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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Chapter Eight Developing Partnerships As stated in the introduction, HSC/E is hoping to increase its ability to ‘influence’ and ‘encourage’ employers to improve their occupational health and safety (OHS) performance by developing strategic partnerships and relationships with organisations, groups and individuals who occupy key positions within (or in relation to) particular organisations, or within particular supply chains. Once again, the emphasis is on securing compliance through co-operation and agreement rather than through enforcement of the law. There is very little published evidence relating to the impact of such approaches in terms of targeting particular duty holders (such as clients in the construction industry) in part because they have not so far been pursued in a systematic way. There is some evidence that initiatives to persuade manufacturers and suppliers of industrial equipment to change to a safer design were successful. 1 However as observed by Hillage et al., the precise role played by the regulator is not clear from the HSE’s report. Nor does the report provide data on injuries to enable an assessment of the impact of the initiatives on actual outcomes. 2 The National Audit Office has recently reported approvingly on HSE’s initiatives to influence designers, clients and those at the head of the contractual chain on selected construction projects to improve OHS management. However, reports that these initiatives were successful have been entirely anecdotal and there is no evidence on health and safety outcomes. 3 In addition, survey evidence from the UK construction industry indicates that the historical failure of clients and designers to prioritise health and safety has been due, in part, to the HSE’s failure to enforce the law in relation to these duty holders. It seems odd, then, that the HSE appear to have rejected enforcement as a possible solution to clients and designers’ non-compliance with the CDM Regulations. HSE has also launched a handful of sector-specific collaborative initiatives, including the PABIAC initiative in the paper industry, the ‘Step Change’ initiative in the offshore oil industry and the ‘Recipe for Safety’ initiative in the food and drinks industry. Some evidence relating to these has been reviewed by Wright et al., who claim that in each case: “There is a strong body of evidence that these initiatives have met with significant success in a number of respects, including: significant quantitative improvements in injury rates; audited improvements in health and safety management arrangements; improved understanding of health and safety expectations; and improved levels of worker participation.” 4 However there is only one proper published evaluation of any of these initiatives, and this is of the Paper Board Industry Advisory Committee (PABIAC) initiative. 5 This report provides evidence that the PABIAC initiative brought about improvements in health and safety management and culture in the individual mills involved. However, whilst the published evaluation of this initiative and the review by Wright et al. (2004) suggest that this is an example of successful voluntary compliance, an internal report by the HSE on the initiative makes clear that the HSE increased inspection and enforcement activity in relation to the 80- odd mills involved. 6 This was, then, a case of partnership and intensive HSE leadership and guidance in the context of increased enforcement. Evidence relating to the impact of the ‘Step Change’ initiative is mixed. Horbury et al., refer to evidence of ‘marked improvements in offshore safety performance in year four’ of the Step Change initiative, and state that by March 2001 there had been a 43% improvement in the total injury rate and a 26% improvement in the fatal and major injury rate compared to 1997 67
– the year that the initiative was launched. 7 However, a recent review of the major and fatal injury rate data, using a 3-year ‘rolling’ average of fatal and major injury rates per 100,000 workers, shows a long-term upward trend in the offshore incident rates since 1993 and: “For the years of the Step Change program, since its launch in 1997, incident rates appear to have reached a plateau showing no significant safety improvements, following an initial increase in rates during the first years of Step Change, which may be a ‘reporting effect’.” 8 We could find no published evaluation of the ‘Recipe for Safety’ initiative and are therefore unable to comment on Wright et al.’s assertion that the initiative was successful. 68 1 Cosman (1999). 2 Hillage et al. (2001: 31). 3 National Audit Office (2004: 18-21). 4 Wright et al. (2004: 59). 5 Horbury et al. (2002). 6 Health and Safety Commission (undated). 7 Horbury et al. (2002). 8 Woolfson (2004 forthcoming).
Page 1 and 2:
Making companies safe: What works?
Page 3 and 4:
Acknowledgments: Courtney Davis wou
Page 5 and 6:
Contents INTRODUCTION 7 MAIN FINDIN
Page 7 and 8:
So for example, the new Strategy do
Page 9 and 10:
“In recent years, there had been
Page 11 and 12:
Chapter eight is a short chapter lo
Page 13 and 14:
• The only sector-specific data o
Page 16: PART ONE Legal Regulation v Volunta
Page 19 and 20: self-regulation through the adoptio
Page 21 and 22: • A number of studies evaluating
Page 23 and 24: Gap in the law Yet despite the impo
Page 25 and 26: By September 2002 the Government ha
Page 27 and 28: Conclusion In conclusion, the Green
Page 29 and 30: effectiveness of safety representat
Page 32 and 33: Chapter Four Conclusion There is ve
Page 34: PARTS TWO & THREE Strategies to sec
Page 37 and 38: A recent HSE discussion paper illus
Page 40 and 41: Chapter Five The Health and Safety
Page 42 and 43: Support for these findings comes fr
Page 44 and 45: Gray and Scholz attempt to understa
Page 46 and 47: perceived low level of current fine
Page 48 and 49: Chapter Six The Implications for th
Page 50 and 51: five times greater than if one had
Page 52: Select Committee on Work and Pensio
Page 56: The evidence reviewed in part two s
Page 59 and 60: health risk management between “a
Page 61 and 62: The relationship between knowledge
Page 63 and 64: Conclusion Whatever factors prompt
Page 65: 16 This was at an aggregate level.
Page 69 and 70: When safety does not pay (or does n
Page 71 and 72: Similarly, firms might make an econ
Page 73 and 74: However, even in the context of mul
Page 75 and 76: does, exert a negative influence on
Page 77 and 78: to cost “a little” or “nothin
Page 79 and 80: For instance, when BP Grangemouth r
Page 82 and 83: Chapter Ten ‘Earned Autonomy’ T
Page 84 and 85: A similar experiment in self-regula
Page 86 and 87: Whilst the original focus of TQM wa
Page 88 and 89: “the more firms incorporate ethic
Page 90 and 91: “In Norway the mandated model is
Page 92 and 93: odies, pressure groups and/or the m
Page 94 and 95: Health and Safety Management System
Page 96 and 97: Gunningham and Johnstone argue that
Page 98 and 99: Conclusion Proposals that some comp
Page 100 and 101: 37 The Norwegian Internal Control R
Page 102 and 103: PART FOUR Conclusion 103
Page 104 and 105: Chapter Eleven Conclusion The Healt
Page 106 and 107: Appendix Select Committee on Work a
Page 108 and 109: References Alder A., Tipping A. and
Page 110 and 111: Health and Well-Being’, in Frick
Page 112 and 113: Honey S., Hillage J. et al. (1997)
Page 114 and 115: Nichols T. and Armstrong P. (1973)
Page 116 and 117:
Wokutch R.E. and VanSandt C.V. (200
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?