Making Companies Safe - what works? (CCA ... - Unite the Union

What Drives Senior Management?
In light of these findings, and given the importance of senior management and board level
commitment to improved OHS performance, an important question for Government and for
the HSC/E is how best to motivate individual directors to assume responsibility for the safe
and healthy operation of their companies. A review of the available research reveals
consistent evidence that the single most effective means of securing the personal
commitment of senior managers would be to impose direct personal liability on company
directors and senior officers and to make available suitable sanctions in the event of noncompliance.
In his report to the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission of
Australia, Gunningham directly addresses the question of how Chief Executive Officers (CEOs)
and/ or business owners can be motivated to place a higher premium on, and commitment
to, improved occupational health and safety outcomes. Following a comprehensive review of
the international literature, Gunningham concludes that:
“the key to motivating CEOs and senior management to improve safety is to make
them liable to personal prosecution and to actually enforce such provisions. Such
prosecution is not only a powerful motivator to the CEO concerned, but also has
a flow-on effect to senior management in other organisations.” 15
This finding is supported by survey data from the UK, which reveals a widespread perception
that the imposition of legal duties on individual directors and senior managers – and
prosecution in the event of breaches of those duties – would provide a powerful antidote to
management apathy. For instance, in 2000 Brazabon et al. report that:
“The majority of interviewees perceive that if the number of prosecutions of
Directors and Corporate Manslaughter charges increased then this could result
in large improvements in health and safety standards as this may enforce the
message that directors are responsible for the health and safety of their
workforce.” 16
And in the same year Wright et al. report, following in-depth interviews with a representative
sample of 120 UK employers, that two thirds of the employers interviewed suggested that:
“an increase in the possibility of inspection and prosecution, especially of
individuals, would provide the best prompt for employers to improve their
approach to occupational health.” 17
This evidence reflects the research on the importance of legal regulation set out in the
previous section.
Reflections on current Government and HSC policy
Initial Government and HSC thinking in May and June 2000 appeared to be consistent with
the evidence and included proposals to introduce new legislation which would: (1) following
the conviction of a company for the proposed offence of ‘corporate killing’, allow for either
(a) criminal proceedings to be brought against individual company officers if they
“contribute” to the company’s serious management failure that resulted in death; or (b) allow
for the disqualification of directors; 18 and (2) impose statutory safety responsibilities on
company directors. 19
In addition the HSC undertook to develop guidance on directors’ responsibilities. 20 The
Commission published its voluntary guidance, Directors responsibility for health and safety, 21
in July 2001. The guidance is aimed principally at large companies and organisations and
imposes no legal requirements, with no possibility of enforcement in the event of directors
choosing not to assume any responsibilities for health and safety. The HSC also asked the
HSE to commission research to evaluate the effectiveness of the guidance. Two surveys – a
baseline survey in 2001 and a follow-up survey in 2003 – of 400 large private and public
sector organisations were carried out by Greenstreet Berman and the resulting analysis
published in July 2003.
25