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: 8 50.0%
  • Auditor did not mentioned CC whatsoever.

    Votes: 6 37.5%
  • Auditor was thorough in the investigation concerning our QMS and CC

    Votes: 1 6.3%
  • 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: 1 6.3%

  • Total voters
  • This poll will close: .

Jen Kirley

Quality and Auditing Expert
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.
Just as happened with the notes added to 7.1.4.


Super Moderator
Has ISO provided a definition of "Climate Change"?
YES! And here it is in ISO Guide 84:2020, Guidelines for addressing climate change in standards

3.1.2 climate change change in climate (3.1.1) that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer Note 1 to entry: Change in climate can be identified (e.g. by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/ or the variability of its properties. Note 2 to entry: Climate change might be due to natural processes, internal to the climate system, or external forcings such as modulations of the solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, and persistent anthropogenic (3.1.36) changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use (3.1.37).

Johnny Quality

Quite Involved in Discussions
3.1.2 climate change change in climate (3.1.1)
Climate being defined as per 84:2020

statistical description of weather in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years"

Now I have to find a definition of "weather". Humidity, temperature, wind, etc...


Trusted Information Resource
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."

Shameful, I taught somewhere in excess of 2,000 professionals in this arena to do just the opposite.

Randy, an astute auditor will accept the verbal from one person, and then use the top management interview to challenge/verify the statement. As long as the statements are equivalent, it is acceptable.

To Golfman's comment, if it was something discussed in a Management Review Meeting (MRM), my opinion is the organization should just go ahead and 'document' the discussion in the meeting minutes.

One of my philosophies about making the QMS workable is to find out what you already do, and enhance the process in simple ways to ensure conformance. In this example, you discuss the topic in the MRM, just add it to the minutes and be done with it. Even better, if there is an MRM template, add it to the template to make sure it gets discussed.

Big Jim

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.

As long as you feel that way, ordinary users will struggle to understand you. I continue to urge you to climb down from your ivory tower to see what things are actually like at the working level. This should be a reality check, not an insult.


Super Moderator
OK, just finished a weekly "group" meeting with the folks I work with and this was #1 and the longest topic (about 70 of the 90 minutes), but 1st here is what I'm sending to all my clients regardless of Standard...

ISO 9001 has been amended effective now and here's what it is. (I can't make this stuff up). I know it says Quality, but all ISO MS are equally effected.

Quality management systems — Requirements
AMENDMENT 1: Climate action changes

Add the following sentence at the end of the subclause:
"The organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue."

Add the following note at the end of the subclause:
"NOTE Relevant interested parties can have requirements related to climate change."

I'm going have to ask "Have you determined whether climate change is a relevant issue to you and your management sytem" and document the response.

Right now there no specific guidance as to how you can do it, whether or not you have to document the "determination" or what to do if the answer is NO, but I do have to ask the question.

It's also being suggested that in your "Context" process about Internal/External Needs & Expectations some language of Climate Change be included.

I should have more information before the audit.

OK, now this is how we (my work group) is in the area of how we're addressing it-
"A determination from senior management/leadership, especially if the determination is in a management review or other thing like a weekly meeting that can be referenced is fine until there is a more definitive guidance or requirement sent out.

Complicating things is the 4.2 Context and external expectations if clients/customers have requirements for you to address Climate Change (or something like GHG-CO2-CO2e), then there is no choice."

Now just me and only me....................It is absolutely unfair and absurd to expect organizations to jump through this hoop and be at 100% with no time frame allowed for it to happen. It's like saying "lose 10 lbs and do it in the next 15 minutes" while also being required to sample everything on a buffet line, or we'll rip your knickers and chop off your legs, while setting your house on fire.

Organizations have to be given time to react to new conditions regardless of their size and structure.


Trusted Information Resource
It is absolutely unfair and absurd to expect organizations to jump through this hoop and be at 100% with no time frame allowed for it to happen.
You don't buy the ISO-IAF suggestion that everyone already was (or should have been) meeting this requirement?
Top Bottom