Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter
This is one I'd like any HSE Inspector to comment on but anyone else is of course invited to put their six pennarth in as well.
An integrated system is considered as the top document in the company, with the H&S Policy as second teir (Procedural level). What is your reaction to this?
For those of you with systems experience - should the integrated systems policy have the SAME safety content as the H&S policy or vice versa?
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Ron Hunter
Surely our "holy grail" is to have H&S management fully integrated into the day to day business of the undertaking, so I see no problems with SHEQ integration.
On wording and continuity, I'm not sure what you're driving at. You can only (IMHO) have one H&S Policy statement (or one fully integrated one). At a lower level, you can "extract" the H&S element of a common statement into the context of your H&S Arrangements & Procedures, but the wording surely has to be exactly the same?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter
Ron
Since my arrival at my new company 12 mth ago I have created a H&S policy document where there wasn't one previously. I've now been tasked to integrate the trinity (9001, 14001 & 18001) manuals into one manual and then leave the old manuals as procedures. The H&S policy becoming a procedural document. So I'm working backwards to create a one page policy to cover the trinity, hence my question. Should the integrated systems policy have the SAME safety content as the H&S policy or vice versa? Which will blow the one pager out the window. Alternatively how much of a condensed version of the H&S policy can you get away with?
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Hi Folks,
Nowadays I'm a HORSE (Head of Risk, Safety & Environment) so I'd say that your RM Policy takes top tier, and the H&S Policy will support that,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Strictly, IMHO, if you separate out the H&S policy you do not then have a truly integrated system. The real problem is that we call systems integrated when they are not. If we are to truly integrate the systems the terminology needs to be defined and unified across all functional areas, eg the risk assessment process must apply to ALL business risks not just H&S.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
Which, by the way, is more or less what Bob Lewis is saying above,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Arran Linton - Smith
Badger,
There are no hard rules stating how you should integrate the three management processes. If you wish you can simply have three separate policy statements and just integrate the procedures into one document or you can also have a go at integrating all the policies into one policy statement.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Barrie (Badger) Etter
Thanks Guys,
Now another question - any chance of having a peek at an ISM for clause 4.3.2 the legal and othe reqmts to give me an idea of how to integrate the customer focus into it?
Please and Thanks.
Once the the germ of an idea has been sown from your extract, it WILL be deleted on my pc.
As ever all input is appreciated.
Badger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert K Lewis
Barrie
Customer focus is about customer requirements which are - "Other Requirements" under the clause. These may be S, Q or E and you can generalise the words to cover all areas. Think about customer targets and objectives, internal standards, product specifications etc. Look towards customer CSR statements and how you could support these as well.
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.