Andy Shaw gives his personal assessment of the disadvantages of trying to achieve a safety culture
It is all the corporate rage to want one. It is tantamount to blasphemy to suggest you do not know what it really is. Furthermore I doubt whether I could guess how many times I have heard individuals at all levels talk about how they will feel when they get theirs. People long for the day when they can proclaim to the masses, 'It's official; we have it; the safety culture cometh'.
It seems that almost everyone wants a safety culture because, well, 'we should have one, shouldn't we?' Safety practitioners wave their copy of the hackneyed HS(G) 65 as a major breakthrough in the search for it. Do not get me wrong. HS(G) 65 is a good document, but it is simply a management system with safety as its subject area. Nothing more, nothing less.
Before setting off on the long journey in search of the 'safety culture' I suggest you stop to think what it is that you are really looking for. Is it legal compliance? Hopefully not, because legal compliance is simply a minimalist approach which damages the profession of safety officer in the eyes of many senior executives. Quoting the law is a tired approach and must stop if the safety professional wishes to be credible.
Is it safety as the main business consideration or is it something more that that? And are there any risks involved in seeking a safety culture? After all, that is what our profession is about isn't it?
At this stage it is worth suggesting a definition of safety culture. My preference is 'the set of norms, roles, beliefs and attitudes, and the social and technical practices within an organisation, which are concerned with minimising exposure to hazards and therefore the management of risk' (Health and Safety Sound Bites - Gilbertson).
My view is that the search for a safety culture is really not the best journey to embark upon. In fact, it will probably do more to harm than good to the safety cause. Let me explain.
Most organisations are eager to proclaim safety as their number one priority, and that, in itself, is quite understandable. However, I do not think many senior executives would argue with me when I say that the real priority of every business is to survive. Now it is true that, with a good safety record, the organisation has a greater probability of survival. Organisations can die because of poor safety performance - but they do not necessarily survive because of good safety performance.
Having said that, my company is committed to the highest levels of safety, in keeping with the approach you would expect from a company operating in the advanced meta-sector. However, businesses can, and do, survive while having poor standards of safety. They just are not operating as effectively as they could be.
Figure 1. shows the scale approach to typical safety management where points 1 and 5 essentially mean the same risk to the business, although they are dramatically different in business ethics.
The safety professional trying to contribute to ensuring their company reaches optimum levels of performance is offering a perceived panacea - 'We need a safety culture'. But do not believe that a safety culture when developed and implemented in your business will secure the Holy Grail. To put it another way, 'take these safety lessons 'x' times a day, every day for five years and you'll be much better'. Organisations do not survive on safety alone. They survive on adequate working practices underpinned by sound financial management.
My basic proposition is that talking about safety culture and the desperate desire for it does just the opposite to what most practitioners wish to achieve. Practitioners will emphasise that safety should be an integral part of business, and will warn anyone prepared to listen that it should not be separate from any other business issue. Perish the though that safety should be 'bolt on'. But talking of the desire for a safety culture in its own context inevitably makes it a separate issue. It is discussed as a single goal rather than a core business activity.
I have never heard anyone in business talk about the production culture or the financial management culture. I have not heard it, because managers understand that they have to manage their finances and ensure production to ensure the survival of the business. Neither financial management nor production is a 'bolt on', because they have never been considered as anything other than a core business issue. Financial management and production are vital for business survival. What we are talking about here is the management of risk - any risk that threatens the profitability of the company.
Reference to the excellent Turnbull report will show that safety, like operations, finance, or compliance is just one of the issues. The safety practitioner must recognise that risk management, not safety management, is the key for businesses in today's global marketplace. Risk management is the big picture, of which safety is merely one part.
Consider the message in Figure 2, which is essentially the same as Figure 1. However, there is no mention of safety or 'health and safety' - there is no need. The consideration is of the risks to the company, of which safety is merely one.
Turnbull required companies listed on the London Stock Exchange to have, by December 2001, a risk management policy in place, embedded in the company, and with proper reporting mechanisms. It is designed to facilitate improved business practice, to control change, to best utilise assets, to improve quality, project management and service levels.
If your company is not listed, you may consider that you do not have to comply with Turnbull. But that comes back to the minimum standards and compliance mindset again. What is important is striving to become the best and adding value to your business.
Turnbull is, I suggest, the Ark which carries the Holy Grail, and is therefore the best opportunity for safety practitioners to achieve what they have been striving for - loss events identified, risks assessed, controls applied, situations monitored and the whole process within a company reviewed. Comparing figures 3 and 4 shows that the approach shown in Turnbull guidance is no different to that put forward by the Health and Safety Executive and others. It is simply that the former considers the business as a whole, while the latter concentrates on just one issue within the big picture.
Safety management requires successful identification of loss events, risk assessment, application of controls, monitoring and review. However, in many companies, the whole safety process does not come within a company review. It is generally down to the lone practitioner, dependent to a large degree upon conscientious and willing managers, to keep the safety process moving and visible.
It is time to make the leap and encourage safety practitioners to move into the risk management sphere. Those who can make this transition will really add value and, of equal importance, be seen and accepted as benefiting the business. Do not worry about your safety culture because it will come. Not by name perhaps, but it will be there.
Andy Shaw is general manager - safety and security – of bmi british midland, Tel: 01332 854092, E-mail: Andy.Shaw@flybmi.com
