was bad for the ozone layer. Now it has been banned. Okay.

The word is consider. How is anything considered when developing processes? In the design phase. Maybe awareness can be raised via a periodic review of harmful chemicals that we can avoid introducing into our products and services. We are doing it for lead although we aren't in the job of pushing 45001 when going about our QMS.

Let's not make this harder than it is.
 

jmech

Trusted Information Resource
The word is consider. ...

Let's not make this harder than it is.
IF the requirement is interpreted as literally written and not unreasonably, then it is easy. Consider it and document either:
- a determination that it is irrelevant, or
- a determination that it is relevant and a list of actions taken to address it (and the expectations of interested parties related to it).
This might add no value, but it does not have to be a significant waste.

However, many standards users do not trust that it will be interpreted reasonably (for good reason, based on previous experience and the IAF-ISO joint communique that is already adding additional requirements to it as explained previously), and are concerned that overzealous auditors (or maybe even internal users or customers) will force them to waste significant effort/resources on this.
 

jmech

Trusted Information Resource
Where does "document" anything come from in this case?
It is not required by ISO 9001 and should not be expected by auditors. They should accept you simply saying that you thought about it and determined that it was irrelevant, but I do not trust every auditor to accept this, and it is harder to rely on this in case of an appeal.

Documenting the determination is easy to do and a relatively sure way of providing objective evidence that the requirement was met.
 

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Leader
Super Moderator
Then we get into "distinction without a difference"

Hypothetical test:

100 companies make a widget

50 of them consider and document that consideration about CC in the QMS.

50 of them don't consider nor document CC in the same type of QMS.

Widget performance will still be measured using cost per widget and performance in use. Until CC impacts a widget's cost or performance, any CC initiatives will die immediately.

Once CC DOES impact that measurement the market will correct itself automatically.
 

Golfman25

Trusted Information Resource
It is not required by ISO 9001 and should not be expected by auditors. They should accept you simply saying that you thought about it and determined that it was irrelevant, but I do not trust every auditor to accept this, and it is harder to rely on this in case of an appeal.

Documenting the determination is easy to do and a relatively sure way of providing objective evidence that the requirement was met.
No way do many auditors accept that "verbal statement." Been down that path way too many times. It's the old "if it's not documented, it didn't happen."
 
Top Bottom