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

Health and Safety Management System
A fundamental prerequisite of the incentive-based approach suggested by Gunningham and
Johnstone is for ‘track two’ companies to have implemented a SMS with prescribed minimum
components. 109 As stated above, the HSE are also considering whether one criterion should
be that the organisation has a OHS management system that could be measured against
some standard. 110 However, as we have seen from the evidence discussed above, adoption of
a formal SMS does not, in and of itself, guarantee improved health and safety performance,
let alone guarantee the quality of performance that would be necessary to grant a company
‘autonomy’ from regulatory inspection and intervention. Therefore, while the existence of a
SMS may be a condition for earned autonomy status in the belief that it will help good
performers to achieve an adequate level of internal self-regulation, it is not an effective tool
for identifying ‘good performers’.
More concerning is evidence that in some cases SMS may exert a negative influence on health
and safety. Nichols and Tucker have argued that in countries like the UK, where neo-liberal
policies are in ascendance and trade unions are in retreat, there may be a tendency for firms
to adopt (and for workers to be unable to resist) OHS management systems that stress
management control of workers’ behaviour, result in victim-blaming and fail to address the
real causes of occupational injury and ill-health. Gunningham and Johnstone acknowledge
that certain kinds of SMSs – such as the DuPont Safety system and SMSs based on ISO 9000
or 1404 – are unlikely to secure real health and safety improvements, 112 and suggest that
authorities should require that organisations implement a SMS with prescribed minimum
components. However, it is not clear how this will prevent organisations from implementing
the wrong kind of SMSs. Gunningham and Johnstone’s minimum criteria 113 closely resemble
HSE’s guidance, Successful Health and Safety Management, (HSG65), which in turn is
entirely compatible with hierarchic, behavioural-based SMSs. 114 This is demonstrated by the
fact that Royal Mail turned to DuPont’s Safety and Environmental Management Services
division in order to achieve compliance with HSG65. 115
While no international audit has been done to assess how many companies have adopted
the various proprietary SMSs, there is evidence to suggest that the number of employers
adopting the marketed systems are multiplying, and that they are sold to medium and large
employers, often in petrochemical and other high-risk industries. 116 And there are three facts
that suggest that firms seeking to comply with regulatory guidance or firms seeking certain
administrative or public relations benefits will turn to SMSs like the DuPont system.
First, commercial organisations and consultants aggressively promote these products. Second,
it is precisely these types of SMS that are likely to prove popular with management since they
emphasis management control and provide relatively easy tools to measure progress. And
third, even though employees are frequently unhappy with such systems, it appears that they
are usually unable to resist them. 117 This was true even of the historically strong and highly
organised Norwegian offshore oil workers when workers perceived that the adoption of the
DuPont and International System of Ranking Safety (ISRS) systems by a number of oil
companies had undermined their rights to participation under the Work Environment Act. 118
These examples illustrate that marketed SMSs may also become prevalent in countries that
have mandated forms of OHS management.
Injury and ill-health incidence rates
The HSE have also suggested that firms could be considered for earned autonomy status on
the basis of ill health and injury (presumably major and fatal injury) incidence rates. However,
there are a number of problems with these as a predictor of effective OHS management. 119
First, and as acknowledged by the HSE, the small numbers employed in SMEs make the data
on incidence rates unreliable as a measure of company performance. The HSE have therefore
suggested that lost-time or sickness absence might be preferable measures. But research on
trends in occupational injury and death show that reported lost-time incidents are an
unreliable predictor of health and safety conditions within the workplace and may actually fall
at the same time as major injury and fatality rates rise. 120 The same is likely to be true for
sickness absence, with a recent survey by the TUC showing that three out of every four
employees had been to work when ill during the past year. 121 95