http://www.bsigroup.com/Documents/standards/guide-to-standards/BSI-Guide-to-standards-1-5-standards-types-BSI-UK-EN.pdf (2009)

[...]

It can take time to develop consensus standards and for the agreement to go through public review. For some users of standards, particularly those in fast-changing technology sectors, it may be more important to agree on a technical solution and publish it quickly before going through the checks and balances needed to become a British Standard. Therefore, BSI, CEN/CENELEC and ISO/IEC have developped a range of publications that are not formal standards, but allow publication earlier than if full consensus were to be achied. These publications are:

• Published document (PD)
• Private subscribed standard (PSS)
• PAS
• International publicly availabe specification (ISO/PAS)
• European or international workshop adreements (CWA/IWA/ITA)

[...]

The PAS initially was marketed as “Product Approval Specification”. Later it was renamed to “Publicly Available Specification”. That probably made that pseudo standard more marketable. Originally, the PAS was meant to cope quickly with technoloy progress. However, it also became a tool to create pseudo standards for controversial processes where employers didn’t like the need to find a consensus e.g. with employee organizations. Examples: BS PAS 1010:2010 (Code of practice for managing workplace psychosocial risks and stress, Britain) and DIN SPEC 91020 (Occupational health management, Germany). As for “Published Documents” (PD), the PD 2511:2010 adressing Human Aspects of Business Continuity is a fine example for questionable contributions to the CSR show business.

By the way: In all cases you have to pay lots of money for obtaining these papers. That doesn’t really foster a good public discussion of these “public” documents.

• https://www.google.com/search?q=”Publicly+Available+Specifications”+”occupational+health+and+safety”
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicly_Available_Specification
  

  According to a BSI document “Principles of PAS standardization” “The term PAS was originally an acronym derived from “publicly available specification”. However, not all PAS documents are structured as specifications and the term is now sufficiently well established not to require any further amplification.” However, early examples of PAS were actually titled “Product Approval Specification” as illustrated in the accompanying photograph showing part of PAS 003.

I got curious about how the players in the certification business manage to push “Publicly Available Specifications” (low quality & fast track pseudo standards) into the market for the certification of management systems for Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S). I think that the Britisch PAS 1010 and the German DIN SPEC 91020 are indecent tricks designed to avoid a consensual standard development. Employee organizations (unions) are not seriously given a voice.

http://www.baua.de/en/Research/Research-Project/f2339.html?nn=3328602

Psychosocial risk management in the EU: Context, strategies and implementation at establishment level – a comparative European study

Project number: F 2339
Institution: Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA)
Status: ongoing
Planned end: 2015.12.31

Description:
        There is a growing concern in the EU about psychosocial risks (in particular work-related stress and harassment/bullying at work), and the management of psychosocial risks should be included in the organisations’ general risk management which is among employers´ responsibilities as stipulated in the EU Framework on health at safety at work (Directive 89/391/EEC), However, according to current knowledge, the implementation of psychosocial risk management in the workplace is deficient.
        European surveys, in particular the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER) have seen Germany as ranking low when comparing stress management practices in European establishments. This raises the question of whether this ranking depicts an accurate picture of reality or whether it is due to differences in the understanding of basic concepts, differences in occupational health and safety practices or different framework conditions. Our research project will make a contribution to illuminate and potentially explain the documented European disparities and aims to provide fresh impetus for the management of psychosocial risks in Germany. In addition, it shall add to an exchange of experiences in Europe including benchmarking. For this purpose, a qualitative research design was chosen. Qualitative company case studies involving expert interviews and documentary analysis will be conducted in four countries. Three establishments will be investigated per country. The case studies will focus on the preconditions for successful implementation of psychosocial risk management and on the outcomes that were achieved (analysis of structures, processes and results). The study will draw on the views and judgements of the actors responsible for psychosocial risk management (psr) – in particular as regards the initiation and the implementation of psr in the workplace. When designing and analysing the investigations in the workplace, the relevant political, legal and socio-economic context of the respective countries will be considered. The company case studies in the respective countries will be pooled to a consolidated report. The results of the research project will be integrated into BAuA’s long-term research line on psychosocial risks at work.

More information:
Unit 3.5 “Mental Workload”
Service phone: +49 231 9071-2071
Fax: +49 231 9071-2070

See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=ESENER+PSR

[...] NOTE A suitable environment can be a combination of human and physical factors: [...] social [...], psychological [...], physical [...]

For Details please see clause 7.1.4 Environment for the operation of processes in ISO 9000:2015

See also: http://qualityrecord.com/showthread.php?tid=84

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:

• http://www.facebook.com/groups/1426157327626692/permalink/1637599459815810/
• http://redd.it/3l03g2

 
Download:

• http://platinumcsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IncidentClassification_OHSAS18001.pdf

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.

OHSAS 18001 demands that worker’s participate in decisions on OH&S (Occupational Health & Safety). (Regrettably, probably starting from 2017, ISO 45001 might give workers less leverage.) But before we gullibly believe in a real participation of workers in OH&S, we should understand the rights of employees in emerging economies in general. How can workers in emerging industries participate in OH&S? In order to participate in anything, you not only need rights, you also have to know these rights and have to be able to use these rights.

Probably clause 4.4.3.2 in OHSAS 18001 cannot be put into practise too well anyway in regions where unions are busted. We should pay more attention to the conditions for the implementation of work safety standards in the emerging economies. In these times, any sweat shop in countries whith cheap labour gets certified for ISO 9001, ISO 14001, ISO 50001 and OHSAS 18001. But how reliable are e.g. OHSAS 18001 certificates in regions where workers (or their representatives elected in secret ballots) do not participate in audits and therefore cannot tell auditors what really is going on in their company?

I fear that the certification auditors (Conformity Assessment Bodies, CABs) e.g. in Malaysia certify even those companies, where employees don’t know anything about their tasks described in clause 4.4.3.2. In contradiction to the standard, the employers don’t tell the employees about clause 4.4.3.2. Worse, workers cannot participate well in OH&S if their unions are busted. But there is hope. Let us have a look into the activities of labour unions in Malaysia:
http://www.industriall-union.org/report-electronics-industry-organizing-and-fighting-against-precarious-work

[...] Organizing in the electronics industry

In 2013, IndustriALL set up a steering committee on ICT Electrical and Electronics to lead the work in the sector and discuss strategies on MNCs [MultiNational Corporations], trade union networks, GFAs, organizing, union rights, precarious work and specific industrial policy.

In 2014, a five-year project supported by the European Commission was launched in cooperation with the GoodElectronics network. It focuses on organizing electronics workers in the ASEAN region, of which 30 per cent are women, including outsourced workers, temporary workers, migrants and students. Last year, over 600 trade unionists from IndustriALL affiliates in Indonesia (FSPMI and Lomenik), Malaysia (EIWU and EIEU coalition), Thailand (TEAM), Vietnam (VUIT) and Taiwan (ROCMU) were trained in organizing.

Concrete results have already been achieved. In Malaysia, EIEU Northern region has succeeded in organizing more than 900 workers at an electronics MNC despite strong resistance and union busting tactics by the management. It is the first time the union has negotiated a collective bargaining agreement that includes migrant workers. This year, IndustriALL will expand the project to the Philippines where the electronics industry is expected to grow significantly in the country’s export processing zones over the next three to five years. [...]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/reality-check/2015/jul/13/greece-crisis-what-are-the-effects-of-sleep-deprivation-on-decision-making

Greece crisis: what are the effects of sleep deprivation on decision-making?

Greece and its eurozone creditors have reached a deal after all-night talks, but can we trust the decisions and deals of sleep-deprived politicians?

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.

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?

5.4 Participation, consultation and representation

https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/View/3449155?pos=3449155

Comment

This is about Employee Participation: ISO 45001 vs. OHSAS 18001

ISO 45001 weakens the worker’s options compared to what has been achieved in OHSAS 18001:2007, paragraph 4.4.3.2 “Participation and consultation”.

Remedy

Here the employee representatives in the committee probably will have to propose significant changes in order to come to a standard which is acceptable in Europe. My proposal is to at least maintain what has been achieved with OHSAS 18001:2007.

I hope that employee representatives thoroughly compare to the 2nd CD of ISO 45001 what is written about employee participation in OHSAS 18001:2007. Additionally, the differences between OHSAS 18001:1999 and OHSAS 18001:2007 show what had been achieved for the workers thanks to the beneficial competition with the ILO standard. (There also was resistance on the employers’ side against this improvement. I know of a case where a large European company had been certified since 2009 for OHSAS 18001:2007 although they only switched to from :1999 to :2007 in 2013 after complaints by employees to the accreditation authority.) Was OHSAS 18001 too tough on employers? Seemingly the development of ISO 45001 is used by them as a means to revert these achievements.

Unions should check with labour councils how much resistance they met when trying to put 4.4.3.2 of OHSAS 18001:2007 into practise. Support to workers councils by certification auditors may have been negligable too. Employers may want to use the chance provided by a new AMS standard (ISO 45001) to get rid of requirements which gave workes a say in occupational health&safety practises.

Furthermore, the “Certification scheme for occupational health and safety (OHS) management systems according to OHSAS 18001″ of the SCCM (Stichting Coördinatie Certificatie Milieu- en arbomanagementsystemen) in the Netherlands is a valuable source for ideas, how workers participation can be put into practice.

Comment

There is too much “as applicable” in the draft, e.g. “Effective participation of workers (and, as applicable, their representatives)”. The workers’ representatives need sufficcient competence and clout.

Remedy

The standard should make it an requirement to establish elected workers representations for OH&S matters where no works councils exist yet. Without such representatives you simply can forget about an effective workers participation. One special requirement should be to let the workers’ representatives participate in certification audits and internal audits. These workes should be able to obtain the required qualifications.