Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages<12
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#41 Posted : 07 May 2009 12:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Alexander Falconer
Whilst the SOH seems in its own right indeed a very prestigious honour, and companies who achieve this I offer my congratulations.

As a previous poster suggested, in excess of 100+ 5 star certificate holders applied, thus leading to a 40% of applicants achieving the SOH.

In reality, if you take into consideration, the many companies who are in fact audited by BSC to the 5 star criteria, but only achieve 2, 3 or 4 stars, then the 40% figure relating to the achievements of 5 star companies receiving a SOH in fact becomes much lower if all factors are taken into consideration, and thus you could state the SOH earns its right as a prestigious honour.

Just my opinion, and no, I haven't won a SOH at all either, I did receive a 2 star award at my first attempt back in 96 (or was it 97), haven't even attempted or applied the 5 star criteria to any H&S management systems that I have implemented since (I have my own reasons why)

Again, Arun, congratulations on your efforts
Admin  
#42 Posted : 07 May 2009 17:22:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
I started off with “Being awarded the BSC Sword of Honour (SoH) is a great achievement that should be celebrated” which I still agree with!.

I recognise and applaud that BSC champions Occupational Health and Safety and Environmental issues and is in the forefront of health and safety/environmental qualifications and training and has shown a track record of vast improvement from late 1990’s...

My input is not about putting a damper on Arun celebrating or any organisation celebrating on achieving health and safety award success, but the type of claims being made regarding the award.


BSC continues to claim that “The Five Star Audit is widely considered to be the most comprehensive health and safety management system audit available”

Yet there has been no independent or evidence based substantiation of the various claims made has been provided except from the quotes of some of the “winners or awardees”! I can inform that there also have been discussions threads having a negative view of the 5 Star Audit systems.

There is a claim that “BSC is very proud of this award which has been given for many years now and every year the standard of the applications is raised to a level not previously seen”

How is this level measured / bench-marked / validated independetly ?

The reality is obvious to all who are better informed about the evolution that has taken place, and the global state of play in details of the "World of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems”.

Yes, some of the claims made for the BSC 5 Star & SoH could have been valid until the early 2000s’ when there was little to choose from or certificate against.


BS 8800:1996 was published in 1996 –due to lack of consensus in BSI’s HS/1 Technical Committee, it did not lend itself to certification. This led to the publication of OHSAS 18001 in 1999, which in due course of time has become the de-facto international i.e global specification for OHSMS and more recently implicitly “recognised officially” in UK, now that it is subject to accreditation by UKAS after a change in its MoU with UK Government’s DIUS.

For the Chemical Industry worldwide, Responsible Care Management System (RCMS) is now available as a third party certificated OHSM System and as just one example, has been made mandatory for members of the American Chemistry Council i.e in USA. The list below includes the Who's Who of US chemical industry:-


http://reporting.respons...rts/rcmsc_cmpny_rpt.aspx


The ILO has published ILO-OSH 2001 in 2001, although it does not lend itself to certification. The "World of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems" in reality moved on, but it appears that BSC is either oblivious of changes, or has not taken into account the changes that have been taking place and continues as nothing has changed.


If the BSC 5 Star is all comprehensive etc it is claimed to be, the foremost question by an adequately informed person would be, why it has not been accredited by UKAS. Obviously, UKAS would have to make a case about its “most comprehensive nature” etc to DIUS based on the evidence supplied by BSC so that it is included in the MoU, in the same way OHSAS 18001 was. The reality is that BSC’s own offering of OHSAS 18001 compliance audit has not yet been accredited by UKAS


ISO/IEC 17021:2006 is the internationally recognised standard for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems.

ISO/IEC 17021:2006 contains principles and requirements for the competence, consistency and impartiality of the audit and certification of management systems of all types (e.g. quality management systems or environmental management systems) and for bodies providing these activities.

The key words are competence, consistency and impartiality.

Even if at this point in time BSC cannot be accredited by UKAS, I doubt that the 5 Star Audit System in its current form could meet the ISO/IEC 17021:2006 criteria for bodies providing audit and certification of management systems (including any type of health and safety management systems)

I would expect most organisations that already hold ISO 9001, ISO 14001 & OHSAS 18001 Certifications to get the 5 Stars and go on to win the SoH.

It is one thing when an organisation that is already certificated to ISO 9001, ISO 14001 & OHSAS 18001 makes an INFORMED CHOICE about the need for a 5-Star Audit so that it can apply for it and go on to win the SoH for its advertised “most prestigious award” value

(The key word is prestigious, which is more to do with the "pomp & circumstance" of the actual cermonny i.e prestige value of the award ceremony by labelling it as “the Sword of Honour is the most prestigious international health and safety accolade that a company can receive”).

It is quite another matter when organisations that already hold ISO 9001, ISO 14001 & OHSAS 18001, but do not have the full information, do so on the basis of publicity/marketing (independently unsubstantiated) about the various claims.


This is easier to do in the Indian Sub-Continent and a few other countries where some not yet shed “historical complex” associated with the “Raj” and perceive the BSC and the SoH as they do, coupled with unsubstantiated marketing/selling. The terminology used such as “I worship BSC” is apparently an indicator of this.


I have no issues with claims that the 5 Star Audit System is a (but not the most) very comprehensive score based audit system.

However, claiming that “The Five Star Audit is widely considered to be the most comprehensive health and safety management system audit available” may be a breach of the Advertising Standards Authority rules especially if this claim is being being used in marketing material.

I have no issue with a claim that the SoH is an Award of Excellence amongst the 5 Star Audit awardees or a claim that SoH is the most prestigious award BSC confers.

However to claim that “the Sword of Honour is the most prestigious international health and safety accolade that a company can receive” (as mentioned on the BSC website), could apparently be construed as misleading because as you yourself admit, it is difficult to measure!

My main concern, and hence my continual input is that organisations in developing countries are apparently being marketed and sold services with independently unsubstantiated claims.


I urge BSC, as a responsible organisation registered with the Charity Commissioners not to apparently overstate some of its claims now that it is a different "World of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems" compared to previously, especially when they could be easily misunderstood in a different context in emerging economies /developing countries.
Admin  
#43 Posted : 07 May 2009 17:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jack
Swis, I suppose your “Therefore you really need to read the posts before drawing any conclusions” is sarcasm, but the point I was making (and as expanded in Alexander Falconer’s post) is that the 100 were filtered by what I would imagine BSC would consider a fairly rigorous auditing process. Rather different from 100 companies applying with no such filter. Perhaps I was being too obtuse.

Having said that I have no knowledge, one way or the other, about whether the SoH merits the term 'prestigious award'.
Admin  
#44 Posted : 07 May 2009 18:35:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Jay Joshi
For corporate governance and future decision making, I would not depend upon the number of supporting contributions to a particular point of view in this thread, but input based on detailed knowledge, information, experience about the global state of play in the "World of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems".
Admin  
#45 Posted : 07 May 2009 20:50:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By GeoffB4
I would have had more respect Jay for your point of view if you had either moved your argument to another thread or beaten out your problem in private. Certainly none of your comments belong on this one.
Admin  
#46 Posted : 07 May 2009 20:54:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Andrew Lochlyn Ure
Jay

You are one of the most - consistently - constructive contributors to this discussion forum, and I have the utmost respect for what you have posted in previous threads. On this one though, I think you've diverted it into a needless discussion and I think you should pipe down.

I am typing this from a contractor camp on a construction project in the Middle East (not Dubai) with around two and a half thousand people who would recognise the Sword of Honour as a visible testament in achieving a difficult job, in a challenging environment, without anyone getting hurt.

That's the bottom line - so stop being academic, because it really doesn't help.

Well done Arun.

And welcome to the IOSH Discussion Forum.
Admin  
#47 Posted : 08 May 2009 09:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Swis
Geoff,

I think it would be wise to convey your opinion on the topic being addressed. Just confronting someone just because you don’t like their opinion is not constructive in any sense.

Andrew,

Your post in itself are supporting Jay’s comments. Why only certain parts of the world?
Admin  
#48 Posted : 08 May 2009 11:47:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By IOSH Moderator
All,

We have allowed the discussion to continue until this point where all the various opinions have been fully outlined.

The thread has now deviated from applauding the success of achieving a safety award to the detailed merit of the individual award and is therefore locked under AUG 1.
Admin  
#49 Posted : 08 May 2009 11:49:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By IOSH Moderator
All,

We have allowed the discussion to continue until this point where all the various opinions have been fully outlined.

As the thread has now deviated from applauding the success of achieving a safety award to the detailed merit of the individual award and is therefore locked under AUG 1.

Regards

Jonathan
Admin  
#50 Posted : 08 May 2009 11:51:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By IOSH Moderator
All,

We have allowed the discussion to continue until this point where all the various opinions have been fully outlined.

As the thread has now deviated from applauding the success of achieving a safety award to the detailed merit of the individual award, it is therefore locked under AUG 1.

Regards

Jonathan
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
2 Pages<12
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.