ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2025 - What should be changed in the next Edition of ISO 9001? - REVISION PROCEEDING- August 2023

Sidney Vianna said:

...
See? Problem solved. Can’t wait to see world hunger, wealth distribution, inequality, racism, social mobility, etc being added to ISO 9001. World 4.0. Thanks, ISO.

Click to expand...

When that happens, it will finally be named "The Standard"!

Sidney Vianna said:

Third party ISO 9001 audit post amendment of an Oil Major, Major Airline, Major Shipping Company, Major Automotive OEM, Major Commercial Aircraft Manufacturer, Major Cement Producer, etc.

Auditor: I see here in your (not required) quality manual that you did not identify climate change as a relevant issue for your quality system.

Auditee: That’s right.

Auditor: But you can’t dismiss it.

Auditee: what part of the Organization shall don’t you understand. It is up to us. And we deemed not relevant for our quality system.

Auditor: But…

Auditee: Next question

See? Problem solved. Can’t wait to see world hunger, wealth distribution, inequality, racism, social mobility, etc being added to ISO 9001. World 4.0. Thanks, ISO.

Click to expand...

100% agreement. It's even worse than some people looking at 7.1.4 too deep

Sidney Vianna said:

ISO 9001 will soon join all Type A ISO Management System Standards in being amended to include updates to Clause 4 regarding climate change. The amendments are expected to be issued in January 2024. This amendment is being actioned by ISO Central Secretariat following a resolution passed by the ISO Technical Management Board (TMB) at its Annual Meeting in September to add climate change considerations to the Appendix 2 of Annex SL (i.e. Harmonized Structure for MSS with guidance for use). The additional wording is intended to put a spotlight on climate change and will be incorporated within all ISO MSS as a matter of urgency through the Amendment.

• Added to Clause 4.1: The organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue.

Click to expand...

So, when this amended ISO 9001 gets released next month, it will mean that standards that use 9001 as a baseline document (AS9100, IATF 16949, etc) will no longer 100% align. I have a strong suspicion that organizations such as the IAQG and IATF will not rush to revise their respective documents. On the contrary, such move might even reignite calls for decoupling those standards from 9001. That’s what happens when an organization such as ISO succumbs to misguided political interference in the standards “development” process.

Good, let them pay for their arrogance and pomposity.

Well let me stir the pot a little bit. I believe (a strong opinion with no real evidence to back it up) that this is all a symptom of the Quality 4.0 thing that followed the hack six sigma thing that followed the well intentioned yet misguided TQM thing that followed…we seem to seek the next big thing without ever really mastering the fundamentals. Look at the basic questions we get here about quality engineering and quality systems. It’s like a bunch of people who can’t do basic math so they enroll in differential equations…seeking relevance (the limelight) over true leadership.

Only an imbecile would think it makes sense to have this nonsensical “requirement” in all Type A Management System Standards. So many cliches would apply. Such as: the fish rots from the head down.

TC210, the one behind ISO 13485, tends to “ignore” the TMB. Let’s see if ISO 13485 gets amended anytime soon.

I wonder what their expectations will be on climate change. I can see three scenarios:

1. The impact of climate change on the organization
2. The impact of the organization on climate change
3. Both 1 & 2

I hope they are clear about which and not typically vague and open to interpretation.

Miner said:

I wonder what their expectations will be on climate change. I can see three scenarios:

1. The impact of climate change on the organization
2. The impact of the organization on climate change
3. Both 1 & 2

I hope they are clear about which and not typically vague and open to interpretation.

Click to expand...

The text that will be amended to the standard is the text that I copied and pasted in my earlier post. So, that text is the “requirement”. The stupidity of the approach is to include it in ALL Type A MSS’s. What does it have to do with asset management, information security, quality management, medical devices, etc.

Sidney Vianna said:

The text that will be amended to the standard is the text that I copied and pasted in my earlier post. So, that text is the “requirement”. The stupidity of the approach is to include it in ALL Type A MSS’s. What does it have to do with asset management, information security, quality management, medical devices, etc.

Click to expand...

So vague and open to interpretation as usual.

Bear with me here. I think that climate change should be a consideration in many supply change continuity assessments. It is putting several areas at greater risk of weather related disruption than before. (Note I am NOT saying what causes climate change or what can be done to reverse it). It’s just that we have seen an increase in ‘hundred year’ of five hundred year’ events that have disrupted supply. Often there have been multiple such events a year in some areas. (I know that my previous organization was effected by the Houston flood a few years ago that put the only domestic resin plant under 8 feet of salt water and it as months until the plant got back up and running). Climate change does increase the probability of severe weather disruption. But this is already ‘covered’ by the need to assess supply chain risk…

So is climate change ‘relevant’ to many organizations - sure. But HOW the heck do you interpret what the addition to the standard says. The first problem of course is that there is a huge difference between effected by climate change and effecting climate change (as Miner pointed out). This is absurd overreach. On the bright side maby it will be a last gasp of a standard group that is itself quickly losing relevance - as well as it’s grip on reality.