Thank you sir! I never really thought of it before. It makes perfect sense to me, particularity in the field I work in. We are an aircraft maintenance organization that provides services to companies that fight forest fires. The last three seasons have been overwhelming at times and we have not addressed the risks at all.
Dear Mr. Combs, From Thailand, Thanks for this video that make clear for the amendment. Many consultants make organization confuse and panic for this new but your answer can explain everything clear, precise and guide to apply them. I want to ask your permission to reference your video for explain the amendment in Thai language and communicate with organization. Thanks
How exactly does the effect of climate change differ from the effect of 'just environmental conditions'? Please, can you give some examples? Trying to really understand the unique elements brought by climate change that mitigations used to address environmental impact prior to the genesis of climate change, do not now/can't address.
Thanks for the video. I believe, in next amendment they need to include safety issue as well, since not following safety regulation will shut down your business. For example, if you violate Industry safety regulations in my country you will be banned to operate, consequently lose business. Another example, imagine you are doing logging services and you license/permission to export radiation sources expired, then you will not be able to fulfill contractual obligations and lost contract, which may result in shut down the business.
But doesn't the standard already address this in 4.2 where it speaks to meeting applicable regulatory and statutory requirements? I am here to learn, so look forward tp your reply.
With an immediate effect. You will not require a new certificate for this amendment. However, the changes that you made in your QMS, will be audited in next audit cycle (as per your audit calendar)
I'm not against this but like anything else that is released into the wild there needs to be some 'definition' and guidance brought to the table. It's ALL TOO OFTEN left up to the opinion of the auditor which is not ok. Just as climate change policies should be aligned world wide so should the guidance materials on how to address this topic. For example and specifically. I can easily argue this will need to be addressed in contract review. How about controls of outside processors and suppliers, receiving inspection, handling storage & packaging, and your audit program? These areas I guarantee will bring 50% of either direction YES/NO on if they apply to climate change. I feel I have multiple personality disorder as I type this making arguments for each of they grey elements I've listed above applying to climate change or not. Is it necessary? Yes, Can ISO provide a mountain more guidance on this to assist suppliers across the world to correctly implement? Also...Yes.
Thank you sir! I never really thought of it before. It makes perfect sense to me, particularity in the field I work in. We are an aircraft maintenance organization that provides services to companies that fight forest fires. The last three seasons have been overwhelming at times and we have not addressed the risks at all.
Dear Mr. Combs,
From Thailand, Thanks for this video that make clear for the amendment. Many consultants make organization confuse and panic for this new but your answer can explain everything clear, precise and guide to apply them.
I want to ask your permission to reference your video for explain the amendment in Thai language and communicate with organization.
Thanks
How exactly does the effect of climate change differ from the effect of 'just environmental conditions'? Please, can you give some examples? Trying to really understand the unique elements brought by climate change that mitigations used to address environmental impact prior to the genesis of climate change, do not now/can't address.
Well done. I've passed it around.
Thanks for the video. I believe, in next amendment they need to include safety issue as well, since not following safety regulation will shut down your business. For example, if you violate Industry safety regulations in my country you will be banned to operate, consequently lose business. Another example, imagine you are doing logging services and you license/permission to export radiation sources expired, then you will not be able to fulfill contractual obligations and lost contract, which may result in shut down the business.
But doesn't the standard already address this in 4.2 where it speaks to meeting applicable regulatory and statutory requirements? I am here to learn, so look forward tp your reply.
Thank you
From when it is applicable to the existing ISO 9001:2015 certificate ?
With an immediate effect. You will not require a new certificate for this amendment. However, the changes that you made in your QMS, will be audited in next audit cycle (as per your audit calendar)
I'm not against this but like anything else that is released into the wild there needs to be some 'definition' and guidance brought to the table. It's ALL TOO OFTEN left up to the opinion of the auditor which is not ok. Just as climate change policies should be aligned world wide so should the guidance materials on how to address this topic. For example and specifically. I can easily argue this will need to be addressed in contract review. How about controls of outside processors and suppliers, receiving inspection, handling storage & packaging, and your audit program? These areas I guarantee will bring 50% of either direction YES/NO on if they apply to climate change. I feel I have multiple personality disorder as I type this making arguments for each of they grey elements I've listed above applying to climate change or not. Is it necessary? Yes, Can ISO provide a mountain more guidance on this to assist suppliers across the world to correctly implement? Also...Yes.
The science of climate change does not care whether someone does not believe in climate change or not. Like Mr Combs says, embrace it.