One system. Not three parallel ones.
Not three consultants, three manuals and three separate audit programmes. Quality, Environmental and Health & Safety built through one management framework, one implementation project and one joined-up route to certification.
From gap analysis through implementation to certification readiness.
Fixed after the gap analysis once the actual scope is understood.
One audit programme and one management-review framework across the standards.
Integration does not mean pretending Quality, Environmental and Health & Safety are the same discipline. It means sharing the management structure where the standards ask essentially the same organisational question, while keeping customer conformity, environmental aspects and OH&S risk controls specific where they need to be.
The objective is less duplication, not less control. Build the common framework once, keep the technical requirements credible, and leave the business with one management system its own people can actually maintain.
Write the common parts once. Keep the technical parts specific.
The three standards share a common management-system structure. Build them separately and the same organisational processes get documented, audited and reviewed repeatedly. Integrate them and those common processes operate once across the business.
Integration removes duplication, not discipline.
Those common management processes can run once across Quality, Environmental and Health & Safety.
Customer conformity, environmental aspects and OH&S hazards remain distinct because they describe genuinely different risks and controls.
Run once across the business.
Context, leadership, competence, documented information, internal audit, management review and improvement can operate through one integrated management framework.
Keep the disciplines credible.
Quality conformity, environmental aspects and OH&S hazards need their own technical methods, controls and evidence. Integration should never blur what each standard is actually trying to manage.
The current editions of ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 align closely with the harmonised management-system structure, while ISO 45001 already follows the same overall framework. That increases the amount of management-system architecture that can sensibly be defined once rather than recreated standard by standard.
One system should mean one way of managing the business, not three standards squeezed into one manual. Share the organisational framework, keep the technical controls distinct, and make integration reduce administration without weakening the disciplines.
Build for where the standards are now.
The three standards are at different points in their revision cycles. The build should use the current published requirements while avoiding obvious rework as certification and transition programmes move forward.
ISO 14001:2026 was published in April 2026. Existing 2015 certificate holders now have a transition period in which to move their environmental management systems to the revised edition.
New environmental management systems are built around the current requirements rather than deliberately creating a new system against the superseded 2015 edition.
ISO 9001:2026 was published on 16 September 2026. During the certification transition period, the edition against which an initial certificate can be issued depends on the timing and accreditation readiness of the chosen certification body.
The QMS is designed around the current edition from the beginning, avoiding a new implementation that immediately requires substantive transition work.
ISO 45001:2018 remains the current published occupational Health & Safety management-system standard, with Amendment 1:2024 incorporated into the current certification position while the next revision progresses through development.
Build worker consultation, participation, hazard identification, hierarchy-of-controls thinking and the shared management structure properly now. A functioning system should then be considerably easier to transition when the revised edition is eventually published.
Don't knowingly build rework into a new IMS.
ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 can now be designed directly around their 2026 requirements.
ISO 45001 is different. A future revision should be planned for, but a draft is not the basis for claiming conformity or certification today.
Build the Quality management system to ISO 9001:2026.
Build the Environmental management system to ISO 14001:2026.
Build the OH&S management system to ISO 45001:2018 with Amendment 1:2024.
The IMS should be current on day one without pretending an unpublished future standard is already in force. That means 2026 for Quality and Environmental management, and the current ISO 45001 requirements for Health & Safety until its next edition is formally published.
The 12 to 20 week integrated build.
Length varies with size, the standards in scope and how much useful structure already exists. The example below shows how a typical three-standard implementation could be sequenced from gap analysis through to Stage 2.
management review Weeks 15–17
We start identifying suitable UKAS-accredited certification bodies and comparing availability early so Stage 2 can land around the end of the implementation programme rather than becoming the thing that delays it.
The certification body runs Stage 1 and Stage 2.
DBIM builds the system and prepares your team. The certification body independently assesses it.
We help choose a UKAS-accredited body, compare quotations and prepare for both audits. We do not attend Stage 1 or Stage 2. Any findings are worked through with you afterwards within the agreed project scope.
The aim is not simply to reach week 20. It is to arrive at Stage 2 with enough live evidence that the integrated management system already behaves like part of the business rather than something created for the certification audit.
Everything needed. Without three systems' worth of admin.
The integrated build covers the common management framework and the technical requirements of the standards in scope. Thirteen core deliverables, organised as one connected project.
Define
On-site review, written gap report and fixed implementation quote.
Defined around the organisation rather than copied from a template.
How the business actually operates, mapped with your managers.
Outcome: understand what exists and design the integrated framework around it.
Build
Integrated Quality, Environmental and OH&S planning.
ISO 14001 register built around the organisation's real processes.
ISO 45001 arrangements built on the risk assessments already in use.
Relevant obligations across the standards in scope.
Only the procedures and records the management system genuinely needs.
Owned measures linked where possible to numbers management already reviews.
Outcome: shared management structure with credible discipline-specific controls.
Prove
Designed, scheduled and the first full integrated cycle run alongside your team.
Findings closed out with you inside the agreed fixed implementation fee.
First integrated review facilitated, with a practical agenda your team can reuse.
Outcome: evidence that the system works before external certification.
Certify
Help choosing a UKAS-accredited body, comparing quotes and preparing for Stage 1 and Stage 2.
Independent assessment: the certification body runs both audits. DBIM prepares your team but does not attend them.
The first audit cycle and management review are run alongside your team. Ongoing DBIM support is available afterwards, but the integrated management system is built for the organisation to own rather than creating permanent consultant dependency.
Fixed after we know what we're actually building.
A three-standard system for one established site is not the same project as integrating multiple sites with little usable structure. The gap analysis establishes the real scope before the build price is fixed.
Agreed after the gap analysis and invoiced in four stages.
The standards are only one part of the workload.
The final figure reflects the standards in scope, number of sites, workforce and operational complexity, how much useful documentation already exists and how much internal resource can carry actions between visits.
Once the gap analysis is complete, the fee is fixed. If our estimate means the implementation takes longer, that is our problem rather than another invoice.
Standards in scope
One or two
All three
Sites & headcount
Single site · ~50
Multiple sites · ~500
Existing documentation
Good foundations
Close to nothing
Internal resource
Someone carries actions
No internal resource
Starting gap analysis.
Integrated starting review.
Full integrated gap analysis.
For each extra site in scope.
Four project stages.
Payment is staged at signing, build completion, completion of the internal audit and management review, and certification recommendation. The first 40 miles of travel are included. Travel beyond that is charged separately.
Certification body fees.
Certification-body fees are paid directly to the independent certification body. £4,000–£9,000 across a three-year cycle is the working planning range in your current pricing model. DBIM helps compare quotations before appointment.
Go ahead within six months of the gap-analysis report and the gap fee is deducted from the implementation. You know the fixed build cost before committing to the full project.
One standard now, or more on the horizon?
Integration is not automatically the right answer. If the business genuinely needs one certificate for one customer, build one standard. If two or three standards are coming, designing the shared framework once is usually the better investment.
One standard, for one customer.
£4,000–£10,000Keep it proportionate. There is little value paying for an integrated system when the commercial requirement genuinely stops at one standard.
Best route: standalone ISO 9001, ISO 14001 or ISO 45001 implementation.
Two or more on the horizon.
£10,000–£30,000Integrate from the beginning. Build the common management processes once and add the Quality, Environmental and OH&S-specific controls inside the same framework.
Best route: one integrated framework, audit programme and management review.
Integrate when it removes duplication the business would otherwise have to maintain. If there is no realistic second standard coming, a well-built standalone system can be the cleaner and cheaper answer.
Certification is the start of the three-year cycle.
The system continues running between certification-body visits. Internal audits, objectives, compliance checks, corrective actions and management review are what stop the IMS drifting before surveillance.
The certification body checks the system periodically. Your organisation has to keep it working in between.
Initial certification completed.
First annual certification-body surveillance visit.
Second surveillance visit and continuing system review.
Full recertification assessment for the next cycle.
Run the audit programme, review objectives and correct early weaknesses.
Update risks, legal obligations, controls and processes as the business changes.
Make sure the full system is ready for recertification rather than rebuilding it beforehand.
Systems drift between certification visits.
That drift is what later appears as surveillance findings. Maintenance means keeping the audit programme moving, closing actions, updating risks and compliance obligations, reviewing objectives and making sure the IMS continues to reflect the organisation it is supposed to manage.
Active QHSE
£800 / monthOngoing external QHSE support for businesses that can handle much of the day-to-day internally.
Embedded QHSE
£1,350 / monthMore regular involvement in maintaining, reviewing and developing the integrated system.
Embedded Plus QHSE
£1,950 / monthHigher-touch ongoing support where the business needs greater external QHSE capacity.
You do not have to take ongoing support. The IMS is built for your own people to run, and the first internal audit and management review are completed alongside them. Maintenance is still real work though, whether your team owns it internally or DBIM supports it afterwards.
Usually the business has outgrown doing this separately.
Integrated systems make the most sense where Quality, Environmental and Health & Safety requirements are beginning to overlap. The common theme is avoiding three parallel systems when one controlled framework can do the job properly.
Particularly suited to manufacturers, engineering firms and warehousing or distribution operations where Quality, Environmental and Health & Safety controls already overlap day to day.
Certification is becoming a condition of supply.
A tier-one customer or tender now expects more than one management-system credential.
You already hold one and need a second or third.
Extend the framework you already have without creating another separate audit and review system.
The business has ended up with competing systems.
Bring different processes, legacy documents or acquired systems into one controlled version of the truth.
A cheap template implementation has not survived reality.
Retain the useful material and rebuild the system around how the business genuinely operates.
If you genuinely only need one standard, DBIM will recommend one standard. Integration becomes valuable when multiple requirements are already present or realistically coming, not simply because three certificates sound better than one.
Before you commit to an integrated build.
The main questions are usually about which standards to build against, whether integration really saves money, timescale, existing certificates and who handles independent certification.
01 Which version of each standard will the system be built to?
ISO 9001 and ISO 14001 are built around their 2026 editions. This avoids deliberately creating a new Quality or Environmental management system around an older edition that already has a transition ahead of it.
ISO 45001 is built to the current published requirements: ISO 45001:2018 with Amendment 1:2024. The next ISO 45001 revision is treated as a future transition rather than building certification claims around an unpublished edition.
02 How long does an integrated ISO build take?
DBIM typically plans 12 to 20 weeks from gap analysis through to certification readiness.
The main variables are the number of standards, sites and people in scope, the quality of the existing management-system foundations and how much internal resource can carry actions between visits.
Certification-body availability can become the final constraint, which is why DBIM starts the certification-body conversation around week six rather than waiting until week eighteen.
03 Is it cheaper to build all three at once than one at a time?
Normally, yes, where the business genuinely expects to need all three.
Context, leadership, competence, documented information, audit, corrective action and management review can be designed once rather than recreated each time another standard is added.
The genuine technical differences remain separate: customer and product controls for Quality, environmental aspects and compliance for ISO 14001, and OH&S hazards and worker participation for ISO 45001.
04 What if we already hold ISO 9001?
A working ISO 9001 system provides much of the management framework already.
The project can concentrate more heavily on the new technical requirements, such as environmental aspects and compliance obligations for ISO 14001, or hazard identification and worker participation for ISO 45001.
That can put the project towards the lower end of the integrated-build range, but the existing system still needs reviewing before the scope and fee can be fixed.
05 Do you handle the certification body?
DBIM helps identify suitable UKAS-accredited certification bodies, compare quotations and prepare your team for Stage 1 and Stage 2.
The certification body remains independent and conducts both audits. DBIM does not certify the management system and does not attend the certification audits.
Any findings arising from Stage 1 or Stage 2 are then worked through with you inside the agreed implementation scope.
06 What happens if the project takes longer than expected?
The implementation fee is fixed once the gap analysis has established the scope.
If the agreed build takes longer than DBIM estimated, that does not become an accumulating day-rate invoice.
The price only needs revisiting where you ask to change the agreed scope, such as adding another site, standard or materially different area of the organisation after the project has been agreed.
Typical integrated implementation through to certification readiness.
Fixed after the gap analysis establishes the actual project scope.
One integrated audit programme and management-review framework.
It starts with a gap analysis.
One to two days on site, depending on the standards in scope. We look at what already exists, what can be integrated and what genuinely needs building.
You get a written report and a fixed implementation quote before deciding whether to proceed. The report remains useful even if you decide to take the implementation elsewhere.
One existing certificate, two new standards, all three from scratch, or a mixture of systems that need bringing together.
Get in contact →Typically one day on site.
Typically around a day and a half.
Typically two days for a full integrated review.
DBIM supports businesses across Manchester, Bolton, Bury, Stockport, Rochdale, Oldham, Preston, Blackburn, Warrington and Trafford , with appointments elsewhere in the UK where the required site work and travel arrangement make sense for both sides.