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

[JanineCalifornia]

Context of the organization is defined by ISO 9000:2015 as “combination of internal and external issues that can have an effect on an organization’s approach to developing and achieving its objectives”. In the context of QMS, issues that affect quality objectives.

Clause 4.1 of ISO 9001:2015 specifies “external and internal issues that are relevant to its purpose and its strategic direction and that affect its ability to achieve the intended result(s) of its quality management system”. The intent of the statements of both standards pertains to “issues affecting quality” – not the issues affecting the environment.

Auditors who relate climate change to the environmental aspects of organizations that can affect the environment have taken the intent of the QMS standards out of context

 

[Randy]

What's your point?

 

[mattador78]

Finished AS audit today discussed climate change in our PESTLE and SWOT analysis and our statement based on our CC RA for DEFRA in the UK. Realised there were a lot of abbreviations and moved on.

 

[Johnny Quality]

We had our IATF 16949 audit last week and I was told the auditors did not discuss climate change.

 

[ScottK]

Ok - so we just had our 2024 surveillance audit. The auditor asked about it and was happy that we addressed it in our quality manual in a satisfactory manor.
In fact he said we were the first company so far that had addressed it that he has audited to 9001 since it came out.
And that he is only giving OFIs at this time to companies that have not.

 

[Randy]

Ok - so we just had our 2024 surveillance audit. The auditor asked about it and was happy that we addressed it in our quality manual in a satisfactory manor.
In fact he said we were the first company so far that had addressed it that he has audited to 9001 since it came out.
And that he is only giving OFIs at this time to companies that have not.

I've done about a dozen or so, another today in fact.

 

[ISmith68]

We had our audit back in August (in the UK 9001 and 14001 certified).
Got a OFI - the auditor recognised that we had considered CC, but we may wish to consider documenting that consideration (and yes consider, consideration and considered in one sentence).

 

[Randy]

consider documenting that consideration

"While sitting around drinking beer and eating brat's we decided "no big deal", none of our customers care and we don't have time for it."............

 

[Joe Cruse]

"While sitting around drinking beer and eating brat's we decided "no big deal", none of our customers care and we don't have time for it."............

This is a simplification (I wasn't allowed to present with beer 'n brats, sadly) of what we did, documenting the "determine the relevance of..." in our last quarterly MR. We will do this annually until the determined relevance risk has us increase the review. But, as stated elsewhere, we are like many others who are already determining relevance and acting in accordance, with issues that may or may not be CC-caused.

It shouldn't, but it still really irks me that the committee has decided to unilaterally specify something (whether CC or something else) for registrants to determine the relevance of to them in a clause that was written by design to be generic enough to cover many business/industry types. I despise virtue-signaling.

 

[ScottK]

This is a simplification (I wasn't allowed to present with beer 'n brats, sadly) of what we did, documenting the "determine the relevance of..." in our last quarterly MR. We will do this annually until the determined relevance risk has us increase the review. But, as stated elsewhere, we are like many others who are already determining relevance and acting in accordance, with issues that may or may not be CC-caused.

It shouldn't, but it still really irks me that the committee has decided to unilaterally specify something (whether CC or something else) for registrants to determine the relevance of to them in a clause that was written by design to be generic enough to cover many business/industry types. I despise virtue-signaling.

I don't see it as virtue signaling. I see it as an attempt to keep from getting stale and give CBs more to look for in mature registrants in order to stay relevant.
II a company has had ISO9001 since year 2000 and the standard hadn't changed since then, what would really be the point of an annual CB audit? So they have to force change so the CBs have something to look for. And they propagate their own industry.