We have a particualr client, who performs the role of Duty Holder (their offshore installation, working under their SSoW), which does not seem to have the same level of safety culture as our organisation.

This is not to say that work practices are unsafe or that there are unsafe conditions present which means an incident is inevitable - in terms of risk assessment, all process are well controlled and robust.

However, we have several mechanisms to proactively monitor health and safety performance which are usually encouraged by our other clients (even if they do not conduct these with in their own management system) and provision is made to facilitate these mechanisms (these mechanisms are linked to our KPI's).

This particular client will not be flexible in allowing time to be set aside for us to conduct such mechanisms as Hazard Hunts (proactive safety inspections/work site inspections) and Self-Verifications (Hosuekeeping inspections & PPE Checklists).

Client Senior Management have made this clear that the decision to allow us to complete related acitivtes is at Local Management discretion - has anybody been in a similar situation and is there any advice as to how any similar situations have been brought to resolution? Are we at the point that such mechanisms should be negotiated and bound contractually with this particular client?

Thank you.

Positive Reply:

Thank you so much for describing the situation in such fine detail. It is comforting to understand that, from a risk management perspective, your client's work procedures are contained and solid, and there is no suggestion of unsafe conditions. The further fact that you also create and maintain better standards and anticipatory safety watch mechanisms within your own organization is highly appreciable. Your commitment to continuous health and safety improvement is clear, and it is reassuring that your other clients value your proactive measures, seeing the good that you do.

Regarding the current client, perhaps through continued dialogue at local and senior management levels, and by reporting on the positive results of your proactive action (such as reduced incidents, improved housekeeping, or increased near-miss reporting), there may be scope to build up progressively a greater safety culture on both sides. Presenting facts and case studies showing the value such activities have brought about in similar environments might be able to persuade the client of their value. Finally, as you suggest, it might be negotiable to incorporate such provisions contractually, especially if you can demonstrate a mutual benefit.

Negative Reply:

Thank you for bringing these matters to my attention. Sadly, it is disturbing that the client is not open to adopting or even accepting proactive health and safety systems like the ones you've implemented elsewhere. This inflexibility may indicate reluctance to step beyond minimal standards or deficiency in understanding how proactive safety culture can really benefit them and their operation and staff. Though their methods are "robust" in theory, real-world safety performance is oftentimes dependent upon breaking out of compliance. Keeping time for key activities like Hazard Hunts and Self-Verifications to a minimum may compromise your own firm's standards and invite trouble or risk exposure.

If such attempts at communication and cooperation continue to prove abortive, then you will need to consider enshrining such proactive steps as an absolute contractual requirement in any and all subsequent deals with this client. Not only would this protect your firm's standards and reputation but also stand as a testament to your company's values towards safety. If the client remains obstinate about embracing such baseline best practices, you may be forced to question the fit of the current relationship to the long term.