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: .

Big Jim

Admin
I think I understand the difference between jargon and acronyms/abbreviations. My bad. I could have sworn this was a thread about 'ISO 9001:2015 Amendment 1 Published - Determination of Climate Change Relevance'. :sarcasm: I wouldn't expect 'ordinary people' to be interested in where the climate change amendment comes from. In the OP jmech mentioned the TMB as the publisher of the amendment. :cool:
In post #8 the Joint communique was mentioned and linked.

Did you not read it? :sarcasm:

In the guidance that I published on LinkedIn (twice), I described how this all works and included a link to the (forgive me) ISO/TMB/JTCG page that describes the JTCG's background to the change. Oh, there's also an 'About' link to this page that describes who makes up JTCG and its purpose.

In post #94 I replied to you, Jim on the role of the communique and over the next few posts the content was discussed and I am looking to see if we can get some clarification based on the discussion.

In replying to Bev D in post #121 (you are still keeping up, Jim, aren't you? :sarcasm: I summarized some of the earlier points and referred again to the more detailed (personal) guidance that I have published. In the same reply, I linked to the ISO page that describes the work of the JTCG and their role in developing the harmonized structure (previously known as Annex SL, Guide 83, HLS etc., etc.) - and now you jump on the jargon bandwagon. Seriously?

Perhaps if you can 't keep up or can't keep up with the linked material that explains all of this stuff then perhaps you should keep out of the discussion?


In a scene from Lord of the Rings, the trolls assemble to fight off the jargonista! :vfunny: Very brave!

It's a good point, Bev. As mentioned earlier, there are issues with the sheer volume of information out there. I did the article on communications and I might have a go at the 'How do standards get developed? piece.

There is a general point, though, that people in the discussion should probably do the background reading that is provided so that they are able to carry their argument forward. We are up to post #185 now. It is unreasonable to expect every post to include all the information and links to external sites that have gone before.

Or alternatively, the assembled trolls can continue to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks. :nope:

It remains painful that you don't even realize when you are not writing using layman's terminology. I wonder where it would be rated in the fog index.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
What we need is the poison pill: CBs tell their clients that due to the additional work, additional time and fees will apply to QMS audits, from here on. Let’s see how they will react.
 

mattador78

Quite Involved in Discussions
Ive just had a request from the UK enviroment agency for our stance and preperation for climate change. So when ive completed their request i will tack it into my QMS for 9100 and 14001 and have it done and dusted.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
not really mandated beyond the determination itself.
Not sure what you mean here. Of course, there are audit trail implications if an organization determines CC to be relevant to the QMS. The communique from the IAF stipulates so.

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

Ed Panek

QA RA Small Med Dev Company
Leader
Super Moderator
How our company came to this conclusion will be scrutinized by an auditor who sees our company once per year, knows little about our supply chain and customers, little about climate change compared to "actual experts" and can issue findings of our analysis? A full analysis would require full access to company accounting ledgers.

This is scope creep into the highest level strategic business planning end execution. The purview of CEOs and C level employees.
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Or alternatively, the assembled trolls can continue to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks. :nope:
There no longer exists the legitimate critic, only the troll and their nemesis, the bastion of wisdom.

In the old days of the Cove, we used to be able to create polls. Can someone remind me why this is no longer an option?
 

Mike S.

Happy to be Alive
Trusted Information Resource
Got this in an ASQ email. The latest crap (IMO) from ISO....perhaps helps shed light on why they're shoving this stuff down our throats. It's no longer "just" CC, it's anthropogenic CC.

"The economic effects of climate change will continue to worsen unless Earth’s inhabitants change course and dramatically reduce anthropogenic (human-induced) emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In this context, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed ISO 14068—Greenhouse gas management and climate change management and related activities—carbon neutrality."
 

Randy

Super Moderator
Got this in an ASQ email. The latest crap (IMO) from ISO....perhaps helps shed light on why they're shoving this stuff down our throats. It's no longer "just" CC, it's anthropogenic CC.

"The economic effects of climate change will continue to worsen unless Earth’s inhabitants change course and dramatically reduce anthropogenic (human-induced) emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. In this context, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has developed ISO 14068—Greenhouse gas management and climate change management and related activities—carbon neutrality."
Yep, if the ASQ says so it has to be so :rolleyes:
 

Joe Cruse

Starting to get Involved
We are with SRI, and they just sent out official notification of the 9001 amendment this week to their clients. Interesting that in our renewal audit just over 3 weeks ago, we heard nothing about this. I asked the auditor a couple of times about what he has heard that might be on the horizon as far as a new revision, and he had nothing.

I'm blown away that ISO feels the need, and has decided, to dictate to all registrants a single, SPECIFIC item that MUST now be singly determined if it is or isn't a relevant issue for them. Out of the innumerable, potential relevant issues that could possibly cataclysmically affect an organization, including war, slavery/conflict-area supply chain, famine, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanoes, asteroid strikes, Thanos Snap, Godzilla, Covid-19 (and any pandemic, including a Zombie outbreak), bridge collapses, dam failures, canal blockages, piracy, AI-deep fakes, etcetera ad nauseum, ISO cherry picks this ONE and then "SHALLS" it into a quality standard?

I do not understand this intrusion of such targeted specificity in this quality standard. The original language was quite sufficient to handle the clause. I thought the whole idea of the evolution of 9000, at least in part, was geared towards getting away from the burden of being overly specific in the Shalls, and away from the regimentation in the first versions? This makes absolutely no sense to us, other than it appears that ISO wants to make sure that their virtue-signaling is front and center to all. I'm so glad I don't have much more of this to put up with.
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
ISO wants to make sure that their virtue-signaling is front and center to all.
Remember, ISO does not want anything because ISO is not a sentient being. Someone, in a position of power within the ISO organization committed this amendment in a multitude of management system standards, knowing full well that the net result of this move is inconsequential in terms of mitigating the impact of the anthropogenic component of CC. One can only speculate the real motives behind the decision, but as we know, sycophants are working overtime in a desperate attempt to justify the inane decision. Hopefully, there will be accountability and consequences for the people involved.
 
Top Bottom