Anne Davies revisits corporate manslaughter & HS(G) 65

26 September 2014

Group photo

On 25 September we welcomed Anne Davies back to our branch network evening, after some good food and networking discussions, Anne presented to us on the new revised UK HSG65 Model and went over each step of the PLAN-DO-CHECK-ACT cycle and how this process is now in the Managing Health and Safety - HSG65 document. The guidance explains the Plan, Do, Check, Act approach and shows how it can help you achieve a balance between the systems and behavioural aspects of management. It also treats health and safety management as an integral part of good management generally, rather than as a stand-alone system.

Some of us are used to this model with regards QA systems – the benefit of including such a structure into the safety management system can be using common terminology within the company board room whereby the senior management will understand and buy in to the system. The presentation was then followed by a review of case studies from actions taken on corporations and company Directors with regards ‘Corporate Manslaughter’ with in the UK framework. The evening was very informative and generated some good questions with regards safety management systems and implementation in Singapore, and several questions regarding the Corporate Manslaughter act – but one question that left us all considering which was in the overall time frame of safety culture development, UK is well ahead of Singapore. In UK there has been some major disasters in various industries such as Piper Alpha, Herald of Ferry Enterprise and more recent ones.

With the more recent implementation of the corporate manslaughter Act has there been a mind-set change on how safety is now considered in the board room? If the act had been implemented much earlier could it have had an effect within the senior management which may have prevented such earlier disasters and accidents, with finally linking to Singapore which in comparison of time frame development the safety culture and regulations are still  young and developing; would implementing such an act here ‘now’ have a more broader effect of boardroom safety management considerations rather than waiting until the culture is more mature as in UK and then consider implementing such an act? What would be the benefits or the negativities – for which a good debated started. As the night came to a close we all went home with new information for safety management design and implementation and consideration of how can we as safety professionals take the safety message effectively to the board room and achieve 100% buy in to safer worksite operations from the top.