Posted By david lycett
I am currently setting up H & S in a recycling company wondering which safety management system to implement? with not much help at board level HSG 65 which I've mostly studied may not be the right option. Opinions please.

Posted By Ciaran McAleenan
David

You could always go down the ILO OSHMS 2001 route. There is little difference between it and 18001, or any other specification for that matter.

Afterall a management system by any other name...

The ILO document is free to download (in a range of languages) at;

http://www.ilo.org/publi...ework/managmnt/guide.htm

If you want an audit checklist to assist go to http://www.web-safety.com/manual and look at the documents page

Best wishes

Ciaran

Posted By Merv Newman
Do not do ILO. There is a difference in philosophy and approach.

That standard is aimed at governments, requiring unions to be recognised as the principal safety management tool.

Wrong. (in my humble opinion)

Safety is a management responsibility. Which is where 18000 gets it right.

Merv

Posted By steve e ashton
Merv:

So often I agree with you HOWEVER: On the question of ILO OSH 2001 - I suspect you may have allowed some misconceived preconceptions to show through!

Yes, the system is aimed at persuading everyone to get involved- Government, Employer and workforce - the tripartite approach originally espoused by Robens. Nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

Yes, the focus on workforce involvement is slightly greater and perhaps more explicit than the equivalent in HS(G)65 or OHSAS 18001.

However - the fundamental principals and the structure are almost exactly the same. Any HSMS that complies with one standard should score reasonably well when audited against another. (Although obviously you cannot audit an employer against the 'national requirements' from the ILO standard.)

So - if a company wants to be audited against the ILO standard, the audit may be slightly more focused on worker involvement - but the fundamental requirements - for Company standards, (Policy) for H&S Organisation, for Planning etc etc - are very very similar.

One of the main advantages of the ILO standard - as suggested by Ciaran - is that its available for FREE. I would add that it is in many respects easier to read and to understand. OHSAS 18001 can be impenetrable to those not versed in 'Quality' Jargon, and HS(G)65 will always be tainted by its HSE origins.

Any young, developing organisation - or anyone who has 'started from scratch' with a new or novel approach to HSMS could do a lot worse than download a copy of the ILO guidance and self-assess whether they have all the (relevant) elements of a good HSMS in place.

If the assessment is good, then there is a reasonable chance they could survive an audit against either of the other standards.

I personally believe that HS(G)65 is 'the best' - but only because it was the first, and I learnt it first. I only came across ILO OSH 2001 recently (around two years ago). It stands comparison with either of the others.

Don't dismiss the ILO management systems guidance out of hand!

Good grief. 01.20 hrs and I'm rambling. Time for bed.

Steve

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Just as a point, if you wish to purchase a copy of OHSAS 18001:1999 you may wish to hold off as BS 18001:2007 and OHSAS 18001:2007 are shortly due to be published.

Posted By David Balkwell
Hello David

I have some useful information if you want to email me on davidbalkwell@balkwellltd.com

Also the likelyhood now is that there's not going to be two documents but one

Best regards
David

Posted By Rakesh Maharaj
Dear David,

Obviously opinions amongst practitioners will differ regarding this because we all have varied backgrounds, experience and so on. Clearly my recommendation is based on my experience and will therefore point you in one of many possible directions.

Many years in this profession has taught me that HSMS models encourage divergent thought processes with regard to H&S and mainstream business operations. Although champions of health and safety will support the HSMS concept and procedures, and commercial advocates will not. Whilst there are many reasons for the latter, I find that central to this problem is the fact that the creation of a stand alone HSMS fails to adequately build bridges between the HSMS and daily operations, production, human resources, supply chain, logistics, financial management and so on. Putting it another way, a stand alone HSMS encourages the all to often 'oh no, and not another thing to do...' mentality.
Ciaran and Philip's OAC model (see www.web-safety.com) was created to overcome this barrier to inclusive thinking. There have been many researchers who have written widely on other problems associated with management systems designed exclusively for H&S (see Else, 1994; Quinlan & Bohle, 1991; Rahimi, 1995)

My recommendation would be for you to ask yourself a deceivingly simple question. What do you wish to achieve with the HSMS? Then prioritise the answers. For example:

1. Regulatory compliance;
2. Encourage worker co-operation;
3. Independent certification and recognition;
4. Integration with other workplace practices;
5. Management accountability; or
6. Just because...

Once you've done this, choose your management system model or specification wisely because all systems have their strengths and weaknesses and the last thing you want to do, is choose a system with a weakness that corresponds to your number 1 and 2 objectives.

Good luck

Rakesh

Posted By Robert K Lewis
David

I am in broad agreement with Rakesh on this. Whilst I have developed a number of management systems to all the standard models I find that there are weaknesses in those currently available. Each has its own ommissions also.

Any system you produce does not have to match the structure of the standards in their layout - obviously us auditors like it better because we can easily find our way round it. Provided that you can provide a matrix to identify where the standard requirements cross map on to your system then I as auditor am charged to audit and understand your system - I cannot tell you how to set it out.

A similar problem has occurred with regard to structuring Construction Phase plans. Almost every document you see will slavishly copy the headings in the acop without a thought as to how the organisation actually manages work, or what the logical connections are. In reality then we are seeing a document written to satisfy the CDM C and not run the job in the way the company intends it to run.

It is vital therefore that your system matches your business processes and not merely adds a layer of strangeness that is alien to the work of the organisation. The question Rakesh set out is a start point and if you are to go forward you need some clear thinking on how you are to integrate into the current business models. In view of the fact that you are likely to be using the 14001 model you may be best starting at this point, but be aware that most 14001 systems have the same "business fit" problems as discussed above.

Bob