I have recently moved from a major blue chip retailer working in one of 23 depots (RDC) being assessed every year by bsi 18001, they were hitting silver on each depot and the site safety target was go for gold. This resulted in long hours reviewing 18001 criteria and developing strategy to achieve points and therefore increase our scores with managers keen to 'beat' other depot scores rather than working proactively to reduce the risk of accidents. I have now moved to a small company 250+, no external auditing. What a difference, yes external auditing has its place, of course it does, but now I am concentrating on policy, procedures and legislation and have more time to think things through and come up with proactive measures that I can explore with the team I certainly don't have to think what will this look like to an outside body what are your experiences of external audit - am I alone in this view?

Not so much an answer but a request for feedback from others re the topic. I work for a multisite organisation and we are thinking of going down the 18001 route. Any tips or warnings not to would be appreciated. Anthony

In my experience, 18001 and the associated systems and procedures can be a drain on resources for not always any great tangible benefit to h&s. A lot of time can be wasted, both individually and as a broader management issue. Not to mention the expense of getting BSI etc to audit your organisation to 'allow' you to display the certificate. There is often both internal and external commercial pressure to maintain accreditation, often ending up with lip service being paid to 18001. I would say, get a copy of the standard, develop your SMS to the extent that you need it too - to help manage h&s in your company.

Ian, I went from a window company 100 people to electronics with 40. From 18001 standing in the wings waiting implementation should a customer insist to 18001 just a guiding principle with less headache of maintaining a full system. So suggest have an unofficial backup but in the main go with what you're doing now. Badger

I think they are great and have there pupose. BUT there is a lot of time consumed to achieve the status of having such 'certs', and I know a lot of companies have policies/plans and forms coming out their ears - none of which were ever used, but were fomulated so as when the auditors were around that box could be ticked. I'm not a great lover of having forms for the sake of it. It does not actually focusing on the task at hand that being ensuring the safety of our operatives.

My experience is that you need full management commitment or it is doomed to failure, or if not failure it is a big paperwork headache. Management commitment and performance appraisals count for an awful lot more than standardised systems, and normally contribute to safe systems of work. I have experience of both ends of the spectrum, with one particular Company Director who did not even know who the QA representative was and had absolutely no interest, until one of his lads was seriously hurt welding pipe work. He is still adamant that it is a worthless paper exercise and the poor guy who has to sit in front of the auditor every year hates his job.

I would echo your experience jarsmith 83. I don't understand the negativity.

While I agree to some extent that standards such as 18001 have value, I am reminded of W.R. Heinrich's assertion that 88% of injuries are due to unsafe acts and only 10% on unsafe conditions. While no one knows how he came up with those statistics, my experience leads me to believe those numbers are probably close to accurate. The preponderance of effort in compliance is devoted to fixing "things" rather than people, mainly because it's easier and one can document with objective evidence. By fixing people, I don't necessarily mean the average worker. The main fixing needs to be in the area of management, especially top management. Most top executives are vocal in their "support" of the health and safety programs for their respective companies but very few actively lead the program. In my opinion, more government regulation and compliance does not necessarily result in fewer injuries. If we spend the majority of our time and effort on something that is primarily focused on 10% of the injuries, how successful do you suppose we will be? 18001 and similar programs may make bad companies better but it will not make good companies any better.

In our case, OHSAS18001 has pulled in the involvement of top management. It has done this because of the requirement for corporate H&S objective setting. Yes most of it has been about "support" rather than leadership, Nevertheless, the corporate H&S objective setting has to involve a degree of leadership and decision making on the H&S agenda from the top. (Directors, MD and Trustees). I'm not saying OHSAS18001 is a complete solution to this issue. But, it's better than not having it in our case.

quote=Mike55]Buzz, I understand what you're saying and I don't dispute the fact that 18001 has value. If it has helped your company, that's great. I'm simply saying there is a tendency for organizations to focus on compliance and correcting physical hazards. Yes, there are requirements for management involvement in 18001 but regulations can't dictate organizational philosophy or commitment to H&S. One could be 100% compliant and still have a lot of injuries. On the flip side, you could ignore the regulations completely and have zero incidents if your corporate culture was such that every employee from the CEO on down took ownership of the safety program.

Mike55. To be fair to Heinrich, it's not exactly what he said. He said we should identify the "nearest proximate" which led to the 88% figure. Of course most accidents are multi-causal. A 1953 study of 93,000 accidents in Pennsylvania (with similar results in 1960 follow-up) concluded that over 90% of fatal and non-fatal accidents were associated with an unsafe behaviour, but that over 90% were also associated with at least one unsafe condition. BST report in 2011 followed concerns by seven multinationals that while their overall accident frequency rates were on a continuing downward trend, rates for Serious Injuries and Fatalities (SIFs) were plateauing or in some cases rising. BST concluded that only 20% of incidents at the bottom of the triangle were precursors of SIFs. Similar trends for SIFs compared to all AFRs have been identified in North America and Europe, with much smaller downward trends in SIFs than less serious injuries. For example 2005 report by National Council on Compensation Insurance in the States looked at downward trends in claims 1999-2003. 34% drop in claims of <$2,000, conversely only 7% fall in claims >$50,000