Workplace Health and Safety: The Leadership Challenge

Aldo Raineri
Director-Strategic Policy
Workplace Health and Safety Queensland
Department of Industrial Relations

Introduction
Traditionally, managerial solutions to occupational health and safety (OHS) issues
have tended to focus on loss control and the question of legal liability. Loss control
rests largely on an insurance model, in which all forms of potential loss, including
injury and illness to employees, are controlled and reduced to ensure short to medium
term cost reduction. The assumption implicit in such models is that savings in costs is
the only, or the main, business driver for improvement. By its very nature, this
approach tends to remove OHS from the social and political context and place its
management with specialist assessors. There is no doubt that this approach, properly
applied, can result in good, but probably not best practice, OHS performance. And a
focus on legal liability is insular and will lead to a reactive and minimalist response.
This traditional approach has led to a culture of compliance. And this culture of
compliance has not diminished the magnitude of the OHS problem.
Risk management, on the other hand, while also placing OHS alongside other core
business tasks and risk areas, tends to take a broader view of what may be a threat to
the business ranging from monetary loss to a loss of public or shareholder
confidence. In this case, OHS is considered from more than just a cost perspective.
However, the impact of standards of practice is likely to be assessed alongside many
other risks to the business and OHS will receive attention in proportion to the relative
risk it carries. Applied consistently, alone or in combination, most risk management
methods will achieve good OHS performance.
The danger, however, is that the risk management approach, when applied to OHS,
tends to focus predominantly on hardware issues. That is, the major function of risk
management is to ensure that the organization is financially solvent in the face of
possible risk outcomes while incurring the least cost. At the industry and enterprise
level, an urgent challenge exists to integrate OHS into management systems. In order
to do this, managers need to reframe their approach to OHS, to lift it from its often
peripheral position to a central focus and to realise that good OHS performance is a
critical part of achieving best practice.

2
Magnitude of the Problem
Each year in Australia approximately 500 workers suffer a traumatic death, 2,200 die
of work-related cancers, up to 650,000 are injured or become ill and the total cost to
the economy is approximately $20.2B. This equates to some 15 cases of serious injury
occurring every hour, 7 deaths per day and a cost equivalent to approximately 5% of
Australias GDP. These figures does not include the cost of more insidious forms of
disease whose aetiology is less easily traced to industrial processes but which,
nevertheless, may well be associated with the workplace.
Figures from the ILO indicate that Australia has a comparatively poor international
record, with an overall fatal injury rate three times as high as that of Britain, Sweden
and Japan and double that of the United States. Of all the States, Queensland appears
consistently to have one of the highest fatality incidence rates.
The magnitude of the problem in OHS is significant. The effect on workers in terms
of pain, suffering and cost is substantial. Workers compensation records for 1996-97
show that there were around 134,000 claims, Australia-wide, for work-related fatality,
permanent disability or serious temporary disability, excluding work-related disease.
This equates to approximately 1 compensated injury claim per 25 employees. At any
one time, about 200,000 people cannot work due to an injury or disease sustained
from work, while another 270,000 have been forced to change their jobs or
permanently reduce their hours of work for the same reason.
The direct cost to employers is reflected in compensation payments made to workers,
increased premiums paid for workers compensation insurance, days lost and the need
to retrain injured workers or to train new workers. In 1996-97, for example, more than
1 million working weeks were lost and the direct cost of workers compensation
premium payments was $4.9B. Indirect costs impose an even greater burden.
Occupational injuries and diseases also place a strain on valuable public resources
such as hospitals and the welfare system.
The Industry Commission (now the Productivity Commission) estimated in 1995 that
workers incur about 30% of the total cost of an injury, employers bear another 30%
and the remaining 40% is borne by the community.
Despite a decrease in the rate of compensated lost time injuries of 18% since 1989,
there is no indication of this trend decreasing. While some of these deaths and injuries
are traceable to pure accidents, namely, freak circumstances which the average
person could not reasonably be expected to foresee, a greater number, sadly, are
entirely preventable and, it may be argued, therefore unnecessary.

3
Current Approaches to Prevention
Various strategies assist in preventing injury and illness at the workplace, but none is
sufficient to achieve that objective alone. The choice of approaches and their
application will vary from time to time and from situation to situation. But a
thoughtful OHS strategy which brings government, employers and employees
together on the same side with the common objective of no injury or illness can
succeed.
Legislation
The enforcement of legislation which requires workplaces to comply with prescriptive
requirements has been a traditional method of raising OHS performance. It is an
approach that rests on compliance with minimum standards rather than continuous
OHS improvement. Such an approach also relies on coercion rather than cooperation
and commitment.
The legislative approach also tends to focus on hardware. For example, a regulatory
authority may merely check whether a machine is adequately guarded and
subsequently convince a court that it has not been. For it to be fully effective, though,
this approach assumes that there are enough personnel to check not only machine
guards but all other issues covered by the legislation. In reality, no matter how many
inspectors were appointed there would never be enough.
There is evidence that the legislative approach on its own is ineffective in motivating
poor performing workplaces and smaller businesses in improving their management
of OHS. Organisations that have been prosecuted for breaches do not generally
improve their OHS performance. Recent trends in legislation which require minimum
standards as well as systems to manage OHS have a much greater chance of success.
Financial Leverage
An ongoing problem relating to the financial approach is the general failure to
convince organizations that OHS performance represents an opportunity, not a cost. It
has, therefore, been necessary to promote the use of more immediate financial
encouragements, including increased workers compensation premiums for poor
performers, fines arising from prosecutions, equipment subsidy schemes and
government/private sector purchasing policies.
The latter have a particular advantage. OHS sensitive purchasing policies raise the
possibility of ripple effects. Where organizations with high standards include OHS
requirements alongside price and quality issues when letting tenders for goods and
services, bidding organizations may detect a competitive advantage if they are
improving their OHS performance.
While promotion of the financial benefits of OHS performance improvement will
usually produce management behaviour change, best practice OHS requires further
efforts from everyone and, therefore, this approach alone is also not sufficient.

4
Education
Education must play a key role in OHS performance improvement. Central to this
approach is the task of ensuring that everyone in the workplace receives induction and
ongoing education in a form appropriate and useful to their job tasks. This includes
not only the technical content of the job but also the policy, values and OHS
requirements of the organization as a whole.
Having provided education, the organization must be rigorous in its requirement that
the standards laid down are adhered to. Toleration of behaviour inconsistent with OHS
values can only encourage reduced OHS performance. When organisations reach a
situation where intolerance of substandard behaviour is enforced by workmates (not
just line managers) world class OHS performance becomes possible.
Quest for Best Practice
A safe and healthy workplace is a basic human right. It is a fundamental philosophy of
such organizations as the ILO, it underpins all occupational health and safety (OHS)
legislation across the world and it makes good business sense. While governments can
legislate for minimum standards and attempt to enforce compliance, the sheer
magnitude of Queensland industry means that real improvement can only be effected
at the workplace through the adoption of a best practice approach.
The reform of product and labour markets in Australia has been accompanied by a
strategy on the part of many firms and organisations to achieve world class
performance. While reference is often made to the role of OHS in improving
performance, it is a sentiment not always translated into action at the workplace. This
failure is reflected particularly in the low status accorded to OHS in the design and
implementation of performance measurement systems, which produces a reliance on
negative indicators and on quick fixes to address fundamental problems in the
production process or work environment.
At the industry and enterprise level, an urgent challenge exists to integrate OHS into
management systems. In order to do this, managers need to reframe their approach to
OHS, to lift it from its often peripheral position to a central focus and to realise that
good OHS performance is a critical part of achieving best practice. A prerequisite of
success in achieving this is the existence and acceptance of a valid and meaningful
system for the measurement of OHS performance that can be used to support a
program of benchmarking and continuous improvement.
Change in Mindset - Catalyst for Improvement
A major shift is required in our thinking one in which no injury or illness is
acceptable or expected. The principles of quality OHS, continuously seeking
improvement and locking in gains through system enhancements, need to be
embedded in and permeate organisational cultures, practices and procedures. Such a
shift requires a deep-rooted change in attitude on the part of employers, employees,
government and, most particularly, the community. The culture of compliance must
become a culture of commitment.

5
To create change, all these workplace partners must themselves change. For this to
occur, there must be a shared vision for a goal of zero injuries and illness, strong
dissatisfaction with our current OHS performance and a clear view of what has to be
done to improve. The implications of this paradigm shift are profound as they require
a culture change affecting all of the population.
Herein lies the key challenge. World class OHS performance happens at the level of
the workplace the same place in which injuries and illness are to be prevented. All
workplaces are different in culture, commitment and capacity, yet a public policy
framework must be able to exploit the inherent dynamics of any one workplace if it is
to bring about improvement. Public policy must be able to motivate, challenge,
educate and even at times coerce workplace participants into achieving continuous
improvement and then reward them when they do.
Key Elements of Workplace OHS Improvement
Improving OHS in the workplace is achieved through:
Culture;
Systems; and
Hardware
Culture
Without a culture that values the wellbeing of everyone in the workplace and which
believes that all injuries and illnesses can be prevented, people will continue to
become ill, be injured and killed. Adherence to development procedures, proper
conduct of training, attention to detail, acceptance of personal responsibility, all
workers thinking about every job and caring for others these are essential values
seen in the successful organization. Visible commitment to them, not just compliance
with their application, is required, starting with the most senior management. A
positive workplace culture goes beyond workplace consultation there must be
genuine involvement and participation by all employees in OHS.
Systems
Within organizations, solid systems underpinning OHS must be present. They include
induction, training, policies, standards, procedures, audits, safe work practices, safe
work organization, performance measurement, improvement plans and action followup. Ensuring that elements such as these are in place will immunise the organization
against OHS performance decay due to staff changes or external pressures. These
systems must include formal and durable mechanisms for involving all employees in
the OHS programs. It is essential that a supportive culture be in place, otherwise
systems can become an end in themselves and bury everything and everyone in
bureaucratic procedures forgetting that the objective is to stop people being hurt.
Hardware
Hardware includes plant, equipment and materials. Important issues are design,
purchase, installation, operation, shutdown and maintenance requirements. Hardware
must include OHS considerations and it is generally an effective OHS system that
ensures that hardware is appropriate and safe.

6
Key Principles of Effective OHS Management
Organisations play a critical role in shaping the behaviour of those that work in them
and the physical, technical and social circumstances under which they work. At the
root of the overwhelming majority of occupational hazards there is an organisational
decision or non-decision of some sort. In short, OHS is fundamentally an
organisational problem and it follows that the solutions are, therefore, largely
organisational.
The following five key principles of OHS management are found to varying degrees
within companies which have been found to have been especially effective in
addressing their OHS problems.
1.
Demonstrated senior management commitment to OHS
It is impossible to conceive of an effective OHS management regime where senior
management is not committed to this goal. Without such a commitment it is extremely
unlikely that resources will be devoted to the issue or that management will treat the
matter seriously. Such a commitment is more than simply a concern with cost, profits
or legal compliance. Rather, the commitment should be based on the ethic of valuing
people who have placed their trust in the employer. Further, it must be a commitment
backed by structures and actions.
2.
OHS management is integrated into core management and work activities
The second key principle is that OHS cannot be treated as an afterthought, add-on,
appendage or subsidiary factor to management and work activities. Rather, OHS
management must be integrated into management and production and service delivery
functions. This principle recognises that OHS is fundamentally an organisational
problem. The vast majority of occupational health hazards are not aberrant. They arise
in the course of normal production activities, the pattern of injury and illness by
industry is often highly predictable and, therefore, they are best seen as statistical
probabilities. Even apparently highly technical issues or hazards such as exposure to
hazardous substances originate from and must be resolved through decision-making
processes within the organization.
This principle also recognises that the behaviour of individual managers and workers
will only change in the long term where workplace hazards are addressed. Exhorting
workers to behave more safely without investigating or addressing the sources of
unsafe behaviour does not remove the source of the problem. For example, if an
emergency stop button has been places at a point where it cannot be easily reached
then there will be an ongoing incentive for workers to try and clear a line or machine
while it is in motion. Similarly, production pressures must be set at reasonable levels
if corner-cutting in relation to safety is to be avoided.
There are a number of ways of integrating OHS management into the organisations
operations. Obviously, the incorporation of OHS induction and training systems is
important. Another measure that has been used with success by companies is ensuring
that managers are assessed on their OHS performance.

7
The organisation must avoid a compliance only mentality in relation to OHS since
laws set a base-line not an ideal, do not cover everything of relevance and the
workplace is undergoing continuous change. Such an approach will need to be
participative and consultative so that managers, workers, contractors etc. know of
their role and responsibilities and can actively contribute to the design and operation
of the organisations OHS management system.
3.
OHS management uses a systems approach
As the last point implies, a third key principle concerns the need to adopt a systems
approach. Many OHS management programs consist of a document stating general
goals which are, at best, loosely connected to some structures (eg: safety officers,
safety committee, etc), a recognised set of hazards and some basic OHS management
techniques. These programs often include performance indicators which actually
discourage reporting (eg: lost time injury rate).
A systems approach, on the other hand, will involve risk assessment and an audit
system to identify all risks and determine which require most urgent attention. It will
also involve a comprehensive and carefully structured program control system that
includes avenues for monitoring feedback and modifying the system in the light of
this.
The systems approach will focus on hazardous processes, not simply incidents or
known hazards. In measuring the impact of the program, it will look beyond lost time
injury frequency rates and workers compensation costs. Rather, use should be made
of multiple performance measures, both qualitative and quantitative. Performance
measures should include both positive and negative indicators. The latter includes
injury/disease rates, product/service quality, timeliness, staff efficiency, numbers and
morale, poor industrial relations, financial costs (all costs and not simply workers
compensation premiums) and adverse public relations. Positive indicators include the
number of OHS problems raised, the number of OHS problems addressed, OHS
innovations introduced, training/induction programs completed, OHS audits
completed and staff attitudes to OHS.
It is especially important that the program encourages the reporting of problems as
well as worker, management, union and contractor feedback on the effectiveness of
current measures being undertaken.
4.
The OHS management systems addresses change
Rapid changes in the workplace as well as evolving regulatory requirements make it
critical that an OHS management system be able to accommodate to change. Changes
to work processes present the risk of new hazards as well as the opportunity of
eliminating or minimising some existing ones. At present, relatively few OHS
management programs pay more than lip service to the process of change. The notion
of continuous improvement is yet to have much meaning in terms of OHS. Indeed,
some of the changes to work practices introduced under the banner of change
management (eg: contracting out, etc) have undermined existing OHS standards
because no attention was given to the OHS dimension.

8
Looking at changes impacting on OHS it is possible to identify a number of especially
significant ones. These include changes to work methods, systems and processes,
changes to substances, plant and equipment and changes to the workforce, especially
the increasing use of temporary workers and subcontractors.
5.
The management system values worker input
Workers have a fundamental right and need to know about hazards. Keeping
information about potential risks from workers will hardly accord with a notion of due
diligence on the part of management. Further, there are number of reasons why input
from workers can contribute to a more effective OHS management system.
First, workers have valuable and sometimes unique knowledge of OHS problems. As
such, they can and should be involved in the reporting system.
Second, workers can help devise effective and cost-efficient solutions to OHS
problems.
Third, worker involvement strengthens the system. Workers are one of the key
stakeholders in OHS and their commitment is essential. A collaborative approach can
be valuable if treated seriously. Genuine worker involvement is essential to this.
Fourth, worker feedback is useful in evaluating OHS performance and making
modifications. For example, all quantitative performance measurement systems (such
as injury rates, compensation claims, etc.) are open to manipulation and both informal
and formal feedback from the workplace can act as a useful counterbalance to such
problems.
Unions and OHS laws provide important mechanisms for workers input, but this is
not enough. Organisations need to ask themselves questions, such as did we take
OHS into account in our enterprise agreement? Further, the absence of a union or
health and safety representative or committee does not preclude participatory
mechanisms. Even small non-unionised workplaces can achieve worker input via
lunchtime meetings, and informal walk around or other measures.
Conclusion
Workplace health and safety failures cause unacceptable human and financial cost to
our community. We are not improving the toll of injury, illness and deaths quickly
enough.
There are, however, isolated examples around the world of workplaces that do not
have injuries or illnesses. They are characterised by a common goal for all, clear
leadership, good OHS systems and hardware, excellent induction and education
programs, attention to health and safety at work and elsewhere and, above all, concern
for persons.
Good corporate citizenship demands that organisations create a safety culture that
moves well beyond compliance to a visible commitment to the safety, health and wellbeing of it workforce.