The Annex A guidance to the new OSH management system standard ISO 45001 places emphasis on benchmarking not merely as a means to achieve compliance but as a way to identify opportunities to improve.
"Zero harm" is a vision, not a benchmark. Organisations that wish to progress towards that vision need to look not just at accident statistics and health surveillance, but also at process indicators, such as air quality measurements, training attended, or preventive maintenance completed.
It is tempting to measure that which is easy to count. Even with process indicators, ISO 45001 focuses on quantitative benchmarks, giving the example of percentage corrective actions completed on time. But benchmarks don't have to be numbers or percentages.
Even if we don't call it that, our shared benchmark is compliance with the law. But scoring your organisation's compliance is less useful than knowing what you can do to improve. According to EU-OSHA, "benchmarking schemes with requirements to collect performance data are less attractive to members than those involving the sharing of good OSH practice".
Counting process indicators has a further flaw. Can you prove that more training courses, more audits or more risk assessments make the workplace safer? Benchmarking best practice, rather than counting, might have more face validity with those you need to engage in the process.
Who you choose depends on what you want to benchmark. If the problem is machine guarding, you'll need to find organisations using similar equipment; if the problem is the quality of risk assessments, you'll have a broader choice. Larger organisations might benchmark between their own sites, which overcomes commercial concerns, but can still lead to friction.
Even with the right benchmark and the right benchmarking partners, the final pitfall is complacency if you find you are doing better than others
The easiest benchmarks are publicly available. This includes national accident statistics, particularly if they can be viewed by industry or type of injury. Guidance and codes of practice, such as those from regulators and trade bodies, provide a qualitative benchmark of process.
Because of commercial confidentiality or fear of reputation damage, the best benchmark information might not be widely available, leading trade associations and other sector groups to form benchmarking clubs. EU-OSHA's report found these were more successful if participants felt "a trusted neutral broker" was collecting the information.
Andrew Griffiths, head of health and safety at charity The Prince's Trust, began a benchmarking exercise while working for another not-for-profit organisation. The representatives from several charities met several times, but "found that sharing data was complex". Griffiths says: "It required a lot of data conversion and normalisation to be able to compare each party's information. For example, we had different definitions for an 'adverse event'."
Some benchmarking co-ordinators, such as the Universities Safety and Health Association and the Paper and Board Industry Advisory Committee are specific to a sector; others, such as VRM (www.virtualriskmanager.net), work across any industry but focus on one topic (in this case, fleet safety). Others work across sectors and topics. The Safety, Health and Environment Intra Industry Benchmarking Association (www.sheiiba.com) enables paying and contributing members to share qualitative data, while Onsite Insights (onsiteinsights.co.uk) arranges visits to share good practice and innovation in a range of business areas, including safety and health.
The UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE) backed the Corporate Health and Safety Performance Index (CHaSPI) from 2006 to 2012 as a free, web-based benchmarking system providing a common measure of OSH performance across sectors. Many organisations found CHaSPI useful as a gap analysis tool but they were reluctant to share even anonymised results with others. CHaSPI never reached a critical mass of information, without which quantitative benchmarking activities are not seen as valuable by prospective participants.
Even with the right benchmark and the right benchmarking partners, the final pitfall is complacency if you find you are doing better than others. As ISO 45001 makes clear, benchmarking is part of continuous improvement. Or as a now-withdrawn HSE publication Health and Safety Benchmarking: improving together stated: "Benchmarking is a means to an end, not an end in itself."
Some OSH professionals and textbooks interpret this as working the other way – that showing you followed the ACoP proves you have complied with the law. However, s 17 of the Health and Safety at Work Act refers to ACoPs only as tools for the prosecution, not for the defence.
When reporting systems are robust, accident frequency rates are the most obvious sign of the state of OSH management.But they also come late, trailing interventions by months and telling a story about their effect sometimes too late to be much use.Gathering data on near-misses and unpicking those that had the potential to do serious harm adds a predictive element, but it’s still a measure of what you didn’t do rather than what you did.
After the appalling disaster in 2013, IOSH was pleased to host joint-stakeholder events to promote the new five-year Bangladesh Accord on Fire and Building Safety (bit.ly/1DbFEWg). The accord is an innovative and legally binding initiative that brings together big brand names and trade unions to help to tackle the serious safety and health problems that Rana Plaza typified.
If you have certification to OHSAS 18001 you will need to migrate to ISO 45001 to maintain the validity of certification. There is the normal 3 year migration period so there is still time to plan your move over to ISO 45001.New terms and definitions in ISO 45001The new definitions of the terms ‘Risk’, ‘The Worker’, ‘The Workplace’ and ‘Hazard Identification’ may change for the following reasons:
The executive has published a new web guide that it hopes will prevent employers from investing in generalised training courses for lifting after research found they were ineffective in controlling manual handling risks at work.
The site had been recertified to the ISO 14001 environmental management standard only months before the leak.The incident seemed to support the common criticism of management systems standards certification, that it was possible to be accredited just for having a system, even if it did not bear much relation to day-to-day management.
While it is no longer acceptable to assume that all men are stronger than all women, or that people of one colour have different personalities to those of another colour it is, it appears, entirely acceptable to declare that anyone born since 1980 is addicted to social media and will ‘challenge traditional hierarchical HSE systems’, while anyone born before that date is a luddite with no understanding of the modern age, but will be quite happy to toe the line.
Newcastle City Council has accepted responsibility for failing to properly manage the risk of a decayed willow tree that collapsed in strong winds and struck several children while they were playing at Gosforth Park First School in Newcastle upon Tyne during the lunchbreak.
A European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) report exploring the health risks associated with prolonged static sitting at work has outlined a range of measures that employers should include in a prevention strategy to enhance employee protection.
In the first part of this two-part series, Paul Verrico CMIOSH and Sarah Valentine set out a new safety theory that uses a ‘story’ to illustrate the need for rest, observation, planning and empowerment (ROPE).
Companies are deliberately choosing not to report all of their safety breaches and fines, so risks to safety are not being picked up by shareholders and other stakeholders, a review of workforce safety disclosures from publicly listed companies (PLCs) has found.