Randy
Super Moderator
I wrote mine like a Marine infantryman from the 60's turned Arkansas cop from the 70's.
They probably dumped it
ISO 9001 News ISO 9001:2015 Amendment 1 Published - Determination of Climate Change Relevance * Poll added May 2024
- Thread starter jmech
- Start date
They probably dumped it
JIm,
Ya see, ya got your ISO and TMBG and JTCG producing a harmonized structure. It's harmonized, see? Harmony is good.
And your ISO/IAF communique providing guidance for da MSS. Guidance, see? Guidance is good.
And the TC's and the mirror groups give input to da JTCG. Input, see? Input is good.
No jargon, clear as can be!
Just about as useless.
Randy
Super Moderator
Hey, I asked the magic question today during my annual surveillance and here's the piece.
XXX as part of YYYYY we have recognized the need to reduce impact on the environment and to regularly assess environmental strategies.
Extracted from the 2022 Environmental, Social, and Government Report (YYYYY) - “CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, and we all need to take part in addressing it. At YYYYY, we are doing so much innovative work to help protect the planet—from Puerto Rico to Australia, from the UK to Japan”
XXX as part of YYYYY we have recognized the need to reduce impact on the environment and to regularly assess environmental strategies.
Extracted from the 2022 Environmental, Social, and Government Report (YYYYY) - “CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL, and we all need to take part in addressing it. At YYYYY, we are doing so much innovative work to help protect the planet—from Puerto Rico to Australia, from the UK to Japan”
Paul Simpson
Trusted Information Resource
I think I understand the difference between jargon and acronyms/abbreviations. My bad. I could have sworn this was a thread about 'ISO 9001:2015 Amendment 1 Published - Determination of Climate Change Relevance'.
I wouldn't expect 'ordinary people' to be interested in where the climate change amendment comes from. In the OP jmech mentioned the TMB as the publisher of the amendment. In post #8 the Joint communique was mentioned and linked.
Did you not read it?
In the guidance that I published on LinkedIn (twice), I described how this all works and included a link to the (forgive me) ISO/TMB/JTCG page that describes the JTCG's background to the change. Oh, there's also an 'About' link to this page that describes who makes up JTCG and its purpose.
In post #94 I replied to you, Jim on the role of the communique and over the next few posts the content was discussed and I am looking to see if we can get some clarification based on the discussion.
In replying to Bev D in post #121 (you are still keeping up, Jim, aren't you?
I summarized some of the earlier points and referred again to the more detailed (personal) guidance that I have published. In the same reply, I linked to the ISO page that describes the work of the JTCG and their role in developing the harmonized structure (previously known as Annex SL, Guide 83, HLS etc., etc.) - and now you jump on the jargon bandwagon. Seriously?Perhaps if you can 't keep up or can't keep up with the linked material that explains all of this stuff then perhaps you should keep out of the discussion?
In a scene from Lord of the Rings, the trolls assemble to fight off the jargonista!JIm,
Ya see, ya got your ISO and TMBG and JTCG producing a harmonized structure. It's harmonized, see? Harmony is good.
And your ISO/IAF communique providing guidance for da MSS. Guidance, see? Guidance is good.
And the TC's and the mirror groups give input to da JTCG. Input, see? Input is good.
No jargon, clear as can be!
Very brave!It's a good point, Bev. As mentioned earlier, there are issues with the sheer volume of information out there. I did the article on communications and I might have a go at the 'How do standards get developed? piece.
There is a general point, though, that people in the discussion should probably do the background reading that is provided so that they are able to carry their argument forward. We are up to post #185 now. It is unreasonable to expect every post to include all the information and links to external sites that have gone before.
Or alternatively, the assembled trolls can continue to stand on the sidelines and throw rocks.
Seems like something a marketing department would write. At least they were compliant.
Apparently you did not get it. The moment an organization says “we are doing so much bla bla bla” the auditor has to IMMEDIATELY engage and ask what exactly are they doing and how that impacts the QMS. The auditor is now expected to follow those trails.
I get it. Still sounds like something a marketing department writes. I can't see any QMS professional writing the documented statement in a way that brags about their CC work. I would be interested to know what came of the review of their innovative work.
Randy
Super Moderator
Well, I'm not going to speak for all here, but I was a 3rd party certified Lead Auditor to ISO 14001 by the old RAB since 1999, I've been an Environmental professional for over 30 years and started to be so while working in California under their Environmental regulations, I've been a GHG verifier since about 2004 or 2005 for who I work for, I'm a certified RC14001 & RCMS Lead Auditor, and I've been doing 3rd party auditing for over 22 years..........I know a sheep from a goat and when I'm having smoke blown up my butt, and it doesn't matter who writes it a marketing department or Dr Seuss, the determination, statement, previous actions and planned actions were verified though not really mandated beyond the determination itself.
I assume they were already taking CC actions long before this was added to ISO?
