Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2024
Celebrating
Tackling occupational violence and aggression in the workplace
Should psychosocial safety be managed the same as physical safety?
What do board directors want from their OHS leaders?
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
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
Psychosocial safety: should it be managed the same as physical safety? The challenges and opportunities in managing psychosocial risks in workplaces
What do board directors want from OHS leaders? There are a number of sought-after qualities in OHS leaders that board directors need to help manage OHS risks
Protecting the frontline: Inside Western Health’s comprehensive approach to addressing occupational violence and aggression in the workplace
Infectious diseases in the workplace: As new infectious diseases emerge and old ones resurface, organisations require a comprehensive health strategy
Exploring the evolution of psychosocial safety
Psychosocial safety is becoming an increasingly important issue for the OHS function and professionals on the ground, writes
Craig Donaldson
Craig Donaldson, editor, OHS Professional
Safe Work Australia recently caused a stir when it announced that it would amend the model WHS Act to include work-related psychological harm as a notifiable incident. More specifically, the agency is looking to capture serious work-related injuries and illnesses that are not already notifiable through notification of a worker’s absence period of 15 or more consecutive calendar days due to psychological or physical injury, illness, or harm in the course of their work. While it is ultimately up to each jurisdiction to adopt (or reject) the model amendment when finalised, it is a sign of the times of how seriously psychosocial safety is being taken. However, psychosocial safety is nothing new. As Dr Rebecca Michalak notes in the lead feature for this edition, primary duty of care obligations have included psychological health and safety since the 1950s, when the ILO definition of occupational health was first adopted in the WHS sphere, according to Michalak. This definition encompasses physical, mental, and social wellbeing of workers. “The profession simply cannot reasonably claim that the current regulatory situation is a sudden dumper wave that caught even
Bondi’s professional surf lifesavers off-guard,” said Michalak, who noted that step change efforts kicked off in earnest in 2018 with the release of inaugural national guidance material and the Boland Review. This feature examines a range of issues around psychosocial health and safety – including whether it can (and should) be managed the same as physical safety, the ‘turf war’ between OHS and HR, and how psychosocial risks and hazards will likely evolve in the future. Tina McCreery, chief HR officer for Deloitte Australia, also discusses how the firm launched a comprehensive response to workplace psychosocial risks, with an aim of cultivating a workplace culture that prioritises both productivity and wellbeing. For more information, turn to page 16.
“The profession simply cannot reasonably claim that the current regulatory situation is a sudden dumper wave that caught even Bondi’s professional surf lifesavers off-guard”
Also in this issue, we look at how Western Health in Victoria has taken a comprehensive approach, combining leadership commitment, evidence-based strategies, and interagency collaboration, to address occupational violence and aggression. Occupational violence and aggression have become a pressing issue in the healthcare sector, with incidents escalating alarmingly in recent years. In this feature (beginning page
The OHS Professional editorial board 2024
28), James Kolozsi, director of safety, risk and emergency management for Western Health, explains how the state government health department embarked on an innovative approach to address occupational violence and aggression in its emergency departments, which are among the highest risk locations in healthcare settings. The approach has met with a number of successes, including a 488 per cent increase in ‘planned’ security responses (which are called by staff ahead of a violent incident occurring).
There has been a lot of debate about safety metrics over the years, with organisations tossing up between lag and lead indicators as they seek to reduce near-misses, incidents, and fatalities in the workplace. However, Greg Smith, partner at Jackson McDonald, says traditional safety metrics may be giving organisations a false sense of security, as relying on injury rate data and outdated reporting methods can obscure real risks. In the risk management feature (page 14), he gives the example of the Pike River and ESSO Longford incidents, which reveal a troubling gap between reported data and actual safety outcomes. Instead, he argues for a shift from metric-based indicators of safety to a system of narrative reporting –with the intent of understanding whether safety management is fit-for-purpose, implemented, and effective.
The AIHS recently convened the Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2024, which provide national recognition to organisations and individuals that are demonstrating excellence and innovation in the field of WHS. The awards recognised 11 individual and organisational achievements across eight award categories. In the field of health and safety, there is often a focus on the negative, but these awards are a celebration of the positive and all that is right and good in the OHS profession. For a full rundown of finalists, winners, and photos from the awards night, please turn to page 24.
Leading the way: Fostering WHS excellence through inclusion and mentorship
The ability to lead with agility, empathy, and a shared vision for a safer future are critical as the landscape of work continues to change, writes Cameron Montgomery
Leaders in workplace health and safety (WHS) are sought out for their capacity to influence others to rise to safety challenges and set the tone for desired WHS outcomes. Individually, they must be adaptable and flexible in a constantly changing environment that continues to see rapid developments of new ways of working, from the growth of the gig economy and artificial intelligence to responding to pandemics, hybrid work, and climate-related risks. To achieve this level of agility, it’s crucial that they deeply understand the workforce and cultivate an inclusive culture.
Successful WHS leadership starts with recognising the diversity within teams, cross-functional project groups, and partnerships, which includes variations in personal attributes such as age, ethnicity, gender, skills, neurodiversity, and educational backgrounds (to name just a few). Building and maintaining trust through a consistent vision that values everyone’s contributions is key to fostering an inclusive work environment. This inclusivity is not just about representation; it’s about leveraging diverse perspectives to drive innovation and improve operations. Diversity and leadership are at the heart of everything we do at the AIHS and are values reflected in our strategy Vision 2026, which aims to showcase inspiring career pathways within an inclusive WHS community. From community to practice, it is evident that WHS skills can be taught, and WHS leadership is not based on a role or a title
but on a willingness to collaborate and make a difference toward a common goal of a safe and healthy workplace. Furthermore, this is enhanced when employees are engaged and invested in collective success and receptive to diverse insights. As WHS leaders continue to face new challenges, there is a need to stay connected with current and emerging practice through continuous professional development – whether through ongoing training, coaching, or mentoring relationships where experienced WHS professionals/practitioners guide newer ones. This practice helps the entire team become more adaptable and responsive to change.
“Effective WHS leadership is not confined to a title but embodies a commitment to continuous learning, inclusivity, and adaptability in the face of evolving workplace challenges”
This month, the eighth cohort of the AIHS Mentoring Program will commence their journey. Joining an experienced and talented group, the mentees will be mentored by some of Australia’s finest health and safety professionals to further their careers and expand their expertise. The AIHS Mentoring Program has long been a cornerstone of our strategic goal of fostering a diverse and inclusive WHS community. Started in 2006 and revised in 2020 under the outstanding leadership of Deb Burlington and her significant contributions, it aims to connect people through shared experiences and knowledge that foster insight and growth.
Mentorship programs play a crucial role in integrating diversity and inclusion of thought within the health and safety profession. By connecting employees with management or pairing early-career WHS practitioners with experienced WHS professionals, mentorship fosters a culture where every perspective is valued, leading to more effective safety policies and a safer, more inclusive workplace. As WHS challenges continue to evolve, embracing diversity through mentorship will be key to building resilience, innovative solutions, and growing the next generation of WHS leaders.
I am privileged and honoured to be a Mentoring Program alumnus and was supported by my mentor, Cipriano ‘Cip’ Corva. Cip recently passed away, but his passion and commitment to an inclusive WHS profession live on, whether through his impact on mentees by encouraging them to take a broad and diverse view of WHS challenges, or by fostering new connections across the WHS community. Cip was a 50+ year member of the AIHS and was awarded a Life Membership for his service to the Institute and the health and safety profession. He served on many technical committees and the Victorian Branch, and influenced many students through his dedication to improving OHS education that has left a legacy that is to be admired. Vale Cipriano Corva.
Effective WHS leadership is not confined to a title but embodies a commitment to continuous learning, inclusivity, and adaptability in the face of evolving workplace challenges. The AIHS’ commitment to fostering these qualities through initiatives like the Mentoring Program demonstrates the importance of guiding and empowering the next generation of WHS professionals. By nurturing diverse perspectives and creating a culture of inclusion, we can drive innovation, enhance safety outcomes, and ensure that all workers are valued and protected. As the landscape of work continues to change, our ability to lead with agility, empathy, and a shared vision for a safer future will remain paramount.
Cameron Montgomery, Chair of the Australian Institute of Health & Safety
How are employers and regulators responding to industrial manslaughter laws?
The introduction of industrial manslaughter laws in every mainland jurisdiction, together with recent proposed changes to laws in some states, has resulted in a renewed focus on the laws by duty holders, according to an international law firm. While the laws do not introduce any new duties, it does mean the stakes are significantly higher for companies and individual officers when it comes to dealing with the aftermath of an incident resulting in a death, said Sarah Connolly, a solicitor at Herbert Smith Freehills. “This has resulted in employers reassessing their post-incident response plans and renewed interest in implementing protective measures that can be implemented in the event of a catastrophic incident,” she said. On a different note, Connolly observed industrial manslaughter laws have had a positive impact, as duty holders seem to be putting more of a focus on their fatal and catastrophic risks and critical controls, with some developing programs of works dedicated to identifying, assessing, and responding to those risks.
Three critical considerations in adopting lead safety indicators
For organisations looking to shift from lagging safety indicators to leading indicators, they must first address their preparedness, priorities, and safety culture maturity level, according to recent research. Specifically, leading indicators must be adopted with a systems-thinking approach where they are developed and used in a work context involving people and technology, rather than merely focusing on human behaviour or identifying leading indicators for machinery or plant. In addition, such an approach must be applied through the use of active leading indicators (alongside other leading indicator types), which will enable constant monitoring of new sociotechnical system developments and facilitate early detection of changes in safety status. The research paper, ‘Unravelling the Gordian knot of leading indicators’, published in Safety Science by a team of four academics and industry experts from the UK and South Africa, also said suggested leading indicators should be structured in a nested or multi-tiered way. “If a company adopts safety culture as leading indicators of safety, then leading indicators for measuring safety culture must be adopted.”
Workplace injury and illness costs
tens of thousands of work years
Australia loses 41,194 work years annually due to work-related injury, disease, and mental health conditions – the equivalent of more than 41,000 lost jobs – according to Monash University research. Published in the Medical Journal of Australia, the study aimed to quantify the national burden of working time lost to compensable occupational injury and disease and how working time lost is distributed across age, sex, injury, and disease. Professor Alex Collie from Monash University’s School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine said it was the first time such figures had been collated. “Normally, we track injury and disease at work by counting the number of people making compensation claims or the amount of time they spend off work. This new measure combines those two concepts and presents it as something more meaningful, which can be summarised as the number of people off work for a full year,” said Collie, who added that the working years lost (WYL) measure provided a different view of the ‘challenge’ of workplace injury.
Primary psychological injury claims on the rise
There has been a 47.5 per cent increase in primary psychological injury claims from 2019 to 2023 under Allianz Australia’s national claims portfolio. These claims are also resulting in a 29.9 per cent increase in average claims costs and 30.2 per cent increase in time loss, equating to some 655,000 days of absence in the Allianz portfolio alone, according to Brianna Cattanach, national manager for mental health at Allianz Australia. “As such, proactively addressing the increasing impact of psychological injury claims in the workplace is crucial for businesses to ensure the wellbeing of their employees and maintain a productive work environment,” she said. There are key drivers behind the increase in psychological injury claims, according to Cattanach. “Firstly, instances of work-related harassment or bullying and the experience of poorly managed workplace stress and burnout account for 78 per cent of all psychological injury claims, which indicates there is work to be done in managing psychosocial hazards associated with workplace cultural factors, conduct and behaviour, role clarity, and job design, for example.
Does artificial intelligence (AI) increase psychosocial risks at work?
The implementation of AI or generative AI tools within workplaces can impact both the perception and existence of psychosocial risks at work, according to RMIT. For example, AI can automate data collection on the performance of workers in real-time, potentially reduce bias in evaluation, and automate different kinds of feedback. However, AI tools can also remove the social interaction component, which is essential to align human perceptions between workers and employers about their productivity and working conditions, said Dr Emmanuelle Walkowiak, Vice Chancellor’s Senior Research Fellow at RMIT in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing. “It is likely there will also be psychosocial, health, and wellbeing risks to workers with the integration of AI in the workplace,” said Walkowiak. “It is important that businesses scrutinise psychosocial risks when deploying AI tools to ensure the deployment of technologies that serve both the wellbeing and productivity of workers,” she said. “Workers feel that they complete less complex tasks and learn less at work, their work intensifies and accelerates, and they benefit from lower physical risks.”
Four keys to developing a healthier psychosocial safety climate
There are four key factors which improve psychosocial safety: top management support for stress prevention, prioritising worker psychological health over productivity and profits, better communication systems about risks and prevention, and better consultation with workers at all levels of the organisation in resolving risks, according to the University of South Australia. “OHS professionals need to press for workplace assessments beyond psychosocial risks to include the safety system that causes or perpetuates risk. This is the psychosocial safety climate,” said UniSA ARC Laureate Fellow Professor Maureen Dollard, who co-authored recent research that examined the microeconomic and macroeconomic costs and benefits of psychosocial safety climates (PSC). The research found that workers in organisations with a poor psychosocial safety climate take 160 per cent more days off (177 days) per year due to workplace injury or illness, compared to workers in organisations with a high psychosocial safety climate who take 68 days off per year.
Vale Cipriano Corva
The Australian Institute of Health & Safety acknowledges with deep sorrow the passing of Cipriano Corva, a Fellow and Life Member of the Institute
Cipriano, affectionately known as Cip, made an indelible mark on the field of OHS through his extensive service, dedication, and leadership.
Cip’s journey in OHS began early in his career. He joined the then Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) in 1966, and his commitment to safety was unwavering, spanning more than 50 years as a member of the Institute. Throughout his career, Cip served in numerous key roles within the organisation, contributing significantly to its growth and the professional development of its members.
Cip’s held several notable positions with the Institute. He was a member of the Victorian Committee of Management, the National Technical Panel and the Education Chapter, and he also served on the College of Fellows Board. Cip’s contributions to the planning and execution of the Safety in Action conference, where he chaired the education stream for a number of years, were particularly notable.
Cip’s impact on the field of OHS education was profound. He developed and led various educational initiatives which provided mentoring and forums for new graduates, in addition to other programs which recognised excellence in tertiary-level OHS courses. His dedication to professional excellence was further demonstrated through his work on the OHS Professional of Excellence Award.
In addition to his contributions to the SIA, Cip was deeply involved in the development of Australian standards for OHS. He served as the SIA Chairman of the Australian Standards Technical Committee, playing a crucial role in the creation and revision of standards that have shaped the safety landscape in Australia.
Cipriano’s professional career was equally distinguished. He held significant safety roles in prominent organisations, including General Motors Holden, Shell Refinery Australia, Grain Elevators Board,
Corporate Members
SHARING OUR VISION – DIAMOND MEMBERS
Amazon Commercial Services Pty Ltd
Avetta
CleanSpace Technology
Everyday Massive Pty Ltd
HSI Donesafe
Milwaukee Tools
Pan Software
GETTING CONNECTED – SILVER MEMBERS
Anitech Pty Ltd
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Australian Unity
Brisbane Catholic Education
Clough Projects Australia Pty Ltd
Cm3 Contractor Management Pty Ltd
Convergint
CROSS Asia Pacific Pty Ltd
Curtin University
Downer EDI Ltd
Ecoportal
FIFO Focus
Fusion Safety Management Pty Ltd
Guardian Angel Safety Pty Ltd
Herbert Smith Freehills
Programmed
Resolution Education
Sentis
TAFE NSW
Woolworths Group
Zenergy
HOK Talent Solutions
Perth Workplace Safety Consultants
Pilz Australia
Pocketknife Group
Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd
RiskTalk
Safesearch Pty Ltd
Safetysure
Trainwest Safety Institute
Transurban
UnitingSA
Workwear Direct
Zinfra
Cipriano Corva (pictured here with his wife Val and daughters Andrea and Natalie) when he received life membership to the Institute. Photo credit: Sajan James
Smorgon Consolidated Industries, Industries, Email Metals Group, and Atlas Steels. His expertise was sought after in various industries, from automotive and manufacturing to construction and public transport. As a consultant, Cip provided invaluable services to numerous companies, helping them develop and implement effective OHS management systems and safety programs.
His work extended beyond traditional employment roles. Cip was a dedicated educator and trainer, developing and conducting OHS courses for a wide range of organisations and various industry associations.
Cip’s contributions to safety were recognised with numerous awards and honours. He was awarded Life Membership in recognition of his outstanding service and dedication to the Institute and the field of OHS. His legacy is one of commitment to safety, education, and professional excellence.
Cipriano Corva was not only a respected professional, but also a gentleman known for his calm demeanour and ability to convey his views effectively. He is survived by his family, who supported him throughout his career and endeavours.
Vale Cipriano Corva.
INVESTING IN HEALTH & SAFETY – GOLD MEMBERS
Actrua
Area9 Lyceum
Australian Army
Australian Psychological Services
BGIS Pty Ltd
Coles Group
COLLAR
Dangerous Goods Network
EML
EY
Federation University
HSE Global
ICAM Australia
Jones Lang LaSalle (NSW) Pty Ltd
K & L Gates
Kitney OHS
Liontown Resources
Metcash Limited
MinterEllison Lawyers
Peter Berry Consultancy
Safety Champion Software
Soter Analytics P/L
Teamcare Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd
The Safe Step
BEING PART OF THE NETWORK – BRONZE MEMBERS
5 Sticks Consulting
Airbus Australia Pacific
BWC Safety Pty Ltd
Complete Security Protection Pty Ltd
Department of Energy, Mines, Industry
Regulation and Safety
Facility Co Pty Ltd
FEFO Consulting
Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd
Health & Safety Advisory Service P/L
Hitachi Rail STS Pty Ltd
Integrated Trolley Management Pty Ltd
Isaac Regional Council
Would
Liberty Industrial
National Storage
National Training Masters
Office for the Commissioner of Public
Sector Employment
Peninsula Australia Pty Limited
ProcessWorx
SafeWork SA
Scenic Rim Regional Council
Services Australia
SIXP Consulting Pty Ltd
Westside Christian College
EHS excellence: A catalyst for financial and operational success
Investing in EHS can boost financial, social, and regulatory outcomes while attracting top talent in an increasingly sustainability-focused market
As ethical considerations increasingly influence consumer and investor decisions and government and regulatory focus on sustainability-related compliance and reporting, the Environmental Health and Safety (EHS) function has become increasingly important in many organisations. EHS needs to be more than a mere compliance exercise, embodying a company’s dedication to stakeholder wellbeing and reflecting corporate values and principles, according to a recent research report from EY.
The study, which looked at data from 9000 of the largest public companies globally, reveals that the underutilised EHS function can help to drive operational and financial excellence. Additionally, adopting specific low-cost, high-impact practices can uplift your company’s financial, social, and regulatory performance, according to Karen Mealmaker, EY regional environment, health and safety leader, Oceania. “We know there are obvious links between the ability to attract top talent and financial performance, so the business case continues to stack up for investing in improved EHS performance,” she said.
The 2024 EY Global EHS Maturity Study surveyed more than 400 organisations globally to get an understanding of the features of the most mature organisations from an EHS perspective. Survey responses were self-reported and not based on an independent assessment. Interestingly, the survey found that most organisations fall well short of being advanced or leading.
In assessing EHS maturity, EY teams consider seven key levers that influence EHS outcomes. These include: an organisation’s EHS strategy; leadership; people aspects; governance and reporting; risk management; systems and structures; and digital technology. These are the same levers that influence broader organisational outcomes, and Mealmaker said that looking at a broader set of factors when assessing maturity means that organisations often identify opportunities to uplift maturity
Without better measures, EHS leaders will continue to struggle to obtain investment in important EHS initiatives, according to Karen Mealmaker, EY regional environment, health and safety leader, Oceania
and outcomes that had not previously been considered.
Environmental performance improves financial performance
The EY study found a positive correlation between environmental performance and financial performance. “We all know that environmental incidents can be costly to organisations in terms of remediation and fines, but we also found that over a 10year period, a reduction in CO2 equivalent emissions correlated with an increase in company revenue,” she said.
In working with clients in industrial sectors like mining, renewables and waste across Oceania, Mealmaker said there is an increased focus on environmental impacts by governments, which leads to challenges in project development and obtaining approvals. “This obviously has significant financial impact in terms of increased project costs and asset valuations. In short, investment in advanced environmental planning and active management pays off,” she added.
The study also found that organisations that improved environmental performance also experienced better social performance
and had reduced levels of employee turnover. In today’s war for talent, and at a time when there are ever-growing ESG expectations in the community, Mealmaker said this is an important finding, as environmental performance is a key element of an employer’s value proposition.
The OHS link to financial, social, and regulatory performance
The health and safety profession has claimed for decades that ‘good’ health and safety is good for business, Mealmaker said. “We’ve long said that fewer injuries lead to less operational disruption and less cost associated with compensation, rehabilitation, and replacement of labour. However, we’ve rarely quantified the opportunity associated with improved health and safety management. This is what EY sought to do with the study,” she said.
It found that a reduced injury rate correlated with an increase in net income across a ten-year period, while lower injury rates were also associated with faster increases in net income, revenue, and market capitalisation. From a social and regulatory perspective, the study was also able to link a reduced injury rate with lower layoff rates and fewer controversies (such as significant controversies related to employee health and safety, human rights, child labour, public health, customer health and safety, product quality, consumer complaints, and the environment).
While the use of injury rates has its limitations as a measure of health and safety maturity, and the study was somewhat limited based on the information that was available publicly, Mealmaker said the findings did help demonstrate that effective health and safety functions should be seen as a value driver for organisations – and not only as a compliance or risk management function.
With this in mind, EY is working with clients to help them establish more effective ways of measuring the impact of health and safety initiatives. “For example, we can
better measure the impact of a psychosocial risk reduction program to determine if it is effective and if there is a return on investment when the injury, ill-health, or compensation data can be slow to shift. Without better measures, EHS leaders will continue to struggle to obtain investment in important EHS initiatives,” said Mealmaker.
Distinctive features of a mature EHS function
With the link between EHS performance and broader financial, social, and regulatory performance now proven globally, one of the aims of the study was to better understand common features of organisations considered to have better EHS performance.
The study found that organisations with more mature EHS functions often used incentives by attaching EHS performance to executive compensation – “which is interesting, as we often hear robust debate about whether incentives should be in place,” said Mealmaker.
Additionally, the study found 85 per cent of companies with higher levels of EHS maturity reported that EHS training was ‘fully’ customised to role-specific risks, as opposed to being only ‘partially’ or ‘not at all’ customised. This compared with just over half (52 per cent) of all companies offering ‘fully’ customised EHS training. Digital technology was also found to be a key component of EHS maturity. Almost all (91 per cent) of companies with the highest EHS maturity had dedicated enterprise EHS technology, compared with just 59 per cent of those with the lowest level of EHS maturity.
“From our experience supporting organisations to improve their EHS maturity in Oceania, the key determinants of the
initiatives needed to uplift maturity relate to the operational and risk profile of a particular organisation. However, there’s no doubt that the need for strong leadership capability and simple, risk-based systems are common across all organisations,” she said. Without these, a meaningful uplift in maturity is unlikely, and importantly, sustained maturity requires strength across more levers – and any that are neglected for too long will serve as a barrier to an uplift in maturity in the future.
“We really want to encourage the EHS profession to move beyond the current approach to be able to demonstrate the impact of our work to support ongoing investment in the right initiatives”
“We’ve all seen organisations that, on paper, should be achieving great EHS outcomes – their systems are ‘compliant’ and certified to ISO45001. However, we know this does not equate to a high level of maturity,” she added. Without consistency across the organisation, strong leadership, a capable workforce that is physically and psychologically fit and well, effective assurance, transparency to identify opportunities to improve, simple and agile ways of managing risk, and digital technology to
enable it all, Mealmaker said maturity will not be elevated to realise optimal financial, social and regulatory benefits.
Steps for lifting the maturity of EHS functions
EHS professionals have a great opportunity to leverage the research to support their business cases for investment in the initiatives needed to uplift maturity and improve outcomes for people and organisations, according to Mealmaker.
“If you are not sure where to start, it’s important to know where your organisation is currently at, including the barriers to progressing. We advocate for considering all of the factors that influence outcomes – not just culture, and not just systems. You’ll need to be able to prioritise what to address, as the list is likely to be long.
“We really want to encourage the EHS profession to move beyond the current approach to be able to demonstrate the impact of an EHS function’s work to support ongoing investment in the right initiatives.”
The solution to this is EHS impact measurement: a data-driven, scientific approach to comprehensively assess EHS investment value, according to Mealmaker, who explained that effective EHS impact measurement looks beyond outputs and implementation (e.g. measuring the number of people who have attended a training program).
It enables organisations to define short-, medium-, and long-term outcomes and tie activities to the outcomes that need to be achieved along the way – for example, by evaluating the effectiveness of activities (e.g. changes in behaviour as a result of a capability development program), and whether this has supported improved EHS, financial, social, and/or regulatory performance. This type of measurement is not typically applied to EHS initiatives and associated outcomes.
This is important because EHS impact measurement enables the design of targeted indicators to monitor the effectiveness of programs and controls, to determine the impact EHS initiatives have within the organisation, and make improvements as needed. It can also help identify activities that are not adding value, and those that are worth the time and effort. “Without such an approach, how do we really know if we’re uplifting maturity and if we’re adding financial, social, and regulatory value?”
Mealmaker asked.
EY is a gold member of the Australian Institute of Health & Safety. For a copy of the 2024 EY Global EHS Maturity Study, please visit www.ey.com/en_au/ climate-change-sustainability-services/ ehs-maturity-study.
What do board directors want from OHS leaders?
There are a number of sought-after qualities in OHS leaders that board directors need to help manage OHS risks
There are three common recurring concerns and challenges specific to OHS that board directors face: the engagement and management of contractors, psychosocial hazards, and practical assurance activities to ensure they can meet their due diligence obligations effectively, according to Louise Howard, director of Louise Howard Advisory.
Contractor management presents major challenges, according to Howard, who observed that this issue spans organisations of all sizes, from start-ups to mega projects, indicating that there is poor comprehension of the management of this activity.
“Contracting models, lack of requirements, and models for management often lack the necessary structure to hold contractors to performance expectations, primarily because contractual mechanisms for enforcement are absent. OHS obligations ought to be an integral part of every stage in contract management, but this integration is frequently missing, largely due to oversight by the procurement and contract management teams,” she said.
Psychosocial hazards are increasingly coming to the forefront for boards as well, especially now that legislation has been introduced across four out of five states. “The misunderstanding here, in my experience, is that leadership teams and directors fail to understand these hazards, and fundamentally misunderstand how their workplaces are designed,” said Howard, who added that role clarity, high job demands, low job control, poor support, and change management are some of the internal factors that contribute to an increasing risk profile within organisations.
There is also a “crucial need” for robust assurance and verification mechanisms, Howard added. “It isn’t sufficient to simply have policies and procedures documented to manage OHS risks, and directors are acutely aware of this,” she said. A director’s duty within OHS is akin to officers’ fiduciary duties under the Corporations Act 2001, and requires officers to apply their independent and ‘questioning mind’ to OHS matters on an ongoing basis. “Ensuring comprehensive and effective assurance mechanisms within organisations remains somewhat of a challenge,” she explained.
The state of OHS risk management for board directors
In terms of how well organisations manage OHS risks and how well board directors fulfil their obligations, Howard said there is a lot of variation – and it really comes down to the industry. “Based on my experience advising large-scale complex organisations and their boards, I’ve observed that the level of commitment to OHS risk management is just adequate, with an average mark of six out of ten if you wanted to apportion a number to it,” she said.
“If your health and safety function is not aligned with your HR or corporate services function or vice versa, you will not have success in mitigating OHS risks”
High-risk industries usually have a heightened awareness and more structured approach towards OHS risk management and their directors’ obligations, due to the significant consequences that can arise if a risk is realised. However, Howard said this conscientiousness doesn’t necessarily extend across all sectors. While organisations may have the systems in place, she said the real test is whether those systems are well implemented, understood, and ultimately effective. “This is where I see gaps,” she said. There is also a growing recognition of OHS not merely as an isolated function, but as a crucial element within the wider organisational context and risk management framework, Howard added. “The approach to OHS risk management is gradually improving, yet the pace of this change is not as quick as necessary, given the growing challenges on the horizon. OHS doesn’t always seem to be as high on the agenda as it should be. If you are a people organisation or profess that you value your people, then
this needs to be improved,” she said.
In terms of board directors, Howard stated that their understanding of OHS responsibilities is often good, with a general awareness regarding their responsibilities towards OHS. However, she noted that these responsibilities frequently do not command the same level of focus as other types of risks, such as financial, market, or reputational risks. “OHS risks ought to be viewed as integral to operational risks, rather than being seen in isolation,” she said.
“I have come across a few boards where there’s a real commitment and comprehension of OHS, driven by standout leaders who have steered their organisations to a leading place in this field. So, it’s not all doom and gloom. If an organisation is proactive about risk management in general, then that usually means they’re effectively managing OHS too,” she said.
What do board directors want from OHS leaders?
“Board directors are looking for OHS leaders who truly grasp the entirety of the organisation – the various objectives, corporate ambitions, and the distinct culture within the organisation,” said Howard.
“They expect more than just a technical expert who narrowly focuses on a singular area; they need someone with a broad understanding of the different facets of the organisation. Directors are essentially saying, if you, as an OHS leader, aren’t familiar with how to interpret a profit and loss statement and don’t understand the various levers of the organisation, then how can you be truly impactful? They want OHS leaders to comprehend the key drivers of the organisation, be proficient in what they do, and have a thorough understanding of the context in which they operate.”
Howard has noticed that many OHS leaders tend to stick to their own domain and don’t exert influence across the organisation. In such cases, they’re simply seen as the ‘safety person’, according to Howard, who said that it is crucial to step beyond this role and gain a deeper insight into the full spectrum of the organisation’s operations and projects.
“Directors want OHS leaders to focus on what is truly significant,” said Howard. “For
instance, if there’s a substantial OHS risk, OHS leaders should consider the broader implications, how might this impact other aspects of the organisation, and what other risks may be intertwined if this risk is realised. This perspective should be the starting point when trying to engage with and advise the executive leadership and a board.”
However, the balance here is delicate. If an OHS leader is too proficient, Howard said the executive team might adopt a hands-off approach. But if they’re not effective enough, she said they risk exposing the organisation to increased liability. “Finding that middle ground is key, where an OHS leader is competent enough to manage risks without escalating involvement, but also maintains a profile that keeps the attention and commitment of their executive team,” she said.
Risk management and OHS governance metrics
Board directors expect OHS leaders to provide metrics that not only highlight areas of concern but which, more importantly, demonstrate the effectiveness of risk management strategies – before problems occur and risks are realised, said Howard.
This requires a shift to leading indicators, which marks a departure from the prevailing industry practice that mainly relies on lagging indicators, according to Howard, who said there is a persistent dependence on metrics such as the total recordable
injury frequency rate (TRIFR) by boards and leadership teams to measure safety performance, indicating a continued need for updated practices in this area.
“A consistent set of metrics should be established across business units to allow for meaningful comparison and offer a thorough perspective on safety performance,” she said.
“The inclusion of metrics pertaining to due diligence can enhance the quality of board oversight. Streamlining board reporting can be strategic in triggering the necessary actions and a rigorous audit and assurance program is essential, with a particular emphasis on addressing major audit non-conformances as a leading metric.”
However, Howard said that organisations that have not yet defined a risk appetite for OHS performance should consider doing so, to guide both performance management and reporting.
“Board directors are focused on ensuring that risk management is in line with the company’s capacity for risk, and that decisions are supported by a delineated understanding of the level of risk the organisation is prepared to accept,” she said.
Current and emerging trends for OHS
Howard also said that mature organisations are integrating health and safety risks into their overall enterprise risk frameworks. “Treat health and safety as you would a financial, commercial, or reputational risk
– and not separate,” she said. “The expansion of the OHS remit across HR activities is one I welcome. If your health and safety function is not aligned with your HR or corporate services function or vice versa, you will not have success in mitigating OHS risks.
“How people are treated and led in a workplace will continue to be the sleeping giant that contributes to the organisational psychosocial risk profile, and this is directly linked to the management and leadership of people,” said Howard. She added that OHS crossovers with HR include training, inductions, competency management, leadership capability, consultation, and communication with the workforce.
Furthermore, the continued emergence of AI and technology in the workplace will continue to pose opportunities and risks for OHS. Additionally, she said the advent of new AI-based technologies will bring new deliberations on how these advancements may alter OHS risks. The impact of climate change and the challenges of managing a multigenerational workforce are other trends that need consideration.
Howard underscored the continued importance of focusing on the ‘health’ part of OHS, and said that the COVID pandemic was a big-wake up call for Australian organisations. “We are continuing to see an increasing focus by regulators on occupational health. In the past three years, we have had COVID, psychosocial risk, and a ban on engineered stone, and the focus on health and occupational disease will only continue to expand,” she said.
Recommendations for boards and OHS leaders
Howard recommended that boards ensure strategic OHS plans are developed and integrated across their organisations.
“Directors have a direct legal duty to implement and monitor systems that ensure safe working conditions in their workplaces as far as reasonably practical,” she said.
In nearly all Australian jurisdictions, Howard said there is a positive obligation for directors to exercise due diligence in relation to WHS. “Good governance practice ensures every board meeting has OHS as a topic on the agenda. While it may be appropriate to use a board subcommittee – either audit and risk or environmental, social, and governance – to review OHS management systems and processes, as well as WHS performance and metrics, responsibility cannot be delegated to these committees. OHS should be a standing agenda item for the full board,” she said.
Louise Howard is director of Louise Howard Advisory, ARC chair for the AIHS, and a member of OHS Professional magazine’s editorial board.
Louise Howard says that if an organisation is proactive about risk management in general, then that usually means they’re effectively managing OHS too
What OHS needs to know about next-generation workspaces
Open-plan offices often undermine productivity and wellbeing due to issues like crowding, noise, and lack of privacy, which lead to potential risk implications for OHS
While most organisations fare well when it comes to designing workspaces that improve productivity, workforce wellbeing, and agility, many are moving from accommodating their employees in traditional cell-style offices with one occupant per office to placing them in openplan offices, according to Oluremi Ayoko, associate professor of management at the University of Queensland’s Business School and leader of the UQ Next Generation of Workspaces Research Network.
These open-plan office configurations are paradoxical in their functions, especially in delivering employee productivity and wellbeing. “There is more that needs to be done in this area to facilitate productivity and wellbeing,” Ayoko said. “We know, for example, that open-plan offices promote collaboration and communication among employees. We expect these benefits to increase productivity for the individual, team, and organisations.”
However, she also observed that openplan offices can exacerbate issues such as crowding, noise, lack of privacy, and surveillance, which may potentially detract from employee productivity and wellbeing. “In sum, the fit between employee and office environmental still needs significant attention,” she said.
Challenges and issues with openplan offices
The most common challenges in designing workspaces for productivity include crowding, the lack of a place for withdrawal, noise and distractions, lack of privacy, and employee territorial behaviours. Ayoko explained that crowding suggests excess population density in a given workspace. “Crowding is problematic, especially when people perceive that space is insufficient to meet their demands. It is also known to be negatively related to poor performance when working on complex tasks – all culminating in increased physiological stress,” she said.
Similarly, perceived noise is one of the most frequent and critical challenges
employees face in an open-plan office. Noise from ringing telephones, employee conversation (such as talking and gossiping), and computer keyboards are associated with diminished focus, concentration, and task motivation – all of which negatively impact employee wellbeing, according to Ayoko.
“The favourite cousin of noise in openplan offices is the lack of privacy,” she said. “Lack of privacy means that employees lose the ability to control incoming and outgoing information, stimulation, and interpersonal contact. In an open-plan office, lack of privacy also means that employees are missing out on the ability to have some social interactions that enable them to do their work, make friends, reflect, and withdraw from a full view of others to recover from stressful events experienced in the office.”
“The favourite cousin of noise in open-plan offices is the lack of privacy”
Ayoko also explained that employee territoriality is an individual behavioural expression of feelings of ownership towards objects or locations (such as workspaces), ideas, projects, or roles. “It is also the personalisation or marking of a place or object, and to communicate ownership that the object, cubicle, or workstation is ‘mine’. This promotes self-identity and is linked with increased wellbeing,” she said.
Addressing challenges in remote and hybrid workplaces
To address these challenges, Ayoko said organisations need to put some measures in place.
The Building Code of Australia, for example, requires a minimum space of ten square metres per person in a space. In this regard, she said organisations need to not only comply with the above requirements, but also have cognisance that some
employees will need more than ten square metres. “This means that they need to ultimately minimise the number of employees in any given open-plan office area,” she said.
“Companies also need to provide more breakout rooms that are not bookable in open-plan offices where employees can withdraw from noise, make a phone call, refresh, and have some quiet,” continued Ayoko. She added that noise should be minimised by putting noise insulations in the cubicle, including ‘noise grabbers’ in the open-plan offices during construction. Organisations should also involve employees in the design of their offices for empowerment.
Ayoko also suggested that telephone ringing be reduced and managers be trained to manage the physical environment of work, including employee territorial behaviours. “Also, minimise surveillance on remote workers. Performance appraisal invoices need to be revised to include a focus on getting tasks done, rather than expecting ‘bottoms on seats’ in the office all the time,” she said. “Fortify technology platforms to minimise the chances of cyber risk behaviours that may accompany remote work.”
Risks associated with the changing nature of workplaces
One of the psychosocial hazards in openplan offices is interpersonal conflict, according to Ayoko, whose research has found that perceived office noise relates positively to negative effect which, in turn, relates positively to withdrawal and task conflict as well as aspects of territorial behaviours. “We found that office privacy also moderates the relationship between employees’ in-the-moment perceptions of office noise and in-the-moment negative effects,” she said.
Crowding also has implications for spreading respiratory syncytial viruses (RSV), including COVID, flu, and influenza, which may cause infections of the lungs and respiratory tract. The estimated number of annual RSV hospitalisations among adults
aged 50 to 59 years equates to a total annual economic burden of $1.1 billion.
“Crowding can also trigger physical safety hazards such as increased slips, trips, and falls. As such, crowding must be monitored by OHS professionals,” she said.
Noise is also a hazard that needs to be monitored frequently by OHS professionals. While the Australian noise standard level is 85 decibels, Ayoko said the level tolerated by individual employees may be different.
“Workplace noise affects more than just hearing too. It can also affect hormones and the autonomic nervous system because it increases blood pressure, heart rate, and
blood viscosity, minimising job satisfaction and wellbeing. Therefore, monitoring noise levels is something that should be regularly done. Headphones can also be provided to employees to minimise noise arousal in an open-plan office,” she said.
Noise also relates to ergonomics. For example, a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology found that employees exposed to prolonged noises (especially in openplan offices) were less likely to make postural adjustments and more susceptible to slumping at their workstations. This, in turn, increases the risk of musculoskeletal disorders. “It is critical in open-plan offices
to monitor employees’ sitting arrangements and comfort while at work, to improve productivity and wellbeing,” said Ayoko.
Territoriality may be considered a new psychosocial hazard for two reasons, she added. First, territoriality can lead to disagreements and trust issues between employees who are more territorial. Second, she said territoriality promotes ‘infringements’, which may lead to interpersonal conflict and psychosocial hazards. “The management of the physical environment of work (such as open-plan offices) and the related challenges of crowding, noise, lack of privacy, ergonomics, territorial and conflict behaviours should now be ingrained in OHP training and certification,” said Ayoko.
Shaping the next generation of workspaces (safely)
“The future of work is here, and it is about flexibility – where to work, when to work, and how long to work. The call ‘back to the office’ by CEOs is critical, as there are many benefits to employees working physically in the offices,” said Ayoko. For example, communication is richer in a face-to-face environment, because it has the social benefit of promoting instant feedback. It also provides a medium to transmit multiple cues (such as body language, voice tone, and inflection), the use of natural language, and personal focus.
Similarly, said Ayoko explained that face-to-face communication in the office promotes serendipity. Also, chance conversations (around a water cooler, for example) are linked with innovation and creativity. Some employees also prefer to work solely from the office, as they feel they need to prevent the blurring of boundaries between home and work.
“Nevertheless, the times are changing, and hybrid and remote work arrangements have come to stay. Most organisations are now asking for a return to the office at least three days a week to help team members overlap and promote productivity and wellbeing,” said Ayoko. If your CEO or manager is insisting on a full return to work, she suggested practising negotiation skills by providing some convincing reasons for wanting to work at home at least two days a week. She also recommended asking for work schedules and providing a plan to show how you would be able to complete the scheduled projects for the week or period allotted.
“You can soften your manager’s hardline by providing your organisational citizenship behaviour plans, such as how you go beyond your call of duty in supporting your team members, division, and organisation,” she concluded.
Oluremi Ayoko says the future of work is here, and it is all about flexibility – where to work, when to work, and how long to work
The illusion of safety: are we measuring the wrong things?
Traditional safety metrics may be giving organisations a false sense of security, according to Greg Smith, who says that relying on injury rate data and outdated reporting methods can obscure real risks
In the world of OHS, numbers often tell a comforting story. Low injury rates and prestigious safety awards suggest a well-managed environment, but are these metrics truly reflective of safety?
Recent disasters such as the Pike River and ESSO Longford incidents reveal a troubling gap between reported data and actual safety outcomes. OHS Professional speaks with WHS lawyer Greg Smith about the limitations of conventional safety metrics and a fresh perspective on what truly matters in managing workplace risks.
How might measures of safety be harmful, creating an ‘illusion of safety’?
One of the concerns I have about the way organisations measure and report on workplace health and safety is that the metrics, particularly when they are combined with low or stable injury rate data, can create an impression that safety is being well-managed. However, traditional safety metrics and injury rate data are simply not evidence of safety being well-managed.
There are several examples of organisations been criticised for their reliance on injury rate data. One clear example of this is the Royal Commission inquiry into the Pike River coal mine disaster, which noted that the board received information about time lost through injuries, but went on to observe that this was not much help in assessing the risk of accidents in high hazard industries. They went on further to note that the board “appeared to receive no information proving the effectiveness of crucial systems”.
This is the essence of the problem with the current approach to health and safety metrics and reporting – it does not address the questions we need answered.
As another example, I note the sentencing decision following the ESSO Longford gas plant disaster in September 1998. Most people would be aware there was a
much-publicised Royal Commission into the disaster, but ESSO was also prosecuted under Victorian health and safety legislation at the time. During the sentencing hearing, the court noted that between 1992 and 1996, ESSO employees worked 12.5 million hours without a single lost time injury, and that after the disaster in September 1998, over 1.7 million hours had been worked up to the sentencing decision without any lost time injury.
The court also noted that ESSO had received a five-star rating from the National Safety Council in 1991 and won safety awards in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1999, and 2000. None of these achievements or accolades were relevant to the question of whether ESSO had done everything reasonably practicable to prevent the event.
Our systems of reporting and understanding workplace health and safety simply do not address the question of reasonable practicability, nor do they address our fundamental and underlying obligations for workplace health and safety.
Why should PCBU and directors be concerned about this?
Companies and their officers ought to be concerned about health and safety reporting because it is the only thing that can give them any meaningful insight into the state of safety in their organisation and whether they are meeting their legal obligations. This is particularly important for larger organisations.
Directors, in particular, should be concerned as to whether the health and safety information they receive from the organisation is properly informing them about the matters they are responsible for. Under WHS legislation, directors have to exercise due diligence to ensure that they, as a person conducting a business or undertaking (PCBU), are meeting their obligations under the WHS Act. Under the WHS Act, the primary duty of a PCBU is to
do everything reasonably practicable to ensure that their workers and the others around them are safe.
If the health and safety reporting of the organisation does not inform that question – the reasonably practicable question – it is very difficult for either the organisation or the directors to discharge their obligations.
“Our systems of reporting and understanding workplace health and safety simply do not address the question of reasonable practicability”
The reality is that, in most organisations, the current suite of reporting metrics does not address the reasonably practicable question. Examples of current reporting metrics used include the number of Take 5s completed by workers each shift, the percentage of training completed, the number of management inspections conducted, the number of safety conversations held, and the number of corrective actions closed out by the due date – none of which inform the organisation about whether it is doing everything reasonably practicable to manage the hazards and risks associated with the business.
Is there a better approach to ‘proving safety’ both internally and externally?
I think there is. In my book, Proving
research project, where the organisation is continually revisiting, retesting, and critically analysing the efficacy of its safety management.
and reported. If it is not providing the information that the organisation needs, then health and safety people need to provide this advice to the company.
Safety, I have argued for a shift from metric-based indicators of safety to a system of narrative reporting.
A system of narrative reporting is built on the foundation that organisations will make very specific enquiries into the hazards and risks in their business to continually revisit and retest whether the organisation has proper systems to manage those hazards and risks, and whether those systems are implemented and effective.
The intent of these enquiries is to understand whether safety management is fit-for-purpose, implemented, and effective. It is not to measure whether a certain level of activity has been achieved, which appears to be the primary goal of health and safety reporting as it stands currently.
As I argue in Proving Safety, we need to move health and safety assurance from a bureaucratic metric collection exercise to what I’ve referred to as a permanent
What are the implications for OHS professionals?
The implications for OHS professionals are the same as for any other worker in an organisation: if we don’t understand our obligations for the hazards in our area of responsibility, it is very difficult to discharge their obligations.
I appreciate it can be exceedingly difficult for health and safety professionals to provide information to organisations, when organisations have a very strong view about what information they do and do not want to receive. But, as a minimum, I think health and safety people are duty-bound to understand the risks in the business and whether they are well-managed, and to advise the organisation accordingly.
Part of this obligation, in my view, must include critical thinking about the way health and safety information is collected
One thing I would say is that I do believe a system of narrative reporting would give a lot of discretionary time back to frontline supervisors and health and safety advisers, and allow them to spend more time understanding the true nature of risk and control in the business.
When we look at organisations currently, much of the administrative bureaucratic burden of health and safety reporting and data collection falls on frontline supervisors and the health and safety people in the organisation. I can’t help but think it would be a useful exercise to give these types of people more time to be in the business investigating and enquiring into the true nature of risk and control and its efficacy.
Greg Smith is a partner at Western Australian law firm, Jackson McDonald. He has spent more than three decades specialising in workplace relations and WHS.
Greg Smith says that the reality for most organisations is that the current suite of reporting metrics does not address the reasonably practicable question
Psychosocial safety: should it be managed the same as physical safety?
There are a number of important challenges and opportunities in managing psychosocial risks in Australian workplaces, with a complex landscape of regulatory change and innovative approaches, writes Craig Donaldson
Psychosocial risks and hazards in the workplace have become a pressing concern for organisations worldwide. As the regulatory landscape evolves and our understanding of mental health deepens, businesses are grappling with the complex task of identifying, assessing, and mitigating these often intangible risks.
A 2022 study by Safe Work Australia sheds light on the significant impact of these issues. The research found that work-related mental health conditions account for 7 per cent of workers’ compensation claims, but represent a disproportionate 19 per cent of compensation costs. This disparity underscores the severe and often long-lasting effects of psychosocial hazards on employee wellbeing. Furthermore, the study revealed that workers with mental health conditions have an average time off work of 17.8 weeks, compared to just 5.8 weeks for other claims, highlighting the prolonged impact on both individual and organisational productivity.
Many Australian organisations are also struggling to keep pace with rapidly evolving regulatory requirements. This sentiment is supported by a 2023 report from the Black Dog Institute, which examined the state of workplace mental health in Australia. The study found that while 91 per cent of Australian businesses recognise the importance of addressing psychosocial risks, only 37 per cent have implemented comprehensive psychosocial risk management strategies. The report highlighted the need for greater support and guidance for Australian businesses, particularly small and medium enterprises, in translating awareness into effective action.
The economic imperative for addressing workplace mental health in Australia has been underscored by the Productivity
Commission’s 2023 report, Mental Health and Wellbeing in Australian Workplaces. The report estimates that improvements in workplace mental health could boost the Australian economy by up to $39 billion per year. This figure encompasses reduced absenteeism, increased productivity, and lower healthcare costs. The Commission’s analysis reveals that for every dollar invested in creating a psychologically safe workplace, Australian businesses can expect an average return of $2.30. Importantly, the Productivity Commission emphasises that addressing psychosocial risks is not just about mitigating negative outcomes, but also about creating positive work environments that foster innovation, engagement, and sustainable high performance. The report calls for a national strategy to improve workplace mental health, including the development of industry-specific guidelines and the integration of psychosocial risk management into existing workplace health and safety frameworks.
What’s the ‘psychosocial risk’ state of the nation?
In terms of how well most organisations fare in general when it comes to managing and mitigating psychosocial risks and hazards, “it’s very mixed”, said David Burroughs, founder and principal psychologist at Australian Psychological Services. This is the case in terms of both the maturity of psychosocial safety systems in general, and also having the right knowledge and capability to identify and mitigate psychosocial risks. “I think the psychosocial regulatory landscape has evolved a little more quickly than the internal structures, systems, and professional capabilities required to do this well,” Burroughs observed.
Whilst he said organisations are “definitely getting better” at recognising psychologically hazardous work, it is important
Australian Psychological Services founder David Burroughs says the psychosocial regulatory landscape has evolved faster than organisations’ internal structures, systems, and professional capabilities
to remember that psychosocial hazard identification is not the same as psychosocial risk assessment. “Psychosocial hazard identification is easy; risk assessment is more complex,” said Burroughs, who has worked as a psychologist across community, military, and workplace mental health for over 20 years.
Psychosocial risk mitigation is even more complex again, particularly given the multifaceted and interrelated nature of psychosocial hazards and the multitude of factors that influence risk outcomes. However, he said this will improve over time as more people become more skilled in the likes of design and are able to move further upstream in risk prevention rather than taking a risk-response approach.
“Being candid, it is quite frustrating to watch, as psychosocial risk management and things like job design are not new; they have been around for decades – as has organisational responsibility to prevent psychological harm to their people,” said Burroughs. “Sadly, it has just been largely ignored in favour of more individualistic and tick-a-box type approaches that were always set to fail.”
Dr Rebecca Michalak echoed Burroughs’ observations and said that on the psychosocial risk mitigation front, most organisations are “sometimes passable, but certainly
not fabulous overall, I’m afraid.” On the prevention front (as opposed to mitigation and/or management), with regards to anything ‘above the line’ with primary duty of care requirements, Michalak said the “answer is – loosely – badly.”
“It does vary,” said Michalak, a psychosocial risk management expert who serves as managing director of PsychSafe. “For example, I have seen some PCBUs with a range of mitigation strategies in place, and even some with a mind-boggling number – but these are rarely systemic. More typically, they are singular, fix-the-worker-focussed, worker-seek-help tactics rather than proactive hazard identification by PCBUs.”
Evidence-based practice is “all bar AWOL”, added Michalak, who said that for something to be a control, you have to be able to show it works. “And the research tells us time and time again that these sorts of ‘wellness’ framed strategies – ubiquitous as they stubbornly remain – are pretty much a waste of time and money when the obligation is elimination so far as is reasonably practicable; mitigation is the poor cousin,” she said.
Common challenges and issues
Dr Kïrsten Way, associate professor in the School of Psychology at The University of Queensland, said there are a number of common challenges that organisations struggle with in managing and mitigating psychosocial risks and hazards. The most common ones are actually understanding how psychosocial hazards work together to create risk, as well as understanding what
is ‘reasonably practicable’ when managing the psychosocial risk.
“Most organisations tend to focus on things they see as low hanging fruit like training and policies, while neglecting good work design and management,” she said. “The question is, does this eliminate or minimise the risk ‘so far as is reasonably practicable’, and the answer is usually no. And I’m not saying this is an easy thing –understanding what is reasonably practicable in any given circumstances. In fact, it’s the reason we’re researching this very issue, with the aim of developing decision tools that can be used by organisational stakeholders to better manage psychosocial risk.”
Another challenge is that managing certain psychosocial hazards (like hours of work, worker autonomy, or workloads) can be negatively influenced by some organisational decision-makers’ “neoliberal ideologies and associated beliefs around managerial prerogatives and bottom-line mentalities”, she said. “Controlling the risk is not as simple as putting a guard on a piece of plant. It can sometimes require challenges to managers’ attitudes, and also a long-term, ongoing purview, rather than a ‘one and done’ perspective,” Way explained.
“Being candid, it is quite frustrating to watch, as psychosocial risk management and things like job design are not new; they have been around for decades – as has organisational responsibility to prevent psychological harm to their people”
Burroughs said that a major barrier he is witnessing is the “sunk cost fallacy”, in which some organisations are refusing to follow the evidence, and instead double down on approaches to psychological health that might be highly visible and popular, but which fail to address any of the organisational barriers to mental health. “A lot of this is being driven by the burgeoning provider landscape and the commercial opportunities in the current regulatory
comprehensively addressing workplace mental health.
landscape. I am seeing so many tertiary and individually-based initiatives being sold to workplaces under the false guise of enabling them to meet their regulatory obligations,” he said.
These include mindfulness programs, poorly structured peer approaches that actually hide workplace risk in organisations and potentially put people at further risk, mental illness literacy programs (including mental health first aid), and ‘half-baked’ apps and tech bolt-ons. “It’s all the usual suspects,” said Burroughs. “If I see another tech-based e-learn touting sleep, nutrition, and exercise as the solution to burnout, I will probably pull my last few hairs out,” he said.
Dr Samineh Sanatkar, postdoctoral research fellow within the workplace mental health research program at Black Dog Institute, said that although most businesses strive to do right by their employees and manage aspects of psychosocial risk, the complexity of this task means organisations in general are “still a way away” from
Australian workers’ compensation statistics indicate the most common workplace psychosocial hazards are bullying and harassment, work pressures, and exposure to traumatic events. “There are some complications when it comes to assessing interpersonal conflicts. For example, concealment and lack of tangible evidence can make it difficult to determine what is occurring,” she said.
Relevant workplace influences may also change over time or are not under the control of the employer (for example, customer behaviour), which she said can make it challenging to effectively manage workplace mental health. “It takes a whole-of-organisation approach to observe risk factors, implement strategies and procedures, and foster a protective work culture to improve employee wellbeing. As such, it can be difficult to know where to start.”
Michalak said one of the key challenges is the erroneous perception that psychological health and safety and psychosocial risk are ‘new’. Primary duty of care obligations have included psychological health and safety since the 1950s, when the ILO definition of occupational health was first adopted in the WHS sphere. This
definition encompasses physical, mental, and social wellbeing of workers, according to Michalak.
“The profession simply cannot reasonably claim that the current regulatory situation is a sudden dumper wave that caught even Bondi’s professional surf lifesavers off-guard. Step change efforts kicked off in earnest in 2018,” she said. “The release of inaugural national guidance material and the Boland Review triggered a range of model and jurisdictional act and regulation amendments that flowed through to new codes of practice – the first of which was released by New South Wales back in 2021, which was three years ago.”
Another challenge for OHS can be found in capability gaps, Michalak added. “It can be pretty difficult, even if you recognise the need for and are supportive of the change required, to execute on that need if you don’t have the necessary skills, knowledge, and – in some cases – qualifications to do so. You have the will, but not the way,” she said. “These gaps exist particularly in WHS professionals overall, and WHS and HR more broadly as internal functions (as well as other PCBU internal functions, with legal included at times, believe it or not).”
However, the good news is that leaders in the OHS profession have recognised this
PsychSafe managing director Rebecca Michalak said most organisations are “sometimes passable, but certainly not fabulous overall” on the psychosocial risk mitigation front
wider business risk lens and there’s an ESG lens you can also leverage, to get a seat at the table.”
A turf war between HR and OHS?
and acted. “If you look at the various CPD events that have been held or supported in some way over the last five years or so, there’s been a pretty solid psychosocial health and safety and psychosocial risk focus. For example, the OHS Body of Knowledge has been and continues to be revised to better cover these topics and coherently integrate them into wider OHS practice, and just take a look at the conference and symposium programs, media alerts, and so on, and you will see that the AIHS has been doing some really good work in the capability building space,” she said.
Importantly, Michalak explained that “you do not need to be a psychologist to do psychosocial health and safety and psychosocial risk well. You can be an astute WHS practitioner, do some capability building (through speaking with SMEs, doing evidence-based short courses on psych risk, SMART work design, and trauma-informed practices, for example), and you will be positioned to kick some really worthwhile goals in this space,” she said. “Add in a
Burroughs also observed that “demarcation disputes” across people-oriented job families seem to be popping up. Questions are being asked about ‘whose job is it?’ and ‘who owns psychological health and safety – OHS or HR?’ “The truth is, it’s both,” he said. “While OHS may have the formal regulatory responsibility to identify, assess, and address risk under the WHS Act, HR has a critical role to play in the psychosocial health of work through job design, recruitment, onboarding, workplace culture, and developing the right policies, systems, and capabilities required for the business and people to function.”
Across many organisations, Burroughs said HR processes and systems around things like change management and performance management, investigations, and disciplinary processes, can contribute to elevated psychosocial risk. The challenge here is that they are typically the responsibility of HR and not OHS, leading to accountability issues if OHS is not the owner of all risk control levers. “It is great to see those organisations that have delineated and defined the various roles that influence
psychosocial health across the employee life cycle, including recruitment, learning and development, and injury management, as well as HR and OHS,” Burroughs said.
The interaction of things like positive duties around Respect at Work and psychosocial health and safety obligations are also an emerging area of confusion for some organisations, given the different regulatory bodies associated with these responsibilities, Burroughs said. “You can add to that the challenges of applying psych health and safety frameworks that look good in an academic paper, but which are near impossible to operationalise in the real world. It’s actually a pretty long list,” he said.
An important point in this is that psychosocial hazards have long been neglected under the prevailing HR lens, which focusses on ER/IR legislation and not WHS/ OHS, according to Michalak. “The HR lens is reactive; it simply doesn’t fit the brief for what PCBUs are and have been required to do for quite some time on the psychological health and safety front. In addition, and ironically for those with countless mitigation strategies, many so-claimed mitigations have been shown to be ineffective (like wellness programs in general, for example), so they don’t even constitute controls anyway,” she said.
“It is concerning that far too many in
The University of Queensland’s Kïrsten Way said that in terms of understanding how physical safety systems can apply to psychosocial safety, the closest parallel is other multifactorial, delayed onset mechanisms of injury or illness
the WHS profession are still metaphorically sucking their thumbs and wielding (or enabling HR to pursue) a ‘fix-the-worker’ fire blankie so many years after worker mental health and wellbeing was explicitly declared to be within the WHS remit, subject to the same duty of care obligations as physical hazards,” said Michalak, who stated that the duty is to prevent harm by eliminating psychosocial hazards and risk factors so far as is reasonably practicable.
“Yet WHS (with or without HR) is still trotting out below the line strategies of mental health training, the ubiquitous and yet near-useless for prevention EAP, and worker stress management, coping, mindfulness, and resilience programs (a.k.a. individual worker ‘PPE’),” she said.
Michalak also said she has, on occasion, seen some very good WHS professionals really trying to up the game on psychosocial risk and elevate the PCBU’s controls to above the line, only to have HR dismiss or otherwise thwart their efforts. “In one such example, the evidence-based control of psychometric testing was recommended for leadership roles to proactively identify behaviourally hazardous ‘dark triad’ candidates (psychopathy, narcissism, and Machiavellianism). HR refused to even explore the control and its implementation. They had no interest in nor regard for the WHS risk elimination case. Instead, HR stubbornly trotted out EEO/anti-discrimination law as why they would still hire a known psychopath and rely on anti-bullying/anti-sexual harassment grievance policies (known to be largely ineffective) and their EAP to clean up the mess,” she said.
“Note, WHS is a legitimate defence to specific breaches of EEO/anti-discrimination law. For example, it’s not illegal to refuse to hire a candidate identified as blind during recruitment due diligence to drive a cab, because it presents a significant, foreseeable risk of harm that can – and should –be eliminated by not hiring the candidate.”
Benefiting from ‘work already done’ in physical safety
The notion of identifying hazards, assessing risk, appropriate reporting, and risk mitigation is not new to the physical safety domain – but it is not as simple as “just bolting on psychosocial risk registers, doing a bowtie, and coming up with a set of psychosocial controls focusing on one or two major hazard areas”, according to Burroughs. “The nature of psychosocial hazards is that you can’t just pick one or two and deal with them in complete isolation. Doing so means you don’t truly understand the nature of psychosocial harm,” he said.
The challenge when it comes to psychosocial risk is that there is a non-linear relationship between hazard exposure and risk outcomes, Burroughs explained. “It’s not just what’s going on in your role, but also wider organisational factors and individual factors that influence risk outcomes. If you think about an issue like excess job demands, it may be tempting to just put some prioritisation controls in to help people to push back and say no to more work,” he said.
“Even worse would be running a ‘lunch and learn’ on managing burnout, which is just putting more weight on a sinking ship. These approaches will obviously be insufficient, and potentially even harmful unless you look at the type of work being done, role clarity, role conflict, autonomy, and leader support – all of which play a significant role in how people experience high workloads.”
“Most organisations tend to focus on things they see as low hanging fruit like training and policies, while neglecting good work design and management”
In addition, psychosocial hazard exposure is actually an inherent part of many roles, such as contact centres and the experience of low job control/exposure to challenging callers, and police and emergency services and exposure to potentially traumatic events. “While we can’t necessarily eliminate these, we can design work in ways to reduce job demands and enhance job resources within the broader system, controls, and environment that limit the likelihood of harm,” he said.
Way echoed Burroughs’ observations, saying that OHS practitioners can benefit from risk management systems already in place. “In terms of understanding how physical safety systems can apply to psychosocial safety, the closest parallel is other multifactorial, delayed onset mechanisms of injury or illness,” she said.
“For example, musculoskeletal disorders are a classic issue that OHS practitioners have been dealing with for a really long time. Risk factors for musculoskeletal disorders work together to create harm,
and the injury outcome may or may not be immediate. This has real parallels with the way risk assessments and controls need to be thought about for psychosocial hazards.”
Michalak also said that it is possible to leverage learnings from physical safety management when it comes to psychosocial risk management. “Why re-invent the wheel?” she asked. “This is one of the most underutilised tools in the toolkit for OHS professionals. You’ve got buy-in and attention on physical hazards. You can say, this vehicular hazard can be fatal, so we should prevent this via x, y, z. So, why not use this? Psychosocial risks should use the same hierarchy of control, though it needs adaptation for this context,” said Michalak.
“Use OHS language and get out of HR language such as bullying, sexual harassment, extreme work pressures (I suggest these could be reported as a fatigue issue as well), and bullying bosses or peers. These aren’t ‘grievances’ or ‘disputes’ (HR lens); they are hazard exposures. You don’t need dodgy scaffolding to be lodged as a formal written complaint or actually fall down – with or without harming anyone – to address it as a hazard. You hear concerns at smoko? Go do something about it. If you aren’t ‘reaching in’ – looking under the carpet – to find psychosocial hazards proactively, you probably aren’t meeting your WHS obligations.”
Psychosocial hazards – actual or potential – should be on your risk registers. Michalak said workers should also be upskilled to know what psychosocial hazards are, and encouraged to report them just like they would a gas leak, manual handling, unsafe plant, or ergonomics hazard. There should also be a risk assessment and hierarchy of controls for them (noting psychosocial risk is very dynamic, and not a case of ‘one and done’ for risk assessment). “The classic HR grievance lens is fatalistic and does not include learning, nor does it harness useful restorative justice principles. Any party to the dispute exits, and all efforts to close out the investigation and draw a conclusion are stopped in their tracks. Nothing is communicated back to workers, (mis)citing ‘privacy and confidentiality’,” she said.
However, in research Sanatkar has conducted with employees who experienced a psychological work injury, she said most disapproved of drawing from physical safety procedures to address issues of psychosocial safety. “Employees I spoke with reported that being expected to follow a process adopted from physical injury standards did not suit their condition and made them feel like they don’t have the right type, or the accepted type, of injury,” she said.
“This can be an issue because mental health is still stigmatised in society, and therefore also in workplaces. It can make it difficult for employees to seek an open dialogue with their employer. As such, employees and experienced managers suggested that a purpose-made process for addressing psychological safety is probably the best way to go.”
The evolution of psychosocial safety
The field of psychosocial health and safety is fast evolving, with a number of important developments in regulatory and legal circles in recent times. On this note, Sanatkar observes that progress in psychosocial health and safety will largely depend on the level of support businesses receive and the extent to which the government fosters regulatory compliance.
“Organisations that are invested in staff wellbeing have better reputations, are more productive, and save costs,” she said. “This is the direction in which we are heading. I think readily available and tailored advice to support this process, along with a clear compliance strategy, would go a long way in implementing effective psychosocial safety management.”
With regards to research, there is a need to evaluate workplace interventions that demonstrate how to effectively reduce psychosocial hazards, according to Sanatkar, who added that future research will probably provide more evidence in this space to better inform organisations and policymakers.
Way also said the field of psychosocial health and safety is evolving, and this evolution has been catapulted forward in the past 18 months. “We’ve had a real proliferation of people entering the field and providing services aiming to support organisations who are implementing changes in response to the new psych codes and regulations. While this is wonderful, there is so much competing noise, and unfortunately, not all of those offering these services are well-qualified to do this work competently. I think this is something that needs to be tightened into the future,” she said.
“Similarly, I think OHS professionals are going to be working more closely with HR professionals, because managing psychosocial risk well necessitates skills sharing across these two professions.”
Burroughs said he looked forward to the “the end of wellness washing”, and predicted organisations will slowly move away from structures like chief wellbeing advisors and internal psychologists focussed on providing clinical support and wellness programs, to placing a higher premium on
roles that have the capability for psychosocial risk management and job design. “At an executive level, perhaps we will see chief risk officer roles that specifically include psychosocial risk accountabilities,” he said.
“The current regulatory landscape is going to force HR and OHS to play more closely together, and I think we will see the introduction of much clearer governance structures around psychological health and safety. Increasingly, I am seeing in C-suites and boardrooms the greater recognition that psychological health and safety is not just seen as a compliance hurdle to get over with the least cost and energy expended. Conversely, it’s being treated as a genuine driver of workplace engagement, productivity, and performance, as well as being key to talent retention and mitigating reputational risk. Many smart companies have known this for a while.”
“If I see another techbased e-learn touting sleep, nutrition, and exercise as the solution to burnout, I will probably pull my last few hairs out”
Burroughs remained hopeful that organisations can get to the position of people-oriented job families sharing common knowledge around what actually works (and what doesn’t) when it comes to workplace mental health, where job design and job redesign are common capability sets and where there is universal recognition that good work is good for people.
However, Michalak asserted that conversations about the future of psychosocial safety are “premature” in many respects. “PCBUs have gone from crawling to sitting up,” she said. “The majority of PCBUS aren’t yet pulling themselves up on a piece of solid furniture, and many falls on the butt are to be expected. Regulators are venturing out – between furniture. NSW is walking unaided, through the house, with their clear 2024-26 strategy that has a psych risk and regulatory focus on government and corporations.”
As many fields mature, she said there will be an evolution, which can mean specialisation, convergence, or some combination. “While we are seeing increased awareness, attention, and more recently some solid action in this space, inter alia,
we still have practitioners and PCBUs in the pathological space, risk management efforts are far from great when it comes to pushing above the line, and some evidence-informed risk controls can take time to show their effectiveness. So, proof of concept in any PCBU is not likely to happen overnight,” she said.
“PCBUs in general haven’t yet adopted SMART work design in its most basic form as a risk control, for example. We are about five years off work design experts and about a decade off having experts in the S or the M of that evidence-based risk reduction framework. This framework will also likely have moved on in its sophistication in that time, being evidence-based. I’d so love to be proved wrong.”
Managing psychosocial hazards and risks at Deloitte
In 2023, Deloitte launched a comprehensive response to workplace psychosocial risks, in the form of its Work Well program – a firm-wide transformation initiative that takes an innovative approach to modernising work practices, according to Tina McCreery, chief human resources officer for Deloitte Australia. “Our aim is to cultivate a workplace culture that prioritises both productivity and wellbeing. Sponsored by executive leadership and led by firmwide leadership, this program addresses industry issues including hours of work and job demands moving beyond quick fixes to promote lasting change,” she said.
“Like any professional services organisation, our people work with our clients on solving their most complex challenges,” she said. “This type of work does come with high expectations around quality deliverables and timelines. So, although this work is often personally and professionally rewarding, it is important that we have mitigations in place to ensure that the risks of long working hours and high job demands are known and managed by our leaders and our people.”
Work Well aims to shift culture through four elements which focus on job redesign, working hours, the firm’s performance framework, and culture. The program also focuses on ensuring Deloitte’s coaches and leaders are equipped to identify risks and put in place measures to mitigate them. The first element of the program – ‘redesigning work’ – tests new ways of working across the organisation with the intent of improving wellbeing and productivity, including a series of focused reduced working week pilots, McCreery explained.
“The second is ‘time matters’, enabling us to better recognise our people’s impact
The Black Dog Institute’s Samineh Sanatkar said that organisations in general are “still a way away” from comprehensively addressing workplace mental health
and understand where they’re spending their energy, to help sustainably manage workloads. The third is ‘total contribution’, which is a refresh of how we assess performance that considers qualitative and quantitative factors when assessing performance, and also incorporates wellbeing check-ins into our coaching framework. Finally, we introduced ‘refresh culture’ to reframe how we value rest and encourage employees to
proactively manage their mental health and wellbeing,” she said.
Like any change, McCreery said it takes time to achieve long-term, sustained success from any program that seeks to effect meaningful change in a large organisation. “Our main lesson learned was to keep things simple and to continually check in and listen to our people, pivoting where needed to ensure our initiatives were fit for purpose for the business and our teams,” she said.
To monitor the success of desired outcomes, Deloitte implemented both long-term and short-term measures. Of the
480 participants who were part of the Work Well pilots, she said 52 per cent felt they’ve been able to work more productively. 50 per cent of those who unlocked capacity used that time for themselves. “We have much more accurate data on the hours our people are working and where they are spending their time, leading to better coaching conversations and quicker interventions,” she said.
“In the long-term, we want to continue to improve talent engagement, retention, and baseline productivity measures across the firm, whilst reducing our wellbeing risks across all risk factors. We will continue to use our data insights to target the root cause of systemic issues relating to workplace culture, including long hours and demanding workloads, as well as managing wellbeing risks as we pave the way forward for a modern way of working at Deloitte.
“We know that initiatives and policies aren’t something you can set and forget. They require constant engagement with employees at all levels, a willingness to try new things, and a realisation that business-wide blanket rules usually don’t work. In Deloitte’s experience, we found the best approach to be a guiding set of principles that can be implemented at a team-based level in a way that works for our people, their teams, and their clients.”
Do you need assistance with managing psychosocial risk in the workplace?
The Australian Institute of Health & Safety has partnered with Australian Psychological Services, experts in addressing psychological health and safety issues, to provide an exclusive psychosocial safety net for AIHS members. By engaging with the psychosocial safety net, AIHS corporate members can access a free 15-minute discussion with Australian Psychological Services’ national team of workplace psychologists about ways to proactively or reactively manage psychosocial risks in their business. Utilising the expert guidance of the Australian Psychological Services team through the psychosocial safety net is another step employers can take to ensure compliance with all relevant regulations and standards, and demonstrate they are taking steps to protect the psychological health and safety of their employees.
Celebrating the Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2024
Excellence and innovation in WHS were recently celebrated at the Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2024 in Sydney
The Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2024 provide national recognition to organisations and individuals that are demonstrating excellence and
innovation in the field of WHS. In 2024, the awards recognised 11 individual and organisational achievements across eight award categories. Presented by the AIHS in partnership with Zenergy, the
Australian WHS Champion (CEO) of the Year – Less than 1000 employees
Finalists: John Mawson, E. B. Mawson and Sons, Meredith Staib, Royal Flying Doctor Service Queensland (RFDSQ)
Winner: Mell Greenall, Before You Dig Australia Mell Greenall, CEO of Before You Dig Australia (BYDA), has led a significant transformation of the organisation since her appointment in January 2022. Under her leadership, BYDA merged six state-based businesses into a unified national entity, becoming a key safety partner for utility excavation across Australia. Mell’s leadership is marked by a people-centric approach, fostering an innovative culture focused on proactive safety measures. She has introduced critical initiatives like the sector safety forum series, a national utility plan reading education program, and the creation of Australia’s first Damage Data Dashboard. Mell has also driven technological advancements, such as the BYDA collated response viewer, to improve safety information management. Her efforts have significantly enhanced industry collaboration, education, and the promotion of safe excavation practices, positioning BYDA as the leading voice in damage prevention in Australia.
In partnership with Zenergy
awards were open to government, nongovernment, and private organisations operating in Australia, and to individuals who are currently employed and working within the field of WHS in Australia.
Australian WHS Champion (CEO) of the Year –Greater than 1000 employees
Finalists: Prof. Russell Harrison, Western Health; Jason McGarry, The Eureka Group
Winner: Ross Taylor, Fletcher Building Group (award accepted on his behalf)
During his time as CEO of Fletcher Building, Ross Taylor has led a transformative safety culture shift within the organisation, significantly reducing serious injuries by 86 per cent and overall injuries by 47 per cent over a five year period. Faced with multiple fatalities early in his tenure, Ross made it his mission to overhaul safety practices, emphasising leadership accountability and a caring culture. His unique initiatives, such as the Safety Leadership Program and Power Up frontline training, have fostered a deep commitment to safety across the company’s 14,900 employees. Ross’s strategic focus on safety as a core value not only improved operational outcomes, but also enhanced employee engagement and well-being.
Proudly sponsored by Curtin University
Australian WHS Leader of the Year – Less than 1000 employees
Finalists: Paul Lyndon, Georgiou Group; Jamie Mallinder; Matthew McBean, Machinemonitor; Denise Mercer, National Territory Education Union
Winner: Wade DeManiel, CouriersPlease
Wade DeManiel, WHS & quality manager at CouriersPlease, has demonstrated exceptional leadership in workplace health and safety since joining the company in 2020. Promoted rapidly due to his commitment and expertise, Wade has implemented innovative safety initiatives, including the Franchise Partner Home Safe Board and the Intelex safety management system. His efforts have led to a significant reduction in lost time injuries and workers’ compensation premiums, while also addressing the diverse needs of the workforce through accessible training and communication strategies. Wade’s contributions have not only enhanced safety at CouriersPlease, but have also been recognised and adopted by the company’s parent organisation, Singapore Post.
Australian WHS Emerging Leader of the Year
Finalists: Preston Chambers, Fulton Hogan Australia; Kristine Cotter, Synergy Safety Solutions; David Latimore, BGIS; Ash Presser, Aquatic Risk Services Australia
Winner: Jayson Withers, Georgiou Group
Jayson Withers, a Senior WHS advisor at Georgiou Group, has rapidly emerged as a leader in workplace safety, particularly within the construction industry. His proactive initiatives, such as the Georgiou School educational days for Year 11 and 12 students and the Where Are You? mobile plant blind spot training program, have significantly enhanced safety awareness and reduced incidents on projects like the Parkes Bypass. Jayson’s efforts have been recognised through his promotion within Georgiou and by winning the CCF Safety Officer of the Year award in 2023. His commitment to mentoring young professionals, promoting mental health, and engaging with industry experts highlights his holistic approach to safety. Jayson’s dedication to continuous improvement and his innovative strategies position him as a promising future leader in workplace health and safety.
Proudly sponsored by Endeavour Energy
Australian WHS Leader – Greater than 1000 employees
Finalists: William Newell, Northern Territory Government; Ann Redfern, Fulton Hogan Infrastructure Services; John Sharp-Collett, Skilltech (part of Downer Group)
Winner: Stuart Rawlins, Autopact
Stuart Rawlins, appointed as executive head of WHS at Autopact in late 2022, has driven significant safety improvements across the organisation. By reviewing and revamping the existing safety systems, he introduced a fit-for-purpose safety software solution, Donesafe, which has led to a 900 per cent increase in hazard reporting and a significant improvement in key safety metrics, such as LTIFR and MTIFR. Stuart’s leadership has fostered a high-performing safety culture, engaging over 300 employees weekly in safety processes and achieving an 86 per cent safety engagement rating in the annual employee survey. His efforts have made safety an integral part of Autopact’s operations, from new site builds to daily inspections, ensuring that safety is viewed as everyone’s responsibility.
Proudly sponsored by ecoPortal
Australian WHS Team of the Year
Australian HSR of the Year
Finalists: Kerry-Anne Jones, Banana Shire Council; Karina Marshall, NTG, AGD, NT Correctional Services; Tim Seiuli, Primary Connect, Melbourne Liquor Distribution Centre
Winner: Robert Nankivell, BHP Newman Operations
Robert Nankivell, a passionate Health and Safety Representative (HSR) at BHP Newman Operations, is highly regarded for his dedication to workplace safety and his role as a mentor to emerging HSRs. Living in the Pilbara region of Western Australia, Robert actively engages in safety meetings, even on his days off, and has a strong understanding of WHS regulations. His contributions have earned him recognition as a finalist in the Worksafe WA WHS Excellence Awards for 2022/23. Robert is known for his collaborative approach, working closely with management to enhance safety practices, such as updating traffic management procedures. He is committed to sharing his knowledge, conducting risk assessments, and ensuring compliance with safety standards, making him a respected leader in his field.
Finalists: Arup HSEQ Functional Transformation, Arup; Health, Safety and Wellbeing, Strategy and Systems Team, Brisbane Catholic Education; World Class Facility, World Class Safety, National Arboretum Canberra and UC Stromlo Forest Park
Winner: Enabling Work Program, Gamuda
Gamuda, a global leader in engineering and infrastructure, has introduced the Enabling Work Program as part of their debut project in Australia, the Sydney Metro West – Western Tunnelling Package. Despite being new to the Australian market, Gamuda established a robust Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) framework from the ground up, focusing on innovation, collaboration, and proactive safety management. The program has significantly enhanced safety standards, reduced the Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate (LTIFR) to 0.28, and improved workplace safety culture through initiatives like the Pit Stop program and comprehensive safety training. Gamuda’s WHS team has successfully integrated cutting-edge technologies and fostered a culture of continuous improvement, positioning the company as a leader in the Australian construction sector.
Proudly sponsored by Amazon
Best WHS Health & Wellbeing Program
Finalists: Fostering a Psychologically Healthy and Safe Workplace, The Barossa Hills Fleurieu Local Health Network; Early Injury Intervention Program, Brisbane Catholic Education; Women’s Health and Wellbeing Program, supported through Viva Healthier and Happier, Bupa APAC; iCare Health and Wellbeing Program at Port Phillip Prison, Port Phillip Prison,
operated by G4S; Risk Management Teams – Everyone Onboard for Worker Health and Wellbeing, Tasmanian Bakeries
Winner: Project WERC: Workplace Engagement Respect and Care, Woolworths Group in partnership with University of South Australia and University of Queensland
Project WERC (Workplace Engagement Respect and Care) is a pioneering, evidence-based program developed through a partnership between Woolworths Group, the University of South Australia, and the University of Queensland. The program addresses workplace bullying and psychosocial hazards by focusing on the systemic root causes within the organisational structure, rather than treating bullying as an interpersonal issue. Through participatory co-design methods, employees are empowered to collaborate in reshaping their work environments, resulting in significant reductions in bullying exposure and complaints. Implemented in Woolworths’ stores, Project WERC has demonstrated a 24 per cent reduction in bullying in trial locations compared to a 155 per cent increase in control stores. The success of Project WERC has transformed Woolworths’ approach to psychosocial risks, serving as a model for broader organisational change and setting a new standard in workplace health and wellbeing.
Best WHS Learning & Professional Development Program
Finalists: True North Behavioural-Based Safety Program, BGC Australia; Safety Ambassador Program, BGIS; SMART Manual Handling –Leadership Engagement, EMP Onsite; Improving Health & Safety Outcomes through Multi-faceted Training, North East Link Program
Best WHS Technology Innovation
Winner: Empowering Safe & Healthy Teams, BlueScope
BlueScope’s Empowering Safe & Healthy Teams program is a comprehensive safety and wellbeing leadership initiative codesigned and facilitated with Resilience Health and Safety to enhance the safety culture and leadership skills of its Australian Steel Products (ASP) leaders. This face-toface, three-day program focuses on seven key modules, including managing risk, effective safety conversations, and leading mental health and wellbeing at work. The program integrates BlueScope’s global health and safety strategy and human organisational performance principles to foster a safer and healthier workplace. Since its launch, over 650 leaders have participated, with the program set to continue into 2025. Feedback indicates significant improvements in leadership capabilities, particularly in managing mental health risks, and the program has received strong support from senior leadership across the organisation.
Finalists: Shiplift Wire Rope Change Skid, Australian Naval Infrastructure; Critical Risk Lookahead – Digital Concierge for Leaders in Identifying and Attending Critical Risk Works, Downer Group; Australia Forklift and Pedestrian Segregation, Mars Confectionary Australia; Eliminating Live Work using the SafeTest Tachometer & MultiTool Pro, SafeGauge; Portable Local Extraction Ventilation (pLEVTM), Synergetics Consulting Engineers
Winner: BeamSafe Thermographic Monitoring System for Lithium-Ion Battery Charging Racks, Beam Mobility
Beam Mobility has developed the BeamSafe Thermographic Monitoring System (TMS) to address the significant fire risks associated with lithium-ion battery charging. This innovative system integrates thermographic cameras, smoke detectors, and automated messaging technology to monitor battery charging racks in real-time, detecting temperature anomalies well before any fire or smoke is present. The TMS has transformed battery safety management across Beam’s 35 facilities in Australia and New Zealand, preventing thermal runaway events and enhancing the safety of their operations. The system also allows for remote monitoring, reducing human error and ensuring a safe charging environment. Beam’s investment in this technology reflects its commitment to setting new safety standards in the micromobility industry.
Proudly sponsored by BGIS
Best Technology Deployment & Adoption
Finalists: Lookupandlive.com app – Powerline Safety Planning Applications, Energy Queensland; Extended Reality (XR) Training Aids – Electrical Installation Fault Finding and Compliance Testing (Domestic), Energy Queensland; Violence and Aggression Virtual Reality Training, Woolworths Group
Winner: Adoption of Blindsight AI system in a feedlot environment, Mort & Co Mort & Co, a leading Australian agricultural business, implemented the Blindsight AI technology to enhance safety at its Grassdale and Pinegrove feedlots, focusing on reducing vehicle-related accidents. This innovative AI system, installed on front end loaders, distinguishes between objects and people, providing alerts only when necessary to avoid complacency. Following a successful trial, Blindsight was rolled out across multiple loaders, resulting in a 65 per cent reduction in critical person detections and a 50 per cent decrease in overall critical alerts within the first three months. The system’s integration has improved safety for workers and reduced near-misses, with further plans to expand its use across additional machinery and operations.
For more information and photos from the Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards 2024 please visit www.awhsa.org.au.
Protecting the frontline: Western Health’s battle against occupational violence and aggression
Western Health has taken a comprehensive approach to addressing occupational violence and aggression, combining leadership commitment, evidence-based strategies, and interagency collaboration
Occupational violence and aggression have become a pressing issue in the healthcare sector, with incidents escalating alarmingly in recent years. According to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW), healthcare workers are five times more likely to experience violence at work compared to the general workforce. In New South Wales alone, over 1000 assaults were recorded in hospitals last year, highlighting the urgent need for effective interventions. This rise in aggression has put immense pressure on healthcare providers, exacerbated by the ongoing challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.
According to WorkSafe Victoria’s ‘It’s Never OK’ occupational violence in healthcare awareness campaign, 95 per cent of all healthcare workers experienced some form of violence or aggression while at work. In 2014, for example, Dr. Michael Wong survived being stabbed 17 times at the entrance of Footscray Hospital in Victoria. “This incident garnered significant media attention, highlighting the severe problem of violence in healthcare services,”
said James Kolozsi, director of safety, risk and emergency management for Western Health in Melbourne.
Following this, an audit conducted by the Victorian Auditor General’s Office (VAGO) in May 2015 revealed that inadequate risk systems were in place to protect healthcare workers from occupational violence and aggression. The audit and subsequent reports from WorkSafe Victoria, the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Federation (Victoria Branch), and the Department of Health and Human Services provided healthcare-specific guidance to address occupational violence and aggression. However, Kolozsi said these documents lacked evidence-based results of practical applications or innovations that could effectively reduce the impact of occupational violence and aggression.
Despite these efforts, there was little change in the reactive response to occupational violence and aggression in hospitals. “In 2017, the tragic death of surgeon Patrick Pritzwald-Steggman, who was killed by a coward punch at Box Hill Hospital, further underscored the urgent need for practical and effective interventions to enhance
workforce safety,” said Kolozsi. In 2017, he said Western Health embarked on an innovative approach to address occupational violence and aggression in its emergency departments, which are among the highest risk locations in healthcare settings.
The occupational violence and aggression team leader and medical lead within the Footscray emergency department explored research and identified an innovative violence risk assessment framework designed to anticipate the risks of violence and implement early interventions to prevent escalation. “This initiative marked the beginning of what would become a comprehensive, organisation-wide staff safety campaign named ‘Prevent, Priority: Safety’,” said Kolozsi.
The ‘Prevent, Priority: Safety’ promotion includes a wide range of clinical and organisational processes and education aimed at reducing the incidence, impact, and exposure to occupational violence and aggression. This initiative addresses the previous lack of robust and practical risk mitigation strategies in healthcare settings, according to Kolozsi, who said that its goal is to transform unsafe workplace culture,
prevent incidents of violence, and reduce exposure to trauma and associated mental health injuries affecting the workforce.
“By adopting this proactive and innovative approach, Western Health has taken significant steps towards creating a safer environment for healthcare workers, demonstrating a commitment to protecting staff from the dangers of occupational violence and aggression,” he said.
Key elements of ‘Prevent, Priority: Safety’
Western Health’s occupational violence and aggression program has been a significant undertaking, driven by a comprehensive and interconnected strategy.
“It incorporates leadership commitment, interagency support, and evidence-based approaches, creating a multifaceted and multidisciplinary system. Each element within this system contributes uniquely, reinforcing the others and ensuring that no single component is relied upon as a keystone. This holistic approach addresses the complex issue of occupational violence and aggression from multiple angles, providing a robust foundation for sustainable success,” said Kolozsi.
“But describing this program merely as a ‘framework’ would be too rigid and fail to capture the dynamic and synergistic nature of the efforts involved. Frameworks imply a static structure, whereas the occupational
violence and aggression program thrives on the interplay of its diverse elements. Without the ‘interlocking arcs’ of these components, to borrow a military term, the impact of individual elements would be limited, diminishing the program’s overall effectiveness. Such a description would overlook the fluid and adaptive qualities that allow the program to evolve and respond to new challenges and insights continuously.”
“Evidence-based approaches ensure that strategies are grounded in robust research and data, making them adaptable and resilient in the face of changing circumstances”
Therefore, Kolozsi said the occupational violence and aggression program is best understood as an ‘ecosystem’ – a term borrowed from the digital sector to emphasise its interconnectedness and fluidity. Leadership commitment ensures the
program receives the necessary resources and attention, fostering a culture of safety and respect throughout the organisation. Furthermore, Kolozsi said interagency and external support bring additional resources and insights, enhancing the program’s credibility and effectiveness through collaboration and shared knowledge. “Evidencebased approaches ensure that strategies are grounded in robust research and data, making them adaptable and resilient in the face of changing circumstances. By continuously challenging conventional thinking through ongoing evaluation, the program remains dynamic and responsive, always seeking improvement and innovation,” he said.
This ecosystem approach has been critical in maintaining momentum and achieving long-term success, according to Kolozsi, who said this approach creates a safer and more supportive environment for everyone involved. “The strength and success of Western Health’s occupational violence and aggression program lie in its interconnected elements working in harmony. This approach not only addresses the immediate risks, but also builds a sustainable model for the future, ensuring the program’s resilience and adaptability. Through leadership, collaboration, evidence-based practices, and a commitment to continuous improvement, the occupational violence and aggression ecosystem effectively safeguards the health and wellbeing of all staff and patients,” he said.
Operational success of ‘Prevent, Priority: Safety’ Kolozsi explained that the occupational violence and aggression program is organisation-wide, and that the elements of the program are well embedded as part of routine clinical and security practice. “This ensures that all key messages are continually reinforced. Executive and senior leadership commitment was integral from the outset,” he said.
The initial success was piloting the evidenced Broset violence checklist (BVC) in highest risk areas. This provided staff with a tool to communicate a risk score to other staff over a subjective clinical opinion. Supporting the BVC, Kolozsi said Western Health developed a risk matrix which gave options for staff when a ‘low’, ‘medium’, or ‘high’ was scored on the BVC.
“The matrix and related score allowed for a more consistent option in response to observed behaviours of concern. Frontline staff were able to evidence their concern with a risk score and have clear guidance on what to do in response,” said Kolozsi. The combined BVC and risk management matrix combined have been called the behaviour of concern risk assessment (or BOC for short). One of the most utilised controls listed in the risk management matrix of the BOC is the introduction of ‘planned code grey’ calls.
A planned code grey is a predictive response to a behaviour of concern or where there is a high likelihood the patient’s behaviour will escalate. “The planned code grey provides staff who predict an escalation of behaviour with the opportunity to implement protective measures before the behaviour escalates. Since implementation, the activation of planned code greys has increased by 300-plus per cent, demonstrating the shift of a reactive mindset to a proactive/preventative mindset,” said Kolozsi.
Busting myths and ‘not welcome’ notices
While all elements of the occupational violence and aggression program are critical to success, Kolozsi said a ‘myth busting campaign’ was a main element that challenged conventional thinking. “The best care of patients will always be at the core of Western Health’s commitment to service delivery,” he said.
“To achieve best care, Western Health needs staff who are safe and healthy to undertake the work. Therefore, the myth busting campaign took the brave step to challenge staff beliefs – for example, that ‘the patient comes first, no ifs or buts’, ‘violence can’t be predicted, patients are unpredictable’, or ‘I should protect a patient
from harm, even if the situation is potentially unsafe for me’.”
All in all, Kolozsi said the campaign created nine myths and facts posters and called out statements of facts to challenge the cultural beliefs, such as ‘if the risk of violence is present, your safety needs come first’, ‘most times, violence can be predicted’, and ‘it’s OK to step away’. The posters communicated the myth, and then communicated a statement of fact in large font, Kolozsi explained.
Western Health also introduced tools to help connect staff with patients such as the ‘about me’ form and behaviour safety support plans. Used well, Kolozsi said these tools can help predict and prevent violence by providing staff with knowledge of patient triggers, likes, dislikes, and how to support patients who are known to have behaviours of concern. Also introduced were behaviour notification letters, behaviour agreement plans, and behavioural contracts, as well as ‘not welcome notices’.
“Used as an escalation process, behaviour notification letters were introduced to call out unacceptable behaviours directed towards our staff, visitors, or other patients. These were mailed to the offending person’s home,” said Kolozsi. “The behaviour contract outlines the expectations imposed upon the individual and consequences for non-compliance for when they have to return for future treatment. The highest point of escalation is the ‘not welcome notice’, which is a formal notification issued by an executive on behalf of Western Health to an individual who continues to behave in an aggressive and/ or inappropriate manner, or where there has been an assault or threat of assault.”
The ‘not welcome notice’ denies the individual access to Western Health premises and services, except for circumstances whereby life-saving emergency care is required.
“All these initiatives of the program, not just those listed above, involved close collaboration between the occupational health and safety unit, the workplace strategies and wellbeing unit, nursing and midwifery, and the public affairs team. Consultation was also integral to the strategy with close collaboration with staff, key clinical leads, and local working groups in our high-risk areas,” said Kolozsi.
The occupational violence and aggression program has resulted in many benefits for employees, increasing their knowledge, awareness, and reflection about their own practices and, most importantly, staff safety. By doing so, he said it has empowered staff to make different (safer) choices, to ‘step back’ when confronted with risk, and to prioritise their own safety.
Benefits and results of ‘Prevent, Priority: Safety’
The program has met with a number of benefits, according to Kolozsi. From 2017 to 2023, for example, results indicate a significant shift in proactive responses to violence by the remarkable increase in ‘planned’ security responses (which are called by staff ahead of a violent incident occurring) by 488 per cent, and a decrease in code greys (which are reactive and called when an incident has already escalated to violence) by 55 per cent.
In terms of evaluating the impact of the implementation of staff lived experience videos, he said results indicated that staff were able to reflect on all the myths and facts shown in the videos (100 per cent), and that 71 per cent would change their practice after viewing the videos by stepping away, getting help and support, decreasing tolerance to aggression, and using internal processes more often. “This practice change was measured to be retained after three months,” said Kolozsi.
This was consistent with pre- and
From left to right: William Coleman (Viewport XR), Elisa Ilarda (Western Health), James Kolozsi (Western Health), Harriet Downing (Western Health), Julius Jeppe (Viewport XR), Lisa Spong (Western Health).
post- e-learning results, which showed that 98 per cent of staff reported they would change aspects of their practice to maximise their own safety, 95 per cent would escalate inappropriate behaviour, 100 per cent would report incidents of occupational violence and aggression, and 99.5 per cent would use alerts to communicate risk to colleagues.
“The strategy has resulted in a number of benefits for workers by increasing knowledge and awareness/reflection about their own use of safe practices (e.g. by decreasing unsafe habitual ones). The use of a variety of clinical and security procedures has resulted in a significant increase in proactive interventions that reduce staff exposure to occupational violence and aggression and traumatic incidents and increase workplace safety,” said Kolozsi.
Occupational violence and aggression advice for OHS
In offering advice to other OHS professionals on reducing occupational violence and aggression risks and incidents, Kolozsi said it’s crucial to recognise who holds the necessary knowledge and experience to address this challenge effectively. “At Western Health, stepping into the role of a health and safety practitioner (without prior health industry experience) meant
quickly adapting to the existing situation, where much of the foundational work was already established. This involved understanding the level of risk associated with occupational violence and aggression in healthcare and identifying the internal and external drivers for change, both within Western Health and the broader health system,” he said.
For safety professionals aiming to mitigate occupational violence and aggression risks in their workplaces, comprehending the current landscape is essential. This includes assessing the level of risk, understanding the urgent need for change, and identifying key individuals with the knowledge and experience to collaborate with. Once this understanding is in place, Kolozsi said professionals can begin to navigate the complex terrain of occupational violence and aggression prevention.
“Exploring this terrain requires humility and an acknowledgment of one’s own knowledge and experience limitations. It’s important to trust in what you do know and leverage your unique ability to understand work design, risk, systems, and their interconnections,” added Kolozsi. Equally important is seeking out and trusting those with lived experience – the individuals who face the real risk of occupational violence and aggression in their daily work. Facilitating
meaningful conversations and asking insightful questions can help draw out valuable insights from these knowledgeable individuals, he said.
Connecting with those who can contribute to the work and using your skills to create a network of valuable contributors is another critical aspect. “Advocacy for the program and securing sponsorship at the highest levels of the organisation can ensure that the initiatives receive the necessary support and resources,” said Kolozsi.
Additionally, it’s important to engage those who may be resistant to the work or who believe that the status quo is sufficient. “Including individuals who hold the view that occupational violence and aggression is ‘just part of the job’ or who prioritise patient safety over their own can be challenging, but their involvement can lead to significant breakthroughs,” he said.
“By incorporating these strategies, safety professionals can effectively reduce occupational violence and aggression risks and incidents, fostering a safer and more supportive environment for everyone involved. The key lies in understanding the landscape, trusting in both your expertise and the insights of others, and continuously advocating for and improving upon the program through collaboration and high-level support.”
Infectious diseases in the workplace: a continuing challenge
As
new infectious diseases emerge and old ones resurface, organisations need to adopt a comprehensive health strategy to assist with disease prevention, write the University of Adelaide’s Peng Bi and Dino Pisaniello
Following the initial waves of COVID-19, the issue of infectious disease remains an important one in the community and the workplace. As an indication of interest, there were over 2000 submissions to the Commonwealth Government’s COVID-19 Response Inquiry in 2023. One of the first inquiry roundtables involved freight and logistics, a key area of industry. Roundtables are ongoing at the time of publishing (September 2024).
New variants of SARS-CoV-2 continue to emerge, along with other viruses such as seasonal influenza and respiratory syncytial virus. In 2022, there were 15,770 deaths attributed to infectious diseases in Australia (1). In 2023, infectious diseases, including COVID-19, accounted for around 2.5 per cent of the total disease burden. There were 1.5 million cases of notifiable diseases, with COVID-19 accounting for 54 per cent (1).
The documented and undocumented business impacts of infectious disease are significant. In addition, the area of infectious disease management is fast moving. This article is an update on Chapter 18 (Biological Hazards) of the OHS Body of Knowledge, published in 2021 (2). Since 2021, a number of new agencies, guidelines, and standards have been introduced.
The transmission of infectious diseases involves the interactions between agents (pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, and parasites) causing the disease, hosts (humans or animals) who act as a source of infection and/or remain as a reservoir, and the environment contributing to the development of the diseases, including weather, geography, and socioeconomic factors such as educational levels and human behaviour. For vector-borne diseases such as Ross River virus disease and Japanese encephalitis, the vector (i.e. mosquitos) also plays an essential role in disease transmission.
Examples of infectious diseases in Australian workplaces
Japanese encephalitis among forest/ agricultural workers: Japanese encephalitis is not an endemic in Australia, with a small number of cases notified year by year. However, there were a total of 37
human cases (25 laboratory-confirmed cases and 12 probable cases) reported in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, and South Australia between December 2021 and April 2022, with three deaths. This was the first locally acquired Japanese encephalitis outbreak detected on the Australian mainland since 1998 (3). Meanwhile, Japanese encephalitis virus has also been detected in commercial pig farms in the aforementioned four states in February and March 2022. In all, 73 pig farms were affected, with affected piggeries experiencing unusual levels of reproductive loss and neonatal deaths. Apparently, such infections among pigs may result in transmission of the virus to agricultural and forest workers.
“New variants of SARS-CoV-2 continue to emerge, along with other viruses such as seasonal influenza and respiratory syncytial virus”
Q fever among farmers and abattoir workers: As a zoonotic disease, Q fever is caused by the C. burnetii bacterium. While the main reservoirs for transmission of Q fever are cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats, humans are infected through the inhalation of airborne dust or droplets containing the bacterium. Q fever is still a public health challenge in Australian occupational settings, with about 554 cases notified in Australia in 2023. Of these, 98 per cent were working adults (4). Although a safe and effective vaccine is available to protect people who are at risk, with vulnerable populations being farmers and abattoir workers, it is not listed under the Australian National Immunisation Program.
A recent survey among Australian farmers reported barriers to vaccination included poor access to a trained doctor
who can perform the vaccination, time to travel to qualified doctors, and costs related to vaccination (5). Most farmers believed that subsidised vaccination programs and improved awareness would promote higher uptake of vaccination. A rapid turnover of workforce among abattoir workers could be another challenge for subsidised vaccinations being offered by employers (5). COVID-19 infections among healthcare workers: Over the two distinct peaks of the COVID-19 epidemic in Australia (23 January to 31 May 2020 and 1 June to 18 September 2020), all jurisdictions reported a total of 2,163 healthcare worker infections with SARS-CoV-2. In the second epidemic period, where there was community transmission, healthcare workers were most likely to be infected in the workplace. Such findings highlighted the occupational risk for healthcare workers during COVID-19 epidemics (6). It should be also noted that there are a number of other infectious diseases that may be transmitted in Australian hospital and occupational settings, including needle stick injuries and bloodstream infections.
The One Health approach to prevent and control infectious diseases in workplace
The One Health approach is a holistic strategy that recognises the interconnectedness of human, animal, and environmental health. In the context of preventing infectious diseases in Australian workplaces, this approach would include monitoring worker and animal health in agricultural and veterinary industries. This would involve workplace environment inspections to identify potential risk factors. In agricultural settings, for example, risk factors for zoonotic diseases, such as Q fever, could be investigated. Environmental factors such as poor ventilation, crowded spaces, or unsanitary conditions are relevant. More broadly, assessments of offices, hospitals, and aged care facilities could also be undertaken in high-risk areas. The One Health approach is particularly relevant for diseases that potentially cross over from animals to humans, such as H5 avian flu.
Disease transmission in indoor environments
Infectious aerosols carrying disease-causing pathogens such as viruses and bacteria can cause infectious disease transmissions in indoor working environments, including aged care and health facilities. Faecal aerosols can be propagated from floor to floor of buildings through sewage pipes, and indoor environments can amplify aerosol transmission due to inadequate ventilation. For this reason, negative pressure wards are needed in hospitals.
ASHRAE Standard 241-2023, Control of Infectious Aerosols (7) establishes minimum requirements aimed at reducing infectious aerosol transmission in new and existing buildings and major renovations. This encompasses a range of requirements covering air system design, installation, operation, and maintenance. The implementation of this standard will yield numerous benefits to occupants and promote healthier environments. Whilst this standard is yet to be adopted in Australia, there is growing interest amongst Australian architects and ventilation engineers.
Which agencies are involved with infectious disease?
To tackle the impacts of infectious diseases, especially in the context of climate change, effective prevention and control strategies are needed. This requires collaboration and coordination among various government organisations, unions,
industries, and frontline workers, including the Interim National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC), Safe Work Australia, and professional organisations.
Interim National Centre for Disease Control (NCDC): This agency has only recently been formed. Together with state health departments and the National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System (NNDSS), the NCDC could play a crucial role in the surveillance of infectious diseases, including monitoring trends, outbreaks, and emerging threats. It can also provide evidence-based guidelines and recommendations for infection prevention and control measures tailored to workplaces.
Safe Work Australia: As the tripartite national OHS policy setting body, Safe Work Australia plays a role in developing model regulations and guidance for industry. For example, in the abovementioned freight and logistics roundtable, it was concluded that the relationship between businesses and government during the pandemic was cooperative, with issues being resolved to ensure supply chains kept functioning. Multinational companies were able to learn from the international experience.
Professional organisations: The Australian Institute of Health and Safety and the Australian Institute of Occupational Hygienists can facilitate training programs and provide evidence-based case examples to assist in implementing robust infection prevention measures in workplaces.
Looking forward
The many impacts of climate change (including increasing temperatures, irregular rainfall patterns, and flooding) will lead to more infectious diseases in Australia and affect worker populations, particularly in northern Australia. By utilising the One Health approach and disease intelligence from predictive models, Australian workplaces can enhance their ability to prevent and control infectious diseases, ensuring a healthier environment for employees, animals, and the broader community.
1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Infectious and communicable diseases 2024. https://www.aihw. gov.au/reports/australias-health/ infectious-and-communicable-diseases
2. Jones, A. (2021). Biological Hazards. In the core Body of Knowledge for Generalist OHS Professionals. 2nd Ed. Tullamarine, VIC: Australian Institute of Health and Safety.
3. WHO. Japanese encephalitis in Australia https://www.who.int/ emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/ item/2022-DON365.
4. National Notifiable Disease Surveillance System. https://nindss.health.gov.au/ pbi-dashboard
5. Rahaman, M. R., Marshall, H., Milazzo, A., Crabb, D., & Bi, P. (2021). Q fever prevention and vaccination: Australian livestock farmers’ knowledge and attitudes to inform a One Health approach. One Health, 12, 100232-1-100232-9.
6. Rafferty AC, Hewitt MC, Wright R, Hogarth F, Coatsworth N, Ampt F, Dougall S, Alpren C, Causer L, Coffey C, Wakefield A, Campbell S, Pingault N, Harlock M, Smith KJ, Kirk MD. COVID-19 in health care workers, Australia 2020. Commun Dis Intell (2018). 2021 Oct 28;45. doi: 10.33321//cdi.2021.45.57. PMID: 34711148.
7. ASHRAE STANDARD 241-2023. Control of infectious aerosols https://www.ashrae. org/technical-resources/bookstore/ ashrae-standard-241-control-of-infectious-aerosols.
Peng Bi is a professor of public health at the University of Adelaide. His main research interests are in environmental health, climate change, infectious diseases, emergency public health event responses, and population health. Dino Pisaniello is adjunct professor of occupational and environmental hygiene. He also serves as Chair of the AIHS College of Fellows, with a special interest in occupational health, indoor air quality, and chemical hazards.
Random Noise: Measuring Your Company’s Safety Performance
Book: Random Noise: Measuring Your Company’s Safety Performance
Authors: Georgina Poole and Sidney Dekker
Publisher: Routledge, 2024
RRP: $55.99 (paperback), $227.20 (hardback), $50.39 (eBook)
ISBN: 9781003177845
Reviewed by: Kym Bills, FAIHS (Life)
This second book in a three-part series on the business, management, and safety effects of neoliberalism follows Dekker’s sole-authored first book, Compliance Capitalism: How Free Markets Have Led to Unfree, Overregulated Workers. The book’s ten chapters comprise 109 pages. There is also a six-page preface, 15 pages of references, and a seven-page index.
Like many before them, Poole and Dekker criticise the widespread use of a single-number lost time injuries (LTI) measure to illuminate safety, stating: “The LTI emperor has no clothes. Statistically, the figure is nothing more than random noise.” Such random noise is quite different from ‘noise’ as the invisible and unwanted variability of judgements, analysed by Kahneman et al. in the book, Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment, that I reviewed last year.
Research by Hallowell et al. (2020) used 3.26 trillion worker hours of data underpinning the total recordable incident rate (TRIR) within the US construction industry to argue “the statistical invalidity of TRIR as a measure of safety performance”.
Poole and Dekker use this to highlight “the wild randomness of TRIR… with 96 to 98 per cent of changes in TRIR happening due to sheer randomness”. They argue that TRIR can predict
future performance (but only over very long timeframes); is better expressed “as a range (confidence interval)”; does not predict severe injuries and fatalities; and shouldn’t be used for benchmarking.
“Decades of LTI/TRIR criticism have led to a search for robust proactive and leading indicators. I consider the main benefit of the book is to advance this”
The authors also outline LTI data issues as a result of small datasets and incident under-reporting/recording, with perverse impacts of LTI and ‘zero harm’ targets as a major theme. Dekker’s wellknown historical/philosophical interests link safety measurement issues to Enlightenment rationality, scientific optimism and control, Taylorist management, religious views of suffering, and replacing blame and punishment with learning and restorative justice. The
terms ‘complex’ and ‘complexity’ are used somewhat inconsistently in the book and systemic complexity (involving non-linearity, emergence etc) is assumed to be important in all OHS situations when simpler causal analysis may be appropriate. Distinguishing major accident causality from general OHS ‘slips, trips, and falls’, and seeking to understand ‘work as done’ and ‘what goes well’, should by now be uncontroversial.
However, Poole and Dekker emphasise that “asking why things go wrong and trying to prevent that keeps us locked into a mindset that belongs to a bygone era in safety”, with all ten dot-points in a proposed safety list from such an era showing “the person as the weakest link”. Yet they also quote Hollnagel, saying “we should not (just) try to stop things from going wrong”, which more sensibly balances the fostering of resilience and what goes well with addressing and controlling hazards and what goes wrong. Chapter 7 is headed ‘Don’t Talk About Safety Culture – Talk About Safety Climate’, but the book is inconsistent in doing so.
Barriers and controls are both supported and criticised. There is sometimes also a disconnect between dislike of legislation/regulation and support for it - but perhaps this will be clarified in book three. Some data is old, including from Safe
Work Australia, ABS, and a 1996 NTSB study wrongly attributed to the FAA.
Gaps in the references include key points cited (e.g. Zwetsloot et al on vision zero and a 2005 HSLB study used throughout chapter 6). Decades of LTI/TRIR criticism have led to a search for robust proactive and leading indicators. I consider the main benefit of the book is to advance this, based on Dekker and Tooma’s (2022) article on a ‘capacity index’ and Titterton and Glenn’s subsequent Due Diligence Index-Safety (DDI-S) (available online). Chapter 9 provides an overview of DDI-S elements and proposes better measures/ KPIs. Chapter 10 emphasises the changing role of safety professionals in supporting ‘guided adaptability’ (Provan et al., 2020).
Target readers for Random Noise include safety professionals and their managers/ boards and students. While terminology such as ‘synoptic legibility’ may not assist, a mostly accessible style goes beyond Australia to include data from a variety of countries and examples from many high-risk industries, as well as more general OHS/WHS. Given various tensions in the book, Australian readers may initially wish to directly access key sources mentioned in this review.
Kym Bills, FAIHS (Life), ECU PhD candidate, University of Adelaide visiting research fellow
