Search the Elsmar Cove!
**Search ALL of Elsmar.com** with DuckDuckGo including content not in the forum - Search results with No ads.

OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard yet. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Now it is! March 2018

Marc

Captain Nice
Staff member
Admin
#12
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

I fixed the seach link.

If you open any of the posts, from the search, you will see "ISO 18001" mentioned somewhere in the post.
With the link you used from the browser URL bar you will see the search results for 30 minutes or less, but no one else will.

Link to what? The link I already provided are all the posts where "ISO 18001" occur.
See: Posting - Putting 'Search' links within posts. See Post 5 in the thread.
 

harry

Super Moderator
#13
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

Hi !

I an very surprise to read here that BS OHSAS 18001 is an ISO standard. It is not ! Neither ANSIZ10 nor CSA Z1000 or AS/NZ 4801... These different OHSMS standards are national standards. The international one is ILO-OSH 2001 (free text in several language).

(seach "ILO OSH Management Systems" in internet)

Cordially.
Actually there are some methods/norm of naming these:

BS - British standard
A (astm, ansi..) - American standards
ISO - all ISO standards
All ISO standards adopted by each country/region such as EN ISO XXXX for European contries or MS ISO XXXX (for my own country - Malaysia)
 
#14
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

HI Stijloor, Randy, Sidney, and Jennifer… nice to speak with you around the world !

(preliminary information: I am not a professional of quality management or standards, but I am a specialist in the occupational risks prevention and Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems).

Sorry my mistake… I am a new member of your discussion forums and I read it wrong : I believed that the OHSAS thread was in the “ISO” forum, but it is in the right forum “National and international standards”. It’s not very easy for me to discover and circulate between yours numerous threads.

Randy, I don’t understand what is your “power curve”, but I don’t agree with your when you says that ILO-OSH 2001 is a “very weak document” because this document writes “should” and not “shall” :
-The only documents (or requirements) really compulsory are our national (or international) laws and regulations. Neither BS OHSAS (ANSI-Z10, other national standard…) nor ILO-OSH formulate real bonds. The laws and the regulations are the only requirements of really compulsory application (because these are “legal standards” and not voluntary standards).
-All these voluntary standards have the same weakness, or more exactly, the same strength: it is the strength of the will and the commitment of the management (the boss) of the entity which decides to use it as model for its OHSMS! It’s not words such “should” and not “shall”… Let us be serious, If I choose to apply me the ILO-OSH standard these is no importance to read “should” or “shall” in the ILO requirements. Moreover nothing prevents from replacing “must” for “would have”: it is what has AFAQ-AFNOR (the French standardization and certification organization)… with the approval of the ILO!
-When we quote OHSAS 18001 it is necessary to say exactly BS OHSAS to remind that it is a British standard of OHSMS (and we know that this standard is not the only one). Among these other standards there is an international OHSMS standard (the only one). It was created by a official entity considerably more representative than BSI: ILO is an agency of the UNO, so important as the ISO, his members (approximately 180 countries I think) are tripartite (in connection with occupational health and safety and on such an international scale, it is really very important to have the validation of states, employers and employees representatives !)

These are the principal reasons to consider ILO-OSH is a really powerful tool (without speaking about its other qualities like its great professionalism and its character clarifies…). Moreover the national standardization organizations are not mistaken there: now when a country creates its own OHSMS national standard, it refers to the ILO-OSH (e.g. from ANSI Z10 2005 in the United States of America, to ILO-OSH adopted as Gosstandart of Russia 12.0.230-2007 in the Commonwealth of Independent States...). Even BS OHSAS is aligned on ILO-OSH…

ILO-OSH is the international reference frame of the national reference frames. Moreover it is a strong model for the companies (international or not) and for the countries.

Best regards.
 
#15
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

Now here is some of the strength (and some of the weakness) of a 'voluntary' management systems standard. If an organisation chooses to go for certification they tend to go through a systematic process to understand their (legal and other) obligations, they put in place systems and processes that establish their controls at a level higher than their legal requirements and include a commitment to improve on areas of highest risk. If they do that properly they are in a good place whether it is quality, environment or health & safety.

If, however, you go into the process of seeking certification with a 'check box' approach and concentrate on the documentation rather than the underlying principles you will end up with a poor system.

A couple of examples of my experience as a 3rd party auditor. I have visited organisations that have fantastic documented systems with neat manuals and procedures coming out of their ears:
  • Who are breaking environmental law on a daily basis
  • A company applying for OHSAS had machinery and equipment that did not meet EU law for guarding
  • One company had not reported 3 separate serious injuries (as required by UK law)
  • One company were not even aware of a piece of legislation to do with product safety (under their quality system) and products they were shipping out every day were in breach
Although this is not necessarily a great advert for 3rd party certification (as I am convinced there are many other registered organisations out there who are in breach of environmental, health & safety and product safety (quality) legislation) at least these points were put right (with effective action to prevent recurrence)

Without an independent audit who is going to point these things out? If you speak to the regulators (at least those I have experience of) they will tel you they haven't got the people to do it. They just have to wait for an incident and resort to the courts as a deterrent.
 
#16
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

Hi Paul !



I guess that you are especially a specialist in quality, but me of health safety to work. I propose several remarks in connection with your message:

1-I don’t agree with you when (as often in quality) you confuses “management system” and “system certification” (you said “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to…”). In Quality, Environment or Health and Safety domains, “to tend to…” organize my management and improve my (Q, E or H&S) results, it’s better I adopt a Management System… but I don’t need to be certified… The bases of our discussion are the real elements of our management standards. However I observe that certification is absolutely not a requirement of these standards! And I affirm that a SMS certification is absolutely not a H&S objective or an risks reduction objective…

2-I don’t agree either with you if you think “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to go through a systematic process to understand their (legal and other) obligations…”. It’s not the standard which brings the competence to the company for knowledge and comprehension of legal (and other) requirements which are applicable to him (more, the standard requires to identify these applicable legal requirements, but those are already obligatory even without this standard and the organization must understand the legal requirements before to think to adopt a OHSMS).

3-I don’t agree with you to consider “the (OHSMS standards) controls at a level higher than the legal requirements and include a commitment to improve on areas of highest risk”. Short explanation (at least in the context of the European Union): the regulation imposes* a result (the essence), but the standards of management relate only to the organisational means (the form). The normative (volunteer) controls are not higher than the legal H&S requirements. The legal H&S prevention general principles comprise also the continuous improvement principle**. We cannot thus say that a OHSMS standard brings much more fundamental things than the “legal standards”, except if we don’t know the regulation in question as well as necessary.
Directive 89/391/EEC:
* Art 5 (point 1): The employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work.
** Art 6 (pont 2): The employer shall be alert to the need to adjust these measures to take account of changing circumstances and aim to improve existing situations.

4-I agree with you, the true bottom of simple and practical step of prevention H&S is much better than a beautiful unutilised documentary system (a large sorter full with procedures).

5-I don’t believe that a independent* OHSMS auditor replaces a H&S regulator because they don’t have the same capacities and the same things to control (we find again the difference between the world of the standards and the world of the regulations).
* but this auditor is paid by the entity wich is audited.

6-Without an independent audit who is going to point these things out? If you speak to the regulators (at least those I have experience of) they will tel you they haven't got the people to do it. They just have to wait for an incident and resort to the courts as a deterrent.

But I understand our difference in vision: the context of the quality specialists are the standards (because the companies do not need laws to want to improve their production…), the context of specialists H&S it is the regulation (because the civil community imposes H&S “legal standards” on the companies…).

Cordialy.
 

Randy

Super Moderator
#17
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

As you have stated, you are no expert in standards or systems, but a better term would be "you lack competence".

The OHSAS standards are not meant to replace regulatory requirements, they are meant to compliment them and an OHS auditor (like me) does not audit compliance to the law or regulations but to conformance to system requirements.

You are taking on a subject that you yourself have declaired lack of knowledge to and your arguments illustrate that.

I myself am a trained and extremely experienced safety professional with about 35-40 years of risk management experience that goes well beyond fretting over what kind of glove to have people wear or having too many cords in an electrical outlet. Additionally I am a management systems professional, an auditor of management systems, and a particpant in the writing of the OHSAS 18001 document among other things, therefore my expertise in the field of OHS and OHSMS is well established and recognized globally, and I feel free to say "you are shouting aganist the surf" and you have gone down an incorrect pathway with your reasoning, and you are mixing apples and oranges.


I will also beg to differ about your argument that OHSAS 18001 is not an international standard.....On one hand you are correct, it is labeled BS OHSAS 18001, therefore it is a British Standard, but if you would take the time to look...or maybe even get your hands on a copy of 18001, you'll see in the Acknowledgements that 40 "International" standards producing bodies (many of whom are voting members of the ISO
My suggestion would be that you go to the very 1st Thread on OHSAS 18001 we have here and start reading. Then read the Threads about management systems and about auditing....or take some training, gain some expertise and develop competence in the field of OHSMS.

Additionally, you need to read the Acknowledgement section of OHSAS 18001 in order see that of the 40 international organizations that participated in its development many are voting members of the ISO.
 
Last edited:
#18
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

Please excuse my selective quoting but as your words were mixed in with mine I have to do some pruning. :)
Hi Paul !

I guess that you are especially a specialist in quality, but me of health safety to work. I propose several remarks in connection with your message:
You guess (partially) correct. My background is mechanical engineering that has to consider all aspects of a product - including safety. My first specialism was in quality and I am always interested in it. I have extended my areas of expertise into areas of environment and health & safety. Because I take H & S, in particular, so seriously I have taken additional qualifications in H & S.

1-I don’t agree with you when (as often in quality) you confuses “management system” and “system certification” (you said “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to…”). In Quality, Environment or Health and Safety domains, “to tend to…” organize my management and improve my (Q, E or H&S) results, it’s better I adopt a Management System… but I don’t need to be certified… The bases of our discussion are the real elements of our management standards. However I observe that certification is absolutely not a requirement of these standards! And I affirm that a SMS certification is absolutely not a H&S objective or an risks reduction objective…
I do not confuse the two terms. I merely offered the example of an organisation going for certification as this is probably the most common use of a management system standard. I accept that certification should not, in itself, be an objective but there are many who believe that the 'aim' of certification helps drive implementation.

2-I don’t agree either with you if you think “If an organization chooses to go for certification they tend to go through a systematic process to understand their (legal and other) obligations…”. It’s not the standard which brings the competence to the company for knowledge and comprehension of legal (and other) requirements which are applicable to him (more, the standard requires to identify these applicable legal requirements, but those are already obligatory even without this standard and the organization must understand the legal requirements before to think to adopt a OHSMS).
You have quoted selectively from my post. This is incorrect. There is a standard way to implement a management system starting with a gap analysis where an organisation looks at what its obligations are and then puts processes in place to make sure they have systems to meet requirements. I do not separate these two parts and nor should you when you are quoting my post back to me. You are, of course right the legal obligations existed long before the organisation went for certification but (as the examples in my post show - sometimes even good organisations are not aware of them).

3-I don’t agree with you to consider “the (OHSMS standards) controls at a level higher than the legal requirements and include a commitment to improve on areas of highest risk”. Short explanation (at least in the context of the European Union): the regulation imposes* a result (the essence), but the standards of management relate only to the organisational means (the form). The normative (volunteer) controls are not higher than the legal H&S requirements. The legal H&S prevention general principles comprise also the continuous improvement principle**. We cannot thus say that a OHSMS standard brings much more fundamental things than the “legal standards”, except if we don’t know the regulation in question as well as necessary.
Directive 89/391/EEC:
* Art 5 (point 1): The employer shall have a duty to ensure the safety and health of workers in every aspect related to the work.
** Art 6 (pont 2): The employer shall be alert to the need to adjust these measures to take account of changing circumstances and aim to improve existing situations.
You are talking to someone from a country who introduced the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in 1974 based on an approach of an absolute duty of care for employees and others. Supported (amongst other things by our national body's management systems approach to a H & S management system - HS (G) 65 that came years before OHSAS 18001 and is IMHO a better document. I agree with the directives but you have to understand that OHSAS says your management system has to meet legal requirements 'as a minimum' - hence my post.

4-I agree with you, the true bottom of simple and practical step of prevention H&S is much better than a beautiful unutilised documentary system (a large sorter full with procedures).
We agree on something then. :agree:

5-I don’t believe that a independent* OHSMS auditor replaces a H&S regulator because they don’t have the same capacities and the same things to control (we find again the difference between the world of the standards and the world of the regulations).
* but this auditor is paid by the entity wich is audited.
I never said they replace a regulator. Most countries do not have the luxury of sending an employee from their regulator in to a company once or twice a year to check on them. Certification bodies do this.

As for who pays them ... if you use this argument then all H & S professionals cannot be trusted because they are paid by the company and will be scared to go against the company in case they lose their jobs. :confused:

Not all auditors are perfect - but most want to do a good job and have a conscience for the employees of organisations they certify.

But I understand our difference in vision: the context of the quality specialists are the standards (because the companies do not need laws to want to improve their production…), the context of specialists H&S it is the regulation (because the civil community imposes H&S “legal standards” on the companies…).
No, a quality specialist is interested in doing the right things. I believe and hope the same is true for H & S specialists.

A bientot. I hope you keep coming back to the cove. Your views are challenging - we are not that far apart but you have misunderstood in almost every way the things that I believe in.
 
#19
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

Hi !

Thank you for this answer Paul answer. You develop arguments, it is perfect to have interesting exchange. But A problem for me is undoubtedly to express me and understand correctly an other language than my native language…

One of my ideas is that certification (of SMS) can bring good and bad specifique results if it is the principal objective of the compagny (as I see often see). The main part of the results wich are attributed to the certification itself (generally confused with the system certified) are in fact really produced only by the management (the system). If we have an "no certified OHSMS" we have good results nevertheless (it is the case general of the majority of companies… you do not believe?).

I propose to use the term certification (reminder : certification is not an element of the system of management standards) only when we speak indeed and specifically about this particular process of external recognition (this process is not H&S prevention). But the essential object about which we speak especially to build prevention H&S is the management system. To name it, it is necessary to say "management system " and not "certification". You understand what I want to say? (it's the management system wich produces and improves Q, E or H&S).

Nice to e-meet you Randy. I read again your answer, and I find that the evocation of your curriculum vitae* does not bring any real argument to my remarks. (* I am a H&S specialist myself, since almost as a long time as you, in various industrial sectors, I use OHSMS standards and I also manage or audite OHSMS of different compagnies).

But I have curiosity:
- Which is the topicality of the ANSI Z10 standard in the USA since its creation?
- Did you take part in his creation?
- How this US standard is accomodated? (does it developed in US?)
- Do companies pass from the OHSMS british standard to the OHSMS US standard?

Cordially.
 
#20
Re: BS OHSAS 18001 is not an ISO standard...!

Is there a correlation somewhere between having OHSAS 18001 or ANSI Z10 implemented and the lowering of Total Recordable Incident Rates?:frust:
 


Top Bottom