it is because both (along with environmental stuff) are seen as compliance issues: we the business has to comply with something set by THEM (outsiders to the business). Joining these teams up makes sense and of course it means that you can have one person who is dong more than one job. How about, Health, Safety, Environmental, Quality, Security, Resilience, and Fire. That’s 7 for the price of one!

We recently have seen the advent of job roles being called SHEF, Safety - Health - Environment - Fire. If we consider the legal's pertaining to these topics, within a large organisation, I very much doubt that one individual could have the technical competencies to manage all of these functions. However, for a SME with limited risks I guess it may be fitting for one person to take on all of these responsibilities. My concerns and experiences with these job titles is that non H&S people are getting these jobs because they have an environmental or quality qualification and no H&S experience. Not to digress from the OP, I think that the H&S person must understand quality and ensure that the safety management system meets a quality standard, and this may include a way of auditing to set criteria. But.... it should only be quality for the H&S function and not the quality systems for the whole organisation. Just my thoughts.

This is nothing new but as stated already all those functions under 1 hat is an awful lot of work [although quit achievable in a team / small situation] but I find that H&S is usually diluted into the status of just another ISO standard so focus and attention etc. is lost & H&S at best just becomes another document system with little real value However many many employers want pretty stickers instead of real management - 1 vv-large company I know has a very large SHEF [I was calling it SHEF 25 years ago] section with hundreads of thousands being spent yearly to maintain it yet it has 1 million in fines because of poor H&S - its a game

It's more of a cost saving exercise IMHO. In smaller companies it makes more sense because there may not be enough H, S & E work for a full time position. In addition we have 9001, 14001 and 18001 and so companies see these as much the same. I do however question how one person can always maintain their competence to the highest level in each area. Regards

Can i throw 'Sustainability' in there as well.

Yes - seen as a compliance issue like health and safety. We will also bundle in environmental responsibilities and possibly security!!! But don't expect the salary to reflect all of this responsibility and don't expect to have enough time to do all of your 4 jobs.

I find that the procedures for the QMS system are also safe systems of work, so the dual role is complimentary.

There is nothing more frustrating than inspecting / auditing and finding incomplete forms (induction, training etc.), documents that are not the current issue (stored on desktop/'c' drive etc.) or forms that have no relationship with the QMS (produced by an individual to manage something (no control)). Quality does go hand in hand with H&S as overall compliance. Having said that, I try to manage 9001, 14001 and 18001, incl. other elements of our audit scope, I struggle to do this on my own and did even with support. Every time we tender for work or complete a PQQ a new question is posed, be it: 'what is your policy of protecting ladybirds, or, what is your policy on preventing child labour, preventing slavery, preventing human trafficking, corruption, bribery cruelty to horses or ponies etc.' All these result in developing another policy and building it into an already colossal QMS........ that nobody reads! The fun of it all! Simon

And there in lies the issue with management buy in and quality. At first you did what you said (BS 5750) even if the outcome was the same as the last disaster and the disaster before that there was always a nice thick set of dust covered manuals documenting how you made all the identical rejects. Then we adopted delivering what was contractually agreed to defined specification (ISO 9001). Couple of tweaks and the concept moved to the vaguaries of customer satisfaction as apparently providing what was asked for when it was asked for at the agreed price suddenly wasn't good enough. Then business continuity (how to supply the customer at time of crisis) crept in and when you start to try and engage the business in thinking that is not the here and now of units out the door and money coming in you find the only true driver is the customer wants to see a certificate. Easier to spend an hour crafting one up on the computer as very few companies check if the certificate is issued by an accreditation body or even valid. The same could be said for the plethora of standards the publishers attempt to flog certification for - IT Security, IT Continuity, Energy Management, Energy Conservation...... Even more empathy with PQQ - so many schemes claiming to simplify the process only for another provider to appear and as well as demanding copy certificates want the chapter and verse that are your companies management systems which are compliant to....

On the flip side. Right first time does reduce risk and exposure, especially in construction.