ASSE position paper on ISO/DIS 45001
ASSE newsletter, January 2016: http://www.iso45001assessment.com/files/ASSE%20newsletter%20Jan%2015.pdf
ISO 45001 Information Guide
https://www.nsf.org/newsroom_pdf/isr_dis45001_guide.pdf, by NSF International Standards Registrations, 2016-07-07
There is also false information:
Webinar: ISO/DIS 45001:2016, Clause-by-Clause Overview, 2016-05-02:
This one hour webinar provides a clause-by-clause overview of the recently published ISO/DIS 45001:2016 standard. This new International Standard for occupational health and safety (OH&S) was released by the International Organization for Standardization, ISO, on Februrary 12, 2016. […]
Not to know that the standard still is under discussion or to pretend that the standard is finalized, what is worse?
Disclose CSR Assessments to Employees
Request to EcoVadis:
Disclosure of EcoVadis CSR assessment reports to the employees of assessed suppliers
=== Brief ===
This is about improving the credibility of assessments by EcoVadis SAS (Paris, France) of the “Corporate Social Responsibility” (CSR) of suppliers.
Herewith the petitioners demand, that reports on assessments of the CSR by EcoVadis are disclosed to the employees of the assessed suppliers. Disclosing CSR assessment reports to their employees also contributes to more honest self-assessments by suppliers, because that enables the employees of the assessed supplier to compare their employer’s CSR assessment with the real CSR practice experienced by the employees.
=== Detail ===
CSR assessments and rankings became an important tool for “reputation management” of suppliers of goods and services. The pressure on customers to purchase “ethically” from “social responsible” suppliers still is increasing. This created a flourishing CSR assessment business. As of today, several CSR assessment providers help suppliers to advertise their CSR with rankings, awards and certificates. In too many cases such awards just are badges on the walls of the suppliers, because their customers don’t really want to know the details. They are happy to cover their bases just with their supplier’s CSR certificate, CSR award or CSR ranking and believe that such kind of “evidence” is enough for responsible purchasing.
One of the best known tools in the CSR ranking market is the DJSI (Dow Jones Sustainability Index). I mention the DJSI, because there is a critical assessment of such CSR assessment tools as well as a short excerpt from that critical meta-assessment. It gives you a general idea about the CSR assessment business.
This petition, however, is about an even simpler CSR assessment tool: EcoVadis.
EcoVadis works with a web-based tool which uses a supplier self-assessment questionnaire to generate scorecards based on allegedly validated data, describing the strengths and weaknesses of suppliers’ ethical and environmental performance. The tool is designed to rate and benchmark responsible performance in the supply chain. The design of the tool allows EcoVadis to assess thousands of suppliers at low cost.
EcoVadis assesses the management of CSR of companies which are suppliers of goods and services. Stakeholders of a supplier’s CSR practice are the society, the customers and the employees of that supplier.
- As for society as a CSR stakeholder, only few supplies disclose the “EcoVadis Premium Assessment Report” to the public. This kind of credible and transparent CSR reporting unfortunately still is exceptional.
- As for customers as CSR stakeholders, the EcoVadis tool supports a process by which customers can request CSR assessment reports from any evaluated supplier. The supplier can either accept or reject such a request.
- As for employees as CSR stakeholders, most suppliers do not disclose the CSR assessment reports generated by EcoVadis to their employees. They even reject requests by their employee representatives to disclose the CSR assessment report even though the report contains several pages on “LABOR PRACTICES & HUMAN RIGHTS”. Therefore the employees of an assessed company cannot compare their employer’s CSR assessment with the real CSR practice experienced by them as insiders. They cannot check whether their employer reported the truth to EcoVadis and/or whether that reporting is flawed by bias and imbalanced inclusion.
=== Petition to EcoVadis SAS, Paris, France ===
The disclosure of CSR assessment reports to the employees of an assessed supplier enables the employees to compare their employer’s CSR assessment with the real CSR practice experienced by the employees. Therefore EcoVadis should actively support the disclosure of the EcoVadis CSR assessment report to the employees of an supplier assessed by EcoVadis.
Possible means of such support: As in the past, suppliers assessed by EcoVadis decide themselves how, when and to which extent stakeholders they will disclose the EcoVadis CSR assessment report. However, besides issuing “gold” or “silver” awards, EcoVadis also will indicate in the EvoVadis Certificate issued to the supplier, to which degree that supplier is committed to disclose the EcoVadis CSR Assessment Report to the employees of that supplier.
Based on http://www.endress.com/_storage/asset/1576641/storage/master/file/6849002/download/eh_EcoVadis_Premium_Report_2016.pdf (chapter 10, p. 24/31) “legitimate stakeholder” as defined by EcoVadis are:
- Governmental organizations (i.e. government environmental protection administrations, anti-trust agencies, customers protection agencies)
- CSR networks and initiatives
- Trade unions and employers’ organizations
- International organizations (i.e. UN, ILO, UNEP, …)
- NGO’s (i.e. Greenpeace, Clean Clothes Campaign, Transparency international, UFC, …)
- Research institutes and reputable press (CSR Asia, Blacksmith Institute, …)
A corporate stakeholder is a party that can affect or be affected by the actions of the company and the achievement of its objectives (i.e. employees, clients, suppliers).
- https://www.dsm.com/content/dam/dsm/cworld/en_US/documents/handbook-for-product-social-impact-assessment.pdf (S. 116)
- https://odpowiedzialnybiznes.pl/public/files/Rate_the_raters_phase_2_report_AccountAbility_2010.pdf (S. 12: “If It’s Not Public, You’re Not Doing It”)
Bye bye to ISO 45001:2016Hello to ISO 45001:2017
From OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001
What will the World do with OHSAS 18001 when ISO 45001 is published? (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8319963/8319963-6130997825703542787, Chris J Ward CMIOSH, Committee member at British Standards Institution ISO 45001)
[…] It cannot just be withdrawn immediately. It is written into law or regulation in some countries and this will take time to manage. There is a three year migration period planned to allow organizations to move from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001 and this migration should not be too difficult for those already implementing OHSAS 18001.
Read the Draft Standard and more on my website http://www.iso45001assessment.com/
And more on my Linkedin group EHS ISO 45001 https://www.linkedin.com/groups/8319963
In my country (Germany) the change will be very interesting to works councils. Here most employees didn’t have a clue when OHSAS 18001 was implemented in their companies, even though leaving them clueless was not only not compliant with the standard, it also was against the OH&S laws. But now, if the employee representatives learned from that and if they got involved in audititing their employers’ OH&S management system based on OHSAS 18001, they will be better prepared to use the migration form OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001 as an occasion to apply their rights&duties (co-determination) when implementing ISO 45001.
This is about the business of certifying companies based on ISO9001-like standards. That business always seemed to be strange to me. Now I know, that it is strange. It is tailored to the needs of the players in the certification business and not to the needs of the end users. I experienced myself that even the German accreditation authority tolerates sloppy audits. People who want to change that have to cope with quite some trouble.
Regarding the Proliferation of Online Defamation
In recent months, there has been a troubling, nearly “viral” spread of misinformation and defamatory claims made against Oxebridge and its staff. This includes a series of… well, insane posts on Ripoff Report, a site which then requests thousands of dollars to have them redacted. All the defamatory material is being published by ISO certification industry players who are frustrated with Oxebridge’s reform efforts. There is no surprise as to why this is happening.
Oxebridge is currently under a US Federal court order not to discuss issues pertaining to ongoing litigation in this area. Unfortunately, the publishers of such material are currently not restricted in this manner, and thus their misinformation is spreading while we cannot publicly rebut it. We are working with the Court on a means of allowing us to address the false claims while respecting other parties in the litigation and not, accidentally, defaming anyone else in the process. The court has a balance to strike, and we are hopeful we can help them find the right balance.
If you are reading anything about any litigation regarding Oxebridge, it is likely utterly false, since the parties themselves are currently prohibited from speaking about it. This includes any alleged posts of “court documents” published online by anonymous trolls.
For now, we ask that Oxebridge clients, supporters, readers and the public consider facts over any unfounded and anonymous rumors they may find on the internet:
- Oxebridge is working to reform the certification scheme so that auditors may not simultaneously consult, thereby avoiding an Enron-style scandal within the quality assurance field. This upsets CBs and their auditors, who want to conduct both services with impunity, thus doubling their revenue streams.
- Oxebridge is working to put the unaccredited “certificate mills” out of business entirely, so they will be forced to stop issuing “certs by mail” to any organization willing to pay a few hundred dollars. Obviously, the mill operators are upset with this.
- Oxebridge is releasing free documentation kits to help companies adopt the new ISO 9001:2015 standard, which Oxebridge feels was updated unnecessarily. Both ISO and competing consultants are upset with this, as it cuts into their cynical profiteering.
- Oxebridge is fighting the standards development bodies to ensure greater representation of ISO 9001 user organizations, and to limit the ability of private consultants from using their roles in such committees to enrich their private consulting practices. ISO, ANSI, and ASQ are upset with this, as it foils their publishing deals and high-priced seminars.
- Oxebridge is positioning itself to testify before the US Congress on the scandals within the ISO certification scheme, and how they link to deadly disasters such as DeepWater Horizon and Takata airbag deaths. ISO and ANSI are upset with this, as it means they will be formally investigated.
While all of these efforts hope to benefit you, the user of ISO standards, obviously this puts us in the cross-hairs of the industry incumbents. For now, due to the court order, we cannot publicly rebut the critics and trolls. That is changing, however. Oxebridge is pursuing subpoenas to identify anonymous posters of defamatory information and engaging law enforcement when the activities violate the law. We are working with the court to be able to clearly and unequivocally debunk the false claims being made.
In the meantime, if you want to show your support of Oxebridge, consider a donation to the ISO 9001 Users Legal Defense Fund. The funds will go towards helping Oxebridge pursue legal challenges to the incumbents, and break their stranglehold over the end users of ISO 9001. Also, when you see negative online commentary about Oxebridge, be sure to let the posters know you’re not happy about it.
Have patience, and thank you.
Oxebridge Quality Resources International LLC
Analyze This! – A Snark Exercise
to which I refer in my previous article,
all images are focusing on hazards to physical health.
Oh, that good ol’ hard hat safety! Isn’t there anything beyond that?
The image below quite nicely depicts mental workplace hazards too.
You could use this image as an exercise in spotting workplace hazards.
Henry Holiday & Joseph Swain
Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark, London 1876
Downloads and links:
- PNG: 4400 × 6328 pixels
- SVG: http://www.snrk.de/BeaversLesson.svg.7z
- PDF with vector graphics: https://www.academia.edu/9856809/The_Beavers_Lesson
ISO 45001:2016 or ISO 45001:2017?
ISO 45001 on occupational health and safety has been approved for Draft International Standard public consultation
by Elizabeth Gasiorowski-Denis on 12 February 2016
Now that ISO 45001 has advanced to the DIS stage, national member bodies of ISO have been invited to vote and comment on the text of the standard during the three-month balloting period. If the outcome is positive, the modified document may then be circulated to ISO members as a Final Draft International Standard (FDIS). In the event of an affirmative vote, ISO 45001 is expected to be published as an International Standard by late 2016 / early 2017. […]
Registration (required to read the DIS): http://www.iso45001assessment.com/registration.html
Actually, the DIS already was available earlier. But the ISO article has useful links.
As for “ISO 45001 is expected to be published as an International Standard by late 2016 / early 2017”, please visit http://blog.psybel.de/2014/11/11/iso-45001-2017/.
US TAG boasted internally that 9001:2015 will be the “Biggest Boon for Consultants Ever”
I am not in the standards business, but I am affected by standards, especially BS OHSAS 18001 and later ISO 45001. Initially I was naive an thought that standards are made to help many people. But could it be possible, that consultants influence standardization mainly to create business for consultants? That still could be a naive question 🙂
From an email from Oxebridge (spicy as usual):
[…] ISO 9001:2015 is a flawed product. It’s rife with confusing, feel-good platitudes, and light on actual requirements. It invents new concepts from thin air, and has abandoned the idea of standardizing established, mature Quality Management principles. It’s literally been called a “boon for consultants” by the very consultants that wrote it, giving you an insight into why they made it so incredibly frustrating. After all, now you have to hire them to decipher it. […]
OH&S management systems should help to protect the health of employees. If Oxebridge (not to be confused with Oxbridge) is right and if a “strength” of the coming ISO 45001 should be, that it has a concept like ISO 9001, that may be bad news for employees. Could ISO 45001 be “light on actual requirements” too and just convey feel-good statements which – if they are no requirements – don’t really help employees?