Environmental Safety - Assignment Example

?Topic: Environmental safety Environment safety refers to safety of employees at the workplace. The UK government has taken legislative steps for safety at workplace and implementation of dependable risk management processes to cover the risks from sudden accidents and such eventualities. The government maps all possible and emerging risks to the country and its people through the National Risk Assessment. With the help of the National Risk Register (NRR), the latest 2010 edition, it manifests the updated add-ons of the National Risk Assessment. The purpose of both these entities is to measure the harmful impact of such mishaps resulting from accidents causing loss of property, blocking supply of essential services and causing interruption in the routine working. The UK government offers suggestions to business organisations for risk verification and assessment so that any impending accident may not come in the functioning and performance of such business by initiating emergency planning and business continuity management processes through the National Risk Register for reducing the impact of such loss (Cabinet Office 2010). The Scottish Parliament has passed an Act in 2007, named the Right of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007, reserving the right to damages in case the affliction is caused by Mesothelioma as per the amendment of Section 1 of the Damages (Scotland) Act 1976 including subsection (2) and (3). The subsection (2) inserts an except to the ruling that damages need not be paid to the relative if the deceased has relieved the accused from the responsibility of paying damages to the relative before the death of the diseased. The subsection (2b) becomes applicable if the injury or death is caused due to Mesothelioma. The damage payment is conditioned to occurring the liability and death on, before or after the date with the coming into force under Section 1 of the Right of Relatives to Damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007 (Legislation 2007). The above figure indicates that deaths due to the asbestos-related cancer mesothelioma are rising on a yearly basis. In the year 2008, out of 2249 mesothelioma deaths, 1865 were men and as per the rate of yearly increase, it is forecasted to cross the figure of 2000 by the year 2016 (HSE 2010). Considering the data pertaining to Scotland regarding ill-health, injuries and enforcement in the previous 12 months, self-reported ill-health reporting rate was 3700 out of 100 000 for 2009-10. The reportable injury rate was 880 workers in 2008-09 while fatal injuries in 2009-10 numbered 23. On the other hand, major injuries to workers counted 2548 in 2009-10. Considering the offences prosecuted in Scotland by HSE in 2009-10, they were 93 in number while local authorities carried prosecution on 7 reports (HSE 2010, 14). Further, if we consider rate of self-reported work-related illness and reportable non-fatal injury in manufacturing and other sectors, data is not sufficient to depend upon regarding ill-health and injury for the latest period but for illness it is below 2000 per 100 000 on an average while injury reporting has been below 1000, as per the Labour Force Survey (HSE 2010, 17). Although workplace fatalities are reducing but such accidents are happening in “low risk” industries such as retail, hospitality and financial companies to the extent that they have become a challenge for the employers; they have to face government questioning. Media also follows such accidents arduously. The near and dear ones of the affected employee feel the loss the most. An employer has to face all these ordeals erupting from the catastrophe. Therefore, it is the foremost responsibility of the employer to get ready to know beforehand the emerging workplace tragedies before they happen. No employer can totally succeed in controlling such mishaps but must be ready with an emergency plan at the shortest notice (Foulke 2009). Whenever such a fatal accident at a workplace occurs, first priority is to deal with the emergency situation by arranging medical care of the injured employees, rest of the needs come afterwards such as calling the police and the fire brigade. Employers should take minimum time in such transfer of information. Family members of the victims need to be handled carefully by being provided exact information regarding the severity of the situation. Informing the casualty to the family members of the victims is a serious function that should be delegated to the “notification team” of delivering the shocking message at the earliest in person by the team members that include a member of the employer’s operations management team, a member of the human resource and the EAP counsellor. Internal investigation of the mishap should start soon after by delegating responsibility to the team for conducting investigation into the causes without speculation, gathering proof of the fatality and identification of witnesses and preserving all documentary records intact. Without proper planning, it becomes difficult for the employer to handle all the stakeholders of the emerged crisis. Planning can save the situation from worsening (Foulke 2009). On its part the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) has stressed on the need of engrossing the workforce for implementation of health and safety system. There has been a tendency among employers not to involve and follow the recommendations of the workforce on safety measures. Workforce also shies on taking responsibilities regarding health and safety. Therefore, the significance of the new approach becomes greater of involving the staff on health and safety issues at workplace. In this regard, the achievements of Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are worth enumerating like providing practical guidance to the employers of involving workers in the safety management, providing online help to the safety associates, including workers’ reviews into HSE corporate initiatives like Better Backs 2006 initiative (HSE 2007). The HSC aims to focus on four major areas such as reenergizing the support provided to workers, providing latest feedback, making the given feedback simple through examples and analysed case studies. It strives to ensure that HSE supervisors and Local Authority Enforcement people encourage suggestions and workers’ involvement during their meetings with different industry representatives (HSE 2007). Academic aspect of employees’ attitude towards safety is equally crucial, which has been vastly researched by Cheyne et al. (2002), particularly in manufacturing sector. They have tested the relationships between parts of organisational safety environment covering employee responses to company and personal safety problems; their outlook on physical work culture and workplace risks, linking them to self-reported standards of safety function. By collecting relevant data through a questionnaire, a total of 708 genuine responses were received for analysis purpose. Results of the analysis were similar to previous research findings. By comparing two manufacturing organisations, attitudes of workforce were not similar of both the organisations in the context of personal responsibility and involvement besides the parameters of safety functions and inferred levels of workplace risks (Cheyne et al. 2002). The results have helped in the creation of general models of attitude to safety for changed safety environment at workplace. Results of the modeling on the attitude of employees on safety parameters provide a clue of sector-wide safety environment that is encouraging similar safety cultures because of similar technologies (Cheyne et al. 2002). It has been noticed that different plants of the same organisations have similar factor mechanism but with varied relationships among those factors. We can say that there exists a common cultural body with varied relationships among factors (Cheyne et al. 2002). Taking the example of an automobile manufacturing plant, three factors were found crucial for the safety climate. One was managers’ attitude towards workers’ safety, second was an altercation on giving preference to production over safety, which has been widely noticed in the UK manufacturing sector. Workers’ attitude towards safety and issue between production and safety greatly impact safety concerns. Unfriendly work climate among the factors can cause accidents and promote unsafe actions and functions (Clarke 2004). Actually, each organisation should formulate its safety management system (SMS) for health and safety of its workforce relevant with both HSE publication HS (G) 65 [1] and the British Standard guide to health and safety systems. The SMS framework should be relevant with quality standards such as “cycle of continuous improvement” and global ISO standards such as ISO 9000 and ISO14000 although such standards have their drawbacks identified in occupational safety and health. Employers should develop a specific strategy for a period ranging from one to five years for deciding on workable SMS needs for successful implementation of health and safety measures through proper strategy and SMS. A written policy document should outline its aims, responsibilities and settings. Time for achieving a balance in targets should be actual time, for example, a strategy based on technology can be implemented at once while bringing improvement in safety culture can take indefinite time. Thus, systematic management of a safety strategy should be an integral part of the safety management covering policy formulation, aims, strategy, planning, resourcing, risk measurement and supervising, which is inherent in the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992 (Waring 1996). On its part, the HSE has identified five steps for risk assessment by first of all finding the risk; secondly, who could become a victim of the risk and how; thirdly, map the risks and find what preventive measures can be taken; fourthly, list your results and apply them. Finally, check your assessments and revise the findings once again to locate any intervention (HSE 2006). From organisations’ perspective, it is very crucial that the business functions don’t stop abruptly causing losses. The Business Continuity Management (BCM) is yet another initiative of the government to help business in survival after the severe causalities of the workforce. For that organisations need to follow the BS25999 code of practice for guidance and suggestions. By following the BCM, organisations can be prepared to face the new challenges. Interesting thing is that BCM is not a costly process; leaving initial costs aside it compensates by providing proof of its benefits thus, creating confidence among stakeholders. Whether it is loss of staff or loss of facility, loss of services and telecommunication network in an emergency, BCM can save the situation from worsening by providing guidance through the government website (NRR 2010). There is another aspect of the issues pertaining to safety of workers at the workplace, viewing the pending cases in the courts as Lord Young relates it to a ‘compensation culture’. The deceased and injured workers’ claims are going beyond proportions for even small injuries, as reported by the media. Lord Young blames it on amending laws, permitting the concept of ‘no win, no fee’ arrangement with lawyers, leading to unwanted propaganda of such claims on the media. Victims are given the wrong lead that they could earn huge compensation through litigation. Amidst the ambiguous environment, health and safety consultants try in the direction of leaving no stone unturned to remove all hurdles in the implementation of regulations and not taking a balanced approach towards maintenance of health and safety standards at workplaces. Insurance companies have further worsened the situation by demanding third party consultants for health and safety risk assessments before providing accident insurance cover to small and medium companies. It induces companies to opt for such policies that reduce the risk levels arising from liabilities put on them by the related laws (IIRSM 2010). Genuine claims and compensation should be awarded as per the tenet of the law but breeding the notion that only financial compensation can absolve all liabilities for injuries has made the issue of compensation a cash cow to be milked by lawyers and related agencies. Compensation should be just and balanced and fast against the actual loss, depending on the respective situation when the casualty occurred. The recommendations made by Lord Young are aimed to reduce red tape in the government machinery and allay the doubts of exaggerated claims and legal fees irrespective of the seriousness of the injury (IIRSM 2010). In this context, it is worth mentioning some of the common causes of personal injury at the workplace in the manufacturing industry, which are related to asbestos. Huge claims are awarded to the sufferers, as a 66 year old machinist who suffered from mesothelioma from the fibres of asbestos supplied to the U.S. Navy, was awarded a verdict of $16,925,000 (Personal Injury Verdict Reviews 2009). In another case, the employer of the asbestos manufacturing company was found guilty of not providing safer working environment which caused respiratory dysfunction to an employee, a 67-years old pipe-fitter, complaining of mesothelioma. The company was found lacking in providing safety measures to the employees from the dust coming from the insulation of asbestos linked to its fibre that causes such health-related problems (Personal Injury Verdict Reviews 2007). Incidentally, the Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) has found drawbacks in the report by Lord Young, ‘Common Sense, common safety’. There is general agreement over the need to rein in the ‘damaging compensation culture’ but it should not reflect on actual health and safety issues. Any compromise with standards for applying simple solutions can be detrimental to the health and safety of the workforce. It carries the risk of putting at stake both the public health and the country’s economy (IOSH 2010). Some accidents could have been avoided had the management taken simple precautionary measures such as in the case of machine death, which was “easily avoidable” at the manufacturing unit of Glossop Carton and Print Ltd in Padfield, Derbyshire. Mr. Hall, the 50-years old worker was working in the delivery side of the machine when it was turned on by the operator on 8th September 2006, killing the man in one go. The HSE inspector Eddy Tarn reported that a very simple precautionary measure of planning the maintenance work by disconnecting the electricity supply before starting repair work could have saved Mr. Hall’s life. It was a breach of s 2(1) and s 3(1) of the HSWA 1974 wherein the court imposed a fine of ?50,000 to the company, Glossop Carton and Print Ltd. (shponline 5 Jan. 2011) Negligence and carelessness on the part of employers can not be permitted but at the same time there is need to control the climate moving in the wrong direction letting unscrupulous elements cash on from the ‘no win, no fee’ arrangement with lawyers and the role of insurance companies but at the same time there is need to put under control the damaging compensation culture. Employers should actively involve with the government initiatives for planning and strategising a safety policy that reduces the workplace risk under the guidance of the local and national governments. References Cabinet Office, 2010. Risk assessment. UK Resilience. Available from: http://interim.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ukresilience/preparedness/risk.aspx [Accessed 5 January 2011). Cheyne, A., Oliver, A., Tomas, J.M., Cox, S., 2002. The architecture of employee attitudes to safety in the manufacturing sector. Personal Review 31 (6). Available from: http://www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed 5 January 2011). Foulke, Edwin G., 2009. Catastrophic workplace accidents: it could happen to you. Manufacturing.Net. Available from: http://www.manufacturing.net/Articles-Catastrophic-Workplace-Accidents-It-Could-Happen-To-You-080709.aspx [Accessed 7 January 2011]. HSE, 2006. Health and Safety Executive Five steps to risk assessment. Health and Safety Executive. Available from: www.hse.gov.uk/ [Accessed 5 January 2011). HSE, 2007. Health and Safety Commission endorses new approach to worker involvement. Health and Safety Commission. Available from: http://www.hse.gov.uk/press/2007/c07002.htm [Accessed 7 January 2011]. HSE, 2010. The Health and Safety Executive Statistics 2009/10. Health and Safety Executive. Available from: www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh0910.pdf [Accessed 7 January 2011]. IIRSM, 2010. Foreword by Lord Young. Available from: http://www.iirsm.org/Resources/IIRSM/Documents/PDF/Lord%20Young%20Review.pdf [Accessed 7 January 2011]. IOSH, 2010. Getting the balance right: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health response to the Young Report, ‘Common sense, common safety’. IOSH. Available from: www.iosh.co.uk/ [Accessed 5 January 2011). Legislation, 2007. Rights of relatives to damages (Mesothelioma) (Scotland) Act 2007. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2007/18/section/1 [Accessed 5 January 2011]. Legislation, 2009. Damages (Asbestos-related conditions) (Scotland) Act 2009. Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2009/4/introduction [Accessed 5 January 2011]. Personal Injury Verdict Reviews 2007. Employer negligence: utility company defense verdict: mesothelioma. 15 (22). Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com [Accessed 5 January 2011]. Personal Injury Verdict Reviews 2009. Products liability: asbestos $16,925,000 Verdict: Mesothelioma. 17 (6). Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com [Accessed 5 January 2011]. Sharon, Clarke., 2006. Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant. Personnel Review, 35 (4). Available from: www.emeraldinsight.com [Accessed 5 January 2011]. Shponline, 2011. Machine death was “easily avoidable”, says inspector. Available from: http://www.shponline.co.uk/incourt-content/full/machine-death-was-easily-avoidable-says-inspector [Accessed 7 January 2011]. Waring, Alan., 1996. Corporate health and safety strategy. Facilities, 14 (3/4). Available from: http://www.lexisnexis.com [Accessed 5 January 2011]. Read More