Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Richard Beevers
Morning all,
Yesterday I sat through our Audit Committee, and shocked them with the news that we were not yet fully compliant with all the regulations that apply to our business. After calming them down, and clarifying the plans we have tobecome comliant, I was asked wheter it was (un)usual for an organisation to be non-compliant.
It got me wondering. HAving audited many companies, I know there are very few that can effectively demonstrate 100% compliance. Without naming names, how compliant are forum users companies? I'll set the ball rolling with around 80%.
How compliant with UK safety laws is UK plc?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
I work for an oil company, as far as i can see, we have near 100% compliance, but nobodys perfect ;)
Regards
M Forbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By garyh
I have worked for blue chip companies, and not so blue chip.
In my experience, it is impossible to comply 100% with everything at all times.
However...........it's all risk based. If you are hitting the important areas, no worries; you then have an improvement plan to comply with the rest.
One organisation I worked for had as one of it's policy statements the OBJECTIVE to "comply with all applicable legislation".
They did not say they WOULD, it was an objective. Fair enough, I say.
What would not be acceptable is to use this as an excuse for deliberate non compliance, in my view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Richard
It is a good question and one that I have mulled over of many occasions. In my experience working with large organisations most have the policies in place but do not fully implement them for one reason or another. Organisations are also slow in adopting new legislation within the company.
I would say as a best guess that small companies are between 20-70%, medium 40-90% and large 80-95% compliant. It very often depends on the nature of the business and industry sector. Those is a low-risk environment tend to be the worst offenders.
I agree with the previous poster in that I am not sure one could ever be 100% compliant.
Regards
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By M Forbes
Really as long as a company is complying with the "serious" issues, the minor ones can usually go ignored, until theres an accident. . . . . in which case your boss whos been letting it happen turns into a preacher . . .
Like I said though I work for a multinational oil company, and we are highly compliant. However i'd never make the statement that we are 100% compliant, simply because i dont believe it's possible.
Regards
M Forbes
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Beevers
Ray,
I'd agree with those figures.
I think for lower risk companies (like my current employer) low risk = "no risk" = no management.
Anyone else a view on how compliant the UK is? Would the HSE get 100% on an audit against HSG 65?
Al.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert.
The companies themselves however large, would admit to being compliant (who wouldn't) on paper. It's when you get to the sharp end and start observing near misses and deviations from company standards and operating procedures that you relalise that total compliance is very difficult to achieve--------in all industries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Al..
We are over-regulated in this country and total compliance is too difficult for most. Most organisations, probably without realising it, carry out risk assessments when determining with which legislation they are going to comply.
Risk = Likelihood x consequences (as we all know)
Likelihood is the chances of getting caught if you don't comply.
Consequences is what happens if you do get caught.
I reckon my company is about 80 percent compliant with health and safety law. The investment required to be 100 percent compliant would be massive. It would just not be "reasonably practicable" to do it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Pete48
When you find the perfect, infallible person and then a group of similar, you will find 100% compliance. It is self evident that 100% compliance is not practicable in any area of the law, so maybe that is not what is intended?
That is if you are measuring strict compliance with all regulatory requirements, duties etc.
Using 100% compliance to every last little rule as a measure of anything relevant to successful management puzzles me. It may give an indication of one of the consequences to the organisation of an error but then as others have said; it is where that error is most likely to occur that is important not the non-compliance itself.
I think the level of compliance is proportional to: the level of understanding and application of H&S by line managers; staff turnover; number of locations etc etc. It is variable and is not necessarily directly linked to the size of the organisation. The size may well apply other pressures such as commercial reputation which will justify effort and cost.
Recent examples of failure in the oil/gas sector illustrate that large blue chips are not 100% compliant and suffer the same type of failures as anyone else; as do railway accidents.
I have seen small companies that are 100% compliant for longer periods than big companies and maintain a higher level of compliance for longer.
I wonder how many of us comply 100% with our duties as citizens? And if it is OK for us not to do so why is it not OK in business?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.