I don't know what I ate last night but today I have been particularly awkward and asking some pointed questions to several people, including on (but not limited to) another thread here.

As a profession (I refuse to call us an industry) we stand accused of "gold plating" legislation originating from the EU and always wanting to go that little bit further in improving what we already have. No doubt encouraged by the continuous improvement mantra invented by the quality brigade and now enshrined in Plan Do Check Act.

We blithely talk about "best practice" as if this is the goal we all must attain, when actually compliance is usually adequate and "good practice" is a laudable achievement and much of our workplaces are sub-compliance levels.

As NEBOSH are fond of saying: Discuss.

PS I am not Victor reborn!

Not in my experience. I can only speak about Germany but alot of the regulations issued by the statutory accident insurance bodies have a very similar caveat at the beginning, especially those which include guidance.

But why would we not want the best possible, sfarp etc, H&S standards for our employees???? Surely the fact that others are worse than us is no argument to work to the lowest common standard?

Bob

I can’t speak for H&S gold plating but when the Electromagnetic Compatibility (EMC) directive first came into existence, I represented a UK manufacturers trade body on its implementation into UK law.
The directive itself, was (ignoring the “template stuff”) about 2 sides of A4. Most member countries just translated that into their own language. Us Brits turned it into a 96 page document.

The Medical research equipment company I worked for moved its factories to Germany & Spain a few years later, only a warehouse remained in the UK.

Dear All

The following text is directly quoted from the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC:

Preamble: ‘minimum requirements for encouraging improvement’

Article 1(2) ‘the elimination of risk and accident factors’

Article 6 (1) ‘Within the context of his responsibilities, the employer shall take the measures necessary for the safety and health protection of workers, including prevention of occupational risks and provision of information and training, as well as provision of the necessary organization and means.

The employer shall be alert to the need to adjust these measures to take account of changing circumstances and aim to improve existing situations.’

The ‘gold plating’ of EU H&S Directives has already been dismissed by several authorities and reports. However it is recognised that in some instances – self-employed for example – our laws will include coverage that may not exist in the original specific directives. [Maybe our economy will go into superdrive when self-employed people who present no risk to themselves and others are exempted from the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and that so called ‘burden’ is removed from them.]

If one considers the general principles of prevention specified in Schedule 1 of the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, it starts with a requirement to avoid the risk ie this is the first step after a risk assessment has identified that a risk exists. Personal Protective Equipment is the second last step of eight and is viewed by the Health and Safety Executive as a ‘last resort’ while more effective preventative measures are being developed.

Of course many employers don’t see PPE as a last resort but as the first. Following a risk assessment many employers do not look at eliminating, sorry, avoiding the risk as a starting point: they assume it is impossible because .. well, because … well it’s bound to be.

On the other hand all sorts of technical developments are going on virtually all the time. Many of these ‘best practice’ solutions are not known to many employers because masses of other information may crowd out useful information. [Camera drones being used to photograph areas thus eliminating the need for people to go into dangerous or difficult to access places: who needs ladder training when you can use a drone to inspect?]

For example many years ago I took a mental note of a Japanese company who were developing an exoskeleton framework which an individual could wear and – with it operating – could lift up to 10 times their weight: I recently read this was now a commercial reality.

‘Best practice’ is a term I’ve always used loosely. I’ve never considered myself as being a liar because in my specialism – worker involvement – it’s more ‘hearts and minds’ than the elaboration of technical standards that gets people’s pulses racing. Good practice seems good enough where – for example – around 50% of construction sites in an ‘intensive inspection’ were found to be in breach of the law. With that kind of statistic, compliance with the law appears to be a minimum standard too high for too many employers.

While I accept achrn’s point that ‘best practice’ is nigh on impossible to measure, the promotion of good practice should assist in support of ‘continuous improvement’: a concept promoted heavily in management standards but often sadly lacking in application to health and safety standards.

If we do not strive for improving existing standards, we can miss out on developing more efficient, safer and healthier ways of working. Whether the term is ‘best practice’, ‘good practice’ or ‘simply the best’ - whatever that means – the minimum legal starting point is avoiding the risk altogether. [This is not so much ‘gold plating’, as ‘tin plating’.] In the pursuit of this objective I’ll take whatever ‘practice’ will get us there!!

Cheers.

Nigel

Even in the best managed organisations there is always objective/policy drift unless the leadership is strong enough and visionary enough to keep people following them rather than settling back into their comfort zone and re-interpretation of what is truly required. To consistently achieve the vision you have stated you need to constantly press to go higher. Take the foot of the pedal, so to speak, and people enter a coasting mode of thinking.

Bob