ISO 45001 clause 7.4.2: connect internal updates with worker contribution
ISO 45001:2018 clause 7.4.2 requires relevant OH&S management-system information to be communicated internally among appropriate levels and functions, including changes. The communication processes must enable workers to contribute to continual improvement. The aim is a usable information flow in both directions.
What clause 7.4.2 requires in practice
Clause 7.4.2 deals with communication inside the organisation. It has two requirements. First, the organisation passes on information about the OH&S management system between its levels and functions, including changes to the system, as appropriate. Second, it makes sure its communication processes allow workers to contribute to continual improvement.
The first requirement is about information moving to the people who need it, so a change in a control, responsibility or work arrangement reaches everyone affected. The second makes the flow two-way: workers must have a usable way to raise concerns, suggest improvements and report that something cannot be followed. The clause does not set channels or frequencies. It is a test of whether information truly travels both ways in the real organisation.
Follow changes to the affected work
Identify who needs to know when a control, responsibility, process or work arrangement changes. Procurement, maintenance, operations and HR may each affect another team’s OH&S decisions. Communicate the relevant change before people rely on an outdated assumption.
Explain what changed, why it matters, when it applies and where current information is available. Distinguish a proposal from an approved arrangement. Where competence or operational controls also need updating, coordinate those actions rather than assuming that the message completes implementation.
Reach the actual workforce
Consider different shifts, temporary assignments, remote work and workers who do not routinely use office communication systems. Apply the accessibility and diversity considerations established under the general communication process. The same message may need different presentation or delivery methods.
Check understanding in a way proportionate to the issue. A practical discussion or observed handover may reveal more than a read receipt. People should know how to report conflicting instructions or an arrangement that cannot be followed.
Why two-way internal communication prevents repeat problems
Changes to who does what, or how a task is controlled, are a frequent source of incidents when the people affected learn about them late or not at all. Communicating the change before people rely on old assumptions avoids that. Equally valuable is the upward flow: workers see the practical problems first, and an organisation that welcomes their feedback finds weak controls before they cause harm. Treating feedback as system information rather than resistance improves morale and trust. Audit interviews often reveal quickly whether this flow exists.
How to implement clause 7.4.2
A practical approach is to link communication to the change process and to worker feedback routes. The aim is a working flow in both directions, so measure success by whether people acted on the information, not by whether it was sent.
- For each type of change to a control, role or process, identify who is affected and what they need to know.
- Communicate what changed, why, when it applies and where the current information is, and label proposals clearly.
- Reach every shift, temporary worker and remote team, adjusting method where needed.
- Check understanding in proportion to the risk, for example through a practical discussion or an observed handover.
- Provide accessible routes for workers to report conflicting instructions, problems and ideas, and name who answers.
- Review a sample of feedback and its outcomes, and tell workers what was done.
- Include the effect of each change on competence and operational controls, so that the message is not mistaken for completed implementation.
Two illustrative internal flows
A manufacturer changes who coordinates contractor maintenance during an evening shift. The relevant supervisors, workers and supporting functions receive the new responsibilities and escalation route. A review of a subsequent task checks whether the handover actually occurred. An updated organisation chart at head office would not be enough if the evening team still uses the old contact.
A software business revises its on-call escalation arrangement after worker feedback. Product, support and management teams agree how priorities are communicated and who can authorise a change in the response. Workers report whether the revised arrangement is usable during real incidents. The feedback is assessed as system information, not dismissed as resistance to change.
Enable contribution to improvement
Workers may identify impractical controls, unclear responsibilities or opportunities that performance reports miss. Provide a usable route for that information and connect it to someone who can evaluate it. Respond so that people understand what happened to the contribution.
The clause does not prescribe a suggestion box, committee or reward scheme. Those may be useful methods, but the process needs to work in the organisation’s circumstances. It should also support, rather than substitute for, the broader consultation and participation requirements.
Evidence and common weaknesses
Retain appropriate evidence through the general communication arrangements. Important change briefings, feedback decisions and resulting actions can show how the process works. A record of distribution is useful but does not alone establish understanding or implementation.
Common failures include sending messages only to managers, failing to reach contractors working under organisational control and inviting suggestions without assigning response ownership. Another is treating a worker report as closed when it is transferred to another department, without confirming that the relevant issue was addressed.
Frequently asked questions
Must everyone receive every OH&S message?
No. Communicate relevant information to the appropriate levels and functions, with suitable general awareness for workers.
Is a suggestion scheme mandatory?
No particular method is required. The communication process must enable worker contribution to continual improvement.
Does an updated procedure prove the change was communicated?
No. Check whether affected people received and understood the relevant information and can apply it.
Repair a weak handover
Discuss an internal OH&S communication gap with Sterling, including worker feedback and audit evidence. The ISO 45001 Awareness course supports shared understanding. Effivity ISO & GRC automation software can be scoped to agreed communication processes. Return to clause 7.4 and the directory.