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

• Finally, the research does not control for the fact that companies – particularly large and
well-resourced companies – often attempt to pre-empt and/or prepare for new legislation
by voluntarily putting in place the required arrangements before the legislation itself is
introduced. So for instance, Gunningham cites one study reporting that it is not just
actual legislation but also “planned or threatened… legislation… [which] was the most
frequently cited driver of company action.” 31 In view of the fact that Ministers were
stating their intention in 2000 to introduce new laws on directors’ duties, it is probable
that organisations’ anticipation of government action explains and underlies some portion
of the reported levels of board direction of health and safety in both the baseline
(2001-2002) and the follow-up (2003) surveys.
Fourth, the research was not designed to assess the relative merits of a voluntary as opposed
to a mandatory approach to directors’ duties. In other words, it was not designed to answer
the question: what works best? Research and reviews that attempt to answer this question
indicate, overwhelmingly, that regulation and enforcement are the main drivers of
management commitment to, and action on, OHS.
Fifth, the research findings are not robust since they are based on self-report surveys with no
attempt made to validate respondents’ claims.
And finally, it is important to note that around one third of the large organisations surveyed
reported that their boards had assumed no responsibility for health and safety, despite the fact
that the majority of firms surveyed 32 were aware of the voluntary guidance. Moreover, around
15 per cent of the organisations surveyed indicated that they had no plans to change this
arrangement.
This means that even if the majority of directors of large organisations could be persuaded to
voluntarily assume some responsibilities for health and safety, there will be a significant
minority of directors that won’t assume any responsibilities and the HSE will be unable to do
anything about it. Furthermore, if these directors choose to delegate all OHS responsibilities,
and insulate themselves from knowing about safety problems within their companies, it may
well be impossible to hold these directors to account.
This is problematic on a number of grounds, not least because the law is failing to provide
a deterrent against directors that are wholly indifferent to the dangers posed by their
companies. It is also of concern in that it creates a situation where the most conscientious
directors (those who are scrupulous in keeping themselves informed about conditions
of health and safety within their companies) are putting themselves at greater risk of
prosecution than unscrupulous directors who fail to ensure that their companies comply with
OHS law, and who deliberately insulate themselves from having any knowledge of problems
or instances of non-compliance.
What the Select Committee on Work and Pension said on Directors
Duties
“The Committee recommends that the Government reconsiders its decision not to
legislate on directors duties and brings forward proposals for prelegislative scrutiny in
the next session of Parliament.”(July 2004)
27