There will be more information about potential upcoming changes to the ISO Management System Standards (MSS). One topic of note is that of Continual Improvement (CI). The current standards of 9001, 14001 and 45001 have CI listed in clause 10.3 as well as references in: 4.4.1 Management System, 5.2.1 Policy, 7.1.1 Resources. Other than the policy needing to be documented, there is no other current mention of having to document anything in the CI area.

What appears to be occurring in the potential new standards:

• Continual improvement is being moved from clause 10.3 to 10.1.
• With the move to 10.1, the word sustainability may be taking on an expanded meaning with the inclusion of climate change in the standards.
• Besides the references to CI above, it may appear in a new clause 9.3.3 Management review results.
• This 9.3.3 could state that: “discussions related to continual improvement opportunities” are to be discussed and documented as part of the management review.

This new requirement may very well be found in the 9001, 14001 and 45001 and that will mean that organizations will be required to maintain some form of records around their CI process. Many of the companies that I am currently auditing do have some form of listing of their improvements and thus this new requirement should not be an issue for them. However, if you do not already have something that can be added to your management review, then this will be a new requirement that should be considered now to update your management review process.

Also, when the current standards came out in 2015, the word sustainability was focused on the management system ensuring that the organization could continue its business and ensure overall customer satisfaction. However, given the addition of “climate change” starting in 2024 and now ongoing, sustainability is taking on the added meaning: is our organization doing business in an environmentally friendly way? ISO has not released a separate management standard, as of yet, dealing with sustainability. However, at least in Europe, to be fully sustainable, many companies are looking at requiring their suppliers to be registered with both the ISO 14001 Environmental Management and ISO 50001 Energy Management. And besides these two auditable standards, there is a series of verification ISO standards in the 14000 series that deal with some form of Green House Gas (GHG) calculations that could also be required by customers of their suppliers.

So, if you have not thought through your CI process lately, what does it entail? I do tend to stump some middle managers, and even some engineers when I ask how they are applying CI in their organizations. They are so busy doing their day jobs that the old adage applies: “They do not see the forest for all the trees.” A Google search of continual improvement usually yields something as: “an ongoing effort to improve products, services, or processes through small, incremental changes or larger breakthrough improvements.” Common tools include Kaizen, PDCA or PDSA, Value Stream Mapping, 5 Whys, Gemba Walks, 5S, Root Cause Analysis, Six Sigma, Lean DMAIC, and a number of others.

Virtually all organizations are using some of these tools, but they may not recognize these for helping in the organization’s continual improvement efforts. The challenge may be in how the management team is maintaining some form of document information that can then be noted in their Management Review – Review Results.

I just performed a surveillance audit with a small organization that had an interesting add to their management review in the form of a simple Excel spreadsheet. For the past couple of years, they have been working to update their seven buildings, buying some new machines, totally refurbishing some old equipment and providing a lot of training for their employees. The management team decided to start a list of the improvements around their operations. And, it was noted that one of their large customers is now asking for some documents on what they have been doing to improve operations. The customer is not asking for them to calculate Green House Gas (GHG) yet, but they are thinking that may be coming soon.

So, they have started by simply starting a list of what changes have been occurring in the past two years with the timing of the changes and what things are still in process. They now have a running list of those things that have been completed, those in process and the future opportunities that they hope to work on in the future. This makes for an impressive list for this company and should easily satisfy any new ISO requirements that we are expecting. The one thing that the management team asked me was “how could they show cost savings in their current matrix to satisfy their customer’s request?” 

As an auditor, I am not allowed to consult with my clients, so I could not tell them how to “fix” this issue in their matrix. However, I am allowed to share best in class ideas from other clients that I have worked with, and the simple idea here, that I have seen before at ISO 50001 clients, is to add a new column that they could then list the energy savings that they have achieved or hope to achieve on the future projects. This would then position them to be ready, if they ever do get the request to calculate GHG, for their site.

In another client case, I noted that they are already buying carbon credits a good five years before their corporate organization has required them to start. In questioning them, they stated that now that they are paying quarterly carbon credit fees, they are finding it much easier to get Capital Expenditures and other CI projects approved by the corporate. This is because they now have something to offset against the reduction of having to buy carbon credits. This actually is a great answer to the age-old quality issue of getting the accounting department to understand how future improvement will offset costs that have not yet occurred.

A variant of this could also be used as to why companies in the U.S. or Canada should consider getting registered to the ISO 45001. By getting the management team to focus more on safety and OSHA regulations, the potential cost saving of every OSHA finding at $7,000 each could easily be used to offset the cost paid to the registrar and added internal audit costs.

For internal auditors, review your internal audit process to ensure that there are questions about how CI is being conducted. There also is opportunity to look for documented information, and to even start to evaluate the effectiveness of CI projects. This would be a good starting point for many organizations. The key here is that many organizations only do their management reviews once a year, so the opportunity to get the potential newly required documented information into the Management Review section of your reports may be limited. So, if this area is lacking in your current management system, having the internal auditor identifying this fact and even writing an internal finding could be one way of addressing the open issue until your next formal management review. This will also help prevent registrar findings.

Also, the IA process could be used to verify various CI projects within the organization which should then become part of the management review for the inputs and then the management team can comment in the Review Results section of the minutes on how effectively they feel the efforts have been (based on IA input or their own observations). Otherwise, the management team members may need to start a formal review process of their own that is then documented to be recorded in the management review minutes to show compliance to the new pending requirements.

Either way that you choose to address this, something will be needed to ensure that you are in compliance with the pending new requirements under the upcoming standards.