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
    16
  • This poll will close: .

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
There is a QR code on the ISO9001 Amendment 1 regarding climate action which is for "feedback about the standard".

I would LOVE to see that feedback.

If it was mostly positive, I'd think ISO would report that, right?
 

dramman

Involved In Discussions
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.
So let's say my company agrees that climate change is real, but that it has minimal impact on our business. Some of or customers are very large corporations with highly publicized Environmental and Carbon Reduction initiatives such as the European CDP. Our response to all of these customers is we are a small company and simply do not have the resources to pursue such initiatives.

What is next? Do we need to start making up or generating climate change impacting actions to simply satisfy the ISO auditor?
 

Brett Sande

Registered
From this communique:

Note that this statement in the communique is misstating the requirement in in ISO 9001:2015 4.1, which is:

The ISO 9001 requirement is for the organization to determine relevant issues. The communique is claiming that the organization is required to determine whether all issues are relevant or not - all issues are an infinite number that no organization can consider. This is a significant distinction and ignoring this is the key to ISO's false claim that this is "a clarification rather than a new requirement".

From this communique:

The communique requires that this new requirement be included in audits from the date of publication. As explained above, this is a new requirement. The requirement in 4.1 is for organizations to determine relevant issues; not to consider issues. An organization for which climate change is not an issue that is "relevant to its purpose and its strategic direction and that affect its ability to achieve the intended result(s) of its quality management system" previously was not required to be able to show that it considered climate change; now it is required to provide evidence that it "determined" whether it is relevant.
Since we need to now consider all relevant issues, I need to start working on a plan to address periodic solar eclipses, of which the next will likely paralyze the eastern half of the U.S. for a day or so.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Just to prove the point that this amendment making it mandatory for the organization to assess CC as part of the QMS, is totally arbitrary, CC was not even covered in those two sections of 9001 in the guidance available in the TS 9002 standard, released in 2016. Were the authors of that document so out of touch? Or someone at ISO got overly excited with the London declaration?
 

Big Jim

Admin
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.

In an attempt to help you understand here is the definition of jargon from the Oxford Learners Dictionary:

words or expressions that are used by a particular profession or group of people, and are difficult for others to understand medical/legal/computer, etc. jargon Try to avoid using too much technical jargon.

Here it is from an American English Dictionary:

words and expressions that are used in special or technical ways by particular groups of people, often making the language difficult to understand.

When you use terms that ordinary people are not familiar with you should expect poor understanding. Or you can simply ignore it because they are not important.
 

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Leader
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.

Have you determined that CC is a relevant issue to your company?

Why yes it is.

Are you implementing a plan to mitigate its impact on your company?

Mitigate? We sell solar panels and climate change is our main business driver.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
JIm,

Ya see, ya got your ISO and TMBG and JTCG producing a harmonized structure. It's harmonized, see? Harmony is good.

And your ISO/IAF communique providing guidance for da MSS. Guidance, see? Guidance is good.

And the TC's and the mirror groups give input to da JTCG. Input, see? Input is good.

No jargon, clear as can be! ;)
 

Bev D

Heretical Statistician
Leader
Super Moderator
Well I’m not seeing those committee names as jargon, but acronyms of entities in a structure that most Quality people don’t understand. This is part of the lack of transparency and accountability of the whole ISO thing. But many here also use inside baseball words like when people just quote section numbers and don’t state what the section says.
 

qualitymanagerTT

Involved In Discussions
Just to prove the point that this amendment making it mandatory for the organization to assess CC as part of the QMS, is totally arbitrary, CC was not even covered in those two sections of 9001 in the guidance available in the TS 9002 standard, released in 2016. Were the authors of that document so out of touch? Or someone at ISO got overly excited with the London declaration?
Was the London Declaration also in 2016?
 

Randy

Super Moderator
What is next? Do we need to start making up or generating climate change impacting actions to simply satisfy the ISO auditor?
Simple answer, don't waste time or effort trying to satisfy an auditor. All you need to do is "determine" nothing else is actually required as of yet.
 
Top Bottom