http://www.isoqsltd.com/general/iso-certification-a-commitment-not-a-requirement/

ISO Certification – A commitment, not a requirement
Posted on 23 February 2015 by Michael Haile

It is clear that some companies want to achieve a certificate just to have the logo on their website and stationary. [...]

http://www.thecqi.org/Documents/MyCQI/ISO_CD_45001_Briefing_note_v3.pdf
www.thecqi.org | www.irca.org
Incorporated by Royal Charter and registered as a charity number 259678
© 2014 the CQI. All Rights Reserved

• http://www.campuserc.org/news-and-updates/headline-news-and-issues/proposed-iso-45001-health-and-safety-management-systems-standard
• http://envcompsys.com/blog/?p=821

In https://www.linkedin.com/groups/Why-rift-between-ILO-BSi-6580868.S.5850261745326641154 there is a good and interesting discussion.

http://blog.lnsresearch.com/blog/bid/203469/8-Questions-Answered-from-Yesterday-s-EHS-Management-Software-Webinar
(Posted by Paul Leavoy on Fri, Dec 05, 2014 @ 10:19 AM in blog.lnsresearch.com)

[...]
Q. How do you think the release of ISO 45001 will impact EHS?

A. ISO 45001 could go either way. If it becomes a go-to standard, it will take some time for it to gain traction. Of course it has the ISO name and brand behind it, but existing default standards like OHSAS 18001 have already become fairly entrenched, and a health and safety standard has been a glaring omission in ISO’s catalog for some time.

All signs say the new standard will be risk-based, like the newest version of ISO 9001, which could be a positive sign, given the increasing traction of risk management in EHS. But the jury is still out on whether ISO 45001 will establish relevance.
[...]

http://www.hastam.co.uk/iso-45001-replacement-ohsas-18001-dr-tony-boyle/
(Tony Boyle, 2014-11-24)

[...] in theory, ISO 45001 and OHSAS 18001 could run in parallel from then on. However, in OHSAS 18001 it says

This OHSAS Standard will be withdrawn on publication of its contents in, or as, an International Standard

so it seems unlikely that this will happen. However, there will inevitably be a transitional phase during which organisations move to the new International Standard.

In an earlier blog I described the ten clauses that make up OHSAS 45001 and showed that ISO 45001 differs from OHSAS 18001 in many important ways. At the end of this blog I have Listed the ten clauses again and have given brief notes on the significant changes from OHSAS 18001. As that section also indicates, you can expect some more blogs from me over the next few weeks and months going into detail on some of those changes [...]

OHSAS 18001 will be withdrawn on publication of its contents in, or as, an International Standard. However, if ISO 45001 is different from OHSAS 18001, then there will not be any publication of its contents in, or as, ISO 45001. Consequently, OHSAS 18001 will not necessarily be withdrawn after ISO 45001 eventually will have been published.

http://www.british-assessment.co.uk/news/iso-45001-goes-back-to-drawing-board

[...] The headline news has been that voting failed on the ISO 45001 Committee Draft. With a two-thirds majority needed for a Draft standard to proceed, there were 29 approvals and 17 disapprovals. However, a ‘no’ at this stage simply means that a majority of the voting countries believe there is a need to improve the draft further before it can go to the next stage.

This situation is not out of the ordinary; during the development of the new version of ISO 14001 expected next year, a second Committee Draft was created and this will happen with ISO 45001 once the Committee’s Working Group meets to discuss submitted comments. [...]

http://www.ishn.com/articles/100052-european-unions-say-proposed-osh-standard-would-scapegoat-workers

[...] “Behavioural safety doesn’t resolve workplace health and safety problems, it buries them. It finds workforce scapegoats, not management solutions,” said the ITUC in a statement. [...]

[...] The standard was initially expected to be adopted before the end of 2016.

See also: http://blog.psybel.de/kategorie/referenzen/etui/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAZF9TJrC_E

Published on Nov 11, 2014
Andy, the auditor, lets you in on a secret in the new ISO 9001:2015 standard.

I know companies where internal auditors do audit their own work or, at least, the work of close colleagues - and the external auditors as well as the accreditation authoritiy knows about it. That’s how the audit business can be run in Germany. The auditors keep covering up the nonconformities of the work of their department.

They did not comply with ISO 9001:2008 which demanded that auditors do not audit their own work. How does the ISO deal with that? ISO 9001:2015 makes incestous audits more enjoyable: “The organization shall select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process”. That is more difficult to measure. It can be measured by auditors who audit their own work. The incestous auditors will find ways to be happy with their work or the work of their close colleagues. ISO 45001 probably will inherit this disease. Who audits these auditors?

See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=”ISO+9001:2015″+”ISO+19011″+”impartial”

http://isqem.wordpress.com/safety-management-iso-450012016/ (2013-12-08)

The clocking is ticking as we look forward to OHSAS 18001 becoming an official ISO standard, known as ISO 45001. [...] The new standard will be official[ly] called ISO 45001:2016. [...] 

• ISO 45001 will be different from OHSAS 18001 and not necessarily better. Don’t neglect the small but important details. Example: In OHSAS 18001:2007, clause 3.8 is not only about physical ill health, but also about mental ill health: “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 committee draft the definition of “ill health” has been omitted completely.
• “The new standard will be officially called ISO 45001:2016.”
  Really?
  How about ISO 45001:2017?

 

---

Admittingly, “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation” is not a good definition, because ill health of course can be caused by reasons which are not related to work. But this is no excuse for omitting the definition of “ill health” completely.

My proposal is: “Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by various causes.”