COMPARISON OF ANSI Z10 AND ISO 45001
Occupational Health and Safety Management System Standards
Comparison of the ANSI Z10 and ISO 45001 is difficult for the reasons listed under the background heading. However, despite these difficulties, many will ask for a comparison of the two standards because both apply to occupational health and safety management systems.
Both standards can create success and failure. Organizations can use both standards to create effective management systems capable of continual improvement. But both can also create wasteful bureaucratic paper programs that fail to improve health and safety performance, demoralize the organization, create conflict, and undermine collaboration. System thinking competence is the most critical factor in determining the quality of the management system.
Background - The standards were created for different purposes. The primary differences between the standards grow out of the origins and purpose of the two documents. Comparison is like comparing a pickup truck with a sports car. Both can carry you from one place to another, but their primary purpose is very different. ISO 45001 evolved from OHSAS 18001. ISO countries had voted down proposals to create an ISO standard for health and safety. OHSAS 18001 was primarily created by consultants and certification bodies, not user organizations. Its "18001" designation gave the impression of it being an ISO standard or at least a consensus standard. It was neither. Eventually, ISO countries voted to support the creation of an ISO health and safety standard. The ISO committee membership was predominantly accreditation bodies, certification bodies, occupational safety and health institutions, academic bodies, and some unions. The primary purpose of the standard was to establish criteria for certification. ANSI Z10, on the other hand, was created to help organizations improve their management system and was never primarily intended for certification. Committee members did not oppose certification, but that was never a goal. Some large companies and professional organizations supported the development of Z10 to ensure that if the development of an ISO standard ever moved forward, the United States would have a standard to contribute to the process that reflected the interests of the U.S. business, unions, etc. Unlike OHSAS 18001, the membership of ANSI Z10 was largely user companies, management associations, health and safety professional organizations, unions, and academic institutions.
This backdrop led to the creation of two standards that are difficult to compare because comparison depends on the goals and objectives of the person making the comparison. Consider several important points below:
Certification It should be clear from the above narrative that if certification is the primary goal of an organization, then ISO 45001 is a clear choice. Many certification bodies are available worldwide, and many consultants and professional organizations offer support. ISO 45001 has been translated into many languages. Further, one can argue that ISO 45001 requirements are easier to audit because certification was the intended primary goal. Consultants and certification bodies pushed for "auditable" requirements.
Management System Improvement When management system improvement is the primary goal, the decision is less clear. This is particularly true if the organization is exclusively based in the United States. In such a case, Z10 should be seriously considered. It is much easier to understand because it was written in United States English rather than international English with all of its compromises. ISO 45001 was written in International English, which accommodates translation to many other languages by excluding words that cannot be translated into other languages. Z10 is based on United States laws and regulations, business practices, labor relations, and health and safety approaches. ISO 45001 had to accommodate the vast array of business practices, approaches to health and safety, and legal and regulatory requirements from ISO member countries. The result was requirements that users are likely to find vague and challenging to interpret.
Systemic approach. The ANSI Z10 Committee deliberately attempted to convey to users the dynamic interdependence of system elements and the necessity of integrating health and safety into operations and business systems. Dynamic interdependency and the need for integration are reflected in the Z10 model, requirements, the annex, and guidance manuals, from the system model to the annex explanatory text. One can certainly argue that ISO 45001 reflects that same approach, but it is undoubtedly much less noticeable. The first chapter of the ANSI Z10 Guidance Manual is "What is Systems Thinking?" This emphasizes the recognition of systems thinking as the foundation for improving an organization's management system.
Implementation support. The ANSI Z10 Guidance and Implementation Manual and the ASSP Guidance Manual: Keeping Your People Safe in Smaller Organizations provide excellent implementation support for organizations of all sizes working to improve their management systems. ISO is developing an Implementation Manual for ISO 45001, but it is still at least a year or two from completion.
User-friendliness. Again, if the user organization is in the United States, ANSI Z10 is the most user-friendly. If the user organization is an international corporation, ISO 45001 is the most user-friendly because of its availability in multiple languages.
Problems with requirement by requirement comparisons. A requirement by requirement comparison is difficult because the purposes of the two standards are different. In addition, the comparison can be highly subjective and is often anti-systemic because it focuses on the parts and sub-parts of the system in isolation from other parts. No one would walk into a car dealership and ask for a comparison of the engine parts in two cars. You are more likely to request a comparison of the emergent properties: fuel economy, torque, range, expected reliability, etc. Purchase decisions are made by comparing emergent properties rather than comparing specifications of each part or subassembly.
So how is analogy applied to ANSI Z10 and ISO 45001? More precisely, what are the emergent properties?