The remodelled IOSH Code of Conduct came into force on 4 March this year. Stephen Asbury examines its wide scope and highlights some key issues for practitioners to consider.
IOSH has long believed in a professional code covering all grades of membership, and sees it as a key part of meeting the expectations that society has of a body like IOSH. It also puts the Institution in line with other professional bodies.
From conversations with members, IOSH Council and external stakeholders, it was clear that the existing code needed updating and expanding. It was also important to emphasise the difference between members and non-members working in health and safety.
The biggest change in the new Code of Conduct is the adoption of the four key standards:
These have been brought in because a code like this can never cover every aspect of professional behaviour. With these standards, members have some broad and easy-to-remember guiding principles that should cover the key things IOSH is concerned about.
The Code and its guidance are essentially public-facing documents that identify the standards underpinning the health and safety profession. Members need to recognise, understand and apply them whether they are at work, or not.
The standards
IOSH members need to make sure their conduct does not damage their own reputation as health and safety practitioners, the reputation of IOSH, or that of other members. The four key standards should guide all aspects of members’ decisions, behaviour and practice. To spell out what each means:
‘Integrity’ is about acting ethically, honestly and in a way members can be open about and proud of — for example, avoiding situations where there is, or could be a conflict of interest, or not pretending to hold qualifications you don’t hold.
‘Competence’ is about having the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to carry out your roles and responsibilities, whatever they may be, and also knowing where the limits of your competence lie. This is also the driver for continuing professional development (CPD). Remember that this applies not only to practitioners personally but also to their team members, who must also be competent to do what is asked of them.
‘Respect’ is included because, to win and retain people’s confidence, they must be shown respect, whoever they are. This includes employers, clients, employees, people whose data are held and, really, anyone who is affected by what IOSH members do.
‘Service’ reflects the fact that the health and safety profession provides a service for many stakeholders — in particular, employers and clients, others whom members advise, the workforces they seek to protect and, ultimately, society at large.
In devising these standards, IOSH considered the views of individual members who were interviewed about ethical behaviour practices. It then looked at the current Code of Conduct, setting it against public expectations of what membership of a professional body should mean in the 21st century. The Institution benchmarked itself against other professions, asking: “What should set IOSH members apart from unregulated non-members working in health and safety?”
By assessing their actions positively against the four core standards, members should find it is less likely that others will raise concerns over their conduct. The Code can also be used as a framework to illustrate that members’ conduct is within the standards IOSH requires.
Enforcement
For there to be public trust and confidence in IOSH members it is important to have a fair system to deal with complaints about members’ conduct, and for members to be held accountable for their actions and behaviour. Disciplinary procedures are nothing new — in fact, members sign up to these both when they join and each time they renew their membership.
Where there is evidence of a serious departure from the standards, disciplinary proceedings may be necessary. The key thing is to strike the right balance between protecting the public and the member’s interests. There have been cases where — taking account of a member’s apology, remedial action and assurance of no repetition — IOSH’s committees have determined that guidance, or a reprimand would be sufficient.
At the other end of the scale, there have been cases of criminal prosecutions and calculated dishonesty by members, in which IOSH concluded that expulsion from the Institution was the only proportionate and fair action, in the circumstances. The two key words here are “fair” and “proportionate”. The new Code gives greater clarity about what is expected, so that disputes, criticism and complaints can be avoided in the first place (see figure 1 for a summary of the complaint procedure).
Simon Buckler, IOSH ethical practice manager, explained: “If a complaint is put to you as an allegation for your formal response, first and foremost it is an opportunity for you to demonstrate that you have abided by the four core standards.
“If you engage with a complaint and address it satisfactorily, then there may be valid reasons why no further action is appropriate. In other situations, however, where the available evidence points towards a detrimental departure from the standards, disciplinary proceedings may be necessary.
At all times, staff and committees performing roles under the disciplinary procedure shall have regard to what is proportionate to maintain public trust and confidence in IOSH members and IOSH.”
Other changes
Additional material has been included in three key areas:
The requirement to cooperate with IOSH, including notifying it of particular events
Compared with the previous Code, there is much more detail and many more examples of events that would need to be reported to IOSH on the grounds that they could bring the Institution, or the profession into disrepute. Compliance with the Code is part of the agreement members make with IOSH when joining and upon renewal. The public can hardly have trust and confidence in the members of a professional body that does not insist on the prompt cooperation of its members.
Undertaking CPD
The new emphasis here is in the guidance. If a member is subject to a complaint, he or she should expect that an extra check will be made on their CPD. It is one of the features that distinguishes a competent health and safety practitioner from the enthusiastic amateur, and is pretty much a standard requirement in most other professions, such as medicine and engineering, where safety depends on the practitioner’s skills and knowledge being up to date. It’s also a key way to meet the second core standard of “competence”.
Conflicts of interest
The guidance on this has been amplified so that members are more aware of situations in which they could face a conflict of interest. The aim is to make sure that members are not just acting fairly and with integrity but also that they are seen by all parties to be so doing and are therefore beyond reproach. There are lots more illustrative examples, including detail on what is expected of the practitioner in terms of escalation, where his or her professional advice goes unheeded by clients or employers.
Consultants and trainers
Many IOSH members work in consultancy and training, and they, too, will find many more practical examples of good and bad practice in the new Code. For example, a consultant who charges a fee to provide a service should not decline to respond to a complaint about the quality of that service. Even if the consultant feels the complaint is not justified they should give their reasons.
The need for a proportionate approach is highlighted — over-stating the risk is not acceptable, especially if it leads to unnecessary expenditure, or the aim is to persuade clients to buy services they don’t need.
Consultants should always let clients know if they’re not going to be available and, if necessary, provide interim cover — “the consultant never got back to me” is a common complaint received by the Institution. And trainers should not make claims about success rates that aren’t backed up by hard evidence.
Letting IOSH know
Some people will be surprised by some of the things covered, like letting IOSH know about a prosecution unrelated to work.
It’s clear from high-profile cases that the public does not draw a distinction between one’s work life and one’s private life — especially in matters relating to integrity. The guiding principle for IOSH is always whether the action or behaviour could bring the profession into disrepute.
Take an example: if a safety practitioner were convicted of driving when four times over the alcohol limit, that raises questions about the integrity and professionalism of that person as an individual, as well as of the wider image of the profession.
It is therefore quite right that members should be under a duty to report such a case to the Institution and, possibly, face disciplinary action, in addition to whatever penalties are imposed by the courts. Of course, any disciplinary action will always consider the exact individual circumstances of each case.
The new Code is on the IOSH website at www.iosh.co.uk/membership/standards_and_regulation.aspx
Stephen Asbury is chair of the IOSH Professional Ethics Committee.
To test your knowledge of the new Code, decide which of the following are acceptable and which are not:
1 You are a technician member of IOSH but you put on your CV that you are a chartered member.
2 You are driving at a weekend to collect your son from the station when you are flashed by a speed camera; you decide to accept an offer of three points on your driving licence and a £60 penalty so the matter does not reach a court hearing. You do not inform IOSH.
3 Your employer does not follow your health and safety improvement recommendations, explaining that the cost would make the operation unviable and lead to closure of the works. You decide to back down.
4 You receive a payment from a PPE company in return for recommending their products to your own employer.
5 Your brother runs a decorating firm. You know that your company is about to have its main office decorated so you recommend him to the project manager, being open about the relationship between you.
6 You stop some work on site because it’s unsafe. You then find out the site manager overruled you as soon as your back was turned. You go into his office to have it out with him. The conversation turns into a slanging match and you end up swearing at him and storming out.
7 As a consultant, you take some photos of a hazard at a customer’s site. You later use the photos in a management training session for another company.
8 As a trainer, you are asked to deliver a risk-assessment course for a client. You then find you are double-booked for that day, so you arrange for a highly-competent associate to deliver the course on your behalf, but you don’t explain this to the customer — he’s still getting competent training, so there’s no problem.
9 Your main site has an 11kV substation. You are asked to draw up safety rules for work inside it that will allow your maintenance manager (who is an electrical engineer) to work safely but you have no experience yourself of high-voltage safety procedures. You go ahead anyway, on the grounds it will help you develop your skill base and contribute to your continuing professional development.
10 Your assistant safety advisor delivers some in-house induction training to new employees. One of them later complains that some of the language used was sexist. Your assistant feels this is unfair and is hurt by the challenge. You carry out a full investigation and find one thing was said that could have been taken the wrong way; however, you think the complainant has over-reacted. Nevertheless, you coach your assistant on the importance of using totally non-discriminatory language.
Answers
1 Unacceptable — making out you hold a qualification you don’t is dishonest and therefore contrary to the first core standard: ‘Integrity’.
2 You would not normally be expected to inform IOSH in these circumstances, but you should reflect on what’s happened and consider improving your driving behaviour.
3 Unacceptable — the Code makes it clear that you have to pursue this further. If you still don’t get a positive response and there is risk of serious injury or death, you might need to consider your position, or (if you are a consultant) not accept further work from that company.
4 Unacceptable — there is a clear conflict of interest here. Receiving a payment is unethical and compromises your professional integrity. It’s also likely to be a breach of your employment contract.
5 This is unacceptable. You have done the right thing being open about the relationship; the problem lies in your “recommendation”, as this could be seen as compromising your integrity and creating a conflict of interest. You need to be seen to be ethical as well as being ethical!
6 Your anger is understandable, but your behaviour is not acceptable.
7 This would only be acceptable with the permission of the first client, preferably in writing. Otherwise, it’s a breach of confidentiality.
8 Unacceptable — you are effectively sub-contracting the work and this should only be with your client’s express agreement.
9 Unacceptable — you are going outside your competence here. You could still use the situation to develop your own skills base by bringing in someone who is competent to lead the work and then collaborating with him/her.
10 Acceptable — you did the right thing.
The Safety Conversation with SHP (previously the Safety and Health Podcast) aims to bring you the latest news, insights and legislation updates in the form of interviews, discussions and panel debates from leading figures within the profession.
Find us on Apple Podcasts, Spotify and Google Podcasts, subscribe and join the conversation today!
