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

provides stronger evidence that seminars may be effective in stimulating action. But there are
a number of reasons why future action should not be based on the results on this single study.
First, seminars are only likely to attract more highly motivated companies. So seminars do not
provide an effective medium for reaching the poor performers or small employers. Second,
there are problems in judging the relative effectiveness of seminars as compared to
inspections, since the seminar sample was self-selecting whilst the inspection sample was not.
Also, the smaller number of inspections undertaken means that there was not sufficient data
to compare the effects of inspections with seminars in relation to most of the different
sectors. So whilst seminars appeared particularly effective at stimulating action in construction
and agriculture, we do not know how this compares to the effects of inspections within these
sectors. Also, since construction and agriculture have particularly high rates of death and
injury relative to other sectors, it would be unwise, on the basis of such limited data, to
substitute seminars or similar activities for inspections within these sectors.
Finally, even if employers were driven primarily by a conviction that it is morally right to
protect the health and safety of workers, the assumption that information-based strategies
will be enough to secure OHS improvements amongst the majority of organisations is based
on a rather simplistic notion of firm behaviour. The evidence shows that occupational health
and safety will generally be one amongst many other priorities competing for management
attention and resources. And the consequences of this are apparent in the findings of many
UK studies, which show that compliance is often patchy even when levels of knowledge
and understanding are high. This indicates that knowledge is not enough – absent the threat
and reality of enforcement – to secure adequate improvements in the health and safety
performance of individual firms.
This does not mean that campaigns and educational activities are not important. But it does
imply that these activities are at best a ‘partial strategy’ 45 that will only be effective if they
occur in the context of consistent and frequent inspections backed by enforcement activity.
Moreover, the study by Rakel et al. shows that information and guidance may be insufficient
drivers even in the context of firms that appear highly motivated since the study showed that
levels of action following both seminars and mailshots were lowest amongst those firms
expressing a wish for more information. 46 Consequently, while it may be important to explore
more effective methods for communicating with organisations, and especially SMEs, it is also
crucial that this occurs within a framework where there is a credible level of enforcement.
1 Wright et al. (2004: 36).
2 Hillage et al. (2001: 24).
3 For instance Honey et al.’s (1997) evaluation of the ‘Breathe Freely’ campaign, Thomson-MTS (1993a: 7)
and Hillage et al. (2001: 24).
4 Hillage et al. (2001: 23).
5 Wright et al. (2000).
6 Wright et al. (2000: 22, 98).
7 See Wright et al. (2000: 113-115).
8 Wright et al. (2000: 40).
9 The data tell us nothing about either the adequacy of any action taken, nor whether the most significant health risks within
each organisation have been addressed, nor whether firms were in compliance with specific health and safety regulations.
10 Hillage et al. (2001: 24).
11 Wright et al. (2000).
12 Honey et al. (1997).
13 Hillage et al. (2001: 34).
14 Rakel et al. (1999).
15 Wright et al. (2000); and Mayhew et al. (1997). 65