OSHA’S 18001 vs. ISO 45001 | FIRST, VERIFY

April 28, 2021

In a bid to control and prevent onsite work incidents, organizations within the USA can receive certification for occupational health and safety management. Two well-known standards are ISO 45001 and OHSAS 18001. 

Disregarding the difference between these two accreditations - along with the significance that one has with the other - can potentially have a negative impact on your organization. If your organization has the OHSAS 18001 accreditation, then you have until 30th September 2021 to make the OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001 transition. Businesses that have not made the ISO 45001 change by that date will find themselves without an accredited occupational health and safety management system and the benefits that come with it.


But before that, it is important to understand these two accreditations better:


What is ISO 45001?         

                                                     

ISO 45001 is the new ISO standard for occupational health and safety. It is set to dramatically improve levels of workplace safety and productivity. With an emphasis on commitment of management, worker involvement, and mitigating risk, ISO 45001 aims to prevent work-related injuries, illnesses, and fatalities by specifying requirements for an occupational health and safety management system.


This new standard which is set to replace OHSAS 18001, follows the approach of other popular management systems such as ISO 90001. While ISO 45001 is similar in certain aspects of OHSAS 18001, it is a new and distinct standard, not a revision or update, and is due to be phased out to organizations gradually over the next three years.


What is OHSAS 18001?


OHSAS 18001 focuses on controlling hazards and helps create a framework for the effective management of occupational health and safety including all aspects of risk management and legal compliance.


What are the crucial differences between OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001?


The key difference between the two is that ISO 45001 takes a more preventive, proactive approach that helps evaluate and fix risks before they cause accidents and injuries, while OHSAS 18001 takes a reactive approach that focuses solely on risks and not solutions. 


The standards are also very different in many ways: 

Intent& Performance: ISO 45001is mainly focused on the intent or objectives as drivers for improvements and performance evaluation. These drivers can be points like worker participation, corporate communication, and procurement.


Structure: ISO 45001’s structure is based on Annex SL, which is the framework for other ISO management system standards—making implementation easier and more efficient. It is more dynamic and it also provides the much-required confidence in safety management for efficient productivity and improved working conditions for all the workers.


Top Leaderships Commitment: ISO 45001 requires a stronger emphasis on top management to actively incorporate health and safety into the overall management system of the organization. The shift is towards the management owning this initiative.


Risk & Opportunity Management: With ISO 45001, companies determine, consider, and take action to address both risks and opportunities that may disrupt production. Although ISO 45001 considers both, OHSAS 18001 deals exclusively with hazards. 


Worker & Third-Party Involvement: ISO 45001 introduces an enhanced focus on the needs and expectations for all workers and interested parties and requires employee training and education to identify risks. OHSAS 18001 does not allow for broader employee participation.


These differences represent a significant shift in the way health and safety are managed.


With the upgrade from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001, the global industry has witnessed a significant shift in the way any organization perceived health and safety management and other issues related to it. And now, occupational hazard and safety are not a standalone issue for the organization; it has become an integral part of the whole operational procedure to maintain a sustainable organization.

You might also like

A group of construction workers are standing next to each other on a construction site.

Contractor Takeover Leads to Tortious Interference with Contract and Conspiracy Claims

October 28, 2021
When a subcontractor is having trouble completing its subcontract work, it is not uncommon for a contractor to assert itself more directly into the completion process to help expedite the work. What’s the harm you might ask? A recent Loudoun County, Virginia case answered that question: It could lead to tortious interference with contract and conspiracy claims by the subcontractor. That case was Evans Construction Services (the subcontractor) versus Ox Builders (the contractor), and it also included a claim by the subcontractor against the contractor’s site superintendent, Lawler, as a co-defendant in the case individually. Evans alleged that Ox and Lawler tortuously interfered with Evan’s subcontracts by dealing directly with the subcontractors and directing the subcontractors’ work, cutting Evans out of the picture. Evans sought to recover its lost profits. Ox and Lawler argued against liability because Evans’ claims sought redress outside of Evans’ subcontracts with Ox and because Evans had no contract with Lawler at all, moving to dismiss Evans’ lawsuit as a matter of law. The court denied that motion, holding that the facts as pled by Evans were legally sufficient if ultimately proven by Evans, to support a claim for breach of legal duties separate from duties arising contractually only; and specifically for wrongful interference with Evans’ subcontracts and Evans’ related conspiracy claim against the defendants. Although the court acknowledged that Evans’ claims were interrelated with the Ox – Evans subcontracts underlying the parties’ relationship, those common facts could support both contractual and non-contractual breach claims in certain circumstances. The court further determined that such circumstances, if ultimately proven, included Evans’ claims that Ox and Lawler violated their independent common law duties to not interfere with Evans’ lower tier subcontracts and not conspire together to injure Evans in its business. The court, therefore, allowed Evans’ claims to proceed to trial on their merits. The defendants apparently did not argue to dismiss the conspiracy claim on the basis Lawler, as an employee of Ox, could not conspire with Ox, his employer (referred to as the intercorporate immunity doctrine), or at least that defense was not discussed in the court’s decision. But, regardless, this decision reflects the necessity for caution “going around” subcontractors when subcontract disputes arise. Author: Neil S.Lowenstein
construction industry risk management

New Sex Harassment Law: Making for Strange Bedfellows in Construction Industry

October 21, 2021
In the construction industry, where multiple companies working closely together abound and where it is more difficult to monitor employee behavior because many employees are in the field, more incidents of inappropriate behavior occur.
OSHA inspection, CONSTRUCTION Management

During an OSHA inspection: Know your rights

October 13, 2021
During an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) inspection, the OSHA official, escorted by management, will tour the facility or construction site to observe working conditions, identify violations, and so on.
More Posts

Book a Service Today