Implementing standard doesn’t mean starting from scratch: Consultant
When Nestlé Waters Canada decided to certify with OHSAS 18001 — an international occupational health and safety management system specification — it wasn’t that the water production giant didn’t have a safety plan in place.
But the company wanted official certification with a recognized safety management system as the foundation to drive continuous safety improvement, said John Challinor, director of corporate affairs at Nestlé Waters Canada.
“Obviously, the purpose of all safety programs is to identify health and safety hazards in the workplace proactively so we keep our most valuable assets at the end of the day safe.”
OHSAS 18001 requires Nestlé Waters Canada and other certified companies to establish and maintain standards to control health and safety risks. The standard was developed in conjunction with a number of bodies, including Standards Australia and the British Standards Institution. It follows a plan, do, check, act (PDCA) model where companies are required to constantly identify risks in the workplace and adjust to account for those risks.
The implementation process started at Nestlé’s Guelph, Ont., and Hope, B.C., facilities using the company’s existing standards to help them conform to OHSAS 18001 and meet certification requirements. The company audited its internal systems to identify gaps, provide communication, training and make its system stronger. Internally, the company audits the factory continuously and a partner comes in annually to perform a full system audit, which prepares Nestlé for mandatory certification or surveillance audits, said Challinor.
Like Nestlé, many companies already have safety programs in place so they are not starting at square one when implementing a standard, said Ivana Strgacic, president of Strategies for the Environment, a Toronto-based company that helps organizations implement safety management systems.
“You don’t want to reinvent the wheel,” she said.
The first thing that has to be done is a hazard audit. Companies must understand the risks at their organization so they can identify where they are at with safety. Then the risks can be assessed for severity and probability of harm, said Strgacic.
There are differences between management systems such as OHSAS 18001 and CSA Z1000, but there are also a lot of similarities, she said.
“All management systems are focused on occupational health and safety,” said Strgacic, adding both systems are based on PDCA models.
CSA Z1000 is a Canadian health and safety management system. OHSAS 18001 is an international model, which has been around longer than the Z1000 model, which was rolled out by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) in 2006. Z1000 meets the needs of Canadian stakeholders and focuses on worker participation throughout the process, said Elizabeth Rankin, project manager in the Occupational Health and Safety program for CSA standards.
CSA Z1000 doesn’t require registration to be implemented but companies can chose to register, she said. This was done in part to ensure the standard was accessible for all businesses, not just large companies, said Rankin.
“When the committee was putting Z1000 together, one of the things they also needed to consider was how small businesses would be able to implement it,” she said. “There are documentation requirements but that’s not the main focus of the standard.”
Not requiring companies to register makes it difficult to track how many are using the standard. Only two companies in Canada are registered, including the CSA, but between 2006 and 2008, the association sold 1,500 copies of the standard and trained 600 people in its requirements, said Rankin. Statistics for more recent years are not currently available.
“As far as implementing a safety management system, we’re happy with whatever safety management system (companies choose)… but the thing is they have to make sure whatever they’re implementing is right for them,” she said.
Official systems have a built-in, third-party pair of eyes checking for compliance, said Strgacic.
Working with a standard requires companies to go above and beyond in terms of setting objectives and targets, having a communication standard and having employee participation as a requirement, said Challinor.
But not all businesses need an official safety management system, said Strgacic, adding safety management systems are useful to get a holistic approach on safety. Some companies can function safely and effectively without one, by improving internal systems and making sure there is a check–and-balance process similar to an official system, she said.
Since implementing the standard, Nestlé has seen many benefits, including improved employee engagement, heightened safety awareness and an upgraded communications structure for reporting incidents. The company’s Hope facility has had two years without a reportable injury and Guelph has achieved four years without a lost-time injury, said Challinor. The standard brings responsibility to all employees, not just the person who has health and safety in a job title, he said.
“It ensures continuous improvement of your program, it ensures that it’s still active, it’s still live and you’re living it, not just dealing with it.”
But the company wanted official certification with a recognized safety management system as the foundation to drive continuous safety improvement, said John Challinor, director of corporate affairs at Nestlé Waters Canada.
“Obviously, the purpose of all safety programs is to identify health and safety hazards in the workplace proactively so we keep our most valuable assets at the end of the day safe.”
OHSAS 18001 requires Nestlé Waters Canada and other certified companies to establish and maintain standards to control health and safety risks. The standard was developed in conjunction with a number of bodies, including Standards Australia and the British Standards Institution. It follows a plan, do, check, act (PDCA) model where companies are required to constantly identify risks in the workplace and adjust to account for those risks.
The implementation process started at Nestlé’s Guelph, Ont., and Hope, B.C., facilities using the company’s existing standards to help them conform to OHSAS 18001 and meet certification requirements. The company audited its internal systems to identify gaps, provide communication, training and make its system stronger. Internally, the company audits the factory continuously and a partner comes in annually to perform a full system audit, which prepares Nestlé for mandatory certification or surveillance audits, said Challinor.
Like Nestlé, many companies already have safety programs in place so they are not starting at square one when implementing a standard, said Ivana Strgacic, president of Strategies for the Environment, a Toronto-based company that helps organizations implement safety management systems.
“You don’t want to reinvent the wheel,” she said.
The first thing that has to be done is a hazard audit. Companies must understand the risks at their organization so they can identify where they are at with safety. Then the risks can be assessed for severity and probability of harm, said Strgacic.
There are differences between management systems such as OHSAS 18001 and CSA Z1000, but there are also a lot of similarities, she said.
“All management systems are focused on occupational health and safety,” said Strgacic, adding both systems are based on PDCA models.
CSA Z1000 is a Canadian health and safety management system. OHSAS 18001 is an international model, which has been around longer than the Z1000 model, which was rolled out by the Canadian Standards Association (CSA) in 2006. Z1000 meets the needs of Canadian stakeholders and focuses on worker participation throughout the process, said Elizabeth Rankin, project manager in the Occupational Health and Safety program for CSA standards.
CSA Z1000 doesn’t require registration to be implemented but companies can chose to register, she said. This was done in part to ensure the standard was accessible for all businesses, not just large companies, said Rankin.
“When the committee was putting Z1000 together, one of the things they also needed to consider was how small businesses would be able to implement it,” she said. “There are documentation requirements but that’s not the main focus of the standard.”
Not requiring companies to register makes it difficult to track how many are using the standard. Only two companies in Canada are registered, including the CSA, but between 2006 and 2008, the association sold 1,500 copies of the standard and trained 600 people in its requirements, said Rankin. Statistics for more recent years are not currently available.
“As far as implementing a safety management system, we’re happy with whatever safety management system (companies choose)… but the thing is they have to make sure whatever they’re implementing is right for them,” she said.
Official systems have a built-in, third-party pair of eyes checking for compliance, said Strgacic.
Working with a standard requires companies to go above and beyond in terms of setting objectives and targets, having a communication standard and having employee participation as a requirement, said Challinor.
But not all businesses need an official safety management system, said Strgacic, adding safety management systems are useful to get a holistic approach on safety. Some companies can function safely and effectively without one, by improving internal systems and making sure there is a check–and-balance process similar to an official system, she said.
Since implementing the standard, Nestlé has seen many benefits, including improved employee engagement, heightened safety awareness and an upgraded communications structure for reporting incidents. The company’s Hope facility has had two years without a reportable injury and Guelph has achieved four years without a lost-time injury, said Challinor. The standard brings responsibility to all employees, not just the person who has health and safety in a job title, he said.
“It ensures continuous improvement of your program, it ensures that it’s still active, it’s still live and you’re living it, not just dealing with it.”
