FEATURE PROCESS SAFETY
How better health and safety systems can lower fines
W
hile prioritising health and safety is a moral obligation for any organisation,
the business impact of getting health and safety wrong cannot be ignored and new sentencing guidelines for health and safety introduced in February 2016 have resulted in longer prison sentences and larger fines for those who fall foul of the law. The sentencing guidelines suggest fines
should be substantial enough to have an economic impact that will get management and shareholders to take notice. Since their introduction the average fine per conviction for a health and safety offence in the construction sector has risen from a pre-guideline average of £57,735, to £107,000 in 2018/19. There has also been an unexpected rise in the size of fines imposed on small businesses which has almost doubled to £126,000. It is also important to note that it is now the risk of harm that is recognised as the offence and increasingly large fines are being handed down without any actual harm taking place. There is much businesses can do to lower
their culpability and ensure that in the event of an incident they never face fines of these figures but first it is useful to understand how fines are decided.
LEVELS OF CULPABILITY The starting point for fines is based on a number of factors including a company’s size and its level of culpability which ranges from Very High to Low. For a large company accused of a serious offence with Very High culpability this means a fine could begin at £4,000,000
18 AUTUMN 2020 | INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE
Since the introduction of the new sentencing guidelines, penalties for breaching health & safety law have got tougher. Having the appropriate processes in place can help to miti- gate the risks, says CHAS managing director, Ian McKinnon.
whereas this would start at £300,000 in the case of Low culpability. Likewise for a micro business with High Culpability a fine could start at £250,000 whereas Low Culpability would result in a starting point of £30,000. Very High culpability includes deliberate
breach of or flagrant disregard for the law while factors that lower culpability include a good health and safety record and having effective health and safety procedures in place. The right health and safety processes vary depending on the size and nature of an organisation. A food reference point is HSE’s guide on managing for health and safety (HSG 65) which provides a clear process-based approach to risk management. For larger companies following ISO 45001 or other similar management standards may be appropriate as they can help provide a structured framework for managing health and safety. However low risk organisations can often demonstrate effective risk management without a formal management system. In these cases a simpler and less bureaucratic approach may be more
appropriate such as that outlined in HSE’s guidance on health and safety made simple.
ENSURING A CONSISTENT APPROACH Whichever approach is deemed appropriate a major challenge in achieving a consistent approach to health and safety is ensuring that standards are upheld throughout the supply chain which requires sound contractor and sub contractor management. Anyone engaging contractors has health and safety responsibilities, both for the contractors and anyone else that could be affected by their activities. Therefore a contractor assessment process needs to be in place.
HOW CAN SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT SERVICES HELP? Companies can carry out contractor assessment themselves but constantly changing rules and regulations can make this approach complicated and costly. This is where third- party accreditation comes in. CHAS (The Supply Chain Risk Management Experts), for example,
/ INDUSTRIALCOMPLIANCE
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
