|
Excerpt
from "Main Findings" to Report, "Making
Companies Safe: What Works?"
Please note, this excerpt does not contain
footnotes
There
is a substantial body of international and UK research
on what motivates employers to improve their occupational
safety and health performance. The main findings from
our review of these studies are set out below.
The
benefits of legal regulation
| • |
All
the major reviews of the international literature
conclude that the most important driver of management
action to improve occupational health and safety
performance is legal regulation |
| • |
This
finding is mirrored in the UK research, where
the need to comply with the law was the most commonly
cited reason for health and safety initiatives
amongst all sizes of organisations |
| • |
There
is growing evidence that wholly voluntary approaches
– in the form of voluntary codes of conduct
or corporate social responsibility initiatives
for example – are largely ineffective in
bringing about improved standards of health, safety
or environmental performance. |
| • |
Recent
HSC decisions not to address either the current
loophole in the law relating to directors’
lack of legal safety obligations, or weaknesses
in the regulations governing workers’ rights
to participation and consultation are inconsistent
with the published research which suggests that
new law on these issues could bring about significant
improvements in occupational health and safety. |
The
benefits of inspection and enforcement
| • |
The
application of enforcement is an effective means
of securing compliance in all sectors and sizes
of organisations, including major hazard sectors. |
| • |
Some
studies demonstrate significant reductions in
individual plant injury rates following inspections
coupled with some form of penalty. Brief inspections,
that did not result in penalties, had no injury
reducing effects. |
| • |
Whilst
the evidence suggests that UK employers are ‘legislation
driven’5and that fear of enforcement is a
significant motivator for organisations,6there
is also substantial evidence to suggest that current
levels of inspection, enforcement and prosecution
are too low to maximise the impact that regulators
could have on employer compliance or to provide
a sufficient level of deterrence |
| • |
Recent
HSE proposals to shift resources away from front-line
inspection, investigation and enforcement activity
are contrary to the evidence which strongly suggests
that HSE could have a significantly greater impact
by increasinginspection and enforcement activity. |
The
impact of awareness-raising, education and campaigning
activities
| • |
The
provision of education, information and guidance
alone, or in the context of low levels of inspection
and enforcement, is unlikely to bring about the
necessary improvements in health and safety amongst
the majority of employers |
| • |
Evaluations
of awareness-raising campaigns do not provide
strong evidence that employers are prompted to
take action as a consequence of these campaigns |
| • |
Whilst
there is evidence that seminars may be successful
in some sectors in prompting employers to take
action, the usefulness of seminars is limited
in that they are unlikely to be as effective as
inspections in motivating ‘reluctant compliers’
or small employers. |
| • |
The
only sector-specific data on the relative effectiveness
of inspections and seminars relates to the motor
vehicle repair sector, and this shows that inspections
are a more effective driver of employer action
than seminars |
| • |
There
is evidence from a number of UK studies that compliance
may be patchy and inadequate even when levels
of knowledge and understanding amongst employers
are high, indicating that knowledge alone is not
enough – absent the threat and reality of
enforcement – to secure adequate improvements
in the health and safety performance of individual
firms. |
The
impact of HSE’s ‘business case’ arguments
| • |
All
of the major reviews (and the majority of UK studies)
reveal serious limitations with the ‘safety
pays’ and cost avoidance arguments that are
commonly relied on by regulatory agencies in this
and other countries. |
| • |
There
is no evidence outside of the United States that
employers are significantly motivated to improve
health and safety for financial reasons. |
| • |
Whilst
fear of reputational damage has been identified
as a key driver for firms operating in high risk
and high profile sectors, the evidence also suggests
that reputational pressures can lead to ‘skewed’
and inappropriate responses to health and safety
management in the absence of regulatory intervention. |
| • |
Regulation, inspection and enforcement are key
to creating reputational risk, therefore, the
existence of reputational pressures depend upon
there being a high probability that incidences
of non-compliance will be detected and punished
by regulators. |
Whilst
many of the studies reviewed are self-report studies,
three factors suggest we can be fairly confident in
the validity of the main findings.
First, there is remarkable consistency with regards
to the findings reported in the international literature
concerning the main drivers of management and company
commitment to OHS. This gives rise to confidence in
the conclusions reached by the individual studies.
Second, these findings are replicated in relation
to research on environmental management, where compliance
with regulation was the most commonly cited spur to
greater management action.
And
third, four separate reviews of the international
research – all commissioned by national regulatory
authorities – have reached identical conclusions
with regard to what the majority of the studies tell
us about the drivers of management commitment to OHS,
indicating that not only are the findings of the various
studies consistent, but also that they are unambiguous.
Back
to press release
|
