Justify health and safety improvements

• Moral and financial arguments need to be justified to obtain buy-in.
• The barrier to this is that some organisations or workers see it as a cost whilst others see it as a barrier to getting the job done.
• Often seen as needed purely for compliance.

Moral expectations of good standards of health and safety

Morals relate to the principles of what is good/right and what is bad/wrong according to conscience, principles and standards. Moral arguments for improvements look at what is right and wrong for any improvements or lack of action.

“Would it be right (not) to…”

Morally right to protect people. Employers have a duty of care to anyone affected by their activities including employees, contractors, visitors, customers, members of the public, suppliers etc.

Morally unacceptable to put people at risk of health and safety failures that could cause injury, illness or death. It is the expectation of employees to be safe, have suitable working hours, be free of illness and injury and have more personal time.

HSE summary statistics for Great Britain in 2020 show that accident rates are still too high and work needs to be done:

• 1.6m work-related ill health cases.
• 0.7m workers sustaining a non-fatal injury.
• 38.8m working days lost to ill health and non-fatal injury.
• 0.8m work-related stress, depression or anxiety cases.
• 65,427 non fatal injuries reported to employers.
• 12,000 lung disease deaths linked to past workplace exposure.
• 0.5m work-related musculoskeletal disorder cases.
• 111 fatal injuries to workers.
• 2,446 mesothelioma deaths with similar number of lung cancer deaths linked to past exposure of asbestos.

Moral argument is what would a “reasonable person” do? Everyone should want to do what they can to protect themselves and others.

Financial pressures mean that not everything can be done but it is morally right to ensure suitable provisions are in place.

Health and safety is largely about protecting people. Lack of injuries or incidents will boost morale, productivity, trust, confidence and reputation which will help boost business.

Financial costs of incidents (insured and uninsured)

An employer must have Employers’ Liability Insurance to insure against injury or ill-health of employees with a minimum cover of £5m. Required under Employers’ Liability (Compulsory Insurance) Act 1969.

Direct and indirect costs

After an accident:

Direct costs are immediate costs such as damage, loss of worker if they have to take leave, any fines or compensation - not always covered by insurance.

Indirect costs are not so obvious and may relate to replacement labour should people leave, cleanup cost, loss of sales, loss of confidence/productivity. Loss of business and tenders and the need to win replacement work. Time spent dealing with incidents and investigations, court appearances, facilitating enforcement visits etc. Might also be a Fee for Intervention (FFI) if an inspector is needed to visit the site from HSE. Product and material damage, lost production time, legal costs, overtime/temp/relocated labour, investigation time/admin, supervisors/first aider time, additional recruitment/training, fines, loss of expertise/experience, loss of morale/bad publicity, increased premiums. Not really possible to insure. Indirect costs usually more than direct costs.

Insured costs

Insurance is often required to be put in place by employers and may need to be put in place for things like buildings, vehicles, third-party and product liability. Policies usually only cover a small amount of the costs.

Uninsured costs

Estimated at 10 times the amount of the actual incident - mainly indirect costs.

Effective H&S can improve productivity and lower turnover rates which positively impact finances and company reputation.

Compliance and good H&S can lead to lower premiums as the number of accidents and claims should be less.