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

[Joe Cruse]

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.

The standard has NOT stayed the same since 1994 or 2000, it has generally been revised every 7ish years, your argument there makes no sense.

It IS virtue signaling. Why didn't they amend it to also require/force all registrants to consider the relevance of Conflict Minerals? The war between Russia/Ukraine (or any other regional or world war)? Terrorism? Work stoppages in one business/industry that can cripple multiple other industries? If they are going to specify determining relevancy of one specific issue that may have widespread effects, why not put these and more in the amendment? Why shoehorn something that specific into a standard clause that requires registrants to already determine external and internal issues that are relevant and tell the registrant, "You WILL determine if this one is relevant"?

 

[Dazzur]

Why didn't they amend it to also require/force all registrants to consider the relevance of Conflict Minerals? The war between Russia/Ukraine (or any other regional or world war)? Terrorism? Work stoppages in one business/industry that can cripple multiple other industries? If they are going to specify determining relevancy of one specific issue that may have widespread effects, why not put these and more in the amendment? Why shoehorn something that specific into a standard clause that requires registrants to already determine external and internal issues that are relevant and tell the registrant, "You WILL determine if this one is relevant"?

They didn't amend it because this is already covered in 6.1

edit: re-reading this wasn't very clear. I mean that if the org wants, CC should apply to 6.1.

 

[Sidney Vianna]

The standard has NOT stayed the same since 1994 or 2000, it has generally been revised every 7ish years, your argument there makes no sense.

It IS virtue signaling. Why didn't they amend it to also require/force all registrants to consider the relevance of Conflict Minerals? The war between Russia/Ukraine (or any other regional or world war)? Terrorism? Work stoppages in one business/industry that can cripple multiple other industries? If they are going to specify determining relevancy of one specific issue that may have widespread effects, why not put these and more in the amendment? Why shoehorn something that specific into a standard clause that requires registrants to already determine external and internal issues that are relevant and tell the registrant, "You WILL determine if this one is relevant"?

I agree. Someone in his/her high horse decided to make a political statement, following the London Declaration. Using management system standards to drive agendas like that is a terrible slippery slope. Child labor? Happens quite a bit in the garment industry and primary food harvesting suppliers. Why isn’t ISO mandating that as relevant issue for the registrants QMS’s?

ISO made a serious blunder with this decision. Hopefully they will pay a price for the misguided step. Having said that, from the little feedback this thread is providing, it seems that the conformity assessment practitioners are not taking the assignment seriously, so in the end, the amendment becomes as inconsequential as a drop of rain on high seas.

 

[ScottK]

The standard has NOT stayed the same since 1994 or 2000, it has generally been revised every 7ish years, your argument there makes no sense.

It IS virtue signaling. Why didn't they amend it to also require/force all registrants to consider the relevance of Conflict Minerals? The war between Russia/Ukraine (or any other regional or world war)? Terrorism? Work stoppages in one business/industry that can cripple multiple other industries? If they are going to specify determining relevancy of one specific issue that may have widespread effects, why not put these and more in the amendment? Why shoehorn something that specific into a standard clause that requires registrants to already determine external and internal issues that are relevant and tell the registrant, "You WILL determine if this one is relevant"?

well if you feel that strongly about it, have at it. Sheesh.

 

[Joe Cruse]

well if you feel that strongly about it, have at it. Sheesh.

Appreciate the nod to go ahead, lol.

 

[Randy]

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.

I dunno, if you look at the -176 members and the other "input artists" you might find a consultant or more that has an opportunity to cash in on helping with the CC determination..........Wild guess of course.

The annual thing is just a quick look-see for the ongoing "maintenance & effectiveness" of the MS

 

[Randy]

Why didn't they amend it to also require/force all registrants to consider the relevance of Conflict Minerals? The war between Russia/Ukraine (or any other regional or world war)? Terrorism? Work stoppages in one business/industry that can cripple multiple other industries?

Risks & Opportunities
Compliance obligations
Requirements for products and services
........and some others of course

Besides some Mom & Pop machine shop in Bugtussle County with 20 employees probably couldn't care less about Russia & the Ukraine

 

[Joe Cruse]

Risks & Opportunities
Compliance obligations
Requirements for products and services
........and some others of course

Besides some Mom & Pop machine shop in Bugtussle County with 20 employees probably couldn't care less about Russia & the Ukraine

We're close to Bugtussle, but the Ukraine issue is actually sensitive to upper management at our faraway US corporate office, actually.

Anyway, I'll stop . I'll be interested to see how it goes with our February surveillance audit. I'm documenting this in Management Review output, so I do not expect any trouble. We have a new auditor, for us, with SRI, but his first two audits on us, including this year's recert, went very well, and he is pretty reasonable.

 

[Randy]

I've let all my folks know way in advance (as have others in my group) and so far no harm, no foul.

 

[Joe Cruse]

We actually got our first nibble this week on CC concern from the customer side. A big steel company sent out 2025 RFQ and in all the literature, they are looking to reward those suppliers with "green initiatives, etc.".