October 17, 2024Keith Hole candidly reflects on a changing profession.
Over the past 30 years that I have worked in the occupational safety and health profession, I have seen the role of the safety engineer transform into that of an advisor as processes and controls become ever more embedded into the way we work. When I started my journey in the construction industry the real focus was on the safety of ‘things’; a very tangible type of advice and prevention. Injuries and incidents were prevented by placing physical controls in place and PPE was very much at the forefront of people’s minds.
Just when you think you know what safety is, it’s transformed again, or more accurately the role of the safety advisor has changed. Reflecting, a safety officer was just that; very much the Ronseal version of a role – it does exactly what it says on the tin! People in these roles would tell people how to keep people physically safe. Over time this has diversified with a greater emphasis on people and in particular, the health of employees as the risks of certain health conditions such as those related to exposure to hazardous substances became more widely known.
By the 1990s and early 2000s the genie was well and truly out of the bottle and the focus started to shift with greater weight towards health, with a strong focus on physical health. Larger companies started looking at the health provisions they had in place and the safety advisor now had this in their remit. Over time, this focus evolved to include mental health and the general wellbeing of employees and, just as they did with physical health, the safety advisor’s remit expanded again.
Our safety advisors had become holistic practitioners providing advice and guidance on all matters of physical and mental health, safety and wellbeing. So what happened next? From my experience it has been a metamorphosis; from advisor to coach. In sport, the coach provides the tools and training the players on the skills they need to succeed and safety advisors have become safety coaches, providing the same tools and training to the managers and employees to enable them to take on greater responsibility for health, safety and wellbeing.
So, we’ve seen the safety caterpillar transform into a coaching butterfly, soaring above the various teams they look after and giving the support they need to continue to deepen their confidence and competence. As these managers and employees become better at delivering this, and the maturity of these organisations grow, where is that butterfly headed? It has wings and is off visiting pastures new, from the environment and sustainability to the wider role of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) and beyond.
The emergence of ESG as a critical factor in corporate reputation and financial performance has driven this change for our safety coach of a butterfly. ESG considerations, which encompass a range of issues including sustainability, human rights (including the ILO’s drive for safety to be a basic human right) and ethical business practices, have become increasingly important to investors, consumers, and regulators. As a result, organisations are facing growing pressure to demonstrate their commitment to ESG principles.
The traditional focus on protecting assets and preventing accidents has also undergone a significant transformation. While OSH remains an essential component of safety management, there is a growing recognition that safety is not solely about protecting physical assets. Instead, the focus is changing towards sustainable practices. This includes addressing issues such as ergonomic hazards, mental health, and workplace violence; while working closely with HR, risk management, and other departments to develop comprehensive safety programs that address the needs of the entire workforce.
“While the OSH professional was once a caterpillar changing to become a butterfly, they now need to be something of a chameleon”
While the OSH professional was once a caterpillar changing to become a butterfly, they now need to be something of a chameleon, depending on where their advice is being sought. This is also true with the risk of integrated approaches to the management of key business aspects such safety, quality and the environment.
The focus on integration has led to integrated management systems being favoured and, more often than not, the responsibility for these resides with the OSH department. It also means that new developments such as IWA 48 which sets out a framework for the reporting of ESG activities now also sit with the OSH team.
This most recent change represents a significant risk, with the OSH professional wearing many hats and having demands placed on them from many directions. This range of requirements may push OSH professionals to act beyond their levels of competence and placing themselves, the companies they work for and others at risk. They are also at greater personal risk of burnout as the demands on them grow and unless supported they may find that it is not a challenge which can be won.
The role of the OSH professional has certainly transformed, and this transformation brings new challenges for both the individual and the companies they work for, and care needs to be taken to ensure that confidence and demand do not outweigh the need to work within our own areas of competence and expertise.
Is safety dead? – a really interesting discussion and a good reminder about making sure that as professionals we don’t over-reach our capabilities. Insightful and thought provoking in equal measure.
Thank you Lucy; Safety is now a vast subject and we must remember that we can’t know it all.
I’m not sure about dead. But certainly a minefield. Just when you think you have grasped a good understanding of it, the lines between common sense and ludicrousy become very blurred, and you’re left questioning what you thought you knew.
The thing I have noticed is the ‘add ons’. After a couple of years as a Health and Safety Manager, I had facilities added to my remit. Then came environment, and quality. With environment came energy. I believe a lot of the time, these are distractions. Remits are added almost to try and give the H&S role added value. But the H&S role deserves to be stand alone.
The scope has become so wide now we must consider our specialisms and where we can do the most good.
I think this scope creep is one of the issues.
Thought that was quite a good argument, we have always thought of it as wearing different hats as HSE Professionals it becomes S- Sustainability. S- Security. FM – Facilities Management. AS- Aviation Security, i could go on, i don’t think other people sometimes get the point, if someone leaves or goes off ill, ah give it to safety they haven’t got much to do…
Simple answer YES, when a company requests that a risk assessment be carried out for female members of staff going through the menopause but insists that male members of staff be included. When a company requests that a stress risk assessment be carried out for various work activities then asks the safety adviser to become a stress councillor. The bottom line is safety advisers are NOT occupational health nurses nor clinical psychologists, when you occupy a safety advisers time with these issues “especially in a construction environment” then the the more higher risk activities may be overlooked or missed.
Being experts in risk does mean we get given other high-risk add-ons, maybe this is the time for the profession to pivot. Let’s see what Anticipate brings on the topic. https://www.anticipate-event.com/
Thank you Tony, We must make sure we dont get pulled to far away from our core competency.
Thanks for your thoughts Ian.
What an interesting article Keith. I love the fact you put the current role of safety practitioners in the context of its historical evolution, so that it’s easy to understand why we are where we are. I’m now wondering how the structure of OSH teams needs to change in order to better serve the needs you describe, and balancing both competency with scope? And potentially even what we call ourselves? We can’t simply keep bolting things on. Perhaps the answer lies in how we define the risk department, and its component areas? When we consider what we do in a more holistic way, it may be easier to work on common principles that cross all areas, thus enhancing our impact and reducing workload and duplication. I feel a second article coming on Keith.
I love your idea of common principles, this is something I try to promote in businesses through their risk committees. Good risk management is about employees thinking “do I need to tell my boss!”. If they do, then maybe it should be on a risk register somewhere.
The next question is how do we manage this scope creep?
You raise some interesting points