iso14000-digest Wednesday, May 21 1997 Volume 02 : Number 003
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 09:37:29 -0400
From: ampnteal@vaxxine.com (Taran Hewitt)
Subject: ISO14001 vs. ISM for shipping companies
A local shipping company is interested in the possibility of becoming
certified to ISO 14001. However, they are also presently in the process of
gaining their ISM certification, even though they are not actually required
to do so by the IMO convention. The question is whether or not ISO 14001
can offer them very much over and above what they have done for ISM. Not
being very familiar with the full ramifications of ISM we are looking for
further information that may help us to answer this question.
Has anyone done any form of gap analysis between the two standards to see
exactly how much common ground there is?
Any information about this subject will be welcome.
Regards,
Taran Hewitt
14000 International
St.Catharines, Ontario
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 11:54:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from ["Gary Garrahan"] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 08:29:39 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Gary Garrahan"
To: iso14000-digest@quality.org
Subject: Integrating ISO 9000 and ISO 14000
My company was ISO 9001 certified last year. We are currently developing
our ISO 14001 system. Regarding the issue of whether to develop both
simultaneously, I recommend that a company get ISO 9000 first, then get
14001. Once you get through the difficulties of developing one "ISO"
system, the next one will go easier. Plus, once your people have gotten
used to the "ISO" methodology, they will better appreciate the work
involved in developing 14001.
We found that we only needed relatively modest changes to our ISO 9000
system in order to meet the requirements of 14001. Just take care that you
do not corrupt your 9000 system in the process of making these changes.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 12:06:44 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bill Casti, CQA (System Administrator)"
Subject: BOUNCE iso14000@quality.org: Non-member submission from [Russ DeVilbiss ] (fwd)
NOTE: Respond *both* to the poster's address (see below the dotted line)
and to the list's posting address, OR as directed in the posting, but
definitely NOT to me.
Thanks.
Bill
- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 14 May 1997 11:32:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Russ DeVilbiss
To: "'Taran Hewitt'" ,
"'ISO 14000 Discussion List'"
Subject: RE: ISO14001 vs. ISM for shipping companies
Taran,
In response to your question on ISO 14001"...offer[ing] them very much
over and above what they have done for ISM."
In my opinion,
I believe the answer depends upon what the company's customers are
requiring. While implementing an effective environmental management
system might be beneficial for most organizations, taking the next step
certifying to the ISO 14001 standard ususally hinges upon a specific
requirement by a customer, a perceived marketing advantage or
"environmentally friendly" owners or operators.
Unfortunately, I am not familiar with the IMO convention and cannot give a
comparison. I can convey, however, that the ISO 14001 standard does not
require a stand alone-system. Therefore, if the standards are similar and
if the IMO convention allows it, the company might be able to implement
one system to address both standards.
Russ DeVilbiss
ISO 14000/EMS Product Manager
ERAtech Environmental, Inc.
rdevilbiss@eratech.com
800.848.4990 x126
937.859.8998 x126
(f) 937.859.9132
- -----Original Message-----
From: Taran Hewitt [SMTP:ampnteal@vaxxine.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 9:37 AM
To: iso14000@quality.org
Subject: ISO14001 vs. ISM for shipping companies
A local shipping company is interested in the possibility of becoming
certified to ISO 14001. However, they are also presently in the process of
gaining their ISM certification, even though they are not actually required
to do so by the IMO convention. The question is whether or not ISO 14001
can offer them very much over and above what they have done for ISM. Not
being very familiar with the full ramifications of ISM we are looking for
further information that may help us to answer this question.
Has anyone done any form of gap analysis between the two standards to see
exactly how much common ground there is?
Any information about this subject will be welcome.
Regards,
Taran Hewitt
14000 International
St.Catharines, Ontario
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 20 May 1997 15:29:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: SJLE@aol.com
Subject: Fwd: Consumer Reports
In a message dated 97-05-20 15:15:10 EDT, SJLE writes:
<<"""" While it's no panacea,
federal, state and local governments should seek creative ways of
bringing the experts, industry and the public together to make
decisions that they all can support. "I think that in risk
situations, we need to empower the people who are bearing the
risks to negotiate," says Kasperson of Clark University. "The
public is much more rational about dealing with risks than the
technical experts think they are." >>....""""""
- ---------------------
Forwarded message:
Subj: Consumer Reports
Date: 97-05-20 15:15:10 EDT
From: SJLE
To: SJLE
CONSUMER REPORTS: FACING OUR FEARS
This report looks at facing our fears, and includes the following
sections:
Overview
Proposals for Change
A Question of Values
Cost-Benefit Analysis
Who's in Charge?
Consumer Reports Recommendations
OVERVIEW
When the new Congress gets to work in January, it's likely to
return to a controversial question: Whether we need to change how
the government identifies and manages risks to health, safety and
the environment. Proponents of change, in industry and academia
as well as Washington, say the U.S. is frittering money away
managing minor risks while neglecting more important ones. Some
claim the government is imposing expensive environmental, health
and safety regulations on businesses and individuals without
considering whether their benefits outweigh their costs.
The past few years have also seen a flood of articles and TV
programs telling people that America has been prey to irrational
fears. The government is similarly confused, says John Graham,
director of Harvard University's Center for Risk Analysis. "The
government is like ordinary people. They suffer from a syndrome
of being paranoid and neglectful of risks at the same time,
focusing taxpayers' money on minuscule or speculative hazards,"
he says.
At first glance, going strictly by the numbers, some of the
country's priorities might seem questionable:
o Increased airport security in response to the
TWA Flight 800 crash will cost millions of dollars
for every person saved from death by terrorist attack
on an airplane.
o People want the government to regulate pesticide
residues on fruits and vegetables, which pose a small
and hard-to-measure health risk. But most Americans
haven't had their basements checked for radon gas,
a known cause of lung cancer that is estimated to kill
14,000 people a year.
o The radiation from nuclear power plants (which have
a good safety record) worries ordinary people far more
than the radiation from medical X-rays, which have
a much clearer effect on their risk of cancer.
In fact, our worries are more sensible than they may seem. Far
from being irrational, they're driven by legitimate concerns. For
example, people tend not to be deeply concerned about risks that
are a matter of individual choice, such as smoking or motorcycle
riding. But they do expect some government attention to risks
that individuals can't control, whether it's a risk as severe as
a nuclear-plant meltdown, or as subtle as the cancer risk posed
by pesticides in the food supply.
Risk management is far from a precise science. The challenge is
to enhance public safety and meet societal needs without unduly
burdening business or making the risk-management process itself
unmanageable and ineffective.
PROPOSALS FOR CHANGE
Analyzing what's wrong with risk management and proposing reforms
is a thriving Washington industry that has yielded several recent
books and, in the past few months, major reports from two
national panels.
A proposal in Congress that received the most intense recent
attention would have made government officials perform a cost-
benefit analysis for every major proposed new regulation and base
the decision primarily on that analysis. The costs of protecting
people against a health or safety hazard would be strictly
balanced against the benefits. If costs outweighed benefits, then
no regulation. Regulated parties who disliked a particular
analysis could challenge it in court, tying up decisions
indefinitely. The proposal ultimately failed because of
opposition from the White House and strong public support for
health and environmental regulation. But some version of it is
likely to return in the next Congress.
Another proposal to change how risks are managed comes from
Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who has argued that the
public is swayed by emotionalism and ignorance, and that a
panicked public, through its elected officials, has caused the
government to enact expensive, ineffective remedies. In a book
published before he went to the Supreme Court, Breyer advocates
creating an expert corps of civil servants, somehow completely
insulated from politics, who would make decisions on which risks
to manage, and how. This group, too, would rely heavily on cost-
benefit analysis. Is the public wrong in its priorities? Should
it be dealt out of decision-making by "experts"? And how good are
the tools the experts would use?
A QUESTION OF VALUES
On closer examination, it turns out that, whatever the faults
with particular decisions, people are fairly well-informed about
risks. In addition, traditional cost-benefit analysis alone is
unlikely to produce satisfactory decisions. There's abundant
evidence that, in the public's eyes, deciding which risks need
attention is much more than a matter of counting dollars or
counting victims.
Research has shown that most people have a good sense of the
magnitude of different risks (the relative number of people
harmed by each one). A landmark study carried out by Oregon-based
psychologist Paul Slovic and colleagues showed that, although the
public tended to underestimate the size of some big risks (such
as death from heart disease), and overestimate some small ones
(such as deaths from botulism), people nevertheless ranked risks
in roughly the correct order according to how many people each
killed. (We tried the same thing with our own staff and found
that they ranked hazards fairly accurately. What's more, the
staffers' level of concern about various risks also closely
matched the actual magnitude of those risks.)
But when it comes to managing risks, it's not numbers alone that
drive people's priorities. For instance, when a research team at
Carnegie-Mellon University asked 92 people in a 1990 study who
should be in charge of controlling risks, the respondents were
quite clear. People overwhelmingly felt that they, personally,
were responsible for protecting themselves from risks such as
substance abuse or sexually transmitted disease. On the other
hand, they considered government and industry to be responsible
for protecting them from environmental problems that don't lend
themselves to control by individuals.
Researchers have been probing the values behind such opinions for
more than two decades now, and consistently find that people put
great weight on certain aspects of risk:
Catastrophic potential. As the reaction to the TWA Flight 800
crash vividly demonstrated, people believe that some risks are
worth spending extra money to avoid because, although low in
probability, they can produce catastrophe if they occur.
Fairness. Do the people who bear the risk get any of the benefit?
This question underlies much of the public outrage over
industrial waste sites or chemical plants, as well as the
seemingly disproportionate amounts of money spent cleaning up
Superfund sites. The risk may be small, but that's not the point.
"The public is saying that if you're benefiting from that
activity, but I'm being exposed to the risk, have been told
nothing about it, and have no recourse, I'm outraged that there's
any risk at all," says Roger Kasperson, a researcher in risk
perception at Clark University, in Worcester, Mass.
Control. People who hate to fly know perfectly well that it's
among the safest forms of travel. The lack of control over the
plane's mechanical upkeep and operation makes the small risk from
flying feel intolerable to them. On the other hand, people
willingly accept the relatively higher risk from car travel
because of their ability (albeit sometimes illusory) to avoid
having an accident.
Voluntariness. Skiing, mountain climbing and bungee jumping are
inherently dangerous activities that bother almost nobody because
no one is forced to undertake them or is injured when others do.
However, the public is less tolerant of the risks of harm from
secondhand smoke or pesticide residues in food because people are
exposed without their consent or, sometimes, their knowledge.
COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
Regardless of which risks are top priority, how good a tool is
cost-benefit analysis for managing those risks? Attaching a
dollar value to each risk and the benefits of controlling it
would seem like a sensible approach. Indeed, the government now
routinely does this in deciding how to manage risks. Soon after
taking office, President Clinton, like Presidents Bush and Reagan
before him, ordered rulemaking agencies to perform a cost-benefit
analysis for every major new proposed rule. But agencies aren't
required to rely solely on the analysis because it's a tool with
limits. Although it sounds like a straightforward exercise in
arithmetic (put costs in Column A, benefits in Column B, and see
which number comes out higher), cost-benefit analysis is fraught
with many practical difficulties.
For many hazardous substances, toxicologists can offer, at best,
speculative ranges of risk that can vary by a factor of 100 or
more, making assignment of dollar value little more than
guesswork. Some hazards are too remote, diffuse and uncertain for
any meaningful risk analysis. As for benefits, how do you
quantify the value of preserving a haze-free vista in the Rocky
Mountains, an obscure species of butterfly or an entire
ecosystem?
The task of assigning a dollar value to a human life raises
difficulties as well. One common method begins by calculating
total years of life gained from applying a regulation. But this
method ends up favoring regulations that protect children and
young people, while devaluing older citizens. Another commonly
used technique applies "present value discounting," which, in
effect, values the lives of future generations at a tiny fraction
of our own, making many long-term regulations appear to have
minuscule benefits. (Opponents of measures to counteract global
warming rely heavily on this technique to demonstrate that almost
any step taken now simply isn't worth it, since the main benefits
would occur 50 to 100 years in the future.)
It's also tricky to figure out the costs to industry of complying
with a regulation. Experience shows that businesses tend to
overestimate how much it will cost to meet new standards. "The
few times that someone has looked at what government regulations
really cost companies to comply with, the true costs tend to be
twofold, fivefold, sometimes tenfold lower than the predictions
that were made," says Adam Finkel, director of health standards
programs for the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA).
Just before Congress voted the Office of Technology Assessment
out of existence in 1995, the OTA looked back at five cases in
which OSHA forced industries to reduce workers' exposure to toxic
materials. In every case the actual cost of obeying the new rules
was less, sometimes substantially less, than the original
estimates. For example, the textile industry predicted it could
not afford to reduce workers' exposure to cotton dust, which
harms the respiratory system. But in the end, the companies spent
less than a third of what OSHA predicted, and in the process of
improving safety also ended up with modernized plants that
enabled them to produce a better-quality product more
efficiently.
WHO'S IN CHARGE?
Sensible ways to improve risk management have been proposed
within the past year by two separate panels of experts: a
committee of the National Research Council and the
congressionally appointed Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
Management. Their advice is quite different from the leading
proposals for changing risk management being aired in Washington.
Both studies' recommendations boil down to one principle: Bring
the public into the process, not to protest in after-the-fact
public hearings, or to serve on "citizen advisory commissions"
with no real power, but as fully informed participants in all
aspects of decision making. This approach would help incorporate
the public's values, and also reduce the potential for protracted
public resistance to decisions on controversial questions or
projects.
Public participation could take many forms. Already there have
been successful experiments:
In Florida, a utility empaneled a committee of community leaders
to help select a site for a much-needed coal-fired power plant.
After a long process of setting criteria for the ideal site, the
committee and the company agreed to a location that hadn't even
been on the utility's initial list, a spot well away from
populated areas that had already been environmentally despoiled
by a phosphate mine. Licensing of the plant is proceeding without
serious public opposition.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had to set new standards
for the levels of carcinogenic compounds created as byproducts
when chlorine is used to disinfect drinking water. Instead of
dictating a rule on its own (then defending it from the criticism
to be expected from utilities and environmental groups) the
agency created a committee of "stakeholders" from government
agencies, water companies and environmental and consumer groups.
After consulting many technical experts, the committee decided
there simply wasn't enough information available to make a final
rule. Too little was known about the levels of pathogens in water
supplies, and about alternative ways of eliminating them. So the
committee came up with an innovative "information collection
rule." Water utilities will be required to monitor their supplies
for the pathogens and the unwanted byproducts, and to conduct
pilot tests of various ways of reducing both. The information
gathered will then be used to formulate the final regulations.
In the San Francisco Bay area, a 46-member citizen task force
came up with a long-term plan for managing the area's water
supply, water pollution, air pollution, and solid-waste problems.
The group spent months gathering information and opinions from
experts and ordinary citizens alike. Because it was working on
all environmental areas at once, the task force was able to
understand their relationship with one another (for instance,
that poorly designed landfills could in turn cause water-
pollution problems). That was 18 years ago. Today, according to
the report of the Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk
Management, the "region is now considered to be one of the
environmentally best-managed metropolitan areas in the country,"
as a result of the plan.
CONSUMER REPORTS RECOMMENDATIONS
No one suggests that the nation's risk-management priorities
couldn't be improved. But this is more than a numbers game. It's
a social process that balances costs, scientific data,
conflicting social values and citizen interests when wrestling
with tough health and environmental questions.
Proposals to turn risk management over to an elite corps of
experts or to base decisions solely on rigid cost-benefit
criteria without including public values are both unworkable and
at odds with democratic principles. While it's no panacea,
federal, state and local governments should seek creative ways of
bringing the experts, industry and the public together to make
decisions that they all can support. "I think that in risk
situations, we need to empower the people who are bearing the
risks to negotiate," says Kasperson of Clark University. "The
public is much more rational about dealing with risks than the
technical experts think they are."
Copyright Consumers Union of U.S., Inc., December 1996
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:58:35 +0000
From: Nick Roadnight
Subject: Re: combined management systems
Lorenzo Giorgetti wrote:
>
> Apologies for any multiple postings
>
> I am an economics student at the University of Pisa (Italy).
> I am going to write a thesis about "how to combine safety, health and
> environmental mangement systems with an Iso 9000 system".
> I am looking for bibliographical references (articles, books and
> publications)on this subject. I woud be also interested in hearing from
> companies, consultants or others who have developed such an integrated
> approach.
>
> Thank you
> Lorenzo Giorgetti
>
> To contact me:
> E-mail address: Madevita@mbox.vol.it
***
*** Apologies for any multiple postings
***
A little info if it is of use.
So many of our clients have been down the road of ISO9000, are embarking
on achieving or have achieved 14000 and have to provide an effective H&S
management sstem to meet various parts of the law that we have concluded
that the three should in some way be integrated, if for no other reason
than to minimise compliance monitoring (auditing).
As such, we feel that it is our (and every credible consultants)
responsibility to help clients to integrate the three as much as
possible. Therefore, wherever possible, we encourage clients to do so.
We have only ever experienced problems with some narrow minded assessors
(of 9000 or 14000) who have commented on the 'scope' of the management
system. However, after a little education of what goes on in the real
world, these characters have 'joined the team' and seen where we should
be oing.
If we were to look at the benefits that have been realised by clients,
none have found it more expensive, the majority have made overall savings
and a small number have made some very significant savings (one in
particular quotes savings of more than GBP100,000 per year!).
When we consider the fact that discussions are taking place in a number
of fora (including ISO, the defence and auto sectors) that the three
should in some way be linked or integrated, it is wise that companies
consider this as soon as possible.
As a point off interest, I have heard that within a number of countries,
there is every possibility that 14000 may be incorprated onto the statute
books (made law), and that as it is so similar in structure to 9000 they
may be combined, again under the legal banner.
With this and other possibilities in mind, there is another reason for
companies and consultants to help their clients avoid possible problems
in the future by gently moving in this direction.
Whilst we are on the issue, we should all keep in mind that 9000, 14000
and to a certain extent H&S are mechanisms that we should all use, where
appropriate, to help control our businesses, reduce or eliminate waste,
errors and generally poor practices and quality. They are not merely
marketing tools that we put effort into getting to make keep our
customers happy and massage our own egos.
(Warning - what follows is a pet hate of mine and WILL upset a number of
people).
Finally, if any of you out there are considering going along this route,
please be sure to thoroughly check your consultant out. We have, over
the past twelve months or so, had to undertake 18 damage limitation
assignments.
The main problem behind these was that a consultant has been employed who
has a knowledge of one element (quality, environment or H&S), but not of
the others, and were employed because of their (initially) cheap fees.
However, in all of these cases, the consultant has not had the competance
(not meant in a derogatory way) to advise on the other areas, and has
lead the client down the wrong path, therefore leading to additional but
unnecessary work coming to companies such as ours.
This is clearly a waste of our clients money and does nothing for our
'profession'.
Companies such as Integra may have higher fees than most (our current
daily rates range from GBP500 to GBP1200 per day), but we are able to
provide you with a solution, not simply a quality, environment, H&S,
Strategy etc etc consultant. We directly employ ten professionals with
specialists across the business spectrum. We have adequate full time
support and are linked with a wide range of statutory bodies, in the UK,
Europe and rest of the world. We, like many other 'professional
consultancy practices' have a wide range of Associates (some who work
exclusively for us, and others who do not) that we can call upon. Again,
we provide a solution.
Sole traders, or one man bands, have much lower fees (typically between
GBP200 and GBP600 per day). They are, on the whole, specialists. Fine
if you need specialist advice down a very narrow path, but our problems
are not so closely defined. They do have their uses however, afterall, I
hav currently 37 working for me, on a sub-contract basis for my clients.
Another advantage of using the professional practice is that you can
always get support. You will always speak to a human, not a machine and
can always expect that somebody will be able to help you, when you want
it, not when the individual is back from holiday, dealing with another
client or has simply forgotten to turn his mobile on!
My message is clear - when considering any consultancy, consider the
wider issues. Consider the fact that the vast majority of problems we
identify are simply symptoms of another problem, and that specialist one
man bands may not be able to solve them for you.
I would also like to say that there are many such professional practices
around the world, not only ours! Look around, talk to some of them and
get a range of options and quotes before making your decision.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 14:09:18 +0000
From: Nick Roadnight
Subject: (no subject)
Lorenzo Giorgetti wrote:
>
> Apologies for any multiple postings
>
> I am an economics student at the University of Pisa (Italy).
> I am going to write a thesis about "how to combine safety, health and
> environmental mangement systems with an Iso 9000 system".
> I am looking for bibliographical references (articles, books and
> publications)on this subject. I woud be also interested in hearing from
> companies, consultants or others who have developed such an integrated
> approach.
>
> Thank you
> Lorenzo Giorgetti
>
> To contact me:
> E-mail address: Madevita@mbox.vol.it
***
*** Apologies for any multiple postings
***
A little info if it is of use.
So many of our clients have been down the road of ISO9000, are embarking
on achieving or have achieved 14000 and have to provide an effective H&S
management sstem to meet various parts of the law that we have concluded
that the three should in some way be integrated, if for no other reason
than to minimise compliance monitoring (auditing).
As such, we feel that it is our (and every credible consultants)
responsibility to help clients to integrate the three as much as
possible. Therefore, wherever possible, we encourage clients to do so.
We have only ever experienced problems with some narrow minded assessors
(of 9000 or 14000) who have commented on the 'scope' of the management
system. However, after a little education of what goes on in the real
world, these characters have 'joined the team' and seen where we should
be oing.
If we were to look at the benefits that have been realised by clients,
none have found it more expensive, the majority have made overall savings
and a small number have made some very significant savings (one in
particular quotes savings of more than GBP100,000 per year!).
When we consider the fact that discussions are taking place in a number
of fora (including ISO, the defence and auto sectors) that the three
should in some way be linked or integrated, it is wise that companies
consider this as soon as possible.
As a point off interest, I have heard that within a number of countries,
there is every possibility that 14000 may be incorprated onto the statute
books (made law), and that as it is so similar in structure to 9000 they
may be combined, again under the legal banner.
With this and other possibilities in mind, there is another reason for
companies and consultants to help their clients avoid possible problems
in the future by gently moving in this direction.
Whilst we are on the issue, we should all keep in mind that 9000, 14000
and to a certain extent H&S are mechanisms that we should all use, where
appropriate, to help control our businesses, reduce or eliminate waste,
errors and generally poor practices and quality. They are not merely
marketing tools that we put effort into getting to make keep our
customers happy and massage our own egos.
(Warning - what follows is a pet hate of mine and WILL upset a number of
people).
Finally, if any of you out there are considering going along this route,
please be sure to thoroughly check your consultant out. We have, over
the past twelve months or so, had to undertake 18 damage limitation
assignments.
The main problem behind these was that a consultant has been employed who
has a knowledge of one element (quality, environment or H&S), but not of
the others, and were employed because of their (initially) cheap fees.
However, in all of these cases, the consultant has not had the competance
(not meant in a derogatory way) to advise on the other areas, and has
lead the client down the wrong path, therefore leading to additional but
unnecessary work coming to companies such as ours.
This is clearly a waste of our clients money and does nothing for our
'profession'.
Companies such as Integra may have higher fees than most (our current
daily rates range from GBP500 to GBP1200 per day), but we are able to
provide you with a solution, not simply a quality, environment, H&S,
Strategy etc etc consultant. We directly employ ten professionals with
specialists across the business spectrum. We have adequate full time
support and are linked with a wide range of statutory bodies, in the UK,
Europe and rest of the world. We, like many other 'professional
consultancy practices' have a wide range of Associates (some who work
exclusively for us, and others who do not) that we can call upon. Again,
we provide a solution.
Sole traders, or one man bands, have much lower fees (typically between
GBP200 and GBP600 per day). They are, on the whole, specialists. Fine
if you need specialist advice down a very narrow path, but our problems
are not so closely defined. They do have their uses however, afterall, I
hav currently 37 working for me, on a sub-contract basis for my clients.
Another advantage of using the professional practice is that you can
always get support. You will always speak to a human, not a machine and
can always expect that somebody will be able to help you, when you want
it, not when the individual is back from holiday, dealing with another
client or has simply forgotten to turn his mobile on!
My message is clear - when considering any consultancy, consider the
wider issues. Consider the fact that the vast majority of problems we
identify are simply symptoms of another problem, and that specialist one
man bands may not be able to solve them for you.
I would also like to say that there are many such professional practices
around the world, not only ours! Look around, talk to some of them and
get a range of options and quotes before making your decision.
_________________________________
For the hate mail that will no doubt follow, my contact details at head office are:
Nick Roadnight
Managing Director
Integra Applied Intelligence Limited
Lyster Court
Millfield
Plymouth
PL1 3JB
UK
Tel +44 (0) 1752 207007
Fax +44 (0) 1752 207008
Email nroadnight@intelligence.co.uk
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 21 May 1997 13:20:47 -0700
From: "S. Wayne Rosenbaum"
Subject: Re: combined management systems
Nick:
Generally I agree with your comments. However, I would like to point out that, at least in the USA, there are significantly different legal implications for ISO 14001 as compared to ISO 9000. For this reason, we strongly recommend that legal counsel be
involved in the process early.
Yes, I know that there are those who believe that environmental management system audits under ISO 14001 do not include environmental compliance. However, this appears to be a case of whistling past the grave yard. We are not aware of any ISO 14001 regi
stration audit that has not touched on the issue of regulatory compliance.
Thus, here in the States, our conclusion is take advantage of the similar between 9000 and 14000 were they exist but be carful of the legal differences.
Wayne Rosenbaum
At 01:58 PM 5/21/97 +0000, Nick Roadnight wrote:
>Lorenzo Giorgetti wrote:
>>
>> Apologies for any multiple postings
>>
>> I am an economics student at the University of Pisa (Italy).
>> I am going to write a thesis about "how to combine safety, health and
>> environmental mangement systems with an Iso 9000 system".
>> I am looking for bibliographical references (articles, books and
>> publications)on this subject. I woud be also interested in hearing from
>> companies, consultants or others who have developed such an integrated
>> approach.
>>
>> Thank you
>> Lorenzo Giorgetti
>>
>> To contact me:
>> E-mail address: Madevita@mbox.vol.it
>
>***
>*** Apologies for any multiple postings
>***
>
>A little info if it is of use.
>
>So many of our clients have been down the road of ISO9000, are embarking
>on achieving or have achieved 14000 and have to provide an effective H&S
>management sstem to meet various parts of the law that we have concluded
>that the three should in some way be integrated, if for no other reason
>than to minimise compliance monitoring (auditing).
>
>As such, we feel that it is our (and every credible consultants)
>responsibility to help clients to integrate the three as much as
>possible. Therefore, wherever possible, we encourage clients to do so.
>
>We have only ever experienced problems with some narrow minded assessors
>(of 9000 or 14000) who have commented on the 'scope' of the management
>system. However, after a little education of what goes on in the real
>world, these characters have 'joined the team' and seen where we should
>be oing.
>
>If we were to look at the benefits that have been realised by clients,
>none have found it more expensive, the majority have made overall savings
>and a small number have made some very significant savings (one in
>particular quotes savings of more than GBP100,000 per year!).
>
>When we consider the fact that discussions are taking place in a number
>of fora (including ISO, the defence and auto sectors) that the three
>should in some way be linked or integrated, it is wise that companies
>consider this as soon as possible.
>
>As a point off interest, I have heard that within a number of countries,
>there is every possibility that 14000 may be incorprated onto the statute
>books (made law), and that as it is so similar in structure to 9000 they
>may be combined, again under the legal banner.
>
>With this and other possibilities in mind, there is another reason for
>companies and consultants to help their clients avoid possible problems
>in the future by gently moving in this direction.
>
>Whilst we are on the issue, we should all keep in mind that 9000, 14000
>and to a certain extent H&S are mechanisms that we should all use, where
>appropriate, to help control our businesses, reduce or eliminate waste,
>errors and generally poor practices and quality. They are not merely
>marketing tools that we put effort into getting to make keep our
>customers happy and massage our own egos.
>
>(Warning - what follows is a pet hate of mine and WILL upset a number of
>people).
>
>Finally, if any of you out there are considering going along this route,
>please be sure to thoroughly check your consultant out. We have, over
>the past twelve months or so, had to undertake 18 damage limitation
>assignments.
>
>The main problem behind these was that a consultant has been employed who
>has a knowledge of one element (quality, environment or H&S), but not of
>the others, and were employed because of their (initially) cheap fees.
>However, in all of these cases, the consultant has not had the competance
>(not meant in a derogatory way) to advise on the other areas, and has
>lead the client down the wrong path, therefore leading to additional but
>unnecessary work coming to companies such as ours.
>
>This is clearly a waste of our clients money and does nothing for our
>'profession'.
>
>Companies such as Integra may have higher fees than most (our current
>daily rates range from GBP500 to GBP1200 per day), but we are able to
>provide you with a solution, not simply a quality, environment, H&S,
>Strategy etc etc consultant. We directly employ ten professionals with
>specialists across the business spectrum. We have adequate full time
>support and are linked with a wide range of statutory bodies, in the UK,
>Europe and rest of the world. We, like many other 'professional
>consultancy practices' have a wide range of Associates (some who work
>exclusively for us, and others who do not) that we can call upon. Again,
>we provide a solution.
>
>Sole traders, or one man bands, have much lower fees (typically between
>GBP200 and GBP600 per day). They are, on the whole, specialists. Fine
>if you need specialist advice down a very narrow path, but our problems
>are not so closely defined. They do have their uses however, afterall, I
>hav currently 37 working for me, on a sub-contract basis for my clients.
>
>Another advantage of using the professional practice is that you can
>always get support. You will always speak to a human, not a machine and
>can always expect that somebody will be able to help you, when you want
>it, not when the individual is back from holiday, dealing with another
>client or has simply forgotten to turn his mobile on!
>
>My message is clear - when considering any consultancy, consider the
>wider issues. Consider the fact that the vast majority of problems we
>identify are simply symptoms of another problem, and that specialist one
>man bands may not be able to solve them for you.
>
>I would also like to say that there are many such professional practices
>around the world, not only ours! Look around, talk to some of them and
>get a range of options and quotes before making your decision.
>
>
S. Wayne Rosenbaum, Esq.
Law Offices of S. Wayne Rosenbaum
3043 Harding Street
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Phone: 619-434-0295
Fax: 619-434-0072
e-mail: enlaw@lawinfo
URL: WWW.Lawinfo.com/law/ca/environmentallaw
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #3
****************************