Professor at IST, Technical University of Lisbon, Portugal (luis.dias@civil.ist.utl.pt)
The systematic implementation of management systems by companies started to undergo a great change by the end of the 1980s following the publication of the ISO 9000 family of standards (quality) by the International
Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). By the middle of the 1990s, environmental management systems started also to be implemented by companies as a result of the publication of the ISO 14000 family of standards. ISO surveys have shown that construction companies are well represented amongst those who have been certified against these standards. Meanwhile, by the mid-1990s, the need to strengthen the improvement of the working conditions of employees, together with the introduction in many countries of a significant number of legislative requirements on safety and health, led to the creation of specific models for the implementation of occupational safety and heath management systems (OSH-MS). By 2000/2001, about 50 models (standards, guides, specifications, etc.) had been created in different countries around the world, following the approaches that have been introduced in some countries since many years, namely in the 1970’s and the 1980’s. In 1996/1997 and again in 1999/2000, ISO was asked to discuss the need to establish an international standard on OSH-MS. On both occasions, the result was negative. Actually, the International Labour Organisation (ILO), while the adequate forum for this subject matter, started the preparation of a guide on this issue in 1996/97 based on international and tripartite consensus and reflecting the ILO values included in the ILO Conventions, Recommendations and Codes of
Practice. It is the “Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems - ILO-OSH 2001” (available in 22 different languages by 2005), adopted in a tripartite meeting in April 2001 and published in December of the same year. It provides guidance on the implementation of these systems at national and organisation levels, as well as for the development of tailored guidelines for specific groups and/or sectors of activity.
Moreover, companies that implement OSH-MS based on these ILO guidelines have been expressing interest on the recognition of their systems at the national level by an official entity and/or by their accredited bodies.
Actually, this may work as an improvement strategy to stimulate and encourage the implementation of OSH-MS by companies and, consequently, of good practices in occupational safety and health at the worksites. An OSH
Recognition System for this purpose is indeed important, in particular for the construction industry where the number of occupational accidents and diseases are recognised to be too high in most countries in the world.
This document discusses an approach for the practical implementation of a possible OSH Recognition
System at the national level based on the ILO-OSH 2001 guidelines and on technical audits, in view to contribute to the systematic implementation of an effective OSH-MS by the construction companies. The benefits are immeasurable for all parties in the construction process, namely to the construction workers - the most valuable resource in any organisation - and for the construction companies through, among other benefits, the direct and positive effects on the improvement of quality, productivity and competitiveness.
: Construction; ILO-OSH 2001; OSH Management systems; OSH Recognition Systems.

The International Labour Office has been emphasizing the importance of implementing National Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems (NG-OSH-MS) as a way to promote and improve an effective safety and health culture in the light of the values of the ILO conventions, recommendations and codes of practices.
Traditionally, the contents of this NG-OSH-MS have been implemented by the countries in different ways, by means of the publication of laws and regulations, complemented by the organization of public services of Labour
Inspectorates to ensure the compliance of these laws and regulations by their addressees. These addressees are, in general, the organizations (public and/or private) in which workers are employed. They have the legal and moral responsibility to ensure a safely and healthy workplace for all employees working under their coordination.
On the other hand, the number of work related laws and regulations (including also those referred to the products taken in broad terms) and the number of existing organizations in each country, are usually high or very high. While in most countries the publication of laws and regulations is an issue that many efforts are being put in place to control their quality and adequacy, the inspection/verification of the organizations ’ full compliance of these laws and regulations is sometimes difficult, due to different reasons, including the limited resources of those who have to inspect/verify their implementation.
In view of the above, it has been recognised that these national actions, while absolutely important and needed, should be complemented by a structured framework to help and encourage the organisations to implement Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems (OSH-MS) in a systematic way and also to facilitate the task of those who have to ensure the compliance of laws and regulations by the organisations . The development of the NG-OSH-MS will help on this issue, which is addressed in to section 2 of this document.
Moreover, the organisations that implement an OSH-MS based on this NG-OSH-MS, are expressing the interest to know the level of conformance of their systems against these national guidelines. This means that a
Recognition System for OSH-MS (RS-OSH-MS) implemented by the organisations is important to be established. This should be done by competent and independent persons (natural or juridical) accredited by an official entity to do so. A possible model for this RS-OSH-MS is addressed in to section 3 of this document.
Together, the NG-OSH-MS and the RS-OSH-MS form a framework that will have a significant impact on the number of organisations wishing to implement OSH-MS based on these national guidelines and consequently improving the safety and health level of more and more organisations and of the working conditions of their workers. This will undoubtedly contribute to achieve the ultimate goal of every country, i.e., the prevention and reduction of work related accidents and diseases in the construction industry.
ATIONAL
UIDELINES ON
CCUPATIONAL
AFETY AND
EALTH
ANAGEMENT
YSTEMS
The National Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems should be structured based on ILO-OSH 2001 taking into consideration the existing laws, regulations and practices of the country and also on: (i) the formulation of a clear, comprehensive and coherent national policy in line with the principles referred to in the ILO values (particularly, in the Occupational Safety and Health Convention n.º 155) and to the national laws and regulations, which should include measurable and timely objectives on OSH accidents and diseases; this policy should be made public by any means needed so that all interested parties may understand and be aware of it; (ii) the definition of the competencies and responsibilities of all main stakeholders related to the promotion of this policy; (iii) the regulation of a loss compensation system for work related accidents and diseases; (iv) the promotion of education and training at all levels and degrees, by including OSH issues in the

education system; (v) the establishment of a credible statistical system related to OSH accidents and diseases to support the actions for the continual improvement of the programme; (vi) the report on the objectives achieved in the past year and the planning of new actions for the future, including, where appropriate, the reviewing of the above OSH national policy in view of the continual improvement.
The NG-OSH-MS should be developed based on the principle that the organisations , while addressees of the laws and regulations, should be part of the process of a systematic verification of conformity by performing the so-called “auto-control”. The implementation of a structured OSH-MS will help the organisations on this auto-control process and facilitate the external audits for an independent recognition of the system based on the criteria referred to in the next section.
China, Ireland, Argentina, Israel and Brazil, are but some examples of countries that have already officially adopted the ILO-OSH 2001 as national guidelines, while other countries are in the way to follow these examples. Moreover, tailored guidelines based on the ILO-OSH 2001 are being recognised to be a good approach to fulfil the needs of specific groups of companies, like micro and/or small companies or sector-oriented companies. Japan is an example where tailored guidelines for the construction industry, as well as a construction-oriented recognition system, have been implemented by the Japanese Construction Safety and Health Association (JCSHA).
An official entity (hereafter referred to as the “Entity”) should be entitled by the Ministry of Labour to implement, follow up and maintain this NG-OSH-MS by periodically reviewing it. This Entity may also accredit other entities (namely, non-profit entities which are hereafter referred to as “accredited bodies”) and record all of them, as well as the organizations whose OSH-MS have been recognised against the NG-OSH-MS.
Periodically, the Entity should communicate to relevant entities the list of all organizations whose systems have been recognized and should make available and publicise, by any appropriate means, these organizations . This list may also be made available to other entities, public or private, that should be encouraged to implement benefit systems addressed to these organisations , namely clients, insurance companies, associations of enterprises, unions, etc.. These entities should justify their request based on a clear explanation of the terms of the benefit system and the Entity may also make publicity of the benefits they offer.
The Entity should also have the responsibility to promote the training on the NG-OSH-MS, through in-house training programmes and/or through other accredited entities for this purpose (e.g. universities, technical schools, etc.). This will help also the organisations on the implementation of their OSH-MS.
The Entity should also develop a Manual for the practical implementation of the NG-OSH-MS to assist and facilitate the organisations to implement their own systems as well as those who will perform the audits according to the recognition system hereafter proposed. Where it is the case, this Manual should address the rules for the accredited bodies, including the audit process that they should follow.
ECOGNITION
YSTEM FOR
IMPLEMENTED BY ORGANISATIONS
The recognition of the Occupational Safety and Health Management System implemented by any organisation may follow the procedures hereafter proposed, which are based on external audits to be carried on by the Entity or by their accredited bodies. The objective is to verify the conformity of the OSH-MS implemented by the organisation against the NG-OSH-MS guidelines, far more demanding than on-site detailed inspections for the verification of compliance with laws and regulations by the organisations . This implementation and the recognition of the system should be a voluntary decision of each organisation . For the success of the implementation of the recognition system, the Entity should also promote the realization of specific training courses on the RS-OSH-MS addressed to their own staff and other persons to be qualified as OSH-MS auditors.

The organisations that decide to request the recognition of their OSH-MS should fulfilled some conditions, including: (i) juridical, economical and financial issues; (ii) records of all accidents and diseases occurred in the past three years in all the workplaces of the organisation (fixed or temporary), including a report on the credibility and a statistical analysis of these records; (iii) have implemented the system before the request for the recognition of the System; (iv) have performed, before the request, an internal audit followed by a meeting of the OSH Committee and by a management review.
The request should be supported in a “letter of request” addressed to the Entity or to the accredited body, including a list of documents (e.g. the manual of the OSH-MS and any procedure considered relevant for the appreciation of the process). The Entity may ask, at any time, for additional documents to support the decision to accept the request.
The organisation should nominate his representative for this process, to whom all communications should be addressed and he should have the power to decide on any issues related to the process.
The recognition process should start with the letter of request above mentioned and addressed by the organisation to the Entity, or to their accredited bodies, according to the flowchart shown in figure 1.
Organisation
(Voluntary decision to implement an OSHMS)
Entity
(Decide on the recognition of the OSHMS)
Diagnostic report by a competent person (OSH expert);
Development of all relevant documents of the System;
Internal training on the System involving all personnel:
Start the implementation of the OSHMS.
Internal audit, followed by an initial review
Request the Recognition
Accept the request and define conditions for the audit (n.º of auditors, n.º of days, costs involved)
Accept the audit conditions and pays the costs involved
Within 1month
At least 2 weeks
Within 1 month
Define the audit team, decide the dates, prepare the audit plan and communicate to the Organisation
Make available resources for the audit and instruct personnel to be available
Auditing
Conduct the audit
The Organisation may make publicity of the Letter of Recognition according to the rules established by the Entity
Within 1 month Audit coordinator prepare the report; the
Entity approve it and issue the Letter of
Recognition to the Organisation
Fig. 1 – Flowchart of the proposed recognition process

The Entity or the accredited body should analyse the request and decide whether it is accepted or not, based on the conditions referred to in the previous subsection. If accepted, the conditions for the audit should be defined, including number of auditors to be involved, number of days and costs involved.
The Entity or the accredited body nominates the audit team, who should prepare the audit plan, decide the dates and places to carry on the audit, and communicates all this information to the representative of the organisation .
The organisation may present any objections after receiving the above information. These objections, if any, should be decided by the Entity or the accredited body before the on-site auditing, otherwise the dates should be adapted accordingly.
The audit will be carried on according to the process described in the following subsections, and the organisation should assist the auditing team in all issues needed and make available all resources to carry on the audit, including the facilities to evidence the findings and instruct all personnel to be available to the audit team.
The Entity or the accredited body should then communicate to the organisation the result of the audit, including the report of the audit and, where applicable, issuing a Letter of Recognition according to the process hereafter referred.
The auditing team shall be appointed by the Entity or the accredited body, including: (i) a Coordinator of the
Audit; (ii) up to three Assistant Auditors. The Audit Coordinator may propose to the Entity or the accredited body the appointment of one or more of the Assistant Auditors. All the Auditors shall be independent persons and the
Assistant Auditors should be experts in one or more of the activities of the organisation being audited.
These Auditors could be qualified as OSH Auditor according to the criteria defined by the Entity based on his/her knowledge and capabilities for conducting OSH audits.
All the Auditors in the auditing team may be external persons to the Entity or the accredited body and they must declare that they have and had no relation with the organisation being audited at least in the past five years, as well as the duty of keeping confidential all the information related to the audit.
The Entity or the accredited body may nominate one expert from its own staff to participate in the audit as an auditor or just to follow up the audit as an observer. On the other hand, the following representatives may also request to be invited by the Entity or the accredited body to participate in the audit, as observers, since there are no costs to the Entity or the accredited body: (i) a representative of one of the Associations of Enterprises where the organisation is a member; (ii) a representative of one of the Unions where employees of the organisation are members; (iii) other persons jointly accepted by the Entity and the organisation being audited.
The management of the audit is a responsibility of the Coordinator of the Audit, who should define the role of each Assistant Auditor of the auditing team.
The audit process starts with the audit plan to be prepared by the Coordinator of the Audit, or under his responsibility, which should cover at least the following: (i) audit objectives; (ii) audit criteria and reference documents; (iii) audit scope and identification of the units of the organisation to be audited; (iv) dates and expected timings and places of the on-site audit activities including meetings; (v) identification of the representative of the organisation to be audited; (vi) logistic arrangements, and; (vii) other relevant issues.
The on-site activities starts with an opening meeting with the board of directors and the representative of the organisation being audited and other persons of the organisation with overall responsibility on the

OSH-MS implemented (e.g., the OSH-MS manager). A review of the audit plan should take place and, where applicable, any adaptations introduced. The audit should be supported on an Audit Evaluation form, as it is referred to in next subsection.
The evidences to support the audit findings should be recorded by any means, including analysis and photocopy of relevant documents, observation and photos of relevant on-site activities and workplaces, notes taken in interviews with relevant persons of the organisation , including with the workers’ representatives in the organisation , etc..
A closing meeting involving the persons that attend the opening meeting should be organised, where the main and general conclusions and recommendations should be presented. Records of attendance in all formal meetings carried on during the audit should be kept, namely for the opening and closing meetings.
Any claim should be addressed to the chairperson of the Entity or of the accredited body, depending on the body that performed the audit. In this last case and, if applicable, the organisation may also claim to the chairperson of the Entity who has the power to decide and no further actions are accepted after his decision.
An audit is a dynamic process and consequently the audit evaluation should be carried on supported, but not limited, in a preliminary checklist previously prepared in the format of a questionnaire. This preliminary checklist should be developed supported on a basic checklist that the Entity should organise to be followed by all those that will carry on an OSH audit (Entity’s staff or the accredited bodies). However, they should be able to add and/or adapt the items to check taking into account the specificity of each case. This basic checklist should include all the elements to be evaluated according and following the ILO-OSH 2001 guidelines. Moreover, the
Entity should define the relative weights of each item to be checked as a way to assure the uniformity in all audits and also to let the organisation know the most relevant items that will be checked.
Each item of this checklist could be weighted (w) between 1 (one) and 5 (five), with 1 meaning less important and 5 absolutely important. Items weighted as “5” (w=5) at the first level (as referred in to below), work as rejection criteria, i.e., the audit should stop and the system can not be recognised if any of these items is rated out with “0” during the evaluation process that follows.
The evaluation of each item should be rated out between 0 (zero) and 5 (five). Items rated out with less than 3, mean a “non-conformity”, where 0 means an “absolutely no” or “absolutely non conformity”; it means also a Requested Corrective and/or Preventive Action (RCA) that the organization should implement. Items rated out from 3 through 5, mean a “conformity”, where 5 means an “absolutely yes” or a “full conformity”, and 3 and 4 mean a Recommended Improvement Opportunity (RIO) that the organization should evaluate the need or interest to review the item for improvement purposes.
The weighted evaluation of each item (E i
) is obtained by expression (1), where w i
(1 to 5) is the weight of the item i and E ij
is the evaluation of the item i rated out between j=0 and j=5. This means that the model accepts more than one evaluation for the same item to accommodate intermediate evaluations between two consecutive evaluations
(e.g. checking the boxes 3 and 4 means an evaluation of 3,5). However, for consistency purposes, where the items are to be evaluated by a “no/yes” answer, while a “no” returns E i
= 0, the weighted evaluation for a “yes” answer should be dependent on the evaluation of the contents of the item, which will determine how “strong” is the “yes”. In these cases, a “yes” answer should correspond to a weighted evaluation (E i
) given by expression (2).
E i
= j
5 ∑
=
0 w i
E ij
(1) or E i
w i w i
+
1
E i
+
1
(2)

On the other hand, some items should be expanded to accommodate detailed evaluations based on groups of sub-items, which contribute to the evaluation of the item under consideration at the first level. These sub-items may be called “second level items” and should be evaluated in separated checklists.
The evaluation process for these second level items should be the same than the evaluation of first level items as described above, except that no rejection criteria should be used, i.e., items weighted in a second level with w k
= 5 and evaluated with E kj
= 0, should not mean a rejection.
The weighted evaluation of each second level item is then obtained by the expression (3), similar to the above expression (1), and the weighted evaluation of each group of second level items is obtained by the expression
(4), after its integration in the first level.
The final result of the audit evaluation (expressed as a %) is given by the expression (5), i.e, the sum of the weighted evaluations of all first level items as a percentage of the maximum weighted evaluations, where n is the number of items checked.
E k
=
5 ∑ j
=
0 w k
E kj
(3) E i
= w i k m ∑
=
1
E k k m ∑
=
1 w k
(4) E
i n ∑
=
1
E i
5
i n ∑
=
1 w i
(5)
Figure 2 shows an example of a partial view of the checklist following the process referred to in above, where “N.º” means a reference number of this checklist and “Ref. DOCs” means the reference documents, which may be an article, requirement, item or clause of ILO-OSH 2001, law, standard, specification, or any other applicable document (mandatory to the case under consideration) against which the evaluation of the item is to be checked for conformity purposes.
The column referred to as “INFO” (information), may be used to record a reference (sequential) number referring to a document that supports the evaluation, e.g., evidences gathered, notes, comments, etc..
Where a "X" is recorded in this column, means that an information or a statement of a fact was just received but no evaluation or confirmation has been performed.
3
N.º
3.1
Checklist
Occupational Safety and Health Management System (OSH-MS)
Policy
Occupational safety and health policy (OSH-Policy) a) Documented OSH-Policy, including statements related to compliance with national laws and regulations b) OSH-Policy evaluation (*) c) Other issues ( please specify )
Ref.
DOCs
3.1
(1)
W i
(2)
(1 - 5) 0
---
E ij
1
---
- Evaluation
2
---
3
---
4
(3)
---
5
---------------
---------------
---------------
---------
---
Weighted
Eval. E i
(4)
---
---
---
---
INFO
(5)
---
---
---
(*) Items that have been expanded in checklists attached
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Totals -->
RCA - Requested Corrective Action; RIO - Recommended Improvement Opportunity N.º of RCAs ---> <--- N.º of RIOs
Audit Evaluation (E %):
Fig. 2 – Partial checklist for the evaluation of a first level items of the ILO-OSH 2001 (OSH Policy)
In this figure 2, the organisation policy is evaluated at the first level by items 3.1 a), which checks just the existence of the policy or not, and 3.1 b) is used to evaluate its contents. These contents form a group of second level items which are evaluated based on a separated checklist as shown in Figure 3.

N.º Items to check
Ref.
DOCs
(1)
W k
(2)
(1 - 5)
3
Policy
3.1
Occupational Safety and Health Management System (OSH-MS)
Occupational safety and health policy (OSH-Policy) a) Established in consultation with workers and their representatives b) Specific to the organisation and appropriate to its size and the nature of its activities c) Concise, clearly written, dated and made effective by the signature of a representative of the employer d) Communicated and readily accessible to all persons at their place of work e) Reviewed for continuing suitability f) Made available to relevant external interested parties, as appropriate g) Includes commitment to protecting the safety and health of all members of the organization by preventing work-related injuries, ill health, diseases and incidents h) Includes commitment to complying with relevant OSH national laws and regulations, voluntary programmes, collective agreements on OSH and other requirements to which the organization i) Includes commitment to ensuring that workers and their representatives are consulted and encouraged to participate actively in all elements of the OSH management system j) Includes commitment to continually improving the performance of the OSH management system.
k) The OSH-MS should be compatible with or integrated in other management systems in the organization l)
3.1
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.1
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
3.1.2
0
E kj
- Evaluation
1 2 3 4
(3)
5
-------------
Weighted
Eval. E k
(4)
INFO
(5)
---
Fig. 3 – Partial checklist for the evaluation of a second level items (Contents of the OSH Policy)
For the evaluation of the conformity of the organisation’s OS-HMS based on ILO-OSH 2001, about 50 items have been considered at the first level. From those, about 25 groups of second level items were also identified involving about 200 items to check.
On the other hand, when the organisation is a construction company, in addition to those, each construction site evaluation may involve a significant number of second level items to be checked (an example is shown in figure 4 related to a working scaffold). More than 250 items have already been identified, but many other are to be added according to each type of construction project and/or its characteristics (e.g. complexity).
This means that the audit of an OSH-MS of a construction organisation may require the evaluation of almost 500 items (or more, in some cases, depending on each site), if only one construction site is to be audited as part of the OSH-MS of the organisation .
N.º Items to check
Ref.
DOCs
(1)
W k
(2)
(1 - 5)
E kj
- Evaluation
(3)
0 1 2 3 4 5
-------------
Weighted
Eval. E k
(4)
INFO
(5)
--4.1.20
Control of working scaffolds
Place of the scaffold and type (façade, tour, etc.) ; Base material (steel, aluminium, wood, other) ; Prefabricated (only for h<=25,5 m) or non-prefabricated (any h) :
Classification/Designation: Service load class (1-6); Without or with drop test (N, D); Width class (W06-W24); Headroom class (H1, H2); Without or with cladding (A, B); Vertical access with ladder, stairs or both (LA, ST, LS)
EN 12810;
EN 12811 a) If prefabricated scaffold, clearness of the identification of the scaffold system and all its components, including manufacturer, year of manufacture or traceability code b) If non-prefabricated scaffold, verification of the responsibility document of the designer of the scaffold and his official qualification for the design, as well as the verification of the inspection documents of the components of the scaffold and/or their marking. c) Availability of the Product Manual in the country language, including the instructions for erection, use, modification and dismantling d) Analysis of the test and assessment report of the scaffold made before use, performed by a different person from the designer, including the verification and record of the anchorages and foundations of the scaffold according to the loads of the design e) General assessment of the scaffold on site before the first use, including the side protection which should have a principal (h=1 m) and intermediate guardrail (h/2) and toeboard (>=0,15 m) f) General assessment of the scaffold every 3 months and after any interruption on the use of the scaffold for more than one month g) General assessment of the scaffold after any changing of its previous position on site and after any changing of the conditions of use (e.g. different loads) h) General assessment of the scaffold after any accident or incident due to misfunction of the scaffold or following adverse atmospheric conditions i)
EN 12810
EN 12811
EN 12810;
EN 12811
EN 12810;
EN 12811
EN 12810;
EN 12811
Fig. 4 – Partial checklist for the evaluation of another second level items (working scaffold)

The audit report should include, in principle but not limited, the following items: introduction, objectives and scope of the audit; identification of the organisation audited (name, addresses, workplaces/processes audited, etc.), actions performed (dates and places visited, meetings, etc.), audit criteria and reference documents used in the audit; audit findings; conclusions and recommendations.
The audit report is a responsibility of the Coordinator of the Audit and should be presented to the Entity or the accredited body, within a period of time to be established after the last day of the audit.
The Entity or the accredited body should decide on the audit recommendations and communicate the result to the organisation .
This decision should be taken in a tripartite basis, organised as a commission, including: (i) one representative of the Entity acting as the governmental part; (ii) one representative of one of the Associations of Enterprises where the organisation is a member; (iii) one representative of one of the Unions where employees of the organisation are members. This commission may be assisted, where applicable, by a representative of the accredited body that carried out the technical audit of the organisation under consideration.
The decision should not, in principle, be positive whether there is any rejection criteria with an “absolutely no”
(or “absolutely non conformity”) or the global evaluation is less than 50% according to the evaluation process described in to above.
In the case of an Evaluation of less than 50%, the organisation should review the System introducing the necessary corrections and should request a follow-up audit not before a period of time after the previous audit.
This follow-up audit should follow the same procedure than the previous audit and a new budget is applied excluding the costs of the opening of the process. The items concerned during this audit are just those that were rated out with less than 5 and that the organisation has improved based on the previous audit evaluation and, if it is the case, on those that were not evaluated (for example, due to a rejection criteria).
The Entity or the accredited body should issue to the organisation a Letter of Recognition of the OSH-MS audited where there is a positive decision based on the above criteria.
This Recognition Letter shall follow a model to be established by the Entity, being the validity of this recognition for a limited number of years from the date of issuing the Letter.
The organisation should perform an internal audit followed by a management review every year from the date of issuing the recognition letter.
The re-validation of the Recognition should follow the same process described, since some occupational safety and health indicators have decreased a certain amount in the whole of the past three years relatively to the previous period of the same number of years taken also as a whole.

The ILO-OSH 2001 guidelines for the implementation of occupational safety and health management systems is the international reference document for governments and organisations (public or private) that wish to improve the working conditions at a national or organization level. It has been established based on a tripartite consensus and incorporating the values of conventions, recommendations and codes of practice issued by the International Labour Organisation.
The governments may benefit from these guidelines to implement their own national guidelines taking into account the existing laws and regulations. They may also implement tailored guidelines to offer to specific groups of companies, as for micro-companies, small and medium size companies, or sector-oriented companies (e.g. construction companies), a tool that best fit the needs of these groups. These tailored guidelines may also be promoted as an initiative of associations of these groups.
The organisations may benefit from these guidelines for the implementation of their own OSH-MS in a voluntary basis, as a way to improve and show internally their commitment to OSH of all their workers. Nevertheless, it is the author’s belief that a recognition system for the organisations that implement OSH-MS is indeed needed as a way to show externally the mentioned commitment and also a way to owners and other interested parties to select for their construction projects those organisations with daily efforts on the improvement of OSH. Moreover, this recognition system may also work as an incentive to many organisations to implement their own systems.
In this document, a possible model for the implementation of such a recognition system was introduced and described, in view to promote the discussion on this subject. The author believe that these recognition systems will help and contribute significantly to the systematic implementation of OSH-MS by organisations and consequently to the reduction of the high number of occupational accidents and diseases in the construction industry.
ILO-OSH 2001 (2001): Guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems . ILO-SafeWork,
Genebra, Switzerland.
International Labour Office (2004): Report IV(1) - Promotional framework for occupational safety and health .
Report prepared for the International Labour Conference, 93rd Session, 2005.
International Labour Office (2005): Report IV(1) - Promotional framework for occupational safety and health .
Report prepared for the International Labour Conference, 95rd Session, 2006.
Byron, N. T. (2000): Managing Health and Safety: Some Issues . JISHA Convention, Kanazawa City, Japan.
Castellá, José L. (2002): Guia de Introducción a los Siystemas Nationales de Seguridad y Salud en el
Trabajo . OIT - SafeWork, Geneva, Switzerland.
ILO/IALI (2001): Joint International Symposium on “ Labour Inspection and occupational safety and health management systems ”. Summary report. Düsseldorf, Germany. May 2001.
ISO 19011 (2002): Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems auditing . Geneva,
Switzerland.
JCSHA – Japan Construction Safety and Health Association (2004): COHSMS External System Evaluation .
Tokyo, Japan.