Sample only — fictional data

All the data in this report is fictional. The organisation, the areas, the hazards and the values belong to no client and describe no real site.

The report below is produced by the same tool on this site, from the same calculation engines — only the data is fictional. The scores, gradings and results are computed here and now, not copied into the sample.

Sample only — fictional data

ISO 45001 Gap Analysis Report

Self-assessment — not a certification audit

Organisation / site: Sample Industrial Facility
Assessed by: Safety officer (sample)
Date: 2026-05-14
Issued on: 14 May 2026
Assessment coverage: 32 of 32 questions answered; 32 counted; 0 marked not applicable

Readiness

57.8%

How it is calculated: Every question counts equally: in place = 1, partly in place = 0.5, not in place = 0. A question marked not applicable is not counted at all — neither in the numerator nor in the denominator.

Readiness by area

Clause	Area	Readiness	In place	Partial	Not in place
4	Context of the organisation	50%	1	1	1
5	Leadership and worker participation	80%	3	2	0
6	Planning	50%	2	2	2
7	Support	60%	2	2	1
8	Operation	60%	2	2	1
9	Performance evaluation	50%	1	2	1
10	Improvement	50%	1	2	1

Gaps by priority

High priority: Is there a current list of the parties with an interest in safety, and of their needs and expectations?
High priority: Is fulfilment of the requirements in that register checked periodically, with the outcome recorded?
High priority: Is there a process for examining safety implications before a change to a process, to equipment or to the building?
High priority: Are the system's documents controlled — version, approval, distribution, and removal of superseded copies?
High priority: Do safety considerations enter the procurement process — equipment, materials and services — before the order?
High priority: Are internal audits carried out to a plan, by auditors who are competent and independent of the area being audited?
High priority: Is the effectiveness of corrective actions checked — that is, did the problem come back?
Medium priority: Have the internal and external matters that affect safety in the organisation been examined and written down?
Medium priority: Is there a standing mechanism for consulting workers and involving them in safety decisions, with its outcomes recorded?
Medium priority: Have dedicated resources been allocated to safety — budget, time and people — in a way you can point to?
Medium priority: Is there a register of the legal and other requirements that apply to the organisation, and is it kept up to date?
Medium priority: Have measurable safety objectives been set, with an owner, a timescale and a way of measuring them?
Medium priority: Do workers in fact know what the risks in their work are and what to do in an emergency?
Medium priority: Is it defined how safety information moves through the organisation, including to contractors and visitors?
Medium priority: Are there safe working instructions for the hazardous processes, and are they available where the work happens?
Medium priority: Have safety requirements been set for contractors and suppliers, and is their fulfilment actually checked?
Medium priority: Is safety performance measured systematically, and against which measures?
Medium priority: Is a periodic management review held and recorded, examining safety performance and taking decisions?
Medium priority: Are corrective actions tracked through to closure, with an owner and a target date?
Medium priority: Can continual improvement be shown over time, rather than only ongoing activity?

Detailed answers

Question	Answer	Evidence
Is the scope of the safety management system written down — which sites, activities and processes it covers?	In place	—
Have the internal and external matters that affect safety in the organisation been examined and written down?	Partly in place	—
Is there a current list of the parties with an interest in safety, and of their needs and expectations?	Not in place	—
Is there an occupational health and safety policy signed by top management?	In place	—
Has the policy been made known to all workers, and can you show how?	In place	—
Are safety roles, responsibilities and authorities defined in writing, by name or by post?	In place	—
Is there a standing mechanism for consulting workers and involving them in safety decisions, with its outcomes recorded?	Partly in place	—
Have dedicated resources been allocated to safety — budget, time and people — in a way you can point to?	Partly in place	—
Is there a systematic process for identifying hazards, and does it cover non-routine work and maintenance too?	In place	—
Have the identified risks been assessed and controls decided, including who owns each control?	In place	—
Is there a register of the legal and other requirements that apply to the organisation, and is it kept up to date?	Partly in place	—
Is fulfilment of the requirements in that register checked periodically, with the outcome recorded?	Not in place	—
Have measurable safety objectives been set, with an owner, a timescale and a way of measuring them?	Partly in place	—
Is there a process for examining safety implications before a change to a process, to equipment or to the building?	Not in place	—
Has the competence required for each role that affects safety been defined, and is the actual qualification recorded?	In place	—
Is periodic safety training carried out and recorded, including for new starters and people changing role?	In place	—
Do workers in fact know what the risks in their work are and what to do in an emergency?	Partly in place	—
Is it defined how safety information moves through the organisation, including to contractors and visitors?	Partly in place	—
Are the system's documents controlled — version, approval, distribution, and removal of superseded copies?	Not in place	—
Are there safe working instructions for the hazardous processes, and are they available where the work happens?	Partly in place	—
Is hazardous work carried out under a work permit — hot work, confined space, work at height?	In place	—
Have safety requirements been set for contractors and suppliers, and is their fulfilment actually checked?	Partly in place	—
Do safety considerations enter the procurement process — equipment, materials and services — before the order?	Not in place	—
Is there an emergency preparedness plan, and have drills been run and documented with lessons?	In place	—
Is safety performance measured systematically, and against which measures?	Partly in place	—
Is the measuring and testing equipment used for safety calibrated and in date?	In place	—
Are internal audits carried out to a plan, by auditors who are competent and independent of the area being audited?	Not in place	—
Is a periodic management review held and recorded, examining safety performance and taking decisions?	Partly in place	—
Are incidents and near misses reported, investigated and recorded systematically?	In place	—
Are corrective actions tracked through to closure, with an owner and a target date?	Partly in place	—
Is the effectiveness of corrective actions checked — that is, did the problem come back?	Not in place	—
Can continual improvement be shown over time, rather than only ongoing activity?	Partly in place	—

Disclaimer

This report summarises a self-assessment completed by the user. It is not a certification audit, determines no conformity with ISO 45001, and is not a declaration of conformity. It quotes nothing from the standard; clause numbers are used as a reference only. Establishing actual readiness requires professional examination and a site visit.

Basis: ISO management system consulting — Hoshen's own material

The tool that produces this report

You can produce one of these yourself, with your own data. Everything stays in your browser.

ISO 45001 Gap Analysis

Would you like us to do this for you, on your site?

Request an ISO 45001 audit

ISO 45001 gap analysis — sample report

Sample only — fictional data

Readiness

Readiness by area

Gaps by priority

Detailed answers

Disclaimer

The tool that produces this report