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

to cost “a little” or “nothing significant”, and conclude that: “Given that the majority of
organisations… believe that they measure the costs of ill-health well or very well, this appears
to represent a reportedly ‘well-informed’ opinion”. 69 In other words (and as Wright et al.
acknowledge elsewhere in their report) it may be the case that ill-health does not in fact cost
employers a significant amount in most circumstances. Moreover, the discussion in the
previous section suggests that there are potential dangers in encouraging employers to base
action around OHS on economic calculations, since these can lead to skewed action, and even
to action that does not promote the health and safety of workers.
In relation to the argument that there are a number of separate elements to the business case
beyond the economic argument, the evaluation of the GHGB campaign found that only 8%
of employers who were aware of the campaign (that is, who had been presented with the
‘business’ arguments for improved occupational health management) reported that they were
prompted to make improvements due to business impacts, and this included all elements of
the business case and not just the economic case. Moreover, only 10 per cent thought that
evidence of business impacts would prompt them to do more. 70 Therefore it appears that
employers are not greatly motivated by other business factors, such as PR, customer pressure
or supply chain pressures (see above).
Furthermore, it should be stressed that reputational risk provides only a partial lever. Not all
firms are reputationally sensitive and it is clear that even amongst those that are, reputational
risk does not always provide a sufficient motivation to maintain or achieve good standards of
OHS. Neither does it provide motivation in relation to those aspects of OHS that companies
feel they will not be judged on publicly. This means that at best, reputational risk is will result
in uneven attention to OHS, with regulation needed to apply pressure to manage those risks
that do not give rise to reputational concerns.
It should be clear from the preceding discussion that:
• Poor health and safety performance does not always damage an organisation’s
reputation in a way that will have a negative impact on its commercial position.
• The range of contexts in which organisations might be motivated by concern for their
reputations or by other business considerations to improve OHS appears to be quite
limited.
• Even if business levers and reputational risk acted as significant motivators of voluntary
compliance and improvement in most situations, the activity of regulators would still be
key, for the following reasons:
o inspection and enforcement are key to detection and the allocation of blame, and
o inspection and enforcement are vital to correcting to skewed effects of business
and reputational pressures.
Fear of loss of corporate credibility, therefore, depends on a system of frequent and
widespread inspection and investigation to create a high probability of detection. It also
depends on a perception that regulators will not tolerate, and will take vigorous enforcement
action in the face of persistent failures to adequately control risks. The evidence suggests that
current levels of HSE inspection, investigation and enforcement are too low to create a high
level of concern for reputational damage.
Making the Moral and Social Case
78
The current Chair of the HSC has stated that, “if we want long-term gains we need hearts
and minds, not grudging acceptance”. 71 It must be said that the HSC/E has so far put much
more effort into winning ‘minds’ (through promotion of the business case) than it has into
winning ‘hearts’ (through presentation of the moral and social case). A shift in emphasis
towards presentation of the human costs of work-related injuries, ill-health and death would
be welcome. In comparison to the focus on reputational and economic risks, arguments
based on the moral case for improved OHS performance are less likely to prompt a skewed
response from employers.