IOSH EDINBURGH BRANCH
Minutes of 176th Edinburgh Branch Meeting
Craighouse Campus, Napier University, Edinburgh – Thursday 12 November 2006 - 130pm
Sederunt: D McAra D Stephen I Murray B Hammond D Brown B Liddell
G Millar M Downer D Penman NJ Barclay AD Sharman N Budworth R Bradford J Hepburn J Brannigan A Finnie C Wilmott S Rayment I Norton S Wilson
R Brownlie K Breen S Keddie B Barnbrook V Stewart R Innes A Diment
K Flockhart K O’Donnell S McMorland A McLeod L Young S Heesom J Fenton
T Mellon T Graveson J Hooker A Bell B Gippert M Bancroft A James M Johnstone S Nazareth G MacGregor D Richardson J Robertson J Hamilton R Weir
L Crichton D Sinclair T Ambler N Goveia M Grimmer A Baird M Mickin
R McLean R Lovering A Dick P Weikop A Bailly M Hickin
Apologies: Bob Bertram, Kevin Lloyd, Derek Cawkwell, Brian Morris, David Williams, Alistair Pittendrigh, Isobel Smith
1. Chair: Marion Johnstone took the Chair and outlined the Safety arrangements (Fire) and reminded people to switch off Mobiles
2. Minutes of previous meeting November 2006
• Receipt – anyone who hadn’t received their minutes should email the Secretary.
• Accuracy: Proposer – Simon Heesom ; Seconder – Brian Gippert.
• Matters arising not on the Agenda - none
3 Correspondence
3.1 Events. (full details on website)
• 14 November 2006 - HSE: Farm and Croft Safety and Health Awareness Day
• 15 November: SCOTTISH CONSTRUCTION FORUM: Focus on Sustainability:
• 15 November 2006 - Designer Awareness Day (Roads, Bridges, etc)
• 15 November 2006 - HSE: Farm and Croft Safety and Health Awareness Day
• 16 November 2006, Stirling - Healthy Workplace Solutions (Health Sector)
• 26 NOVEMBER 2006 - SAFETY LEGISLATION UPDATE SEMINAR –
MARRIOT HOTEL, EDINBURGH www.safety-solutions.co.uk then to ‘SPECIAL EVENTS’.
• 28 November 2006 - HSE: Farm and Croft Safety and Health Awareness Day.
• 29 November 2006 - HSE: Farm and Croft Safety and Health Awareness Day
• 30 January 2007 - HSE: Motor Vehicle Repair Safety and Health Awareness Day.
3.2 The Grange
Branch Membership
Affiliate 102 Chartered Fellow 18 Chartered Member 185
Fellow 6 Graduate 25 Life Member 5
Member 208 Technician Member 294
Total 843 (however 43 not yet paid dues – 60 last month)
Nationally we were approximately 29,000 making us just second in size in thw world to the American Sociatty of Safety Engineers.
Groups
Communications/Media 8 Construction 211 Consultancy 55
Education 46 Environmental 110 Fire R M 31
Food, Drink & Hospitality 2 Healthcare 48 International 16
Offshore 43 Public Services 119 Railway 13
Retail and Distribution 9 Rural Industries 13 Safety Sciences 21
3.3 Others
Update on Testing - Vibration
OPERC and Loughborough University continue to expand the range of tools and equipment
measured and entered onto the HAVTEC Register. Over the last few months data
for new tools and appendages (as well as further tests on existing HAVTEC
tools) have been loaded onto the Register for tests conducted by DeWalt,
Dronco, Makita, SPE and Toolpak. In the near future, further new data will be
loaded for DeWalt, Dronco, Hilti, MacDonald Air Tools, Milwaukee and Taylor
Construction Plant and new categories of compaction equipment will be added by
the leading manufacturer Belle. To view the HAVTEC Register visit: www.operc.com/pages/havteclogin.asp.
Napier University: Fire Safety Adviser 24 Nov 2006
4. Group Reports
Public Services: Marion Johnstone reported that the National Safety Symposium would be in Notingham 3-4 Sept and that copies of the newsletter would be available in the future at Branch meetings.
Construction: Allan Dick reported that IOSH would be looking at the contractor’s aspect of these. He noted the welcome overall reduction in fatalities and major injuries in the construction area since 2000.
5. Members Items
• Presentation of tumblers for 4 years service on Exec: Max, Marion
• Roger Midson Trophy to be held this year on 17th Nov: Thankerton Bowling Club (2pm). Target Bowls (be prepared to be kneeling down). £10 per head includes a 3 course meal
• HQ need volunteers to help test new member services on MyIOSH . ‘Update my details’ and ‘mailing preferences’ enable you to update personal details and make choices about mailings online please email webteam@iosh.co.uk
• Noted difficulties of some in finding parking space. Directions are on the website and it will be revised.
• The Risk Factory – Andy Sharman
A Community Safety Education Centre
high quality interactive community
safety education resource for all people living in, working in, and visiting
the Lothians
draws support from a
wide base including The Scottish Executive, the four Lothian based local authorities,
fire, police and health boards as well as the voluntary, community and private
sectors
The Risk Factory Partners include …
Scottish Executive City of Edinburgh Council East Lothian Council West Lothian Council
HSE Midlothian Council RoSPA Lothian and Borders Police Lothian and Borders Fire and Rescue Service NHS Lothian ScottishPower plus many other Contributors
The Risk Factory will …
develop and deliver exciting,
innovative, educational training programmes
co-ordinate the approach to
community safety, crime prevention and safety education
be a “Centre of Excellence” and
provide a model for best practice
The Risk Factory is available to …
• youth and adult groups, including educational / activity groups
• business organisations for related visits or staff training
The Risk Factory’s core visitors …
Around 9,000 Primary 7 pupils from 270 Primary Schools in the Lothian area
The Risk Factory, 20 New Mart Road, Edinburgh, EH14 1RL
The Risk Factory experience …
• Arrive for either morning or afternoon visit -
• 2½ hour visit time
• Gather in Seminar / Briefing Room
• Safety issues and general visit guidelines
• Split into groups of 6
• Introduced to their Volunteer Safety Guide
• Taken to starting point within the scenario area
• Each scenario lasts 10 minutes
• On completion, return to Seminar / Briefing Room
• Discuss experience
• Teachers / visitors collect associated literature
Our Volunteers …
• Make a difference to the lives of children across Edinburgh and The Lothians
• Guide groups of children around the centre, helping them learn key safety messages
• Do one morning or afternoon session per fortnight
• Could you become a volunteer? If so, contact Jess
If you require any further information please contact:
Ann Thomson, Project Manager-0131 455 8930
Jess Wade, Volunteer Co-ordinator
jess.wade@edinburgh.gov.uk Or email: enquiries@theriskfactory.org www.theriskfactory.org
6. Guest Speaker
Connecting Occupational Safety and Health with the Business Agenda
Neil Budworth, BSc, MSc, CFIOSH - President IOSH
Introduction
Successfully positioning occupational safety and health so that it truly connects with the business agenda has great potential benefit. When the occupational safety and health community connects with the business agenda it becomes easier to gain the resources and attention needed to drive real progress on health and safety standards. In essence, learning to speak the same language, and recognising what is important, is essential to connecting with the business community.
At the ASSE Professional Development Conference we will be exploring how we can find out what the right language is for each organisation. As a starting point, we have to recognise that whatever language we try to use, there are some basics which will mean that we either get the ear of those with influence, or we do not. Basics such as giving high quality sensible advice based on a good understanding of the issues and rooted in competence are fundamental to initial credibility. If the advice that is given is clearly too stringent and aimed at total risk elimination, rather than sensible risk management, then it – and the advisor - will be ignored.
Once the basics are in place, identifying the business agenda becomes critical to ongoing success. In order to be influential, the arguments which are constructed must match the agenda of the business. This is not revolutionary thinking. We see examples of this every time we turn on the television: the advertisements are carefully designed for a particular audience, and the language, images and programme placements are all carefully selected so that they connect with that target audience.
Unfortunately, matching a message to a business is not as easy as selling to a particular market sector. The key factors which dictate the audience requirements are not as clearly defined as in product marketing. However, what is clear in the wider business context is that targeting the right audience makes sense. Recent evidence has shown that the attitude a company expresses towards health and safety can be used to determine what is likely to influence them. In turn, the attitude of a company to health and safety is inextricably linked to the state of development of the health and safety culture within that company. So either the attitude of a company, or an assessment of the state of development of the safety culture can be used to help to identify the best way of influencing an organisation to improve its health and safety performance.
At the Conference we will explore how organisations can be categorised and discuss the kinds of drivers that can be used to change corporate behaviour.
Why health and safety is important in a modern world
People often mistakenly believe that health and safety issues are largely historic, associated with the 19th century factories of the industrial revolution. However, in the UK in 2004/5, despite there being well developed health and safety standards, 220 people were killed at work, 71 of those in construction and more than 30,000 were seriously injured at work (HSE, 2005). Aside from the obvious moral reasons for this being unacceptable, there are three good business reasons why health and safety should be considered important in the modern world:
a) the costs of failure;
b) the fact that good health and safety standards actually drive high standards of productivity; and
c) because the social attitude to poor health and safety standards is changing (growth of the corporate social responsibility agenda).
Costs of failure
In terms of health and safety failure in the UK, 35 million working days were lost in 2004/05 due to work-related injury and ill health; two million people have illnesses which they believe have been caused or made worse by work; and 2.7 million people are claiming long-term incapacity benefit and are unable to work. In respect to financial cost to UK society, HSE has recently provided a cost estimate for health and safety failures for 2001/02 of between £20 and £31.8 billion (HSE, 2004 and 2005): losses which good management could have avoided.
On a more micro-scale, good health and safety management can be very cost-effective for individual companies. The costs to an organisation of accidents and ill health are those arising from uninsured losses and include direct costs (e.g. lost production; business interruption; fines and legal process; increased insurance premiums; temporary replacement staff; retraining; and investigation / administration costs) and indirect costs (e.g. lowered staff morale; poor staff retention and recruitment; damaged reputation and lost business opportunities). Preventing such losses is not only advantageous to the organisation, but can be essential to business survival: “The first duty of business is to survive and the guiding principle of business economics is not the maximisation of profit – it is the avoidance of loss.” [Peter Drucker]
Effect on productivity
Accidents and ill health can result in ‘unscheduled downtime’ for an organisation and poor health and safety management and working environments can lead to lowered morale and motivation, and can thereby adversely affect productivity. Conversely, good health and safety can have positive effects on other aspects of the business. An obvious example of improved health and safety standards leading to improved productivity is in relation to housekeeping. This is because a tidy workplace means people are not spending time ‘finding things’ in order to do the job. The correct materials are in the right place: there is less waste, less stock lying about, less product damage and importantly, less injuries because employees are not tripping over material left on the floor. The Japanese productivity tool the ‘5-Ss’, which has been used in Japan for many years and focuses on housekeeping as a way of driving process improvement and establishing and maintaining a ‘quality’ environment, can also be used to improve safety. The English equivalents of five Japanese ‘S’ words are: Structure (or Sort); Systemise; Sanitise (or Shine); Standardise; and Self-discipline (or Sustain).
Corporate social responsibility
Over the last sixty years or so, risk management has evolved from a discipline largely focused on loss control to one that now embraces management systems, corporate governance and corporate social responsibility (CSR). The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) describes business risk management as “…a strategic process which aids and supports decision-making at both strategic and operational levels with an organisation” (IOSH, 2002). Increasingly, employers are recognising the need to take a holistic or ‘business risk management‘ approach to risk, realising the interrelationships between all their risks and the benefit of sharing information across their organisations.
Business risks are extremely wide-ranging and can be political, economic, social, technological, legal and environmental. Additionally, as all organisations function within supply-chains, the way in which other parts of the ‘chain’ perform affects those relying on them. Business risk management includes these risks and involves exerting appropriate control over what, when and how supplies and services are delivered. In today’s increasingly competitive world, organisations operate in a cost- and time-conscious environment, responding to market forces and improving profit margins by streamlining business processes. Reliability is essential to the efficient operation of a supply-chain and an organisation’s ability to demonstrate how well it manages its significant risks, e.g. finance, quality, security, environment and health and safety, will help determine its selection as a client, contractor or supplier.
There are many different stakeholder groups who may be interested in information concerning an organisation’s total risk profile, e.g. insurers, customers, investors, employees, the local community, etc. and they may seek to do this by examining the company annual report (IOSH, 2002) or requiring evidence of effective management systems, including OSH management systems (IOSH, 2003). Globally, multi-national companies seeking to secure international customers and investment need to report their performance in a way that is meaningful to the global market place. In terms of how to report performance, there are a number of voluntary codes that provide guidance, including: the UK ‘Turnbull report’ (Turnbull, 1999) which recommends that stock-market listed companies should produce a statement about their system of internal controls for significant risks; and the Sustainability Reporting Guidelines (GRI, 2002), which provide a globally applicable framework for reporting an organisation’s sustainability performance, in terms of the economic, environmental and social dimensions of its operations.
With increasing globalisation, there has been a growth in interest in ‘corporate social responsibility’ (CSR) and ‘socially responsible investing’. CSR requires that organisations integrate social and environmental concerns into their business operations and interactions with stakeholders. Companies keen to demonstrate good CSR and attract ethical investment need to publicly report on a variety of issues, including their Occupational Safety and Health performance. Many investors now want to ensure that their money is invested in ethical companies and there are a number of indices which show how ethically a company operates, including in respect to health and safety performance (HSE, 2005). In addition to stakeholders wanting to know the humanitarian credentials of an organisation, some view health and safety performance as an indicator of overall management competence. This is because health and safety is actually quite a challenging area for companies to manage well, with good health and safety standards requiring a high level of management competence, strong leadership and commitment, good communication processes, internal engagement of employees and good company–union relationships. In a study of institutional investors, researchers found “Investors are generally supportive of the idea that the good health and safety performance is an indicator of good management, and are generally interested in finding out more about health and safety (Mansley, 2002).
There are two important points to note. One modern society is generally less accepting of workplace deaths or injuries. Organisations can only exist in an area because of the goodwill of their neighbours, in this case neighbours being those who work or live nearby and those who make up the workforce or who are consumers. This acceptance is sometimes termed the ‘licence to operate’ that a community grants a business, if a company behaves recklessly then the community may remove this ‘licence to operate’ by objecting, protesting, refusing employment or boycotting products, this direct action is becoming more common. Two what is acceptable changes continually, as society itself changes its values: what was accepted as just an occupational hazard 25 years ago, will quite rightly no longer be tolerated. Business has to adapt to the times and that means achieving high standards of health and safety.
Some times this ‘licence to operate’ is formalised. An example of this is the Safe T Cert programme in Ireland. The governments in Ireland are now requiring construction companies to implement a health and safety management system and then have that system audited by third party auditors. The licence to operate has been formalised.
So good standards of health and safety are extremely important in the modern world, the question is, how does an individual practitioner connect with the business agenda of a particular organisation? Lessons can perhaps be learned from those who make their living from connecting with other people’s agendas, such as advertisers and marketers engaging with potential customers. In essence, connecting with the business community is about speaking the same language. However, there are some basic qualifiers which affect whether practitioners get the ear of those with influence, or not, such as giving high-quality advice – advice rooted in competence is fundamental to credibility. If advice is too stringent and aimed at total risk elimination, rather than sensible risk management, then it and the adviser will be ignored. Assuming the basics are in place identifying the business agenda becomes critical to success. In order to be influential, the arguments which are constructed must match the agenda of the business.
Driving organisational behaviour
The enforcing authority in the United Kingdom the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) recently commissioned research An evidence based evaluation of how best to secure compliance with health and safety law (Wright et al, 2005). This research built on earlier studies by segmenting companies into groups and identifying for each organisation type appropriate drivers or levers for influencing compliance with health and safety law. It also examined the possible amount of influence that each lever might have and how interventions might be effectively targeted.
The research consisted of a literature review, followed by exploratory discussions with thirty-nine employers and key stakeholders (e.g. the Confederation of British Industry and trade associations) representing a range of sectors and sizes of organisations. Questionnaire-based surveys were used to assess what motivates organisations to comply with health and safety law; one for employers and one for intermediaries. It found that the motivational factors remain largely unchanged from earlier research, i.e. enforcement and regulation, reputational risk, the moral case, avoiding cost of accidents and business incentives. However, it also found that: incentives provided by insurance premiums has grown; fear of enforcement is linked with the fear of reputational damage and business disruption; the moral case remains a driver, especially in SMEs where owners may know or be related to their colleagues (in larger firms this is expressed in terms of societal values); and understanding and awareness remain key precursors.
The researchers concluded that organisational attitudes and the influence of drivers or levers vary between organisations, primarily according to their size and sector and also that a link can be made between the current attitude of organisations towards health and safety, their size or sector and their recommendation of new incentives for health and safety. They concluded it may therefore be possible and more effective, to match the compliance approach to the attitudes of particular organisations, rather than a standard approach for all.
In respect to sectors, some were more likely and some less likely to display positive attitudes to health and safety, while others were neutral, though caution is needed when characterising sectors because variation within some sectors can be great and some are difficult to characterise at all due to the mix of attitudes. However, it was noted that the higher risk sectors (e.g. construction and manufacturing) displayed more positive attitudes, where lower risk sectors (e.g. financial services) did not. In respect to size, larger organisations were more likely to display positive attitudes to health and safety and to prefer persuasion and advice. Among other factors, larger organisations were also found to: be more driven by insurance; perceive health and safety to be a critical risk and not a burden; rate risks higher; and report that enforcement has a longer-term impact. In respect to attitude, no one simple division of preferred incentives for organisations according to attitudes emerged. However, attitudes aligned with the following three types of levers: a) persuasion and incentives, for those influenced by the business case and / or have a good relationship with the regulator because they think health and safety is important to the business (for brand, reputation, or insurance); b) enforcement, of those who have a negative view of health and safety because they believe that cost or other factors may inhibit health and safety or because they have scope for improvement; and c) advice and support, for those who are already motivated or see health and safety only as a burden.
Principles of the Escalator Model
One of the purposes of this paper is to outline a practical strategic tool the ‘Escalator Model’, a model for continuous improvement in occupational health and safety culture, developed as part of the UK government’s Securing Health Together strategy for occupational health (HSC, 2003). Initially this tool was developed in order to identify the best ways of approaching organisations to encourage them to take a more active role in the management of occupational health; however, it was realised that this simple approach could be of use in a wider sphere, helping occupational safety and health practitioners engage with the business agenda. The task of trying to continually improve the management of workplace health and safety is a challenging one. In order to identify the needs and barriers of organisations and to match these needs with potential activities, a framework or structure was developed (the Escalator Model) so that strategies could be implemented to help organisations target their activities.
In this model, the overall process of improving health and safety standards is likened to an ‘escalator’, with those organisations who are excellent in health and safety management at the top of the escalator, ‘pushing the boundaries’, developing new or improved techniques and methods, which can then be cascaded over time to less developed organisations and those seeking to improve lower down the escalator. The theory is that best practice established by ‘the excellent’ organisations today, with time, will become the standard and be adopted by all. If the ‘escalator effect’ can be achieved, more organisations will become effective in health and safety management and overall, the national baseline will rise, and continual improvements take place.
As outlined above, recent evidence (Wright et al, 2005) has shown that the attitude a company expresses towards health and safety can be used to determine what is likely to influence them. The attitude of a company to health and safety is inextricably linked to the state of development of its health and safety culture. So either the attitude of the company, or an assessment of the development of its safety culture, can be used to help identify the best way of influencing the organisation to improve its health and safety performance. The Escalator Model uses this principle and seeks to segment organisations into different levels, not on the basis of size or sector, but on their health and safety management cultural development. Three different levels for employers and employees are used in the model: the uninterested (or those who have yet to be fully engaged); the complier; and the very good (the advocate). For each of these categories, the following are identified: drivers believed most likely to motivate action; characteristics thought to differentiate one level from another; issues preventing further development; and what needs to be done in order to progress further in terms of health and safety management. The initial aim is to segment organisations or individuals so that the right materials and arguments can be aimed at the right groups.
In order to categorise the employer or employees into one of the three groups, a marketing industry approach can be used in which their characteristics are considered and they are allocated to a broad ‘market segment’, indicating to practitioners how they could be approached. However, in this case the organisations or individuals are not segmented by income, postcode, educational background or industry, but on the basis of their health and safety cultural development. For example, groups can be examined to see if they are not interested at all in health and safety; if they simply comply with the law; or if they are enthusiastic health and safety advocates. Identifying where employers and employees are in terms of health and safety cultural development allows appropriate strategies to be established for helping them.
For each segment under consideration it is important to identify particular drivers, what issues can hinder progress, and what the group or individual needs to help them move up to the next segment (taking the next step in cultural development). Once drivers are identified, they can be used to effect change and the terminology and structure of action programmes can be designed to align with them. The same factor may provide a different level of motivation for those who have yet to start on the health and safety journey, than it does for those who are already very good. For example, although legislation often motivates those who are just beginning to take action on health and safety issues, as ‘very good’ organisations already exceed the legal minimum, it is not generally a prime motivator for them.
However, even well motivated individuals may still undertake unsafe acts if they are not properly trained, do not appreciate the danger, and respond inappropriately to the risk. It is essential to identify and overcome any barriers to progress: if unidentified or not properly addressed, these issues can stop or hinder progress. The reasons why people may not be able to progress in terms of their health and safety cultural development could include barriers such as: a lack of knowledge, equipment or understanding; inadequate support; receiving conflicting messages; and constraints from the systems of work or pay and reward structures. Typical barriers such as lack of awareness can be overcome through awareness training and / or the provision of practical assistance. Barriers will differ depending on how well developed the particular organisation is.
Once the starting point is known; and drivers for the relevant group and potential barriers and solutions identified; it is important to determine the next step in the journey of health and safety cultural development, a journey which, though arguably without end, still needs direction. It is at this point that the characteristics of the next level of cultural development are analysed to consider what has changed for progress to happen – this helps indicate what success looks like, so those using the model can evaluate whether the situation has indeed improved. For example, if the group or individuals are in the ‘uninterested’ segment, the characteristics of the ‘complier’ segment should be analysed, identifying differentiating factors. Undertaking this task provides ‘landmarks’ on the journey, adding detail to the ‘route map’, and allows a suitable plan to be developed to overcome barriers and achieve the differentiating factors of the next level. Those in the ‘uninterested’ segment can undertake this exercise for the higher level segments, to help in medium- and long-term planning.
Using the Escalator Model
The model provides a set of possible matrices (one for employers, one for employees), listing what are believed to be three categories of common drivers, differentiating factors, barriers and needs (see figs 1 and 2 below). These matrices, though not a bespoke solution, can be an effective planning tool and can aid clarity of thought. However, to gain maximum benefit, a particular organisation may require further segmentation or inclusion of additional drivers, barriers and needs. When applying the model, the following six steps are recommended:
1. Determine which segment the group of interest falls into (in some cases it may be best to look at the differences from the previous level to help to clarify which segment the group or individual falls into.)
2. Consider what issues are applicable in this particular case (ie what is preventing progress)
3. Consider how these may be overcome
4. Consider which of the needs apply
5. Consider how the motivations for that group can be used to get further engagement in relation to the needs.
6. Look at the differences from the previous level to determine how much progress has been made
To illustrate this with an example: a group is examined and are found to fall into the ‘uninterested’ segment. One of the issues preventing progress is due to the fact they ‘do not have a defined role to play’, and although this can be helped by allocating specific activities, the group concerned are judged unlikely to simply accept these. The drivers and ‘needs to get to next level’ (solutions to barriers) for this group are examined and the possibility of using these to facilitate change is considered. In this case, consideration can be given to the use of rules, management drive, financial incentives (drivers) and training and education, consistent messages from management and engagement and clearly defined health and safety activities (solutions). Using this approach is not an immediate solution to health and safety problems, but may be of help in selecting the right tools at the right time.
Among the common drivers for employers (see figure 1) are those of costs and enforcement. There are some strong cost arguments for effectively managing health and safety. As outlined earlier in this paper, there are the direct costs of accidents. It has been estimated that a typical first aid treated accident will have uninsured costs in the order of £400, while the HSE has estimated that a serious or major injury will typically cost an employer £17,000 - £19,000 (HSE, 2006). Insurance premiums can also be adversely affected by a poor health and safety performance and claims record. Indirect costs, such as lowered morale, staff turnover, reputational damage, etc. can be even more costly and can threaten business survival. An effective health and safety management system can be useful in controlling these risks and associated costs by reducing accidents and absence due to work-related ill health. An example of a cost-effective intervention is that of providing early access to occupational health support. A study was conducted in a major UK utilities company - Severn Trent Water where 10 early referrals were randomly selected an analysed. It was found that all of these interventions were cost-effective, with savings varying from £2,000 to £8,000 per case (averaging £5,000 per case).
In respect to the common driver of enforcement, the level and quality of communication are believed key: the perceived level of risk of enforcement and risk to the business and understanding of personal liabilities are all issues which will vary depending on how aware the individual is relating to enforcement activity, the level of fines and the number of directors jailed or disqualified. As organisations develop, other agendas become more important, for example the desire to become best in class becomes important; the CSR agenda becomes important; as does the desire to maintain a good reputation. The health and safety message can be modified to fit all of these agendas.
|
The Uninterested or those yet to be Fully Engaged |
The Complier |
The Very Good |
|
Basic Drivers for this category · Enforcement · Regulation · Insurance · Cost |
Basic Drivers for this category · Enforcement · Regulation · Insurance · Cost · Humanitarian concerns · Benchmarking · Embarrassment if “caught”
|
Basic Drivers for this category · Cost – investing in health to save in the future · Insurance · Humanitarian concerns – translated into action · Understanding · Desire to be excellent · Reputation/brand image · Corporate social responsibility |
|
|
Differences from lower level · Awareness – higher level · Resources applied to management of H&S · Expertise – some limited access to advice
|
Differences from lower level · Awareness – understanding of business costs of poor performance · Awareness – OH staff better able to articulate arguments and have the ear of senior managers · In some cases – size – often large companies have enough employees to see various OH issues manifest themselves and as such they are seen as real business issues. · Expertise – high level often available in house · Visible senior management commitment · Measurement |
|
Issues · Lack of awareness of OH issues · Lack of awareness of the scale and severity of the issue · No perceived access to expertise · Cost – concern about; blank cheque for treatment · No internal resources · Belief that they won’t get “caught” · In some cases profit before people · Not looking at long term/sustainable business |
Issues · Often OH is not integrated into the day to day management of the business · Line management do not perceive the need for the management of ‘softer’ issues · Often a restricted view of the role of OH · Complier who uses the letter of the law may not be complying in a morally good way |
Issues · Where does OH stop? · What are the issues that we can effectively manage in the future? · Can possibly delay decisions because “everyone” consulted · Difficulty keeping tabs on all activities that are being done |
|
Needs to get to next level · Understanding of issue · Understanding of a proportionate response · Easy low cost access to OH support · Push from insurers · Simple activities which can be undertaken by staff with minimal training · Individual to champion the cause · Mentoring from other businesses in ‘Very Good’ Group |
Needs to get to next level · Stronger emphasis on OH in management training · Best practice examples from exemplars · Supply chain/peer pressure · Development of OH champion · Mentoring from other businesses in ‘Very Good’ Group |
Needs to get to next level · Competitions for ideas in key areas (open area up to those beyond traditional stakeholders e.g. Back in Work programme) · Exchange forums · Involvement in education of next generation whether large company or SME · Additional employee ownership
|
|
Figure 1. Continuous Improvement Cycle – Model: Segmentation of Employers (Source: HSC, 2003) |
||
|
The Uninterested or those yet to be Fully Engaged |
The Complier |
The Advocate |
|
Basic Drivers for this category · Rules · Enforcement/Discipline · Financial Motivation · Personal Gain (even when others may lose) · Managerial Drive · Reinforcement of previous poor behaviour · Peer approval/pressure · Comfort · Custom and practice behaviours |
Basic Drivers for this category · Personal commitment · Personal engagement · Personal equity · Safe Systems of Work · Procedures · Reinforcement of correct behaviour · Knowledge and understanding of risk · Managerial drive · Availability of equipment · Comfort and look of equipment · Reward structures |
Basic Drivers for this category · Personal belief · Engagement · Feedback · Personal Goals and objectives · Expectations · Knowledge · Life-long learning behaviours |
|
|
Differences from lower level · Motivation · Knowledge · Activity · Acceptance that they may be involved in an accident/case of ill health (personal experience, personal or corporate memory) · Level of engagement · Understanding of what needs doing · Interested in today and tomorrow · Cares about self and co-workers
|
Differences from lower level · Visible senior management commitment · Support · Level and quality of engagement · Knowledge · Opportunity · Reinforcement · Goals · Peer support · Also interested in the day after · Cares about business success · Accepts change as inevitable · Can visualise long term gains · Has a participative culture |
|
Issues · Individuals do not feel they will be affected · Lack of knowledge · Lack of understanding of probability · Compliance make the job harder · Inconsistent messages from management · Reward structures (piece work) · Lack of correct equipment · Task design · Lack of corporate and/or individual memory · Do not have a defined role to play · Industrial relations · Belief that safe working is inefficient · Lack of time/resource · Lives within a blame culture · Lacks initiative and/or flexibility · “Hates” change · Only interested in today · Only cares about themselves · Custom and practice behaviours |
Issues · Visibility of what is possible (you only know what you know) · Focus on the short term here and now not gradually developing conditions · Ability to accurately see problem (problem definition and problem solving skills) · IT skills · Possible peer pressure · Lack of corporate and individual memory · Understanding of health risks e.g. level of knowledge of Asbestos vs knowledge of occupational asthma · Access to network · Interpersonal/team skills · Avoids change · Belongs to a passive/non-inclusive culture |
Issues · Not having a full appreciation of what is possible · Need for consistency of purpose · Promotion (strong advocates with the right skills often get promoted and moved out of H&S) · Design · Keeping knowledge up to date · Expectations · Sudden changes (site or business) · Belongs to a participative culture · Work-life balance needs watching |
|
Needs to get to next level · Training/education · Consistent messages from management · Frequent reinforcement of safe and health behaviour · Evidence that concerns and suggestions are taken seriously · Good task/equipment design · Methods of improving individual and corporate memory (e.g. storytelling) · Engagement – clearly defined focused health and safety activities · Understanding of motivation (employers ABC Analysis) · Team activities |
Needs to get to next level · Tools – Problem solving o IT o Benchmarking o ABC analysis o Interpersonal/team skills · Help to see the long term · Positive engagement · Reinforcement · Consistency · Help in understanding risks · Organisation structures to provide guidance and support · Culture · Reasonable, rational and logical arguments |
Needs to progress further · Case studies · Competitions · Benchmarking · Corporate structure · Engagement (providing regular information for management) · IT support · Problem solving tools · Societal approval · Publicity material
|
Conclusions
Good standards of health and safety are important in the modern world, for a multitude of reasons; cost both to the country involved and the individual company; as a way of driving process and productivity improvement; and because societies and communities are increasingly demanding high standards of health and safety from the companies that operate within their boundaries. Those wishing to influence the standards of health and safety in an organisation need to connect with the ‘agenda’ of the organisation in order to successfully drive the standards. Engaging with the business agenda, means identifying it and adapting arguments and tactics to suit it, in the same way that advertisers adapt their message to suit their audience. The attitude of the company, or an assessment of the development of its safety culture, can be used to help identify the best way of influencing the organisation to improve its health and safety performance. It is believed possible and more effective, to match the compliance approach to the attitudes of particular organisations, rather than a standard approach for all.
Cost and the fear of enforcement are common drivers (though they have different weighting at different times). There is a strong cost argument for the implementation of good health and safety standards, which needs to be effectively articulated and the fear of enforcement can also be harnessed as appropriate, by effective communication. Effective use of targets and key performance indicators within a business can help ensure health and safety is adopted as a key business priority. Using these and the tools outlined in this paper can be helpful in connecting occupational safety and health with the business agenda.
7. Closing details
Dates of next meetings
Edinburgh Branch
14 December: Cost of Accidents – practical tools of assessment: Mr Richard Fayers: QBE Insurance
Closure – Take away literature -Tea/Coffee – Mingle
|
Max Bancroft, MRSC, CMIOSH Branch Secretary |
|