|
Excerpt from HSE Paper
"Corporate
Responsibility and Accountability for Occupational
Health and Safety: A progress report on HSC/E initiatives
and measures"
Directors’
responsibilities for health and safety
| 7 |
In
Appendix B we explain how HSC/E have taken forward
action point 11 of RHS including through the publication
of guidance, Directors’ responsibility for
health and safety, in July 2001. That promotes
health and safety as a key boardroom issue and
calls for the appointment of a board member with
the role as the health and safety ‘champion’
for the company. The action point also committed
HSC to advising Ministers how the law would need
to be changed to make statutory the appointment
of a board member responsible for health and safety.
The action recorded the intention of Ministers
to introduce legislation when Parliamentary time
allowed. |
| 8 |
In
Summer 2001 HSC advised Ministers that, “it
had asked HSE to commission research to identify
the extent to which companies and other organisations
currently operate in accordance with the guidance
and to explore the impact of the guidance in improving
the situation”. This research was carried
out by Greenstreet Berman, on behalf of HSC/E,
with a remit to survey the current arrangements
medium and large employers had in place concerning
board and director leadership on health and safety
and to help evaluate the effectiveness of the
HSC guidance. HSE published the research in July
2003. Together with the views of stakeholders,
it helps us get a better sense of the effectiveness
of the current voluntary approach to directors’
responsibilities and of the HSC guidance. |
| 9 |
Whilst
the overall picture revealed by the research is
good, at least one-in-six organisations do not
consider board level direction and leadership
necessary or desirable and have no plans to change.
As Appendix B makes clear, there are stakeholders
who believe that new legislation is necessary
to assist the prevention of health and safety
failures and to aid prosecutions. |
| 10 |
In
considering the way forward, the Commission may
wish to take note of the Better Regulation Task
Force’s guidance on policy development1 which
indicates that a voluntary approach should always
be pursued rigorously in the first instance. It
is only when this is shown to be inadequate that
regulatory routes should be followed. |
| 11 |
To
enable the Commission’s advice to Ministers
to be framed, HSC is invited to consider the following
options and agree the way forward and whether
HSC/E should :
| i. |
continue
with the existing ‘voluntary’
approach; OR |
| ii. |
enhance the present voluntary approach by,
for example, re-invigorating the current
HSC guidance and seek through publicity,
case studies and conferences to influence
those directors and organisations currently
not providing direction and leadership on
health and safety; OR |
| iii.
|
undertake
work to develop legislative options bearing
in mind the lack of consensus in support
of legislation and challenge of differing
points of view and no indication that legislative
time could be found. |
|
Annex
B
Directors’
responsibilities
Issues for HSC consideration
HSC is invited (at para 11) to consider the following
options and agree the way forward and whether HSC/E
should :
| i. |
continue
with the existing ‘voluntary’ approach;
OR |
| ii. |
enhance the present voluntary approach by, for
example, re-invigorating the current HSC guidance
and seek through publicity, case studies and conferences
to influence those directors and organisations
currently not providing direction and leadership
on health and safety; OR |
| iii.
|
undertake
work to develop legislative options bearing in
mind the lack of consensus in support of legislation
and challenge of differing points of view and
no indication that legislative time could be found. |
| Strategy |
| • |
In
June 2000 the Government and HSC agreed actions
concerning directors’ responsibilities
for health and safety as part of the Revitalising
Health and Safety (RHS) strategy. The first
part of Action Point 11 of Revitalising provides,
“The
Health and Safety Commission will develop
a code of practice on Directors’ responsibilities
for health and safety, in conjunction with
stakeholders. It is intended that the code
of practice will, in particular, stipulate
that organisations should appoint an individual
Director for health and safety, or responsible
person of similar status (for example in organisations
where there is no board of directors.”
|
| • |
In
July 2001 HSC published guidance Directors’
responsibilities for health and safety2 to take
forward this part of Action Point 11. The guidance
was founded on HSC’s belief “that health
and safety leadership in all organisations needs
to come from the board of directors or equivalent
top level management board.” The Commission
considered it vital to provide advice and guidance
to directors and senior managers to help them
ensure that their organisation is effective in
managing health and safety risks. |
| • |
Action
point 11 also addressed the issue of the case
for further legislation on directors’ responsibilities,
“The
Health and Safety Commission will also advise
Ministers on how the law would need to be
changed to make these responsibilities statutory
so that directors and responsible persons
of similar status are clear about what is
expected of them in their management of health
and safety. It is the intention of Ministers,
when Parliamentary time allows, to introduce
legislation on these responsibilities.”
|
| • |
In
Summer 2001 HSC advised Ministers that, “it
had asked HSE to commission research to identify
the extent to which companies and other organisations
currently operate in accordance with the guidance
and to explore the impact of the guidance in improving
the situation”. Information is now available,
from HSE research and from stakeholders’
views, which helps us to get a better sense of
the effectiveness of the current voluntary approach
to directors’ responsibilities and of the
HSC guidance. The objectives and key findings
of the research are detailed below. |
| • |
The
Commission will also be aware of Private Members’
legislative proposals tabled earlier this year
by the Labour MP Ross Cranston. This Ten Minute
Rule Bill sought to amend provisions of the provisions
of the Companies Act 1985 to make explicit in
law directors’ responsibilities for health
and safety. DWP Ministers in a written reply of
20 June 2003 to a Parliamentary Question tabled
by Ross Cranston informed MPs that a report from
the HSC on the research findings, the effectiveness
of the current strategy, the success of the voluntary
approach and the need for further legislation
was awaited. The HSE research report was sent
to DWP Ministers for information at the time of
publication.
|
| Actions |
| • |
The
HSC guidance, Directors’ responsibilities
for health and safety, has been widely circulated
and accessed in large numbers via the HSE web
site. To date over 217,000 printed copies have
been distributed including 55,000 direct to IoD
members. HSE commissioned Greenstreet Berman to
undertake a baseline survey of large and medium
private, public and voluntary sector employers
in the months following publication of the HSC
guidance in July 2001 to:
| • |
Establish
the proportion of large firms that have
appointed a board level director for health
and safety; |
| • |
Develop
a profile of board level health and safety
managementm arrangements; |
| • |
Develop
an understanding of the factors influencing
the design of board level arrangements; |
| • |
Measure
awareness of the HSC guidance. |
|
| • |
A
second follow-up survey was undertaken in early
2003. Some 403 organisations were included in
the baseline survey and 436 organisations in the
follow up survey. |
| Results |
| • |
The
report of the Greenstreet Berman research findings,
“Health and safety responsibilities of company
directors and management board members”3
was published in July 2003. Main findings include:
| • |
66% in 2003 reported health and safety directed
at board level compared to 58% in 2001 |
| • |
70%
of top 350 companies and 55% of public bodies
surveyed in 2003 reported that health and
safety directed at board level - largely
unchanged on 2001; |
| • |
82%
of respondents in 2003 reported that they
have a board level person responsible for
health and safety – a small increase
on 75% reported in 2001 – the breakdown
by type of organisation in 2003 was as follows:
top 350 companies – 90%; large firms
– 88%; public sector organisations
– 78%; voluntary sector – 55%; |
| • |
in
2003 survey 80% had heard of HSC guidance
compared to 75% in 2001; |
| • |
in 2001 and 2003 60% of those organisations
surveyed who reported board level involvement
reported identified that health and safety
was discussed by the board at least quarterly; |
| • |
in
2001 and 2003 65% of those board receiving
health and safety performance reports were
notified of enforcement notices; |
| • |
of
particular concern, around 15% of organisations
surveyed have no arrangements in place to
facilitate board level involvement and no
plans to do so. |
|
| • |
Top
reasons given for board level direction in the
2003 survey were:
• board level direction is best practice
• power and control is at board level
• corporate direction is needed
• new legislation/health and safety law |
| • |
Respondents
also identified main reasons for not having board
level
direction:
• health and safety is an operational matter
• employer has policy of delegation
• operations are too diverse to act corporately
• health and safety not an issue for directors |
| • |
The
research identified that boards discharged their
health and safety
responsibilities in the following ways:
• formulating policy
• setting targets
• reviewing incidents
• receiving reports on performance considering
reports and
• plans to review board level arrangements |
| • |
The
research report concluded, “… that the
HSC guidance is a significant factor in prompting
boards to review their arrangements. Given that
it is CEOs/MDs and other board members who decide
upon board responsibilities, any further promotional
work should target these people.” |
| Stakeholder
views |
| • |
The
views of many stakeholders remain polarised around
the questions of the need for further legislation
and the appointment (whether voluntary or legislative)
of a board member with responsibility for health
and safety. Stakeholders representing employers
and directors, including the CBI and IoD, oppose
further legislation. They point to growing evidence
of directors’ providing increased direction
and greater leadership rendering further legislation
unnecessary. The Centre for Corporate Accountability
(CCA), with support of the TUC and individual
trade unions, is active in promoting the case
for further legislation. Legislation is called
for by the CCA and T&G among others that would
place a positive duty on company directors to
ensure that their company is complying with health
and safety law. |
| • |
Ross
Cranston’s Ten Minute Rule Bill sought to
give legal effect to actions contained in the
HSC guidance specifically regarding the collective
responsibility of boards of directors to exercise
their duties in the interest of the health and
safety of their employees and other affected by
their operations and to ensure that the company
acts in accordance with health and safety law.
In addition directors should keep themselves informed
about the company’s health and safety obligations
for its operations and consider reports from the
health and safety director. |
| • |
The
legislative proposals also include a new duty
to appoint a health and safety director to monitor
performance, ensure management systems provide
for effective monitoring, to report significant
failures to other directors and on the health
and safety implication of its decisions. Although
these duties would be owed to the company (voluntary
and public sector organisations are out with the
scope) and it would be for the company to enforce
it is possible that failure to carry out these
duties could be used as evidence to support a
prosecution under health and safety law. Ross
Cranston’s Bill fell through lack of Parliamentary
time. There are indications that the Bill may
return in the next Parliamentary session. |
| |
Way
forward |
| • |
It
is clear from the evidence provided by the research
undertaken on behalf of HSC/E and from the views
of stakeholders that there are clear signs of
a growing number of boards of large and medium
organisations providing the leadership and direction
Government and HSC/E consider essential if we
are to achieve our health and safety targets.
HSC’s strategy has played an important part
in producing these improvements. |
| • |
There
remains however a need to reach out and persuade
and influence a considerable number of organisations,
at least one-in-six, who do not consider board
level direction and leadership necessary or desirable
and have no plans to make the required changes.
It is clear also from the research that the level
of real Board involvement in some cases is fairly
superficial – while health and safety may
be on board agendas direction and leadership is
lacking. The options set out above attempt to
build on HSC’s strategy on directors’
responsibilities and take it forward. |
To
download the full paper, click
here
|
