My guess is there will be plenty. And it will be an automatic "get out of here" for me. I have already seen auditor stretch the "interested" parties criteria.
ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2015 Amendment 1 Published - Determination of Climate Change Relevance * Poll added May 2024
- Thread starter jmech
- Start date
Randy
Super Moderator
Oh yeah for sure, I myself cringe at what the future may hold. Like Sidney (and I again feel shaky saying so) there will most likely be uncompensated training, which for folks like myself, could be as useful as a screen door on a submarine.
And in agreement with Scanton, there will be QMS types foaming at the mouth waiting to get the NC's written for whatever mushroom based dream reasons they concoct.
Unless I've read it wrong all that has to be done is a decision made, no science, no charts, graphs or pictures, just a decision which can be done over beer & brats.
I'm just guessing that my group will be less goofy with the thing and work out a reasonable solution.
Last edited:
Randy
Super Moderator
I have as well.
mattador78
Quite Involved in Discussions
So basically if we tack on climate change into our PESTLE analysis we are good to go. Depending on your industry it can be a big weird worrying about whether polar bears have no ice caps but at the same time helping in the manufature of products what can make entire cities disapear in an instant
Hi Covers,ISO has published Amendment 1 to ISO 9001:2015. The PDF version is available for free at the link below.
ISO 9001:2015/Amd 1:2024
Quality management systems — Requirements — Amendment 1: Climate action changeswww.iso.org
ISO and the IAF have published a joint communique regarding this amendment and ISO also has an article on it (see links below).
Based on the above information (and the lack of evidence of any TC 176/SC 2 vote on this amendment), it appears that these changes were approved by the Technical Management Board (TMB) but did not go through the normal TC 176/SC 2 consensus process.
could you please share out suggestion of how operatively showing the conformity to "The organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue.?
The note also involve interested parties such as customer etc "Relevant interested parties can have requirements related to climate change"
Could it be an input to discuss in mgt rewiew and put it in the risk analysis of the context together with other standard ( ISO 14001, ISO 27001, ISO 5001 etc etc)?
Which data should be checked or is it enough an overall assessment based on current knowledge?
Well - we have another department that is focusing on sustainability that is not under the ISO9001 scope so I'm basically going to point to those guys.
In my last organization we did look at the risks posed by climate change to our business. Just like we looked at political, weather, earthquake, etc. risks as we bought a lot of things from China and many were sole or single sourced. We had a good panic in early 2020 as one of the most critical single source items was from Wuhan… And as I’ve posted before we were affected by the 3rd 500 year flood in 3 years when the only US resin plant in Houston was under 8 feet of salty gross water and had to shut down for months to clean up. We also looked at distribution locations and alternate shipping as weather disruptions to our shipping guarantee were changing. This is all really business continuity stuff that was covered by our supply chain groups.
We looked at how we affected climate change since it was becoming a selling point and an employee recruiting advantage. We installed EV chargers, encouraged EV, Hybrid etc. vehicles by providing premium parking areas. We had the city add a regular bus stop at our location to allow workers to use mass transportation instead of individual cars. We went with a LEEDS approach to the design of a new building addition. This was all mostly led by our facilities group with direction from senior leadership to look at our environmental impact. We also had a deep look at redesigning some of our product to be recyclable instead of needing special waste handling. We changed our packaging to be easier to recycle at the suggestion of many Customers.
Almost all of this was captured in our annual strategic plans. The plans aren’t quality records by the way. This was all just good business practice.
There are many things you can do. But I am still opposed to the specific requirement as it is not solely a quality thing and has no real guidelines as to how to reasonably audit it. It is simply another way for idiot power hungry bitter auditors to take their frustration at the their lack of influence and success out on us.
And as I’ve posted before we were affected by the 3rd 500 year flood in 3 years when the only US resin plant in Houston was under 8 feet of salty gross water and had to shut down for months to clean up. We also looked at distribution locations and alternate shipping as weather disruptions to our shipping guarantee were changing. This is all really business continuity stuff that was covered by our supply chain groups.We looked at how we affected climate change since it was becoming a selling point and an employee recruiting advantage. We installed EV chargers, encouraged EV, Hybrid etc. vehicles by providing premium parking areas. We had the city add a regular bus stop at our location to allow workers to use mass transportation instead of individual cars. We went with a LEEDS approach to the design of a new building addition. This was all mostly led by our facilities group with direction from senior leadership to look at our environmental impact. We also had a deep look at redesigning some of our product to be recyclable instead of needing special waste handling. We changed our packaging to be easier to recycle at the suggestion of many Customers.
Almost all of this was captured in our annual strategic plans. The plans aren’t quality records by the way. This was all just good business practice.
There are many things you can do. But I am still opposed to the specific requirement as it is not solely a quality thing and has no real guidelines as to how to reasonably audit it. It is simply another way for idiot power hungry bitter auditors to take their frustration at the their lack of influence and success out on us.
