Morning bxuxa
To selectively quote from your post:
I don't think fear is the primary driver. I believe the greater impact often stems from commercial reasons
I suggest these two sentences are contradictory.
I agree entirely that the fear might have nothing to do with the regulator, but rather the potential impact of so called Blue Tape, e.g. that used in assessing the H&S "competence" of potential suppliers e.g. via prequalification questionnaries (PQQ).
I use the word "competence" perhaps a little loosely as HSE was scrupulous in getting rid of the word in the current iteration of CDM, but I suggest that the words that were put in to replace "competence" mean implicitly the same.
Some of those making the assessments of what potential suppliers say in their responses to PQQs apply a very simplistic approach to interpreting the information supplied, so MAY conclude that if a supplier says that they have had more e.g. RIDDOR reportable events than others being considered they might be less "competent".
However, that suggests to me a problem with the competence of those doing these assessment and is not a strong argument for organisations to use all the tricks in the book to manipulate the numbers down to the minimum they can get away with.
The more competent assessors realise that there are many variables to consider in coming to a view on the competence of those filling in PQQs etc, inclusive of e.g. the nature of the work to be outsourced (SOME tasks are inherently more dangerous than others), how much a potential supplier subcontracts (and where), and perhaps more important than anything else what systems the potential supplier has in place to investigate and learn from incidents that give rise to suggest that there may be room for improvement.
These more competent assessors will realise that benchmarking between potential suppliers A and B by numbers alone is almost impossible.
As a very simple example, imagine that a Client is looknig for a Contractor to build a £10m project.
Contractors A and B each say that they employ 1000 people.
Contractor A says that the Accident Frequency Rate (calculated by whatever method the Client has defined) is 28.
Contractor B says that their AFR is 14.
The simplistic assessor concludes that Contractor A is twice as bad as Contractor B. The numbers prove it!!!
However this assumes that comparing A and B is like looking at two apples of the same size (1000 employees) and misses the fact that A and B are very different animals.
So, if we establish that Contractor A's business model is to keep a tight lid on everything and to cmploy as many trades as practical inhouse, and the 1000 staff include e.g. demolition workers, steel erectors, scaffolders, roofers and other high risk trades......
...whereas Contractor B deliberately outsources almost everything and operates as a Management Contractor, then almost all their staff will spend most of their time sitting at desks (though with some occasionally walking around sites, but NOT actually doing high risk tasks)......
....then perhaps you should EXPECT that Contractor B's AFR to be MUCH higher than that for Contractor A and quite possibly by a factor of much more than 2.
Ergo, Contractor A is at least as good as Contractor B and if they keep things inhouse they are perhaps likely to have a better control of most aspects of how they do business? - though not necessarily.
BOTH business models are entirely valid.
Looking at any objective measure a Management Contractor can be just as effective as a Contractor that does most things itself, IF the Management Contractor has tight control over its supply chain.
So, with all these IFs and BUTs to consider is ANY competent assessor of what is submitted in a PQQ or similar going to make negative judgements purely on the basis of the numbers submitted?