Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Risk Management
A web forum on risk ran from 13th July until 5th October and gave people a chance say online where the sensible balance lies in health and safety.
We had hundreds of contributers, giving their views and making suggestions on how best to tackle the issues. We have summarised the debate, as well as actions we propose to take in response. Here too you will find information on three specific issues that we think are particularly important: public safety; education; and Local Government.
We deliberately kept a low profile in the web forum – we wanted to hear what you had to say. We needed your independent views to help us develop a broadly held consensus on what sensible risk management should mean in practice.
Before we summarise the debate, we’ll just recap on the main topic area, ‘excessive risk aversion’. We believe there are some serious issues about risk that need to be faced up to. On the one hand there are stories of hanging baskets being banned in case they fall on someone, trapeze artists being made to wear hard hats, children being banned from playing conkers or made to wear goggles when they do and signs to be put up on Snowdon to warn of slippery areas. Fortunately some of the stories are just that – stories. But worryingly, whilst they go well beyond what is required by law, others are based in fact. On the other hand, last year 235 people were killed at work, well over 30,000 suffered major injuries (broken bones etc) and 30 million working days were lost due to ill health caused or made worse by work. Many of the injuries and cases of ill health resulted from very well-know and preventable causes. They resulted in individual suffering, costs to business and to the economy as a whole.
The term ‘risk aversion’ can be open to misinterpretation, as the initial debate on the main forum clearly showed. We understand the ambiguity in the phrase, and in hindsight we should have been clearer on what we meant. Risk aversion is no bad thing when it is proportional to the level of risk. What we are concerned about is better described as excessive risk aversion, where control measures are wholly disproportionate to the actual level of risk present.
Quite a few contributors felt that in the workplace, disproportionate decisions were the exception rather than the rule, and in general, balanced decisions were made. (Notwithstanding the fact that we all have our views on what standards are appropriate in making these decisions). To assist in making these decisions we had many and varied suggestions - for example, the use of standards, a more ‘expert’ approach to the use of risk assessment and its application, better education and so on. We agree with a lot of this. We do need to prevent avoidable injuries, ill health and fatalities. We do need to make sure those who persistently and willfully flout the law are brought to book.
To help provide some focus to the debate, we asked for comments in three specific areas where excessive risk aversion has provoked controversy: public safety, education, and local government. However, the main issues to emerge in the debate were not context specific – some of the issues that arose on the public safety thread were common to those in the local authorities; the particular difficulties faced by the education sector were also often common to the local authorities. So we have concerned ourselves in this summary with the general points contributors made. Nevertheless, we have commissioned research looking at whether excessively risk averse decisions are more prevalent in the public safety area and the educations and local authority sectors. And if so, what the reasons for this might be.
Many contributors noted that the public seems to be ‘irrational’ in their perception of risk. There appears great fear of certain hazards, when in reality the risk from these hazards is miniscule (and has remained miniscule for years). On the other hand, there is a societal tolerance of some risks that result in serious harm year in, year out. This is not to dismiss the ‘irrational’ perception some members of the public may have; rather it is for us to better communicate on matters of risk and its control.
Several contributors pointed out that an expectation that someone else will have managed all risks, presents a risk of its own. In particular, a constant preoccupation with the presence of hazards and associated risks (one contributor mentioned the ubiquity of ‘Caution – Slippery Floor’ signs) may lead to an over-familiarity. We expect hazards to be clearly signposted and so once they are not, we are immediately exposed – in the ‘slippery floor’ example we look for the sign not for the water on the floor. There is a risk that we lose the concept of personal responsibility and reduce levels of protection as a result.
Many contributors noted that the taking of risks for some benefit is instinctive – it was necessary for our ancestors to emerge from the caves and for us continuing to enjoy the quality of life we have. People need to have attitudes and attributes that enable them to function in a risky and uncertain world – some contributors wondered just how much it is a right to be kept ‘safe’ when we know the world is, and always has been, inherently ‘unsafe’? Continuing to expose children to managed risk through play, adventurous activities and the like, is one way to promote a personal responsibility for understanding risk.
But in exposing people to risk the question remains: should we expect harm to occur? The debate didn’t throw up a consensus, but it did show that communication is once again, important. ‘Play’ is inherently dangerous on some occasions, and for play to be meaningful, for it to be a beneficial experience, it is sometimes necessary to challenge and stimulate a child in a ‘risky’ environment. However we tackle this, it does seem to us that language is important here – as one contributor pointed out, a ‘safe and caring’ environment is arguably an oxymoron.
A ‘compensation’ culture is often mooted as a factor in encouraging risk averse decisions, but the evidence is not clear, as the debate has shown. Studies consistently show that the level of claims has actually fallen in recent years. However the perception of rising levels of compensation and a “have a go culture” is problematic and can result in excessive risk aversion. As with ‘irrational’ perceptions of risk, our challenge is to better understand how perception of a compensation culture can lead to excessive risk aversion so that we can take appropriate corrective steps.
There is a need for us all in the health and safety community to be better at learning lessons and sharing information. In particular, we need to share information on why certain accidents happened, what the real causes were. In part this stems from the wide-ranging but not conclusive debate we have had on ‘do accidents indeed just happen?’ Learning and understanding why accidents have happened, disseminating the information and lessons quickly, will maybe help us to better understand this question.
There are many ways of effectively assessing and managing risk. There were suggestions that regulators should be better at accepting this. For example, we in HSE promote the ‘5 Steps’ approach to risk assessment. But many may not use this – they may use another approach that is different but still works. It is suggested we should be more accepting of alternative processes, proving they provide the desired result – effective and proportionate control of risks. We are sympathetic to this view – after all, an over-technocratic approach to risk assessment is seen by many contributors as being unhelpful.
It can be very easy for the debate about risk management to appear polarised – people either believe that regulation is nothing but needless red tape and should be scrapped, or else we should strive to eliminate all risks completely. The forum showed that these are in fact stereotypes – there was wide acceptance that risks cannot in fact be eliminated, but rather they should be managed effectively. The difference of course lay in where the balance should be drawn between risk and cost.
We found this encouraging, of course we will not all agree, but at least we seem to be talking the same language – managing risk, not trying
to eliminate every risk altogether.
Action: We will seek to establish a broad consensus on a set of principles of sensible risk management. Drawing on findings from the web
forum and research we will propose a draft set of principles for discussion and then consultation.
This debate has been most helpful for us. Our website will keep you up to date with how we are taking this work forward, but to summarise some of our future initiatives include:
Myth of the month