Posted By Sam Smith
My experience has been that the business case for health and safety is not well made and it does not convince in the board room. We would be better off concentrating on the moral arguments. To quote Bill Callaghan: “People matter. We believe that people have the right to return home from work safe and sound.” This is why we have health and safety legislation and why we have the HSE. Not because government wants to improve the profitability of UK businesses – that should be left to business and the market.

To hear the HSE going on about the business benefits of good health and safety management to me smacks of desperation and a failure to win the moral arguments for health and safety. Profitability is a matter best left to directors, not for government intervention. The main priority of directors is profit and if they are any good at their jobs then they already know how to keep costs under control and improve efficiency. If there is a business case for health and safety it should be self-evident. Directors do not take kindly to being “lectured” by a regulator on what, if it is true, should be obvious and would not need to be a matter for statutory enforcement.

Perhaps not everyone would agree………………

Posted By Kieran J Duignan
As a member of the CIPD as well as the IOSH, I'm v. interested in John's observation about directors' lack of regard for paternal leave legislation and other aspects of employment law as well as H & S.

I would be appreciative, John, if you would share your observations on the apparent barriers to compliance as you see them.

My own view is that there is a lot of evidence that, with some exceptions, businesses with sustained records of growth and profitability accept that legal compliance in all areas of employment law is part of the price of employee involvement, collaboration and organisational learning, which are key elements of their business success.

Posted By Alan Cash
What an interesting debate this topic generates, I would like to take this opportunity to broaden it somewhat! As many of you will be aware a significant part of the UK PLC are SME’s. These generally are not covered by advice or guidance from IOSH membership or have significant professional assistance to advise on SHE issues.

Having been made redundant from a large engineering business 3 years ago, together with 2 colleagues we established our own SHE and Facilities Mgt consultancy. Having previously developed with the EEF and IOSH the early version of the Passport Scheme we experienced the advantage of influencing contractors behaviour. Through engagement, education and understanding the contractors soon realised the business benefits from adopting a culture change towards SHE, recognising bottom line benefits.

One of our principle business aims was therefore to target SME’s and attempt to stimulate this significant part of industry and commerce and inspire a step change. Over the last two years we have concentrated on numerous SME’s, in various disciplines, within the East Midlands. Readers may be surprised to hear that a significant number of these employers were unaware of their Duties and Responsibilities under the HSAWA and subordinated legislation let alone ACOP’s and guidance documents. The consequences of this lack of understanding and appreciation is no policies, organisation and arrangements and no plans established in many SME‘s. The concept of Risk Assessments don’t even feature and when you start to discuss the business advantage that SHE can bring a glazed look appears on their face.

The supply chain grows as larger businesses attempt to reduce in-house costs and off load the burden to the clients. I recognise the really difficult issues for many SME’s, who live from day to day, are customer demands, schedule accomplishment, turn over and cash flow. Nevertheless if we are to begin to address SHE issues in the SME workplace, maintain sustainable improvements in injury reductions and generally enhance employees awareness we all need to review holistically our input and bearing we have on this issue. Couple this with the view held by many that enforcers just want to prosecute some many say persecute, which as we know is not actually the case - they do offer good advise and guidance if your serious, then to affect a sea change surely there has to be a common and understandable approach adopted.

If this is the case isn’t it time to consider freezing the introduction of any new legislation and moreover concentrate on achieving a level playing field where all business and commerce concentrate on achieving a common standard. My simplistic approach to this dilemma is to introduce a short term amnesty that ensures all business and commerce focus on legal compliance and introduce best practice principles through continuous improvement programmes establishing a common standard that‘s mutually beneficial to all.

Any other views or opinions on this topic?

Posted By Sam Smith
Interesting comments from Alan.
A freeze on new legislation for say five years while everyone “catches up” would be great. But the bureaucrats in Brussels would need to be convinced of the benefits as it is from there that most of the legislation now comes.

But as for an amnesty on enforcement of existing legislation (I think this was the suggestion Alan was making) I think it would counter-productive. It is the threat of prosecution and the associated bad publicity which makes most organisations comply with health and safety legislation. I disagree that SMEs do not understand risk assessment. They carry out an assessment of the risks of being prosecuted (considering likelihood x consequences – likelihood of getting caught and the consequences if they are caught) and then decide if it is in their best interests to do anything to reduce the risks of being prosecuted. If there are no consequences for getting caught not complying with legislation, there is no risk and they can forget about health and safety and move on to something more important which will make a real difference to the success of their businesses.

I agree with Alan, speak to an SME (and most directors of most organisations for that matter) about the business advantages of health and safety and the glazed look will immediately appear followed by glances towards the clock on the wall. You are talking nonsense and wasting their time is what they are suggesting. Lets be honest when we speak to directors. Good health and safety management is an overhead for an organisation. It costs! It is a cost of doing business in a civilised society where people matter and where non-compliance with society’s requirements will result in an appearance in the courts. That is the message which we and the HSE should be getting across. We undermine our credibility with business by this talk of “business benefits”. If there really were compelling business benefits, we would not need health and safety legislation to compel business to take the topic seriously.