Posted By Neil R No not just you, It does my head in. I outright refuse to be involved in quality. For me quality control positions should be assigned to engineers as it has a lot to do with their roles already. I am qualified and competent in Health, Safety and Environmental management and that what i will cover nothing more nothing less.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy Couldnt agree more. As I have asked on here before, how did H & S and Environment become bedfellows. I have no passion for the environment, I wont be here when the ice caps melt. Joking apart quality is given to Safety guys cos it contains the word " audit" and most people are terrified of it. I have met a couple of guys recently who are quite sincere and helpful in regards to implementation of 9001. Learn it and it really can be beneficial Well worth the effort if you ask me.

Posted By Raymond Rapp Totally agree. I avoid quality issues like the plague! I accept there is some overlap, particularly with environmental issues and more so when working in projects. I tend to think that health and safety gets lumbered with anything that does not sit neatly in a box. In the rail industry it has become the norm to seek HSQE manager/adviser, although in reality the quality and environmental aspects can vary from role to role. I am a health and safety practitioner first and foremost - is there not enough in this discipline alone? Ray

Posted By Ian_P Totally disagree I'm afraid. I really enjoy the variety of being responsible for different disciplines. I have also found that advising on issues that give short term financial benefits (i.e. quality) can give you leverage when advising on issues that give you long term benefits (i.e. safety). For example, if I introduce a new system that will save £000's in admin fees, I know it will be a whole lot easier if I have to justify spending money on safety. Unfortunately, in these hard economic times, many companies are (wrongly) reducing their H&S management teams - just look at the careers forum. It is a whole lot easier to secure your job if you have additional responsibilities, and can offer more than just H&S. In an ideal world (and if you are lucky enough to work for a large enough company) you may be able to concentrate solely on H&S, but in the majority of small / medium companies this may not be possible. I'm surprised by the attitude displayed in some of the posts: you're a lot braver than me to turn down work and responsibility in this current climate.... Best Regards, Ian

Posted By Raymond Rapp The last two posts make interesting observations. What you also need to bear in mind is that many people are still learning health and safety and doing specific courses eg NEBOSH. For instance, I have recently completed a Masters and have not had the spare grey cells to soak up other matters as well. Now I am done I would like to do the 18001 lead auditor's course, which should prepare me for other ISO related topics.

Posted By John Fraser In my opinion, if employers are wanting h & s people to wear more than one hat ( take on board Environmental, Quality, Training role ), then they should be prepared to train h & s people up in environmental and quality management, interms of a diploma in q.m or e.m. This especially occurs more with SMES in indutsry today. John

Posted By Neil R A word that is often used in the safety world comes to mind... COMPETENCE. Am i competent in Health and Safety Law, Risk Management etc yes i am. Am i competent in Environmental management and Environmental law, yes i am. Am i competent in Quality control systems etc NO. So I won't do it, its not about risking your job and being brave as some people have said. Taking on a job you can't do is risky. I am employed to protect people, the company and the environment i find that enough to fill my working week. If i took on quality i wouldn't be able to keep the same commitment to safety so its a no go. I'd like to think that companies will respect that, some don't many do.

Posted By Neil R We have an IMS, compliant with 9001, 18001, 14001 as a department we manage this but individually we have different responsibilities, I have safety and environmental responsibilities others have Quality. It's not about isolation etc, Health and Safety in a large company is a full time job for more than one person. I don't believe that Quality has a place in the role. If the health and safety person has other titles attached and other responsibilities how is the safety of the workforce going to suffer?. If Health and Safety is a companies number one priority like they all claim, then having dedicated safety professionals goes some way to back that up. Having a Health, Safety, Environmental, sustainability and Quality manager or something ridiculous like that is poor practice in my opinion, because even with an exceptional person in the role you'll only be mediocre in all disiplines at best, theres only so many hours in the day! Safety is safety Quality is quality They don't mix in my opinion.

Posted By Tony abc jprhdnMurphy They shouldnt mix but invariably do. Management requirements such as document control & Management Review ensure that the two are linked forever. Environmentally all aspects are similar. The secret for me is to match them to the requirements of the business, something I struggled with until somwebody helped me. The other aspect, and one which is often missed is that most safety professionals have a passion. I find it hard to believe anybody seriously has a passion for QA or Environment.

Posted By Neil R Saz, fair point but you are obviously a high level manager and therefore have responsibility to make sure others do their jobs hence forfilling your job role. I was refering to the lower level operational support advisor/ managers same as me who have been asked to cover health, safety, environment, quality etc on their own and because of this losing time they would have dedicated towards safety on site. As for the comment about 9001 and 14001 over 18001 thats quite simple. A company is expected to be managing safety you gain very little commercially by having a certificate to say your company is managing safety because it is at the end of the day legally stipulated. However having a Quality assurance and/or environmental assurance will give you commercial advantage as it is certification of your work quality.

Posted By Suffolkman Neil Fair points on the commercial advantages perhaps its a pity safety is not seen in the same light rather than from a compliance viewpoint. I think this discussion is useful to the profession and we certainly need to become more outward looking, but I also acknowledge that if you spread yourself to thin you lose the focus on safety. That's particularly true if there is just you. Its not an easy balancing act at any level and like most managers I moved through the advisor auditor roles etc,first. But to go back to the original post " is the role expanding" my answer for most people in most businesses would be Yes Gus

Posted By Suffolkman Yep did a bit of that too and had two years completely out of safety in Six Sigma working in procurement,which was a great learning curve I came back refreshed and much more able to see the big picture and able to quantify and present business benefits of H&S initiatives. Gus

Posted By GaryC40 There is a significant difference between the management of 18001, 14001 and 9001 compliant/certified management systems, in terms of compliance / administration and being a health and safety or environmental advisor / consultant. The management of a fully integrated system is actually quite straight forward if the procedures have been well thought through by management and colleagues are competent enough to implement them. The secret is to avoid duplication. No formal certification is needed/required to do this successfully. Trust me i did it! (apart from a 3 day 9001 auditors course) I can't understand people that state there is no place for quality management in health and safety, quite offensive really! The two 'disciplines' are actually very closely related. Think about it! Quality management leads to provision of quality products and service, which is surely connected to a safe and healthy environment! I think we sometimes forgot the meaning of quality! and associate it wrongly with additional paperwork! If implemented correctly the 3 areas compliment each other. As for environmental management, a great deal is based on the same risk assessment techniques used in HS anyway...so big problem there then! The real conflict is when it comes to giving specific advise on H & S and environmental issues, which is completely different and requires experience / knowledge / ability etc. I do not agree with companies that employ people as system managers then expect them to become advisers/trainers/consultants overnight, but i,m afraid whether we like it or not that's the way the industry is going, and the reason why I've been studying HSE for the last 20 months. GC

Posted By Suffolkman In response to the last few posts The true measure of a 'competent' person is knowing their own limitations and seeking advice from a specialist... The HSE (& QA job) lists may be endless but the challenge is always the same persuading people to do whats right. In my experience extra responsibility and a broader job role can be very rewarding but only if it comes with authority and recognition. For me the move into H&S and expansion into QA and Environment roles, has been the best part of what is now a long working life, but at the end of the day its a personal choice.. if you ain't happy with what the 'gaffer' is asking just say no. Gus

Posted By Andrew Cartridge Apart from the few, whos comments I can't disagree with, It appears that it is not just me. Andy