Superficially, ISO 9001 and climate change sound different: ISO 9001 is about how to do things well so your organization satisfies its customers; climate change is about physical and chemical interactions in the atmosphere, and the consequences for our lives in the future.
ADVERTISEMENT |
But ISO is adding climate language to ISO 9001. Let me explain how that came to pass.
First, some background. In September 2021, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) issued its “London Declaration” on climate change. Among other things, this document committed ISO to “foster the active consideration of climate science and associated transitions in the development of all new and revised International Standards and publications.”
…
Comments
Share?
WHile I am an unabashed tree hugger, and an advocate to combat climate change, I agree that ISO-900X is not an appropriate forum for the topic. Is there a way I could post this to my LinkedIn page? Thanks!
Link to article
Feel to grab a small excerpt (whatever seems relevant) and/or link back to article.
--QD Editors
Climate Change and ISO Standards
Of the primary ISO management system standards, the one that deals directly with climate change issues is ISO 14001. Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 in ISO 9001 might be peripherally related, but the importance of climate change and potential man-made effects are part of environmental aspects and impacts which are key to ISO 14001, beginning with its earliest versions. Of course, the standards that deal with greenhouse gases are even more specialized.
Most important sentence
The most important sentence in the article, in my view: "...we would all be better off if ISO 9001 could stay in its lane and avoid discussing the climate".
--Contributed by Steve65
Excellent article
I will share a link to this on LinkedIn. I agree with the author that ISO 9001 should stay in its lane, and here is my informal opinion on how ISO users should deal with the new requirements.
"The organization shall determine whether climate change is a relevant issue." "No" (except with regard to supply chain risks and risks to continuity of operations that could be impacted by climate-related events, in which case the organization should indeed account for these risks to avoid unpleasant surprises)." Note also that construction projects must now account for climate-related events that make supposedly hundred-year floods or storms far more common than was expected. This sort of thing is indeed relevant.
"To clause 4.2 (“Understanding the needs and expectations of interested parties”), the proposal would add a clarification: Note: Relevant interested parties can have requirements related to climate change." My position is that, if these interested parties want reports on carbon dioxide emissions, they need to pay the costs of the full-time employees and other resources necessary to get this information because I would consider it a breach of fiduciary duty (my opinion, not legal advice) to pass these costs on to customers in the form of higher prices, workers as lower wages, or investors as lower profits. On the other hand, ISO 50001, which seeks to remove all forms of energy waste from operations, helps reduce prices, increase profits, and increase wages regardless of whether the energy is from carbon sources.
I would also consider it a breach of fiduciary duty to squander supply chain resources on carbon offsets, carbon credits, or cost-ineffective renewable energy. Note however that renewables that might be cost-ineffective in one place (e.g. solar in northern climates) might well be effective in others (the Southwest US), and that the organization does have a duty to keep abreast of new developments. For example, the price of solar panels has come down enough in the past five or ten years that I might now consider buying them for my house. I also replaced all my incandescent light bulbs with light-emitting diode bulbs when these became widely available because they pay for themselves quickly through electricity savings.
(Does not constitute engineering advice)
THINK and INVESTIGATE
What a farce. The central aspect of Quality should be to THINK and INVESTIGATE. Good Quality practitioners use control charts to identify when something is amiss. They then look for the cause. Investigation is at the heart of quality.
Instead, most quality practitioners follow the herd. The Asch Effect takes control. Quality practitioners jump into utter nonsense like Six Sigma, despite its own creator admitting "Six Sigma is a snow job"."Climate change" has been taking place for 4 bllion years. The world has been COOLING for the past 10,000 years. The world was warmer than currently, during the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman Wam Period, and the Minoan Warm Period. There is no evidence that man's CO2 has had anything to do with climate changes. The IPCC has stated "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change observed to man-made causes".There is a huge need for quality practitioners to start practising quality.
Greenland was once green
To put this in perspective, Greenland, which is now mostly ice, was once green enough for Vikings to settle there. There was also a time when the polar ice caps covered what is now Canada and most of New England, and as far down as Pennsylvania. While I believe that CO2 does contribute to climate change, there are far too many indulgence peddlars (or modern equivalents) who claim that, if only we send enough money their way, they can stop the climate from changing. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand cited Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan Chase as explicit beneficiaries of cap and trade mandates.
I have seen articles in Chemical & Engineering News that talk about atmospheric carbon capture plants whose apparent sole purpose is to remove carbon dioxide from the air that cost several hundred million dollars plus ongoing operating costs. If you want to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, the US Forest Service will plant a tree for every dollar you donate (minimum ten dollars, they will plant ten trees) which do the same thing, cost nothing to maintain or operate, expand their capacity every year, and eventually make more of themselves.
(Does not constitute engineering advice.)
Add new comment