ISO 45001 clause 6.1.2.1: identify hazards in work as performed
ISO 45001:2018 clause 6.1.2.1 requires ongoing, proactive hazard-identification processes. The organisation looks for sources and situations with potential to cause work-related injury or ill health before harm occurs. Identification must reflect actual work, including organisational and social conditions, rather than focus only on visible physical hazards.
What clause 6.1.2.1 requires in practice
Clause 6.1.2.1 requires a hazard-identification process that is ongoing and proactive. Its list of things to take into account, which is not exhaustive, starts with how work is organised and with social factors: workload, work hours, victimisation, harassment and bullying, together with leadership and culture. It continues with routine and non-routine activity, including hazards from infrastructure, equipment, materials, substances and workplace conditions, from the stages of products and services, from human factors and from how the work is really done.
The process also considers past incidents and their causes, potential emergencies, and the people involved: workers, contractors, visitors, people nearby and workers at locations the organisation does not directly control. It looks at work design and its adaptation to the workers' needs and capabilities, situations nearby that the organisation causes or cannot control, proposed or actual changes and new knowledge about hazards. The clause requires the process, not a particular hazard list.
Examine how work is organised
Consider workload, working hours, bullying, harassment, victimisation, leadership and organisational culture as relevant factors. These can affect health and the way people perform work. Use appropriate competence and worker participation to understand conditions without making unsupported medical diagnoses or attributing every concern to an individual’s resilience.
Examine routine and non-routine activities, infrastructure, equipment, materials, substances and physical conditions. Include product and service design, relevant life-cycle activities, human factors and how the work is actually performed. Maintenance, start-up, shutdown or unusual service demand may expose conditions that a routine walkthrough misses.
Consider people and interfaces
Hazard identification includes workers, contractors, visitors and other people with access to the workplace, people nearby who can be affected by activities, and workers at locations not under direct organisational control. Examine the design of work areas, processes and procedures and how work is adapted to people’s needs and capabilities.
Also consider situations near the workplace created by work under organisational control, and nearby situations outside that control that could cause harm at work. Shared-site and client-site arrangements often make these interfaces important. Lack of direct control does not justify ignoring the information.
Use incidents, emergencies and change information
Past relevant incidents, including emergencies, can reveal hazards, whether they occurred inside or outside the organisation. Consider potential emergency situations, actual or proposed changes and new knowledge about hazards. The process should be capable of updating its understanding as information becomes available.
A hazard list should therefore remain connected to reporting, change management, worker participation and operational review. A checklist can prompt questions, but it should not restrict the assessment to hazards already printed on the form.
Why finding hazards early matters to the business
A hazard missed at this stage is unlikely to be controlled later, because every later step depends on what has been found. Work organisation and social factors are easily overlooked by organisations that think of safety as machinery and substances, yet they affect health, errors and staff retention. Looking at work as performed, including interruptions, handovers and non-routine tasks, tends to reveal conditions that a procedure never mentions. Early identification also lowers cost: redesigning a task is cheaper than responding to an injury or a regulator's notice. The process gives leaders a more truthful picture of exposure, which supports sensible spending and accurate customer conversations.
How to implement clause 6.1.2.1
No particular technique is required. The route below is one that Sterling teams use to keep identification grounded in real work. Keep competent specialists available for health exposures that need technical judgement, without replacing the workers' own knowledge. Record only what helps people act, and review it with the workers affected.
- Choose a set of representative tasks across shifts, sites and employment types, and observe them with the workers who perform them.
- Include non-routine moments such as maintenance, start-up, unusual demand and handovers.
- Prompt discussion using the standard's themes, including work organisation, workload, hours, culture and the position of contractors and visitors.
- Review past incidents and near misses, from inside and outside the organisation, for hazards they reveal.
- Record each hazard clearly enough that an assessor can identify the activity, the people exposed and the potential harm.
- Set triggers for updating the picture, such as a change, an incident or fresh information, and test that reports reach the owner of the process.
Two illustrative identification exercises
A manufacturer reviews a machine-cleaning task with operators and maintenance workers. The team identifies exposure associated with access to moving parts and the practical conditions during cleaning, including non-routine situations. It records the task and hazardous interaction clearly so competent people can assess risk and suitable controls. This is a governance example, not an instruction for accessing or cleaning equipment.
A software support team examines repeated overnight incident-response periods. Workers describe unpredictable workload, interrupted recovery time and unclear handovers. The organisation identifies relevant work-related conditions for assessment and considers how staffing and service commitments shape them. It avoids replacing the assessment with a generic wellbeing poster or assuming the concerns are unrelated to work.
Evidence and common mistakes
The wider planning clauses require documented information on relevant risks, opportunities and processes. A hazard record is a useful method when it identifies the activity, people and potential harm clearly enough for assessment. The standard does not prescribe one checklist or require every hazard to be described with a numerical score at the identification stage.
Common weaknesses include recording only accidents that already happened, ignoring contractor or remote work, and listing vague labels such as “unsafe behaviour” without examining the work system. Another is treating worker participation as asking for a signature after the list is complete. Involve people while the hazards are being understood.
Frequently asked questions
Are psychosocial factors within hazard identification?
Yes. The requirement includes relevant social and organisational factors such as workload, hours and harmful workplace behaviour.
Is a generic checklist sufficient?
It can assist, but the process must reflect actual activities, people, conditions and changes.
Must hazards be identified only by a safety specialist?
No. Competent input is important, and workers’ knowledge of the task is central to meaningful participation.
Examine one task in its real setting
Discuss a worker-informed hazard-identification review with Sterling, including documentation and audit evidence. The ISO 45001 Awareness course builds the foundation; technical assessments remain task-specific. Effivity ISO & GRC automation software can be scoped to agreed needs. See hazards, risks and opportunities and the directory.