The audit plan is the document that establishes the scope, objectives and criteria, and schedule of the audit. It also goes into specific details on what areas will be audited, when, and by whom.
Other details such as which checklists may be used, how the report is to be formatted and distributed, and how meetings will be conducted can also be included in the plan. In essence, the audit plan reflects the programs, procedures, and methodologies of the EMS audit process, in accordance with element 4.5.4 of
ISO 14001. These planning items are usually described in the procedures for element 4.5.4 and do not need to be re-created every time an audit occurs. For example, it can be determined that the entire EMS will be audited once per year, but in four partial events. This schedule then becomes part of the procedure.
The audit scope defines what part of the organization will be audited. Obviously, this should coincide with the scope of the EMS itself, and is usually the site in question. If the full EMS audit is divided in smaller segments conducted throughout the year, then the scope of any given segment is what portion of the organization will be audited at that time. Typically, an organization will create a chart or matrix showing the various divisions of the site or activity and when it will be audited. A typical entry may show the maintenance department being audited in the first quarter and production in the fourth quarter, for example.
Also noted in the audit plan is the audit objective(s). The audit objective describes why an audit is being conducted. Typically the reason is to conform to
ISO 14001 4.5.4 requiring that the EMS be periodically evaluated. Another reason is demonstrate conformance to others.
Although EMS audits may appear in their own right to be “good practice”, it is essential that auditors have a clear concept of what the general objectives of such audits are.
The definition of EMS audits highlights the need to confirm conformance with planned arrangements and to ensure that these arrangements are effective and suitable to achieve objectives. ISO 14011 expands this to form a number of general objectives for any type of EMS audit. Audits should be carried out to:
- determine conformance of an auditee’s EMS with the EMS audit criteria
- determine whether the auditee’s EMS has been properly implemented and maintained
- to identify areas of potential improvement in the auditee’s EMS
- assess the ability of the internal management review process to ensure the continuing suitability and effectiveness of the EMS
- evaluate the EMS of an organization where there is a desire to establish a contractual relationship, such as with a potential supplier or a joint-venture partner.
Using this definition and sources such as ISO 14010 and 14011, the following statement of the specific objectives of an internal EMS audit has been developed. Internal audits should be carried out to ensure that:
- The EMS continues to meet the needs of the business
- The necessary documented procedures that exist are practical and satisfy any specified requirements
- The necessary documented procedures are understood and followed by appropriately trained personnel
- Areas of conformity and nonconformity with respect to implementation of the EMS system are identified and corrective action implemented
- The effectiveness of the system in meeting the EMS objectives is determined and that a basis is created for identifying opportunities and initiating actions to improve the EMS system
The above objectives imply that internal audits are concerned with more than just the policing of an established system. If auditors and managers are to remain committed to the implementation of the EMS system, it must also contribute to the process of developing that system and seeking improvements.
Internal auditing must not be carried out in a way that results in the transfer of responsibility from the operating staff to the auditor or auditing organization, i.e., at all times the individual or department must retain and accept responsibility for his or her role in the EMS.
If the internal audit process is not designed and implemented to meet the objectives and to avoid the pitfalls described above, it is unlikely that the top management commitment essential to an effective audit process will be readily forthcoming.
The audit criteria define what the “rules” are. For the sake of this guide, the criteria will be the elements of ISO 14001. A subtle point to note however is that the site’s EMS requirements are also part of the criteria. This means that in addition to responding to the requirements of
ISO 14001, the EMS must also respond to “planned arrangements”, or what the organization said it was going to do. In audits, a common response is “the standard does not require such and such detail”. However, if the site’s procedure does require some specific response, then it becomes part of the criteria. In essence, the auditors are verifying the system not only to ISO 14001, but also to what the EMS documentation states.
How the audit is divided and scheduled throughout the time interval is up to the organization and will be a function of minimizing disruption to site operations and resource needs. The only requirement is that the full audit be completed within the frequency established in the procedures under 14001, 4.5.4. One of the requirements regarding frequency is that how often an area is audited be in part a function of prior audit results. This means that the planned frequency may change with time based on what auditors are finding.
How long each audit takes again is a function of resource needs and operations. It is recommended, however, that any individual audit event not be protracted out over long time periods. The longer a task takes, the easier it is to get distracted and lose focus.
Much has been written about how to audit a system if the full audit is not completed in one event. Unlike other audits, including quality audits, where a more segmented approach can be taken, ISO 14001 systems tend to be very sensitive to consistency. For example, the emergency planning process may conform to the standard element 4.4.7 in that a procedure exists; however,
it may not reflect the potential significant impacts identified in element 4.3.1. Had the audit team focused only on element 4.4.7, they would not have noted the apparent nonconformance.
When developing an audit plan, it is wise to consider the three C’s of ISO 14001 EMS auditing:
Conformance, Consistency, and Continual Improvement. Conformance relates to addressing each of the requirements of the standard, i.e., the “shalls”. Consistency relates to how well each procedure or process of the EMS relates to the others. In other words, do objectives and targets reflect the policy commitments? Are personnel trained on the correct legal and other requirements? Finally, Continual Improvement requires that the system lead to improvements in the system itself as well as with environmental performance. A system that has all the prerequisite procedures, but remains static, is not in conformance.
The concepts of consistency and continual improvement are more subtle because they are through-running threads of the standard and not always a definitive statement. The required commitment to continual improvement and the text of the standard itself however do go some way towards reminding the auditor.
With the three C’s in mind, one now sees why it is best to audit all applicable elements of the standard in a given area at one time, rather that tracing any one standard element throughout various areas. For example, during the first quarter audit event, Company X may audit all of ISO 14001 in maintenance. During the second quarter event, all of ISO 14001 will be audited in the production area, and so on. This is in contrast to auditing only a certain element, i.e., corrective action, across several site areas in one audit event.
Now we know what is being audited, when it is being audited, and to what “rules” it is being audited. The remainder of the plan is simply then the logistics of the audit. The logistics include identification of team members, noting if and what checklists will be used, schedule and formats of meeting to name a few. Below is the full list of recommended audit plan elements as described in ISO 14011:
• the audit objectives and scope;
• the audit criteria;
• identification of the auditee’s organizational and functional units to be audited;
• identification of the functions and/or individuals within the auditee’s organization having significant direct responsibilities regarding the auditee’s EMS;
• identification of those elements of the auditee’s EMS that are of high audit priority;
• the procedures for auditing the auditee’s EMS elements as appropriate for the auditee’s organization;
• the working and reporting languages of the audit;
• identification of reference documents;
• the expected time and duration for major audit activities;
• the dates and places where the audit is to be conducted;
• identification of audit team members;
• the schedule of meetings to be held with the auditee’s management;
• confidentiality requirements;
• report content and format, expected date of issue and distribution of the audit report;
• document retention requirements.
If the internal audit is to proceed smoothly, it is helpful for the internal auditor to establish a dialogue prior to the actual audit with the person responsible for the area being audited. This dialogue may be conducted by memo, telephone, or during a formal or informal meeting. The main factor that should influence the auditor’s choice of method for setting up this dialogue should be the organization’s normal style or culture. Irrespective of the method of communication the auditor adopts, the following points should be established:
• The overall duration of the proposed audit
• The starting location and time
• The proposed scope and areas to be covered by the audit
• A timetable for approximate progress of the audit where applicable, e.g., if a number of different departments or geographical areas are to be included in the scope of the audit
• The arrangements for any close out meeting where the findings of the audit can be agreed and corrective action requirements discussed
• The personnel liable to be involved at each stage of the audit
If an auditor does not give sufficient attention to ensuring that clear agreement is reached with respect to the above points, the potential for misunderstandings that can affect the conduct of the audit is greatly increased. However, these initial communications with the personnel of the area being audited not only affect the “tone” of the forthcoming audit, but they can significantly influence the commitment and level of cooperation shown by that area throughout the audit process and for many subsequent audits.
Prior to commencing the audit, but once the plan is prepared, the audit team assignments are made, and working documents are defined. Working documents are those documents such as observation logs and checklists that are used during the audit to collect evidence, but are not necessarily retained as records. In other words, they may be discarded after the audit is complete and the report prepared.
Of these, only the checklist should require an input at this stage from the auditor. However, before compiling a checklist, the auditor must determine if the function and format of the checklist are prescribed by the audit procedure or whether personal preference can be exercised.
The format of the checklist may vary considerably, depending on whether it is intended to act as an aide or as a part of audit records showing the scope and conduct of the audit. The former may consist only of general topics to be covered during the audit, whereas the latter may be an extensive and detailed questionnaire on which details of sampling and answers to the questions are to be recorded.
The need for checklists and the type appropriate will vary according to other experience of the auditors and the culture of the company. It is recommended that for purposes of internal audits, checklists, even if limited, should always be developed. However, standard questionnaire type checklists not prepared by the auditor that must be slavishly followed and completed, should be
avoided. This latter type is likely to result in an unnecessary restriction in the scope of the audit and a stifling of auditor initiative.
Although an auditor should always work within the scope defined for the audit, the working documents must not be designed so that they restrict additional audit activities or investigations that may become necessary as a result of information gained during the audit. There are differences of opinion over whether it is preferable to create the checklist anew or whether a previously developed checklist can be used. Although the former is desirable in principle, it is not always practical in terms of the best use of the resources available. The best compromise is to utilize whatever available checklists are already in existence, but to review these critically
against the relevant documents previously identified. In this way, time can be saved in using them as a foundation without detracting from effectiveness.
