The last focus of the study was around the optimal OSH landscape. Following the collation of respondents’ facets of the optimal OSH landscape, the discussion focused on reaching consensus on key facets, and evaluating how far we are from this optimal OSH landscape and how can we get to it. Table 5 shows the ten key facets identified by the participants.
Table 5: Key facets of the optimal OSH landscape
Evidence-based, proportionate and strong regulations which are enforced
Strong, adequately resourced, independent, transparent and competent regulators
The need to elicit a wider range of stakeholder views (e.g. sector associations, trade associations, trade unions, professional associations etc.) during consultation
A responsive multi-level (i.e. preventive, proactive, consistent and flexible) policy approach which adapts to changes in the business landscape
Competent, open leadership and empowerment and education of management, which facilitates a responsible strong top-down culture
OSH is integrated into business thinking and actively championed by business (i.e. OSH seen as enabler)
Active involvement, engagement of workforce (not just consultation – behavioural and intellectual buy in)
Access to competent and verifiable OSH support (e.g. guidance, information and advice) More celebration of OSH successes and the promotion of positive messages to the public Flexible OSH communication plans which are tailored for different audiences (e.g. policy makers, practitioners, the general public)
Stakeholders were in broad agreement that the OSH regulatory framework is robust and underpins other facets within the landscape. Thus, the regulatory framework needs to be in place and put into practice through effective inspection and enforcement. The group acknowledged that pragmatically this may be easier said than done, in light of continued resource cuts to regulators, though more targeted use of intelligence could help alleviate this.
Participants noted that although the system was fit for purpose, it was not perfect. They felt it could be more proactive in responding to changes within industry that were not present when the original regulatory framework was conceived (for example the influx of more SMEs and renationalised industries). However, with such flexibility came the issue of balance. The system needs to be flexible enough to cater for the needs of duty holders but still retain its fairness and consistency.
Allied to this point, was the need for more pace within the system. Stakeholders felt that new technologies (e.g. Twitter and Facebook) were changing the way people were consuming information and therefore OSH professionals could be more proactive in using social media to both digest and break news. A related point around social media was that this would increase the need for accountability and transparency of businesses, regulators, and practitioners in the OSH sphere. Although the OSH regulatory framework was generally applauded by attendees, it was felt that the tripartite working practices which had been envisaged under it had become somewhat diluted of late. Stakeholders therefore felt the system needed to be more open to the active involvement of various parties (e.g. trade associations, trade unions, professional associations) throughout proposals to change regulations, though particularly during the consultation phase.
The importance of leaders and managers in extolling the virtues of OSH was noted as a key element within the optimal OSH landscape. Leaders came in many guises, both within the political sphere and within business. Thus stakeholders felt that, ideally, such leaders should internalise and then promulgate the ‘value’ of OSH (in terms of keeping people alive, safe and healthy). In addition stakeholders have a responsibility to espouse to business the added value of them partaking in good
69
OSH management (for example increased productivity, enhanced corporate image/reputation). This could be achieved by positioning OSH management as an integral part of business operations (in the same way, as for example, accountancy) rather than an add-on. However, positioning OSH to businesses was not just a one-way relationship. Businesses too have to openly voice the virtues of OSH regulation and assist regulators in doing their job. In addition, stakeholders noted how following the strategic angle of positioning OSH as an enabler of business, in the future, at a more macro level, good OSH management could be marketed as an enabler of the wider global economy.
However, strong leadership should facilitate rather than substitute the need for the active involvement of the workforce and the public in general. It was clear that personal responsibility and accountability was needed from all stakeholders within the system. Although leaders need to instil a strong top-down philosophy of good OSH management, ultimately people are responsible for their own actions, and so should not see OSH in a silo (i.e. as something that happens to somebody else, or as something that somebody else ‘does’).
Though there was a widespread consensus among participants that the onus was on the individual, stakeholders agreed that the general public and duty holders still needed competent safety assistance and advice. Thus practitioners have a duty of care to provide professional advice as and when required. In addition, the regulatory authorities, as a basic requirement of their regulatory duties, should support duty holders by providing advice and reassurance when needed.
Stakeholders generally felt that the OSH system collectively needed to be more vocal in celebrating its successes (i.e. its impressive safety record in comparison to other developed countries). Some participants felt this would go some way to counterbalancing the negative press OSH attracts. In addition the OSH stakeholder community, and all interested parties within OSH need to be proactive in educating and lobbying policy makers, businesses, and fellow practitioners. However, this was not to say that a blanket ‘one size fits all’ positive message should be rolled out to all parties. Rather, the type of message needs to be tailored and pushed according to the recipients’ various different needs. It was highlighted for example, how the message needs to be framed rather differently at operational and policy levels. In addition, tailored propositions need to be devised accordingly. For example, the drivers for health might be quite different from the drivers for safety.