I couldn't agree more staff are generally far more interested in the actions of the business to keep them safe not the certificates on the wall. As a large generalization, staff are not interested in the "safety system" i.e the paperwork used onsite, they are far more interested in the safety attitude of the company.

Within our organization we primarily focus on one thing more than anything else; discuss, listen & engage with all staff about the day to day details of delivery on site. This approach contributes directly to staff and has real meaning for them versus a conversation going something like this "this is our company x compliant system so you will be safe". Your delivery people are looking for genuine face to face understanding from competent skilled risk managers who know what they do and how they do it. They will never be excited by an external certificate if they do not genuinely believe that their safety is the first focus of the business.

I think my response would be that our work (and his part in that), helps to ensure that he keeps all his fingers on his hands, and brains in his head, and his back in good working order, so that he can get on and build. Keep the answer as simple as the honest and excellent question.

My response would be that she or he needs to think about how they meet the objectives of their client, other workers and the law. There might be a way that meets them all.
Example: running up and down, and moving a ladder might be tiring and inefficient. Using tower scaffolding might be less tiring and more efficient.
Think safe system of work in section 36(3).

What a great question.
I have had this question raised to be by the truck, loader, digger operators, and Bridge Gang Teams.
My usual comment is, if we don't achieve the H&S Accreditation if may cost all within the business our next contract.
We need to be viewed to be walking the talk. This has to be at all levels of the business.
In my view, this can be discussed at the Safety Brief / Toolbox Talk, but keep it simple, for all walks of life to understand why we have to achieve accreditation.
My first discussion on the forum. Have been viewing all discussions, which is helping me with my professional development.
Thanks all.

Theres a distinction between the worker caring and the employee caring. So I am reminded of Maslow and how we package the message

We can see "accreditation" ticks a few boxes.

In the old days, the assumption was made that written documents constituted 'proof'. A signed document was evidence that someone had given their word. This the auditor's mantra was born: "If it's not written down, it didn't happen.' In different times, where one's honour was more highly valued, few would have taken into consideration the potential for documents to be forged.

After years and years and years of this practice, few have questioned its validity, despite the temptations and many known examples of documents being forged, or so many signatures being required that the intended meaning behind putting one's signature to something is often lost.

In addition, the written documents and signatures provided a means of concrete communication in hierarchical organisations that relied largely on their chain of command to communicate amongst the ranks.

In the digital age, most management systems have just automatically carried their hard copy systems over to a digital version, without giving much thought to effectiveness, efficiency, validity, etc. Those old habits are really hard to give up.

In addition, when the key focus becomes accreditation rather than effectiveness and reliability, many organisations (and unfortunately too many so-called consultants) rely too heavily on an accreditation standard, using it as a template - which it is not designed to be, often resulting in ill-fitting solutions - instead of as a checklist, which should prompt the organisation to carefully consider what it needs and how best to provide it for their particular circumstances.

Strictly parroting an accreditation framework or standard is a lazy approach that gives a false sense of assurance and often creates unneccessary bureaucracy, inefficiencies as well as a lot of frustration and friction. Casting the organisation's management system rigidly in terms of the standard may make it easy for the auditor, but it often does not serve the organisation itself as well as it might.

I like to say, "The auditor doesn't live here, but YOU do!" You can always create a navigation resource for the auditor and still develop and implement appropriately compliane systems that best serve your organisation - you just have to understand the purpose of each requirement and do some consulting and consideration for your own organisation to achieve systems that work. And then the documents should capture what you actually do at work - ie get the processes sorted out, then document them. The documents are not the star of the show - the actual ways you do the work is what matters.

There is work to be done..... we could do this so much more effectively and efficiently.

OK - I will hop down from my soapbox now. :-)

I'm good to stand with you on this soapbox Sheri.

""If it's not written down, it didn't happen.'". That is an excellent mantra and one I live with constantly. Its not just for Auditors

The trick is not to use it as a job creation exercise - its something you use sparingly and only for those "risky" exercises where a paper trail ends up invaluable.

I agree there is a place for records - a very important one, but only worth the integrity of the processes they represent. Paper alone achieves very little, but smart paper trails can be invaluable.

I accept what you say as a mantra Andrew. However, as a qualified OHS auditor, I would expect all auditors to have the integrity and knowledge to look way past the paperwork "as planned" and seek to confirm actual processes "as done" through observations and interviews. Paperwork can easily create an illusion of safety.

That is an excellent mantra and one I live with constantly. Its not just for Auditors

The trick is not to use it as a job creation exercise - its something you use sparingly and only for those "risky" exercises where a paper trail ends up invaluable. — Andrew

To me technically it is only invaluable if you need to defend yourself, it is the most effective way to communicate (either due to communicating over distance, time or to allow reflection and comment) or if it can be used to build up ontop of to create a safer system of work (i.e. standing on the shoulders of giants)... unfortunately it is usually just the first point to create a paper trail that most seem to focus solely on.

I also find it interesting that a lot of the comments of what to tell workers revolve around "we need it to get work" instead of it being in place to help you do your jobs as easily and efficiently as possible... I suppose companies who focus on improving business practices (safety or otherwise) rather than compliance tend to have less employees asking "why should we bother with this accreditation which we don't see adding value to our actual work?"

Exactly - an intelligently designed management system should have documentation that makes sense and is easy to follow. In general, too many systems are implemented with insufficient rigour around the purpose behind it and not enough critical thinking about what makes sense and what actually delivers on the intention and purpose. It's also very important to clearly distinguish between what information might be 'nice to have' compared with what is USEFUL to have. For example, I have seen many examples in the past of forms that required a whole lot of detailed information that I was 99% sure no one would ever look at or use, but that had been put into the form because so many other forms asked the same questions. I used to have to reply to all the ISO approved supplier questionnaires in one of my past roles, and I could see that most of the questionnaires asked about 85% of the same questions in one form or another, even though a lot of that information and the form itself was very likely to be filed somewhere and only pulled out at audit time - such a farce! I suggested writing an FAQs type of document that we could attach to the form and return it, but the Managing Director was not comfortable doing that. Such a waste of my time and efforts!!