Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy You shouldnt get me on this subject, I end up getting very inquisitive and slightly emotional. As discussed previously there is no legal status attached to this Standard. Nor is there any wrongdoing in its implementation, in fact i was informed that nobody has the rights to OHSAS 18001 therefore it is commercially driven. What that means is that the company you work for may have been criticised for a non compliance in terms of OHSAS standards.but has in fact probably done absolutely nothing wrong. For this reason I decided to research the whole concept of OHSAS 18001 and I am astounded at its shamateurism. In terms of a performance indicator it is as much use as a chocalate fire guard. I also checked on the accreditation bodies and you dont even have to be accredited by UKAS to achieve this status. I am still trying to access further information to ascertain the difference between standard setting and profit making....Iwill keep you all informed

Posted By Ian G Hutchings Steven Much of this will also come down to interpretation by the assessor. I use the standard as a guide when setting up systems for clients, but usually many of them would not go for certification. I also have clients who have masses of paperwork and the certificate, who are quite poor at managing H&S in reality. If you want the certificate you will have to do what the assessing company expects. Unfortunately, whether you like it or not or whether it makes the slightest difference in true operational risk. Businesses need to be educated about the pros and cons of certain accreditations and systems. Best of luck Ian

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy dont do it yet...wait until the debate is over.

Posted By steven n Unfortunately 14001 is next for us once 18001 is out of the way. This is all down to clients insistance.

Posted By Steve j B I have experience with both. A construction company i was safety manager for went through 18001, which we succeeded in getting. The Auditor was from BSI and had a fair H&S knowledge, although he was not safety expert. The BSC audit was carried out by an ex HSE inspector working for BSC but he wasn't so inquisitive as the BSI guy. Depends on what the auditor is looking for as evidence of compliance i suppose. (or how interested he really is!!!!) Steve

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Great debate and very interesting but some very inaccurate pointers on how best to achieve OHSAS 18001. Firstly look at what you/we are trying to achieve? Lets say for instance that the MD feels a lot safer with this auditable trail and he is also keen to promote the Company image. Thatt being the case I can do a certificate for you for a fiver no questions asked. If on the other hand the MD has a genuine desire to improve the safety culture allied to the business then steer well away from an auditor, particularly one with no H & S knowledge. In fact how ridiculous would it be to get certificated to a standard that actually doesnt exist? And pay thousands for the privelege. Would anyone like to join in a proposal that IOSH undertake a standardised and systematic management audit of all things safety. I think not...too much responsibility. The Great British Public have been screwed once again.

Posted By Jay Joshi Tony you have stated “In fact how ridiculous would it be to get certificated to a standard that actually doesnt exist?”. There should be no confusion that BS OHSAS 18001:2007 is a Bristish Standard. OHSAS 18001:1999 was termed as a “Specification” due to the reasons I have referred to in my previous posting but has been for practical purposes a de-facto “standard”. BS OHSAS 18001:2007 supersedes OHSAS 18001:1999, which remains current until 1 July 2009. What this means is that when BS OHSAS 18001 was published in July 2007, any organization that had already achieved certification to OHSAS 18001:1999, or was in the final stages of achieving it, a two year "transition" period ending on 1 July 2009 has been agreed, in order to allow you to make the change to using the new standard. One of the reasons why it has taken time for certification bodies to get UKAS accreditation for OHSAS 18001 is because they need to demonstrate that they have processes to demonstrate the selection of Auditors that are competent and experienced for industry sector they are likely to Audit. The International Register of Certificated Auditors (IRCA) OH&SMS auditor programme has been developed in partnership with the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH). IRCA certify different categories of auditors - those employed by certification body/registrars, consultants and internal auditors in addition to developing and promoting good auditor training and auditing best practice. If a certification body can demonstrate it has lead and principal auditors certificated by IRCA to Audit OH&SMS that surely has credibility. That need not mean that all non-IRCA certificated Auditors are not competent. It is up to you as a client to vet the competence of auditors the certification body uses. The good ones will also supply you with a CV /profile of the auditor they will be using. If competent, then OK. This should do this for any health and safety consultant an organisation uses, whether it is for auditing or not. Depending on External Audit findings and therefore maintaining certification will not drive continuous improvements. It will be your internal audits and other indicators that are even more important to drive and make improvements to the processes. The difference between BS OHSAS 18001 and others such as ISRS, RCMS(for chemical industry). and various "star rating" systems(such as BSC's) is that other others do have a scoring system for each of the "clauses"i.e. requirements. Not all are accredited by UKAS, so there is no guarante, unless you probe the details of what is on offer. I urge you to read IOSH’s “Systems in Focus” that provides unbiased guidance:- http://www.iosh.co.uk/fi...SystemsinFocus0302wv.pdf Some extracts from it:- IOSH position: IOSH recognises that work-related accidents and ill health can be prevented and wellbeing at work can be enhanced by organisations managing health and safety with the same degree of expertise and to the same standards as other core business activities. IOSH believes that the formal OSHMSs referred to in this guidance, and others based on similar principles, provide a good approach to achieving these goals. Guidance: This document seeks to help and encourage professional advisers to explore what OSHMSs can offer their own organisations and those that they advise. It has three specific aims: • supporting developments in effective health and safety management • assisting organisations wishing to introduce formal OSHMSs • encouraging IOSH members to play a full part in these developments and in the continual improvements to systems. Structure of guidance: The adoption and implementation of an OSHMS, and its integration with other management systems, requires careful planning and execution. This guidance, having outlined the basis for such systems, discusses some benefits and pitfalls, provides practical suggestions, and indicates how to implement and develop an effective OSHMS.

Posted By Robert Paterson Hi All I have read the postings with interest. I am looking to prepare a manual for 18001 but a wee bit stuck on layout. Is there anyone who would like to share their ideas on this and send a copy of the lay out that they used to give me some pointers Information is not a problem. Regards Robert Paterson

Posted By Robert K Lewis Steven Your procedures need to state how you do things and covers such as Responsibilities Persons Training Process Forms Records But it is not as I have said a detailed statement of say the use of a lathe - these are work instructions and not part of what the standard is looking for. As I indicated above The way you do Risk Assessments is a procedure. The actual risk assessment for a task is not a procedure. Remember The way you do things forms a procedure Bob

Posted By Robert K Lewis Tony abc jprhdnMurphy You are highlighting all the faults of a badly constructed system. OHSAS requires you to describe your system and how you do it - nothing more or nothing less. There is no set format simply a need to include the identified elements in whatever way matches your organisational needs. If you are not doing H&S audits as part of your system then you should not be accredited to the standard. There is indeed a lot of misunderstanding about management systems, usually by persons who are not fully familiar with the underlying meanings of the clauses. Yes the system auditors are looking for evidence that the system works as described and that it covers the standard criteria. It is the organisation's job to make sure that all work is conducted safely and that relevant legislation is applied. If it is no then there is a non-conformance potential in a number of key areas of the standard. Bob

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Ah but your professional opinion, or mine for that matter is how the performance is judged, and as there is no clear link between performance and a British Standard I am of the opinion that it is a waste of time...unless there are other reasons for acquiring the necessary status. I can imagine a scenario where I show my certification to the corporate manslaughter judge when he is about to pass sentence and my MD has this lovely smug look on his face safe in the knowledge that he has some cover. It doesnt make sense and a management standard that has no specific target is as much use as a chocolate fire guard. I have researched the subject to the point where, for the first time as a Safety Professional, I am starting to question the logic of a " British Standard" or indeed any standard that can be achieved by paying for it.I am not naive enough to think that money plays no part in safety but I take my role seriously and want to explore the possibility of achieving certain standards that matter, that make a difference, and that improve working conditions in my particular industry. This may sound trite but it is how many Safety guys genuinely feel and they too would be mortified if they were quoted 5 grand for a certificate that helps nobody and serves(unless I am sadly mistaken) no purpose.

Posted By Ian G Hutchings Hi Just back to the original question. I tend to write an overarching procedure for each part, i.e. hazard ID & risk management. Within this it says how it's done, who does what and when, and then finishes with a link to the 'checking' documents and also links to the forms used. I think that this is usually enough. I don't write a specific separate procedure for 'how to do a risk assessment'. The wording is relatively high level. If it is an overarching system for a group of companies, it is more general. It states that each company will have systems in place to do a minimum of x, y and z. They then have their own procedures in place. I see the management procedures as a high level description of how the company manages its risks. On the ground most people don't see these documents. People are trained and well supported and the SWPs etc they use are basic with photos and easy to follow instructions (which they are heavily involved in producing). The work on the ground with employees is (in my opinion) much more important in managing risk than the high level procedure. The system just shows the responsibility and how things flow and are checked and continually improved. Best of luck Ian

Posted By Paul Jepps Hi all, Comments about 18001 auditors qualifications sparked me to make a response. I work for a company that is part of a large group. We currently use LRQA for iso 9000 - 2001. Part of our objectives over the next few years is to roll out 18001 across the board. LRQA use only auditors who have a firm foundation in H&S thus giving confidence that the auditors have the relevant back ground and qualifications to carry out a 1st class assessment of the buisness.

Posted By Carl Deaves Forgot to inform for information that the 2 are SGS Certification Services and LRQA for your information. Hope this is of interest Carl

Posted By Julide Original question, as said above procedures should "clearly" tell the process so that the system is not based on the person but a paper, so that the new comer or any person can go on with it. the person reading the procedure need not to ask any questions about the process. As a person worked with 18001 and 5 Star, I do not hesitate to tell that 5 Star is far too better . 18001 is superficial at least in my country; Turkiye. The auditors I have met through 5 Star had taught me much. 18001 has become such a system and piece of paper that you can buy for a couple of banknotes. Krgds, Julide

Posted By Julide Carl, yes, both are accredited. as far as I know, 5 star is more robust and clear. 18001 is more on documentation, 5 Star is more on information and management of a safety system. I'll be away inducting new recruitment, we may discuss this later if that's ok. you can also email me for details. regards

Posted By colin1936 I did the lead auditor course in 2004 and i asked who could issue a certificate on achieving the standard and was told as it was not an ISO Standard anyone who passed the lead auditors course they could. The problem with many auditors they have just picked it up as an additional revenue stream. having had 14001 and 18001 audits costing the company a small fortune it was not value for money and most well managed companies will benefit.In response to it being the international std i cannot agree, on my course i was told the reason it did not get iso standard was a lack of consultation.

Posted By Jay Joshi BS OHSAS 18001 is a qualitative management system, i.e. it does not claim that for each of the clauses or requirements, WHAT SCORING LEVEL is ACHIEVED by the orginisation being audited. The scoring level can be structured in various ways. Certification to OHSAS 18001 means the organisation meets the requirements of the various clauses-The terminology used is the international ISO one. In contrast,other audit systems such as the BSC, ROSPA & NOSA Star rated systems, International Safety Rating Systen and Responsile Care Mamangement System are quanititative OHSMS i.e. have "scores" for each of the clauses and therefore can give an "overall score". Ultimately, it depends on the robustness of the system auditor competence. Each has its place, depending upon a client's overall needs.