Dear All

If this subject has been done to death please accept my apologies and point me towards the applicable thread as my search activities cannot find one.

An organisation [nameless] employs a full time H&S Practitioner [nameless]. 2010 orders are down on predicted and 'restructuring' proposed.

Proposal to delegate function to non- qualified internal resource with potential external consultant brought in when needed. Dispense with full time in- house qualified function. [Sound familiar anyone!?]

Even scaled down, organisation still around £20m turnover and well in excess of 100 staff. Medium/ High risk sector [have to be careful not to disclose too much for commercial sensitivities].

My question is: There is a laudable wealth of expertise online reiterating the commercial, legal and advantageous reasoning behind keeping focussed on H&S in tougher times. Plus, the [nameless] practitioner has done their homework and presented a robust business case already. However, it would be very useful for said practitioner's esteemed colleagues to support this statement with professional opinion/ experience of similar situations to demonstrate that it is not the subjective and vested opinion of someone trying to look after their own interests.

Many thanks.

Nameless practitioner

As you can appreciate, the root issue concerns how the organisation makes its strategic and tactical decisions.

As is well explained in 'At the Sharp End' (Fin and colleagues, 2008), there are basically 4 strategic options: precedent-following, rule-following, researching/choosing options, creative.

The answer to your question depends on what strategic option your company leaders prefer and how you may influence their perceptions of their options.