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: .

jmech

Trusted Information Resource
At least one ANAB-accredited CB is disobeying the immediate implementation requirements from IAF and ANAB. APIQR has published the below notification to their registrants and auditors:
The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has published Amendment 1 of ISO 9001:2015 and Amendment 1 of ISO 14001:2015. The amendments are identical and add one requirement and one note, both related to consideration of climate change.
As you know, APIQR’s ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015 Registrations are accredited by the ANSI National Accreditation Board (ANAB), and therefore, the transition process is largely defined by ANAB. For amendment 1 of ISO 9001:2015 and ISO 14001:2015, ANAB has notified API that the effective date is the same as the publication date of the documents, February 23, 2024.
API recognizes that, while the changes in the amendments are minor, some organizations may be impacted and may need time to incorporate these changes into their management system. Therefore, ISO 9001:2015 & ISO 14001:2015 Applicants and Registered organizations are notified of the following:
• Starting March 11, 2024, auditors are instructed to raise a concern if an organization has not reviewed and implemented the requirement of Amendment 1 into its QMS and/or EMS.
• Starting April 1, 2024, auditors are instructed to raise a minor nonconformity if an organization has not reviewed and implemented the requirement of Amendment 1 into its QMS and/or EMS.


 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
I can only imagine what would happen if ISO, the TC176 and the IAF were to dedicate 20% of the energy, effort and propaganda spent in this CC misguided exercise, in support of the ISO 9001 Brand Integrity group.

They get their priorities right.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
You don't buy the ISO-IAF suggestion that everyone already was (or should have been) meeting this requirement?
Not even. I've an annual quality audit next week with a client that harvests and manages stem cells from newborn's for medical treatment and Climate Change wasn't even a tiny blip on their radar.

Last week I did a recertification at a company that provides pilot training to a majority of corporate, executive, and regional commercial companies and well as some other cool stuff........Climate Change? They actually have radar and it didn't show on the screens that I took simulator rides in.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
At least one ANAB-accredited CB is disobeying the immediate implementation requirements from IAF and ANAB. APIQR has published the below notification to their registrants and auditors:



Wow! The client I did this week was for an annual ISO 45001, but their Quality certificate is from guess who? Yep, API and their audit is in 2 weeks.

This is going to be as welcome as a turd in a party punch bowl.

Thanks, I just forwarded the API document to my manager and our group as an informational thing.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
So, the "recommendation" coming down from the "CC illuminati" is that, if an organization HAS DETERMINED that climate change is NOT relevant (internally & externally) to it's QMS, the CB auditor HAS TO TEST the effectiveness of the process used by the organization in reaching that conclusion. Interestingly such test was never mentioned anywhere before the amendment. The singling out of CC as a MANDATORY special category of aspect is hugely dictatorial, in my estimation.

Beyond that, how exactly, do they expect QMS auditors to be able to ascertain if such determination was sound or not? What probing conversation can the QMS auditor have with the organization's top management to verify the adequacy of the not-relevant self assessment?

They (ISO/IAF) only do that because they are not the ones facing the organizations subjected to this mandate. I sincerely hope any and every ISO 9001 registrant that might be unhappy with this move direct their dissatisfaction to the appropriate people at ISO, the TC 176 and the IAF, not the (CB auditor) messenger.

In the attached documented information:naughty: (publicly available log), they mention a concern over the auditors competence to effectively assess this new amended text in the ISO MSS's. Reading an APG paper make them competent?
 

Attachments

  • IAF Resolutions Log.pdf
    850.4 KB · Views: 60

Randy

Super Moderator
Here's what I'm sending to my 9, 14 & 45 clients with the guidance I have at this time (it can change at any time).

"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 Management Systems are equally effected.

Quality management systems — Requirements
AMENDMENT 1: Climate action changes

4.1
Add the following sentence at the end of the subclause:
"The organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue."

4.2
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 system?" and document the response.

Right now there is 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.

The entirety of the Amendment is in this email. And as I understand from a meeting I just got done with, a determination from senior management/leadership (especially if the determination is in a management review or other thing like a weekly meeting that I can reference is fine until we get more definitive guidance). Complicating things is the Context and external expectations if clients/customers have requirements for you."


As I posted earlier, I've an annual quality audit next week with a client that harvests and manages (banks) stem cells from newborn's for medical treatment and Climate Change wasn't even a tiny blip on their radar. CC is the last thing on a parent's mind if their child or other family member could develop leukemia, other genetic disorders, diseases of the immune system and much more.

Talk about blind-sided, I sent the letter and the Quality Director called not 5 minutes later. We had a great conversation. I'm sure some of my fellow 3rd party folks here and I know my co-workers will have much of the same in the future.
 
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.
Exactly, and while I do believe we have this covered I will definitely have a closer look at it ASAP, as we have a 3rd party Audit for 9001, 14001 & 45001 coming up soon.

Speaking for myself I have audited one Mgmt. team since this amendment entered the scene (we borrow auditors from each other within the group), and decided to put it under Improvement Potential as this was quite new at the time of the audit.
 

Paul Simpson

Trusted Information Resource
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.
Ah, the old 'ivory tower' jibe. Good to see you remain consistent, Jim. If you aren't interested in the background to some of this stuff then please feel free to ignore my posts. It's very easy to claim to speak for the majority. Much more difficult to prove it.
 
Top Bottom