ISO has set its focus on revising three key management system standards this year. It started with ISO 14001, which covers environmental management and was published on April 15, 2026. ISO 9001 for quality management will follow in the fall. For ISO 45001, the occupational health and safety standard, only an initial draft is expected in 2026; the final version isn’t due until 2027.

TÜV SÜD recommends that quality managers and other responsible professionals begin addressing these changes early rather than waiting.

For many management systems, climate protection has long played a secondary role. With the upcoming revisions, however, the topic is moving into the core of the standards. The trigger was an ISO resolution from 2021 known as the “London Declaration.” It commits the organization to embedding climate considerations in every new standard. Since February 2024, the amendment “Climate Action Changes” has already applied to all three of the standards mentioned.

The consequences are significant. When analyzing the context of their organization, companies will have to determine whether climate-related changes constitute internal or external issues. Stakeholders, such as regulators, lenders, and customers in industrial supply chains, expect documented answers. As a result, the standards are becoming visibly linked to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) reporting obligations, which many companies will have to address in any case.

ISO 14001 leads the way 

The revision of this environmental standard was published during the first quarter of 2026. The scope of the standard remains unchanged, but the new version defines certain requirements more precisely and with greater nuance. The term “environmental conditions,” for example, covers much more than emissions and wastewater. It also includes biodiversity, the availability of natural resources, the condition of entire ecosystems, and the level of pollution in the surrounding environment.

Another new element is a dedicated section on change management. Before, change management was anchored only in ISO 9001; ISO 14001 is now following suit. Adjustments to the system—such as new processes or technologies—must be planned, documented, and evaluated. Unintended changes must also be considered just as carefully as planned ones, which helps create traceability within the system. Additionally, unexpected emergencies are receiving greater attention.

A third focus is anticipating the entire product life cycle. When assessing environmental effects, companies will have to look at more than their own sites. Upstream and downstream stages must also be included, from raw materials to disposal. This brings the standard closer to due diligence obligations under European supply chain rules. For management system officers, this means more coordination with purchasing and sales.

The revision also introduces terminology that can be used almost like a label and helps make everyday audits work easier. One example is the description “documented information.” Practical examples in the informative annex help with interpretation. Lastly, the general requirements have been revised to make them easier to understand.

More precise requirements in ISO 9001 

ISO 9001, the quality management standard, is expected in fall 2026. Its draft was already published in summer 2025. Anyone expecting major upheaval or changes on the scale of the 2015 revision will be pleasantly surprised: The adjustments are moderate, but more precise, with three areas in particular that stand out.

Climate change will be explicitly included in the standard text rather than appearing only in a supplementary document. In addition, the draft separates risks and opportunities more distinctly. Previously, both were treated under one umbrella. The new version requires organizations to actively identify and use opportunities. Many quality management systems have addressed this aspect only marginally so far. The standard will also place greater emphasis on quality culture and ethical behavior with a list of mandatory requirements that, until now, often appeared only in mission statements.

Quality culture in particular is likely to be challenging for many companies, because it’s difficult to audit the extent to which it actually exists in the workplace. Verifiable practices are needed: How does the company deal with mistakes? How openly are complaints discussed? How quickly do teams learn from incidents? The new requirement therefore directly affects top management as well; anyone who merely delegates quality culture will not meet the standard.

Behind the sharper distinction between risks and opportunities lies a more mature understanding. Controlling risks is a duty. Using opportunities is the differentiator, and this is precisely where it becomes clear how strategically a management system is being led. The revision brings this perspective to the fore. Companies that have previously mixed risks and opportunities will need two separate assessments in the future.

ISO 45001: More than accident prevention 

For the occupational health and safety standard ISO 45001, the draft international standard (DIS) is expected in mid-2026. The final version is expected to follow in 2027. Even so, the direction of the revision is already becoming clear. The first committee draft introduces new terms such as “work-related well-being,” “disability,” and “external provider.” New chapters are also being added, including one on workforce diversity and a dedicated section on change management.

This significantly broadens the standard’s protective mandate. Mental health, inclusion, and the handling of external personnel are moving into the mandatory sphere. Topics such as diversity and protection against climate-related stress in the workplace will also have a firm place in the standard. Objections from 2018 that remained unanswered at the time are also being considered.

Although the scope of the standard remains unchanged, its depth is evolving. Occupational health and safety is becoming more clearly a leadership responsibility and will involve top management more strongly. Companies that engage external service providers, such as cleaning or logistics firms, must also take their working conditions into account. This, too, creates interfaces with compliance and supply chain law.

Harmonized structure 

All three standards will be subject to the same formal framework, known as the “harmonized structure.” Terms, chapter structures, and definitions will be standardized. This will make integrated management systems easier to set up, audit, and maintain.

As a result, many parallel work steps can be eliminated. Content will no longer have to be developed separately for each standard. A properly conducted risk analysis, for example, can be used across several systems. Audits can be combined, training courses bundled, and key performance indicators made comparable. At the same time, interdependencies become more visible. A new facility, for example, might affect quality, environmental protection, and occupational health and safety at the same time, and should therefore be assessed accordingly.

For companies, this is an incentive to examine whether previously separate processes can be merged. These revisions provide a good opportunity to do so. An integrated perspective reduces effort and makes the system more robust.

Taking action during the transition period 

After a revised standard is published, a three-year transition period begins. During this time, companies must transition their certificates to the new version. The changeover can take place as part of a surveillance audit or during the next recertification. Companies that start too late risk bottlenecks in audit capacity and delays in certification.

A sound gap analysis is the first sensible step. It shows where the existing system already meets the requirements and where improvements are needed. Next, companies should assign responsibilities, define training needs, and adapt their documentation. When it comes to quality culture and ethics, it’s not enough for executives to simply approve the topic. They must model it, address it, and make it visible in day-to-day operations. That’s exactly why they should be involved early. Anyone expected to take responsibility for a topic later must first understand it and help shape it.

It’s also advisable to think about the revisions together rather than processing separately. Companies that operate, or intend to develop, an integrated management system should use the parallel revisions as an opportunity. A combined status assessment saves resources and creates consistent structures in quality, environmental management, and occupational health and safety.

An opportunity for realignment 

These revisions invite companies to increase their competitive factor in a concrete and verifiable way. Companies that use this opportunity early will strengthen their position with customers, investors, and employees. Today, stakeholders no longer ask only about conformity. They want to see how a company handles risks, how it adapts, and how it assumes responsibility. The new versions of the standards provide the right framework for this.

Companies that understand the updated requirements can make strategic decisions instead of reacting under pressure. Such clarity is precisely the added value that makes these transition periods useful in the first place. Independent experts like TÜV SÜD support the transition with information offerings such as training courses, webinars, and preparation programs.