Before setting up my own business 12 years ago I attended a one day "Thinking of Running your own business seminar" followed by a 3 day more detailed course (both run by government backed agencies) There was no H&S input into either course (yet quite comprehensive about consequences of not paying your taxes) When I asked the organiser why no H&S, the answer was the same as you suggest "They didn't want to put people off setting up their own businesses" Nothing changes

Indeed, when I reviewed the syllabus of a Diploma in Construction Project Management some years ago the only reference to health and safety was a very short section on the CDM Regs. When I questioned this with the tutor he implied h&s is not important. Little wonder so few construction people have a decent knowledge of h&s and CDM!

Disappointed at the revelations in this thread, but not entirely surprised. Getting H&S onto the business agenda has long been a challenge, in overcoming the perception that it sits somewhere outside the mainstream of business life and is the preserve of specialists who are called on when something goes wrong. Similar experiences are found in the fields of school governors and local councillors; there seems a reluctance to mention it in case the supply of volunteers dries up through fear of ligitation. Inroads are being made in this area, but it is a long struggle.

Bob and Malcolm. The points you make are quite central to challenging the overriding negative approach currently being offered about health and safety at work. My background is within the trade union movement and ‘the business case’ has been quite central to the day to day dealings with organisations from when I started in 1981 till 2003, when I set up my consultancy. It remains so today, as it will in the future. But then so is compliance with the law. While preventing death, ill-health and injury are the central aims, health and safety is a managed subject. This is hardly new thinking and in relation to accidents, H W Heinrich of the accident pyramid fame stated the following in 1941: ‘Of the remaining 98 per cent, [of accidents] 50 percent are practicably preventable and 48 per cent could be prevented if it were not for practical consideration of cost and interference with production and profit. All preventable accidents are controllable by management.’ Source: Industrial Accident Prevention - A Scientific Approach: 2nd Edition 1941 However as health and safety is rarely seen as a strategic business issue – except in high risk activities where failure can kill and guarantee negative headlines – many practitioners use legal requirements to press for changes. Others the get caught up with their legal advisers and introduce blinkered approaches which end up as stories the Daily Mail. Health and safety at work is not just about accident/ill-health reduction. Yes this contributes to business efficiency by reducing costs. [In this discussion I’m leaving to one side the most important outcome which is not killing, injuring, maiming or inducing occupational ill-health into workers.] However addressing the causes of occupational stress – inefficient management of workloads, long hours of work etc – tends to improve working efficiency; eliminating or controlling manual handling risks – increases productivity, especially when engineering controls are introduced etc etc etc. The list goes on. One central issue tends to be glibly overlooked and that is worker involvement. While many organisations refer to their workforce as their ‘greatest asset’ they then undermine this position by failing to support the assertion with much in the way of resources, leadership and planning. In 2009 the Business, Innovation and Skills Department published a review of employee engagement by academics which – surprise, surprise – found that the greater the level of worker engagement, the more efficient, profitable and sustainable the business. This Government’s response is to propose further weakening of employment law so that many businesses in the UK can maintain their inefficient human resources management model. Presumably this is why the HSE estimate that 60% of employees are not consulted by their employer over specific health and safety matters despite there being a legal requirement to do so. Health and safety practitioners should be in a position to promote improvements in health, safety and business performance. To do so needs an appreciation of how a business is financially structured; who the ‘power players’ are in an organisation and influencing them i.e. find out what they want and identify how improvements in health and safety standards may help achieve it; how to identify inefficiencies in workplace organisation – such as the causes of stress – and offer practical solutions; improve communications between managers and staff so that more joint work/training is undertaken; and underpin this by ensuring that cynicism is overcome by involving all those within the organisation in developing solutions to health and safety problems that are effective. On the other hand, it is so much easier to say the law requires us to do it – or not do it, as the case may be. However there are plenty of studies to show that many organisations do not take action until the law requires them to. There’s a bit in the opening scene of the Untouchables with Kevin Costner as Elliot Ness and Robert De Nero as the gangster Al Capone. De Nero is in the barber’s chair and says words to the effect: ‘In life I have found you get more with a smile and a gun, than you get with just a smile by itself.’ The reality is we need to use all the tools at hand to improve health, safety and business performance. The IOSH Li£e Savings campaign should help the process of promoting health and safety as a contributor to business success. Cheers. Nigel

As usual a very good post by NigelB - BTW you only have to post it once! I suspect Bob is playing the Devil's Advocate here...and nothing wrong with that. I may be a bit of a stick in the mud but I have never really warmed to the notion that we safety practitioners have to 'sell health and safety', make a good business case, blah, blah. Health, safety and welfare in the UK is a legal requirement on employers - that IS the bottom line. Does an accountant have to sell good accounting practices to his peers or a HR person? I am all for promulgating good health and safety practices within the workforce and senior management if that gets the job done. Sadly, I have seen little evidence that employers will spend money or do anything worthwhile without a statutory stick. All this nonsense about corporate governance and corporate social responsibility is basically nothing more than good PR. Look at the companies involved in the illegal blacklisting of construction employees for being a trade union member, or raising h&s issues - many were household names! They should be ashamed of themesleves and given a public apology. I don't subscribe that health and safety is the panacea that some people believe it is. There are many poor practices, useless initiatives and some downright daft laws. Where I can I use a bit of nous to avoid unnecessary bureaucracy, but I'm damned if I am going to waste my time and effort trying to sell something that most employers are not really interested in.

Maybe you were not Bob, but your above post does little to change my mind. I do of course realise that senior managers have other priorities to juggle, notwithstanding making a profit. Nevertheless I am convinced that most companies see health and safety as unproductive and merely a matter of compliance. Some in the construction industries take note of accidents and particularly the AFR/IFR, but then they have a vested interest in order to gain more contracts through good h&s performance. Most of the accident and fatalities you cite are caused by SMEs not applying the law and industry best practice. Many would rather take their chances on not having a serious incident rather than pay for good h&s management. Even when the caught, which is the tip of the iceberg, the penalties imposed by the courts are seriously frugal. If I was giving advice without any morality involved and purely on economics I would advise ignoring the law and get on with the job! Good health and safety management is not beyond the pale for all companies. The Olympics is a prime example of a major project being completed with few accidents and no fatalities - so it can be done. However, the state of the art h&s management was funded by public money, buckets full in fact. It would really have been some achievement if it was private money. There is still a long way to go.

It's curious to note from recollection that quite a number of health & safety policy documents begin with a declaration which starts with or includes the assertion that "health and safety is our greatest priority.." or similar. Such declarations are often followed by the signature of the highest ranking person of the organisation involved. Assuming that such persons actually read what they're about to sign, I wonder what they actually think. If they don't agree with the declaration, why do they sign it? Could it be because the policy is just one of many documents they need to sign? Another reason could be that such a declaration is regarded as standard or even sacrosanct by everybody (including OS&H advisers, whether in-house or external consultants) and keeps being perpetuated. Anyhow, surely such claims about greatest priority, even if well meant, are nonsense. Take manufacturing companies for example. They tend to exist to make as much financial profit as possible by making as much/many of whatever they produce and as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Therefore, for such companies, a far more honest opening would be something like "Our top priority is to make money by making lots of widgets as efficiently as possible and without killing, injuring or otherwise harming our employees and others. This document describes how we'll try to achieve this aim with regard to health and safety and who has what responsibilities." Appropriate adaptations of this could be used for private and public service organisations. Okay, I can't imagine that any boss of a manufacturing or private service organisation would be willing to include the bit about making money, so we can't expect to see or ask for it. p.s. Nigel's defence against the charge of double posting seemed very credible - computer systems can be very quirky and frustrating at times - so I vote that he is acquitted of the charge!