Hello all,

As a lowly IOSH member across the pond, I would appreciate getting a sense from those of you that cover OH&S AND environmental protection how much proportionally does the environmental protection part of your work responsibilities involve? I ask because here in Canada we have strong environmental protection legislation, but a relatively small proportion of full-time OH&S practitoners here seem to have environmental protection as part of their assigned duties.  

Your feedback is appreciated!

Argyll

Across the Pond  

Approx.  25% to 33% of my time is Environmental. Then the same again for Quality Assurance. Then H&S has to fight for my time from other “stuff” I’m asked to do.

These are built into my job title. The other Stuff is not.

Chris

I spent 30 years in Q before getting into HSE, and I think you have to look at two things here when considering the integration of Q into SHE (ie is it a good idea or not).

Risk management - this is all the same, but just differently expressed. Q = risk of supplying non-conforming product; H&S = risk of harming people; E = risk of polluting the environment. A lot of the tools to manage the risks in any of these disciplines are totally interchangeable (ie Ishikawa, 8D etc)

Management systems = all now based on one principle - Plan, Do, Check, Act (Deming Cycle). ISO 9001 / 14001 / 45001 all harmonised with largely the same clauses. 

However, I agree that IOSH should not be getting any Q or E into its frameworks. I'm not seeing this with IEMA and I don't subscribe to the IOSH view that every other institution is moving with the times in this regard. I don't believe CQI to be "up there" in terms of things that we as safety practitioners should aspire to.

Argyll

Only a fraction of the next generation of UK OHS practitioners learn via such graduate programmes, but I think that it is inevitable that there will (and should) be a more integrated approach to include Environment (but perhaps with less need to tack on Quality or the various other disciplines that sometimes get dumped on OSH professionals).

But it has taken UK plc a very, very long time to recognise (still not very well) that the H is at least as important (if not much more so) than the S, and many OSH practitioners have quite enough challenges to help overcome without the need to have E added to their agenda.

However, at the very least, OSH practitioners do need to consider the impact of their recommendations on the Environment. You only have to look at the number of people advocating throwing lots of nasty disinfectants and other chemicals at the current pandemic to recognise that what is done in the name of Health, can have a devastating impact on the Environment.

In the first few decades of the 19th Century, Glasgow got most of its drinking water from the River Clyde (and its tributaries). The heritage of industrialisation means that tonnes and tonnes of nasty chemicals, heavy metals, asbestos etc have reached the Clyde by run off and other means (including deliberate dumping) and I hate to think what would be involved in treating water from the Clyde to make it fit for consumption in 2020.

But much of the drinking water in places in e.g. England still get their drinking water from river sources. So, those dealing with the occupational risks associated with e.g. steelworks or agriculture need to consider that impact of processes, not only in terms of the direct impact on the environment, but the indirect impact on human health.

AND, of course, some less developed nations consider that it is their right to repeat some of the mistakes that have been historically made in developed nations (and still being advocated by some in those developed nations).

Argyll

Don't actually know what the breakdown of qualifications leading to e.g. Graduate membership of IOSH is.

A question you might put to Membership Department. Someone in IOSH should know (at least roughly).

Kate - your comment is an illustration as to how poor those placing recruitment ads may be at assessing what might be appropriate to specify.

Now if you are advertising for a Health and Safety Adviser for a TV productions company I could see that you might specify NEBOSH Certificate (though preferably adding "or equivalent", or even better a direct reference to the EQF) + relevant experience.

In contrast if you were advertising for someone to be a Health and Safety Adviser in a steelworks I would be concerned if they thought that the Cert was sufficient unless EITHER the ad made clear that particular experiences would be also needed OR the ad made it clear that the successful applicant would be in a team.

Of course, at least part of the problem will be employers trying to get professional advice on the cheap!!

MD in the box: "Not my fault my lud, we took on a health and safety officer to keep us right. They'd got one of those NEBOSHy things. Did everything they told us to do, but now we'll obviously need to find someone else. It's a shame that it was the H&S officer who fell into the slurry pit".

Which raises the prospect of a prosecution of the professional institution by virtue of Section 36(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 for causing the MD to make decisions that resulted in their organisation failing to protect the mental health of their OSH practitioner, a breach of Section 2(1) of said Act. [All assumes that this happens in GB].

Now that would be an interesting case (!) and following it would be good for a member's CPD and to help them attain some level of some of the 69 competencies.