Talk:ISO 45001

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 25 March 2014 by reviewer Happy Attack Dog (talk · contribs).

Occupational Safety and Health C‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to occupational safety and health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Occupational Safety and HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthTemplate:WikiProject Occupational Safety and HealthOccupational Safety and Health articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Criticizm[edit]

Is there any critical view available to the WP on the planned ISO 45001 standard or/and a comparison with OHSAS 18001. Is there research on the standard and whether something has been learned form OHSAS 18001 audit practices?
Example for goog things in OHSAS 18001 missing in ISO 45001 (CD2): In ISO 45001 the very helpful definition of "ill health" (OHSAS 18001:2007, clause 3.8) is missing. That definition also made it clear as a regular part of a clause, that ill health is related to a physical as well as to a mental condition.
And an achievement reached when moving form OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007 disappeared too: In the definition of "incident" as Work-related event(s) in which ... ill health (regardless of severity) ... occurred, or could have occurred (OHSAS 18001:2007, clause 3.9), it was made clear, that even weak effects on health could not be used as an excuse not to record an incident. Of course the effects of incidents on health need to be evaluated, but after the incident is put on record. ISO 45001 again makes it easier for employers to avoid recording incidents and therewith to avoit the evaluation of the severity of ill health.
The article says: "It is hoped that ISO 45001 will attain more international recognition". Has the objective to attain more international recogition lead to the reversion of some achievements of OHSAS 18001:2007?
--91.52.31.186 (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lead edit[edit]

I shortened the lead, I don't think "The issue of work-related injuries and diseases is significant and growing ..." is encyclopedic. Hekerui (talk) 11:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iso 45001 on text[edit]

deleting iso45001 makes no sense by claiming copyright damage. Information about music discs is published. They put the name of the songs and what they talk about but no one says that copyright is violated by this. We cannot talk about the chapters of the rules and what are they about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.125.206.78 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]