Schlagwort: ISO 45001 (English)

The Myth of the Integrated Management System

http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/the-myth-of-the-integrated-management-system/

by Christopher Paris | Apr 22, 2014 | Opinion |
Our profession is awash with myths, told by dubious people with overt agendas and gobbled up by an unsuspecting public. The problem with myths is they usually come from cultures in decline, while progress is driven by fact and practicality. Ask the Mesopotamians how that whole Marduk thing worked out; you’ll have to dig in the ruins of Babylon to find out, since it doesn’t exist anymore.
Shmowzow!
Within the ISO standards world, we are constantly confronted with the notion of the “integrated management system” or IMS. Like the mythical griffin, Quetzalcoatl or Ancient Psychic Tandem War Elephant, the IMS is an amalgam of existing creatures, all glued together and presented as if the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. It supposes that companies opt to weld their qualty, environmental and safety management systems into one bulging mass, using ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 to do so. The most recent versions of the myth decorate the resulting amalgam with nurnies of ISO 22000, ISO 27001 and an assortment of other standards. […]

[…] Now it is through the Annex SL mandate, affecting all ISO management system standards from here to eternity.
ISO itself has begun to self-perpetuate the myth, going so far as to incorporate it into the New Work Item Proposal for the future ISO 45001 standard, which is set to replace the OHSAS 18000 standard (which is not an ISO standard.) That document drops the “i-word” a few dozen times.[…]

I couldn’t stop drawing your attention to this.
See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=”Annex+SL”+”ISO+45001″

European Unions fend off ISO 45001 draft

http://www.etui.org/News/Unions-fend-off-draft-occupational-health-standard

7 November 2014
Unions fend off draft occupational health standard

A draft international standard on health and safety at work failed to secure the necessary two-thirds majority vote in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) committee developing it on 18 October. It will now have to be reviewed and voted on again. This is a battle won by the unions against provisions that would leave workers worse off.

The International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) spoke out against the draft standard (ISO 45001) on occupational health and safety management systems in mid-October, claiming that it is at odds with International Labour Organisation (ILO) occupational health and safety (OHS) conventions. The ITUC’s call was backed by Public Services International and other international trade union federations who had been critically monitoring the standard’s development and even questioned why there should be one.
The ITUC argued that the draft was designed to shift responsibility for any workplace safety and health incidents onto the workers when worker participation in OHS administration and management had been written out, and that adopting it could lead to “a blame-the-worker system”.
“Behavioural safety doesn’t resolve workplace health and safety problems, it buries them. It finds workforce scapegoats, not management solutions”, inveighed the ITUC in a press release
By contrast, the draft was particularly business-friendly. A July 2014 version omitted any reference to employer responsibility for OHS, something deeply unwelcome to the ILO which had signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the ISO in August 2013 stating that the standard should not be inconsistent with ILO conventions which, like EU laws (the 1989 Framework Directive) require employers to ensure the health and safety of their employees.
The ITUC reports that only four of 83 experts involved in the working group hammering out the draft are from workers’ organisations.
The standard was initially expected to be adopted before the end of 2016.The unions have no plans to let up the pressure because this simply delays, not defeats, the standard.
While the early decades of the ISO’s existence were focused mainly on developing technical standards, the past thirty years have seen it venturing increasingly into other areas. In the late 1980s, the ISO adopted its first standards on quality management systems – the well-known ISO 9000 standards – followed by others on the environment, human resources management, etc., some of which are in direct competition with legislation, particularly in social matters. Standards of course are private instruments with no legally binding authority, but in fact, a growing number of laws do refer to them, sometimes leaving no option but to implement them – a trend condemned by the ETUI in an issue of its HesaMag health and safety at work magazine published in early 2013.
Read more:

Die Google-Übersetzung ins Deutsche ist natürlich mit Vorsicht zu genießen. In ihr taucht auch den Begriff “Gesundheitsmanagement” auf. Das ist tatsächlich als ein Nebenziel der Norm ISO 45001 in der Diskussion. Mit Blick auf Unternehmen, die in Deutschland mit einem eher verhaltensorientiert angelegten Gesundheitsmanagement den verhältnisorientierten Arbeitsschutz zu marginalisieren versuchen, könnte der Einbezug des Gesundheitsmanagements in eine ISO 45001 nicht so menschenfreundlich gemeint sein, wie das auf den ersten Blick aussieht.

KAN: a German trade union voice in standards

http://www.etui.org/en/Topics/Health-Safety/HesaMag/Standardization-what-roles-for-the-unions -> http://www.etui.org/content/download/9798/87904/file/HESAmag_07_EN_p24-27.pdf

spring-summer 2013/HesaMag #07
Special report 15/25
KAN: a German trade union voice in standards
Standards are developed by private standards organizations working very much to the agenda of manufacturers and much less in the interests of workers who use their products. Germany’s Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and Standardization (KAN) has been trying for nearly 20 years to put this situation right. It upholds the interests of various stakeholders in health and safety at work, and so also gives the unions a voice.
Ulrich Bamberg, Commission for Occupational Health and Safety and
Standardization (KAN) […]

Actually, “KAN: a German trade union voice in standards” is not quite true. Also the employers are represented in the KAN. But both are interested in a high quality of worker protection. In Germany, the OHS-laws are quite strict. Without an ambitious international OHS standards German employers would have a competitive disadvantage.
In close cooperation especially with their French partners, the KAN also participates in the developpment of ISO 45001. (Article in German)

ISO bid to ‘privatise’ safety standards

TUC – Risks 677- 25 October 2014
https://www.tuc.org.uk/workplace-issues/health-and-safety/risks-newsletter/risks-2014/tuc-risks-677-25-october-2014

ISO bid to ‘privatise’ safety standards
A draft standard on safety management being prepared by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) could be seriously bad news for workers, unions have warned.
When ISO decided in 2013 to proceed with its own international standard for an Occupational Health and Safety Management System – ISO 45001 – both the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and unions were alarmed, and objected forcibly to ISO’s intrusion. Unions say ISO does not have an expert mandate in occupational health and safety, and unlike ILO doesn’t have to listen to those who have. The latest draft of the standard, being steered through by a working group chaired by the British Standards Institute (BSI), heightened concerns, with mentions of “workers” almost entirely removed and “worker participation” not part of the package.
TUC head of safety Hugh Robertson commented: “We need strong standards on health and safety but we have ones already. These were developed by the International Labour Organisation and agreed with unions, employers and governments worldwide. They put workers and worker involvement at the heart of any standards.” He warned: “The attempt by ISO, led by the British standards body BSI, to develop separate standards which were not wanted by either employers’ or workers’ representatives, amounts to the privatisation of health and safety regulation. The unelected standards bodies, most of which have no involvement of people who actually understand the world of work, are simply trying to develop a product that they can market and make large sums of money certifying.”
He added: “I do not see anything in the current proposals which will drive up standards. Instead they will undermine the existing standards, including the management standards the HSE has developed in the UK, which are far better.” Sharan Burrow, head of the global union federation ITUC, said: “ISO must be made painfully aware that a standard that ignores the critical role of affected parties in its design and implementation, which undermines ILO standards already in place and which could give an ISO stamp of approval to blame-the-worker systems just won’t work.” She added: “This isn’t about a piece of paper, it is about workers. ISO would do well to remember that.”

 

Update 2015-04-02: One major critizism was “unelected standards bodies”. This may be the reason that BSI again opened the discussion to the public in March 2015. However, voting started before that discussion is finished. This turns the discussion into a farce. Seemingly BSI wants to stick to the introduction timing intended for ISO 45001 by all means.
Also I am curious whether measures have been taken to secure the required two thirds vote for the 2nd committee draft. Almost any kind of interested party can participate in the committee. That looks “democratic” at the first glance, but participation requires ressources (e.g. time and money). This could give employers the opportunity to secure two thirds of the vote just by spending the money to send sufficiently more business and industry representatives into the committee. This is plutocraty, not democracy.

Absolute control combined with zero responsibility

http://www.ituc-csi.org/iso-is-failing-the-standard-test?lang=en

[…] Under ISO’s new standard, company management would have absolute control combined with zero responsibility. It is an approach at odds with modern safety laws and all accepted and effective occupational health and safety management practice. The experts advising ISO knew that. But forget consensus; ISO is acting as censor. […]

The proposed ISO 45001 is significantly different from OHSAS 18001

In a ISO TMB 09/2014 “policy issues” document of ISO/TMB N 12 (2014-01-06) it was mentioned that the “concept of the fast-track” had been discussed. There was the question why “in key cases such as the recent ISO 45001 (OHSAS 18001)” with its 3 year time frame the development of that standard was not put on fast track. It was recommended to clarify and promote the fast-track as it is not well known or understood. “It was however felt that it was not suitable for controversial subjects.”
Adctually, it is clear that ISO 45001 is controversial. However, the “ISO 45001 (OHSAS 18001)” could imply that there is no big difference between OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001. But the standards are quite different. Interestingly, some elements of OHSAs 18001 which are missing in ISO 45001 did not enter the controversy yet. Didn’t anybody notice that there is no definition like “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation” in the ISO 45001 Committee Draft anymore? And in the definition of “incident”, the “(regardless of severity)” in “ill health (regardless of severity)” is gone.
 
http://www.prlog.org/12297585-the-definitive-guide-to-iso-450012016-published-by-fms.html

[…] ISO 45001 is to be based upon the OHSAS 18001 standard. The current version – OHSAS 18001:2007 is used as the basis for occupational health and safety management systems in thousands of companies around the world. The proposed standard is significantly different from OHSAS 18001; the structure, format and terminology of the new standard will be substantially altered. […]

PS: There already was a The Definitive Guide to ISO 45001:2016 (Issue one – January 2014, £30.00, http://www.fedms.org/store/p158/Definitive_Guide_to_ISO_45001%3A2016_%28PDF%29.html). The guide still may be helpful to understand the history of the coming ISO 45001.
 

2015-03: The 2nd committee draft still is significantly different from OHSAS 18001:2007. The high level structure (HLS) may be seen by formalists as an improvement compared to what OHSAS 18001 offers. But from the employees’ point of view, the content gives them less enforcable protection.

ISO 45001 draft cannot be viewed anymore

All comments have been collected. That is fine, but sadly, the draft as well as all the comments to it cannot be viewed anymore free of charge (http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Expired/53407). There has been controversy, but now it is hidden from the public although many employees will be affected by the standard.
My comments focused on the disappearance from ISO 45001 of what is the definition of “ill health” in OHSAS 18001, clause 3.8. OHSAS 18001 defines “ill health” as “identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation.”
Also in what is the definition of “incident” in clause 3.9 of OHSAS 18001, “(regardless of severity)” disappeared from “ill health (regardless of severity)”.
In my opinion, OHSAS 18001 is better for employees than ISO 45001. Perhaps that is the reason why OHSAS 18001 has to go.
I hope, that BSI will make the comments available for research. This is a matter of public interest.
Regrettably, personalized copies of the Committee Draft now only are available for 38 Swizz Francs.

ISO 45001 would not be used for OHS system certification?

http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/ilo-doesnt-like-isos-definition-of-risk-either-iso-31000-headed-for-certification-standard-iso-45001-draft-out/

[…] One of the promises for ISO 45001 was that it would not be used for OHS system certification. No one in their right mind believes for a second that BSI will surrender all that OHSAS 18001 assessment lucre, so ISO 45001 will definitely be used for certification purposes. Should be interesting to watch ILO’s reaction as ISO and BSI once again spit in their soup. Expect their outrage to be violently displayed in a … tersely worded internal email.

Surely, ISO 45001 draws controversy.
 
I was missing the spice in this standardization business. Here it is:
http://www.oxebridge.com/emma/fan-mail/

Fan Mail
The advocacy work by Oxebridge puts us in the crosshairs of charlatans, scammers, certification bodies, accreditation bodies, standards developers and even ISO itself. But it’s not all bad, and the work — along with our often nutty and hilarious spin on things — garners tremendous support and praise from the people who matter: standards users, clients and supporters of fair play. […]

OHSAS 18001 not dead yet

http://www.peakhse.co.uk/news/162/iso-45001-draft-out-for-comment

[…] BS OHSAS 18001 is still valid and it is envisaged may well be for some time after the new ISO Standard is published. Companies will still benefit from implementing and certifying against BS OHSAS 18001. […]

 
http://isqem.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/ohs-management-systems-and-impact-on-business-practices/

[…] It is hoped that the introduction of the ISO 45001:2016 standard will have a positive impact on global acceptance to OHS. Time will tell if the present ISO working committee have got it right, if not it could turn out to be a basic cosmetic makeover of OHSAS 18001, with very little impact.
If you consider there are three major changes to ISO management standards including, Quality and Environment in 2015 and OHS in 2016, you have to question when, or if, your organisation should make the transition. As with any systems changes you will need to take into account aspects such as, development cost, staff training and re-certification.
It might pay to hold back on any certification and changes until after the OHS standard is officially released in 2016. Then you can make one integrated change across your management systems, limiting any financial, time or operational impacts and make implementation feasible. […]

Employee Participation: ISO 45001 vs. OHSAS 18001

From the first draft of ISO 45001:

7.4.2 Participation, consultation and representation
[…]

Only for a limited time it was possible to read and discuss the first draft of ISO 45001 can be read free of charge: http://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3311629?pos=3311629
 
From OHSAS 18001:2007:

  • 4.4.3.2 Participation and consultation
    The organization shall establish, implement and maintain a procedure(s) for
    the participation of workers by their:

    • appropriate involvement in hazard identification, risk assessments and determination of controls;
    • appropriate involvement in incident investigation;
    • involvement in the development and review of OH&S policies and objectives;
    • consultation where there are any changes that effect their OH&S;
    • representation on OH&S matters.

    Workers shall be informed about their participation arrangements, including who is their representative(s) on OH&S matters.

    •  
    In the ISO 45001 draft, for employee participation more words have been spent than in OHSAS 18001. But these words also are used to limit employee participation stronger than in OHSAS 18001.
    In OHSAS 18001 at least the term “consultation” was used to describe, what “participation” could mean. In the ISO 45001 draft, “consultation” was moved to the footnote NOTE 3, which limits consultation to “an exchange of relevant information and advice as part of the decision making process”. Perhaps especially German Employers wanted to avoid, that consultation can be interpreted as “co-determination” (“Mitbestimmung”) as in case of the German version of OHSAS 18001, where “consultation” has been translated by “Absprache”.
    In clause 7.4.2 (among other clauses), you find the important requirements in the footnotes: “NOTE 1 – Obstacles or barriers include lack of response to employee input or suggestions, reprisals (supervisory and peer), or any policy, practice or program that penalizes or discourages participation.”
    To ISO 45001, requirements concerning the participation of employee representatives in all the various kinds of audits of OH&S management systems should be added. How about learning from the SCCM?

    2015-04: No improvements in the 3nd CD.