ACS Chemical Health & Safety ( IF 0 ) Pub Date : 2023-05-22 , DOI:
10.1021/acs.chas.3c00045PeterWilkinson
“When people at a party ask me what I ‘do,’ I usually respond that I work for such-and-such organization, or that I work in such-and-such industry. If pressed I might disclose that I work in process safety, but rarely will I divulge that I am a safety advisor. I fear that ...[this]... will lead others to evaluate me in a certain way, and [...] not a particularly favorable one. ‘Petty,’ ‘bureaucratic,’ and ‘fun police’ are just some of the terms ascribed to those working in safety in Australia.” (1) Katrina Gray’s words as quoted struck me. I wondered if this negative perception were solely an Australian phenomenon? A discussion last year among the Board members of ACS Chemical Health & Safety, who represent a group of people working in safety from around the world in universities, laboratory safety, process safety, and related fields, suggested not. Further evidence comes from the United Kingdom. In 2013, Rob Strange, the outgoing chief executive of the UK’s professional institution for the health and safety profession (IOSH), argued the reputation of the profession had worsened over the last 12 years, but said “this doesn’t mean our members are not doing a good job.” (2) The bad press for health and safety in the UK, especially from one newspaper, prompted the national health and safety regulator, Health and Safety Executive (HSE), to initiate a myth debunking campaign to investigate decisions and rules made in the name of health and safety that were wrong. (3) Identifying the reasons for the bad press is not easy. However, some common themes reappear. These include disproportionate actions recommended for trivial risks such as graduates being banned from throwing their mortarboard hats in the air at a graduation ceremony. It was prohibited for reasons unconnected with health and safety, but health and safety was cited as the rationale. (4) However, before blaming the media for safety’s bad rap, are there genuine complaints about health and safety? The health and safety profession itself reports a variety of self-inflicted wounds to its reputation. One example is the decoupling between a system for managing safety and its actual impact on site, sometimes referred to as “work as imagined vs work as done.” (5) This provides fertile ground for cynicism for those who may not see a policy or system implemented in practice. Drew Rae, an academic at Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia, is more direct in pointing out that it is very hard to evaluate if management systems improve safety, and Dr. Rae questions the external certification of safety systems. (6) Rod Maule goes further, stating, “Too often people and organisations have a system that is accredited and ticks all the boxes but is disconnected from ... work done in real life.” (7) So, does safety have a bad rap? The evidence suggests it does. How has this situation come about? No doubt to some extent, as safety professionals we have brought this situation on ourselves by, at times, being too bureaucratic and focused on the paper manifestations of systems we intended to help from the front line. I wonder, too, if it is in part a function of success. I came into safety in the UK in the late 1970s just as a prescriptive approach to safety was being supplemented by a more goal setting approach. Industry was advancing too quickly to write specific regulations hence the change to a more risk focused approach. Furthermore, the focus on industrial safety stimulated by the industrial revolution and its highly visible steam boiler explosions and machinery accidents was widened to address sectors not previously covered, including education and health services. Both changes (goal setting and wider coverage of safety law) required many more people to get involved and work out what was reasonable to do. Not all had then, or have today, the experience and expertise to identify what was/is reasonable or proportionate to the risk at hand. No doubt there are other contributors and I doubt, as with most so-called safety incidents, that there is a single “root cause.” However, if this negative perspective of safety exists in the world, should we try to understand this issue more deeply and consider what can be done? This article references 7 other publications. This article has not yet been cited by other publications. This article references 7 other publications.