Hi Hayley.
How long is your presentation supposed to take?
Do you have a feel for how committed the interviewers are or are NOT to behavioural safety?
Kate's tips are good and I am largely in the TUC camp, though I can see some benefit in a BBS programme if done in the right environment, where there is serious focus on tackling unsafe CONDITIONS as the priority before unsafe ACTIONS.
Most of these programmes emanate from some variant of what Heinrich wrote in 1931 - he concluded that the most "proximate" cause of accidents was 88% unsafe behaviours, 9% unsafe conditions, with 3% being accidents with no obvious, practical way of stopping them.
Others have upped that 88%.
But most practitioners work on the assumption that most accidents are multi-causal.
Two successive large scale studies in the US in the 1960s each concluded that over 90% of accidents were down to unsafe behaviours AND that over 90% were down to unsafe conditions.
But it takes much more effort to deal with the unsafe conditions when the alternative is to dish out yellow and red cards to workers who are not doing what they are told (often without bothering them ask them why they are not following the rules).
...and often these programmes are all about numbers management. Counting the number of days/working hours since the last accident (of whatever definition) - that often results in fiddling of the figures - change the outcome from e.g. reportable injury into something else, say that it is for someone else to count or whatever. Happened at Deepwater and many other well documented incidents.
...and rarely does anyone bother to count the occupational illness - a far bigger problem but usually in the future. Ditto environmental impacts. In each case large organisations have shown that they are also prepared to lawyer up and put off the consequences for years or decades.
So, as example you could download the 2017 Sustainability Report for Vale (a Brazilian multinational). In it you will find a graph showing a general downward trend in recordable injuries.
...however if you look elsewhere in that report there is commentary on the financial impacts arising from the Brumadinho dam collapse (which killed 19 - a relatively small number when put into the context of overall recordable injuries).
What that report could not reasonably comment on would be what then happened at Brumadinho with nearly 300 deaths.
I have a long standing dislike of that board at the site entrance saying X days since last incident. It is particularly depressing when you turn up after a fatality - something usually difficult to hide, such that the board has been reset to NIL.
...and organisations can be and have been lulled in a false sense of security by such boards.