Where each module meets each clause.
Pear MS is aligned by construction with four ISO standards. This page maps each Pear MS module to the specific clauses it satisfies, with one-line explanations of the operational mechanism. Designed to be printed, walked into a certification meeting, and ticked off.
What we align with — and why these four.
Offshore-wind contractors operate inside a quality + environment + occupational-safety envelope governed by an integrated triplet of management standards, plus a risk-management spine that ties them together. Pear MS treats all four as load-bearing.
The base. Process control, document control, nonconformity, corrective action, internal audit, management review.
Environmental aspects, operational planning, emergency preparedness, monitoring of environmental performance.
Hazard identification, OH&S risk assessment, worker consultation, incident investigation, emergency preparedness.
The spine. Risk assessment process, risk treatment, monitoring & review, recording & reporting. Cuts across the other three.
Each module, against the specific clauses it satisfies.
Below: every Pear MS module, with the ISO clauses it directly supports and a one-line explanation of the operational mechanism. Where a clause appears under multiple modules, that's deliberate — most ISO clauses are satisfied by a workflow, not a single feature.
| Std. | Clause | Title | How Pear MS satisfies it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9001 | 6.1 | Risks & opportunities | Risk register is a first-class object — every action recorded against it carries process risk metadata, not just safety risk. |
| 14001 | 6.1.2 | Environmental aspects | Hazard taxonomy includes environmental aspects (spill, emission, marine impact). Significance determined by the same hierarchy-of-controls process. |
| 45001 | 6.1.2.1 | Hazard identification | Per-activity hazard identification is mandatory before the activity can be released to the daily-progress register. |
| 45001 | 6.1.2.2 | Assessment of OH&S risks | Five-level hierarchy of controls (Eliminate / Reduce / Isolate / Admin / PPE) enforced at sign-off, with mandatory residual-risk capture. |
| 31000 | 6.4 | Risk assessment process | Identification → analysis → evaluation → treatment, each step a state on the RA object. No state can be skipped. |
| 31000 | 6.5 | Risk treatment | Treatment plan binds to a CAPA action with an owner and a verification step. Closed-loop or it stays open on the dashboard. |
| Std. | Clause | Title | How Pear MS satisfies it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9001 | 7.5 | Documented information | Every shift entry version-controlled, with who/when/why on every change. Vessel-offline-capable; reconciled on reconnect. |
| 9001 | 8.5.1 | Control of production | Activities can only be opened against a contract-defined work code with an active RA. The system refuses unstructured entries. |
| 14001 | 8.1 | Operational planning & control | Per-shift environmental aspects (oil handling, marine ops) tracked alongside safety controls, in the same record. |
| 45001 | 8.1.2 | Eliminating hazards / reducing risks | Each activity entry references the controls in place at the moment of execution. Controls drift triggers a flag at next shift handover. |
| Std. | Clause | Title | How Pear MS satisfies it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9001 | 10.2 | Nonconformity & corrective action | Every incident generates a structured NC record with cause analysis, action plan, and verification. CAPA pipeline is the closure mechanism. |
| 14001 | 10.2 | Nonconformity & corrective action | Same NC record covers environmental incidents. Severity classified by both safety and environmental impact dimensions. |
| 45001 | 10.2 | Incident, NC, corrective action | Tripod-Beta causal analysis enforces a layered cause walk (Immediate → Underlying → Root). Investigators cannot skip layers to land on a generic management label. |
| 31000 | 6.6 | Recording & reporting | Three-state risk capture (Actual / Potential / After-action) preserved through the full investigation lifecycle. |
| Std. | Clause | Title | How Pear MS satisfies it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9001 | 10.2.1 | Corrective action steps | Action plan, owner, due date, evidence, verification, and effectiveness review — each as a discrete state with sign-off requirements. |
| 9001 | 10.3 | Continual improvement | CAPA closure rate is a first-class KPI on every project dashboard. Trends feed the next management review automatically. |
| 45001 | 10.2 (e) | Effectiveness verification | Independent verification step required before an action can move to "closed". Self-verification by the action owner is structurally prevented. |
| 31000 | 6.7 | Monitoring & review | Open-action dashboards by owner, by project, by source incident — visible to project leadership and the CSM. |
| Std. | Clause | Title | How Pear MS satisfies it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9001 | 8.2.2 | Determining requirements | Contract is the primary schema source. Progress codes, downtime codes, role catalogue, sign-off authority all derive from the contract record. |
| 9001 | 8.2.3 | Review of requirements | Contract amendments propagate to all dependent codes via a controlled amendment workflow. No silent re-deploy per scope change. |
| 9001 | 8.4 | Externally provided processes | Subcontractor work tracked under the same contract spine, with codes inherited from the head contract or explicitly overridden. |
| Std. | Clause | Title | How Pear MS satisfies it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 9001 | 9.1.1 | Monitoring & measurement | Per-project KPI rollups — hours by code, downtime by cause, CAPA closure rate — live, not assembled at month-end. |
| 9001 | 9.3 | Management review | Standard management-review pack auto-generated from the live dashboard plus the period's incident, audit, and CAPA records. |
| 14001 | 9.1.1 | Environmental performance evaluation | Environmental aspect KPIs (spill volume, marine impact, emissions) tracked alongside safety and progress on the same dashboard. |
| 45001 | 9.1.1 | Monitoring of OH&S performance | Leading and lagging indicators on one screen. Drill-down to source records is one click — auditors and clients see the same view. |
What this page does not claim.
Pear MS is designed and built to align with the listed clauses. The certification of an organisation against ISO 9001 / 14001 / 45001 / 31000 is performed by an accredited certification body against the organisation's own management system as a whole — of which Pear MS is one component. We provide the structural support; we do not issue the certificate, and no software vendor can.
Pear MS supports many more clauses indirectly — most of the management-system clauses (4.x, 5.x, 7.x, 9.x) are partly addressed by any well-structured operational record-keeping system. The mapping above lists the clauses where Pear MS provides direct, traceable operational support — the ones an auditor would look at first.
ISO 31000:2018 is positioned as guidance rather than a requirements standard, so an organisation cannot be "certified to ISO 31000" in the same sense as ISO 9001. Where we list ISO 31000 clauses above, we mean the Pear MS workflow follows the principles and process defined in 31000 — useful both as a design reference and as evidence of a maturity-aware risk-management approach.
Need this in printable form?
Available on request: a single-page PDF version of the clause map for printing and walking into a certification meeting, plus the full schema-to-clause mapping spreadsheet for IMS auditors who want to verify the wiring themselves.
Request the audit pack or read the methodology behind it → The Calibration Corpus