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

[Randy]

People have not understood the assignment of this misguided amendment.

You're seeing that also?

 

[rogerpenna]

Let me answer my own question, just like any other technology of carbon sequestration, carbon capture and carbon reuse, absolutely nothing. It has nothing to do with the QMS. Unless, of course, you are in the business of developing and marketing such technologies.

People have not understood the assignment of this misguided amendment.

I would suppose that if a company needs to buy carbon credits due to higher emissions than allowed due to regulations, or the inverse, sell carbon credits, that also has to do with the QMS.

Brand image, risk management (risk of stricter regulations OR surplus production resulting in emissions above regulation)...



That said, it seems to me the ISO Amendment is... well, about DETERMINING, thinking, doing critical analysis of how Climate Change may affect the company, more to put it in strategic planning, risk management, etc, and not about something as specific as Vieira's question.

 

[Randy]

I would suppose that if a company needs to buy carbon credits due to higher emissions than allowed due to regulations, or the inverse, sell carbon credits, that also has to do with the QMS.

In what way?

 

[rogerpenna]

But to be more specific... the ammendment goes in the direct that the organization should see IF climate change might affect it's operations and it's capacity to deliver quality results.

This mostly would go into a review of Organization and its Context and also Interested Parties, and of course, that ties with Risks and Opportunities.

But more importantly, "This amendment does not require an organization to have climate change initiatives unless it has been identified as a relevant issue to achieve the intended results of the QMS."



The text directly mentions Carbon Credits
" Although the text is new, auditors may find that some organizations are already considering and addressing issues related to climate change within the scope of the quality management system (e.g.: energy supplier invoices, stating the percentage of supplied energy coming from renewable sources; claims on carbon credit, onproduct claims on energy consumption reduction, replacement of raw materials or consideration of eco-design of products to reduce climate change impact, etc.)"

https://committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/tc176/files/PDF%20APG%20New%20Disclaimer%2012-2023/APG%20Auditing%20Climate%20Change%20issues%20FINAL%203-19-2024%20Rev%201.pdf

But again, the ammendment is trying to force all companies to determine IF Climate Change is relevant to their output. If not, it's not and that's it.

If it is, is the company taking some action? The specifics probably won´t be audited in detail trying to check the amount of carbon credits vs hectare of replanted forest, etc. Just showing the auditor that the company has a carbon credits program would be enough.

 

[Randy]

Hate to tell you this but claiming carbon credit does not one thing to combat climate change, 99 times out of 100 it transfers money from one pocket to another involving those with "excess" carbon needs and those with "reductions" to sell

 

[rogerpenna]

In what way?

I thought my initial full answer kinda answered that, but I will try to be more clear.

If a company is required to buy carbon credits due to exceeding emission limits, this could be viewed as a risk that needs to be managed within the QMS framework. This risk could arise from potential regulatory changes, unexpected production increases, or shifts in operational efficiency, all of which could affect the company’s ability to meet its quality objectives.

The management of carbon credits can also influence the company's brand reputation. A company that proactively manages its carbon footprint through the purchase of credits could enhance its brand as a responsible and sustainable business, which is increasingly valued by consumers and stakeholders. This ties back to the QMS by influencing customer satisfaction and stakeholder engagement, both key elements of quality management.

From a strategic planning perspective, the need to buy or sell carbon credits could signal broader operational challenges or opportunities. For example, selling excess credits could indicate that a company is exceeding its sustainability targets, which could be a strategic advantage.



I am really confused. In what way that DOES NOT relates to the QMS?

 

[rogerpenna]

Hate to tell you this but claiming carbon credit does not one thing to combat climate change, 99 times out of 100 it transfers money from one pocket to another involving those with "excess" carbon needs and those with "reductions" to sell

That's a valid opinion that I agree with, but seems to me it's unrelated to the QMS.

Nobody is saying you MUST trade carbon credits. It's up to the organization to decide if it NEEDS. And it might need to do it due to regulations, not because it agrees with it.

The Ammendment does not say you need to trade carbon credits. Only that you need to check if Climate Change stuff may affect your company, and if it does, how to deal with it.

If the mafia wants your money for protection, you don´t have to agree with it, but you should consider it in your Organization Context, as finding your managers under the river with their feet inside cement blocks will probably affect your QMS.



Also, you might have customer that care, even if you don´t, so you may need to just swallow it and be an hypocrite or lose customers due to poor branding Again, entirely up to the specific organization to take that in consideration. If your organization sells swimming pools in Siberia and Alaska, I am sure the QMS should consider Excess Global Warming as a desirable thing, and probably it's customers would also love some warming.

 

[Randy]

I am really confused. In what way that DOES NOT relates to the QMS?

The one person organization that only does middle person catalogue sales couldn't care less.

Besides, a QMS and an organization are 2 different things so CC and it's impact whether real or dreamed up may have absolutely no impact on the QMS dependent on how it was structured and drawn up to begin with.........I've seen it more than once already.

 

[rogerpenna]

The one person organization that only does middle person catalogue sales couldn't care less.

Besides, a QMS and an organization are 2 different things so CC and it's impact whether real or dreamed up may have absolutely no impact on the QMS dependent on how it was structured and drawn up to begin with.........I've seen it more than once already.

But my comments above are very clear on that... and the ISO Ammendment itself too are clear on that. The ammendment tells the organization should show it's considering if Climate Change affects it.

It is under no obligation to show it DOES affect it and that it has a carbon credits trade program.


IF carbon credits trade is NECESSARY for a company (and obviously, very few big companies will trade carbon credits) because of regulations, customers, etc, THEN it affects it's QMS.

I never meant Carbon Credits affect the QMS of all companies.

Here is the quote to which you asked "in what way"

if a company needs to buy carbon credits due to higher emissions than allowed due to regulations, or the inverse, sell carbon credits, that also has to do with the QMS.

IF a company needs to deal in CC trade due to regulations, it affects the company.

When I asked in what way that DID NOT affected the QMS, you said "The one person organization that only does middle person catalogue sales couldn't care less. Besides, a QMS and an organization are 2 different things so CC and it's impact whether real or dreamed up may have absolutely no impact on the QMS dependent on how it was structured and drawn up to begin with.........I've seen it more than once already."

But your examples do NOT fit in what I said in my quote: if a company needs to deal with carbon credits due to regulations.

 

[rogerpenna]

Randy, do you agree that for SOME companies, buying or selling carbon credits may be required due to regulations or branding strategy? And for THOSE companies, therefore, carbon credits affect in some way the QMS?

And that it's the organization that must decide the risk of excessive carbon output compared to regulations, how target consumer response to their environmental practices, etc, affect them?

For the one person company you mentioned, nothing of this affects it. So in this hypothetical company, "they" would simply say "Climate Change was analyzed and it does NOT affect us".


Again, it's not a question of agreeing or disagreeing. It's a question of showing your organization thinks about this and at least checks IF it's affected by it. To which it can say "NO, we are not affected by Climate Change in a way that affects our QMS".


It's like war. If there was an ammendment requireing companies to analyze if war affects their QMS. It won´t affect the QMS of most companies. If your company makes weapons it does. If your company has big clients in countries involved in wars, it does. If you must buy fertilizers from Russia and your government blocked trade with Russia, it does.

And in CASE IT DOES, you better show you are not oblivious to that fact.