Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Argyll  
#1 Posted : 09 April 2020 03:17:58(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Argyll

Hello all,

As a lowly IOSH member across the pond, I would appreciate getting a sense from those of you that cover OH&S AND environmental protection how much proportionally does the environmental protection part of your work responsibilities involve? I ask because here in Canada we have strong environmental protection legislation, but a relatively small proportion of full-time OH&S practitoners here seem to have environmental protection as part of their assigned duties.  

Your feedback is appreciated!

Argyll

Across the Pond  

thanks 1 user thanked Argyll for this useful post.
martin paul jones on 22/04/2020(UTC)
peter gotch  
#2 Posted : 09 April 2020 18:09:56(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Argyll, this side of the Pond it varies dramatically. Not in my job title but quite a lot of my work over the last three or four years has been very much E. 

If we all need some level of competency in each and every one of the 69 competencies in the IOSH Competency framework, all IOSH members would need much more E, along with much more Q (quality), the other S (security), and many other letters of the alphabet. E would get a second mention as Expert Witness, since members are supposed to be able to give defence legal teams a steer, even though an Expert Witness would almost invariably be brought in as an external, independent commentator. An in-house EW would be torn to pieces in Court - "are you sure you can be objective about your employer's position?"

chris42  
#3 Posted : 14 April 2020 08:40:29(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

Approx.  25% to 33% of my time is Environmental. Then the same again for Quality Assurance. Then H&S has to fight for my time from other “stuff” I’m asked to do.

These are built into my job title. The other Stuff is not.

Chris

aud  
#4 Posted : 14 April 2020 17:37:16(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
aud

As a long-standing SP, mainly in local government, the E hardly ever cropped up, as councils have a whole 'Environmental' department - I know, not exactly the same sort of E, but still.

I added the E competency a few years ago when I left local government in case I needed it. However, I don't find the IOSH Cert training really equipped me for the practical 'what to do about' Waste Transfer Notes, licencing details etc. landing in my intray. I don't find it a smooth fit with the H and S. 

I don't get the integrating of Quality within the SHE role (although I do have Q qualification) as there is almost no fit at all. The customer is different, the concerns different, the framework (non-legal but commercially focussed) different. IOSH should make a stand on this employer tactic, lazily based on 'integrated management systems'. The financial management system doesn't tend to get thrust onto the SHE person. Why then Quality?

thanks 1 user thanked aud for this useful post.
chris42 on 15/04/2020(UTC)
Swygart25604  
#5 Posted : 18 April 2020 13:00:46(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Swygart25604

I spent 30 years in Q before getting into HSE, and I think you have to look at two things here when considering the integration of Q into SHE (ie is it a good idea or not).

Risk management - this is all the same, but just differently expressed. Q = risk of supplying non-conforming product; H&S = risk of harming people; E = risk of polluting the environment. A lot of the tools to manage the risks in any of these disciplines are totally interchangeable (ie Ishikawa, 8D etc)

Management systems = all now based on one principle - Plan, Do, Check, Act (Deming Cycle). ISO 9001 / 14001 / 45001 all harmonised with largely the same clauses. 

However, I agree that IOSH should not be getting any Q or E into its frameworks. I'm not seeing this with IEMA and I don't subscribe to the IOSH view that every other institution is moving with the times in this regard. I don't believe CQI to be "up there" in terms of things that we as safety practitioners should aspire to.

Argyll  
#6 Posted : 26 April 2020 01:33:22(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Argyll

Thanks to those of you who responded to my query. Given the number of OH&S graduate degree programs offered in the UK that include mandatory environmental protection coursework, I would have thought that this aspect of practice would be more significant.

Thanks again and be safe.

Argyll        

peter gotch  
#7 Posted : 26 April 2020 11:05:20(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Argyll

Only a fraction of the next generation of UK OHS practitioners learn via such graduate programmes, but I think that it is inevitable that there will (and should) be a more integrated approach to include Environment (but perhaps with less need to tack on Quality or the various other disciplines that sometimes get dumped on OSH professionals).

But it has taken UK plc a very, very long time to recognise (still not very well) that the H is at least as important (if not much more so) than the S, and many OSH practitioners have quite enough challenges to help overcome without the need to have E added to their agenda.

However, at the very least, OSH practitioners do need to consider the impact of their recommendations on the Environment. You only have to look at the number of people advocating throwing lots of nasty disinfectants and other chemicals at the current pandemic to recognise that what is done in the name of Health, can have a devastating impact on the Environment.

In the first few decades of the 19th Century, Glasgow got most of its drinking water from the River Clyde (and its tributaries). The heritage of industrialisation means that tonnes and tonnes of nasty chemicals, heavy metals, asbestos etc have reached the Clyde by run off and other means (including deliberate dumping) and I hate to think what would be involved in treating water from the Clyde to make it fit for consumption in 2020.

But much of the drinking water in places in e.g. England still get their drinking water from river sources. So, those dealing with the occupational risks associated with e.g. steelworks or agriculture need to consider that impact of processes, not only in terms of the direct impact on the environment, but the indirect impact on human health.

AND, of course, some less developed nations consider that it is their right to repeat some of the mistakes that have been historically made in developed nations (and still being advocated by some in those developed nations).

Argyll  
#8 Posted : 26 April 2020 23:21:51(UTC)
Rank: Forum user
Argyll

Hello Peter,

Thank you for your response. The inspiration for my inital post was to gain insight into how significant the role of environmental protection is as a proportion of an OHS&E practitioner's role. Given your response, am I correct in assuming that the NEBOSH Diploma in OH&S is the most widely held qualification held by those working full-time in workplace health & safety in the U.K?  

From a broad-based risk management perspective, I am interested to see if the envrionmental component becomes progressively more significant here in Canada, as like yourselves in the UK, we Canucks generally find breathable air and drinkable water preferable and worth protecting, unlike some of our neighbors south of the border currently appear to do... 

Thanks again!

Argyll

          

peter gotch  
#9 Posted : 27 April 2020 16:53:49(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Argyll

Don't actually know what the breakdown of qualifications leading to e.g. Graduate membership of IOSH is.

A question you might put to Membership Department. Someone in IOSH should know (at least roughly).

Kate  
#10 Posted : 28 April 2020 06:00:18(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
Kate

But judging by job adverts, NEBOSH Certificate (not Diploma) is the qualification most expected by employers.

peter gotch  
#11 Posted : 30 April 2020 17:55:50(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Kate - your comment is an illustration as to how poor those placing recruitment ads may be at assessing what might be appropriate to specify.

Now if you are advertising for a Health and Safety Adviser for a TV productions company I could see that you might specify NEBOSH Certificate (though preferably adding "or equivalent", or even better a direct reference to the EQF) + relevant experience.

In contrast if you were advertising for someone to be a Health and Safety Adviser in a steelworks I would be concerned if they thought that the Cert was sufficient unless EITHER the ad made clear that particular experiences would be also needed OR the ad made it clear that the successful applicant would be in a team.

Of course, at least part of the problem will be employers trying to get professional advice on the cheap!!

MD in the box: "Not my fault my lud, we took on a health and safety officer to keep us right. They'd got one of those NEBOSHy things. Did everything they told us to do, but now we'll obviously need to find someone else. It's a shame that it was the H&S officer who fell into the slurry pit".

chris42  
#12 Posted : 01 May 2020 08:56:00(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
chris42

H&S Officers colleague in Box: “Yes, my lud they were responsible for providing H&S advice, but they also had to deal with Environmental issues, Quality issues, Mental first aid, Facilities management, security and general management and financial awareness of all these issues. Therefore, the time available for H&S advice was quite limited. However, they had no choice but cover all these areas as the institute they belong to insisted they have these skills and sold this concept to the MD, who now thought it was a given.”.

I would like to add my Lud, that they possibly didn’t fall in to the slurry pit, I think they may have jumped as they had had enough, and there was no one to provide mental health support to them!”

peter gotch  
#13 Posted : 01 May 2020 16:43:52(UTC)
Rank: Super forum user
peter gotch

Which raises the prospect of a prosecution of the professional institution by virtue of Section 36(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for causing the MD to make decisions that resulted in their organisation failing to protect the mental health of their OSH practitioner, a breach of Section 2(1) of said Act. [All assumes that this happens in GB].

Now that would be an interesting case (!) and following it would be good for a member's CPD and to help them attain some level of some of the 69 competencies. 

Users browsing this topic
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.