International Safety Awards 2021 - Chief Adjudicator's Report - British Safety Council
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
International Safety Awards 2021
Chief Adjudicator’s Report
© British Safety Council 2021 0
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalBritish Safety Council
International Safety Awards 2021
Chief Adjudicator’s Report
Results
A total of 532 applications were received for the International Safety Awards in 2021 and 73% of these
successfully achieved a Pass grade or higher.
The grading distribution among the applications in 2021 was as follows.
Distinction 85 (16%)
Merit 155 (28%)
Pass 147 (29%)
Fail 145 (27%)
There was no quota of grades to be awarded. Nor will there be in future years. If every applicant meets
the required standard every applicant is awarded a Pass / Merit / Distinction accordingly.
The International Safety Awards have a key part to play in driving continual improvement in the
management of workplace health, safety and wellbeing. The Chief Adjudicator’s Report is intended to
assist organisations in identifying what high performing organisations are doing each day to effectively
manage the risk of injury and ill-health and to emulate their success.
COVID-19
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected organisations of all sizes and sectors across the globe. Many
applicant organisations identified COVID-19 as one of the most significant issues they were facing in
the challenge to keep their workers healthy and safe. It was both impressive and re-assuring to learn of
measures that organisations had put in place to reduce the risk of COVID-19 infecting their workers and
to ensure that their respective businesses could continue to operate.
Inevitably the pandemic has added to the workloads of health and safety managers and those involved
directly in the management of the risks to workplace health and safety. This year, by exception, we
extended the deadline for the submission of applications by two weeks recognising the demands the
pandemic had placed on organisations.
General comments
Considerable time and effort were invested in those submissions that scored well. High scoring
applicants were characterised by each question being thoroughly analysed and answered using
appropriate evidence relevant to the risk that particular workplace had to manage. These applications
used the allocated word count most effectively ensuring that their answer fully addressed the question.
Additionally, high scoring applications demonstrated that all of the questions could be answered
comprehensively within the word count.
Conversely applicants who provided short answers inevitably failed to provide the evidence necessary
to score more than one mark. There were examples of answers running to no more than a few
sentences. In consequence this impacted negatively on the mark attributed by the adjudicator.
Applicants were once again firmly encouraged to make use of the marking scheme and the Chief
Adjudicator’s Report from the previous year, together with the award scheme pre-entry webinar as a
guide to the standards expected. The use of the command words – “Describe” and “Explain” – are
intended to assist the applicants in ensuring the questions are properly addressed in their answers.
© British Safety Council 2021 1
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalTaken together, the questions, marking scheme, Chief Adjudicator’s Report, webinar and command
word appendix are clearly of essential importance to any successful application. A small but significant
number of applicant organisations failed to follow the extensive advice and guidance and scores
suffered in consequence.
The importance of ensuring that supporting evidence is relevant to the question cannot be under-stated
– see Questions 5, 6, 8, 9 and 11. This supporting evidence attracts a total of five additional marks.
Used effectively, the supporting evidence can lift scores making the difference between a Merit and a
Distinction or Pass and Merit. No marks were awarded, for example, for a photograph lacking
explanation.
The application of practical real-life examples from the workplace are important and a key requirement
in a number of questions. These once more served as an effective differentiator between the higher
and lower-scoring submissions. The highest-scoring submissions were noted for their consistently
focused, site-specific nature and use of examples. The adjudicators again reported many instances of
good or even exceptional initiatives among the submissions. Organisations have had to be quick to
respond and adapt in the face of the COVID-19 pandemic. There were many examples of the speed
with which organisations responded, including short-term lockdowns, to enable implementation of
measures necessary to prevent contagion. At the same time, all of these organisations were continuing
to daily manage the ongoing risks inherent in the hazards they faced.
The adjudicators were again greatly encouraged to see the importance that the senior management of
applicant organisations attached to ensuring the safety, health and wellbeing of their respective
workforces. Year-on-year we are seeing an exponential growth in initiatives designed to promote health
and well-being and in particular prevent poor mental health. The International Safety Award applications
contained many examples of organisations investing time and money to protect the health of their
workers and promote wellbeing.
The bar for applicant organisations to achieve a Distinction has been deliberately set high. Whilst the
Awards are intended to acknowledge the success organisations have achieved in managing the risk of
workplace injury and ill health, it is only right that degrees of success are differentiated through the
awarding of Distinction, Pass and Merit. Each submission is carefully scored and then reviewed, to
ensure that the appropriate grade is awarded.
The adjudicators recognise that there is a limit to the amount of detail that can be provided given the
word limits that are in place. However, 700 words is considered sufficient for applicants to provide a
comprehensive, relevant and compelling answer underpinned by appropriate evidence.
The adjudicators hope that the information provided in this Report, helps you not only in preparing for
the 2022 International Safety Awards, but equally importantly, in providing information that helps you to
continue to meet the challenges in ensuring the prevention of injuries and ill health occurrences in your
workplace.
Site details
Applicants are asked to provide details of any Improvement Notices, Reportable Injuries, Dangerous
Occurrences or Occupational Ill Health cases and any remedial actions taken. Although not attracting
marks, this is important contextual information for the adjudicators. There were organisations, whilst not
having had a notice served or relevant injury, occurrence or case, provided extensive information in
these two boxes, which would have been more appropriate in answering Questions 1 and 2.
Question 1
Describe the nature and scope of the main operational activities carried out at the site.
As explained in the marking scheme “This question is not marked but is mandatory, as the response is
essential for the adjudicators to understand the context and background of scored Questions 3-12.”
A number of respondents included extensive corporate information, whilst omitting sufficient detail on
the full extent of the operational activities undertaken at that site.
© British Safety Council 2021 2
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalQuestion 2
What are considered to be the most significant issues at the site in relation to the following.
Please provide at least one example of each.
• Occupational health hazards
• Occupational safety hazards
• Wellbeing concerns
Again, the marking scheme explains that “This question is not marked but is mandatory, as the
response is essential for the adjudicators to understand the context and background of scored
Questions 3-12.”
As with Question 1, whilst not marked, carefully considered and articulated responses to this
mandatory question were essential for adjudication of the scored component of the application.
Higher-scoring applicants consistently answered all three components of the question and focused on
those activities posing the most significant hazards at the site and the risks posed to the safety, health
and wellbeing not only to their workers but also, for example, to contractors and other stakeholders.
Lower-scoring applicants only briefly listed hazards and concerns, without an explanation of their
significance.
Question 3
Explain how control measures implemented for one of the significant health, safety and/or
wellbeing hazards identified within question 2 are monitored for effectiveness.
Question 3 was specifically linked to Question 2. The question was designed to assist applicants in the
development of their commentary to cover one of the significant health, safety and/or wellbeing hazards
identified within question 2 and explain how the control measures were monitored for their effectiveness
– negatively or positively. Higher scoring submissions were able to articulate the significance of the
hazard, the control measures put in place, the arrangements for monitoring the effectiveness of the
control measures, the impact of those measures and very importantly how the results of monitoring
influenced any changes in the management of the particular hazard going forward.
A significant number of applicants replicated all of the hazards at the site listed in their answer to
Question 2 with little additional information. This was not required as this question asked for one area to
be identified, then expanded upon. This resulted in superficial answers and consequently a low score.
Other low scoring answers focused solely on the process of carrying out the particular operation, whilst
not providing sound evidence regarding the identification of control measures and the monitoring
necessary to ensure effectiveness.
Question 4
Describe the internal and external factors which senior site management consider during the
review of health and safety performance.
To secure top marks an applicant organisation needed to identify three or more internal and external
factors which senior management needed to consider during their review of health and safety
performance. What was clear from the answers was that the degree to which senior management was
directly involved in the process of reviewing health and safety performance varied considerably. This
was highlighted in the factors identified by applicants when answering the question.
Low scoring organisations provided few examples of the factors taken into consideration and/or the
examples they provided were cursory in failing to identify why these particular factors were considered
significant. High scoring organisations demonstrated that senior management was regularly provided
with the necessary evidence to be assured that the risk of injury and ill health was being effectively
controlled. Internal factors will vary from organisation to organisation.
Whilst there is no definite list of relevant internal factors, the high scoring organisations, as part of the
senior management review among other things, examined the adequacy of current policies, a range of
metrics including days lost, feedback from employees and audit outcomes. External factors included
© British Safety Council 2021 3
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – Internalregulatory compliance, legislative change, political and financial considerations, insurance
requirements and community concerns.
Question 5
Describe how non-managerial staff participate in determining suitable control measures
intended to manage hazards and risks identified through the risk assessment process.
Applicants have the option of submitting supporting evidence to pick up an additional mark.
The awarding of maximum marks for this question is dependent on the applicant including a range of
specific examples of non-managerial staff’s involvement in the identification of control measures.
High scoring applications included details of who in the organisation matched the non-managerial role
descriptor. Identification of those involved in the risk assessment process was key – why were these
non-managerial staff involved, what training was provided to help them participate effectively in the
process, how the outcome of that process was fed through to non-managerial staff more widely and a
detailed explanation of media/forums used to communicate new or revised control measures. In order
to score top marks, it was necessary to describe in detail how non-managerial staff participated in the
risk assessment process, for example, through hazard walks and how their involvement influenced and
informed control measures.
Low scoring applications provided one or no examples. The example in such cases was often cursory,
failing to identify those involved and lacking evidence of real participation.
Supporting evidence included outcomes of risk assessments, identifying those involved in the process,
audit reports, team meetings and staff suggestion schemes.
Question 6
Explain how the outcome of internal health and safety audits are communicated to relevant
stakeholders.
Applicants have the option of submitting supporting evidence to pick up an additional mark.
This question was about ensuring that relevant parties, including internal and external stakeholders,
were aware of the content of health and safety audits.
A top scoring response included a full explanation of more than one communication method. The
answer should also clearly identify both relevant internal and external stakeholders. Top scoring
answers identified the key components to ensure the effective communication of audit outcomes and
communication methods used. Relevant stakeholders were identified both internal and external
including, for example, externally the regulator, investors, insurers, contractors and certification bodies
and internally senior managers, supervisory staff and worker representatives.
A weak explanation of how audit outcomes are communicated to relevant stakeholders, to whom and
how, resulted in a low score. Examples of the reason for low scoring answers include focusing on the
audit process whilst failing to explain how the outcome is communicated.
Supporting evidence included summaries of audit reports, safety officer inspection report, notes of
health and safety committee meetings and the use of communications technology such as mobile
phones.
© British Safety Council 2021 4
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalQuestion 7
Describe how progress for managing operational change which may impact on health and
safety performance across the site.
The awarding of maximum marks for this question was dependent on the applicant including a full
description of the management of change process in that particular organisation. Top scoring
organisations provided a range of operational changes which had an impact across that particular site,
together with examples of implementation. These changes included, for example, staffing levels, shift
changes, changes in machinery and equipment, technology and working practices. High scoring
organisations were able to describe the measures put in place to identify, assess and control the impact
of changes.
Low scores were awarded to those organisations who provided a weak description of the process for
operational change, with one or no examples. A number of applicants appeared to have copied text
concerning organisational change from management textbooks without linking to their own particular
site.
High scoring organisations, particularly those having British Safety Council Five Star, OHSAS 18001 or
ISO 45001 certification, explained the importance of having in place proven systems for managing
operational change and were able to explain the components essential to successful change.
Question 8
Explain how persons with specific responsibilities during an emergency event are provided with
suitable training to effectively implement their roles(s).
Applicants have the option of submitting supporting evidence to pick up an additional mark.
High scoring organisations provided an extensive explanation of the role and responsibilities of
members of management and staff in the event of an emergency. Importantly, applicants were asked
to detail the training these members of management and staff had received to carry out their roles in
the event of an emergency.
The quality of the answers to this question were generally disappointing. An example of organisations,
in a number of cases, not properly analysing what evidence the question required. This particular
question, of all of the questions, attracted low scores.
There were, however, high scoring organisations who properly grasped the issues the question raised
and responded with the evidence that the question required. The hierarchy of control was fully
explained by such organisations – importantly who does what during an emergency event. The answers
gave you the necessary assurance that in the event of an emergency those with assigned
responsibilities had clearly defined roles and the knowledge and expertise to carry out their respective
roles.
Low scoring organisations failed to identify who were the relevant persons with roles and
responsibilities during an emergency event. These and other low scoring organisations said little or
nothing about the training that those persons had to undertake in order to carry out their duties
effectively.
Supporting evidence included logs of specific training, training certificates, first aid, transportation of
dead bodies and an emergency plan.
© British Safety Council 2021 5
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalQuestion 9
Describe how the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) is assessed for suitability when
identifies as a control measure.
Applicants have the option of submitting supporting evidence to pick up an additional mark.
Full marks for this question were dependent on applicants providing a full description of the assessment
process used to ensure the identification and selection of suitable PPE. The question was not looking
for a re-statement of what the law requires in that particular jurisdiction. Again, there were low scoring
applications that were wholly theoretical and while correct, completely missed what evidence the
question was seeking to elicit.
High scoring organisations provided, as requested, a range of examples of stakeholder involvement in
assessing suitability. These organisations took as their starting point the hierarchy of risk management,
making clear that the use of PPE should always be the last resort rather than the first resort. High
scoring organisations made clear that there are no shortcuts to PPE selection. Although not exhaustive,
organisations needed to take steps to ensure that the PPE matched the hazard, including adhering to
the regulatory requirements; following laid-down standards; considering ergonomic issues; fit testing;
consulting the workforce both during selection and once in use; providing training, and regularly and
continuously monitoring effectiveness.
Supporting documentary and photographic evidence included extensive records of PPE risk
assessments, outcomes of PPE trials and advice and guidance to workers on the use of chemical suits.
Question 10
Describe the health and safety related factors considered when approving contractors/suppliers
or outsourced functions.
In order to secure a top score, the applicant must be able to comprehensively describe the health and
safety factors considered when approving contractors/suppliers and those organisations providing
outsourced functions. Top scoring organisations provided a wide range of factors with sound evidence
of the review process.
Low scoring organisations only provided a limited or weak description of the factors and no examples of
the review process. There were a small number of applicants who focused on providing theoretical
answers rather than providing evidence of the measures their organisation had in place to ensure the
suitability of contractors and suppliers.
Many high scoring organisations had an ‘Approved Contractor’ list. The challenge for contractors and
suppliers was to answer the pre-qualification questionnaire to the satisfaction of the client (in this case
the award applicant). Organisations differed on the requirements that the contractor and supplier had
to satisfy in order to be awarded a contract.
While not exhaustive, factors considered included the supplier or contractor’s health and safety
performance, compliance with regulatory requirements, relevant risk assessments for previous
contracts, a record of the skills, expertise and qualifications of the workforce to carry out the contracted
work, details of similar contracts previously undertaken, client references, insurance coverage and
certification as OHSAS 18001 or ISO 45001. High scoring organisations also provided evidence of the
measures they had put in place to review the performance of the contractor or supplier and the action
they would take in the event of non-compliance.
© British Safety Council 2021 6
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalQuestion 11
Explain how the organisation (site level) has consulted with relevant stakeholders regarding
work/workplace issues which could affect their wellbeing
Applicants have the option of submitting supporting evidence to pick up an additional mark.
A number of organisations obtained low scores by failing to explain how they had consulted with
relevant stakeholders. Some applicants focused on the risk of injury and/or work-related ill health
occurrences, neglecting to address the impact on the wellbeing of their workers.
For some organisations, wellbeing remains an area that is low on their respective agendas or they are
on the beginning of a challenging but essential journey to put in place programmes and initiatives to
tackle stress and poor mental health. There were a small number of organisations who missed the crux
of the question, for example, providing a lengthy explanation of the role of ergonomics in the abstract.
A top scoring response would include an explanation of how relevant stakeholders are consulted
concerning wellbeing in their workplace. Consultation methods could include staff surveys, employee
forums, staff suggestions, risk assessments, audit reports, feedback on the effectiveness of wellbeing
initiatives and metrics from the analysis of data concerning staff absences. A number of high scoring
applicants have ‘wellbeing champions’ whose role includes actively promoting wellbeing, organising
wellbeing activities and feeding back issues that impact on workplace wellbeing to senior management
and staff more widely.
Supporting evidence included documentary and photographic evidence of events and activities
promoting wellbeing, detailed action plans to prevent COVID-19 infesting the workforce and their
families, the provision of a virtual GP (doctor) service and the provision of confidential employee
assistance programmes.
Question 12
Describe how senior (top) management develop and promote a positive culture within the
organisation that supports the health and safety management system and arrangements.
An organisation may have comprehensive policies in place to prevent injury and ill health in the
workplace and highly competent managers with the necessary skills to manage relevant risks. But
without committed and an active top-level leadership and an engaged workforce, it would be impossible
for that organisation to effectively manage the risks to workplace health and safety it faces.
ISO 45001 attaches great importance to the role played by top management in ensuring the effective
management of risks to health and safety. There were low scoring applications, while setting out the
organisation’s philosophy concerning health and safety failed to provide any evidence of top
management involvement in actively driving good health and safety.
Top scoring responses included a comprehensive description of how senior management promote a
positive culture across the organisation and demonstrate their commitment to continued improvement.
A range of examples were provided by these applicants as to how that culture is developed and
promoted. High scoring applicants were able to demonstrate precisely why and how top management
were involved in driving continuous improvement.
Visibility of top management was considered key. Health and safety for some high scoring
organisations is top of the agenda of senior leadership team meetings, for example, before sales,
revenue and productivity. The involvement of top management in accident investigation was also seen
by high scoring organisations as a demonstration of their commitment to ensuring going forward that
risks were effectively managed. Other examples included the provision of health and safety leadership
training to assist top management understand and apply their responsibilities as set out in ISO 45001.
© British Safety Council 2021 7
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalCertification evidence
The 2021 International Safety Awards recognise that many organisations are currently transitioning
from OHSAS 18001 to ISO 45001 certification. We have made allowances for this by awarding three
marks to those organisations who have provided evidence of having such certification and/or have
achieved three to five stars in the British Safety Council’s audit scheme.
© British Safety Council 2021 8
International Safety Awards - Chief Adjudicator’s Report 2021
Classified: RMG – InternalYou can also read
