SAFETY MANAGEMENTPeer-ReviewedSAFETY MANAGESTANDARDS &Defining Safety Management SystemsDepending on the context of an organization and its safetyprogram, the system used to manage safety may be known byvarious names: occupational safety and health managementsystem (OSHMS), occupational health and safety managementsystem (OHSMS) or SMS. These terms are often used interchangeably in many workplaces. For uniformity, all systems usedto manage safety are referred to as SMS in this article. However,there is no globally agreed-upon definition of “safety management system.” Following are a few examples currently in use: “continuous improvementprocess that reduces hazards andKEY TAKEAWAYSprevents incidents” (NSC, n.d.)This article describes in detail “systematic approach tosafety management systemmanaging safety by organizastandards from Internationtional goals, policy, structure,al Standards Organization,planning, accountability andAmerican National Standardssafe standard operating proInstitute, International Laborcedures” (Safeopedia, 2017)Organization, and Federal Avia “formal, top-down, ortion Administration.ganization-wide approachIt highlights areas where theto managing safety risk andsafety management systemensuring the effectiveness ofstandards differ and identifiessafety risk controls that inbest practices.cludes systematic procedures,Finally, the article discussespractices and policies for thethe need for a globally harmanagement of safety risks”monized safety management(FAA, 2016)system standard. A. Michael Shekari “set of interrelated or interacting elements of an organization to establish policies and objectives and processes to achievethose objectives in occupational health and safety” (ISO, 2018) “set of interdependent elements that establish or supportprocesses of the occupational health and safety (OHS) policyand objectives as well as mechanisms to achieve those objectives and continually improve OHS” (ANSI/ASSP, 2019)The FAA and Safeopedia definitions of SMS are the most robustfrom the descriptions found throughout the literature review, butneither can serve as the best definition because FAA mentions a topdown approach in its definition but does not mention accountability. Meanwhile, the Safeopedia definition mentions accountabilitybut not a top-down approach. Across all of the definitions, there isagreement that SMS is systematic and consists of multiple components. Perhaps the best definition for SMS, using the FAA definition as a base, would be “the formal, top-down, organization-wideapproach to managing safety risk and ensuring the effectiveness ofsafety risk controls that includes systematic procedures, practices,policies and accountability for the management of safety risk.”SMS Standards DescriptionsISO 45001 StandardIntroduced in March 2018, the first edition of ISO 45001 is acomprehensive document for SMS to accomplish OSH goals witha holistic approach extending beyond the immediate workplaceusing the plan-do-check-act concept, also known as the Demingcycle. It is apparent at the beginning of the document that safetyprograms should emphasize overall wellness. The document explicitly mentions mental health as an element that should be protected by the program. Another noteworthy feature of ISO 45001is that the stakeholders in the safety program should extendbeyond employers and employees and into the local communitypotentially impacted by the activities of an organization.Structurally, the document has three major sections: Scopingand References (Clauses 1 to 3), Program Requirements (Clauses 4 to 10), and Supplemental Information (Annex A). Clauses1 to 3 establish the scope of how the standard should be usedand defines 37 terms in the document to specify a common language used in safety programs compliant with the document’srequirements. Meanwhile, Clauses 4 to 10 define actual program requirements under the following categories: “Context of the organization” lays the foundation of howthe rest of the SMS will be developed. Developing the organization’s context involves evaluating internal and external issues32 PSJ PROFESSIONAL SAFETY SEPTEMBER 2020 assp.orgINFOGRAFX/ISTOCK/GETTY IMAGES PLUSSSAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS (SMS) are indisputably usefulto organizations that implement them correctly in their operations. The benefits that SMS bring to organizations includereduced incident and fatality frequencies, and reduced severityof injuries, illnesses and property damage from unfavorableevents. Over time, governmental, industrial and internationalbodies have published varying standards and guidelines forthe development and implementation of SMS. These bodiesinclude International Organization for Standardization (ISO),ANSI, International Labor Organization (ILO) and U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The author’s objectivewas to conduct a comparative analysis of SMS standards andaccompanying guidance provided by ANSI, ISO, ILO and FAAsources, and to demonstrate the need for global harmonizationof safety management standards.A Comparat

EMENT SYSTEMS& GUIDELINEStive Analysisrelevant to OSH, such as the needs and expectations of workersand other interested parties. The organization will then use theissues to determine the scope of the SMS. “Leadership and worker participation” defines the responsibilities organizational leaders hold for ensuring that theSMS is supported by the organization’s policies, is adequatelyresourced, encourages worker participation, protects workersfrom reprisals and is integrated into the organization’s dailybusiness practices. The clause also directs organizations to establish mechanisms for worker consultation on various OSHtopics within the workplace. The section recognizes the realitythat nonsupervisory workers often have the most intimateknowledge of workplace hazards. “Planning” starts by looking at an organization’s context,requirements of interested parties, scope of the SMS, and risksand opportunities within the OSH environment. The goals ofplanning are to ensure that the SMS will achieve its intendedoutcomes, prevent or reduce negative impacts, and achieve continuous improvement. The planning process encompasses manyactivities, including the identification of risks and opportunitiestriggered by change, identification of hazards both under andoutside the control of the organization, determination of legaland other requirements, and establishment of OSH objectives. “Support” discusses the elements required to guaranteethat the SMS will be able to function as intended. The requiredsupport elements are resources dedicated to SMS establishmentand maintenance, worker competence, worker awareness, internal and external communication, and SMS documentation. “Operation” revolves around the use of SMS in the workplace environment to meet OSH objectives. A complete SMS,meeting the requirements of the operation clause, will have ameans of establishing processes and controlling their implementation, and will use the following hierarchy of controls:1. elimination of the hazard2. substitution for lesser hazard3. engineering controls and work reorganization4. administrative controls, including training5. adequate PPEA successful SMS, meeting the operation clause requirements, will also address change management, procurement andoutsourcing. “Performance evaluation” is the means an organization’sleadership will use to identify opportunities for improvementof the SMS. According to ISO 45001 requirements, proper per-formance evaluation will determine what should be measured,methods for monitoring and measurement, when measurementsand monitoring should take place, criteria from which the performance measurements will be judged, and level of compliancewith regulations or other standards. During performance evaluation, organizations also shall develop and execute internal auditprograms and conduct management reviews to ensure the continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness of the SMS. “Improvement” incorporates the opportunities identifiedduring performance evaluation and deficiencies identified fromincidents and nonconformities with the organization’s policiesor legal requirements to improve the organization’s SMS. It includes enhancing performance, promoting a culture supportingthe SMS, promoting worker participation, communicating relevant results of improvement efforts and documenting evidenceof continuous improvement.While ISO 45001 does an excellent job of specifying requirements for a quality SMS in the OSH environment, it failsto provide much guidance on how the requirements may beachieved using acceptable practices, making the document lessuseful to organizational leaders who may wish to use an SMSbut lack dedicated personnel with a professional safety background. This may also be a symptom of ISO’s business model.ANSI/ASSP Z10 StandardThe latest revision of the ANSI/ASSP Z10 standard, releasedin August 2019, was done to provide general, high-level alignment with ISO 45001 and utilizes approaches similar to thosein the ILO-OSH 2001 guidelines. This allows organizations tocomply with both the ISO and ANSI standards. The generalstructure and content of ISO 45001 and ANSI Z10 are similar, but there are areas where Z10 is more comprehensive andslightly different than certain sections of ISO 45001. However,one of the most important statements Z10 makes is that, whenever practical, the organization’s SMS should be integrated intoalready existing business practices.One unique approach of ANSI Z10 is the standard-basedmethodology. Like ISO 45001, Z10 uses the Deming cycle but itlooks at the process in a more nonlinear fashion. The nonlinearapproach is illustrated in Z10 through the use of feedback loopsshowing relationships between SMS components that may notbe in normal plan-do-check-act sequence, such as doing planactions several times and checking results before acting tomake changes. Using a nonlinear approach when applying SEPTEMBER 2020 PROFESSIONAL SAFETY PSJ 33

Deming cycle allows the organization to see a more dynamicrelationship among components in the SMS, particularly thecontinuous improvement cycle.The hazard control hierarchy in Z10 also has an additionalstep, warnings, placed between engineering and administrativecontrols. Z10 also mentions this process is required to prioritizeOSH issues within the SMS, based on factors such as fatality,severe injury/illness potential, standards, regulations, feasibility,and potential positive or negative business consequences. Alsohelpful is that Z10 discusses considerations made when selectingwhich hazard control method(s) is used to resolve an OSH issue: nature and extent of the risks being controlled degree of risk reduction desired applicable regulations industry best practices effectiveness, reliability and durability of control being considered human factors available technology cost-effectiveness internal organization standards strategies to eliminate or mitigate potential health exposures, including those not originating from work activitiesAnother aspect of the Z10 standard not found in other standards is that it requires organizations to adopt recognition ofand reasonable accommodation for medical conditions that mayaffect a worker’s ability to perform duties safely and effectively,regardless of the work-relatedness of the medical condition.The full value of Z10 is revealed in the explanatory texts ofAnnex A. This section allows users of Z10 who are developingan SMS in their organizations to receive supplemental information to make compliance with the standard’s requirementsless complicated. The supplemental information ranges fromexamples of potential issues affecting an organization’s contextto details on different incident investigation tools. Annex B, abibliography with citations for source texts used in the standard’s development, provides users of the standard additionalresources to expand knowledge on specific SMS/OSH topics.ILO-OSH 2001 GuidelinesCompared to other sources of SMS standards, ILO is uniquedue to its status as an agency of the UN. The organization’saffiliation with the UN is also demonstrated in the ILO-OSH2001 guidelines foreword section, where it is mentioned thatpoverty cannot justify disregard for worker safety and health.The foreword also brings up the concept of “decent work,” in“conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity.”This concept is not mentioned in other SMS standards becauseit was developed in a context where the existence of these conditions is assumed, whereas the UN’s experience recognizesthat conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignityare not omnipresent in all nation-states.ILO-OSH 2001 is also different from other SMS standardsbecause it is designed to be used on two different levels, nationaland organizational. On a national level, the document is meantto help nation-states develop frameworks for OSH managementsystems supported by laws and regulations. On the organizational level, it encourages the integration of OSH management systems into already existing policy and management constructs.The general structure of ILO-OSH 2001 includes sections forpolicy, organizing, planning and implementation, evaluation,and action for improvement. This format is like those of theANSI/ASSP Z10 and ISO 45001 documents; however, ILO-OSH2001 has several unique differences. ILO-OSH 2001 states thatwhen crafting the organization’s OSH policy within the SMS,employees and their representatives should be consulted. Thedocument also states that the organization’s safety policy shouldbe made available to interested outside parties, as appropriate. Itis recommended that the employer or most senior accountableperson in the organization bring the policy into effect with theirsignature. The ILO guidelines state that OSH objectives shouldbe “realistic and achievable,” a detail left out of the other SMSstandards documents examined. This places the ILO-OSH 2001more in l