In the game of Snakes and Ladders, the goal is to move up, helped or hindered by these two icons representing vices and virtues. It's an appropriate metaphor for the changes being considered in the revision of ISO 14001, the environmental management standard.
A "ladder" change would enhance a user’s move to better environmental management, whereas a "snake" change merely would add bureaucracy and cost, discouraging existing and future users and undermine the value of this framework from the International Organization for Standardization.
Did you even know that ISO 14001 is up for revision? Well, it is. Profound changes are being tabled in the international forum. ISO 14001, the standard for environmental management systems, has been in play since 1996 with only one revision in 2004, which was largely cosmetic.
Reviewing a standard normally occurs every five years. Timing on revising ISO 14001 was pushed back to align the process with ISO’s other flagship standard, ISO 9001, for quality management.
However, this time radical core changes are being considered. Of concern to some negotiators is that the user community seems unaware of the fundamental changes being proposed. For example, ISO has introduced a new framework with the intention that all management system standards will use it. To conform to the High Level Structure (HLS), standards developers have been asked to use an identical clause structure and text, and to enhance consistency through the use of common terms and core definitions.
The purpose of the High Level Structure is to help efficiently manage multiple interests where the user decides to integrate more than one standard into their business process. The theory is that the High Level Structure can enable better management control over areas, such as quality, safety, risk, energy and, of course, the environment.
It sounds like a reasonable idea, doesn’t it? The devil is in the details, however, and some standard users already have said “No” to the HLS for one standard, ISO 16949, the automotive industry’s adaptation of ISO 9001. They perceive that the HLS won't improve the performance of the global automotive supply chain. The "virtue" of their standard, their core values if you will, would be undermined by the fragmentation introduced by the HLS. At least three other standards have opted not to use clause 9 of the HLS.
Other concerns raised by some "in the know" view the HLS as a step backwards from the systems concept of Plan, Do, Check and Act, or PDCA. There will be added costs. At the least, users with an existing environmental management system will have to reconfigure their documentation.
Will this add value to users? Will it only add value to those that have adopted multiple systems, as long as they don’t use the quality standard for the automotive industry, ISO 16949?
Next page: A 1 percent solution?