Proposals on BS 45004: https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/3a879651ac6d2e245e7c31aa0efebab9
Public Comments start date: 2017-03-13
Public Comments end date: 2017-05-24
2017-05-06: The text seems not to be accessible.
See also: http://blog.psybel.de/stichwort/iso-45001-english/
I don’t know whether any 45004 standard will be necessary. As far as I understand, ISO 45001 already will include guidelines.
Schlagwort: ISO 45001 proposal
"Incident" in OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001
An incident based on OHSAS 18001:2007 is an incident in which
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) occurred,
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) worsened,
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) could have occurred,
※ physical ill health (regardless of severity) could have worsened,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) occurred,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) worsened,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) could have occurred,
※ mental ill health (regardless of severity) could have worsened,
※ injury occurred,
※ injury could have occurred,
※ fatality occurred,
※ fatality could have occurred.
An incident based on ISO/DIS 45001.2:2017 is an occurrence arising
※ out of work or
※ in the course of work
that
※ could or
※ does
result in
※ injury and/or
※ ill health (regardless of severity)
which both are an adverse effect (including occupational disease, illness and death) on the
※ physical,
※ mental or
※ cognitive
condition of a person.
Google: “conitive ill health”
Pushing ISO 45001: Draft Review by ISO
- https://antarisconsulting.wordpress.com/2015/11/04/iso-45001-reaches-next-stage-in-the-process/
- https://www.google.com/search?q=%22ISO+45001%22+%22DIS+ISO%22&num=100&source=lnt&tbs=cdr:1,cd_min:1/11/2015,cd_max:&tbm=&gws_rd=cr
There seems to be no critical analysis anywhere.
Silence.
12 OH&S Incident Categories
These incident catecories are based on definition 3.8 and 3.9 in OHSAS 18001:2007. The data should be easy to obtain. Just quarterly categorize OH&S incidents using the twelve categories shown below. Then count the incidents per category and enter the sums for each category into the table.
In words:
Incidents which …
1.1.1.1 … have caused physical ill health
1.1.1.2 … have worsened physical ill health
1.1.2.1 … could have caused physical ill health
1.1.2.2 … could have worsened physical ill health
1.2.1.1 … have caused mental ill health
1.2.1.2 … have worsened mental ill health
1.2.2.1 … could have caused mental ill health
1.2.2.2 … could have worsened mental ill health
2._.1._ … have caused injury
2._.2._ … could have caused injury
3._.1._ … have caused fatality
3._.2._ … could have caused fatality
Or in other words (even closer to OHSAS 18001:2007):
Incidents in which …
1.1.1.1 … physical ill health occurred
1.1.1.2 … physical ill health worsened
1.1.2.1 … physical ill health could have occurred
1.1.2.2 … physical ill health could have worsened
1.2.1.1 … mental ill health occurred
1.2.1.2 … mental ill health worsened
1.2.2.1 … mental ill health could have occurred
1.2.2.2 … mental ill health could have worsened
2._.1._ … injury occurred
2._.2._ … injury could have occurred
3._.1._ … fatality occurred
3._.2._ … fatality could have occurred
“Incident” and “ill health” according to OHSAS 18001:
- Incident: Work-related event(s) in which
- an injury
- or ill health (regardless of severity)
- or fatality
occurred, or could have occurred.
- Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation.
(Regrettably, there is no similar definition for “ill health” in the ISO 45001 drafts (1st and 2nd CD).)
The underlined words met resistance from employers when moving from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007. In internal communications they tried to replace “ill health” by “desease” and “identifiable” by “diagnosable”. They also tried to hide “regardless of severity” from their employees. “Made worse” was not welcome, as the term did not allow them to reject incidents which worsened an already existing ill health. And “could” was a challenge to employers, because due to that term they could not ask affected employees to prove that they actually suffered from ill health. The reasons for resisting against “mental” where quite similar to the reasons for mentioning “psychological factors” only in the notes to clause 7.1.4 of ISO 9000:2015 rather than clearly in the clause itself.
Discussion:
Download:
United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG):“No with Comments” to CD2 of ISO 45001
The latest draft (CD2 or CD 45001.2 etz) of ISO 45001 has been approved (with comment) in June 2015. United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG) probably is happy. In their view the planned standard doesn’t offer sufficient flexibility.
http://envcompsys.com/blog/iso-45001-update-june-2015/, ECSI (EH&S Management Consulting Training and Auditing), 2015-06-06:
We recently participated as voting members in a meeting of the United States Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for the new ISO 45001 (Occupational Health and Safety) standard. The meeting was held at Google Headquarters in San Francisco. Extensive discussion took place within the TAG regarding the United States TAG position on the proposed ISO 45001 Draft Standard (CD#2). The consensus was strong that the United States TAG believes the standard is still not ready to move to the next stage of the standards development process (DIS). To this end, a motion was made, seconded, and unanimously approved during the course of the meeting and at a follow-up conference call.
The motion and its result were communicated in a letter to the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) on June 3. The motion was as followsThe United States votes “No with Comments” on the draft standard with the position that the proposed standard is not yet ready to move to the DIS stage of the standards development process.
The impact of this negative vote is uncertain because the US has only a single vote on the International ISO 45001 committee (PC283) and there could be enough votes by other nations to move the standard to DIS rather than to another Committee Draft. The US is voting that the standard go through another cycle as a Committee Draft (CD3) to allow more time to iron out some sensitive and controversial issues. […]
What kind of "consensus" will be reached for ISO 45001?
https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3449099
Comment
How will a consensus be reached for ISO 45001? The 1st CD had been rejected because it failed to get two thirds of the required votes. The representatives of the employee side and the business side probably would not allow to let such a surprise happen again. It seems that the promoters of ISO 45001 are quite sure that they get their way and meet the planned deadlines. Are they confident because as many voters could be added as required to get two thirds of the vote? I fear that the employer side has significantly more resources to secure a majority for their position compared to the resources which are available to the employee side.
Remedy
Democracy instead of plutocracy.
False Claims
A system meeting the requirements of ISO DIS 45001 will meet OHSAS 18001
The presentation fails to prove that this claim is true. Compared to OHSAS 18001 and ILO-OSH, in ISO 45001 the rights of employees are weaker.
And http://www.healthandsafetyatwork.com/hsw/safety/iso-45001-second-draft claims:
Second ISO 45001 draft emphasises worker consultation. […] key change is an increased emphasis on the importance of worker consultation. The lack of reference to communication with workers in the first draft was a major concern for the International Labour Organisation, the United Nation’s agency that promotes labour rights. […]
This is a cheap trick. Don’t compare CD2 to CD1. Compare CD2 to OHSAS 18001:2007 and to ILO-OSH.
Bussiness minded approach to ISO 45001
http://ehstoday.com/safety-leadership/connecting-dots-iso-45001-supply-chain-and-risk
Connecting the Dots: ISO 45001, the Supply Chain and Risk
On March 26, voting began on ISO 45001, which sets requirements for occupational health and safety management systems. Kathy Seabrook, former president of the American Society of Safety Engineers, shared her thoughts on ISO 45001 at a recent event.
[…]
According to Seabrook, there are two drivers impacting change by some organizations to be more accountable for their supply chain: the market economy and sustainability reporting, and they are closely tied, she noted. “The investment community and organizational stakeholders are driving market demand for more transparency from the organizations they invest in,” said Seabrook.
[…]
According to Seabrook, ISO 45001 can inform and play a role in creating solutions that cross borders. While the scope of ISO 45001 is not intended to include supply chain workers, “an organization can choose to leverage the ISO 45001 management systems approach as a solution to identify, control and continually improve opportunities to reduce or eliminate worker safety and health risk to workers in the supply chain,” she noted.
[…]
This is an unsurprisingly American business minded approach: The concerns on the side of employee organizations are no issue to the author of this article. And the author probably has not even has an idea, why this should be an issue.
By the way: If voting already begun, than BSI’s invitation to the public could be just an alibi. Is ISO 45001 already a farce before it is pushed through?
Comment on 3.33 "incident" in ISO 45001 2nd CD
From the viewpoint of employees, the term “incident” has a much better definition in OHSAS 18001:2007 than in ISO 45001. Here the employers seemingly were successful in watering down the standard. I posted this comment in drafts.bsigroup.com:
https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3449143?pos=3449143
“Incident” and “ill health” according to OHSAS 18001:
- Incident: Work-related event(s) in which
- an injury
- or ill health (regardless of severity)
- or fatality
occurred, or could have occurred.
- Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation.
“Occurrence(s) arising out of or in the course of work that could or does result in injury or ill-health” as proposed here for ISO 45001 is much less ambitious. Strangely, “fatality” has been dropped completely in the ISO 45001 draft. And “(regardless of severity)” made sure that employers cannot “evaluate” the severity of ill health before it enters the evaluation process defined in the standard.
Use terms from OHSAS 18001:2007. Make sure that incidents are not filtered away before the enter the official process of evaluation of ill health and its severity.
Again no definition of "ill health" in ISO 45001 2nd CD
My comments to “Terms and definitions” (section 3 in in ISO 45001) posted in drafts.bsigroup.com:
https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3449110 (not online anymore)
Comment
In the comments to the 1st CD it already has been criticized, that one of the most important terms in ISO 45001 has not been defined. Strangely, a definition of the term “ill health” is missing again in the 2nd CD. Thus, OHSAS 18001 still does a much better job: “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation.”
In contrary to ISO 45001, the BS OHSAS 18001:2007 explicitely mentions physical and mental health. This is important: Search for “Health Impact of The Psychosocial Hazards of Work: An Overview” in the pages of the WHO.
A standard which does not acknowledge the importance to protect mental health is unacceptable in the 21st century. Sadly, ISO 45001 seems to be on the way back to the last century.
Remedy
In order not to fall behind OHSAS 18001:2007, include the definition “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation” into 3 “Terms and definitions” of ISO 45001.