https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/2015-03411/

Comment period start date: 2017-08-07
Comment period end date: 2017-10-10

Germany was famous for its correctness. Forget about it. The “diesel scandal” killed that dream. (Forget about serious ISO 26262 audits in Germany.)

Finding “defeat devices” (deception implemented in the software which runs the motor control) is much easier than auditing the protection of mental health in OH&S management systems. No surprise that German employers easily pass OHSAS 18001 audits even though the management of mental workload issues is not included in their OH&S management system if the CAB doesn’t really care about that.

Don’t trust in audits whether it is about environmental protection or credit ratings: http://comment-news.com/source/www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/business/international/volkswagen-emissions-pollution-regulations.html/:

“[...] Carmakers ‘shop’ for the best deal from agencies across Europe and directly pay for their services,” he [Greg Archer, a former director at Britain's renewable-fuels regulator] said in a recent [2015] statement on the Volkswagen scandal. “The job of the engineer overseeing the test is ultimately dependent on the next contract from the carmaker.”

The company did not have an immediate comment.

Automakers have the same incentive to shop around for lenient testing companies that bond issuers have long had to shop around for the credit rating agency that would give them the highest credit rating. Overgenerous ratings of complex financial instruments based on mortgage prices were widely blamed as helping to set the global financial crisis. [...]

Also OHSAS 18001 certifiers easily might get corrupted by their customers who won’t appreciate an honest audit. Too thoroughly audited employers just would move to a more lenient CAB. That is why I kow of a company in Europe where the management of mental workload issues is not included in their OH&S management system. They got their OHSAS 18001 certificate nevertheless. The CAB also had tolerated that that company moved much too late from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007 in the year 2013. The accreditation authority – lenient as well – did not consider that to be a deviation.

Certification mills have good working conditions in Europe. That ugly make-believe business makes employees sick. The “diesel scandal” confirmed my impression that audits can be an ugly farce.

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.

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”

2017-05-25 (update): https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/352ab5e18513df32fddd13f0ccd7b0ea
 

Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements with guidance for use

http://shop.bsigroup.com/ProductDetail?pid=000000000030358994

[...] Once the balloting period opens, on 19th May, you will be able to go on the draft review site to read and comment on the standard clause by clause. If you prefer to read it all in one go before commenting you can buy the draft today. [...]

https://standardsdevelopment.bsigroup.com/projects/889a26b727ebec532a7bc1dac105d0e9 (ISO/CD 45001:2014 Occupational health and safety management systems. Requirements with guidance for use – (Withdrawn Standard)) says:

Public Comments start date: 2017-05-26
Public Comments end date: 2017-09-27

(Previously, the public could get to the comment page vis https://drafts.bsigroup.com/Home/Category/13.100.)

See also: http://blog.psybel.de/stichwort/iso-45001-english/

http://www.asse.org/update-on-the-proposed-iso-45001-standard-on-ohs-management-systems/

https://www.google.com/search?q=iso+45001+vienna+%22ISO%2FPC+283%2FWG1%22&num=100&client=firefox-b&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2%2F5%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=

http://www.theauditoronline.com/iso-45001-release-could-extend-to-march-2018/

[...] Based on the latest information on the revision of occupational health and safety standard ISO 45001, the publication date could be extended to March 2018. [...]

I was sure that there would be an ISO 45001:2017 instead of ISO 45001:2016 – because I am an optimist. This is the most controversial standard in the history of ISO.

Interesting article by Chris J Ward: https://www.iso45001assessment.com/files/Commentary%20Two%2016%20October%202016.pdf

ASSE newsletter, January 2016: http://www.iso45001assessment.com/files/ASSE%20newsletter%20Jan%2015.pdf