[…] “Behavioural safety doesn’t resolve workplace health and safety problems, it buries them. It finds workforce scapegoats, not management solutions,” said the ITUC in a statement. […]
[…] The standard was initially expected to be adopted before the end of 2016.
See also: http://blog.psybel.de/kategorie/referenzen/etui/
http://www.ishn.com/blogs/16-thought-leadership/post/99002-99002-mark-your-calendar-october-2016 (2014-07-10; by Tom Slavin)
[…] The ISO standards process tends to be fairly bureaucratic and target focused. Deadlines need to be met even if the standard is not quite ready. The assumption is that problems can be fixed at the next stage or next revision. […]
[…] Perhaps the most fundamental debate is a philosophical difference about the scope (should the standard focus on hazard reduction or management system elements?). The OHSAS 18001 group would like to focus on hazard reduction, mainly because it is easier to audit. The ANSI Z10 group (mostly U.S.) would like to focus on hazard control and management system elements, such as management support and employee involvement. […]
[…] It was evident that the hazard control processes and programs covered by OHSAS 18001 are good on paper but have management systems and safety culture blind spots […]
Very interesting article.