29
conditions had either stayed the same or improved with regard to risk management on their work sites.
However, without baseline information, and given differences in the characteristics of inspected and not inspected premises, it is difficult to state with confidence the extent that MGS3 was responsible for these changes.
Examples
A range of examples were given by dutyholders of practical changes they had made on site. Some examples of the most visible/common changes, provided during site visits, were:
• The introduction of demarcation lines for segregating vehicle and pedestrian movement or better use of signage.
• Changes to site layout (particularly on smaller sites). • Better management of visiting drivers (eg the introduction of rules preventing drivers from becoming involved in loading and unloading).
• Improved communication with workers.
Employers were asked to consider what the ‘added value’ of their involvement in MGS3 was, over and above what would have happened without it, and over half (54 per cent) felt that they had made changes more quickly than they would have done normally, and one-fifth (20 per cent) had introduced additional changes. However, just over one-fifth (22 per cent) felt that they would have taken the same action even without MGS3.
Company name Health & Safety Executive
Address Grove House Skerton Road Old Trafford Manchester M16 0RB
Conclusions
Most employers had made a change in their approach to risk management in at least one of these three areas, although most employers felt that their visit had speeded up rather than instigated change.
There was no evidence that accident and ill-health rates had been affected by these changes within the evaluation period. There was effective joint working between LA and HSE inspectors, and those involved felt well prepared and briefed on the intervention.
Which parts of the MGS3 campaign worked well? Employers responded well to the service. However, the way in which employers were targeted for inspection meant that employers with better existing standards were more likely to have been involved.
The potential for MGS3 to further improve standards may therefore have been limited by a ‘ceiling effect’, and many employers felt that the inspections acted to confirm that they were already doing the right thing. LA inspections, however, appear to have resulted in a greater proportion of smaller employers being targeted, based on their local knowledge of employers.
Contact details Tel: 0161 952 8200 Web:
www.hse.gov.uk
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84