Hi Al,

Interesting post. However, I'm not sure what kind of new term would 'work', as such. I personally feel that no matter what we labelled ourselves as, we would still face the same negative attitude from some of the people in society we are trying to protect.

Whether I'm introducing myself to a new employee or having a discussion with someone in the pub, there are always some people who seem disgusted with all things Health and Safety related and the people who hold those sorts of positions become instantly frowned upon.

On a more positive note though, the number of people with that negative attitude towards H&S does seem to be decreasing, albeit slowly!

​​​​​​​Stuart.

I don't think a rebranding exercise is the answer. When Staff Personnel changed to Human Resources a decade or so ago did they get any better? No, still the worst service in every company I have worked for closely followed by IT.

Changing attitudes and perceptions is the real answer, but while there are too many jobsworths who don't know what they are talking about, over zealous practitioners and apathetic senior management we will remain in the anti diluvian age for the foreseeable future.

I get the sentiment of your idea and I do get pretty tired of health and safety being a catch all for pretty much anything but Human Risk Management doesn't define what I do either. From your linkedin discussion: "It’s about the risks to, and caused by, Humans- the soft, squishy, fallible people we work with and around. Not property, not animals, not the environment, just people."

I actually do mitigate for risk dealing with the environment, subsea assets, drilling platforms etc... so I wouldn't want to be boxed in to just human risk analysis when I do so much more!

Andrex Squad (other brands are available) because we get asked to clean up the (insert own word for mess) other people dont want to deal or refuse to get involved with

Of course we would need to get the particular brand holders permission.

Did think of Ethan Hunt's as we are always on a mission impossible but the cockney rhyming slang drifts back towards the perception issue identified by the OP

I am not convinced that simple rebranding will do the trick. Whatever we call ourselves some people (let’s be kind and call them individualists) will never be happy with being told what to do by someone else. They will avoid taking responsibility and write letters to the Daily Mail etc.  asserting the right to do things their way because it has always been done that way.  There is no point busting a blood vessel trying to get these people on board. The majority of people I have come across are perfectly willing to go along with the idea of Health and Safety and with a nudge here and there do their bit. Focus on reaching these people not the recidivist fringe.

Whilst I can see how potentially rebranding "elf 'n' safety" would get away from the perceived stigma, I can't justify rebranding for the sake of it... Too many companies rebrand titles/departments/etc. with little consideration as to what this will achieve. All it does is create confusion and dilute the message, at the cost of making something sound "better".

I've been in a discussion that "health and safety" should be renamed "business risk" recently - This is all well and good, but the average guy/girl on the shop floor understands what health and safety means (even if it might come with a load of baggage), whereas business risk doesn't mean much to them at all.

I like the idea.  It is in line with when Personnel managers became Human Resources managers.  I like the term Human Risk Manager too.  Your article on Linkedin is one of the best I have seen on that forum.  Very interesting.

I'm also not sure that a rebrand really does anything. I feel the perceived problems run deeper than a job title. The bottom line is all jobs, when grouped, have a reputation and stereotype that is attahced, think accountatns or architects or IT. There is a stereotype, unfortuantely we will always have a stereotype whether we adopt a new name or not. Now part of our stereotype is negativity, we are the guys who ruin the fun. 

The real issue is the presentability of ourselves when interacting with others, you can see it from everyon on the forums here when comments get heated, there is a lack of flexibility. 

No change to job title "from the top" is going to do anything to change the guys at the coals faces opinion, indeed giving a more complicated name in my opinion will alienate us further from those we are actually trying to help. 

My revolutionary idea for the industry is much more small scale and is acheivable by all practitioners, it's a concept called LISTENING. If we collectively actually listened to people doing their job and worked our procedures around this, we would get a much better response. One thing I have adopted when doing inspections or audits is rather than just writing what the improvement action is I have shown positivity towards what they have been doing already, also justify why. 

It is easy to say to people you are doing this wrong, don't do it and justify that by saying "well regulation68 of the I am a pedantic rude word regs 1908 says so" but that does absolutely nothing to help. Focus on the people you are dealing with and offer them a benefit to why, I maintain as I have my whole career, a good H&S practicioner is a good salesman, identify the problem and sell them the solution. 

Brazier, I totaly agree with what you say, to many are ready to stop work because they dont like the look of the way an operation is being conducted, basicly because they do not understand what is being caried out: without a clue of how to continue with the works. They do not consider the fact that the works have been considered, comunication conducted with the operatives involved and solving identified hazards leaving a residual risk that is deemed acceptable to company and employees. Resulting in a false impresssion of Health and Safety. If tehy were to question what had already been put in place they may have a greater understanding and prevent teh image being tarneshed even further. 

Do we not come under enough ridicule without going down the route of:

Refuse collection and disposal operative (bin man), Food transport operative (waiter), Fullfilment Centre (Warehouse) or Communications Operative (postman).  

The brand of 'health & safety' is one which we all share. It is our brand, like it or not, and we can all apply influence to gently steer it's image as we go (as per the Skoda example), hopefully to improve not worsen.

We all have our own personal brand too, with a smaller sphere of influence, which is where rebranding job titles may (or may not!) help with the perception and application of a particular role or style.

I endorse the gentle infiltration of 'safety business partner' although it does have a whiff of pretension about it, over the blunt military style 'officer'. But I think the person behind the title is more important than the tag itself. Even more relevant is the actual job description behind the title, and I have seen some corkers, which only serve to reinforce the negatives. Does IOSH provide generic framework JDs?

As some have said, personal style and approach is key, but we need to go back to practitioner training too, as this does little to transfer any real understanding of 'brand', styles, role etc. to new entrants. And so the cycle continues. We are not the only ones to feel this pain - see https://safetyrisk.net/isnt-it-time-we-reformed-the-whs-curriculum/ (Australian, but similar issues).