| Failure of Voluntary Guidance |
In 2001, the HSC published voluntary guidance. The HSC/HSC/Government argue that this has been sufficient success in order to justify publication of further guidance. |
| 1. |
Verified results show this figure to be 64% |
| |
p.xiv + p.97: “Health and safety responsibilities of company directors and management board members: 2001, 2003 and 2005 surveys. Final report”, |
| 2. |
This survey only reflects the situation in very large organisations - as the average size of organisations surveyed employed 4380 people |
| |
p.7: “Health and safety responsibilities of company directors and management board members: 2001, 2003 and 2005 surveys. Final report”, |
| 3. |
Another survey - this time of organisations of different sizes - show that even after publication of Voluntary Guidance, only 44% of organisations of different sizes have a health and safety director |
| |
p.24, section 2.1.7: “Health and safety responsibilities of company directors and management board members: 2001, 2003 and 2005 surveys. Final report”, |
| |
p.90, table 65, of Appendix D and E of Greenstreet Berman report on "Evaluation of EPS and enforcement action" |
| Evidence for Reduction in Levels of Injury as a result of Director Action |
| The HSE has said that the average reductions in levels of injury as a result of director action is 5-10% (see section on Regulatory Impact Assessment), however in fact HSE's own research shows that the average is 25%. Need to look at combination of case studies and full report |
| 1. |
41 Case studies by HSE on director action |
| 2. |
Full report, by Greenstreet Berman by the HSE, "Case studies that identify and exemplify boards of directors who provide leadership and direction on occupational health and safety" |
| Evidence that law is principle motivator of company directors |
| 1. |
Prof James undertook a peer review for the HSE of three research reports relating to directors duties. On what motivates directors to take action. He concluded from the research so far carried out in this area that "existing evidence suggests that legal regulations and their enforcement constitute a key, and perhaps the most important, driver of director actions in respect of health and safety at work ....." |
| |
p.12, section 2.4.3, "Directors’ Responsibilities for Health and Safety – A Peer Review of Three Key pieces of Published Research" prepared by Middlesex University Business School for the HSE |
| 2. |
More recently published evidence by the HSE states: “61% of duty holders agree or strongly agree that individuals believing they could possibly be imprisoned is essential or important for enforcement to have a deterrent effect – just ahead of fear of personal reputation damage at 60% whilst 52% cite individual legal consequence as essential or important” |
| |
p. 12 of Main report of Greenstreet Berman report on "Evaluation of EPS and enforcement action" and p.14 of Appendix D and E of this report |
| Inadequacies of HSE's assessment of costs and benefits in Regulatory Impact Assessment |
| 1. |
Final Draft RIA, for HSC Meeting, April 2006 |
| 2. |
Initial Draft of RIA, Feb. 2006 |
Other Documents referenced in report |
| HSE Papers to HSC |
| - |
HSE paper to Dec. 05 meeting |
| - |
HSE paper to May 06 meeting |
| - |
Legal options paper, May 06 |
| HSC Minutes of Meeting |
| - |
Dec 05 |
| - |
Apr 06 |
