The general consensus on the Forum seems to be that the moral and humanitarian aspects of health and safety are of no consequence to either business leaders or politicians.

These two groups are only interested in one thing –money!

When trying to make our case there is no point in factoring in issues they are not concerned about.

Should we (IOSH) therefore just try to persuade these people purely on financial grounds the benefits of having a strong H&S regime? Most of us have experience of using this course of action on our own company managers so we already have the skills. Add to this the massive costs to the NHS and (tax & NI) losses to the Exchequer every time someone is made seriously ill or killed at work and the financial case should be cast iron.

I would suggest to IOSH (I know they have recently used similar arguments) that in the absence of a functional HSE, we need to take up fight to defend H&S and on in terms that these decision makers understand. I’m not suggesting we join the unions in government bashing, as we have to remain impartial but
but there is a vacuum to be filled now that HSE has rolled over and given up the fight.

Health and Safety is not about cost - it is about what it can save. The sad fact is the so called decision makers tend to be persuaded when the fatals go up which is happening as we speak. This is a U-turn government so give it time, as has happened on many occasions, for them to realise the error of their ways regarding their risk adverse attitude.

There is an argument that the improvements in H&S at Work (in terms of injury and deaths data) since the introduction of the HASAWA in 1974 has more to do with the demise of the traditionally 'dangerous' workplaces (mines, shipyards, foundries etc) than with the introduction of the Act. This has led to the debate (led by the Government) that H&S Legislation is disproportionate and burdensome. I do not believe that is the case but the challenge for us all in the future is to demonstrate, in real terms, the tangible benefits of good standards of H&S to a business or service. Personally I believe that there will need to be a greater emphasis on Occupational Health and less on 'safety'.

Is it not uncommon in higher risk environments to have calculations for serious & fatal incidents.... Especially within insurance risk calculations?

It will be interesting to see how this discussion develops, but actually I don't that I agree with the assertion that "..the moral and humanitarian aspects of health and safety are of no consequence to either business leaders or politicians.".

Or am I being incredibly naive

I may be in the minority but I have never seen a good argument where good health and safety saves the company money. If it was such a good thing, then we would not be having this discussion. Employers take the view that health and safety is unproductive and therefore costs money to the business. Most companies could ignore health and safety laws for a long time before the Grim Reaper comes calling, in which time they have made a substantial saving - indeed many do. Some businesses go into voluntary liquidation following a serious incident to avoid liability altogether.

The real cost of serious accidents are humanitarian and to a lesser extent the tax payer - not the employer. However, when you look at the cost to the tax payer of propping up the banks, education, NHS and so on, accidents and ill health at work is at the back of the cue. Hence why this Government is focusing on the so-called Red Tape Challenge to tackle the burden (ie cost) of health and safety. Call me cynical if you like, but I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

.....and thats why health and safety needs to be about money. Drive down claims and fines and you have reduced accidents and ill health, arguably satisfying your humanitarian needs. Typically these people are also interested in brand value, so if you have a moral imperative, try and link it to that. If health and safety can do the 'money' thing, and the 'brand' thing, leadership will love health and safety.

Jez

Some managements demonstrate an enlightened attitude to safety and health, and think it goes hand in hand with profitability. Take du Pont for example. Its attitude stems from the reaction of its founder Eleuthere Irenee du Pont to a major explosion at his gunpowder works in the USA which killed 40 employees in 1818. He provided for the widows and children of those killed and, in the context of the time, took especial interest in the design and operation of the replacement works. Though he died in 1834, his attitude was evidently perpetuated by his successors and continues today, almost 2 centuries later.

It is reported that during Alfred Robens' 10 years as chairman of the former National Coal Board in the 1960s, he summoned the managers of the pits with the worst safety records to a (weekend?) meeting to explain why and discuss/state what they would do to reduce the fatalities and serious injuries. When I heard/read about this some years ago, it struck me as a very unusual step by the boss of an organisation. As this meeting (perhaps there were a number of such meetings at intervals) is now part of history, do any forum users know of more recent or current instances of such concern?

As an independent consultant who advises clients in one specific area of occupational health and safety I cannot think of one client I have that does not engage with the moral attitude to the operation of their business. (Probably the others would not consider using my services, so this is almost certainly a biased situation!) Indeed, most of them would be offended by some of the negative comments made in this posting.

As for the financial argument, I could (if moderators permitted!) cite several cases where introducing effective technical controls has saved the client money, benefits in worker health not included!

I would be very disappointed if the health and safety profession were to ignore the moral ground and concentrate purely on the financial aspects. In other words, should we drop to their level or retain our moral approach and integrity? Would this enhance our profession and reputation? In this I am reminded of a song, the last words of which were (if my memory serves me correctly): "...and the pig got up and slowly walked away."

Chris

It is a mix of all of those things, for us, but for business leaders (and others) you need to find the key that turns it for them, for many (not all) money is a key driver in an otherwise very complex business environment. I agree with Chris that I have met few business leaders who do not also view health and safety as the moral and legally correct things to do. IMHO The way to really get them involved is to link it with whats important to the business, that way safety becomes important to the business.

"Laws are sand, customs are rock. Laws can be evaded and punishment escaped but an openly transgressed custom brings sure punishment." - -- Mark Twain

I often use this quote to reinforce the point that it is custom and practice that matters most.

The 3 traditional cornerstones of financial, moral and legal are merely a description of the framework within which a culture exists. Ignore any of them and you increase the degree of difficulty by an order of magnitude.

What works in one place is a disaster elsewhere, there is no one-size-fits-all for OSH. The focus should always be on establishing that "custom" which when transgressed brings sure punishment. And I don't mean punishment just from the punitive aspects of a legal system,

p48

Fortunately, we found out within a few hours that it wasn't one of our employees (though our people were standing right beside teh casualty when it happened) and some time subsequently (though it took aout 48 hours for that information to come through) that teh casualty wasn't a fatality (though it was a life-changing injuries case).

At teh time, however, we did not know that. The information coming back to teh office was very garbled, and teh police had separated all teh witnesses and were detaining them not allowing them to talk to anyone before being interviewed. We knew only a fatality in a team containing our people and that we couldn't contact anyone who knew anything more.

No-one said anything like "oh well, never mind, just send out some more people", despite teh assertions of some in this thread about teh attitudes of management and decision makers.

In my experience of working for directors and CEO's is that most have been very upset when someone in the organisation is badly injured. However, at the same time a number of the same directors have been cavalier about risk taking in my view. Just thought I should throw that into this debate as we are in danger of mixing up attitude to risk taking ("it will never happen to me") with attitude to real consequences ("that was unfair or bad luck").

As I read it Walker is speaking for him/herself; ie it seems to him/her, that there is general agreement amongst people who post on this forum, that the moral and humanitarian aspects of health and safety are of no consequence to either business leaders or politicians. I personally wouldn’t come to that conclusion, though.

I've been away

Most of you assumed I was on about bosses - I know my boss gets upset if someone is hurt
By business leaders I meant the organisations representing business lobbying MPs ( I think!)

If what I suggest is not true, explain:

Why the Government is not demanding 250 MORE HSE inspectors rather than less.
Why a fine for killing someone is a fraction of the fine for not submitting your tax returns
Why so many cupable organisations & top people have not been up in court for multiple deaths
Why someone got a fine of "one quid" for the part played in a preventable death
Why my organisation ( with a good H&S record) looses (government) business to those who flout the law because they can do the job cheaper (because they cut corners)

Your arguments are superficial. They are not indicative of business leaders and organisations havoing no moral conscience. Rather they are indicative of financial restraints and limitations withthin the judical system. Also because you are looking at some cases without knowing the full facts.

It may be your opinion but it is not the general consesnus and so I for one don't like someone claiming to be speaking on my behalf. It's a very union thing to do and irritates me.

Walker

It doesn't seem clear from postings and responses on this forum that there is a general consensus of the sort you suggest. Also, the numbers of people who are active on this forum are relatively few and therefore cannot be considered representative. There may be many more people who look at the postings but never or rarely ever post or respond for various reasons, so we simply don't know their opinions. Perhaps IOSH has statistics for active and passive users over specific periods, in which case it would be interesting to see some figures.

Looking at your opening post, I think IOSH as the body for our profession should take reasonable steps where it can to try to persuade and influence business leaders and politicians, irrespective of HSE's resources and strength. Okay, use various financial and business arguments as the main ones in support of a good effective OS&H regime/culture in the UK. This is because such arguments are likely to have the most effect on such people. However, as they are also human beings, no doubt with families and friends and have varying degrees of feelings and compassion - just like other humans on this planet - moral and humanitarian arguments surely should also be included.

As for influencing politicians, should a direct approach should be complemented by an indirect one? i.e. of trying by available means to educate and influence the public to understand the adverse consequences of inadequate OS&H. To stay in office, politicians depend on voters. Therefore, having suitably informed voters may be a way of influencing the politicians and their decisions. Even though only about 30-40% of eligible people in each constituency usually vote at a general election, they probably include people who are more likely to think about and even chivvy their MPs between elections and candidates at elections. Senior politicians, including cabinet and shadow cabinet office holders, can never escape their MP status and thus remain answerable to their constituents.

But the stuff that is easily demonstrated as making good business sense is done by businesses automatically, because it makes good business sense. You don't need statute, or enforcement, or even warmly encouraging advertising campaigns to persuade 'business leaders' or 'decision makers' to do something that has demonstrable quantitative financial benefits.

If it's obvious, they'll do it anyway.

If it's not obvious, it will be arguable or debatable, and therefore easily neglected by anyone that has already made up their minds. Business leaders tend to be relatively decisive (in my opinion) so it's not a target audience easily swayed. Politicians are worse - with a pathological fear of being accused of the 'U-turn'.

I'm not convinced it's a better approach than the existing systems. I think the UK actually has a pretty good balance in its approach to HS at work (though there is obviously room for improvement).