The integration imperative: Bridging gaps in injury management
Understanding and combating complacency in the workplace
Rethinking SWMS: Streamlining safety for high-risk construction work
OHS Professional
Published by the Australian Institute of Health & Safety (AIHS) Ltd. ACN 151 339 329
The AIHS publishes OHS
Professional magazine, which is published quarterly and distributed to members of the AIHS. The AIHS is Australia’s professional body for health & safety professionals. With more than 70 years’ experience and a membership base of 4000, the AIHS aims to develop, maintain and promote a body of knowledge that defines professional practice in OHS.
Phone: (03) 8336 1995
Postal address
PO Box 1376
Kensington VIC 3031
Street address
3.02, 20 Bruce Street
Kensington VIC 3031
Membership enquiries
E: membership@aihs.org.au
Editorial Craig Donaldson
E: ohsmagazine@aihs.org.au
Design/Production
Anthony Vandenberg
E: ant@featherbricktruck.com.au
Proofreader
Lorna Hudson
Printing
Printgraphics
The integration imperative: Bridging gaps in injury management: How are fragmented EHS technology and low engagement hindering injury management?
Does your safety strategy need a digital upgrade? WHS strategies often fail to effectively integrate technology and data, creating a critical gap in safety innovation
Advertising enquiries
Advertising Manager
Natalie Hall
M: 0403 173 074
E: natalie@aihs.org.au
For the OHS Professional magazine media kit, visit www.aihs.org.au.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed within are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect AIHS opinion or policy. No part of this magazine may be reproduced in whole or in part without the permission of the publisher. Advertising material and inserts should not be seen as AIHS endorsement of products or services
Navigating the challenges of ethical leadership in OHS: Why OHS professionals who are under pressure must navigate ethical dilemmas to uphold worker safety and integrity
Understanding and combating complacency in the workplace: Understanding complacency helps tailor safety interventions, reduce risks, and enhance OHS
Rethinking SWMS: Streamlining safety in the construction industry: SWMS require better formatting, improved worker consultation, and closer attention to high-risk work
Measuring what matters: Advancing OHS with integrated safety metrics: Leading companies demonstrate that aligning OHS measurement with strategic goals can turn data into a driver for safer, more resilient workplaces
How OHS professionals can make an impact
There are a number of skills and experiences which OHS professionals can leverage to create a more meaningful impact, writes Craig
Craig Donaldson, editor, OHS Professional
Workplace health and safety performance measurement has been a topic of ongoing debate for years. This highlights the challenge that many organisations face in implementing effective OHS metrics. When used properly, these metrics can guide decision-making, promote desired behaviours, improve workplace conditions, and drive effective OHS and business outcomes – all aligned neatly to organisational strategy. However, if misapplied, OHS metrics can become a burdensome administrative task that consumes significant time and resources without yielding meaningful insights. In such cases, the focus on collecting data may overshadow the purpose of improving safety performance, leading to inefficiencies. Organisations may fall into the trap of relying too heavily on a limited number of lag indicators (for example), which can present a distorted picture of safety performance and fail to address underlying issues.
In the cover story for this issue, we look at how and why OHS performance measurement should align with a clear set of strategic objectives to create value and
enable high performance. This article features case studies of companies that have taken bespoke approaches to OHS performance measurement. These companies (Journey Beyond, BSA Ltd, and Siemens) are adopting more integrated and forward-thinking approaches to HSE performance, focusing on cultural and strategic elements, emphasising leadership, employee engagement, and real-time data to enhance safety outcomes and drive continuous improvement. For the full story, turn to page 16.
“Organisations may fall into the trap of relying too heavily on a limited number of lag indicators (for example), which can present a distorted picture of safety performance and fail to address underlying issues”
Also, in this issue, we look at the effectiveness (or lack thereof) of Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS), focusing on the construction industry. There has been much debate in recent years about SWMS and whether they are fit for purpose, with some arguing that they have become bloated, ineffective exercises in compliance and box-ticking. Our compliance feature (beginning page 28) recommends focusing SWMS on specific high-risk activities, simplifying their format, involving workers
The OHS Professional editorial board 2024
Donaldson
in their development, and ensuring regular reviews and updates to keep them relevant. Improved administrative oversight and better worker engagement could significantly enhance the effectiveness of SWMS in managing safety risks, and the article ends with a simplified and streamlined approach to making SWMS more efficient.
In our risk management feature, Holcim’s Kerry Smith puts complacency in the safety spotlight and explains how behaviours that appear safe may lead to risks due to repeated exposure without incident. The article identifies four types of complacency and suggests tailored interventions for each. By understanding the type of complacency involved, Smith says safety strategies can be better focused on minimising risks, such as quantifying rewards or highlighting long-term consequences. Addressing complacency effectively requires targeting specific behaviours, clarifying the ‘why’ behind safety measures, and providing feedback to reinforce safe practices.
Lastly, AIHS Fellow Clare Kitcher reflects on her career, highlighting the significance of fellowship and her commitment to advancing OHS. Beginning her safety journey in the UK rail industry, she transitioned into operational safety roles, eventually moving to Australia, where she influenced national rail safety legislation and regulations. Her AIHS fellowship has allowed her to connect with senior professionals, share her expertise, and promote a culture of safety through mentoring and team development. Kitcher encourages other experienced OHS professionals to continually challenge themselves and consider fellowship with the AIHS in the interests of ongoing personal and professional development. Turn to page 12 to read her story.
NAOMI
Reflections and aspirations
2024 was a year of growth, innovation, and advocacy for the AIHS, which will continue on this trajectory in the coming year, writes Julia Whitford
As we close another year at the AIHS, it’s a privilege to reflect on a period marked by growth, innovation, and advocacy on behalf of the profession. While our annual activities often follow a familiar rhythm, each year we find ourselves achieving more than the last – exploring new territory, introducing fresh member offerings, and amplifying our voice to new heights.
With our annual symposiums having just wrapped up, we continue to see the tremendous value that these regionally tailored events bring. Local branch committees create spaces to share insights, develop skills, and foster local connections. This year, we revitalised our presence in the ACT – a region where engagement had waned over
Corporate Members
Amazon Commercial Services
Avetta
CleanSpace Technology
Everyday Massive
HSI Donesafe
Pan Software
Programmed
Anitech Pty Ltd
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Unity
Brisbane Catholic Education
Clough Projects Australia
Cm3 Contractor Management
Convergint
CROSS Asia Pacific
Curtin University
Downer EDI
Ecoportal
FIFO Focus
Fusion Safety Management
Guardian Angel Safety
Herbert Smith Freehills
the past decade. After putting out a call for support, energy was revived in the region, and I’m thrilled to report that our ACT Symposium was once again a success.
“We must be ready to meet the profession’s rapid growth and the increasing complexity of workplace wellbeing and safety”
A standout achievement this year was the launch of SPARK, our new AI knowledge assistant, designed to transform how you access critical information. As the first tool of its kind in Australia, SPARK provides quick, question-based access to thousands of pages of legislation, regulations, and content from the AIHS’s very own OHS Body of Knowledge. By enabling faster, more efficient knowledge retrieval, SPARK saves AIHS members time and supports better informed decision making. Developed directly in response to member feedback, it was a huge achievement to hand over SPARK to our members. Thank you to all of you who have reached out and shared stories on how you’ve incorporated it into your work.
Resolution Education Sentis
TAFE NSW
Techtronic Industries Australia
Woolworths Group
Zenergy
HOK Talent Solutions
Perth Workplace Safety Consultants
Pilz Australia
Pocketknife Group
Port of Newcastle Operations
RiskTalk
Safesearch
Safetysure
Trainwest Safety Institute
Transurban
UnitingSA
Workwear Direct
Actrua
Area9 Lyceum
Australian Army
This year also saw the AIHS take significant strides in advancing our advocacy efforts. Recognising the essential role of policy in shaping the WHS landscape, we have become a strong voice in the campaign for free access to standards referenced in WHS legislation. Our advocacy agenda has also expanded to address psychosocial hazards and improve road safety for those whose workplace is the road. Through increased media presence and public visibility, we are ensuring the profession’s voice is heard. We will continue to engage with you – our members – on the issues that matter most to you and advocate on your behalf.
Looking to the future, one thing is clear: the profession will continue to change. As we embrace new responsibilities, leverage emerging technologies, and strive to elevate the standing of safety professionals, it is essential for the Institute to remain adaptable and future focused. We must be ready to meet the profession’s rapid growth and the increasing complexity of workplace wellbeing and safety.
None of the accomplishments of the past twelve months would be possible without the dedication of our members, volunteers, and the remarkable AIHS team. Thank you for your commitment to safety, your advocacy for best practices, and your role in building this vibrant community.
Here’s to another year of progress and success. Wishing you a wonderful and safe holiday season.
Australian Psychological Services
BGIS
Coles Group
COLLAR
Dangerous Goods Network
EML
EY
Federation University
Hansen Yuncken
HSE Global
ICAM Australia
Jones Lang LaSalle
K & L Gates
Kitney OHS
Liontown Resources
Metcash
MinterEllison Lawyers
Northrop Grumman Australia
Peter Berry Consultancy
Safety Champion Software
Soter Analytics
Teamcare Insurance Brokers
The Safe Step
BEING PART OF THE NETWORK – BRONZE MEMBERS
5 Sticks Consulting
Airbus Australia Pacific
BWC Safety
CAF Rail Australia
Complete Security Protection
Department of Energy, Mines, Industry
Regulation and Safety
FEFO Consulting
Flick Anticimex
Health & Safety Advisory Service
Hitachi Rail STS
Integrated Trolley Management
Liberty Industrial
National Storage
National Training Masters
Office for the Commissioner of Public
Sector Employment
Peninsula Australia
ProcessWorx
SafeWork SA
Scenic Rim Regional Council
Services Australia
SIXP Consulting
The Risk Co
Westside Christian College
Julia Whitford, CEO, Australian Institute of Health & Safety
Workplace fatalities on the rise
200 people were fatally injured at work in Australia last calendar year, compared to 195 in 2022, according to recent Safe Work Australia data. It found that the traumatic injury fatality rate for workers in Australia has decreased by 19 per cent over the past decade, while Australia’s current work-related injury rate of 3.5 per cent – the proportion of people who experienced a work-related injury or illness in the previous 12 months – is roughly one-third of the global rate of 12.1 per cent. Just over three-quarters of work-related traumatic injury fatalities and 61 per cent of serious workers’ compensation claims occurred in just six industries: agriculture, forestry and fishing; public administration and safety; transport, postal and warehousing; manufacturing; health care and social assistance, and construction. The Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2024 report also found that claims for mental health conditions continued to increase in 2023, now accounting for 10.5 per cent of all serious claims. This is a 19.2 per cent increase from 2021-22 and a 97.3 per cent increase compared with 10 years ago. In these cases, the median time lost from work is more than five times longer than that recorded across all injuries and diseases.
Long-term standing doesn’t improve cardiovascular health
Standing more compared with sitting does not improve cardiovascular health over the long term and could increase the risk of circulatory issues related to standing, such as varicose veins and deep vein thrombosis, according to research by the University of Sydney. Standing has gained popularity among people looking to offset the harms of a sedentary lifestyle often caused by spending long days sitting in front of the computer or television or behind the wheel. Standing desks have become a popular option among office workers, and in other industries like retail, workers may opt to stand instead of sit. However, their efforts may produce a different result than desired. The study, published in the International Journal of Epidemiology, found that sitting for over ten hours a day increased cardiovascular disease and orthostatic incidence risk, reinforcing the need for greater physical activity throughout the day. “We found that standing more does not improve cardiovascular health over the long term and increases the risk of circulatory issues,” said lead author from the Faculty of Medicine and Health Dr Matthew Ahmadi. “The key takeaway is that standing for too long will not offset an otherwise sedentary lifestyle and could be risky for some people in terms of circulatory health.”
HSE demand remains healthy in challenging job market
Despite recent fluctuations in the Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) job market, demand for HSE professionals continues to outpace pre-pandemic levels, according to The Safe Step’s recent HSE Job Opportunities Index. While the HSE job market is not immune to broader economic pressures, its continued resilience reflects the continued importance of workplace safety and wellbeing across various industries, as well as the increasing complexity of regulatory compliance and risk management in the HSE field. The survey found that HSE job opportunities have risen 1.6 per cent in the last period, rebounding after four consecutive quarterly declines. And despite a softening from the record-highs seen in early 2023, demand for HSE professionals remains 83 per cent higher than pre-pandemic levels. The healthcare and medical sector continues to advertise the most job opportunities for HSE professionals, while HSE opportunities are also strong in the public sector and mining sectors. Queensland now accounts for 26.9 per cent of national HSE vacancies, behind New South Wales.
Workers’ compensation claims rise over workplace violence and assaults
There has been a 56 per cent increase in workers’ compensation claims for assaults and exposure to workplace violence since 2017-18, according to a recent Safe Work Australia report. It found that there were 53,139 accepted workers’ compensation claims for being assaulted and 12,721 accepted claims for exposure to workplace or occupational violence over the past 10 years. From 2017-18 to 2021-22, the report said there was a distinct increase in the number of serious workers’ compensation claims (involving at least one week away from work) for workplace violence and assault. In terms of the highest injury types from being assaulted or exposure to workplace violence, these included traumatic joint/ligament and muscle/tendon injury, wounds, lacerations, amputations and internal organ damage, fractures, and musculoskeletal and connective tissue diseases. The Workplace and Work-Related Violence and Aggression in Australia Report said there have been 176,100 workplace incidents that occurred in the past 10 years, with physical violence more likely to occur in a workplace setting than sexual violence.
The psychosocial risks of collaborative robots in the workplace
The growing use of collaborative robots in the workplace may pose significant psychosocial risks to workers’ mental health and their job security, but there are ways for organisations to smooth the transition, according to Monash University research. While collaborative robots are often portrayed as increasing efficiency and speed, and providing a safe and reliable means to reduce physical workplace risk, less is known about the hidden psychosocial risks employees may face. “Workers often perceive cobots (collaborative robots) as potential threats to their job stability, especially when collaboration between humans and machines is minimal; lower collaboration may be perceived as a strategy to automate work and replace operators with machines. This perception can lead to increased stress and decreased trust in new technologies,” said Monash Business School professor in leadership and organisational behaviour, Herman Tse, who co-authored the research report, Collaborative Robots and Work Health and Safety (WHS): Survey Report. “Cobots” are built to work alongside humans in shared environments, bringing a number of benefits to different industries, according to Tse.
Comprehensive WHS policies key to preventing workplace sexual harassment
A multifaceted approach that incorporates workplace sexual harassment (WSH) policies is most effective in preventing and addressing workplace sexual harassment, according to Comcare. A review of 14 studies on the effectiveness of interventions to reduce and prevent workplace sexual harassment found that single interventions, such as training, can have a positive effect on single outcomes; however, single interventions were less effective when used in isolation – especially if the organisational culture overlooks gender-based harassment. Comcare said that various interventions are required to reduce workplace sexual harassment, including comprehensive policies, complaints systems, and wide-reaching training and education. Notably, an organisation needs a zero-tolerance policy supported by strong leadership that models anti-harassment and gender-equal values and behaviours. The review examined the effectiveness of WSH policies, which showed a range of positive and negative outcomes.
How the AIHS Standards Committee champions safety
The AIHS Standards Committee empowers members to shape Australian
standards and help
enhance WHS practices, writes Jeremy Clay
The Australian Institute of Health and Safety (AIHS) has an active interest in the role of Standards in the OHS landscape. The AIHS is a proud member of Standards Australia which assists in the direct development of Australia’s ever-evolving Standards. In particular, the College of Fellows (COF) Standards Subcommittee acts as the nominating organisation and liaison between Members and Standards Australia, and also provides advice on and reviews upcoming projects.
The AIHS Standards Committee is dedicated to fostering an environment where members are actively involved in the creation and refinement of standards, especially those that may directly affect the profession. This involvement not only enhances the quality and relevance of the standards, but also empowers members to contribute their expertise and insights. By supporting Standards Australia Technical Committees, the AIHS ensures that both Australian and International Standards reflect the latest advancements and best practices in OHS.
“The AIHS Standards Committee plays a crucial role in supporting and advocating for its members, ensuring the development and implementation of robust Australian Standards”
While the Standards Committee is overseen by a Fellow and member of the COF executive, you don’t need to be a fellow to participate. The selection of volunteer candidates is typically based on expressions
Jeremy Clay, Chair of the AIHS Standards Committee, says it is making a lasting impact on the WHS health and safety landscape, benefiting both current and future generations of the profession
of interest. Candidates are evaluated on a number of criteria, though acceptance is skewed towards certified members. At the time of writing, AIHS has been a part of 32 technical committees and is recruiting six more volunteers for positions held by retiring members as part of its 2024 EOI campaign. From time to time, AIHS will be inviting expressions of interest for special projects such as the major revision of the Australian Wiring Standard (AS3000).
Celebrating success in standards development
The AIHS Standards Committee has celebrated numerous successes in the publication of standards. For instance, the AIHS submitted an extensive review of draft standard AS5370, contributing over 73 technical comments. This effort resulted in a significant section of Australian national variations being incorporated during the mirror project of the International Standard. Additionally, the AIHS advocated for Australian technical committees to participate in international technical committees to further drive development on a global scale. This is all thanks to the tireless efforts of members like Phillip Hibbs, who dedicated considerable time to this project.
safety
We have also advocated for updating practices on technical areas such as the introduction of controls around new technologies like lightning protection around hydrogen production plants.
Focus on psychological health and safety
Recognising the critical importance of mental health in the workplace, the Standards Committee has worked closely with Standards Australia to deliver practical guidance on the implementation of AS ISO 45003, which addresses psychological health and safety at work. This standard is essential for managing psychosocial risks such as work-related stress, bullying, and job insecurity, thereby creating safer and more supportive workplaces.
A notable event featured Ben Russell, engagement manager at Standards Australia, who provided an overview of the standard’s development and key principles. The event also welcomed Chanel Nesci, general manager of wellbeing and safety at Bupa, who shared Bupa’s journey in implementing the standard. Nesci emphasised the tangible benefits of improving workplace mental health and overall safety, highlighting practical strategies Bupa employed to create a more inclusive and healthier work environment.
Key takeaways from the webinar
The webinar offered valuable insights into how Bupa is proactively managing psychosocial risks and enhancing workplace safety. Key takeaways included:
• Integrating psychosocial risk management: Bupa has effectively integrated the AS/NZS ISO 45003:2021 framework with the broader AS/NZS ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management System Standard. This comprehensive approach addresses both physical safety and mental health, fostering a supportive work environment.
• Leadership involvement: Bupa’s leadership is deeply involved in managing psychosocial risks, aligning with the emphasis on strong leadership in standards like AS/NZS ISO 45003:2021. Senior leaders
receive specialised training and personalised coaching to make informed decisions that prioritise mental health and safety.
• Employee engagement: Recognising that one size does not fit all, Bupa developed psychosocial health checks to capture the unique needs and risks of their diverse workforce. This tailored approach is crucial for effectively managing psychosocial risks.
• Data-driven decisions: Bupa uses data to drive their safety and wellbeing strategies, collecting and analysing a wide range of metrics to ensure continuous improvement and proactive risk management.
• Balancing wellbeing and safety: Bupa’s approach demonstrates that employee wellbeing and workplace safety go hand in hand. By focusing on both prevention and support, they create a safer and more supportive environment, aligning
with holistic workplace health and safety principles.
Safety Month webinar: Standards Australia and standards development
The AIHS Standards Committee hosted a webinar focusing on Standards Australia and the standards development process. Standards development relies heavily on volunteers, including AIHS members, to assist in creating these best practice standards. The webinar aimed to demystify the development of Australian and International Standards and highlight how members can contribute to this vital process. The learning outcomes included:
• Understanding Standards Australia’s role: Gain an understanding of Standards Australia’s role as the peak
non-government standards development organisation in Australia. Learn about the importance of technical standards in promoting safety, reliability, and efficiency across various industries. Explore the involvement of volunteers in the standards development process and their contributions to shaping guidelines and specifications.
• The process of standards development: Introduction to the process of standards development, from concept generation to adoption and publishing. Gain insights into the different stages involved in creating technical standards. Identify the key stakeholders and their roles at each stage.
• Understanding the relationship between Standards Australia and ISO: Explore the relationship
between Standards Australia and international standardisation bodies like the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). Understand the mechanics of international standardisation.
Advocacy and future initiatives
The AIHS continues to advocate for its members through various initiatives. Members are actively involved in working groups on international committees, such as Emerging Themes in OHS Management and OHS Risks Arising from Climate Change, to name a few. The outcome will be tangible standards development within the ISO 45000 series.
The AIHS is also working towards advocating for free end-user access to the standards referenced in OHS legislation, especially for members. There is a cost for
developing standards, where revenue has traditionally come from publishing the standards.
“The committee’s efforts not only safeguard the wellbeing of workers, but also foster a culture of continuous improvement and excellence in OHS practices”
The AIHS Standards Committee plays a crucial role in supporting and advocating for its members, ensuring the development and implementation of robust Australian Standards. Through active involvement in standards development, practical guidance on implementation, and continuous
advocacy, the AIHS is dedicated to enhancing workplace health and safety across Australia and beyond. The committee’s efforts not only safeguard the wellbeing of workers, but also foster a culture of continuous improvement and excellence in OHS practices.
As we look to the future, the AIHS Standards Committee remains steadfast in its commitment to advancing the profession and ensuring that Australian workplaces are among the safest in the world. By championing the development and adoption of comprehensive OHS standards, the AIHS Standards Committee is making a lasting impact on the health and safety landscape, benefiting both current and future generations of the profession.
The Standards Committee also produces member-only information about standards developments on the AIHS website. Once you log in, please select AIHS Standards Committee. We are in the process of updating the report for 2024.
Jeremy Clay is Chair of the AIHS Standards Committee. He is based in Melbourne CBD for Cushman Wakefield, providing health and safety services to NAB for their built environment.
AIHS calls for free access to safety standards
The AIHS recently called for key standards to be made available for free, as small businesses continue to struggle with high operational and living costs. Currently, there are 17 Australian Standards referenced in the model WHS regulations that must be purchased, in addition to other requirements in state-based legislation. “These documents are crucial to ensuring workplaces are safe and productive,” said AIHS Chair, Cameron Montgomery.
“Any standards referred to in legislation should not sit behind a paywall, and should be freely available to those tasked with adhering to them in order to keep workplaces safe.
“Businesses must pay hundreds of dollars a year to access a selection of standards, and as businesses grapple with inflation and other financial pressures, we are concerned this is a cost some will forgo, potentially compromising safety. These standards cover an array of areas, such as respiratory protective devices, identifying asbestos, electrical installations at construction and demolition sites, and occupational
health and safety management systems.
“Free access to standards is something our members ask for. This would help to reduce the regulatory burden faced by business owners and safety professionals. Much of the original pricing was set based on the number of physical pages printed, but nowadays, standards are distributed digitally via PDF or to mobile devices. At a minimum, costs should be reduced to reflect that.”
Montgomery said a precedent for cutting costs was set last year when several standards were made available free of charge – but they did not relate to commercial use, so were irrelevant to businesses. “It’s not just business owners impacted by these costs. For health and safety professionals, accessing the necessary standards across industries and jurisdictions can be a significant cost burden to maintain current knowledge,” said Montgomery.
“It’s time these costs were removed to help businesses meet their obligations to operate safely and productively without having to be further out of pocket.”
The integration imperative: Bridging gaps in injury management
Fragmented EHS technology and low engagement are hindering injury management, which requires a more integrated approach to improve outcomes
The interplay between safety and injury management is critical for optimising overall EHS outcomes. Data derived from one element of EHS can be shared with others to prevent injuries from occurring and ensure a rapid return to work when injuries occur, according to a recent research report conducted by HSI Donesafe and Focus Network.
The report found that only 14 per cent of organisations in Australia consider their EHS and injury management functions to be fully aligned, while more than 50 per cent of injury and safety leaders believe their safety and injury technology is minimally integrated (or not integrated at all).
“The report reveals that many organisations struggle with effective injury management, with a significant portion of organisations still operating at low levels of technology maturity and integration,” said Andrew Milroy, lead researcher of the 2024 GERI (Global EHS Readiness Index) Report: The Australian Injury Prevention State of Play, which was commissioned by enterprise-ready EHS management solution provider, HSI Donesafe.
“While the majority reported that their organisation’s health and safety and injury management teams collaborate with each other, this does not extend to the use of shared systems. For instance, 40 per cent of organisations in Australia are at the most immature stage of injury management technology, relying heavily on offline tools like spreadsheets and customised forms.”
A lack of full integration of injury management with EHS functions can lead to fragmented processes, disjointed data, and inefficiencies, according to Milroy. “Key challenges in injury management stem from both technological limitations and organisational silos. Many organisations struggle with technology fragmentation, relying on multiple point solutions for EHS and injury functions instead of a unified system, which causes inconsistencies in data collection and reporting and limits injury management visibility across the EHS landscape,” he said.
Technology obstacles and integrations
However, the report also noted that
technology could serve as a key enabler for improving injury prevention and management. It found that 68 per cent of safety leaders believed new technology could reduce workplace incidents and lower compensation costs.
Additionally, Milroy reported that 46 per cent of EHS and injury leaders note that integration can significantly reduce administrative burdens, while 43 per cent cite data accuracy and consistency as essential yet challenging to maintain in fragmented systems.
However, cost remained the primary barrier to adoption, as cited by 34 per cent of respondents. System complexity and integration challenges emerged as the second biggest obstacle at 25 per cent, followed by organisational resistance to change at 14 per cent.
Low stakeholder engagement is another obstacle, as Milroy noted that only 5 per cent of organisations report high employee involvement in injury programs, though this engagement is crucial for effective management. “Additionally, integration with EHS outcomes is often lacking, with injury and EHS functions operating in silos that prevent data sharing and collaboration,” he said.
The research report, based on a survey of 156 injury management and EHS leaders
in Australia across multiple industries during the third quarter of 2024, found that data analytics capabilities are crucial for prevention efforts. The study found incident reports (87 per cent), hazard reporting (76 per cent), and incident investigations (75 per cent) were the most commonly used leading indicators. For lagging indicators, organisations primarily tracked workers’ compensation claims (80 per cent), lost time injury rates (76 per cent), and injury/ illness logs (72 per cent).
Mental health management
The research report also highlighted the important of mental health and wellbeing. It noted that the cost of injuries in terms of compensation and delayed return to work is increasing, particularly with tightened regulations around mental health. Indeed, 25% of organisations in Australia consider mental health as the leading area for improvement to injury management programs.
“Mental health management presents a growing challenge, as mental health injury claims result in much longer time away from work and higher compensation costs than physical injuries, necessitating a more integrated approach that includes mental health indicators within injury and EHS frameworks,” said Milroy.
The report stated that the median time lost from work for mental health conditions is 34.2 working weeks and the median compensation paid is $58,615. For all other claims, the median time lost from work is 5.4 working weeks and the median compensation paid is $12,547. “This is creating an urgent need to integrate EHS activities, including injury management, so insights can be shared and injuries prevented,” the report stated. “Furthermore, it is creating a need to integrate with other organisational functions such as HR to derive additional data that is relevant to mental health. For example, HR holds data on absenteeism which is a leading indicator for mental health.”
Implications for EHS professionals
For EHS professionals, Milroy said the challenges highlighted in the report have several implications. “Increased complexity
Focus Network’s Andrew Milroy said that injury management and EHS functions often operate in silos, which prevents data sharing and collaboration
in compliance arises from a lack of fully integrated systems, making compliance across injury and EHS functions more time-intensive, error-prone, and at higher risk of regulatory penalties,” he said.
“Additionally, missed prevention opportunities occur when siloed systems limit data sharing, causing trends in minor incidents or near-misses to go unaddressed and potentially escalate into serious injuries. The high operational costs associated with multiple point solutions and fragmented data systems create inefficiencies, diverting resources away from proactive injury prevention efforts.”
Finally, he said the need for mental health support is increasingly essential, as the rise in mental health injuries requires EHS professionals to integrate psychosocial risk factors into injury management strategies, often necessitating closer collaboration with HR.
As an additional snapshot to the GERI Injury Report, HSI Donesafe also surveyed attendees at the Comcare National Conference. In this poll, 301 participants were asked about the biggest obstacles they faced to advancing injury management programs in their organisations. Milroy said that 56 per cent identified addressing psychosocial injuries as their primary
challenge, followed by workplace culture and safety attitudes which were highlighted by 25 per cent.
Steps for integrating injury management with EHS strategy
To address these challenges, Milroy said EHS professionals can adopt several strategic approaches. Firstly, implementing unified systems is key. “A centralised EHS and injury management platform enhances data accuracy, reduces administrative burdens, and supports real-time monitoring for quicker incident response. Secondly, promoting cross-functional collaboration between injury management, EHS, and HR teams breaks down silos, enabling data sharing and alignment on injury prevention strategies through regular collaborative meetings,” he said.
EHS and injury managers should also leverage data insights for prevention and to proactively identify risks using both leading and lagging indicators. By integrating data from incident reports, hazard assessments, and mental health metrics, Milroy said EHS professionals can develop a comprehensive risk profile for early intervention. “Additionally, enhancing employee engagement and awareness through training programs fosters a culture of safety, which
is especially vital for mental health support where proactive measures are essential,” he added.
“Lastly, integrating mental health indicators within injury management by collaborating with HR systems helps track absenteeism or productivity declines that may point to psychosocial issues, allowing for timely, supportive interventions.”
Five key action steps for EHS professionals
1. Build organisational awareness: Create a comprehensive training program that helps managers and staff understand their roles in injury management and prevention. Focus particularly on mental health awareness, ensuring everyone understands the warning signs and knows how to access support pathways.
2. Integrate systems and data: Move away from spreadsheets and paper-based systems towards an integrated platform that connects injury management with broader safety systems. Start with a pilot program to demonstrate the benefits before rolling the platform out across the organisation.
3. Strengthen leading indicators: Establish clear systems for capturing and analysing key preventive metrics like incident reports and hazard reporting, with regular reviews to spot trends early. Create clear escalation paths when these indicators suggest potential issues, ensuring quick intervention when needed.
4. Focus on mental health: Partner with HR to establish early warning systems for mental health issues and create tailored return-to-work programs for psychological injuries. Build a supportive culture where mental health discussions are normalised and early help-seeking is encouraged.
5. Drive technology adoption: Build a strong business case showing how technology investment will improve both safety outcomes and operational efficiency. Plan carefully for integration with existing systems and invest in proper training to ensure new solutions are effectively adopted.
HSI Donesafe is a diamond member of the Australian Institute of Health & Safety. For a copy of the 2024 GERI (Global EHS Readiness Index) Report: The Australian Injury Prevention State of Play, please visit www.donesafe.com/ au/2024-geri-injury-prevention-report.
Furthering a commitment to growth and development
AIHS Fellow Clare Kitcher discusses her career path, contributions to the field of OHS, the benefits of fellowship, and why it is important to give back to the profession
The AIHS College of Fellows was established in 2002 and comprises members who are Fellows and Honorary Fellows of the AIHS. As a senior network of the Institute, the College works to support the Institute’s vision, values, and strategy. Membership of the College recognises OHS professionals who are making a substantial ongoing contribution to and have a record of achievement in the field.
With this in mind, the AIHS encourages members to aspire to be Fellows. By highlighting volunteering opportunities and participation in the various activities of the College, they can gain greater peer recognition, personal satisfaction, and impact. Clare Kitcher is one such member, who stepped up to become an AIHS Fellow out of a deeper commitment to advancing the OHS profession.
The journey to fellowship Kitcher’s safety career started in the rail industry in UK when she shifted from operations management into operational safety. Having worked for six years managing train drivers and signallers, she felt it was a natural step into safety, focused on human performance including competency, fitness, and human-machine interfaces.
She subsequently became a member of IOSH (the UK’s equivalent to AIHS) and transferred her membership when she moved to Sydney. “AIHS felt like my community,” she recalled. “I was working in RailCorp NSW as the safety group general manager when I decided to pursue fellowship. I felt it was a deeper commitment to advancing the profession, giving me greater opportunities to influence safety policies and shape the future of safety practices.”
At the time, she was engaged in the introduction of national rail safety legislation and a national rail safety regulator and investigator, and sat on the drafting committee for the national law and regulations. “As you would expect, there were many challenging negotiations during that process, as we were dealing with strongly held and sometimes conflicting positions, but it was very fulfilling to influence discussions towards an effective (though nowhere near perfect) resolution,” she said.
Taking up AIHS fellowship was partly about the professional recognition that being a Fellow brings, Kitcher explained. “Fellowship is a mark of distinction and an acknowledgement from my peers of my expertise and professional leadership. Beyond recognising my skills, it also shows that I have something to contribute and comes with an expectation that I will be active in moving the profession forward and advancing sustainable safety performance. I felt energised by that and have taken up the challenge, especially through coaching and mentoring my team to grow and reach their full potential,” she said.
“I felt it was a deeper commitment to advancing the profession, giving me greater opportunities to influence safety policies and shape the future of safety practices”
Being a Fellow also opens doors to connect with other senior professionals, industry leaders, and experts, and Kitcher said she has connected with many people in other states and different industries. “I love collaborating and bringing together diverse experience and perspectives to generate innovative ideas and ways of working. It helps me to grow and give back more than I could if working alone,” she said.
Stepping stones to fellowship
Kitcher considers herself a lifelong learner, and explained that personal and professional development has always been important to her. “Gaining qualifications was partly about my need to learn, as well as to use that learning experience,” said Kitcher, who explained that, in the UK,
she gained qualifications at certificate and diploma level through the national examining board (NEBOSH). “Putting myself forward for fellowship was also part of this learning journey. I wanted to test myself and see if I could meet the exacting standards required,” she said.
Kitcher (who has now been in Australia for 20 years) was head of safety at a passenger train operating company before she left the UK. “Unfortunately, during that time, our trains were involved in three multi-fatality collisions: one from an error made by one of our staff members, one by another company’s staff, and one by a member of the public’s deliberate act. These were tragic events that caused lasting pain to those involved and their loved ones,” she recalled.
“For me, it was vital that the loss should prompt improvements in safety culture, technology, and practices. Two of the crashes gave rise to legal action and public inquires which provided a catalyst for critical learning, especially around human error prevention,” said Kitcher, who led the response and helped drive investment in improved technology. It was this experience that resulted in her being asked to move to Australia and help RailCorp respond to the train derailment and loss of life at Waterfall in 2003.
She subsequently spent nine years at RailCorp managing a team of up to 270 safety, environment, quality, and risk professionals. Her focus was on championing culture change, developing organisational management systems to make it easier for line managers to deliver good safety performance, and improving the control environment and organisation-wide risk-based decision making. She also directed the design and introduction of safety assurance and risk acceptance processes for major multibillion-dollar assets, including the Epping-Chatswood line and Waratah trains.
Her role at RailCorp was made redundant, which she said gave her the opportunity to take a break and reassess her career. “I decided to try two new things: I set up my own consulting business and I attended the AICD Company Directors Course. The latter set up potential
directorships and a variety of committee roles,” she said.
Kitcher also joined two audit and risk committees, and spent four years consulting on a range of work, including system safety reviews in Australia and Europe and alcohol and drug testing in Canada. “But I really missed leading a team. I needed to get back to a full-time leadership position, so I accepted the role of chief risk officer at TAFE NSW,” she said.
Alongside her safety career, Kitcher said she has been developing broader risk management abilities, leveraging her experience and expertise to help organisations navigate complex risk landscapes and stay
ahead of emerging challenges. “I encourage safe risk-taking and help managers handle failure,” she said.
“There is a different focus from OHS risk management in the enterprise risk space. Risk is not just something to be avoided. Decision-makers must do more than just mitigate their risks, and instead boldly approach transforming risk from a point of vulnerability to a catalyst for sustainable performance, growth, and innovation. The risk management fundamentals I have practiced during my safety career and the ideas generated by discussions with other AIHS Fellows have been powerful tools in enterprise risk management too,” she said.
The benefits of becoming a fellow Kitcher said that her favourite part of being a Fellow is the opportunity to connect with others. “I have met some great people through the College of Fellows, working in similar and completely different fields,” she said. “They have perspectives that are new and interesting to me, gained from their different experiences. We have fascinating conversations. Being a Fellow adds significant weight to my professional reputation when seeking consulting opportunities and invitations to run leadership training. I have also been asked to sit on executive safety and safety assurance committees to lend my expertise to the creation and implementation of strategic safety improvements,” she said.
On a personal level, the self-reflection and goal-setting involved in the journey to fellowship has been a source of considerable pride and accomplishment, which Kitcher said has motivated her to continue her journey of growth and expand her skills into other areas of risk. She has also started developing other skills, and is currently taking a course in Chinese for beginners.
Advice for members aspiring to become Fellows
For other AIHS members (as well as OHS professionals in general), Kitcher said that it is important to gain the trust of leaders and key decision-makers in order to be effective. “A supportive leadership team can significantly amplify your impact and lead to a better safety culture,” she said.
“This may mean building your skills in translating technical and complex information into actionable plans or using business language rather than OHS jargon. Developing your skills in clear, transparent communication will foster trust with stakeholders, ensuring that they feel confident in navigating uncertainty whilst staying true to their values”
She also urged OHS professionals to invest in their own continuous learning and development. “I am a passionate about empowering my team,” she said. “I hope to inspire and motivate them to think creatively and act decisively. I emphasise both their own development and connecting, engaging, and collaborating with others. The field of OHS is ever-evolving, with new regulations, technologies, and good practices emerging regularly. As an OHS professional, I would encourage you and your team to pursue ongoing professional development, attend industry conferences, and keep up with the latest safety research. You may want to challenge yourself to try for AIHS fellowship too.”
AIHS Fellow Clare Kitcher said the self-reflection and goal-setting involved in the journey to fellowship has been a source of considerable pride and accomplishment
Does your safety strategy need a digital upgrade?
As organisations grapple with digital transformation, WHS strategies often fail to effectively integrate technology and data, creating a critical gap in safety innovation.
The digital revolution has transformed nearly every aspect of modern business operations, yet one crucial area remains surprisingly disconnected from technological advancement: workplace health and safety. While companies invest heavily in digital tools to boost productivity and efficiency, their approach to safety often remains rooted in traditional methods and reactive measures. This disconnect is emerging as a critical challenge for organisations seeking to build more resilient and forward-thinking safety frameworks in an increasingly digital world.
When it comes to integrating technology and data into strategic plans, most organisations are still in the early stages of making this a core driver of WHS innovation, according to Cam Stevens, CEO of work design and safety transformation consultancy Pocketknife Group. While many are aware of the opportunities that technology and data offer, he said there is often a disconnect between this awareness and the actions required to embed them into WHS risk management frameworks.
“This disconnect can stem from a range of factors: a lack of clear vision from leadership, hesitancy to invest in unproven technology, or simply a lack of digital literacy within the decision-making ranks,” he said. “Most organisations will have a clearly defined technology strategy, a clearly defined WHS strategy, and an overarching business strategy. While the tech and WHS strategies generally align with business strategy, values, and objectives, there is almost never any meaningful integration between WHS and technology strategies. I call this gap a lack of a ‘digital safety strategy’: a WHS strategy that purposefully integrates data, technology, and innovation for improved WHS outcomes.”
In addition, health and safety professionals can often be pigeonholed as having a closed mindset to innovation, according to Stevens, as they often focus heavily on the negative side of the risk management equation. “We often fail to look at the opportunities when it comes to data, technology, and innovation, focusing solely
on risks. To truly leverage technology, we need a balance here – what I call ‘responsible innovation’, where we recognise both opportunities and risks, ensuring a thoughtful and human-centred approach to integrating technology into WHS strategy,” said Stevens, a certified chartered generalist OHS professional who also serves as a representative on the Standards Australia IT043 Mirror Committee for the Artificial Intelligence Joint Technical Committee of ISO and IEC.
Common challenges and issues
There are a number of challenges, which are both structural and cultural, for organisations. A common issue is siloed decision-making, according to Stevens, who said health and safety professionals are sometimes deliberately excluded from digital transformation projects or are brought in late, limiting their ability to influence how data is collected and used.
“While the tech and WHS strategies generally align with business strategy, values, and objectives, there is almost never any meaningful integration between WHS and technology strategies”
Additionally, he said WHS teams typically do not see ICT as a function that influences WHS outcomes, yet technology is integrated into the very fabric of how organisations plan and execute work. “Building relationships with ICT teams and viewing them as collaborative partners are necessary steps toward improving the
design, experience, and health and safety of work,” he said.
“There is also significant resistance to change within organisations, particularly when existing systems have been in place for years, if not decades. WHS strategies also do not typically include a supporting WHS data strategy that enables effective, real-time understanding of dynamic risk management. Leaders may face difficulty making the business case for advanced technologies, especially when improvements to safety and innovation can be hard to quantify compared to more tangible cost-savings metrics.
“Most WHS strategies are also developed based on responding to yesterday’s problems; they address corrective actions rather than leveraging strategic foresight. We rarely anticipate future risks and design strategies that look forward.” As a result, Stevens observed that health and safety initiatives still lean heavily on lag indicators like injury frequency rates, and organisations are less likely to explore how predictive analytics, AI, or connected devices can help anticipate risks before they become incidents.
What can organisations and leaders do?
To overcome these barriers, Stevens said organisations need to make deliberate efforts to elevate the role of data and technology in their strategic thinking. Leaders can start by fostering a culture of experimentation and by framing technology investments not only as productivity tools, but also as critical components for creating a safer and more innovative work environment. “This requires cross-functional collaboration, where WHS professionals are not only part of technology adoption discussions, but also have the opportunity to lead them. WHS professionals must build relationships with ICT and work collaboratively to integrate technology into WHS strategies effectively,” he said.
“Simple steps include leveraging more photo and video in our understanding of work. By adding photo and video context, we can bring more diversity to WHS decision-making and have a richer data set
organisations
technology in their strategic thinking.
for analysis. We also have the ability to use multi-modal AI tools.”
Generative AI can also be used to reduce the administrative burden on WHS professionals. Stevens explained that tools like AI assistants can be used to transcribe risk assessment meetings. Voice technology can also be used to gather conversational insights from the field, which Stevens said can provide a more nuanced understanding of safety challenges. Robotic technologies like drones can be used for high-risk work inspections, while autonomous drones can inspect remote work sites and reduce driving risk, fatigue, and heat exposure, for example.
A good way for organisations to make a start is to pilot small-scale technology projects, such as using cameras and sensors for real-time monitoring or machine learning algorithms to generate insights from work observations. “Importantly, transparency about the outcomes (both successes and failures) helps to build trust and momentum for broader adoption. The inclusion of a supporting WHS data strategy in the broader WHS framework will enable a more effective understanding of dynamic risks and facilitate proactive, data-driven decision-making,” he said.
What are the implications for OHS professionals?
For WHS professionals, these evolving dynamics mean an expanding role that goes beyond traditional risk management. “They must be ready to influence how
technology is deployed and advocate for its use as a means to proactively manage health and safety. For example, an WHS professional in construction might advocate for high-speed internet connectivity and visual project planning tools to be provided to subcontractors,” said Stevens. WHS professionals must also recognise that quality data is fundamental for leveraging modern and emerging technologies like AI, digital twins, robotics, and automation. “By becoming champions of digital initiatives, health and safety leaders can help bridge the gap between technical capabilities and practical, on-the-ground improvements in safety outcomes,” said Stevens, who explained that this requires developing digital literacy, shifting mindsets, and breaking down silos in strategic planning.
The future of technology and safety Technology has the potential to transform health and safety innovation in the future, particularly with the accelerating adoption of artificial intelligence, Stevens observed. AI’s role in identifying trends from varied datasets is already changing the way risks are managed in many fields outside of WHS. As just one example, Stevens pointed to the process of maintenance, which has been leveraging these technologies for well over a decade. “Systems that can synthesise safety incidents, weather data, equipment telemetry, and work observations are beginning to provide recommendations in real-time, enabling
organisations to take action much earlier. This represents a shift from a reactive to a predictive approach to safety – one that WHS professionals need to actively shape and understand with ethics and co-design,” he said.
With AI evolving rapidly, Stevens said the role of health and safety professionals will increasingly involve evaluating these technologies, assessing ethical considerations, and ensuring that they genuinely contribute to the safety and wellbeing of workers. As such, he said WHS strategies will need to leverage strategic foresight to anticipate future risks and proactively design technology-driven solutions. “The future could see AI acting not just as a tool but as a collaborator, nudging us toward healthier and safer workplaces in real time. My hope is that WHS professionals will be at the forefront of guiding how this relationship unfolds,” he said. “Developing a digital safety strategy is a great place to start.”
Cam Stevens is a member of OHS Professional’s editorial board.
Access SPARK: the AIHS AI knowledge assistant
The Australian Institute of Health and Safety (AIHS) recently launched a Safety Professional Assistant and Resource Knowledge Base tool, known as SPARK, to provide OHS practitioners with immediate access to critical information and guidance. Trained using state-based legislation and regulations, OHS Body of Knowledge content, OHS Professional magazine content, and general organisational information stored on the AIHS website, the AIpowered tool can sort through thousands of pages of legislation and regulations instantaneously.
“By simply asking SPARK a question, the knowledge assistant will search through the AIHS library of information and immediately provide the information members need,” said Julia Whitford, CEO of the AIHS. “This will save a huge amount of time. The OHS Body of Knowledge, for example, is a book of about 3000 pages. Previously, individuals would have needed to locate it on the website, find the correct chapter, open the PDF, and search through to find the information they were looking for. Now, they just need to ask the question, and SPARK will provide the answer.”
For more information, visit www.aihs.org.au/web/web/ resources/SPARK-Join-to-Access.aspx.
Cam Stevens says
need to make deliberate efforts to elevate the role of data and
Measuring what matters: Advancing OHS with integrated safety metrics
Leading companies demonstrate that aligning OHS measurement with strategic goals can turn data into a driver for safer, more resilient workplaces, writes Craig Donaldson
The topic of workplace health & safety performance measurement has been a longstanding debate for decades, which suggests many organisations are still struggling to apply effective OHS metrics and measurement. When applied well, OHS metrics and measurement should support effective decision making, promote desired behaviours, create optimal workplace conditions, and ultimately assist with improvement. If applied ineffectively, however, reporting on OHS metrics and measurement can be an administrative burden that adds little value.
“OHS performance measurement should align with a clear set of strategic objectives to create value and enable high performance,” said Mark Wright, managing director of FEFO Consulting. “When discussing this topic, it is important to differentiate between metrics (numbers) and performance (relative progress). Too often, organisations overdose on metrics and rely solely on numbers as the only way to measure performance. Although quantitative performance
Nicole Kidman, general manager of group safety for Journey Beyond, says a continuous improvement focus on the deployment of safety and environmental management systems is critical
metrics are important, it’s not the only way and often not the first place to start.”
Wright explained that metrics can be used in conjunction with other qualitative methods to engage workers, measure
The difference between objectives and key results (OKRs) and key performance indicators (KPIs)
OKR
Objective and Key Result
Focus on the Future
Ambitious Goal
Qualitative Nature
Growth Oriented
KPI
Key Performance Indicator
Business as Usual (BAU)
Attainable Goals
Quantitative Nature
Output Oriented
relative progress (performance), and learn and improve from workplace experiences. For organisations that are more mature, he said they can apply both objectives and key results (OKR) and key performance indicators (KPIs) in a complementary way.
There are a number of organisations that actively utilise OKRs for broader business measures as well as setting goalposts for health and safety. OKRs are often used in addition to KPIs and other metrics, in order to provide a more holistic view of OHS performance within the organisation.
Journey Beyond’s integrated approach to HSE performance
Journey Beyond is Australia’s leading experiential tourism group, operating 16 brands across a diverse range of tourism and travel sectors. In the rail sector, these include The Ghan, Indian Pacific, Great Southern, The Overland, and Vintage Rail
Journeys, in addition to eco-luxury lodge Sal Salis Ningaloo Reef, aquatic adventures Cruise Whitsundays, The Paspaley Pearl Farm Tour, and tourism locations including Melbourne Skydeck, Eureka 89, and the Telegraph Station in Alice Springs.
Headquartered in Adelaide, Journey Beyond formed in 2016 and is geographically diverse with a multi-faceted asset and risk profile, according to Nicole Kidman, general manager of group safety for Journey Beyond. “We own and operate aircraft, a fleet of luxury coaches, trains, vessels ranging from jet boats to passenger ferries and pontoons, as well as general vehicles and plant and equipment. Given the diversity and regulatory complexity, we also see the development of a consistent safety and employee experience that delivers retention and mobility as a key strategic opportunity,” she said.
As the business continues to scale for future growth, Kidman said it is critical that it
has a continuous improvement focus on the deployment of its safety and environmental management systems, in addition to clear and consistent governance, reporting and safety behaviour, and cultural expectations that are well-understood. “We anchored our different approach against an important premise that resonated with our senior leadership, which is that safe and engaged employees will deliver an enhanced guest experience,” she said.
Shifting to KRAs and OKRs
Journey Beyond’s HSE 2024-2027 strategy is underpinned by the philosophy of positive safety and framed around key result areas (KRAs) including leadership, engagement, health, wellbeing, risk, and systems, which are also aligned to the aspects of a safety culture survey which Kidman said was launched to provide a baseline for safety culture at Journey Beyond.
Each KRA key result area is supported by
related initiatives which are measured using lead, lag, and employee sentiment OKRs.
“As an example, our initiative to redesign our HSE management system is measured by a reduction in document volume (lag), management system capable of future ISO45001 certification (lead), and consultation and employee acceptance (sentiment),” said Kidman, who explained that Journey Beyond uses Monday.com supported by change management methodologies and tools to guide its strategic activity, including its HSE strategy.
“Ultimately, we are applying strategic focus in those KRAs through OKRs to support improvements in our safety behaviours and safety performance. We have also implemented an HSE dashboard to measure and monitor our safety performance in real-time, and while its first evolution has a weighting toward a more traditional KPI lag-type approach (i.e. recordable injury frequency), we are looking toward a more
balanced approach in 2025 through the introduction of positive HSE interactions and aligned leadership goal setting,” she said.
Improving HSE governance
Earlier this year, Kidman said the business also developed an HSE governance framework (aligned to the Australian Institute of Company Directors’ preferred governance model), underpinned by the HSE dashboard to guide the monitoring and reporting cadence with key stakeholders across all Journey Beyond business units. The governance framework repositioned the business’ operational safety committees to focus on a balance of lag and lead KPIs and HSE strategic reports against the KRAs. Kidman explained that the purpose of this is to ensure ongoing operational alignment, as well as effective monitoring of operational plans to improve safety culture nuanced to particular business units. “We also introduced an executive HSE committee to elevate our safety commitment, facilitate strategic approval, and oversight,” she added.
“We anchored our different approach against an important premise that resonated with our senior leadership”
“While we are only a few months into execution of the new HSE strategy, we are rebranding from traditional ‘safety’ to HSE, to ensure equal focus in the areas of health, safety, and environment. Health and wellbeing (under our health pillar), for instance, is an agreed strategic focus for Journey Beyond in 2025, as informed by our safety culture survey results,” Kidman explained.
“We also recognise the benefits of measuring our real-time safety performance, and have standardised all HSE reporting (quantitative through the HSE dashboard and qualitative through the execution status of our safety culture action plans) across all of Journey Beyond’s 16 brands and business units.”
Advice
and recommendations
For other organisations looking to undertake a similar journey, Kidman said the most important first step is to baseline safety culture and overall maturity. “We anchored our approach against an important premise that resonated with our senior leadership, which is that safe and engaged employees will deliver an enhanced guest experience.”
Journey Beyond also launched a safety culture survey through FEFO Consulting to its geographically diverse employee base, and delivered a WHS maturity assessment, including a macro level review of safety systems and interviews with key operational leaders.
“The overall recommendations of this approach have informed the development of operational action plans for each business unit, using their safety culture levers for improvement, as well as strategic recommendations that have informed our new group-wide HSE strategy 2024-2027,” said Kidman. “This approach has enabled a clear roadmap to be developed that is easily monitored, adjusted, and scaled for growth. Aligning our strategic activities to KRAs and measuring the success of those outcomes using OKRs will also allow us to more easily remeasure our safety culture in the future.”
How BSA evolved its HSEQ reporting
BSA Limited is an ASX-listed business that provides network planning and connection support for both fixed line and wireless telecommunications infrastructure, as well as smart metering, electric vehicle, and pay TV connections for key customers such
as nbn, Foxtel, Intellihub and Bluecurrent. This service offering is primarily delivered by telecommunications or metering technicians who work alone for the majority of their day, according to Kynan Ford, group head of HSEQ, compliance and sustainability for BSA. This is a unique risk profile typically associated with the telecommunications and metering industries, whereby a technician could complete a number of different work orders in any given day at different residential or commercial property locations. “This presents a number of health and safety challenges –namely the ability to monitor and supervise a fully mobile workforce who complete high-risk work such as working at heights, working with or near electricity, or working near live traffic, just to name a few. We also have the added challenges of working across a national footprint, often in remote and isolated locations,” Ford explained.
BSA recently updated its approach to HSEQ metrics and measurement, and Ford said the business’ strategy was clear “in that we knew that we needed to continue our focus on our number value of ‘we work safe and go home safe’ and our BSA absolutes (BSA life-saving rules) – but also understand what was driving our performance. There was also the clear understanding that we needed to move away from the typical lag indicators, such as injury and incident frequency rates, because we understood the limitations of measuring safety performance on those metrics alone.
“The business and executive leadership team were keen to understand what was next from a strategic perspective that would set us on a pathway to industry best practice.”
Integrating health and safety with the business
The first step was to establish objectives and map these against BSA’s health and safety strategic pillars of leadership, engagement, health and wellbeing, risk, and systems. “Taking that approach really opened up the narrative on what we wanted from an outcome perspective and what we considered health and safety excellence and success to look like at BSA Limited,” he said.
“We then started to plan our annual strategy by understanding our current position (where we were now?), our future desired state (where did we want to be?), our differentiators (what we needed to get there?), and our strategy (what was the plan?).”
BSA still measures injury and high-potential incident frequency rates because Ford said they are still important to help
Kynan Ford, group head of HSEQ, compliance and sustainability for BSA Ltd, says that if leaders are driving, owning, and facilitating change, it is more likely the change will be implemented and effective
understand the outcomes from incidents, but the business has pivoted away from lag indicators to focus more decisively on strategic objectives and pillars in 2024. “We’ve also tried to keep things as simple as possible by analysing our performance from a number of key inputs, including our annual management review (systems performance) and then through our health and safety index survey (cultural performance),” which Ford said is run through FEFO consulting. This provides statistically reliable benchmarking and evaluation of workforce feedback (cultural performance) via an annual survey. “Based on those inputs, results, and findings, we then established our strategic objectives and key result areas (OKRs) and plans for our transformative initiatives and programs. Once we had these in place, we set our KPIs to track and monitor our progress,” he said.
“For example, one of our strategic objectives is to better engage, communicate, and consult with our workforce so we foster empowerment, fairness, and trust (under our engagement strategic pillar). We then measure our success as it relates to this objective through our health and safety index survey score annually, which has an overall target. Each strategic initiative or program we have is designed and linked to ensure we are influencing our objective because we understand that is the ultimate goal, rather than the KPI or target.”
From a leadership perspective, Ford said it was important to have great safety leaders who owned the safety value, were visible and always driving a culture of safety excellence, and who possessed the competency and confidence to be great safety leaders. From a risk perspective, Ford said employees need to be focused on critical risk and have a heightened sense of risk awareness, and for the business to have an
effective and robust critical risk assurance program.
“We also ensured we addressed our health and wellbeing and engagement pillars by establishing our objectives related to those areas,” he said. “We wanted our people to feel cared for and to be thriving both mentally and physically, and from an engagement perspective, we wanted a workforce that felt important, valued, engaged, informed, and trusted.”
“We also wanted to move away from the typical lag indicators, such as injury and incident frequency rates, because we understood the limitations of measuring safety performance on those metrics alone”
Managing the transition with business leaders
Ford explained that corporate recognition of the need for change is essential before any organisational change is attempted. “We sought buy-in from our board, executive, and senior leaders, who wanted to change and keep improving because they could clearly see the benefits of good safety performance from a moral and ethical
standpoint,” he said.
After initially preparing the business for change by recognising and understanding the need for change, the next step was to craft the vision and plan for change. “We were able to provide a clear picture of where we currently were from a systems, performance, and cultural perspective by completing the necessary reviews and surveys, and we then established and facilitated a clear picture of where we wanted to get to as a future state,” said Ford.
Some of those future state objectives were ambitious, but Ford said they were also realistic and achievable. “The strategic plans then set the framework for change as we earmarked transformational initiatives to reach our objectives, with clear KPIs tracking our progress,” he explained.
These KPIs were tracked twice monthly, with forums and steering committees set up to measure progress and work through any issues and barriers to success. Clear responsibility for discussing performance and action plans was established, and he said this created the desired accountability model, with operational leadership taking ownership of the safety value and the safety performance of their operational area.
As a result, there has been a marked improvement in a number of areas across OKRs and KPIs. The organisation’s health and safety index survey results have improved from 75 in 2022 to 85 in 2024, which demonstrates improvements from a leadership and engagement perspective. Ford said this puts BSA 10 points above industry benchmarks. The number of leaders who have completed safety leadership training has also increased significantly, as have numbers related to leader safety walks, with a corresponding KRA to increase visibility of senior leaders having meaningful and impactful safety conversations with the
workforce. Ford said these numbers have increased for senior leadership by 289 per cent since 2022.
“Our critical risk control checks numbers, which check compliance against our BSA absolutes, have exceeded targets and our effectiveness rate currently sits just below 98 per cent within two years of the critical risk control program commencing. We’ve also seen similar results related to our system measures, including inspection and audit results, as our leaders take on more accountability for their operational areas performance,” said Ford, who added that the total recordable injury frequency rate has decreased from 6.23 in 2022 to 2.59 in 2024.
Advice and lessons learned
Buy-in and a clear understanding on the need for change is a critical first step for OHS professionals seeking to undertake a similar journey, according to Ford. “That starts by painting a picture on the ‘why’ and then working towards understanding the benefits with the change. It might seem obvious to many who have worked in the industry, but for many, and for leaders in particular, it may not appear that obvious when financial and commercial risk and performance is the main focus. So, getting safety performance and strategy on the executive and senior leadership agenda is a must,” he said.
Understanding what is transformational versus transactional is also important, as is understanding how to balance out initiatives related to both, according to Ford. “It’s really important you don’t lose the ability to take care of the transactional (tactical) activities such as auditing, inspecting, maintaining certifications, and so on, versus establishing those programs and initiatives that will transform performance and culture (strategic).”
In the process, he recommended basing decision-making, programs, and effort on data. “Don’t work off the ‘vibe’. Really good data management and information is key in understanding what is driving performance and where to focus your efforts. Establishing your objectives, key result areas, and KPIs against the transformational elements of your strategy will bring the change you’re after,” he said.
“And lastly, leadership is the key. If your leaders are driving, owning, and facilitating the change, there is far more chance of the change being implemented and effective.”
How Siemens drives and improves EHS performance
Siemens is a leading technology company focused on industry, infrastructure, mobility and healthcare. Siemens has been in the Australia and New Zealand region since 1872, and today it works with a wide range of partners and customers on diverse projects, such as creating more resource-efficient factories, resilient supply chains, smarter buildings and grids, cleaner and more comfortable transportation, and advanced healthcare.
Globally, Siemens’ environmental protection, health management, and safety (EHS) department manages health and safety measures in the company. It is organised locally, integrated into each business unit and each regional company, and reports directly to the respective business manager.
“It’s both a top-down and a bottom-up approach where we encourage individual responsibility and create a supportive and sustainable environment to allow these values to thrive”
The business has several key EHS goals, primarily focused on environmental protection, health and wellbeing, safety, and sustainability, according to Allan Rankin, head of EHS for Siemens Australia & New Zealand. “We are passionate about protecting the environment and caring for the wellbeing, health, and safety of all people who work for Siemens. As an EHS community, we drive these core values and ensure that they are fully integrated into all business goals and activities,” he said. EHS officers coordinate the collaboration of EHS experts across the various fields of action. The main task of this expert function is to advise managers and teams. The function’s profile has changed significantly in recent years, and rather than monitoring compliance with rules and workflows as it did in the past, the focus is now on supporting employees in dealing safely with dynamically changing requirements.
Allan Rankin, head of EHS for Siemens Australia & New Zealand, says it is important to drive core values and ensure they are fully integrated into all business goals and activities
Based on business conduct guidelines, Siemens has also established internal monitoring systems and a company-wide risk management and control process.
Siemens employs a company-wide Healthy and Safe @ Siemens (HS @ S) program, which encourages employees to help shape leadership, learn from each other, improve wellbeing at work, and promote innovations and improvements in occupational health and safety. The program is based on five principles:
• Care for individual and others’ wellbeing.
• Speak up and take part in making the workplace healthier and safer.
• Be inclusive and invite a diverse range of views on health and safety.
• Be engaged in learning and share how to make work better, safer, and healthier.
• Prepare for and adapt well to changing circumstances.
Improving EHS outcomes through leadership
In any business, Rankin said a strong leadership culture is crucial for driving a healthy and safe environment. Employee engagement is also critical, and Rankin said all workers are encouraged to actively participate in EHS activities and initiatives.
“It’s both a top-down and a bottom-up approach where we encourage individual responsibility and create a supportive and sustainable environment to allow these values to thrive,” he said.
There is no one-size-fits-all solution for implementing health and safety due to differing requirements, tasks, and work situations throughout Siemens, which involves employees in the design and implementation of health and safety initiatives and programs. “As a leading technology
company, we leverage advanced technologies and innovative solutions to help improve environmental performance and workplace health and safety. The use of digital tools also helps us monitor and manage key EHS metrics. Along with our focus on continual improvement and compliance with standards and regulations, the key drivers – strong leadership, technology, and employee engagement – are fundamental to ensuring Siemens maintains the highest standards of health, safety, and environmental protection,” said Rankin.
To enable this, Siemens has a number of ‘safety essentials’ in place, supported by core safety behaviours. This recognises that maintaining health, safety, and wellbeing is a responsibility that is shared by the company’s management and people. This responsibility extends beyond providing workplaces in accordance with all applicable norms, standards, and requirements. Employees are expected to adhere to the safety essentials at all times, and to place health, safety, and the environment first in all that they do when working for Siemens.
The safety essentials span a number of key areas across the business that present a range of risks, including driver and vehicle safety, hazardous energy control, electrical safety, working at height/fall protection, cranes and lifting, confined space entry, machine guarding signage and safety interlocks, and potential explosive gas and vapours.
Taking a holistic approach to EHS performance
Siemens sets specific, measurable objectives for EHS performance and tracks progress through key results, according to Rankin. “A good example of this is our focus on worker wellbeing, with one of our key results being the implementation of a thorough psychosocial risk management program,” he said.
Psychosocial risks are assessed once a year via work wellbeing factors embedded in the Siemens global engagement survey. Relevant teams discuss and document the risks, opportunities, measures, and outcomes in a structured follow-up process. “This is a key preventive pathway for maintaining and protecting mental health at work. We use a range of leading and lagging indicators to ensure this topic is effectively addressed across the organisation,” said Rankin.
For other EHS professionals looking to embrace more forward-thinking and focused metrics, Rankin said it is important to take a balanced approach. This includes both leading and lagging indicators, as Rankin said there is “no one-size-fits-all
approach” to EHS. “While leading indicators are crucial for prevention, lagging indicators are still important for understanding past performance. Combining both metrics allow for a more comprehensive view and helps in making better informed decisions for EHS programs,” he said.
It is also important to engage workers in the process of identifying leading indicators. These indicators must be specific, measurable, and relevant to the organisation and its goals, explained Rankin, who
also said that involving workers is crucial, as it ensures they are effective and help in fostering a proactive safety culture.
“Using technology and data analytics on leading indicators is also a great way of identifying trends and patterns, and helping predict and prevent potential EHS risks within the business,” he said. “Finally, the regular review and improvement of leading indicators will ensure your metrics remain effective and aligned with the company EHS goals.”
Challenges in adding value through performance measurement
The most common challenge with performance measurement is verifying how it adds value, according to Mark Wright, managing director of FEFO Consulting, who explained that common issues in this include:
Output vs input: Focussing on the goal/ KPI first (outputs) rather than the systems, conditions, practices, or behaviours (inputs) that impact performance – e.g. both the winning and losing football coaches have the same goal/KPI: to win. The goal is not the differentiator; rather, it’s often the systems, conditions, practices, and behaviours that positively influence the desired habits to achieve objectives and differentiate winners from losers. Similarly, setting a goal of zero harm might be considered inspirational, but will not on its own provide a winning ingredient for safety success.
Short vs long-term: Distraction by the goal/KPI dashboard rather than the destination of where you/your organisation are headed. Changes in metrics are often momentary and could be a distraction from learning about underlying systemic contributing factors. Similarly, blaming the worker, team behaviours, or symptoms rather than learning and addressing the cause can be another distraction.
Balance: Not applying a balanced scorecard based on the strategy – e.g. balancing the right lead vs lag and compliance vs performance measures. Adapting the balanced scorecard and being open to change is critical to align with changes to the strategy.
Reliability: Not using statistically reliable and valid climate surveys with credible benchmarks. Seeking feedback at scale is a great way to understand relative progress. Survey benchmarks lose their value unless statistically reliable and valid.
Quantity vs quality: Counting the volume (quantity) of activities – e.g. number of inspections or toolbox talks completed –rather than effectiveness (quality) – e.g. critical control effectiveness. Criticality is important to ensure a focus on what is important.
Injury classification vs potential consequence: Using injury classifications – e.g. lost time, medical treatment, first aid injury – as an indicator of performance is often a mask of the potential consequence. Often the classification of an injury is luck and can mask the real potential consequence – e.g. there can be no injury, but a near miss activity working at height or contact with electricity could potentially have fatal consequences.
Navigating the challenges of ethical leadership in OHS
As organisational pressures challenge OHS principles, professionals must navigate ethical dilemmas to uphold worker safety and integrity
Ethical decision-making is integral to the role and practice of OHS professionals, who require a strong ethical drive to ensure workplace safety and prevent harm to workers. However, the organisational context in which they operate often creates significant barriers to putting these ethical principles into practice.
As such, OHS professionals need to strive to maintain high ethical standards in the face of situations where business pressures conflict with safety imperatives. Research has shown that professionals sometimes feel compelled to employ unconventional approaches to achieve safety outcomes, particularly when faced with competing organisational priorities and resource constraints, according to the OHS Body of Knowledge (Chapter 38.3 Ethics and Professional Practice).
This chapter introduces the concept of the OHS professional as a ‘moral agent’ – one that is central to the role of OHS, according to Eldeen Pozniak, an international management consultant specialising in OHS and managing director of Pozniak Safety Associates. “I believe that no matter the profession, you have people who are ethical and those who are not,” she said. “With that said, I feel that OHS professionals generally strive to uphold high ethical standards. Like most professionals, they have formal codes of ethics and legal obligations that emphasise integrity, honesty, and the protection of people.”
However, she observed the reality can be very complex, and the extent to which they succeed with ethical practice can vary based on individual and organisational factors. “The circumstances around risk, conflicts of interest, and handling sensitive information can be influenced by personal interests, organisational culture, governance, and leadership,” she said.
Key challenges and issues
A fundamental challenge for OHS professionals lies in balancing commercial realities with safety requirements. This includes managing tensions between cost reduction targets and necessary safety
investments, while maintaining professional independence in their advisory role.
Chapter 38.3 of the OHS Body of Knowledge examines how management systems, hierarchical relationships, and budgetary constraints can significantly impact an OHS professional’s ability to advocate for safety improvements effectively. The profession faces additional challenges around maintaining technical competence and establishing clear boundaries of expertise. OHS professionals must carefully manage increasing pressure to operate beyond their skill set, particularly in resource-constrained environments. They also face complex decisions around information management, including when to maintain confidentiality and when safety imperatives require the disclosure of sensitive information to protect worker wellbeing.
Pozinak summed up the challenges, including conflicts of interest, where decisions that are made might not please all stakeholders and some have more influential power positions than others. Another challenge is pressure to compromise ethical standards to meet business goals or other external influences, as well as cultural differences, as ethical standards vary widely across different cultures, leading to misunderstandings and conflicts.
“Technological advancements can also outpace development guidelines, creating
new dilemmas like data privacy and AI,” said Pozinak, who added that lack of clear guidelines is another challenge. With some being vague or open to interpretation, it can make it difficult to determine the best course of action.
A more ethical approach to OHS
Successful ethical practice requires OHS professionals to develop robust decision-making frameworks that align safety requirements with business objectives. This includes building competence in analysing ethical situations, understanding various theoretical approaches to ethical decision-making, and developing strategies for engaging leadership in meaningful dialogue about safety priorities.
At the executive level, OHS professionals can contribute to developing organisational structures that support ethical decision-making. This encompasses advising on governance frameworks, establishing appropriate performance metrics, and implementing effective assurance processes.
A strong ethical framework that establishes and promotes a clear code of ethics to align with the organisation’s values can help guide decision-making and behaviour at all levels, according to Pozinak. Another important contributor to ethics in an organisation is a risk assessment process that identifies potential ethical challenges and
Eldeen Pozniak says that OHS professionals generally strive to uphold high ethical standards
Greg Dearsly says there needs to be an understanding that the health and safety community should act as ‘leaders without authority’
develops strategies to mitigate them.
“Promote ethical leadership so that they model ethical behaviour and decision-making, thereby setting a positive example and fostering a culture of integrity,” said Pozinak. “Collaborate with stakeholders to ensure that ethical considerations and conversations are integrated into all aspects of operations.”
Education and professional development
Greg Dearsly, managing director of First 4 Safety, said there needs to be more visibility on ethics in the industry. “Yes, if we belong to a professional association, we sign up to a code of conduct or ethics policy, and maybe annually we might have to sign a declaration that we remain committed to said code or policy,” he said. “Certainly, any education on ethics in the curriculum (in NZ anyway) doesn’t get much visibility at all until Masters level.
“It’s not so much what OHS professionals can do, because in an environment where professional development options in this area are limited, there are few options. But seeking professional development and seeking to understand more about ethics should form part of a CPD plan.”
If an OHS professional is in a formal leadership role, Dearsly said ethics needs to be something that is not just discussed at team meetings, but rather something that is continuously visible in their work and the discussions they have in the workplace. “There probably needs to be a trickle-down effect from the board,” he said. “It’s all very
well to talk about ethics in the board meeting, but if you want to develop an ethical organisation, those ethics discussions need to occur in a wider forum than just the board meeting behind closed doors.”
Becoming a
‘moral
agent’ in practice
OHS professionals must recognise their distinct responsibility as ethical leaders who take responsibility for recognising and addressing ethical concerns in situations where others might not see the ethical implications, according to the OHS Body of Knowledge. This requires developing both the technical expertise to identify issues and the professional judgment to respond appropriately.
“Technological advancements can also outpace development guidelines, creating new dilemmas like data privacy and AI”
However, raising concerns effectively requires a strategic approach focused on constructive engagement rather than confrontation. This involves methodically gathering evidence, understanding stakeholder impacts, evaluating potential consequences, and developing practical solutions that
address safety and business needs. While speaking up carries professional risks, the evidence shows that building strong professional networks and maintaining clear ethical principles helps professionals navigate these challenging situations more effectively.
Positional power is an important consideration for both becoming a ‘moral agent’ and speaking up when the need arises, Dearsly said. “There needs to be an understanding that the health and safety community should act as ‘leaders without authority’. Of course, some might have formal authority, but you don’t need permission to be a leader, and a leader will speak up. Don’t speak up by banging the table and saying ‘we’ve got to do this health and safety thing because the law says so’ or ‘it’s the right thing to do.’ Use influence that is made up of passion, emotion, expertise, and body language,” he said.
In addition to using the ethical frameworks discussed in the OHS Body of Knowledge, Pozinak said it is important to engage leadership to ensure they understand and support ethical practices. “Cultivate moral courage, especially when speaking up or facing potential backlash or resistance. OHS professionals need to develop the confidence to voice concerns and stand by their ethical principles,” she said. Building ethical competence through participation in education and training is also important, as is understanding ethical responsibilities – including legal and moral obligations toward employees, employers, and the larger community, Pozinak added.
Understanding and combating complacency in the workplace
Understanding different types of complacency helps tailor safety interventions, reducing risks and enhancing workplace safety practices, writes Kerry Smith
strategies to manage and reduce
Complacency is a term often heard and used by many, but is complacency fully understood? Complacency can be defined as the completion of a task many times without injury/incident, so that people are no longer fully aware of the risks and dangers involved. If we were injured every time we did something that was unsafe, then complacency would not exist. For example, if we walked into a pole and hurt ourselves every time we walked along looking at our smartphone, we would very quickly learn not to walk without keeping our eyes on path.
It might be determined that someone was complacent and that is why they were speeding, or they were complacent and that is why they were not wearing a life jacket. But these are quite different types of complacency. Speeding has a short-term reward (the person likely gets to their destination faster) with an uncertain outcome (the person typically only has a crash if something unexpected happens and they cannot stop or avoid it). By comparison, not wearing a life jacket has a short-term drawback (it takes time and effort to put on and can be uncomfortable) with an uncertain outcome (it is only needed if an incident occurs – for example, the boat sinks).
Knowing more about complacency will help develop better strategies to manage and reduce it more effectively. Knowing the type of complacency we are dealing with will help target our efforts to improve safety. For example, people speed mostly because there is a short-term reward (they will likely get to their destination faster) and an uncertain outcome (if nothing
Types of complacency examples
Short-term reward with uncertain outcome
Speeding
Short-term drawback with uncertain outcome
Short-term drawback with long-term risk
Short-term reward with long-term risk
unexpected happens, then most of the time they do not have a crash). So, the type of complacency that is involved with speeding is short-term reward with uncertain outcome. In contrast to this, if we think about people being complacent and not using hearing protection, there is a shortterm drawback (hearing protection can be uncomfortable and takes time to put on properly) with a long-term risk (hearing loss). So, the type of complacency that is involved with not wearing hearing protection is short-term drawback with long-term risk.
How many types of complacency are there?
There are four common types of complacency. The four types of complacency can be summarised as:
• Short-term reward with uncertain outcome;
• Short-term reward with long-term risk;
• Short-term drawback with uncertain outcome;
• Short-term drawback with long-term risk.
When determining the type of complacency, the first step is to establish whether there is a short-term reward or drawback instigating the behaviour. Then, determine whether there is an uncertain outcome or a long-term risk that results in the behaviour being maintained.
Short-term Reward or Short-term Drawback
Uncertain Outcome or Long-term Risk Complacency
• Short-term reward – Likely gets to their destination faster
• Uncertain outcome – Typically only has a crash if something unexpected happens and they cannot stop or avoid it
Not wearing life jackets (passive safety device)
Not using hearing protection (PPE)
Drinking excessive amounts of sugary drinks
• Short-term drawback – Takes some time to put on, can be uncomfortable
• Uncertain outcome – Only needed if an incident occurs – for example, the boat sinks
• Short-term drawback – Uncomfortable, takes effort to put it on properly
• Long-term risk – Hearing loss
• Short-term reward – Sugar hit
• Long-term risk – Weight gain, diabetes, other health issues
Table 1: Examples of the four types of complacency
Holcim’s Kerry Smith says that knowing more about complacency will help develop better
it more effectively
Why is it useful to know more about complacency?
The strategies used to combat complacency can be improved by knowing more about the type of complacency. For example, strategies for complacency involved with speeding, which is short-term reward with uncertain outcome, versus not wearing hearing protection, which is short-term drawback with long-term risk, should be tailored to maximise effectiveness.
Complacency interventions: Shortterm reward
Where there is a short-term reward, the reward should be acknowledged. It is pointless arguing against the reward. If a person was driving on the 90 mile straight on the Nullarbor and a comparison was made between driving at 100km/h versus 110 km/h, it would take eight minutes longer to drive from one end to the other. But what is also known is that when a person is driving in a city, a fair bit of time is spent stopped at traffic lights, slowing
to turn corners, and so on. The average speed will therefore be considerably lower than the posted speed limit. In this case, a 5 km/h difference in maximum speed will not make that much difference because the person does not drive at the maximum speed very much when they are driving in city traffic. By quantifying the actual reward, it may be determined that the short-term reward is a lot smaller than what most people think it is.
To combat short-term reward, it may be possible to highlight and/or create short-term drawbacks. For example, with speeding, it is known that when a person drives faster, the stopping distance increases. If something happens and the person needs to stop suddenly, braking distance is increased, and if they hit an obstacle, they will hit harder. Highlighting the drawback created by a behaviour can assist in motivating the person to change.
In summary, to combat complacency where the behaviour has a short-term drawback, the following interventions can
be considered:
• Acknowledge and quantify reward;
• Highlight and/or create short-term drawback.
Complacency intervention: Short-term drawback
Where there is a short-term drawback, the best thing to do is to minimise the drawback and make the safest way as easy as possible. For example, self-inflating life jackets are usually more comfortable than traditional life jackets. There are even options available where self-inflating life jackets are built into fishing clothing. Sometimes, when the drawback is quantified, it will appear to be smaller than it might have been perceived. For example, before a safety briefing, state: “Please give us a few minutes of your time so that we can make you safe.”
Highlighting and/or creating a reward/ benefit can be an effective intervention to short-term drawbacks. For example, highlight that if a person has a life jacket
on, it will increase the time that they can survive in the water. It may also be possible to create a reward – for example, a positive feedback system based on the safe behaviours that need to be improved. Where a reward is created, it will be more effective if it is a short-term reward, but creating any benefit is better than none.
In summary, to combat complacency where the behaviour has a short-term drawback, the following interventions can be considered:
• Minimise drawbacks;
• Make the safest way as easy as possible (quantify the drawback);
• Highlight and/or create a reward.
Complacency intervention:
Uncertain outcome
Where there is an uncertain outcome from a behaviour, one option to combat complacency is to highlight the conditions when the behaviour is beneficial. For example, highlight that if a fire occurs, the person will want to be able to find the emergency exits as quickly as possible. To highlight the conditions when the behaviour is beneficial, “what if…?” type questions are useful – for example, “What if the boat sinks? Will you want to have a life jacket on?” or “What if you slip or trip on the stairs and you are not ready to grip the handrail?”
Highlight the potential outcome. For example, ask the person: if they fell down a flight of stairs, what could their injuries be?
In summary, to combat complacency where the behaviour has an uncertain outcome, the following interventions can be considered:
• Highlight the conditions when the behaviour is beneficial (“what if...?”);
• Highlight the potential outcome.
Complacency intervention:
Long-term risk
Most personal health issues fit into the category of long-term risk – for example, drinking excessive amounts of sugary drinks. In the short-term, there will be little change from drinking sugary drinks, so highlighting the long-term risk to people is one option to combat this aspect of complacency. For example, show the amount of sugar consumed in a year if a person had one can of sugary drink each day.
Another option is to highlight and/or create short-term outcomes. For example, by swapping from drinking sugary drinks to drinking free tap water, the person can save money.
In summary, to combat complacency where the behaviour has a long-term
Summary of targeted complacency interventions
Table 2: Key interventions to consider when complacency is a factor
Complacency aspect
Short-term reward
Short-term drawback
Uncertain outcome
Long-term risk
All types of complacency
Key interventions to consider when complacency is a factor
• Acknowledge and quantify reward
• Highlight and/or create short-term drawback
• Minimise drawbacks
• Make the safest way as easy as possible (quantify the drawback)
• Highlight and/or create a reward
• Highlight the conditions when the behaviour is beneficial (“what if...?”)
• Highlight the potential outcome
• Highlight the long-term risk
• Highlight and/or create short-term outcomes
• Clarify the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’
• Provide feedback
• Debunk myths
• Highlight the potential impact to others (especially family)
risk, the following interventions can be considered:
• Highlight the long-term risk;
• Highlight and/or create short-term outcomes.
Complacency interventions:
All types of complacency
Clarifying the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’ can be an effective way to combat complacency. For example, considering the need to use three points of contact when climbing a ladder, it is beneficial to explain the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’. It will take some time and effort but, if a person only has two points of contact and they slip, they will end up with only one point of contact and will likely fall. If a person has three points of contact and they slip, they will still have at least two points of contact and are far less likely to fall.
“Knowing the type of complacency we are dealing with will help target our efforts to improve safety”
Providing feedback can be particularly effective to combat complacency where there is a short-term drawback. For example, positive feedback provides a benefit for doing something safely. This can be a simple pat on the back or introducing a
bonus system. This is effectively creating a short-term reward for the desired safe behaviour.
There can be myths with some behaviours where complacency is a factor – for example, that a suntan is healthy. Debunking these myths, where they exist, can be an important step in combatting complacency.
Highlighting the potential impacts to others, especially the person’s family, can also be useful to help combat complacency. There will be times where the impacts on others are not known or thought about by the person. We could ask questions like: “What if you drowned? Who would be impacted?”
In summary, to combat complacency, the following interventions can be considered:
• Clarify the ‘why’ behind the ‘what’;
• Provide feedback;
• Debunk myths;
• Highlight the potential impact to others (especially their family).
Naturally, when trying to improve safety outcomes, we should always apply the hierarchy of controls. Often though, when dealing with issues of complacency, this is not possible. Knowing more about the different aspects of complacency will help target efforts to combat complacency. Knowing more about the type of complacency will help to develop better strategies to manage and reduce it more effectively, resulting in improved safety for everyone.
Kerry Smith is regional safety manager (SA and VIC) for Holcim, a leading supplier of aggregates, concrete (ready mix), and concrete pipe and products.
Rethinking SWMS: Streamlining safety for high-risk construction work
Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) require better formatting, improved worker consultation, and closer attention to high-risk work in the construction industry, writes Craig McCormack
Alot of good work is happening within the construction industry, which has certainly come a long way throughout its history and continues to maintain a strong safety focus. But these positives should not deny us the opportunity for further improvement to WHS management practices.
Many in the construction industry cringe at the mention of a Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS), which leads us to question their current effectiveness and consider opportunities for improvement. Ideally, they should be regarded as an invaluable safety management tool. Disappointing about this conversation is that the inadequacies of SWMS and improvement needs have been previously reported on by investigative research and the messaging of SafeWork Australia. So why do so many persons conducting a business or undertaking (PCBUs) continue with substandard practice?
About SWMS
Chapter 6 Construction Work, section 299(1) of the WHS Regulation states that a PCBU requires a SWMS when undertaking any of the nominated 18 High-Risk Construction Works (HRCW) described in section 291, including:
• work that involves the risk of a person falling greater than two metres;
• work that involves or is likely to involve the disturbance of asbestos;
• work that is carried out adjacent to a road; and
• work that is carried out in a workplace where there is any movement of powered mobile plant.
Section 299 goes on to provide compliance instructions for SWMS, including that they must:
• identify the work that is HRCW;
• state the related hazards and risks;
• describe control measures;
• describe how they will be implemented, monitored, and reviewed; and
• be set out and expressed in a way that is readily accessible and understandable to workers.
Further to the above, sections 47 to 49 of the WHS Act require that SWMS be developed in consultation with the persons undertaking the works.
In beginning this discussion, we should appreciate why HRCW and SWMS provisions exist, particularly given that other legislative provisions could be
applied, including: (1) respective duties defined under the Act; and (2) broad PCBU requirements to identify and control reasonably foreseeable hazards and risks (refer to Part 3.1 of the WHS Regulation). So why does the legislation highlight and instruct us to develop SWMS when undertaking HRCW?
The assumed answer is that legislators determined these activities to be significant (they were named ‘high-risk construction work’ after all, and workplace incident data supports this position) and intended that they be afforded closer/greater attention than what might occur if HRCW and SWMS provisions were not included.
The above legislative references apply to harmonised jurisdictions. Similar provisions apply in Victoria, though not as detailed.
Craig McCormack says that administrative parties should pay closer attention to the adequacy of SWMS documentation and be more engaged in their improvement
How a typical SWMS measures up against key legal requirements?
1. Identify the work that is high risk construction work = Poor.
Most documents identify the HRCW itself, but not the work being undertaken (i.e. the work that is HRCW), resulting in limited document context and reducing the subsequent focus on what works are actually happening.
2. Identify hazards, risks, and controls = Poor.
All SWMS attempt to do this but quality is often low, namely due to:
1. not having prior established proper context (define the work being done);
2. having only a loose appreciation for the distinctions between hazard and risk; and
3. including poorly considered and/
or loosely defined hazards, risks, and controls.
3. Worker consultation = Limited.
The further up the management system spectrum a SWMS resides and the more broadly it is applied across the workplace, the less likely worker consultation becomes. Many PCBUs consider induction as the consultation phase and argue that if a worker has signed the SWMS, they are deemed to have been consulted.
4. Readily available and understandable to workers = Poor.
SWMS are often expanded to include issues beyond the scope of just the HRCW, making them longer than necessary and resulting in them being presented in a format that overwhelms effective comprehension.
Common SWMS problems
It is not uncommon for workers in the construction industry to be dismissive of SWMS and consider them more of an administrative requirement than a meaningful safety management tool. And despite having supposedly read and signed-off on them, many workers will have only a vague appreciation of SWMS content, which itself often lacks specific HRCW detail (e.g. how often does a SWMS refer to the ‘exclusion zone’ without clearly explaining what the separation distance is?)
The concern for this situation is that, given SWMS are the legislated tool for the identification and management of high-risk construction works, shouldn’t there be a higher degree of worker support, familiarity, and confidence in their effectiveness?
Reasons for SWMS not getting their
intended traction may vary, but the following are considered to be significant contributing factors:
1. SWMS have morphed into a broader than intended document;
2. SWMS have become over-systemised;
3. worker consultation is lacking;
4. administrative parties accept the existing standard; and
5. monitoring, review, and improvement is inadequate.
Problem 1: Broader scope than intended
As instructed by the Regulation, a SWMS needs to:
1. identify the work that is HRCW;
2. identify associated hazards and risks;
3. define applicable controls; and
4. explain how these will be implemented and managed (keep it neat, simple, and crisp!)
“The temptation to systemise SWMS and have them reside as a highlevel overarching systems document is understandable but also counterproductive”
But the SWMS being produced often encompass a broader scope than just the HRCW activities. Instead of a SWMS for working in and around powered mobile plant, for example, we see documents about earthworks: a veritable one-size-fitsall document that addresses more than the Regulation asks of a SWMS. And, in the process, what should be a simple twopage high-risk work instruction becomes a 15+ page all-inclusive, general work instruction.
The integrated document seems a practical option, but in the process, we:
1. fail to give sufficient attention to the HRCW;
2. lose visibility of whatever HRCW instruction the document contains; and
3. turn off/lose worker attention to the management of their HRCW. This is not to say that the extra content is not important (Part 3.1 of the WHS Regulations still applies), but the one-sizefits-all approach diminishes our consideration, instruction, and management of high-risk construction activities.
Central to this problem is the format of document being used. Many contractors use the traditional step-by-step template stemming from the Job Safety Analysis (JSA). The JSA itself remains an effective tool for assessing ‘activity-based’ tasks (e.g. earthworks), but it is inappropriate for developing a SWMS because HRCWs are not activity-based, but ‘situational’: you are either doing it or you are not.
This sounds pedantic, but it is an important factor that contributes to the problem. If you look solely at a HRCW situation (e.g. working in an area where there is movement of powered mobile plant) and ask what the hazards, risks, and controls are, the picture is simple. But if you try to break it down into steps, the process becomes confused; we start to create stages of the broader work activity and lose focus on the HRCW ‘situation’.
Granted, the broader activity that includes the HRCW has defined steps and may warrant a JSA or other form of instruction, but the HRCW itself is either happening or it is not; and if so, it requires a SWMS, which is best if: 1. it applies exclusively to the HRCW; 2. the format is simple; and 3. it avoids unnecessary/excess content.
Problem 2: SWMS have become over-systemised
The two main consequences of the over-systemisation of SWMS are lack of worker engagement (and subsequent
The difference between a JSA and SWMS
Despite the apparent practicality of covering all safety requirements in the one document, it is preferable that we distinguish between a Job Safety Analysis (JSA), which is a step-by-step assessment of a work activity, and Safe Work Method Statement (SWMS), which identifies the hazards, risks, and controls associated with a High-Risk Construction Work (HRCW) situation (HRCW being those items listed in section 291 of the WHS Regulation).
A SWMS should be a relatively short and simple document specific to the HRCW being undertaken. In contrast, workers often find themselves signing-on to multiple, 15+ page SWMS (according to their title), which in itself suggests that they are not intended to be read, let alone remembered – they just get signed and everybody is off to work.
disinterest) and generalisations that lack clear and specific instruction.
Management systems are well-known to include tiers of process/documentation; some are high-level and administrative/ managerial (e.g. project plans), whilst others are lower-level with operational features that happen closer to the core work coalface (e.g. take-5, plant prestart inspections).
Where SWMS reside in this management-operational spectrum, and what processes are used to engage the workforce in their development and review, has a significant influence on their relevance to the HRCWs being undertaken.
The temptation to systemise SWMS and have them reside as a high-level overarching systems document is understandable but also counterproductive, because for a SWMS to be truly effective, it needs to consider operational details – and the more a SWMS focuses on the specific HRCW detail, the better it can identify, instruct, and manage hazards and risks.
Having the SWMS reside as an operational document also engenders worker ownership and involvement. Compared to it being perceived as an overarching ‘rule’, which involves temptation to ignore it when ‘necessary’, ownership raises levels of feedback and improvement.
A good example is a SWMS for works involving the risk of a person falling greater than two metres that gives no indication of whether the person is working on a roof, climbing a ladder, using an EWP, or suspended off the side of a building. Such a SWMS will cover a range of variables, and perhaps even look like a legitimately informative document. But if you examine it more closely, you may discover a meaningless ‘cover-all’ that has no relevance to the works being undertaken (often, the bigger the document, the less it says). What if this was instead developed by the work crew that knew precisely the nature of the works being undertaken?
Despite not having the vertical management system structure of a larger organisation, smaller PCBUs are not immune to
generic, one-size-fits-all SWMS that lack operational detail, often because they have copied it from someone else and/or it’s the same one they have been using for many years.
Granted, there is scope for SWMS to begin as an overarching, guiding template, but unless it is sufficiently customised, its relevance will remain limited.
This article encourages PCBUs to consider at what level SWMS are being generated and ask if they are operationally meaningful. Anecdotal evidence suggests that SWMS developed at supervisor level provide a good balance of process control and operational detail.
Problem 3: Worker consultation
As previously mentioned, there are provisions in the WHS Act (sections 47 to 49) applying to worker consultation. Section 49 explicitly requires consultation when identifying hazards, assessing risks, and making decisions to eliminate or minimise risk, so there should be no doubt about the intention of worker consultation when developing SWMS.
Some pragmatism is required, and we cannot expect that every person in the organisation be involved, but we should appreciate the importance of involving workers that sufficiently represent and understand the specific work requirements and associated hazards, risks, and controls.
Beyond legal requirements and the resulting document, an underestimated factor is the ‘conversation’. Engaging workers in the SWMS process raises participant knowledge and appreciation of safety management practices. It is fair to suggest that the conversation itself is often of more value than the resulting document.
At what level SWMS consultation should occur is debatable, but evidence suggests that meaningful SWMS are more likely to be produced at ’work-crew level’, which in a mid-sized organisation typically reports to a supervisor.
Contrasting this, it is not unusual to encounter multi-million-dollar contracts with numerous supervisors and four times as many work crews all working off one generic SWMS, that has undergone no appreciable worker consultation and bears only vague resemblance to the works being undertaken.
Problem 4: Acceptance creates the benchmark
General David Hurley is credited with saying “the standard you walk past is the standard you accept”, which is now frequently used in a WHS context.
Within this conversation, we must ask
to what extent the quality of SWMS reflects acceptance by respective administrative parties, including, for example, clients, regulators, auditors, and principal/tier-one contractors. Have these administrative parties, who are well-positioned to influence change, walked past and permitted and encouraged the use of sub-standard SWMS?
Further, we might question to what extent the duty that requires a worker to take reasonable care that his or her acts or omissions do not adversely affect the health and safety of other persons (section 28 of the WHS Act) might apply? Should safety professionals take more heed of section 28 when knowingly perpetuating substandard SWMS?
Administrative parties should pay closer attention to the adequacy of SWMS documentation and be more engaged in their improvement, beginning with proper review processes and feedback to PCBUs on improvement potential. This would, of course, be more effective if administrative parties were in unison and better appreciated their ability to influence change.
The simplest means to collectively overcome these pitfalls would be administrative agency agreement on and the use of a common SWMS review template (see example) – one that precludes unnecessary provisions and, in the process, informs PCBUs of what is expected.
Of course, PCBUs could take charge and initiate their own improvements, but we have become so accustomed to the current standard that any PCBU that produces
SWMS pitfalls for principal contractors
The most apparent pitfalls to arise following SWMS submission to the principal contractor and/or presentation to the client, auditor, or other authority are:
1. The process precludes any meaningful review and evaluation of SWMS suitability, with many accepting that merely having a SWMS is sufficient (regardless of quality); and
2. Where there is a formal review process, it fails to focus on what is required of a SWMS (both legislatively and in the context of works being undertaken). Many formal reviews completely derail the process and contribute to PCBU frustration. SWMS review checklists have become over-systemised and have lost sight of their purpose.
a concise, effective, and totally compliant SWMS is likely to have it rejected on grounds that it doesn’t provide step-by-step analysis, doesn’t include an ABN, doesn’t have a risk analysis, etc – none of which are required, but which have become part of the problematic norm.
Problem 5: Monitor, review, and improve
Apart from extremely short-term works that negate the opportunity, expectation is written into section 299(2)(d) of the WHS Regulation that SWMS will be monitored and reviewed, which is particularly important for dynamic work activities and changing work environments.
Further, section 302(1) of the Regulation requires a PCBU put in place arrangements to ensure that works are carried out in accordance with the SWMS.
However, SWMS often exist in a setand-forget realm, possibly because of their initial impracticality, but largely because we tend to address things on the go. This often results in us overlooking the SWMS and ignoring provisions of section 300(2) of the WHS Regulation related to ensuring that SWMS provisions are followed (if not working in accordance with SWMS, you are supposed to stop work).
For any PCBUs with existing SWMS, perhaps you can begin your improvement journey by reviewing your current position. What can you discover about the quality of your documents, worker engagement, and SWMS effectiveness? What is working well and what might need improvement?
Beyond formal review and internal audit activities, another effective improvement tool is having regular SWMS discussions with workers. Even a five-minute prestart conversation with workers can raise questions and prompt improvement. Prestart conversations do happen, but these often involve discussion about incidental issues (slips-trips-falls, snakes, sun cream, and hydration) compared to genuinely examining SWMS content.
Potential improvements
Despite the above concerns, this article appreciates that many positives have come from the WHS Regulations drawing our attention to its specific HRCWs. However, the fact that SWMS are not being used as meaningfully and effectively as they can presents room for further improvement.
So, in the interest of ongoing safety management, let’s consider what we might do to improve the application of SWMS for the management of HRCW and simplify the application of SWMS in the workplace.
First and foremost, those within the construction industry need to understand the legislative provisions related to general risk and workplace management (Part 3 of the WHS Regulation) and the management of HRCW under Chapter 6 of the Regulations, which is where SWMS come into play. Just understanding the context of SWMS can significantly improve how we approach them, but there are a few other, more specific things we can do to improve SWMS application and performance.
The following provides a summary of key improvement opportunities:
SWMS improvement recommendations
Document format
• Ensure separation of SWMS from other work instruction documentation (e.g. JSA, work procedures). Both are important, but should not be integrated.
• Have a simple hazard-risk-control format (don’t combine hazards and risks – use two separate columns for clarity).
• Avoid additional information (e.g.
SWMS development guide
qualitative risk assessment is not necessary).
Development positioning
• Position SWMS development/ownership as an operational process (at a suggested supervisor level). Templates are high-level, but the end product should be operational and specific.
• Ensure that development:
– is focussed only on HRCW; – specifically describes the context of the work;
– thoroughly examines hazards and associated risk (assists with determination of controls), with the difference between hazard and risk appreciated (separating these into two columns); and
– effectively considers and specifically defines controls (avoid meaningless generalisations).
Workforce engagement and understanding
• Engage workers in SWMS development and review processes to ensure:
– accuracy and effectiveness of SWMS; – worker appreciation of content; and – implementation of controls (relates to making SWMS ‘operational’).
Administrative parties
• Persons responsible for receiving and possibly assessing the suitability of SWMS need to verify the quality of the document with due regard for the works being undertaken. Where it is lacking, improvement should be sought.
• If used, SWMS review checklists need to reflect consistency with the Regulations and preclude additional items (should assess and ensure the SWMS doesn’t include excess material).
Review and improvement
• Include realistic monitoring provisions in the SWMS and follow through with them.
• Recognise changing conditions and review SWMS.
• Discuss SWMS content regularly with workers.
There is no doubt that the identification of high-risk construction works and safe work method provisions within WHS legislation is intended to provide a reasonable and practicable framework of worker protection, which it does, but there is room for improvement.
The following flowchart demonstrates the simplicity of SWMS development and compliance. Ensure that the SWMS remains focussed only on the HRCW and delivers a more effective safety management outcome.
(Section 291 WHS Regulation) List of High Risk Construction Works
SAFE WORK METHOD STATEMENT
(Section 299(2) WHS Regulation)
1. Identify the work that is HRCW (provide sufficient context/detail to explain what workers are doing)
(Sections 47-49 WHS Act) Ensure consultation with workers likely to be affected by SWMS
NO SWMS required
(Part 3.1 WHS Regulation)
Ensure reasonably foreseeable hazards are identified and risks eliminated/controlled so far as reasonably practicable
3. Describe risk to health and safety related to those hazards
4. Describe measures to control the risks.
5. Describe how control measures will be implemented, monitored and reviewed
(Sections 299(3)(b) WHS Regulation) Ensure SWMS is readily accessible and understandible to workers
(Sections 299(4) WHS Regulation) Person falling >2m SWMS that only include administrative or PPE controls must describe all considered measures
SWMS assessment and improvement tool
Following is a SWMS assessment tool that evaluates SWMS compliance out of a possible score of 24. This is a basic subjective tool, but helps focus attention to what is required in a SWMS and potential areas of improvement (i.e. where you score less than 4).
Work Health and Safety Regulation 2011 Provisions
S 299(2)(a) Does the SWMS “identify the work that is high-risk construction work”?
S 299(2)(b) Does the SWMS “state hazards relating to the high-risk construction work”?
S 299(2)(b) Does the SWMS state “risks to health and safety associated with those hazards”?
S 299(2)(c) Does the SWMS “describe measures to be implemented to control the risks”?
S 299(2(d) Does the SWMS “describe how the control measures are to be implemented, monitored, and reviewed”?
S 299(3)(b) Is the SWMS “set out and expressed in a way that is readily accessible and understandable to persons who use it”?
S 299(3)(c) If applicable*, does the SWMS “describe all control measures considered in determining which control measures to implement”?
Compare this checklist to what you currently use for SWMS assessment, taking notice of what additional and unnecessary content your existing process requires.
Subjective Score: ____ out of 24
Craig McCormack is director of Crest Assured, a consulting firm which specialises in the development, documentation, and assisted implementation of management systems.
This series of edited e-books is available for open access download at the above web link (printed copies can also be purchased). They are pitched to bridge the theory/practice divide and provide accessible practical insights and suggestions. As in life more generally, it is rare in publishing that well-informed recent material is readily available without charge. For that reason alone, the existence and potential helpfulness of this series of books deserves to be better known among readers of OHS Professional, from OHS/WHS professionals and practitioners to tertiary students and academics. Currently, there are 16 books in the series. Before more detail on a couple of examples, here are the titles, starting with the most recent:
• Public Participation in Governance of Industrial Safety Risks: An Uneasy Journey (2025)
• Climate Change and Safety in High-Risk Industries (2024)
• The Regulator-Regulatee Relationship in High-Hazard Industry Sectors: New Actors and New Viewpoints in a Conservative Landscape (2024)
• Compliance and Initiative in the Production of Safety: A Systems Perspective on Managing Tensions and Building Complementarity (2024)
• Safe Performance in a World of Global Networks: Case Studies, Collaborative Practices and Governance Principles (2024)
the Future: Towards Smart Risk Governance and Safety Management (2018)
• Beyond Safety Training: Embedding Safety in Professional Skills (2018)
• The Illusion of Risk Control: What Does it Take to Live With Uncertainty? (2017)
Contracting and Safety is edited by Jan Hayes and Stéphanie Tillement. Hayes is an honorary Fellow of AIHS and professor at RMIT. Her research has been focused on high-hazard industry risk and safety issues such as those relating to offshore petroleum and gas pipelines. Tillement is an associate professor at IMT Atlantique, with a research focus on process industry safety, high reliability, and outsourcing, including within the French nuclear industry. The book’s 116 pages comprise an introduction and 11 chapters, the last of which covers ‘implications for safe outsourcing’. Illustrative case studies from around the world include Scandinavian and French nuclear power and waste, Japanese railway vehicles, and construction industries in the UK and Australia. Multi-industry operational and delivery phases and mechanisms include the use of consultants, outsourcing, privatisation, commissioning, and decommissioning. One key theme is to balance short-term profitability and incentives with long-term reliability and safety outcomes. The book is expected to be of particular interest to safety professionals, project managers in engineering industries, and researchers on industrial safety.
The Regulator-Regulatee Relationship in High-Hazard Industry Sectors is edited by Jean-Christophe Le Coze and Benoît Journé. Dr Le Coze is research director at INERIS, France’s national institute for environmental safety, and has published extensively and widely. Journé is a professor at Nantes University, with a research focus on organisational reliability, resilience, and nuclear safety. This book comprises 114 pages and 12 chapters that traverse healthcare, offshore oil and gas, and the nuclear industry, among other sectors. The relationship between high-hazard industry regulators and those they regulate is considered in the context of pressures and trade-offs faced and the need to maintain public trust and confidence. Trade-offs include the cost of regulatory oversight and its effectiveness, regulatory independence and inspector domain competence, and balancing regulatory effectiveness and operational intrusion with the ability to provide regulatory advice on how to meet expectations without undermining appropriate criticism and enforcement action. Having worked with some of the regulatory issues faced by high-hazard industries myself, I found plenty of helpful material and insights in the book.
Some books, and chapters within them, are inevitably more academic or more practical than others, and some contributors are more distinguished or insightful than others. Overall, I highly recommend having a look at least a couple of books that interest you. You may well be motivated to look at others.
