Has anyone come across an employer deciding to comply with regulations but not best practice?

Can anyone define Best Practice?

Is Best Practice almost the same as Regulation?

‘Good practice’, as understood and used by HSE, can be distinguished from the term ‘best practice’ which usually means a standard of risk control above the legal minimum.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/risk/theory/alarp2.htm

In my view by applying best practice you would be using sophisicated levels of control (allowing for reasonable practicality) and achieving complinace with the regualtion at the higest level. You can still achieve compliance using lower levels of control and in my expereince 'best practice' solution sometimes gives way to 'lowest cost'

Take for example dust control, CoSHH says we must protect our employees and advises a number of ways to achieve this. I advise that it would be that best practice to use LEV. The employer disagrees on grounds of costs and decides to implement an RPE -policy (despite its limitations and long term costs). We are controlling exposure and acheiving minimum compliance but have not (in my view) employed best practice.

teh_boy off the top of my head, changing hard hats,

I like that

"This leaflet contains notes on good practice which are not compulsory but which you may find helpful in considering what you need to do."

So the answer is both....

Some bits of the leaflet give guidance on Regulations, other bits suggest what good practice might be like, some of the good practice may be considered the industry best practice.

What context has the original question been asked in Chris?

This link is a best practice guide re MEWPs. I would think that with all the support on the front page it should be the industry standard, what do you think?

http://www.ipaf.org/file...nts/en/MEWP_BPG_2010.pdf

CATNAP vs BATAOS

Cheapest Available Technology Narrowly Avoiding Prosecution
Best Available Technology Achieving Optimum Standards

Chris

So as long as we CATNAP (thanks Chris) that's all we need to do.

All good replies, thanks.

Without getting into a long discussion about PAT (again) portable electrical equipment tests are recommendation. However there is a Requirement to test work equipment, and further guidance re electricity at work.

Can someone point me to any direct requirement for regular testing of such equipment?

Heather makes a good point ,that's what I have done at my work place the director went along with some but not others (down to cost)but at least I gave him all the facts end of the line his money we can only do so much this I have found out in my short time in H&S

Kev

Convincing anyone of the need to make a change comes down to how good a job we do in constructing and delivering our case and then handling any objections (sales technique I suppose).

Achieving "Best Practice" requires a set of strong and clear reasons for doing so, particularly if the employer has traditionally been focussed on compliance. Whilst the legal argument can be utilised at that lower level, the case for "Best Practice" will often need to be presented as a clear and preferably measurable business benefit. That is where the skill of the consultant will be tested.

Heather's point abouit delivering what the client is paying for is valid and also in some instances stating the higher level achievement aspirations can dilute the "absolutely must do now" stuff that saves lives.

Big Rab - That's a bit of a sweeping statement! If using RPE would breach CoSHH etc then why is it included in the ACoP etc? RPE can be used in many circumstances to control a risk and therefore 'comply'. It not best practice and I used the example in the context of answering the OP.

I think the problem for a lot of companies is that they are given safety advice by their own advisers, consultants and others without an explanation that they can understand.

If the explanation is that you need to do something because it is required by law, that is very easy to understand. If you "put some "best practice" recommendations in anyway" the result is often confusion.

In my opinion, an explanation that an action is best practice is not good enough. The company needs to understand what the risk reduction is likely to be, how easy it will be to implement, what are the risks of implementation (i.e. could it actually cause further problems). Also, advice should be given about priorities. What needs and can be done immediately, what will take time, and what happens during any time lag?

Isn't there a danger that routinely adopting "Best Practice" just encourages the unstoppable creep of over cautious approaches to Safety management. During my 20+ years practicing the fine art of Health and Safety Management I've seen the balance tip further and further towards a Risk Averse culture. How many of us now document every risk rather than just the significant risks required by regulations, I've been asked to show such Risk Assessments just to prove I had thought about it. Best/GoodPractice can often be used to introduce unnecessary procedures that create more and more work (especially for Consulting firms developing business). There is also a tendency to interpret Best Practice as an increase, couldn't best practice also include reducing the amount of activity, for example not documenting low risk assessments and focussing on those that really matter?

Doesn't "Suitable and Sufficient", "Proportionate", Preventative and Protective", "Sufficient", "Relevant"", "Appropriate", "Reasonably Practicable", etc. give enough guidance without introducing yet more terminology?