DIS ISO 45001: Look into it until 2016-04-01

Compared to the previous CDs, there are improvements in the DIS ISO 45001.
Thanks to the British BSI, you can look into the draft again and leave comments too:
Good news:

  • Clause 3.18 now not only defines “injury”, but also “ill health”. And adverse mental (and even adverse cognitive) condition is back again. Probably I was not the only one who complained to BSI about the missing definition of “ill health”.
  • In clause 3.4 (participation) workers are involved in the in decision-making process(es) regarding the the OH&S management system.

Not so good:

  • In OHSAS 18001:2007 “incident”, “ill health (regardless of severity)” helped to avoid discussions whether an incident needs to be registered depending on the severity of ill health. I know of employers, who tried to avoid to communicate “ill health (regardless of severity)” in their information about OHSAS 18001 to their employees. Regrettably, in clause 3.35 “incident” in DIS ISO 45001, “ill health (regardless of severity)” is missing. I also don’t find it elsewhere in the draft.

CD = Committee Draft
DIS = Draft International Standard


Update 2016-02: http://blog.psybel.de/iso-450012016-or-iso-450012017/

DEKRA: "ISO 45001 ersetzt möglicherweise BS OHSAS 18001"

Endlich einmal eine Titelzeile, in der der Ersatz von OHSAS 18001 durch die Norm ISO 45001 nicht als hundertprozentig sichere Tatsache verkauft wird. Auch sonst ist der DEKRA-Artikel empfehlenswert: http://www.dekra-certification.de/de/draft-iso-45001
Bis 2016-04-01 steht der DIS ISO 45001 der Öffentlichkeit zur Diskussion zur Verfügung:

IGM muss noch dazulernen

Ich bin Mitglied der IGM und bat meine Gewerkschaft, mir Kollegen zu benennen, die sich mit OHSAS 18001 auskennen. Das ist ein Standard für Arbeitsschutzmanagementsysteme. Ich bekam keine Hilfe.
Währenddessen kenne ich inzwischen mehrere Mitglieder von Betriebsräten, die zeigen, wie man kompetent und professionell mit solchen Standards im Interesse der von Ihnen vertretenen Mitarbeiter umgehen kann. In einem Fall kennt sich das Betriebsratsmitglied besser mit dem Standard aus, als die zuständige SiFa. In einem anderen Fall (ein Tochteruntrenehmen von Daimler) haben das Betriebsratsmitglied, die SiFa und der Zertifizierungsauditor von Anfang an gut miteinender zusammengearbeitet. Es geht also. In beiden Fällen braucht man die Gewerkschaft dabei nicht, sondern nur Betriebsratsmitglieder, die sich persönlich Kompetenz (z.B. Befähigung zu internen Audits) erarbeitet haben.
Gewerkschaften, die eine Anti-Stress-Verordnung fordern, aber über von ihnen nicht verstandene Standards die Nase rümpfen und deswegen in zertifizierten Betrieben nicht einmal die Selbstverpflichtungen der Arbeitgeber nutzen können, müssen noch viel dazulernen.

Mentale Gesundheit: Mehr Relevanz in ISO 45001?


[…] Ebenfalls mehr Relevanz erhält das Thema mentale Gesundheit. Die ISO 45001 spiegelt damit die in den vergangenen Jahren konkretisierten gesetzlichen Anforderungen hinsichtlich psychischer Belastungen am Arbeitsplatz wider. Und: Dass Arbeitsschutz weit mehr als das Minimieren von Gefahren bedeutet, sondern Betrieben auch neue Möglichkeiten eröffnet – beispielsweise durch sinkende Fluktuation oder motivierte, anpackende Mitarbeiter – verdeutlicht der Normentwurf dadurch, dass er den Risiken die Chancen direkt zur Seite stellt. […]

Frage an TÜV-Süd: Die Begriffsbestimmung 3.9 für “Erkrankung” aus OHSAS 18001:2007 fehlt in der Norm ISO 45001. In OHSAS 18001 haben “physisch” und “mental” den gleichen Rang. Wie sieht der Text in der ISO 45001 aus, der mentaler Gesundheit im Hauptteil der Norm mehr Relevanz gibt?

Protection of mental health dropped in ISO 45001?

Question to BSI:
=== ISO 45001 vs. OHSAS 18001 ===
In contrary to OHSAS 18001, in ISO 45001 there is no definition for “ill health” which puts “mental” and “physical” adverse conditions on a same level. Can employers in countries, where protecting mental health is not reqiuired by laws, claim, that ISO 45001 does not cover mental health issues anymore, as did OHSAS 18001?
May be (hopefully) I am wrong. TÜV SÜD says that there is an even stronger emphasis on mental health.
See also: “The need to prevent ill-health (including mental ill-health), as well as injuries” in https://committee.iso.org/files/live/sites/pc283/files/Documents/ISO%2045001%20Current%20status%20of%20development.ppt
2016-03: It’s in the latest draft. I hope that it also can be found in the fonal ISO 45001.

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 follows

The 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?


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.

Democracy instead of plutocracy.

False Claims

http://www.iosh.co.uk/~/media/Documents/Networks/Branch/Ireland/Speaker presentations/Safety in a re emerging construction sector/Finbarr Stapleton presentation.ashx, page 18

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


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?