Background to sensible risk management

Person standing precariously on stepladder

In recent years concerns about an irrational and ‘nannying’ approach to health and safety have increasingly been expressed.

HSE became concerned that too much attention was being focussed upon trivial risks and unnecessary bureaucracy and this distracted attention from the risks that cause real harm and suffering. Therefore, we carried out work to identify ways of making sure attention is on the issues that really matter - those that resulted in 241 people being killed and 150,000 suffering serious injuries at work in 2006/07 alone.

We conducted a public debate, with an open web forum and various events and speeches. We commissioned a short study to scope the extent and nature of disproportionate health and safety decisions. We also drew upon the results of a regular MORI survey of public opinion already being carried out by HSE.

The debate, study and other research, together with a great deal of discussion with key organisations inside and outside government, informed the development of a set of principles of sensible risk management. It also supported the importance of improving the way we explain what is - and is not - required. As part of our commitment to explaining risk management we rewrote the HSE risk web pages, updated our most popular piece of guidance, ‘Five steps to risk assessment’ and made example risk assessments freely available online.

Research

HSE carried out specific research and consultation, including:

A sensible risk debate mediated, including a range of events and a web forum.
Contract research into the scope and causes of apparently disproportionate health and safety decisions
MORI surveys of attitudes to health and safety amongst workers, managers, chief executives and citizens.
Discussion with a wide range of stakeholder organisations, representing workers, employers, lawyers, insurers, health and safety professionals, regulators, volunteers and others.

We also drew upon research reports published by others, including:

‘Better Routes To Redress’ published by The Better Regulation Task Force (2004)
‘Risk, Responsibility and Regulation - whose risk is it anyway?’ published by the Better Regulation Commission (2006)
‘Compensation Culture’ report published by the House of Commons Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs (2006)
‘Government Policy On The Management Of Risk’ published by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee (2006)

Key findings

The research and consultation helped identify some clear priority areas:

There are three essential sources of stories about ‘excessive health and safety’. 1,2 Consultation and investigation of the facts behind stories tend to support the hypothesis that there are broadly three types of story:
Myths with no basis in fact, eg trapeze artists will be required to wear hard hats;
Decisions by (usually very well-intentioned) individuals that go well beyond what the law and common sense require, eg requiring children to wear goggles when playing conkers; and
Health and safety used as a convenient excuse for a decision taken largely or wholly for other reasons, eg closure of facilities for financial reasons mainly unrelated to health and safety.
Risks to the public. ^1,2,3,5 Concerns about ‘excessive’ reactions to risk are focussed closely upon risks to the public presented by work activities - not risks to workers. Indeed there appears to be a high level of recognition amongst business people of the value to their businesses from health and safety requirements.

Public safety risks present a challenge in balancing protection and freedoms in a world that is not always consistent. On the one hand, precautions to protect the public can limit personal freedoms and opportunities to learn and enjoy - particularly for children - leading to accusations of ‘nannying’. On the other, if people are given the freedom to experience risk and someone (particularly a child) is seriously injured or killed, there can be an outcry - sometimes from the very people who earlier complained of ‘nannying’.

Excessive paperwork. ^1,2,3 Business people and many stakeholders identified concerns about large amounts of paperwork being generated for even low risks. Some of the concerns related to unnecessary burdens thus imposed on businesses, but many expressed concern about health and safety becoming seen as about paperwork and box-ticking, instead of being a practical exercise that makes a difference.
Myths and misunderstandings. ^2,6 Investigation reveals that the majority of popular stories about health and safety ‘requirements’ are based on a misunderstanding of true legal requirements, either having no basis in fact or, more often stemming from over-interpretation of legal requirements by an individual. However, whilst these stories do not have any basis in law, the damage they cause is more than just reputational, as a proportion of those hearing the stories will believe the requirements exist and act accordingly.
Perceptions of a ‘compensation culture’ ^2,4,6,7,8

A number of sources indicate that there is a fairly widely-held belief in the existence of a ‘compensation culture’ in which the number of claims is ever-rising and following the lead set by the U.S. However, a large number of studies indicate that the perception is not borne-out in reality - statistical evidence on the number of claims shows consistently that the number of claims has remained steady since 2000 and claims by workers against their employer have, if anything dropped. The value of claims has risen slightly above inflation, but remains constant at 0.6% of GDP, one third the level in the US.

Nonetheless, the perception of a compensation culture can itself cause damage by driving excessive caution and unnecessary bureaucracy. The Government response to the issue is based around the Compensation Act 2006, which regulated claims management companies and made clear to courts that they can take account of the value of an activity when deciding a civil claim.

Research and consultation commissioned by HSE

Sensible risk debate

During 2005-6 we held a web forum over several months, encouraging people to debate some of the issues of where the sensible balance lies in health and safety. A lively debate ensued with more than 450 contributions, some from prominent figures in public life. Senior figures spoke about sensible risk management at a wide range of events.

Research report: Disproportionate risk-based decision-making

We commissioned Greenstreet Berman Ltd to conduct a short study looking to scope the reasons for disproportionate decisions. The study involved a brief review of media reports, a postal survey of 650 decision makers, a small emailed survey of IOSH members and 12 detailed case studies.

As the authors state, it is important to note that the report drew upon a combination of evidence rather than relying on any one source. As with all contract research reports, the views expressed are those of the researchers, rather than being HSE policy, but the research provided some useful contributions to our understanding of the issues.

RR536 - Evidence based evaluation of the scale of disproportionate decisions on risk assessment and management

Research: Attitudes towards health and safety

Since 2004 HSE has periodically commissioned a survey attitudes to health and safety. MORI asked a sample of 1,000 citizens, 2,000 employees, 500 managers and 200 chief executive officers about their views on a range of topics. Several of the questions are specifically relevant to sensible risk and help to inform our approach.

As with all contract research reports, the views expressed are those of the researchers, rather than being HSE policy, but the research proved an important contribution to our understanding of the issues.

The polls consistently show that managers, and particularly CEOs and senior managers, have a high regard for the value of health and safety management to their organisation, with most agreeing that it benefits their business and saves them money in the long term.

The results also indicated areas for attention - around half of CEOs, Senior Mangers and believe that health and safety requirements can be too bureaucratic. This concerned us, partly because of the unnecessary burden, but also because we believe that good health and safety is about practical action, not paperwork for its own sake. In response we have revised our guidance, including our most popular publication, 5 steps to risk assessment as well as publishing example risk assessments online to help businesses understand ‘how much is enough’.