OHS Professional Magazine December 2022

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 2078 Gladstone Park VIC 3043 Street address Unit 2/217-219 Mickleham Rd Tullamarine VIC 3043 Membership enquiries email: membership@aihs.org.au Editorial Craig Donaldson email: ohsmagazine@aihs.org.au Design/Production Anthony Vandenberg email: ant@featherbricktruck.com.au Proofreader Heather Wilde

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

Recognition for a job well done

Craig Donaldson, editor, OHS Professional

When Eric Wigglesworth’s daughter, Dr Sarah Dodds, delivered the opening welcome at the annual Dr Eric Wigglesworth AM Memorial Lecture earlier this year, she made a comment in passing that was profoundly important for OHS professionals. She said that she was “enormously proud” of her father’s work, and his legacy in both the Australian safety industry – as well as the number of people who have not been maimed or killed as a result of the work that OHS professionals do. “Those people will mostly never realise what might have happened if you didn’t exist, and they’re never going to thank you for it,” she said.

All too often there is a tendency to focus on the negative and what has gone wrong when it comes to OHS, but it is equally (if not more?) important to focus on what has gone right – and to recognise this, as Dr Sarah Dodds did. Reinforcing positive behaviour is a powerful driver, and it’s important OHS pro fessionals and others give due recognition for those many lives saved from harm or death as a result of their diligent work.

With this in mind, the cover stories for this issue focus on organisations, OHS profession als and other industry leaders who deserve recognition for a job well done – recognised through the 2022 Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards, which were recently held in Sydney. One of the winners was Endeavour Energy, who took home the Large Enterprise: Health & Safety Leadership & Culture Award. As Russell Munro, head of health & safety for Endeavour Energy, explains in this feature arti cle (beginning page 18), the company’s health and safety team and its field operations lead ership team have forged a new partnership to deliver a step change in safety outcomes for field workers. This new strategic partnership acknowledges that there is no silver bullet for safety improvement; instead that it takes a collective approach that is consistent, caring, and responsive to the needs of workers.

building in Sydney, and the unique design of the tower presented several structural design challenges, which resulted in the design form adopting structural steel as the main building skeleton in lieu of conventional formwork and concrete. For the full story turn to page 22.

Another important story in this edition examines how organisations miss warning signs, with a case study on New Zealand’s Pike River tragedy (starting page 12).

Authored by Sean Brady (author of the Brady Review into mining fatalities that was tabled in the Queensland Parliament in 2020), this feature takes a unique perspective on the tragedy and breaks down the chain of errors that led to two underground methane gas explosions that took the lives of 29 miners. “A careful analysis of Pike River gives us an opportunity to turn the mirror back on our selves. Many of the organisational factors that played a role in this disaster are likely at play in our own organisations,” Brady observes.

Similarly, Lendlease Australia won the Large Enterprise: Health & Safety Excellence Award for an innovative screen design that improved OHS with the construction of its Sydney Place Project. The company is current ly working on constructing the tallest office

Lastly, the OHS Body of Knowledge is 10 years old this year. When it was launched 10 years ago it was a professional first in many ways, and it has proven to be an important milestone and contribution to the OHS profes sion globally. Pam Pryor, manager of the OHS Body of Knowledge, said that her time managing the initiative, engaging with OHS researchers, academics, and professionals has been the most stimulating and satisfying element of her long career in health and safe ty. She welcomed Dr Marilyn Hubner as the new manager of the OHS Body of Knowledge, and paid tribute to how far the OHS Body of Knowledge has come: “The whole OHS profession in Australia should be proud of this achievement. While it has Australian ori gins, the OHS Body of Knowledge is gaining reputation and interest internationally.” Turn to page 30 for the full story. n

There is often a tendency to focus on the negative and what has gone wrong when it comes to OHS, but it is important to focus on what has gone right, writes Craig Donaldson

The OHS Professional editorial board 2022

“Those people will mostly never realise what might have happened if you didn’t exist, and they’re never going to thank you for it”

CHANELLE MCENALLAY

National safety, property & environment manager, Ramsay Health Care

DAVID BORYS Independent OHS educator & researcher

KAREN WOLFE General manager of high reliability, ANSTO

KYM BANCROFT Deputy DirectorGeneral, Office of Industrial Relations, Queensland

LIAM O'CONNOR HSET group manager, SRG Global

LOUISE HOWARD Executive director of safety, Transport for NSW

MICHAEL TOOMA Managing partner, Clyde & Co Australia

PATRICK HUDSON Professor, Delft University of Technology

STEVE BELL Managing Partner – Employment, Industrial Relations and Safety (Australia, Asia)

Working together; thinking forward.

A step-change for the AIHS

support our work in addition to their day jobs is vital to the functioning of the AIHS. We are fortunate to have so many people willing to give back to their industry.

The profession is experiencing strong growth, with an anticipated addition of 4000 jobs within the next five years. Universities across the country are qualifying a maximum of 300 graduates per annum. Whilst you are all aware that health and safety practitioners and professionals are in short supply, they will continue to be if we do not act. Upskilling HSRs and showcasing inspiring career pathways will be critical to reducing the resource and skills gap.

Almost two months into my role as CEO at the AIHS, I’m thrilled about the opportunities ahead. With over 20 years of executive experience, primarily in the not-for-profit space, I’m passionate about memberbased organisations and providing value to members and stakeholders. Having spent the last 11 years working for the Australian HR Institute as the chief operating officer, I’m eager to take my experience and join you as we ‘think forward’ to the future of the profession, and play a central role in designing how that looks.

Many people ask me, “What attracted you to the role?” The attraction for me was the significance the AIHS places on advancing the capability of the profession. Whether it be our stewardship of the OHS Body of Knowledge, ensuring a consistent definition of roles and knowledge and skill requirements through our input into the OHS professional capability framework, or our commitment to a career learning framework. I am personally committed to lifelong learning, and this profession, like many others, is constantly evolving and facing new challenges. Continual learning, formal or via networking, is at the heart of any contemporary profession.

One of the immediate challenges I face as CEO is how the institute can be more efficient and effective with its limited resources to service a profession of approximately 30,000. The AIHS has 12 employees, so the vast array of volunteers around the country who

So, what can you expect from the AIHS? A step-change. These changes will require significant effort and investment to achieve substantial growth and impact.

Over the next 12 months, the AIHS will introduce a series of changes to our digital infrastructure. This transformation will support us in delivering improved products, services and, ultimately, an exceptional member experience. I am pleased to say we have commenced this journey.

You will soon see additional pathways to certification, more AIHS-led research, and exclusive member-only content, insights, and resources. Through improvements in advocacy, research, and learning, the institute will continue to elevate the significance of being an AIHS member to employers and businesses, while driving advancements in health and safety standards and practice across Australia.

Your support, through being a member of the AIHS and an advocate for the profession, will help bring all of this to fruition. As CEO, I aim to provide the leadership and vision necessary to ensure that the institute has a thriving membership while also scaling our operational infrastructure via an uplift in digital capability.

I’m excited and energised to lead the extraordinary team at the AIHS, embracing change and growth and, importantly, continuing the AIHS’s strong tradition of service to the profession. While I’m still learning about the expansive work of the institute, I am eager to meet as many members and stakeholders as possible and hear your stories, so that when we look forward, we are working towards one common and unified goal. n

“Many people ask me ‘What attracted you to the role?’

The attraction for me was the significance the AIHS places on advancing the capability of the profession”

Julia Whitford, CEO of the Australian Institute of Health & Safety

Continual learning, be it formal or via networking, is at the heart of any contemporary profession, writes Julia Whitford

169 people killed at work last year: Safe Work Australia

While the fatality rate of workers in Australia has decreased by 35 per cent over the past 10 years, 169 people were killed at work in 2021, according to new data from Safe Work Australia. Vehicle collisions accounted for 38 per cent of all worker fatalities, and machinery operators and drivers had the highest number of fatalities by occupation (68 fatalities). Furthermore, 96 per cent of worker fatalities were male, and the agriculture, forestry and fishing industry had the highest worker fatality rate (10.4 per 100,000). The Key Work Health and Safety Statistics, Australia 2022 report also found there were 130,195 serious workers’ compensation claims in Australia and body stressing was the leading cause of serious workers’ compensation claims (37 per cent). Safe Work Australia said work-related mental health conditions are one of the costliest forms of workplace injury, leading to significantly more time off work and higher compensation than physical injuries and diseases. Mental health conditions account for a relatively small but increasing proportion of serious claims, rising from 6 per cent of all serious claims in 2014-15 to 9 per cent in 2019-20.

ACTU: insecure jobs forcing employees to work through injuries and illnesses

A recent ACTU survey has found 37 per cent of workers in insecure jobs – including fixed-term and independent contractors, casuals, and gig economy workers – report having gone to work while injured. The pandemic exposed the serious public health risks posed by Australia’s high level of insecure work, with a third of workers not able to access paid sick leave, according to the ACTU. The problem also extends to physical injuries, with significant parts of the workforce unable to take time away from work to recover. Furthermore, the ACTU said women are over-represented in insecure work and that young people are more likely to be exposed to a wide range of workplace hazards, including repetitive work, manual work, noisy work, working with solvents or harmful chemicals, unsafe work hours, and bullying, and were also more like to report skipping breaks that they were entitled to. “This survey paints a grim picture of what work is like for millions of Australian workers whose insecure employment means they face impossible choices between recovering from illness or injury and keeping the lights on,” said ACTU assistant secretary Liam O’Brien.

WorkSafe Victoria recently urged those in flood-affected areas to be alert for unexpected hazards in the workplace and thoroughly assess the risks involved when commencing any clean-up activities. Contaminated water, broken glass and debris, damaged electricity supplies, and asbestos are among the risks to health and safety facing those returning to flooded worksites. Employers must ensure work is properly planned and coordinated with regular communication, sufficient training and supervision for workers and volunteers, and regular rest breaks to manage fatigue. When cleaning up after a flood, workers must be equipped with appropriate protective clothing, such as sturdy, waterproof boots, heavy-duty gloves, and eyewear. Common hazards include sewage containing harmful bacteria that may have overflowed inside a building, wet, slippery, and unstable surfaces, and wild animals, including rodents, snakes, and spiders. Duty holders should follow any recommendations by emergency services before entering flood-affected sites, said WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety, Narelle Beer.

Workplace culture change needed on domestic and family violence

One in five victim-survivors of domestic and family violence work in the same workplace as their abuser, according to research from Monash University. Furthermore, 60 per cent of such victim-survivors who work alongside their abuser report that the abuser holds a position of power above them in the workplace. “This is a particularly concerning finding because of the range of ways in which workplace hierarchies can further reinforce pre-existing power imbalances in relationships and facilitate further opportunities for abuse and control,” said the study, From workplace sabotage to embedded supports: examining the impact of domestic and family violence across Australian workplaces. In order to better support domestic and family violence victim-survivors, the report said a shift in thinking is required whereby Australian workplaces recognise that domestic and family violence and work are entirely inseparable. Furthermore, the report highlighted the critical importance of workplace culture and the need for significant cultural change across Australian workforces to ensure that domestic and family violence is routinely understood as a workplace issue.

Regulator sounds caution over hidden hazards in flood clean-up

Employers: inconsistent WHS laws are making it difficult to do business

There needs to be an urgent review of the intergovernmental agreement to recommit states and territories to the goal of harmonised legislation, according to business group, ACCI. More than 52 per cent of businesses that participated in a recent ACCI research report operate in more than one jurisdiction, highlighting the need for harmonised work health and safety rules nationally, said Jennifer Low, director of WHS policy for the ACCI. The research report also found there has been increased activity around psychosocial risks since 2022 with the publication of new model psychosocial regulations and several model and jurisdictional Codes of Practice, in addition to confusion around the distinction between supporting general mental health and wellbeing, and the newer concept of psychosocial risk. “We are seeing the states diverge more and more frequently from agreed model WHS laws, making it increasingly difficult and time-consuming for businesses to keep up with compliance requirements across multiple states,” she said.

Mental injuries surge in Victorian workplaces

WorkSafe Victoria recently issued a safety warning to employers to address psychological hazards in their workplaces as the number of mental injuries in Victorian workplaces surges. Of the 28,682 claims received by WorkSafe Victoria in the 2021-22 financial year, 4340 were for mental injury. While claims for work-related mental injuries now make up 15.1 per cent of all new claims (up from 13.1 per cent the previous year), they are on track to grow to a third of all WorkSafe claims by the end of the decade. “Sadly, while three-quarters of workers with a physical injury are back on the job in six months, just 40 per cent of workers with mental injury return to work within that time,” said WorkSafe Victoria executive director of health and safety Narelle Beer. “Just because a mental injury is harder to see doesn’t mean it can’t be prevented. We’re putting employers on notice that they have a legal obligation to make sure their workplaces are psychologically safe.” She urged employers to make sure they have policies, processes, and training in place to address risks such as bullying, aggression, trauma, fatigue, stress, and high job demands.

Corporate Members

APA Group

APPENATE PTY LTD

Avetta

Everyday Massive Pty Ltd

HealthSafe NZ Limited

GETTING CONNECTED – SILVER MEMBERS

Australian Unity

Brisbane Catholic Education

Clough Projects Australia Pty. Ltd

Compita Consulting Pty Ltd

Craig Mostyn Group

Downer EDI Ltd

Engentus PTY LTD

FIFO Focus

Guardian Angel Safety Pty Ltd

Herbert Smith Freehills

HOK Talent Solutions

Port of Newcastle Operations Pty Ltd

Strategic Partner Organisations

Ai Group

ASHPA

Australian College of Road Safety (ACRS)

Australian Institute of Management (AIM)

Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM)

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB)

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisations (CSIRO)

Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ)

Programmed Safety Champion Software Pty Ltd SIA360

Transurban Wolters Kluwer -Enablon Australia Pty Ltd

Sustainable Future Solutions

The Safe Step

Trainwest Safety Institute UnitingSA

Alium Works

Ashburton Assurance Australasia CODESAFE SOLUTIONS

Coles Group Defence Housing Australia EY

Federation University Insync Workplace Solutions

Investigations Differently Kitney OHS

MinterEllison Lawyers

PFP Robotics Pty Ltd T/A Presien Sydney Metro Teamcare Insurance Brokers Pty Ltd Transport for NSW Uniting

BEING PART OF THE NETWORK – BRONZE MEMBERS

Airbus Australia Pacific

AusGroup Limited

BWC Safety Pty Ltd

Complete Security Protection Pty Ltd

Employment Innovations Pty Ltd

Flick Anticimex Pty Ltd

Green Light Environmental Services Pty Ltd

Health & Safety Advisory Service P/L

Integrated Trolley Management Pty Ltd

Isaac Regional Council

ITS Transport

Farmsafe Australia Inc

Health and Safety Association of New Zealand (HASANZ)

Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia (HFESA)

International Network of Safety & Health Practitioner Organisations (INSHPO)

National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP)

New Zealand Institute of Safety Management (NZISM)

Primary Industries Health and Safety Partnership (PIHSP)

Professions Australia

SafeWork NSW SafeWork SA

SANE Australia

Standards Australia

WorkSafe Victoria Workplace Health and Safety Queensland

Liberty Industrial Maroondah City Council

National Storage National Training Masters Office for the Commissioner of Public Sector Employment

One Maestro RMIT Vietnam SafeWork SA Services Australia

Would you like to become a Corporate Member of the AIHS?

Please contact AIHS on 03 8336 1995 to discuss the many options available.

INVESTING IN HEALTH & SAFETY – GOLD MEMBERS

SHARING OUR VISION – DIAMOND MEMBERS

Work-related injuries and illnesses cost $28.6 billion annually

WHS has a substantial role to play in contributing to Australia’s economic prosperity, according to a new report

If there were no work-related injuries and illnesses, Australia’s economy would grow by $28.6 billion each year, 185,500 additional full time equivalent (FTE) jobs would be created, and workers across all occupations and skill levels would benefit from an average wage rise of 1.3 per cent annually.

A recent research report, conducted by Deloitte Access Economics and commissioned by Safe Work Australia, examines the cost of work-related injury and illness in Australia and estimates how much value could be created within the Australian economy by removing workrelated injury and illness.

The report said the impact of an additional 185,500 FTE jobs every year would have translated to a 1.6 per cent increase in GDP, comparable to the current direct contribution of the Australian Agriculture industry or the estimated economic growth foregone during NSW’s COVID-19 lockdown in 2021.

The largest impact on GDP (45 per cent of the total) would have come from workers who experienced a work-related death or injury which caused them to be absent from the workplace. “This analysis finds that by removing work-related injuries and illnesses, Australian wages increase, with productivity gains driving a broad uplift in income to labour across all occupation types,” said the report, Safer, healthier, wealthier: The economic value of reducing work-related injuries and illnesses.

“This is particularly revealing given we often lean on the industrial relations framework to tackle issues relating to wages and productivity growth. This suggests that work, health and safety (WHS) has a substantial role to play in contributing to Australia’s economic prosperity.”

Safe Work Australia branch manager, evidence, communications and strategic policy, Meredith Bryant, said the report’s findings clearly illustrate the economic and productivity benefits to the wider

community of investing in work health and safety. “Creating workplaces that are safe and free of injury and illness provides broad economic benefits for all Australians, including more jobs and better pay,” she said.

“We know that the devastating effects of injury and illness at work go beyond the effect on the individual, their workplace, occupation, industry, or jurisdiction in which they occur. Our communities and the Australian economy more broadly feel the impacts of these injuries and illnesses including through costs associated with loss of productivity, reduced work participation, and increased healthcare.”

Benefits by industry and state

If all work-related injuries and illnesses were removed, economic activity would have been stimulated across nearly all sectors. Industries with the greatest number of work-related injuries and illnesses, such as construction and heavy manufacturing, would have been the most positively affected relative to others (12.6 per cent and 8.5 per cent higher). The expansion of these industries would then drive secondary effects, which would have been concentrated in the services sector and industries such as business services where injuries and illnesses are not particularly prevalent (7.5 per cent higher).

“Critically too, the bulk of the new 185,500 jobs created are skilled roles, spread across officials and managers

(52,200 FTEs), technicians (32,900 FTEs), and clerks (45,300 FTEs). This result suggests that Australia’s continued transition towards a knowledge-based economy could be accelerated by reducing work-related injuries and illnesses, given most of the new jobs created will require higher skills,” said the report, which noted the impact by each state and territory reflects the size of the region’s economy.

Impacts on Australian GDP differ across jurisdictions but are largely reflective of the relative size of the individual states and territories. New South Wales, Australia’s largest state by population, accounts for 40 per cent of the total impact on Australian GDP, followed by

“Creating workplaces that are safe and free of injury and illness provides broad economic benefits for all Australians, including more jobs and better pay”

Victoria (25 per cent) and Queensland (16 per cent).

The impact of work-related fatalities and injuries

On average, over 180 workers are killed each year at work in Australia. Further, in 2017-18, 563,600 people, or 4.2 per cent of working people in Australia, suffered a work-related injury or illness. Of these incidents, 60 per cent resulted in the

worker taking some time off work. The report found that each year there were, on average, 623,663 work-related injuries and illnesses between 2008 and 2018. This led to significant productivity losses arising from absenteeism and presenteeism and ongoing losses to labour supply from work-related deaths and injuries or illnesses causing permanent incapacity.

These long-term productivity losses will continue to influence the economy

through 2065. Further costs were incurred by the health system totalling $3.4 billion annually, while annual payments of $4.5 billion went towards workers’ compensation and other financial costs.

“Overall, this study overwhelmingly finds that when a worker experiences a work-related injury or illness, it is not only those directly affected that suffer – including the individual, their families, and community – it is also the wider Australian workforce that loses the opportunity to access more and better jobs with higher wages,” the report said.

“This analysis estimates the value that could be created within the Australian economy in the absence of work-related injuries and illnesses in terms of both changes to GDP and to employment. These numbers may be interpreted alongside Australia’s GDP and employment, allowing for a meaningful interpretation of the scale of impact that work-related injury and illness has on the Australian economy.”

Calculating the cost

The research utilises computable general equilibrium (CGE) modelling, which is the first of its kind to adopt the World Health Organization’s guidelines for identifying the economic consequences of disease and injury. CGE models are uniquely positioned to quantify how the economy as a whole could react over time to potential changes in policy, technology, or other factors. Where previous analysis has measured the economic impact of workrelated illness and injury through a cost of illness lens, the report said the results of those estimates could not be readily interpreted in meaningful ways.

In addition, employment is modelled to increase over time, despite the yearly number of work-related injuries or illnesses remaining relatively constant over the same period. The driving force behind this is the accumulation of absent workers from injuries in previous years. “For example, an individual injured in 2008 who is unable to remain in the workforce will affect the labour supply over the next several years,” the report said.

“This explains why the increase in employment is lowest in 2008, which represents the first year of the reference period, as there is no additional accumulation of employment from injuries removed in previous years, reflecting the underlying incidence approach in the cost-of-illness framework.

The increase in employment from 2015-18 appears to level out, indicating that the effect of the accumulation of absent workers from previous years has peaked.” n

“The devastating effects of injury and illness at work go beyond the effect on the individual, their workplace, occupation, industry, or jurisdiction in which they occur”

Future-proofing your business with EHS&S in uncertain times

lives and the environment. It is about future-proofing your business.

That’s why your organisation’s EHS&S program must be at the heart of recalibration to meet the new environment, health, safety, and sustainability challenges. The consequences of inaction or doing it wrong can be catastrophic and damaging for the business.

Take a proactive approach to the E in ESG

SAI360 recently surveyed more than 300 Environment, Health, and Safety (EHS) professionals to learn how they approach ESG and sustainability challenges, which Environmental Social Governance (ESG) and sustainability metrics their organisations prioritise, where they stand in implementing ESG programs, and their focus for the future.

More than 50 per cent of survey respondents said their ESG strategy prioritises employee well-being and development. Seismic global trends and the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on workers’ wellness and jobs have forced companies to change how they operate, paying more attention to workforce needs, which fall under the social pillar of ESG.

Digitalisation also ranked high, with over 25 per cent of participants identifying digitalisation in EHS, sustainability, and ESG as top priorities. This is consistent with McKinsey data which shows digitalisation efforts during COVID increased from 36 per cent in 2019 to 58 per cent globally in 2020.

Digitalisation not only improves efficiency but can also provide novel ways of performing complex and timeconsuming tasks. It also supports worker engagement, especially as the definition of the workplace keeps evolving.

Digitalisation offers more effective occupational safety and health training opportunities, advanced workplace risk assessments, improved communication, and robust OHS inspections.

Data availability: the biggest challenge

While 42 per cent of respondents believe they comply with all necessary elements of ESG and sustainability disclosure reporting, 44.7 per cent said that data availability remains a challenge. Data

availability in ESG reporting is critical as investors and regulators want to see data transparency and gaps addressed to create a complete picture. Other significant factors reported in the survey that prevent companies from initiating ESG reporting, besides the availability of investor-grade data, are cost, time, and a lack of clear direction.

Without serious digitalisation considerations, data availability and transparency will remain challenging for many companies. Data vendors are not the solution due to shortcomings around methodologies, data standards, and potential conflicts of interest. A further 38.3 per cent of respondents said they still use spreadsheets to monitor all relevant ESG and sustainability regulatory requirements to ensure compliance. With ESG and sustainability disclosures becoming mandatory across many countries, this indicates that there is still work to be done for companies to be more consistent and coherent in reporting.

EHS performance and systems

EHS&S performance has become a zerotolerance issue with redefined workplace safety and employees’ well-being. However, it doesn’t stop there. Pandemic preparedness, natural disasters, incidents, and climate change concerns drive companies, including those from high hazards sectors, to focus on greater EHS&S to future-proof their businesses.

A comprehensive EHS and sustainability management system can prevent accidents, injuries, illnesses, and environmental hazards, either at a single site or across multiple sites. It saves lives, ensures a healthy and productive workforce, and promotes sustainable business practices for better outcomes.

More importantly, good EHS&S management goes beyond safeguarding

Shareholder activism around environmental responsibility has been growing steadily for several years now. While companies have previously responded to activist shareholder demands in loose commitments with few hard measures, this is changing rapidly as investors, customers, employees, and now regulators demand increased commitment and transparency about environmental impact. There is now evidence that when CFOs think like activist investors, they can add 2.5 percentage points of economic value, compared to peers that take a purely reactive approach.

With environmental impacts – from greenhouse gas emissions to waste management – taking up a growing mindshare, a proactive approach means getting ahead of strengthening regulations via rigorous reporting and transparency through a connected platform.

What investors want to see

Investor expectations for environmental programs have evolved beyond a simple demand for companies to acknowledge impacts on the environment and pledge to do something about it. With increasing awareness of greenwashing as a hollow promise, investors are demanding greater insights into environmental data. Today, the expectation is that ESG data collection is:

• Tracked: environmental metrics should be tracked to the most granular level possible to provide the most information for analysis.

• Transparent: to earn and build investor trust, metrics and reports should be easily assembled and readily available in official disclosures to stakeholders.

• Actionable: the metrics gathered should be deeply and frequently analysed to produce insights that guide upcoming strategy.

Regulators are driving for transparency and accurate metrics, while investors, customers and employees want a vote on ESG posture – or they will vote with their wallets and feet.

Major global trends and the pandemic’s impact on workers’ wellness and jobs have forced companies to pay more attention to workforce needs which fall under the social pillar of ESG, according to SAI360

Three key functions

Companies that want to capture the business value associated with being responsive to stakeholder demands need a platform that connects multiple data sources and performs the following key functions.

• Maintain compliance: This is the bare minimum organisations can do to keep stakeholders happy. The platform should track and resolve environmental incidents, handle audits, and automatically apply regulations and policies by location.

• Monitor performance: The solution should automatically capture metrics related to waste management, emissions, water use, and other critical ESG metrics as well as analyse the data for digestible visualisation of the current state of Environmental efforts.

• Build your brand: A strong platform offers features that go a step beyond, like simple management of stakeholder interactions, emissions target-setting, and analytics highlighting weak points for future improvement.

The importance of connection Environmental impact and climate-based risk management are critical elements of business resilience planning, but they can only deliver on their potential if leadership elevates it as part of a comprehensive ESG program that is top of mind in the boardroom. When

metrics and data from all relevant areas are collected and aggregated, executives are empowered to drive, measure, and communicate progress. Everyone in the business can more easily know how they contribute to the effectiveness of environmental efforts.

Driving real ESG progress demands that the traditional disciplines of GRC, EHS&S, and ethics and compliance learning harmonise and connect. This ensures that policy and compliance management, third-party risk management, and business continuity planning fully intersect with the metrics management of EHS&S. The integration of ethics and compliance learning can help instil an organisation’s environmental concerns as a core value and ensure that policy and posture are clearly understood.

EHS&S management solutions

A comprehensive and integrated EHS&S management software solution is how today’s leading organisations manage such challenges and prepare for the future – protecting their brands and workforce from falls, injuries, chemical spills, disease outbreaks, and other common but avoidable workplace incidents. Together, these create substantial savings, happier, healthier workers and communities, and peace of mind for management and shareholders. Key areas where EHS&S technology can

boost capabilities include:

• Engaging your workforce and maximum participation in EHS&S programs

• Simplifying assessments and driving accountability

• Assessing effectiveness

• Managing change with ease

• Gaining stakeholders’ trust

• Complete visibility and control

• Streamlining processes for all stakeholders

Streamlining ESG data and improving reporting quality is where an integrated EHS & Sustainability software platform can add value and efficiency to the business. The performance of EHS&S is continually assessed to ensure that all potential hazards and risks are proactively identified and mitigated. The workplace is compliant, and environmental legal obligations are completely fulfilled. It also provides C-level teams with clear, actionable insights to help make faster and more impactful decisions. n

Phill Morony is the strategic business development manager, and Steven Menzies is the APAC business development manager – EHS&S for SAI360, a leading Environmental Social Governance (ESG) cloud provider connecting Environmental, Health, Safety & Sustainability (EHS&S), Governance-RiskCompliance (GRC), and learning. SAI360 is an AIHS Diamond Member.(EHS&S), GovernanceRisk-Compliance (GRC), and learning. SAI360 is an AIHS Diamond Member.

How organisations miss warning signs: inside the Pike River tragedy

It’s 19 November 2010 at the Pike River underground coal mine in New Zealand. Daniel Rockhouse is deep in the mine, driving a loader en route to pick up gravel for road repairs. He stops at the diesel bay at the pit bottom to refuel the loader with diesel and water. Its engine is running. The time is 3:45 pm. He turns on the water valve, and as he does so, there’s a white flash.

Then a pressure wave hits him. He’s flung on his back, hits his head, and his first thought is that his loader’s blown up. But then he realises it’s still running. He gets up and turns it off, then sees debris has fallen from the tunnel roof and walls. The air is filled with a pungent smell, and dense smoke starts flowing around him. The atmosphere gets warmer, and he starts to find breathing difficult.

He moves away from the smoke and walks towards a nearby crushing station. The air is clearer there. He reaches for his self-rescuer, a portable oxygen supply, pulls it from his belt, opens it and puts it on. But it’s not working. He gets rid of it, and then moves back towards the loader, but the atmosphere’s getting worse. He falls over. He shouts for help. His eyes are watering. His whole body is tingling, and he feels like it’s shutting down.

Then he blacks out. Almost an hour later, he regains consciousness. He has feeling in his fingers and toes again, but he’s cold and shivering. He tries to move and discovers he’s lying in the mud beside his loader.

He rolls over onto his stomach and tries to push himself up, but he can’t – he has no strength. He tries again and manages to get to his feet but falls back into the mud. This time he pulls himself upright and grabs hold of the compressed air and water lines that run along the wall. He searches for a valve on the airline and opens it – fresh air flows and clears the

smoke around him. It relieves the stinging in his eyes. Then he starts searching for a phone to contact the surface. He finds one and dials the emergency number, triple 5. The phone rings, but no one picks up, and he’s connected to an answering service. He hangs up and, this time, dials 410, the number of the mine’s control room.

Daniel Duggan, who’s in charge of the surface control room, takes the call. The time is approximately 4:40 pm. And as Rockhouse is talking on the phone, the underground mine manager, Douglas White, comes on the line and tells Rockhouse to get to the Fresh Air Base (FAB) and contact them from there.

Rockhouse hangs up and starts following the compressed air and water lines on the wall. They will guide him, along the roadway known as the drift, to

the surface, which is almost 2 km away. He walks in the darkness and opens the compressed air valves as he goes, breathing in the air.

Russell Smith

Up ahead, he sees a stationary vehicle in the drift – it’s a juggernaut loader. A man is lying on the ground beside it.

Rockhouse approaches him: it’s Russell Smith. Smith’s eyes are open, but they’re rolled back in his head. He can hardly speak. He has no helmet or light. Rockhouse gets Smith’s selfrescuer and attempts to put it on him, but he can’t get it inserted properly into Smith’s mouth, so he drops it, stands up, and starts to drag Smith’s body along the drift. It’s still hard to breathe, and he’s weak, but if he can get to the FAB, it’ll have compressed air and spare self-rescuers, and he should be able to contact the surface again.

When they find the FAB, Rockhouse props Smith up into a sitting position against the wall, and says he’ll be back in a second. The FAB is an old shipping container designed as a refuge for workers in case of emergencies. But when he gets to it, he discovers it’s decommissioned. It’s no longer supplied with compressed air, the telephone connection to the surface isn’t working, and the spare self-rescuers have been removed.

He’s furious. He thrashes around for a while, then walks back to Smith.

He drags Smith along the ground, then pulls him to his feet. He asks him if he can walk. They are still 1.5 kilometres from the surface. As they start moving, Smith falls. Rockhouse pulls him back up to his feet. With one hand supporting him and the other running along the rail of the conveyor belt beside him, Rockhouse walks Smith towards the mine exit.

The methane gas issues at Pike River mine were well known, so why didn’t senior management and the board heed them and act? Sean Brady explores the organisational lessons from the Pike River disaster

Brady Heywood managing director Sean Brady says putting bonuses in place to drive production, without confirming these targets can be safely achieved, carries great risk

As they go, they keep stopping to look back behind them, checking for lights. They see only blackness. They keep moving, and Rockhouse tells Smith to think about his family, to keep his legs moving for them. After some time, the atmosphere starts to clear – it’s getting easier to breathe. It’s been 46 minutes since Rockhouse’s phone call.

And then they see it. A blotch of daylight. Streaming in through the entrance. They keep moving. But when they walk out of the mine, they find themselves alone. There’s no one there to meet them.

Rockhouse gets onto the comms and calls the control room. Help arrives within minutes.

Both men are given oxygen, but Russell Smith is incoherent. Daniel Rockhouse simply breaks down.

At 5:13 pm, while Daniel Rockhouse and Russell Smith are still making their way out of the mine, Douglas White, the statutory mine manager, decides

to investigate what is happening at the mine’s main ventilation shaft.

where White can get a clear view of the top of the shaft. And when he sees it, he realises there has been a massive explosion in the mine – one bad enough to knock out the secondary fan.

And 29 people are still missing. Nothing has been heard from them since 3:45pm, almost 90 minutes earlier.

Warning signs not acted upon

This involves a helicopter trip from the Pike River admin area to the top of the shaft, located further up the mountain. This shaft plays a critical role in ventilating the mine: the main ventilation fan is located at the foot of the shaft, deep in the mine, while the secondary fan is located at the top.

The helicopter takes off, climbs up over the trees and heads for a position

In time, a Royal Commission into the disaster would conclude that a methane gas explosion had occurred in the mine. But the factors that led to it didn’t suddenly present themselves on 19 November 2010.

For months there had been warning signs that Pike River’s gas management was ineffective.

In this article, we explore why these warning signs weren’t acted upon and what lessons our organisations can learn from the disaster.

But to start, why is methane an issue, and how is it typically managed?

“Pike River knew that drainage would be required – the methane levels in the coal were high and couldn’t be managed by ventilation alone”

The dangers of methane

Methane gas occurs naturally in coal mines, forming in coal seams along with other gases. Mining activity disturbs and releases it. If it reaches a mixture (by volume) of 5 to 15 per cent methane to air, it’s flammable. And if an ignition source is present, this can result in an explosion. Ignition sources include sparks from mining equipment or miners bringing contraband, such as cigarettes or matches, underground.

This risk is managed in a number of ways. Firstly, gas drainage can remove or decrease the level of gas in the coal before it’s mined. That way, the volume of gas released during mining is significantly reduced. Secondly, mine ventilation should provide enough airflow to dilute any gas released and keep it below the explosive range. Thirdly, ignition sources can be removed or managed in areas of the mine where there is the potential for gas.

The overall effectiveness of the gas management system – and it’s important to think of it as a system – can be determined by continuously monitoring the percentage of methane in the air. Gas exceedances above 2 per cent are important warning signs that the system may not be working effectively. More than 5 per cent indicates the presence of gas in the explosive range.

The importance of gas drainage

Gas drainage involves drilling boreholes into the coal seam. Over time, gas drains into the borehole from the surrounding coal, then out through a pipeline system that removes the gas from the mine.

And back in 2006, Pike River knew that drainage would be required – the methane levels in the coal were high and couldn’t be managed by ventilation alone.

But while Pike River may have been aware of this, they made very little progress in designing or implementing such a system. Even by as late as mid2010, they had taken very few core samples from the coal, which meant they had no reliable estimates of the quantity of gas they were dealing with. Without this information, they couldn’t properly design the system.

Further, any methane drainage that was implemented was more incidental than systematic. Some boreholes were connected for drainage, but the gas level soon overwhelmed the system. Maintaining it had also become an issue. Pipelines were blocked, and there was no method to measure gas flows.

The system was at maximum capacity by April 2010. Several boreholes were free-venting methane into the mine’s atmosphere. And in October, McConnell Dowell, a contractor on site, found a whistling standpipe emitting gas. This wasn’t addressed by the time of the explosion.

Problems with ventilation

There were also problems with the ventilation system. This system comprised of a ventilation loop, which – at Pike River – drew air in through the drift, past the mining areas, and up the mine’s main ventilation shaft.

This loop had two fans. The secondary fan was located above ground. But the location of the main fan was unusual –the Royal Commission found that Pike River was the only coal mine in the world to put its main fan underground.

And there are very good reasons why they’re usually above ground. Firstly, if the fan underground is exposed to methane, it can become an ignition source. Secondly, if there is an explosion underground, the fan can be damaged, making it hard to reestablish ventilation. Thirdly, if the fan is undamaged in an explosion, but remains in a methane-rich environment, then its sensors will stop it from operating.

Losing the ability to ventilate the mine in the aftermath of an explosion significantly affects the survival chances of anyone who survives the initial blast.

In addition to these concerns, as we will explore, there was an abundance of information indicating that the ventilation system wasn’t effective in managing the amount of gas in the mine.

Concerns raised

The management of methane was clearly failing. And this was well-known and recognised by the workers, who repeatedly raised serious issues and demanded action.

On eight occasions in March 2010, there were reports from Pike River

deputies concerned that the gas drainage system was inadequate for the methane levels predicted and experienced. One deputy wrote in an email that “history has shown us in the mining industry that methane, when given the right environment, will show us no mercy”. He went on to say they needed to take gas drainage far more seriously and redesign the entire system.

This concern was echoed by a mining engineer engaged to consult on the drainage system. He wanted work stopped until a risk assessment for continuation occurred.

And there were many concerns about the ventilation as well. In July 2010, a consultant on site, Masaoki Nishioka, found that nobody appeared to be looking after ventilation in the mine. While the ventilation plan called for a dedicated ventilation officer, there was none.

Nishioka noted repeated problems with methane levels, which proved the ventilation system was struggling. He recorded levels that exceeded the

explosive threshold of 5 per cent on nine occasions between 20 September and 15 October.

And the number of exceedances continued to rise. Deputies’ handheld detectors reported readings of 2 per cent or higher on 48 occasions in the 48 days leading up to 19 November, the day of the explosion. Of the 48 readings, 21 were 5 per cent or higher – in other words, an explosive level of gas was recorded 21 times over this period.

Some deputies did report these exceedances, but the information in their reports was not reaching or being heeded by management, with part of the problem being no ventilation officer to collate and respond to all the information.

It was against this backdrop that the board of Pike River made a decision: they introduced a bonus for workers to ramp up production.

The production bonus

Each miner would get $13,000 if 1000 tonnes of coal was achieved by 3

September 2010. If it was delayed by one week, it would decrease from $13,000 to $12,000, then $11,000 the following week, and so on. By November, it would be zero.

This bonus would cost the company $2.3 million, but the board took the view that they needed to address credibility problems with production because of over-promising and under-delivering, as they’d shipped only 2 per cent of what they’d initially planned.

But while the board decided to award a bonus, they didn’t ensure it could be achieved safely. A number of risk assessments undertaken prior to mining began confirmed that it couldn’t: very significant safety issues were identified, some critical systems were not yet in place, and others were not working correctly. With this context, we return to 19 November 2010.

The first explosion

Daniel Rockhouse was deep in the mine, refuelling his vehicle. In the control room,

at 3:44 pm, Daniel Duggan activated the start sequence of a pump system that supplied water to the mine. Then he went on the comm to those underground.

He was talking to a worker, Malcolm Campbell, when there was an unidentified sound. Duggan then lost all comms. This was the methane explosion.

Underground, Daniel Rockhouse saw a bright flash and was hit with the sustained pressure wave. It lasted for 52 seconds.

Russell Smith, who’d been late for work and was driving his loader into the mine, was hit by the same pressure wave. He was knocked unconscious, only to be later rescued by Rockhouse.

Both would survive the event – Smith regained consciousness in the ambulance on the way to Greymouth.

The true extent of the disaster, however, would only become apparent when Douglas White took his helicopter trip up the mountain and saw there had been an explosion in the mine. This had damaged and disabled the secondary ventilation fan.

In time, the consequences of putting the main fan underground would become apparent: it had failed in the explosion, and with the secondary fan also knocked out, there was no way to ventilate the mine.

The subsequent explosions

Rescue now depended on how safe it was to go into the mine. But the methane sensors underground had ceased reporting, and there was no backup system. Samples had to be taken at the top of the ventilation shaft, but they were not representative of the levels of methane deeper in the mine.

To solve this issue, they drilled a borehole to take samples. And on 24 November, 5 days after the explosion, the sampling borehole reached the heart of the mine. The samples showed it was not safe to send in rescue teams.

And at 2:37 pm that very afternoon, there was a second explosion. If any of the missing men had survived the initial explosion, there was no way they could have survived the second.

All 29 men had perished. To this day, their bodies have never been recovered.

The management

Why, despite all of the methane exceedances, did the mine’s management team not heed the warning signs?

Normalisation may have played a role, as it does in many organisations. In the months before the failure, methane exceedances were happening daily. And as the number of exceedances grew but didn’t result in an explosion, this had the potential to lull those involved into

believing that exceedances would never result in an explosion. Normalisation changes our perception of risk rather than the risk itself.

But throughout the Royal Commission’s hearings, management personnel insisted that they didn’t know about the methane spikes, nor the ventilation problems, because no one brought them to their attention.

Whether or not we believe these claims, it was certainly the case that while there were reports of issues, Pike River didn’t have the systems to collate, summarise, analyse, and get this information in front of managers. The lack of an effective system to pull together information and make warning signs clear almost certainly played a role in the mine management’s inability to understand the true extent of the issues with the gas management system.

And, the failure of the gas drainage, combined with the inadequate ventilation, produced a situation that could only be addressed by mine management. These systemic issues couldn’t be solved by any one individual at the mine.

And it is the management response that creates a sense of inevitability to this tragedy. Without meaningful management intervention, these problems couldn’t be resolved. There was simply no way for the workers to ‘work safer’ or ‘try harder’ when attempting to manage methane. For every day that mining continued, with the existing systems in place, there was an increased opportunity for a methane exceedance and an ignition source to occur simultaneously.

The health and safety committee

What about the health and safety committee that reported to the board? The committee consisted of the chair of the board, Mr Dow, who was also the chair of the committee, along with another director, Professor Raymond Meyer. The committee’s role was to provide strategic oversight on the effectiveness of the company’s approach to health and safety, ensure it complied with legal obligations, and receive and respond to reports of significant incidents.

How did it fail to recognise and respond to the warning signs? It would transpire that the committee, which was meant to meet every six months, hadn’t met for 13 months before the incident.

But even if it had met, it’s doubtful if it would have identified the danger. The chair’s view was that it wasn’t the committee’s job to actively seek out and obtain information on health and safety

in the organisation from other managers, nor to seek independent advice from outside the organisation.

Mr Dow held the view that managers could come to him with any concerns they had regarding health and safety. He told the Royal Commission they could do so at “company dinners or barbecues.”

The Board

But what of the board itself? Were they aware of the warning signs? In order to manage the methane risk, they would have needed information on the effectiveness of their crucial systems, such as gas monitoring and ventilation, and analyses of their high potential incidents, to highlight where their systems were vulnerable.

The board, however, didn’t receive this type of information. Even though the organisation reported incidents internally, no one reviewed or learned from them. And as with the Health and Safety Committee, Mr Dow believed

“Boards obviously care about health and safety, but are they judging their ‘safety’ based on personal safety metrics like the Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate – a metric that provides very little information on the effectiveness of an organisation’s management of fatal or catastrophic risk?”

that incidents, including high-potential incidents, were operational issues, and, therefore, up to the management team to deal with. Further, many high-potential incidents were simply not reported to the board. And while the board didn’t receive the right information, it didn’t seek it out either. The prevailing view appeared to be: if no concerns were raised with the board, then there were no concerns.

As with many boards, it received monthly health and safety data from the mine, mainly personal injury rates and lost time incidents. Data that told them nothing about how they were managing the risk of a catastrophic incident. (The causes of these types of incidents differ from those that make up such personal safety metrics).

The Royal Commission would also find several issues with the board’s decision to introduce a bonus. The obvious one is that it focused squarely on production rather than safety.

Another was the board didn’t give sufficient consideration to mine

ventilation – they didn’t convince themselves that the available ventilation capacity was sufficient to ensure the bonus target could be met in practice.

Finally, risk assessments undertaken prior to mining began identified significant safety issues: some critical systems were not in place, and others were not working properly. Most of these issues were not addressed before mining began.

Closure

When we examine methane management at Pike River, it is tempting to conclude that the cause of this disaster was simply the mine’s failure to manage a critical risk.

But this conclusion tells us very little about the broader learnings we can take from the tragedy. One way to explore these learnings is to consider the similarities between Pike River and our own organisations.

Take our boards. Boards obviously care about health and safety, but are they

judging their ‘safety’ based on personal safety metrics like the Total Recordable Injury Frequency Rate – a metric that provides very little information on the effectiveness of an organisation’s management of fatal or catastrophic risk?

And are our boards actively and meaningfully seeking other information to help them understand these larger risks, such as evidence that critical controls are working effectively? And, if they are, how meaningfully are our boards challenging the good news in these reports, and embracing the bad? And how likely are our boards, like Pike River’s, to believe everything is alright unless told otherwise?

And do we have health and safety committees that report to our boards? Are they effectively assisting boards to understand the organisation’s risks, or are they instead creating one more layer of separation between the board and the front line?

And what of our management teams? Do they have the right systems in place to identify when and why their systems are failing to work as intended? How do our managers collect, analyse, and identify the information and data they need to make good intervention decisions before incidents happen? Or are they only focusing on the information that pertains to the organisation’s KPIs? And, if so, what about the warning signs in the rest of the data?

What about incentive schemes? Do our incentive schemes reward production over safety? Putting bonuses in place to drive production without confirming that these targets can be safely achieved carries great risk. Further, our organisations measure what we care about – and workers know this. We may say ‘safety is our first priority’, but are our production metrics sending a different message?

A careful analysis of Pike River gives us an opportunity to turn the mirror back on ourselves. Many of the organisational factors that played a role in this disaster are likely at play in our own organisations. n

Dr Sean Brady is the managing director of Brady Heywood and the author of the Brady Review into mining fatalities that was tabled in the Queensland Parliament in 2020. For more information, email: sbrady@bradyheywood. com.au, visit www.bradyheywood.com.au or lis ten to his newly released podcast ‘Simplifying Complexity’ at www.bradyheywood.com.au/ podcasts.

How health & safety partners for success at Endeavour Energy

Endeavour Energy is one of the three electricity distribution network service providers operating in NSW, Australia. Its network connects 2.6 million Australians and is the second-largest distribution network in Australia, with around 60,000km of underground and overhead cables across Sydney’s Greater West, the Blue Mountains, Southern Highlands, the Illawarra, and the South Coast. Endeavour Energy’s network is a key driver of the economic development, growth, and prosperity in its franchise area, one of the fastest-growing regions in Australia in terms of construction and development.

Over the past 12 months, Endeavour Energy’s health and safety team and its field operations leadership team have forged a new partnership to deliver a step change in safety outcomes for field workers. This new strategic partnership acknowledges that there is no silver bullet for safety improvement; instead that it takes a collective approach that is consistent, caring, and responsive to the needs of workers, according to Russell Munro, head of health & safety for Endeavour Energy.

The strategic partnership is characterised by responsiveness to safety data, insights, and quality time spent in the field. “This has ensured that business information is quickly turned into business intelligence,” said Munro, who added the introduction of human and

organisational performance principles into the approach has ensured that the approach is human-centric.

Every Tuesday, the health and safety team and the field operations leadership teams come together for a dedicated hour to debrief the previous week’s safety events, focus on good news, and set priorities for the coming week. This meeting is in addition to a regular meeting where safety is also a standing agenda item. “This gives the two teams an opportunity to align their priorities and to focus on safety issues or messages with crews as they move around the business the following week,” said Munro.

Additionally, every Friday, all operational leaders (100-plus) join a virtual meeting for one hour to discuss the important health and safety occurrences from the week and to share safety information. This chair of the meeting is rotated each week among the

participants, and Munro said this forum (known as the safety health check) is pitched at the operational part of the business as it carries the greatest material risk – but it is attended by various support personnel and includes the most senior leaders (including the general manager HSE and COO). “The forum ensures consistent and timely safety information is deployed across the business. The attendance at this forum is always strong, so while it is a significant investment by the company to pull in all operational leaders for an hour each week, it has become an important mechanism for safety messaging,” said Munro.

In conjunction with these forums, the field operations leadership team and the health and safety team partner on a rotating schedule to visit job locations throughout the franchise area to gather information about how work is being done and to ensure that safety messaging occurs in the field,

Endeavour Energy recently won the Large Enterprise: Health & Safety Leadership & Culture Award in the Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards for a successful partnership between its operations and health and safety teams

Payal Chandra, health & safety business partner; Ben Mason, manager health & wellbeing; Stephanie Bindah, health, safety & return to work business partner; Ally Orr, health & wellbeing business partner; Jamie Dunn, distribution manager; Sanja Milosavljevic, acting head of field operations; Russell Munro, head of health & safety

where the work happens. The schedule has not only increased the leadership presence in-field, but Munro said it has also ensured over 1000 individual fatal risk conversations occurred at work sites. This is in addition to over 1300 ad hoc safety conversations. “For an organisation of our size, this is a significant achievement,” said Munro.

During the year, the head of field operations and the head of health and safety travelled to every site to run faceto-face sessions with all operational work teams to talk about the value of hazard and near-miss reporting. This was part of demonstrating leaders’ commitment to safety outcomes, and each session talked to local examples that had been rectified through the hazard reporting process. “The sessions were incredibly successful and resulted in dramatic and sustained improvements in reporting and management of hazards in the workplace,” said Munro.

Lastly, there has been a concerted effort to improve return-to-work outcomes for injured employees. The return-to-work function was brought into the health and safety team under the direction of the health and wellbeing manager. “This is an important cultural piece to ensure workers feel genuine care from the organisation when they are injured. This means that for every injury, a health and safety return to work specialist is involved to ensure

employees receive early intervention and are supported physically and mentally throughout their recovery,” said Munro.

Successful outcomes

The success of the partnership has been measured through the demonstrable improvement in health and safety outcomes, including the dramatic increase in proactive reporting (hazards and near misses) and a corresponding reduction in injuries and potential fatality incidents. Proactive health and safety reports (hazards) increased by 27 per cent from 899 in financial year 2021 to 1150 in financial year 2022. “This improvement should not be understated given the restrictions with COVID-19 and the implementation of a new reporting system,” said Campbell.

In October 2021, the organisation’s incident reporting system was replaced with SAP EHS. This meant that all business users also had to learn new

“The sessions were incredibly successful and resulted in dramatic and sustained improvements in reporting and management of hazards in the workplace”

system processes to enter a hazard. Site visits focused on fatal risks over financial year 2022; over 1000 site visits were conducted. The purpose of these visits was to confirm that controls for Endeavour Energy’s top six fatal risks were in place and effective, according to Munro, who said this is a 51 per cent improvement on site leadership interactions around fatal risks on the previous year.

In addition, the Total Recordable Injury Rate has improved by 33 per cent from 8.5 in financial year 2021 to 5.7 at the end of financial year 2022.

“The improvements in injury rates are attributable to better knowledge sharing around common workplace hazards, management of known hazards and a significant focus on injury management, including early intervention,” said Munro.

High potential incidents (potential fatality incidents) decreased by 46 per cent, from 13 in financial year 2021 to seven in financial year 2022. Munro explained leaders across the business ensured that lessons learned were embedded across work groups. There was a conscious effort to ensure leadership site visits focussed on fatal risks.

Other qualitative measures have included participation in the safety health check (attended or viewed via a live recording by 100-plus personnel each week).

“The level of interaction and knowledge sharing by operations managers (work supervisors) has improved over the course of the year and continues to grow. The increase in active participation has been an indicator that demonstrates that our safety culture is strengthening,” said Munro.

The evolution of health and safety at Endeavour Energy Endeavour Energy is changing from a traditional ‘poles and wires’ business to a modern, sustainable, distributed system operator, Munro explained. The challenge for the health and safety and field operations leadership teams has been twofold: transformation, not just in the health and safety space, but as an organisation. Endeavour Energy restructured the health and safety team in 2021. Of the roles in the new structure, 75 per cent were filled with external candidates, meaning threequarters of the team have been with the organisation for 18 months or less.

“The new team faced a steep learning curve in not only understanding the business and its transformation journey, but in building meaningful relationships, all despite challenges presented by

COVID-19. This also coincided with ambitious sustainability targets and a changing energy market, which posed additional challenges to health and safety risks as workers faced new technology and work situations,” said Munro.

“Not only has the new health and safety team and the field operations team’s strong partnership risen to the challenge of rapid business change, including adapting quickly to meet new work requirements and risks such as the installation of ‘green’ equipment (for example community batteries), but they have also been able to deliver an indisputable improvement in safety outcomes. For such a new team, and in the throes of COVID-19, flood, and storm response, this is a remarkable achievement.”

Keys to partnership success

Alignment between the people leading the two teams was essential, Munro said. The head of field operations and the head of health and safety worked closely to ensure they provided time and resources to the two teams to collaborate. They also set an expectation that members of the teams actively participated. “This ensured diversity of thought and ultimately led to better quality outcomes. Importantly, it also set the scene to be a psychologically safe place for the two teams to have challenging conversations about risks and improvement ideas,” said Munro.

From the outset, Munro said the team

was aware that with any sustained change, it would take time to reap benefits. “The strategic partnership has been in place for 12 months, and it is clear that this way of working is now beginning to pay dividends, particularly through increased hazard reporting and a corresponding reduction in injuries,” said Munro.

Successful outcomes

The strategic partnership has been an important focus in regular industry discussions between Ausgrid and Essential Energy, which share information about improvements and new risks or learnings within the organisations. “This has included regular catchups to share success. We represent one-third of the distributed network service providers in NSW, and as such, a significant improvement in our company not only has a direct impact on the overall safety of the distributed network industry, but it helps us share evidence-based information and learning with other organisations,” said Munro.

The timeframes that were relevant to this initiative were regular (weekly) communication sessions with clear outcomes. For example, following an incident or after reviewing learning, the team could quickly mobilise the key information and distribute it across the business.

“Not everything that matters can be measured, and the culture of an organisation is one of these things. Culture is something that can only be felt. We know our culture is improving because we regularly get feedback from frontline workers about ‘how far we’ve come’ in safety in the last 12 months, and how ‘we’ve never received support from our leadership or safety department like this before’. The consistent improvement in the application of critical controls for fatal risks, without being prompted by leaders or safety team members is also evidence of the success. There has been no silver bullet, the operational and safety leaders have simply done the work. Consistently and genuinely showing up to display care and interest in the way work is done.”

n

“For every injury, a health and safety return to work specialist is involved to ensure employees receive early intervention and are supported physically and mentally throughout their recovery”

Behind the safe design of Lendlease’s Sydney Place Project

Lendlease Australia recently won the Large Enterprise: Health & Safety Excellence Award in the Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards for an innovative screen design that improved OHS with the construction of its Sydney Place Project

Lendlease is a listed property group specialising in project management and construction, real estate investment, and development. Its construction business is one the largest in Australia. It has been recognised for market-leading project management, design, and construction services for more than 60 years.

The company is currently working on constructing Salesforce Tower, a 263-metre premium-grade office building located within the Sydney Place precinct at Circular Quay.

The tower is the tallest office building in Sydney and delivers some of the most progressive workspaces in the country, according to project director, Steven McGillivray.

The unique design of the tower presented several structural design challenges, which resulted in the design form adopting structural steel as the main building skeleton in lieu of conventional formwork and concrete, said construction director, Fernando Casas, who explained the safe integration of steel, concrete, and fire retardant were required to form the typical tower cycle. “To be able to execute this safely, the challenge was developing a perimeter edge protection system that could fully encapsulate the entire structure works and minimise the fall of material risk. A system of this kind would be the largest ever used in the Australian market, and the product would need to compliment the structural steel and not require reliance on a concrete structure,” he said.

There were a number of important requirements to develop this solution. Firstly, a perimeter screen system would need to be developed to attach to the structural steel without disrupting the functionality or capacity, as the structural steel rigging works were the lead activity. The system also needed to avoid protruding onto the main floor plate to prevent disruption to the rigging ability to utilise the mobile elevated work platforms on the floor.

The screen system would also need to encapsulate the entire structure lift cycle of 7 levels or 27 metres, and the screens would need to climb in twolevel increments to match and maintain the structure cycles. The design of the screen would also need to be lightweight (including all componentry for ease of functionality).

The screens needed to adhere to Lendlease and Australian standards

for compliance with the load rating of access decks and platforms, while the system would need to be adaptive to enable cohesion between the main structure (in addition to plant equipment including tower cranes, hoists, and loading platforms). “This unique set of circumstances meant that to procure the required screen system that it would be the first of its kind in the market, resulting in a novel market-leading and innovative safety approach not yet seen before,” said Casas.

The protection system design brief

A design brief was established with a scope of works that outlined the requirements of the system solution. A comprehensive procurement approach was subsequently undertaken with highrise experts, locally and internationally. Stakeholders involved the health and

“Many high-rise commercial developments in Australia still rely on edge protection handrails and not full height perimeter screens”

safety team, including Lendlease subject matter experts in safety and temporary and permanent structures. Following this, a detailed analysis comparing each screen supplier’s proposal based on the established criteria was conducted. As part of this review process, the integrated structural team was consulted to gain feedback for each of the proposed systems.

Additionally, the formwork subcontractor market was engaged to understand how the system would contribute to the level of coverage around commercial, programme, safety, and workability implications. Lastly, a thirdparty engineering review was conducted against each screen proposal to validate the assumptions for each were accurate.

As a result of the detailed analysis, a final screen system proposal was adopted that:

• encapsulated the entire structure and associated works across several levels

(equating to 27 metres in height). No structure works would occur along the building perimeter without being within/behind the screen system

• maintained minimum edge protection standards

• eliminated risks associated with moving plant and trip hazards were eliminated by affixing onto the lead structural steel, which was side mounted onto the web of the beam

• responded with design compatibility with tower crane connections and hoists, providing a totally encapsulated system

• required only 2 connections every 2 levels over a 6-metre-wide span. The reduced number of connections, and the ability for the screen to climb in 2-level increments, would reduce the number of times climbing activity would have to occur

• allowed for a permanent horizontal 2.5kpa rated platform at every level junction

• connected through a system that allowed for the expected movement of the structure and tolerances of steel.

Prior to construction commencement, a full-size mock-up of the screen system was assembled by DOKA at their Sydney yard in July 2019.

“The mock-up of the system allowed for the trialling of the connection points, climbing operations and workability of the screen. This was a crucial final step to complete the review process and proceed with the approved system for use in construction,” said Casas.

Edge protection screen success

As a result of the gap in the market for this type of screen structure, Casas said this innovative solution has been a market-leading enhancement that will have flow-on effects for Lendlease’s wider business. “The simplicity of the design has enabled a reduction in the potential for human error by establishing identical components and the consistent application in their installation methodology,” Casas said.

In total, 56 levels of high-rise structure were completed with zero breaches or falls of materials through the perimeter screens. In comparison, for an operation of this scale without the system, Casas said it would have presented 55 opportunities for the introduction of hazards each time the screens are opened. “Many high-rise commercial developments in Australia still rely on edge protection handrails and not full height perimeter screens. The screens were prefabricated off site, established, climbed through 35 cycles; then dismantled without a single incident,” said Casas, who explained this came back to the robust design process of the screen system, which was the basis for the fabrication of the screens.

“By increasing the size of the screens and altering the method of attachment to the structure, this risk was halved. In addition, the edge fixing method has also eliminated obstructions such as trip hazards and provides a clean floor plate to work from, and the need to manually handle components during installation being decreased,” he said. n

“56 levels of high-rise structure were completed with zero breaches or fall of materials through the perimeter screens”

Psychosocial risk as a WHS issue in the spotlight

There is no silver bullet when it comes to managing psychosocial risks in the workplace. However, recent developments in the regulatory landscape reinforce that psychosocial risks should be managed like any other WHS risk. Apart from the increased likelihood of serious workplace injury, organisations will be left behind in the employment market if they fail to prioritise psychosocial safety.

In 2018, Marie Boland’s review of the model WHS laws identified a disproportionate focus on physical risks in legislation and codes of practice – at the expense of psychosocial risks. The review included recommendations to improve clarity and consistency in relation to the regulatory approach to psychosocial risks, many of which have now been implemented.

With new laws and obligations either in place or anticipated (depending on the jurisdiction), organisations now need to ensure psychosocial risks in the workplace are being eliminated or, if that is not possible, minimised as far as reasonably practicable.

Amendments to the model WHS laws

In June 2022, SafeWork Australia amended the model WHS Regulations. It clarified a person conducting a business or undertaking’s (PCBU’s) duties for managing psychosocial risks at work.

Psychosocial hazards and risks may be event-based, where they result from an event such as aggression, bullying, violence, or harassment. Alternatively, they may be cumulative and build up over time, such as stress or fatigue.1 Common psychosocial hazards include:

• low or high job demands,

• low job control,

• poor support,

• poor workplace relationships,

• low role clarity,

• poor organisational justice and change management,

• low recognition and reward,

• poor environmental conditions,

• remote and isolated work,

• exposure to traumatic events,

• violence or aggression,

• bullying, harassment, and sexual harassment and

• working patterns (e.g., on-call work, excessive hours etc).2

These hazards may cause work-related stress, which, particularly when prolonged, may lead to physical or psychological injury.

Various external and internal factors create or contribute to psychosocial hazards. For example, psychosocial risks can arise in the recruitment process, everyday operations, supply chain management, and organisational change management.3

The model Regulations provide that PCBUs must manage psychosocial risks in accordance with the standard risk management principles, except the hierarchy of control measures. It also prescribes that in deciding what control measures to implement, PCBUs must consider all relevant matters, including (among others) the duration, frequency, and severity of the exposure to psychosocial hazards, the design of work, and workplace interactions and behaviours.

Around the grounds: position across jurisdictions

The amendments to the model WHS Regulations do not automatically apply to all harmonised jurisdictions (all States and Territories except Victoria) – each must make an independent decision about whether to adopt the model.

NSW has adopted the amendments without change, effective from 1 October 2022.

Queensland has also adopted the amendments effective 1 April 2023 with one key difference – psychosocial risks must be managed in accordance with the standard WHS risk management principles, including the hierarchy of control measures. Although this is different to the model WHS Regulations, this is unlikely to significantly alter the way PCBUs address the risk practically, given that the overarching obligation is to eliminate the risk or, if that is not possible, minimise it so far as reasonably practicable.

The Western Australian government has committed to implementing the amendments following the release of the Enough is Enough report.4

Regulators are making it clear that organisations are now ‘on notice’ regarding what steps they should be taking to manage psychosocial risk (including sexual harassment) writes MinterEllison

The other harmonised jurisdictions are also expected to implement the model laws, although currently, there is no firm timeline.

In February 2022, the Victorian government released the OHS Amendment (Psychological Health) Regulations for

public consultation. The proposed amendments impose an obligation on employers to report psychosocial complaints to the regulator every six months, with non-compliance attracting heavy fines. Reportable psychosocial complaints include complaints about

aggression, violence, bullying, and sexual harassment. The public consultation revealed significant opposition to the requirement to report psychosocial complaints, which is likely to be amended or removed as a result. Currently, there is no indication that other jurisdictions are considering similar requirements.

Guidance material to help organisations manage psychosocial risks

In the lead-up to the recent legislative changes, Australian WHS regulators had been prolific in publishing resources and guidance materials concerning psychosocial risk. SafeWork NSW was the

“The challenges of identifying and managing psychosocial risks may be complicated by organisational reporting structures which can lead to limited information exchange and collaboration between HR and WHS teams”

Model WHS Law Amendment NSW QLD

Effective 6 June 2022

A psychosocial hazard is a hazard that arises from or relates to the design or management of work, or a work environment, or plant at a workplace, or workplace interactions or behaviours, and may cause psychological harm (whether or not it may also cause physical harm).

A psychosocial risk is a risk to the health or safety of a worker or other person arising from a psychosocial hazard.

A PCBU must manage psychosocial risks in accordance with Part 3.1 other than regulation 36 (the hierarchy of control measures).

In determining what control measures to implement, the PCBU must have regard to all relevant matters, including:

• duration, frequency, or severity of the exposure of workers and other persons to psychosocial hazards; and

• how the psychosocial hazards may interact or combine; and

• the design of work, including job demands and tasks; and

• the systems of work, including how work is managed, organised, and supported; and

• the design and layout, and environmental conditions, of the workplace, including the provision of—

• safe means of entering and exiting the workplace; and

• facilities for the welfare of workers; and

• the design and layout, and environmental conditions, of workers’ accommodation; and

• the plant, substances, and structures at the workplace; and

• workplace interactions or behaviours; and

• the information, training, instruction, and supervision provided to workers.

first to publish a Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work, and Workplace Health and Safety Queensland published the Managing the risk of psychosocial risks at work Code of Practice which is effective from 1 April 2023. Western Australian employers have a number of new codes of practice to follow, including industry-specific guidance for the fly-in fly-out workers. In other harmonised jurisdictions, the work health and safety regulator directs employers to the model Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work published by SafeWork Australia.

While Codes of Practice are generally not mandatory unless codified in the legislation, certain jurisdictions require compliance with a standard equal to or better than a code of practice (e.g., Queensland). Regulators refer to codes as evidence of what may be considered ‘reasonably practicable’ in the circumstances. They also serve as a useful road map for PCBUs.

In June 2021, the international standard on managing psychosocial risks at work (ISO45003) was published. While

Effective 1 Oct 2022

Effective 1 April 2023

Adopted Adopted

Adopted Adopted

Adopted

A person conducting a business or undertaking must manage psychosocial risks under part 3.1, including the hierarchy of control measures.

Adopted Adopted

ISO45003 is not binding, it is referenced by regulators when assessing what is reasonably practicable. Notably, ISO45003 states that in addition to incorporating psychosocial risks into existing WHS policies, organisations should consider a specific, standalone policy to manage psychosocial risks. While a standalone policy may be the ‘gold standard’ it is not strictly necessary if psychosocial risk is adequately dealt with in a WHS policy and not ‘buried’ in other more typical HR-style policies. The approach to whether a standalone policy is required may also vary according to the operations of the PCBU and the hazards and risks that arise.

The challenges of identifying and managing psychosocial risks may be complicated by organisational reporting structures, leading to limited information exchange and collaboration between HR and WHS teams. The regulatory guidance material makes it clear that in assessing psychosocial risks, organisations should consider information such as EAP data and trends, exit interview trends, grievances, customer complaints, workers’

compensation claims, and personal leave patterns that are traditionally confined to the realm of HR. To manage this risk effectively and to enable quality due diligence reporting to officers, it is critical that HR and WHS teams collaborate and share de-identified employee data and trends.

What is clear from all the guidance material is that consultation with workers is key to managing psychosocial risk. The regulators have made available an online People at Work Toolkit to assist with this. However, no one size fits all. A more tailored consultation process for your organisation is also acceptable, whether you engage directly via worker forums or online surveys.

Other relevant developments in the psychosocial space

Changes to the WHS laws concerning psychosocial risk have also been driven by the Australian Human Rights Commission Respect@Work Sexual Harassment National Inquiry Report. Following the release of the Respect@Work Report, SafeWork Australia has clarified that

sexual harassment is a WHS risk and published guidelines on preventing sexual harassment at work.

In implementing the recommendations of the Respect@Work Report, the Federal Government has introduced legislative changes to define sexual harassment as serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal, and introduced a new form of unlawful conduct in sex-based harassment and empower the Fair Work Commission to issue ‘stop sexual harassment’ orders.

Employers must be mindful of the recent and anticipated changes to WHS laws and the wider regulatory developments that further underscore the need to manage psychosocial risks proactively. This has included the Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Amendment (Respect at Work) Bill 2022, which introduces a range of measures to shift the focus to preventing sexual harassment, sex-based harassment, discrimination, victimisation, and hostile work environments. If the Bill is passed, PCBUs will face a positive duty to take reasonable and proportionate measures to eliminate those workplace behaviours, so far as reasonably practicable.

What should organisations do now?

Regulators are making it clear that organisations are now ‘on notice’ regarding what steps they should be taking to manage psychosocial risk, including sexual harassment. WHS regulators around the country have been engaging specialist psychological health officers to work with workplaces to support in addressing this risk. An increase in regulatory activity is already being seen.

While there is no ‘one size fits all’ approach, there are a number of important steps organisations can take to manage the risk regardless of the jurisdiction in which they are operating:

1. Treat psychosocial risks, including sexual harassment, like any other WHS risk. Psychosocial risks should form part of your risk register and be regularly risk assessed. Ensuring that you have an organisational-wide psychosocial risk assessment informed by consultation with your workers is key.

2. Review your existing WHS systems. Consider your existing WHS policy and whether it adequately addresses psychosocial risk. Also consider your other systems that help support and manage psychosocial risk, e.g., incident reporting and consultation mechanisms and the flow of informa

tion between HR and WHS teams.

3. Consult, consult, consult. Workers should be regularly consulted to help identify psychosocial risks and control measures. Pay attention to any changes over time or emerging themes.

4. Maintain up-to-date knowledge. Keep up-to-date knowledge of the legislation and the new regulatory guidance and map your systems to these to ensure alignment.

5. Ask questions about culture. Leader ship must drive cultural change from the top by modelling, encouraging, and enforcing respectful behaviour. Managers should be well-equipped to identify and manage issues and foster a culture where workers feel safe to speak up.

6. Be proactive. Look for any early warning signs that signal potentially more serious problems. This under scores the importance of appropriate ly capturing and reporting on psychosocial data in your organisa tion.

7. Officers must engage. Psychosocial risks should be reported to officers in a way that identifies any ‘hot spots’ or trends and officers must use an enquiring mind to test the data presented to them. This is critical to officers being able to meet their due diligence obligations.

8. Review your HR frameworks. Consider your complaints handling and other HR processes to ensure that they support your organisation in discharging its psychological safety obligations. For example, do you ensure support for both parties to a complaint, and favour informal and direct resolution of issues when suitable?

9. Think outside the box. Be creative in how you manage this issue; it is not just about implementing policies and procedures. Consultation with your workforce will be vital to getting ideas and making informed decisions.

10. Do not ‘set and forget’. Build risk management systems and processes that are fit for purpose within your organisation and ensure that these are regularly reviewed to ensure they remain effective.

Continuing to watch developments in this space and taking a proactive and flexible approach to managing psychoso cial risk makes good business sense and will be critical to the success of organisa tions going forward. n

Written by MinterEllison’s Deanna McMaster, Partner, Harriet Eager, Partner, Craig Boyle, Partner, Rhian O’Sullivan, Special Counsel, and Berta Nagy, Lawyer.

FOOTNOTES

1 Government of Western Australia, Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety, Code of Practice – Psychosocial hazards in the workplace (2022); Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, The changing legislative landscape of psychologi cal health and safety with Hayley Lewis (October 2021).

2 SafeWork Australia, Model Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work (July 2022); Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice (2022); SafeWork NSW, Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work (May 2021).

3 ISO45003:2021, Occupational health and safety management – Psychological health and safety at work – Guidelines for managing psychosocial risks; SafeWork NSW, Code of Practice on Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work (May 2021); Workplace Health and Safety Queensland, Managing the risk of psychosocial hazards at work Code of Practice (2022)

4 Government of Western Australia, Western Australian Government response to the Community Development and Justice Standing Committee Report 2: ‘Enough is Enough’ Sexual harassment against women in the FIFO mining industry (September 2022), page 14.

Celebrating 10 years of the OHS Bodyof Knowledge

OHS Body of Knowledge – now 10 years old – has proven to be an important milestone and

When the OHS Body of Knowledge was launched 10 years ago, it was a professional first in many ways. Managed by a technical committee chaired by the then Safety Institute of Australia (SIA) and three years in the making, the OHS Body of Knowledge was created with the input of 42 specialist authors and 31 peer reviewers from 15 universities, OHS professional bodies, and other organisations together with the financial support and guidance of WorkSafe Victoria.

The OHS Body of Knowledge also broke the ground for many other professions. When seeking definitions or frameworks for structuring the OHS Body of Knowledge, the technical committee found few examples or guidance for defining a profession’s collective knowledge, yet today, a quick Google search will uncover examples from many other professions around the world.

There were a number of important reasons behind the inception of the OHS Body of Knowledge. The research paper OHS Professional Education in Australia in 2004 and Beyond (authored by Pam Pryor, manager of the OHS Body of Knowledge, Pryor, 2004) was based on interviews and research from OHS course coordinators from nine universities in Australia. Importantly, the paper noted OHS was not a regulated profession in Australia, and there were no legislated educational or experience requirements for employment as an OHS advisor,

coordinator, manager, or consultant. Furthermore, the lack of a defined body of knowledge was identified as inhibiting OHS professional education, the quality of OHS advice, and recognition of the profession in a number of ways. In the long term, this could potentially impact the effectiveness of business operators and workers in terms of their capacity to manage OHS effectively. “In order to assess the quality of outcome, we need some measures against which to evaluate the output, such as an agreed body of technical knowledge, skills, and attributes of the person. We do not have such agreement in Australia” (Pryor, 2004).

The OHS Body of Knowledge also set out to address a couple of broader issues. As members of the profession, Pryor noted it is important that they have an understanding of where we have come from – and the OHS Body of Knowledge encapsulates the applied learnings that have formed the foundations of the profession over decades of research and practice.

With this recognition and need, the seed for the OHS Body of Knowledge was formally planted. Rod Maule, general manager of safety and wellbeing at Australia Post (and board member of the AIHS), was undertaking postgraduate studies at Ballarat/Federation University in 2008, where he recalls Pryor talking about the lack of a body of knowledge for OHS and how professions like medicine, engineering, law, accounting,

and teaching had, over many years and decades, all built up their own agreed bodies of knowledge for their profession which underpins their teaching, learning and application. “If we wanted to be a true profession, we needed to develop an agreed body of knowledge and use this to underpin the teaching of OHS, the practice of OHS and lifelong learning. From those early days the OHS Body of Knowledge progressed from a concept to an actual tangible and real thing that universities are now accredited to, courses can utilise and the profession can use,” said Maule.

Support from WorkSafe Victoria

In 2007, WorkSafe Victoria was conducting a strategic planning process and discovered a gap in the quality of advice being given to some workplaces. The regulator identified the need to engage with OHS professional bodies and OHS educators to address this problem and subsequently sponsored the formation of the Health and Safety Professionals Alliance (HaSPA), which included representation from the major Australian OHS professional bodies and the Victorian universities providing OHS education. Initially, the alliance was state-based within Victoria but quickly took on a national focus with representatives attending from the national policy body, Safe Work Australia.

A HaSPA sub-committee was convened in early 2008 under the auspices of the

The

contribution to the OHS profession globally, writes Craig Donaldson

SIA to explore how the core body of knowledge for the OHS generalist might be conceptualised and the required content, according to Pryor in her paper, Developing the core body of knowledge for the generalist OHS professional (Pryor, 2019, published in Safety Science)

The sub-committee held four workshops with invited participants, including a number of OHS educators, and these discussions resulted in a set of important statements to guide the development of the OHS Body of Knowledge.

In conceptualising the OHS Body of Knowledge, the technical panel initially used a ‘flower model’ to depict the multi-disciplinary nature of OHS, with the petals representing the various disciplines or domains of knowledge and the centre of the flower being the shared knowledge that the generalists draw on for their practice. While the shared knowledge is multi-disciplinary, the very centre depicts the ‘transdisciplinary’ knowledge owned by the generalist OHS professional.

As the conceptualisation of the OHS Body of Knowledge matured, the technical committee moved to a series of concepts as shown in the flow diagram, with the narrative being: “Work impacts on the safety and health of humans who work in organisations. Organisations are influenced by the socio-political context. Organisations may be considered a system which may contain hazards which must be under control to minimise risk. This can be achieved by understanding models of causation for safety and for health which will result in improvement in the safety and health of people at work. The OHS professional applies professional practice to influence the organisation to bring about this improvement.”

The early flower model of OHS knowledge

Disciplines or domains of knowlege

Shared knowlege Core knowlege

The OHS Body of Knowledge was structured around this series of concepts, with chapters representing the concepts and sub-concepts.

David Borys, a globally recognised OHS researcher and thought leader who has published some 25 research papers, was a member of the OHS Body of Knowledge technical committee and authored a number of chapters. He played a key role in developing the conceptual design of OHS Body of Knowledge and said there were some essential elements in its design.

“The OHS professional has to have all of this knowledge, but also to realise that there are connections between that knowledge, even if you’re not using all knowledge at the same time,” he said. “We’ve got the concept, we now need to share relationships between them from a knowledge perspective….’”.

Susanne Tepe was a member of the technical committee and explained, “it wasn’t until 2012 that David Borys drew a line diagram that hooked it all together – we finally got the concepts and could explain why any given concept was there and how it hooked together to show what we need to address now in and into the future.”

Arriving at this representation and explanation was a significant intellectual challenge for all involved. Pryor recollected that “it required members of the technical panel to be open to challenges and questioning of some of our long-held beliefs and to be prepared to view things from the perspective of others; often a frustrating and uncertain experience but one that, in the end, was extremely stimulating and exciting as we all had a passion for an outcome that was to be a milestone in the development

Source: Developing the core body of knowledge for the generalist OHS professional, Safety Science

of OHS professional

Pam Pryor (SIA) Clarke Martin (WorkSafe Victoria) Sue Pilkington (SIA) and Keith Brown (SIA)

The OHS Body of Knowledge launch. (Left) Sally Bennett (Enhanced Solutions), Mike Capra (SIA), Pam Pryor (SIA), Susanne Tepe (RMIT University), David Borys (University of Ballarat), Leo Ruschena (RMIT University). Absent Wendy Macdonald (Latrobe University), Jodi Oakman (Latrobe University).

Causation

impacts on

Safety Hazards

Work

Health

Humans

The Organisation

impacts on which is influenced by

of of working in which may be considered a which may contain which must be under to minimise by understanding models of by understanding models of

System Control Risk

The influence of OHS professionals practice

Causation Social-political context

Source: OHS Body of Knowledge synopsis.

of the OHS profession”. Tepe also highlighted personal and professional benefits of being part of the development of the OHS Body of Knowledge. “It was wonderful to meet the other important thinkers in that field. Otherwise, I wouldn’t know everybody that I do now; it was really wonderful to be able to have those intellectual conversations about how this will all work.”

Part of the issue and the ensuing discussion was that, at the time, there was not an agreed understanding that there was a generalist OHS professional, what that role meant and what the role constituted. The Global OHS Capability Framework developed by the International Network of Safety and Health Professional Organisations (INSHPO) has provided greater clarity around the generalist OHS professional role, and so, together with the OHS Body of Knowledge, there is now a clear definition of the role and scope of the generalist OHS professional.

Launching the OHS Body of Knowledge

The OHS Body of Knowledge was launched 10 years ago at the 2012 SIA (now AIHS) National Convention Gala Dinner. On its launch, it was defined as: “the collective knowledge that should be shared by Australian generalist OHS professionals to provide a sound basis for understanding the aetiology and control of work-related fatality, injury, disease, and ill-health. This knowledge can be described in terms of its key

concepts and language, its core theories and related empirical evidence, and the application of these to facilitate a safe and healthy workplace.”

Maule attended the launch, and he reflected on the significance of the event: “I was present at the official launch where Pam presented the OHS Body of Knowledge; it was a bit like Moses coming down from the mountain. There are a small number of printed editions of that early OHS Body of Knowledge, which are really symbolic. And, of course, the OHS Body of Knowledge is constantly evolving and updating, so a bound book was not the real intent – but a great symbol of where we had come to at that time,” he recalled.

Importantly, the OHS Body of Knowledge recognised that knowledge is not static. Rather it is subject to continual reinterpretation and evolution as people engage with it, apply it, and extend it by conducting research. “The importance of experience as a vital contributor to knowledge and its application was also recognised, so it should not be assumed that a program of formal education could address the whole of the Body of Knowledge required by generalist OHS professionals,” Pryor said in her paper, Developing the core body of knowledge for the generalist OHS professional.

Strengths of the OHS Body of Knowledge in practice

The OHS Body of Knowledge is an important event in the development of OHS as a profession in that it defines the

special knowledge and skills in a widely recognised body of learning derived from research, education, and training at a high level. “For me, the history of it goes back to that that central question: is OHS a profession?” Borys recalled. “And then moving from there to the notion that one of the hallmarks of a profession is a body of knowledge that you learn through extended time studying at university level.”

Leo Ruschena, a member of the OHS Body of Knowledge technical committee, a past board member of the Australian OHS Education Accreditation Board and retired senior lecturer in OHS at RMIT University, said that, over the years, he has seen that many OHS professionals “very rarely use cutting edge research in making decisions, because they can’t access it well. But now the information is available through the OHS Body of Knowledge which is a pointin-time update of the current thinking,” he said.

Ruschena explained the OHS Body of Knowledge is particularly helpful in terms of its conceptual framework and understanding of the issues generalist OHS professionals face. “It helps to think about emerging and future trends. It’s about where do we want to be and how do we get there (compared to where we are now),” he said. This was an observation echoed by Tepe. As the registrar of the Australian OHS Education Accreditation Board, Tepe oversees the process of accrediting universities against the OHS Body of Knowledge. “You have got to know the past to be able to move

into the future. So, we need to be able to describe what we do really, really well. And what the generalist OHS professional is good at (among many other things) is problem-solving. It’s about recognising the systemic problem-solving and all the various aspects that come together into a given problem. The ‘superpower’ of the OHS generalist is problem-solving because they have insider knowledge and knowledge of people who can help, both within the organisation as well as outside,” she said. But problem-solving requires a knowledge base, and the OHS Body of Knowledge provides that knowledge base.

Ruschena also acknowledged the core talent and knowledge requirements of generalist OHS professionals: “by virtue of them being inside an organisation, they not only know what’s inside the organisation and how to manage issues inside the organisation, but also how to bring in solutions from outside. They can bring in all these other experts on an as needs-basis. Unless you know how the organisation operates, what the behaviours of the organisation are and how people work inside that organisation, you can’t fix a problem. It’s also about understanding the hierarchy of problems, and which ones need to be solved today and which ones need working on now – otherwise, they’re going to be a real problem in two or five years’ time,” he said.

a handful of people that probably read every chapter at that time, and it was humbling to recognise this was one of the problems that I had as a lecturer. So, I was trying to shoehorn in more and more stuff into my courses, because each little pearl that I found, I felt was absolutely essential for people to know.”

Tepe agrees. She believes the OHS Body of Knowledge is “by far the best thing that ever happened to the OHS profession, because it is very much about the knowledge and the skills that are critical to the role of the generalist OHS professional as described by the INSHPO capability framework. This is certainly important to me in my role as the registrar right now. It’s pulling those two components together. I can see where we came from, and where we need to push it to the future,” she said.

A reflection on the first 10 years

areas that still need to be addressed, including broader promotion, awareness, and utilisation of the body of knowledge, she is proud of the work to date. She welcomes Dr Marilyn Hubner as the new manager of the OHS Body of Knowledge and feels comfortable that it will continue to develop and mature in her safe hands.

Maule paid tribute to Pryor, saying, “She has been the driving force behind the continued development and evolution of the OHS Body of Knowledge over many years, so the greatest challenge for the profession is to continue her work.

The appointment of a new OHS Body of Knowledge manager by the Australian Institute of Health & Safety is a major step in taking this forward and ensuring it lives on well into the future,” he said.

Ruschena said the process of contributing to the OHS Body of Knowledge was “a stupendous learning experience”. He explained: “I suddenly realised how little I knew about what I needed to know, to be bluntly honest. And I suspect that a lot of OHS people don’t really know what they need to know, to actually do a good job. They get on with what they do know, but I’m not sure that they understand what they need to know. I was one of

In reflecting on the first 10 years, Pryor said that there was a huge sense of achievement with the publication in 2012, with the next few years focused on ensuring the OHS Body of Knowledge was incorporated into the accreditation process for university-level OHS education programs. “We had an objective that no chapter would be more than five years old. However, due to resourcing issues we were not able to meet this objective, but six new chapters were added in this time. In 2019 we began a major review process with a new livery, new website, review of the chapters published in 2012 and addition of many new chapters. Since 2019 we have updated 29 chapters, replaced six chapters with new chapters and addressed 10 new topics. There are now more than 50 chapters to the OHS Body of Knowledge. This has only been made possible by the support and commitment of OHS researchers, academics, and professionals. Most of these people have given their time as part of their commitment to the profession. The whole OHS profession in Australia should be proud of this achievement. While it has Australian origins, the OHS Body of Knowledge is gaining reputation and interest internationally.”

The next ten years

In a personal reflection, Pryor said that her time managing the OHS Body of Knowledge, engaging with OHS researchers, academics, and professionals has been the most stimulating and satisfying element of her long career in health and safety. She said that while there have been some frustrations and

“We are blessed in Australia to have some of the best thinkers and researchers into safety in our country that continue to collaborate and share practices and research both locally and across the globe. The AIHS has a duty and obligation as the representative body of the OHS profession to continue to keep the OHS Body of Knowledge alive and evolving. As a board member of the AIHS I know my fellow board members see this as one of our obligations to ensure our custodianship of the OHS Body of Knowledge is a positive one.” n

Members of the OHS Body of Knowledge Technical Panel 20092012

Safety Institute of Australia Pam Pryor (chair) Professor Mike Capra University of Ballarat Dr David Borys Susan Leggett

LaTrobe University Associate Professor Wendy Macdonald Dr Jodi Oakman

RMIT University Associate Professor Susanne Tepe Leo Ruschena

REFERENCES

Pryor, P. (2004, April ). OHS professional education in Australia in 2004 and beyond. Paper presented at the IOSH conference: Growing professionally – Developing influence Harrogate, United Kingdom.

Pryor, P. (2019). Developing the core body of knowledge for the generalist OHS professional. Safety Science, 115, 19-27.

“We are blessed in Australia to have some of the best thinkers and researchers into safety in our country that continue to collaborate and share practices and research both locally and across the globe”

ANU Emeritus Professor Andrew Hopkins AO is a long-time Fellow of the Australian Institute of Health & Safety and a recent recipient of the highest award bestowed by the AIHS. His LinkedIn banner mod estly states that he is a “Retired academic. Author of books on safety”. However, he is certainly not retired when it comes to researching and publishing new books on safety. With Deanna Kemp, his 2021 book Credibility Crisis about devastat ing tailings dam failures was acclaimed by Peter Wilkinson in September 2021’s OHS Professional. Hopkins’s latest book, Sacrificing Safety, is argu ably the most important he has written because it encapsulates many of the key lessons from his other books on major accidents, risk, structure, culture, and bonuses.

Sacrificing Safety highlights the overwhelming priority given to production targets rather than safety and does so based on detailed evidence rather than ideology. The subtitle gener alises lessons Hopkins draws from his analysis of successive methane gas explosions in May 2020 at Anglo American’s Grosvenor underground coal mine in Queensland that seri ously burnt five miners. Lessons apply to CEOs of businesses, including coal mining and other high-risk industries, and their boards, managers, and govern ment regulators.

Hopkins was initially

Book review: Sacrificing

Safety: Lessons for Chief Executives

Book: Sacrificing Safety: Lessons for Chief Executives

Author: Andrew Hopkins

Publisher: CCH Australia

RRP: $34.95 (book), $32.95 (eBook) or $43.00 (both)

ISBN: 9781922509505 (book) and 9781922509673 (eBook)

appointed to be part of the official Board of Inquiry into the accident but stepped down after Anglo’s lawyers asserted that he had a conflict of interest based on his past books and some responses to an extended AIHS awardee interview that I con ducted prior to his appointment. Sadly, that led to the Board composition and Inquiry report focusing on technical and legal causality at the expense of more fundamental organisational factors and broader causality. Hopkins’s book addresses such shortcomings.

As with all of his books, Hopkins demonstrates an ability to privately wrestle with techni cal details and then cut through to summarise what is important without occasioning boredom or dumbing down. Readers unfa miliar with longwall coal mining and the hazards associated with methane/oxygen concentra tion, goafs and spontaneous combustion and their associated regulation have a primer within a book of just 78 carefully writ ten pages.

Hopkins states in his Preface that he has “become increas ingly frustrated by the failure of CEOs to understand their role in the prevention of major acci dents”. However, his objective is not to attribute blame or liability but to “highlight what CEOs need to do to reduce the risk of major accidents in hazardous industries”. The book’s main ar gument is that “time and again, production took precedence over the safe management

of catastrophic risk”. Senior managers believed their own rhetoric that there were no trade-offs and were incentiv ised to meet Anglo American’s so-called ‘burning ambition’ to double its cash flow between the beginning of 2020 and 2023. Anglo’s corporate structure ef fectively marginalised both tech nical experts and the best mine safety practice documented at headquarters at the expense of production and profit impera tives applied at individual mine sites. Risk analysis often meant commercial risk, not major ac cident safety risk.

no explosion had yet occurred. Incredibly, statutory reporting of such high potential inci dents (HPIs) was considered a compliance requirement with the mine’s ‘HPIs’ as reported to external management much nar rower. Hopkins argues persua sively that methane exceed ances reflect a failure of hazard management and controls and need to be incorporated into performance indicators that counter the pressure to prioritise production to maintain employment and earn bonuses.

For Hopkins, an organisation al structure in Anglo American is required to ensure that technical expertise is drawn upon in a dynamic coal mining hazard environment and inevitable trade-offs between production and safety are properly surfaced and not buried at levels far be low the CEO and Board. Hopkins notes that parallel problems and needed solutions have occurred with BP (Deepwater Horizon), Boeing (737 MAX), and Vale (Brumadinho Brazilian tailings dam disaster).

Hopkins writes that Anglo’s lawyers, managers and even Queensland regulators argued that the history of methane gas ‘exceedances’ at the mine towards a dangerous explosive range prior to the accident should be discounted because

The book could and should be read by CEOs with operations posing potentially catastrophic risks if they truly wish to man age controls and minimise the risk of major accidents to as low as reasonably practicable. It is an excellent book with broad application. n

Reviewed by: Kym Bills, FAIHS, Visiting Research Fellow, University of Adelaide & AIHS Branch Chair SA

“The book could and should be read by CEOs with operations posing potential catastrophic risk if they truly wish to manage controls and minimise the risk of major accidents”

H

T O S

N

T he Aust r alian Inst it ut e of Healt h & S af et y is Aust r alia’s pr of essional associat ion f or t he healt h and saf et y pr of ession