This has been bothering me some time and would like to get others' opinion on this. I believe that HS professionals have a primary responsibility to safeguard health and safety of employees or of visitors in their organisations. Also, I believe that there is an implied responsibility towards general population or the mankind for that matter. Well, the difficulty I am having in picturing this is in the case of H&S professionals working in tobacco and similar manufacturing establishments. I do not intend any malice towards any industry in particular, but as an example. How does it really work? Any thoughts?

I think the answer is that as a professional you have a duty to your client to give them best advice possible with in your capabilities. Someone working in the tobacco industry or the arms industry is just as entitled to H&S help as anybody else( in fact the law expects them to have such H&S assistance) . it is the same as a doctor has a duty to provide medical assistance to anybody who needs irrespective of what they have done and even the worst criminal is entitled advice- lawyers call it the taxi rank principle. So yes there is a ethical aspect to H&S.

The days when I thought I could 'save' the wider population or 'mankind' are, I am afraid, long gone. I concentrate on those risks my employer 'directly creates' and how that might affect those who may be exposed and then advise my 'employer' on a proportionate approach to managing those risks, or possibly even retaining the health and safety risk while explaining the financial, PR and other risks of doing so. So while there is clearly an 'ethical' element to my work (see IOSH code of ethics) any attempt to try to project my influence as the saviour of mankind is I would suggest a rather futile exercise; my superman outfit is gathering dust in the wardrobe. Ian, I have heard you say much the same before. You seem to be suggesting that 'health and safety' is the responsibility of the Health and safety officer/advisor/manager' alone. Such a notion should have been consigned to the bin an age ago. Whether you like it or not, most of our roles are to advise our employers on what they should or shouldn't be doing, and if necessary to try and influence them to change their minds, if it needs changing. I wonder what you propose or expect 'us' to do then? Pay for controls and precautions out of our own pockets or some other 'idealism''? I, and i am sure many others here get frustrated when our advice is ignored but Ultimately, maybe unfortunately, in many/most organisations the 'health and safety officer/advisor/manager' or whatever doesn't hold the corporate purse strings (if any budget at all) nor hold the deciding vote in the board room. Perhaps you would like to enlighten us on what we should be doing?

Perhaps the owners of these places may get a shot of love and close the dam things down...Hells teeth, what am I smoking???? PE4 or....

Ethics are far bigger than just as stated by HR. We make ethical choices in everything we do from the development of a simple risk assessment to restructuring how H&S is done in an organisation. Somebody there is a book to written here. Would ask my wife but she says Moral Ethics and Religion are her field:-)

If we do this, who will we work for? Clothing & shoe retail who are implicit in slave labour and factory workers dying through poor work conditions. NHS who have put management empire building above patient care. Food retailers who allowed pork in products to contaminate products that has meant people have violated their religious beliefs. Bankers whose greed has inflicted financial misery on the whole of the UK population. Well known multinationals ( and the others we don’t know about) who avoid paying their fair share of tax. The DWP who insist my friend with advanced Parkinson’s disease must look for work “as he might get better”. The government & civil service who allowed all of the above to happen, but now think a pay rise of 10k for MPs is morally acceptable.

jfw... on the money mate. Well said

Ian, you should work in the electrical world make. The trade is in a right mess. Cannot go into detail here but....

Ian. I have heard all the swipes and snipes regarding the use of pseudonyms, so feel free to use the user name i have chosen! As something of an aside, the use of pseudonyms on this forum is entirely consistent with the forum rules and i aren't and nor am i required to justify that to you or anybody else! And nor am i prepared to be bullied about it either. Unless i am being particularly obtuse, it seems to me that you have rather deftly side stepped the question. What do YOU suggest that we do then? IF you have the answer please do share it with us! I don't see the argument of giving adviceis a cop out. Are you seriously suggesting that you have ensured that EVERY piece of advice that you have given as a consultant is followed through to the letter? The reality is as i have already alluded to, is that the majority of us can try our best to improve the management of risks, and/or compliance with the law etc.using all the usual methods, and some unusual ones as well, but again most of us don't hold the purse strings of have, for various reasons, personal, cultural or organisational, the clout to FORCE change. Again, IF you have access to the golden nugget, please feel free to share your wisdom with us all for the greater good! I am sure that others along with me would welcome your insight, rather than having you simply reminding us of how unprofessional we are!

Hello Latecomer to this discussion, but it touches a nerve I am noticing is more exposed amongst many these days. IMHO Safety is either a 'life choice', 'career', or a 'job'. As a life choice it essentially is something that all things being equal, you would not need paid for. It just happens and you live it. In todays market, this is a very difficult place to be, you are likely to lose sleep at night as you will want to change everything and are unlikely to be able to. It feels noble and ethical to take this path, no doubt, but its tough. Lost sleep at night over things you want to change comes with the package. As a career its something you want to excel in, its the middle ground, its a way to progress and probably be a bit better off (really???) but its also something you care about and as such nobility and ethics come with the package. The frustrations felt by the 'life choice' practitioner will still exist here but more probably as a challenge to be overcome than something that keeps you awake at night. Arguably, the best sleep is to be found in thinking of safety simply as a job. You give the advice and people take it or they dont. You are doing your job. However it is a mistake to think that this category of practitioner is any less ethical than either of the above. I believe its simply personality types that separate these categories and your own personal sense of ethics that governs what you will condone. I consider myself as somewhere between 'Life choice' and 'Career' and I think I have an ethical approach. I have met others in the industry who have clearly been 'Life choice' people and I have seen them destroy others for safety misdemeanours, where I would have used less agressive corrective techniques. That may be seen as strongly ethical by some and simply as browbeating and imposing your opinion by others. I suppose, the short version of what I am suggesting is, there is not necessary a link between practitioner type or approach and ethical standards. I think.......

Just arrived at this thread...very profound indeed. Quoting Baron Thurlow's 18th century comment - A corporation has no soul to save and no body to incarcerate. Nothing much has changed.

I have just noticed that the quote from the IOSH Code of Conduct at #20 is taken from the old code (pre 03/13) and not the current one. I cannot find any such statement in the current code. The latest code has a more focused directive. 'It has at its heart the IOSH vision of “a world of work which is safe, healthy and sustainable”. It provides a strong ethical foundation for all our members working towards this vision.' AND 'In scope, the Code applies principally to the activities of members as health and safety professionals. Members owe a primary loyalty to those at risk and should seek to ensure professional independence in the execution of their duties.' p48

Ian, at the risk of being lambasted I find your posts very judgemental to the point that they become quite irksome. I, for one, do not' hide' behind a pseudonym but understand that some practitioners for professional reasons prefer anonymity - that's there choice. The world would be a better place if we were all a little more tolerant of other people's opinions - how's that for the moral high ground?

Choosing who we work for is often a personal choice, I know some people who would never dream of working outside a charity, or in the private sector. Although I suspect the reasons are always more complex, and always due to other personal reasons too. Would a vegetarian work for a meat company? The examples are almost endless, but everybody has the right to good H&S at work, regardless of whether 'we' think its an ethical business. Where would you draw the line? Ones man's meat is another man's murder..... In the Advice Vs Responsibility argument, interesting to see how we run the risk of tarring everybody with the same brush. Surely this depends on how close you are to the top? An entry level safety assistant or junior safety officer has far less influence, a safety director has far more influence, surely the deciding factor here is the influence of the person in the operation of the business?