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

with… Other studies found that while employers fulfilled some aspects of the
regulations, they often did not take the required comprehensive action.” 30
Hillage et al. specifically cite studies by Swan et al. (1998) and Lancaster et al. (2001), to
support these conclusions. For instance, Swan et al. found that while there was a high
general awareness of Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 1988,
there was low compliance with Schedule 9 and the Approved Code of Practive (AcoP). Other
studies similarly demonstrate that even where employers are aware of regulations, compliance
is frequently incomplete and inadequate.
This seems to be particularly true in relation to risk assessments, where findings from a
number of studies suggest that these are treated as a paper exercise. For instance, a study of
causal factors in construction incidents by Loughborough University and UMIST found in
relation to the 100 incidents studied that where risk assessments did exist these were
largely “a paper exercise”, often forming part of a method statement, which had a limited
applicability to actual work circumstances. 31 And Thomson-MTS found amongst ten case
study firms, that of the nine companies that had carried out a noise assessment as required by
the Noise at Work Regulations, only four were adequate in terms of complying the legislation. 32
Further demonstration of the fact that compliance is often inadequate can be found in
studies which show that, whilst organisations may technically comply with legislation, they
will often choose to apply the easiest and / or the cheapest control methods instead of those
that are recommended by guidance or regulations as providing the most effective, and
therefore preferable, means of controlling, reducing or eliminating risks. For instance, various
studies have found that:
• personal protective equipment (PPE) “is relied upon habitually as a substitute for risk
elimination or reduction at source” in the construction industry; 33
• companies that use chemicals are most likely to rely on PPE or use of process controls (for
example ventilation systems) to control risks, rather than substitution of a hazardous
substance or using it in a safer form; 34
• most employers may provide workers with hearing protection but frequently fail to
improve engineering control of noise because of the perceived costs involved. 35
What stops employers translating knowledge into action?
The studies reviewed provide ample evidence that even when employers possess knowledge
and awareness of health hazards they may still fail to take action to improve their OHS
performance, or even to ensure compliance with regulatory requirements. Interview data from
the UK indicates that the extent and adequacy of compliance with health and safety
legislation is contingent upon numerous commercial and organisational factors. For
instance, Mayhew and Quinlan found in the residential building sectors of Australia and
Britain that self-employed builders thought that complying with legislation would make them
uncompetitive, and that breaches of OHS regulations were directly linked to attempts to
minimise costs. 36 Similarly, Thomson-MTS found that senior management’s attitudes towards
hearing conservation:
“were influenced by overriding concerns with commercial factors: namely
productivity, profit and public relations”. 37
And whilst one or two senior managers saw hearing conservation as enhancing productivity
and / or firm image, the majority stated that they would not take further action on limiting
the risk of noise-induced hearing loss on the grounds that noise control measures would
decrease productivity, and / or that such measures simply represented a cost with no obvious
or immediate payback. 38
What these findings suggest is that even if the majority of employers believe that they have
a moral duty to protect the health and safety of their workforce, this conviction is not strong
enough to overcome either the imperatives of profit and production, or the distraction of
other competing priorities.
63