Worker engagement is currently high on the agenda with the HSE, which is keen to

promote it within organisations of all sizes to achieve buy-in to health and safety
management systems.

Factors that promote a positive health and safety culture, and so encourage
employee engagement, include:

strong leadership

management commitment and involvement

a high business profile for health and safety (including reference to health and
safety in vision and mission statements)

provision of health and safety information, training and instruction for staff
and managers

formal and informal joint consultation and participation

promotion of ownership at all levels within the organisation

setting and meeting of positive targets for all managers and supervisors.

Factors that may promote a negative health and safety culture, and hence not help
to secure engagement/buy-in from employees, include:

organisational change

lack of confidence in an organisations objectives, values and methods

uncertainty about jobs and the future

poor management decisions that prejudice mutual trust

mixed signals or messages about commitment the board says this should
happen, but in practice nothing changes lower down the organisation, giving the
impression that senior managers are merely going through the motions and paying
lip service to health and safety management.

Improving culture
 Recent NEBOSH Diploma examinations have included in the Unit A papers questions
on organisational factors. For example, for 15 marks, question 11(b) on the July
2011 paper says: Outline the steps that could be taken to gain the support of the
workforce in improving the health and safety culture within the company.

The examiners report for this question noted that better answers began by
recognising the value of tools to help the company understand current employee
perceptions, such as informal discussions and safety climate questionnaires.

Other positive steps that candidates should have identified include:

developing a new health and safety

policy to demonstrate the commitment of the business to improving safety

culture

establishing a safety committee

appointing a competent person

encouraging informal communication on health and safety matters

investing in training for leaders and staff

emphasising that safety and health have the same priority as production.

Steps designed to increase employee participation/engagement were also important

and should have included:

involvement in risk assessments

development of safe systems of work

undertaking workplace inspections

participation in accident/incident

investigations

team briefing sessions

 the provision of information on health and safety initiatives to all employees

publicising the work of the safety

committee

ensuring that health and safety issues become a key part of routine reporting
at all levels.

According to the examiners, candidates in general did not take a broad enough
approach to answering this question and placed too much emphasis on the
appointment of safety representatives and the formation of a safety committee.

A question on barriers to improving safety culture appeared on the January 2011

Unit A paper.

Part (b), which offered eight marks, asked candidates to outline a range of
organisational issues that may act as barriers. Listing the negatives or barriers can
help organisations learn how to improve health and safety culture by avoiding the
pitfalls when engaging employees.

In their report, the NEBOSH examiners listed the following:

lack of visible management commitment, resulting in a lack of trust and

confidence in the management team

a failure to allocate adequate resources to support safety improvements

the absence of effective means of communication with employees to secure

their involvement in, and ownership of, health and safety issues

high staff turnover, making cultural improvements difficult to embed

a history of poor employment relations

the existence of a blame culture

the lack of positive decision-making by management on the level of priority

given to health and safety issues, leading to uncertainty

the existence of a dominant pre-existing negative culture

 the effects of unsupportive peer pressure and other workforce cultural

issues, such as language barriers.

True meaning

For two marks, part (a) of Question 4 on the January 2011 Unit A paper asked
candidates to explain the meaning of the term safety culture.

The examiners report states that an acceptable answer would be the shared
attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, behaviour patterns and values that members of an
organisation have in the area of health and safety.

In Reducing error and influencing behaviour (HSG48), the HSE defines safety culture
as the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, competencies,
and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and
proficiency of, an organisations health and safety management.

Organisations with a positive safety culture are characterised by communications

founded on mutual trust, by shared perceptions of the importance of health and
safety, and by confidence in the efficiency of preventive measures.

HSG48 continues by listing five organisational factors that tend to characterise

organisations having a positive health and safety culture:

senior management commitment

demonstrated by the perceived priority given to health and safety, and the
resources devoted to it

a management style that is cooperative and humanistic, as opposed to

autocratic and dictatorial

visible management activity, including shop floor walkabouts and personal

communication

good communications horizontally and vertically within an organisation, with

the emphasis on sharing experiences, perceptions and especially an ability to
share and learn from incidents and accidents

balance between health and safety and operational goals, so that both are
achieved without compromise.

Professional role

To win 10 marks, question three on the July 2010 Unit A examination paper asked
candidates to: Outline how the health and safety professional can help to develop
 and support the arrangements for consultation with employees on health and safety
matters.

Consultation arrangements with employees both formal and informal are vital
to gaining positive engagement.

The NEBOSH examiners report on this question notes that one of the prime
requirements for the health and safety professional in this context is to be familiar
with the requirements of the Safety Representatives and Safety Committees
Regulations (SRSCR) and the Health and Safety (Consultation with Employees)
Regulations (HSCER).

If they are familiar with these two sets of regulations, practitioners can advise on
the requirements and best practice.

Other support mechanisms the professional could introduce include:

proposing local arrangements for formal consultation

offering advice and support for the training arrangements of union safety
representatives and representatives of employee safety

arranging for the necessary resources time and money to be provided so

that they can carry out their duties properly

influencing the constitution, composition, format and agenda of the safety

committee

attending safety committee meetings as an ex-officio adviser (NOT the

secretary!) to provide competent advice, guidance and up-to-date information to
assist committee members in their deliberations

advising on the arrangements for direct consultation with employees

encouraging informal consultation at routine team meetings and other

briefings

encouraging senior management to take an active and visible part in both

formal and informal consultation

responding promptly to proposals made and concerns expressed during the

consultation process.

The examiners said answers to this question were disappointing; many candidates
seemed not to have read the question properly and concentrated on safety
 professionals duties in general rather than their involvement in developing and
supporting the arrangements for consultation with employees.

The question asks about both development and support, which implies the
professional will be involved in both setting up consultation arrangements and in
their maintenance.

Formal and informal

The issue of formal and informal modes of consultation is covered in question three
of the January 2010 Unit A exam paper.

This asks candidates to (a) Outline reasons for establishing effective consultation
arrangements with employees on health and safety matters in the workplace (four
marks); and (b) Outline a range of formal and informal consultation arrangements
that may contribute to effective consultation on health and safety matters in the
workplace (six marks).

Though most candidates were able to outline the statutory requirement for
consultation, they did not expand on this to include developing employee ownership;
improving perceptions of the value and importance of health and safety; gaining the
input of employee knowledge to ensure workable improvements and solutions; and
encouraging the submission of ideas for improvement.

Some candidates confused consultation with provision of information (both of which

are needed to achieve proactive employee engagement).

Other candidates mentioned the legal requirement but then, unfortunately, referred
to the wrong statute.
Formal and informal arrangements that contribute to effective consultation include:

the establishment of safety committees

consultation/participation with union-appointed safety representatives

consultation/participation with elected representatives of employee safety

planned direct consultation at departmental meetings, team briefings or

similar

involvement in risk assessments

day-to-day ongoing informal consultation between supervisors and employees

in the workplace toolbox talks

use of departmental/team meetings for ad hoc consultation

 discussions as part of safety circles or improvement groups

use of staff appraisals, questionnaires and suggestion schemes.

Some candidates did not appear to appreciate the difference between formal and
informal consultation, yet produced a good range of both.

In confusing consultation with the provision of information, a few people referred to

the use of posters and noticeboards.

Union reps

Question 4 on the January 2012 paper asks candidates to: Describe the possible
strengths and weaknesses of the role of the union-appointed safety representative in
improving workplace health and safety standards and culture. (10 marks)

According to the NEBOSH examiners report, some of the possible strengths would
include:

ensuring that employee concerns are brought to the attention of management

and, if necessary, to an HSE or local authority inspector

applying pressure to ensure that any promised action of improving working

conditions is taken

ensuring employee involvement and engagement in, and commitment to,

good health and safety practices

encouraging and supporting effective monitoring by exercising their

entitlement to carry out inspections of the workplace

ensuring employee input during the investigation of accidents and incidents

acting as a champion for health and safety

promoting awareness and interest by virtue of their acquired knowledge and

training

highlighting any shortcomings in information provided by management

encouraging the employer to set up a formal health and safety committee to

promote further consultation with all employees.
 The above potential strengths will if properly implemented go a long way to
improving employee engagement and hence the overall culture.

The examiners report also highlighted potential weaknesses of the role of union-
appointed reps:

less direct engagement and consultation by management with the workforce

on health and safety issues

their investigative role could lead them to focus on compensation claims,

rather than on the introduction of control measures to prevent a recurrence

the danger that health and safety issues might be mixed up and confused
with other employment issues

if the safety representative is not trained properly, it could result in failure to

establish correct priorities and waste scarce resources

an ineffective rep may undermine the existing culture by failing to represent

the views and opinions of employees

the possibility that the role of the representative may not be seen as relevant
by non-union employees.

Candidates did not answer this question well; though it asked about strengths and
weaknesses, many candidates were content only to provide information on the
functions and duties of a rep as described in the SRSCR.

If candidates identified weaknesses, these tended to be linked with deficiencies in

the individual rather than the broader role.

NEBOSH Element A6: organisational factors

On completion of this element, candidates should be able to:

A6.1 explain the internal and external influences on health and safety
within an organisation

A6.2 outline the organisation as a system; and the different types of

organisation, their characteristics and relationships to individuals within them

A6.3 identify the various categories of third parties in a workplace the

relevant legislative requirements, responsibilities and controls
 A6.4 explain the role, influences on and procedures for formal and informal
consultation with employees in the workplace

A6.5 outline the development of a health and safety management

information system, the relevant legal requirements and the data it should contain

A6.6 explain health and safety culture and climate

A6.7 outline the factors that can both positively and negatively affect
health and safety culture.

This article was prepared on behalf of the National Examinations Board in

Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH) by Lawrence Bamber, BSc, DIS, CFIOSH,
FIRM, MASSE

Qualifications, Worker involvement / representation

a history of poor employment relations

the existence of a blame culture

the lack of positive decision-making by management on the level of priority

given to health and safety issues, leading to uncertainty

the existence of a dominant pre-existing negative culture

the effects of unsupportive peer pressure and other workforce cultural

issues, such as language barriers.

True meaning

For two marks, part (a) of Question 4 on the January 2011 Unit A paper
asked candidates to explain the meaning of the term safety culture.
 The examiners report states that an acceptable answer would be the shared
attitudes, perceptions, beliefs, behaviour patterns and values that members
of an organisation have in the area of health and safety.

In Reducing error and influencing behaviour (HSG48), the HSE defines safety
culture as the product of individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions,
competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to,
and the style and proficiency of, an organisations health and safety
management.

Organisations with a positive safety culture are characterised by

communications founded on mutual trust, by shared perceptions of the
importance of health and safety, and by confidence in the efficiency of
preventive measures.

HSG48 continues by listing five organisational factors that tend to

characterise organisations having a positive health and safety culture:

senior management commitment

demonstrated by the perceived priority given to health and safety, and the
resources devoted to it

a management style that is cooperative and humanistic, as opposed to

autocratic and dictatorial

visible management activity, including shop floor walkabouts and personal

communication

good communications horizontally and vertically within an organisation, with

the emphasis on sharing experiences, perceptions and especially an
ability to share and learn from incidents and accidents

balance between health and safety and operational goals, so that both are
achieved without compromise.

Professional role

To win 10 marks, question three on the July 2010 Unit A examination paper
asked candidates to: Outline how the health and safety professional can help
 to develop and support the arrangements for consultation with employees on
health and safety matters.

Consultation arrangements with employees both formal and informal are

vital to gaining positive engagement.

The NEBOSH examiners report on this question notes that one of the prime
requirements for the health and safety professional in this context is to be
familiar with the requirements of the Safety Representatives and Safety
Committees Regulations (SRSCR) and the Health and Safety (Consultation
with Employees) Regulations (HSCER).

If they are familiar with these two sets of regulations, practitioners can advise
on the requirements and best practice.

Other support mechanisms the professional could introduce include:

proposing local arrangements for formal consultation

offering advice and support for the training arrangements of union safety
representatives and representatives of employee safety

arranging for the necessary resources time and money to be provided so

that they can carry out their duties properly

influencing the constitution, composition, format and agenda of the safety

committee

attending safety committee meetings as an ex-officio adviser (NOT the

secretary!) to provide competent advice, guidance and up-to-date information
to assist committee members in their deliberations

advising on the arrangements for direct consultation with employees

encouraging informal consultation at routine team meetings and other

briefings

 encouraging senior management to take an active and visible part in both

formal and informal consultation

responding promptly to proposals made and concerns expressed during the

consultation process.

The examiners said answers to this question were disappointing; many

candidates seemed not to have read the question properly and concentrated
on safety professionals duties in general rather than their involvement in
developing and supporting the arrangements for consultation with employees.

The question asks about both development and support, which implies the
professional will be involved in both setting up consultation arrangements and
in their maintenance.

Formal and informal

The issue of formal and informal modes of consultation is covered in question

three of the January 2010 Unit A exam paper.

This asks candidates to (a) Outline reasons for establishing effective

consultation arrangements with employees on health and safety matters in
the workplace (four marks); and (b) Outline a range of formal and informal
consultation arrangements that may contribute to effective consultation on
health and safety matters in the workplace (six marks).

Though most candidates were able to outline the statutory requirement for
consultation, they did not expand on this to include developing employee
ownership; improving perceptions of the value and importance of health and
safety; gaining the input of employee knowledge to ensure workable
improvements and solutions; and encouraging the submission of ideas for
improvement.

Some candidates confused consultation with provision of information (both of

which are needed to achieve proactive employee engagement).

Other candidates mentioned the legal requirement but then, unfortunately,

referred to the wrong statute.

Formal and informal arrangements that contribute to effective consultation

include:

the establishment of safety committees

consultation/participation with union-appointed safety representatives

 consultation/participation with elected representatives of employee safety

planned direct consultation at departmental meetings, team briefings or

similar

involvement in risk assessments

day-to-day ongoing informal consultation between supervisors and employees

in the workplace toolbox talks

use of departmental/team meetings for ad hoc consultation

discussions as part of safety circles or improvement groups

use of staff appraisals, questionnaires and suggestion schemes.

Some candidates did not appear to appreciate the difference between formal
and informal consultation, yet produced a good range of both.

In confusing consultation with the provision of information, a few people

referred to the use of posters and noticeboards.

Union reps

Question 4 on the January 2012 paper asks candidates to: Describe the
possible strengths and weaknesses of the role of the union-appointed safety
representative in improving workplace health and safety standards and
culture. (10 marks)

According to the NEBOSH examiners report, some of the possible strengths

would include:

ensuring that employee concerns are brought to the attention of management

and, if necessary, to an HSE or local authority inspector

applying pressure to ensure that any promised action of improving working

conditions is taken


ensuring employee involvement and engagement in, and commitment to,

good health and safety practices

encouraging and supporting effective monitoring by exercising their

entitlement to carry out inspections of the workplace

ensuring employee input during the investigation of accidents and incidents

acting as a champion for health and safety

promoting awareness and interest by virtue of their acquired knowledge and

training

highlighting any shortcomings in information provided by management

encouraging the employer to set up a formal health and safety committee to

promote further consultation with all employees.

The above potential strengths will if properly implemented go a long way

to improving employee engagement and hence the overall culture.

The examiners report also highlighted potential weaknesses of the role of

union-appointed reps:

less direct engagement and consultation by management with the workforce

on health and safety issues

their investigative role could lead them to focus on compensation claims,

rather than on the introduction of control measures to prevent a recurrence

the danger that health and safety issues might be mixed up and confused
with other employment issues


if the safety representative is not trained properly, it could result in failure to

establish correct priorities and waste scarce resources

an ineffective rep may undermine the existing culture by failing to represent

the views and opinions of employees

the possibility that the role of the representative may not be seen as relevant
by non-union employees.

Candidates did not answer this question well; though it asked about strengths
and weaknesses, many candidates were content only to provide information
on the functions and duties of a rep as described in the SRSCR.

If candidates identified weaknesses, these tended to be linked with

deficiencies in the individual rather than the broader role.

________________________________________

NEBOSH Element A6: organisational factors

On completion of this element, candidates should be able to:

A6.1 explain the internal and external influences on health and safety
within an organisation

A6.2 outline the organisation as a system; and the different types of

organisation, their characteristics and relationships to individuals within them

A6.3 identify the various categories of third parties in a workplace the

relevant legislative requirements, responsibilities and controls

A6.4 explain the role, influences on and procedures for formal and informal
consultation with employees in the workplace

A6.5 outline the development of a health and safety management

information system, the relevant legal requirements and the data it should
contain


A6.6 explain health and safety culture and climate

A6.7 outline the factors that can both positively and negatively affect
health and safety culture.

________________________________________

This article was prepared on behalf of the National Examinations Board in

Occupational Safety and Health (NEBOSH) by Lawrence Bamber, BSc, DIS,
CFIOSH, FIRM, MASSE

Qualifications, Worker involvement / representation

0 ways to boost mental health at work

27 July 2016
Jocelyn Dorrell
Comments [2]
Mental health
Mental health is now an established workplace issue, but what exactly are the
best ways to engage staff and promote openness? We canvas employers for the
best ideas.

Recommended articles:
Return to work policies: back to stay
Focus on PPE: head injuries
NEBOSH diploma article: Pressure points
1. CREATE A BRAND
Creating an eye-catching brand can help launch a workplace campaign and
encourage employees to think about mental health as a workplace issue. We
knew we needed a completely different approach from how we tackled physical
ill health, says Andy Buxton, health and wellbeing manager at utility company
National Grid. We launched a campaign called the Elephant in the Room. The
aim was to get people to start having conversations about mental health. Pink
elephant in the room
Buxton describes it as a stealth campaign, which began with posters featuring
a pink elephant appearing around workplaces. Around 4000 employees spend
much of their time on the road, so Buxtons team sent postcards to their home
addresses to make sure they were included.

The companys intranet site has a discussion area where Buxtons team had
planned to plant discussion points, but in the event they didnt need to:
conversations started naturally. Some employees questioned why it was a
workplace issue, says Buxton. Others responded to say they were glad to see
it; that it was something close to their hearts.

When investment and insurance firm Legal & General refreshed its mental health
activities this year, it launched a campaign with the strapline 1 in 4, reflecting
the fact that one in four individuals will experience mental ill health. We felt it
was really important to have a framework and a banner for the campaign to give
it an identity, explains benefits and governance director Vanessa Sallows. Social
media supported the launch, with employees encouraged to post pictures of
themselves holding up one finger to indicate they could be the one in four.

Shaun Davis, group director of safety, health, wellbeing and sustainability at

Royal Mail, believes creating a brand is key. We have an overarching, multi-
stranded approach called Feeling First Class; and that includes First Class
Driving, First Class Lifestyle, and so on, explains Davis. We called our mental
health initiative First Class Mental Health to give it an identity and tie it to that
strategy.

Conduct an employee survey2. CONDUCT AN EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Several organisations have found it useful to conduct an employee survey to
gauge employees attitudes to mental health and how supported they feel at
work. At its campaign relaunch earlier this year, L&G conducted a survey of
employees to benchmark how successfully the firm was promoting mental
wellbeing. The aim was to be able to say: this is where we are now; this is how
were perceived; and this is where we want to get to, Sallows explains.

The survey sought employees opinions on whether the organisation looked after
their mental health; whether, in the past week, they had found it more difficult
than normal to deliver their usual standard of work; whether they felt they could
approach their manager with a mental health issue; if they had felt anxious in
the past week; whether they were aware of the mental health support on offer at
L&G; and whether they had a manageable workload. Employees were given six
statements to respond to, with options ranging from strongly agree to
strongly disagree.
L&G publicised the survey and encouraged staff to complete it, but it wasnt
compulsory. Nevertheless, they achieved a completion rate of around 30%, which
Sallows was very pleased with: It gives us a strong baseline.

Construction company Mace has based its survey on the HSE stress
management standards template, so it will be able to see and track trends each
year. Theres no point putting together a training programme that doesnt meet
the needs of the business," says occupational health manager Jennie Armstrong.

The results of the inaugural survey, due in late summer/early autumn, will help
to inform the companys planning for 2017.

Create a setting3. CREATE A SETTING

Creating a physical space to talk about mental health in an informal way can
encourage openness. Energy firm E.ON wanted to raise awareness and create
an open culture where disclosure felt comfortable, says health and safety
adviser Darea Flanagan. The company came up with the concept of Head
Sheds, inspired by the idea that lots of people have sheds that need to be
cleared out and re-ordered so they can start afresh. We have lots of remote
workers, and lots of male workers, and this was a way to encourage them to start
to talk to make it less scary.

Following a successful pilot at its headquarters, the firm ran roadshows at 30

sites, taking with them an 8x4 foot shed that formed the centrepiece of the
event. The roadshows, run by occupational health (OH) staff and representatives
from the firms healthcare provider, offered information, advice and activities.
The back of the shed was used as a graffiti wall where people could leave
comments. These included personal responses, such as how they were feeling,
or how they self-manage mental health, as well as suggestions about how E.ON
could better support them. Following the roadshows, the OH department collated
and shared the comments to help inform its next steps.

In total, 3500 employees attended the Head Shed roadshows. Staff feedback was
positive, with some employees commenting that they were glad to work for E.ON
because it was tackling mental health. Individuals were able to leave their names
if they wanted further information or support.

In a similar effort to provide an informal setting to start conversations, L&G took

inspiration from the Macmillan coffee mornings it had run successfully in the past
to raise awareness of cancer, and held similar coffee mornings focused on
mental health.
Share personal stories4. SHARE PERSONAL STORIES
Training can feel abstract, but colleagues sharing stories has real impact: seeing
familiar names and faces talking about their experiences can reduce stigma and
the reluctance to discuss mental health issues. At Royal Mail, Shaun Davis says
that sharing stories can give a campaign momentum. We identified three or four
people whose experiences became case studies in our internal
communications.

At confectionary giant Mars UK, health and wellbeing business partner Helen
Wray says that several staff shared their stories in a newsletter. They talked
about their journeys, how the business had supported them and their career
progression. The message was: There is no stigma. It is something you can tell
your line manager about.

Darea Flanagan at E.ON believes that sharing stories helps to produce a cultural
shift. During the firms Mental Health May, staff shared personal stories,
including their experiences of being a carer. The campaign produced 30,000 hits
on the intranet portal, 2000 video views, and 300 external call dial-ins to the
health care provider.

Senior managers sharing their stories can have a particularly strong impact in
demonstrating that mental ill health is no barrier to career progression. At
National Grid, a senior manager spoke about his condition and the impact it had
on him and his family in the companys Straight talk intranet feature. The
feature received 1100 likes, and other people came forward to tell their stories.

Personal experiences are shared each month, covering a range of conditions,

including anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress, eating disorders and
obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

Promote resiliance5. PROMOTE RESILIENCE

Prevention is always better than cure, and while supporting employees with
mental health problems is important, the other side of the coin is promoting
resilience in the face of challenging life experiences.

As part of its mental health strategy, Mars UK runs resilience workshops, which
employees attend in teams. We all lead busy lives, and the workshops are about
life skills, really, says health and wellbeing partner Helen Wray.
The workshops address five core areas of wellbeing: physical, psychological,
social, community, and financial. We talk about things like restrictive behaviour
and mind traps, such as competitiveness. Its about thinking about our
thinking.

Although tangible benefits are difficult to measure, feedback is positive. Its a

great thing to provide because it has shared, mutual benefits. People are more
productive and happier, Wray says.

At times of organisational change, some employees may be more vulnerable

than others. National Grids change team will now talk to Andy Buxtons team at
the beginning of any planned organisational change to make sure the impact on
employees mental health is considered in advance. Actions include advice for
managers and webinars on resilience through change.

Its good to be engaged early, notes Buxton, rather than when people have
already started to experience stress which is too late in the process.

6. UPSKILL LINE MANAGERS

Line managers have a pivotal role, but often dont feel qualified to have
conversations about mental health. Training can provide the tools to identify
when an employee is struggling, and the confidence to raise the issue.

Mars UK runs workshops for managers, and its OH department does lots of one-
to-one coaching. Line managers arent counsellors, but they do need to be able
to signpost sources of help, and have that difficult conversation that starts: Ive
noticed..., says Helen Wray.

National Grid has a steering group of senior managers focusing on mental health,
which has set upskilling line managers as one of its six key principles. It trialled
an online emotional wellbeing tool for managers with mixed results, deciding
instead that face-to-face training was preferred. The company developed a
course for managers on building resilient teams, with a half-day companion
course for employees on the subject. Line managers performance is now
measured against certain capabilities when it comes to managing mental health.

"Line managers arent counsellors, but they do need to be able to signpost

sources of help"

A key point from E.ONs mental health roadshows was that it needed to be
consistent in how it responded to employees who raised problems. This rested on
training line managers who, Darea Flanagan explains, were often nervous about
how to respond. The company developed a half-day bespoke course for line
managers, covering the impact of mental ill health in workplaces at a national
level and within the organisation, where its a top-three cause of absence.

It also covered the signs and symptoms of mental ill health, and case studies.
These were based on real, anonymised cases from within the company, and
trainees were asked how they would manage these situations.

E.ON also introduced a dedicated line managers helpline, available during

business hours for advice and coaching, to give them the confidence to have
the conversation [with an employee] at an earlier stage".

Offer rehabilitation and return-to-work-support7. OFFER REHABILITATION AND

RETURN-TO-WORK SUPPORT
Some larger organisations offer access to cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or
other forms of talking therapy to staff with more serious mental health problems.

National Grids occupational health service will triage individuals and if mental
health issues reach a certain level, such as severe depression or anxiety, it refers
employees for specialised services. Around 200 employees have benefited from
this kind of rehabilitation, and National Grids Andy Buxton says the company
has seen a good return on investment. An NHS referral might take six to nine
months. In some cases we can turn people around and support them back to
work before they would even have started NHS treatment.

Using software tools that estimate the likely length and cost of an absence due
to a particular medical condition, taking into account the severity of the
condition, the age of the employee, and so on, Buxton can calculate how much
these interventions are saving the organisation. For every 1 of investment,
were saving 2 to 3 because were either keeping people at work, or getting
them back more quickly.

Helen Wray at Mars UK agrees that investment in this area is worthwhile. In year
one of Mars UKs mental health campaign, following roadshows and awareness-
raising activities, the firm saw the cost of its CBT and other counselling services
rise due to an increase in referrals as people became aware of the services and
felt able to come forward. But in years two and three, the cost is levelling out.
Return on investment is very hard to measure, but the value of the investment
is a happier, healthier workforce, she acknowledges.

Train mental health first-aiders8. TRAIN MENTAL HEALTH FIRST AIDERS

Mental Health First Aid (MHFA) England is a charity that provides the equivalent
of physical first-aid training. Courses are for anyone but, explains chief operating
officer Fionuala Bonnar, MHFA is active in workplaces as employers increasingly
focus on wellbeing. Courses teach individuals to recognise the symptoms of
mental ill health and illness; develop the skills and confidence to listen to
someone with a problem and have a supportive conversation; and think about
where to signpost an individual for further help.

Its ethos is slightly different to that of physical first aid, though, as its not just
about responding to incidents. We have a wider perspective, we encourage
people to reach out before someone suffers a crisis, as well as equipping them to
respond if there is a crisis, Bonnar says.

Line managers are often the focus of the training, with course content covering
their duty of care and responsibility to make reasonable adjustments for
someone who has declared they have a mental illness. Everyone has a line
manager. They are the first person who might notice an issue, and theyre
probably the person an employee will go to if they have a problem, says Bonnar.
But MHFA also wants individuals to recognise when there might be a problem,
and so it can tailor its courses according to the audience.

MHFA instructors can deliver training to staff, while larger organisations with
training departments can ask MHFA to train and accredit their in-house trainers
to deliver courses, as this can be more cost-effective. For instance, National Grid
sponsored its dedicated mental health wellbeing adviser to become a mental
health first-aider; she has run 14 internal courses for 15 employees at a time.

National Grid is also rolling out the MHFA Lite course. This takes three hours, with
90% of its content being standardised and 10% of focusing on National Grids
approach to mental wellbeing. L&G is putting some of its occupational health
team through training to become MHFA instructors, so they in turn can train up
colleagues within the company.

Feedback from MFHA courses has included comments that the training produced
a complete culture change. One staff audit revealed that 90% felt confident
following training about responding to a mental health issue.

9. UTILISE YOUR EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAMME

Many larger firms operate an employee assistance programme (EAP) helpline.
National Grid has made its helpline central to its efforts to support mental
wellbeing.
National Grids Elephant in the Room campaign promoted the EAP as a source of
support for employees with mental ill health, and the EAP was highlighted on
postcards that went out to the firms 4000 peripatetic engineering staff.

"We dont see use of the Employee Assistance Programme as evidence of

failure."

As a result, use of the EAP roughly doubled, from around 4%-5% to 10% of the
workforce. We dont see use of the EAP as evidence of failure, notes Andy
Buxton. On the contrary, he argues, increased usage provides evidence that staff
are aware of the support available, and willing to seek help when problems arise.

At L&G, Vanessa Sallows has also been keen to see staff accessing the
companys EAP. Unless a manager or individual has had experience of a mental
health problem, they might not be aware of the EAP or they might simply forget
its there, Sallows says. Its one of those things you dont know about it until
you need it.

L&G dedicated a day during Mental Health Awareness Week to publicise its EAP
and offered a refresher on what support it can offer.

10. SIGN UP TO AN ACCREDITATION SCHEME

Signing up to a well-recognised accreditation scheme or pledge can also provide
evidence of senior management commitment. In 2011, E.ON was one of the first
100 firms to sign up to the Time to Change pledge, which is run by the charities
MIND and Rethink Mental Illness, with Department of Health funding. Similarly,
Royal Mails chief executive Moya Greene signed up to the pledge, in a very
visible demonstration that she was prepared to back the firms efforts in this
area, says Shaun Davis.

National Grids CEO Steve Holliday signed the Time to Change pledge in
December 2014. The firm was already tackling mental ill health, but the
commitment to the pledge and the Time to Talk day provided a platform for the
company to reinvigorate its campaign.

Royal Mail's CEO's pledge was "a very visible demonstration that she was
prepared to back"

Under the same Time to Change banner, 85 members of staff at Mace

volunteered to become ambassadors for mental health, developing a 20 minute
Time to Talk session with key statistics that each staffer delivered within their
departments. The firm says that itwas an effective way of capturing as many
people as possible.

The next step change in this arena is likely to be the launch, this autumn, of the
Workplace Wellbeing Index, run by mental health charity MIND. The Index will be
a benchmark of best policy and practice and will publicly rank employers on how
effective they are at addressing staff mental wellbeing. MIND will also offer
support to participating organisations based on their results, with the dual aim of
increase employee wellbeing and delivering business benefits.
to allow the use of cookies. For more information and to change settings click
here. If you are happy with cookies please click 'Continue' or simply continue
browsing.
Skip to main content

Health and Safety at Work

Log inSubscribe todayeNewsletterJobsContact usAdvertise with us
Search 6,875 articles

SEARCH
Latest news
Viewpoint
Features
Case studies
NEBOSH diploma articles
Events
Brexit
Products and services
Reviews
Career path
Most read
The shock of the new
16 February 2017
The workplace is set for drastic change as the fourth industrial
revolution brings new technologies into play. Chris Warburton considers
the new challenges practitioners will face.

Recommended articles:
Five things you need to know about nanotechnology
The safety net
Safety in the cloud
Digital ergonomics
We stand on the brink of the fourth industrial revolution which, according to the
World Economic Forum (WEF), will fundamentally alter the way we live, work
and relate to one another. This revolution will not feature the dark satanic mills
that the first did, nor be catalysed by the mass production lines or computers of
the second and third industrial revolutions. Rather, in the words of the WEF, it
will be characterised by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines
between the physical, digital and biological spheres.

This nascent upheaval coincides with other major winds of change. These
factors, known as megatrends, include changing workforce demographics
people are living longer and therefore working longer; globalisation and global
instability have increased migration and diversified the workforce; people are
having fewer children and economic change, including the long recovery from
the financial crisis of 200708.

This new workplace will present opportunities for health and safety practitioners,
but it is likely to throw up new risks and challenges for professionals and
regulators to address. This workplace may be transformed by technologies such
as 3D printing, which could decentralise manufacturing, encouraging smaller
businesses which may not have the resources of traditional manufacturers to
manage risk; collaborative robots or cobots which work with and alongside
humans, and could undermine traditional approaches machinery safety (how do
you provide guarding on such a device?); and the Internet of Things, which could
leave equipment vulnerable to hacking.

"All types of business across all sectors will be confronted with change, mainly
because they want to remain competitive."

To be prepared, it would be sensible for health and safety managers to think

about this fourth industrial revolution, says Stephen Kinghorn-Perry from the
Foresight Centre based at HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory. The change of
ICT related activities is expanding so quickly now that these different ways of
working could be upon us in a very short space of time.
No companies will escape this transformation, says Emmanuelle Brun, senior
project manager at the European Agency for Safety and Health at Works (EU-
OSHA) European Risk Observatory. All types of business across all sectors will be
confronted with changes, mainly because they want to remain competitive. It is a
responsibility of the health and safety community to make businesses aware of
new risks and help manage them.

Anywhere, any time, any place

Kinghorn-Perry leads the Foresight Centres futures work, which helps to prepare
HSE policymakers and inspectors for future developments. He identifies the shift
in demographics and the move towards increasing digitisation as the two trends
that are set to dramatically shape the workplace.

If we take demographics, the evidence says that were going to see more older
people in the workplace, Kinghorn-Perry says. In 2011, the introduction of the
Equalities Act brought about the end of the default retirement age, which had
allowed employers to force staff to leave the workforce at the age of 65. At the
same time, the state pension age has been extended and equalised for men and
women. All this is magnified by the fact that people are living longer and
therefore wanting to work longer.

Placing himself in the shoes of a business owner, Kinghorn-Perry asks: What will
that mean then when people in my factory, who might be working from 18 to 68
years of age, are exposed [to chemicals] for even longer periods of time, maybe
50 years? Will I have to change the working practices to ensure that a 68 year
old can continue to work?

He also points to the ever increasing power and ubiquity of ICT and the Internet,
which have allowed ...

Sorry, only subscribers can view the full article.

TO ACCESS THIS CONTENT...

SUBSCRIBE TODAY
Subscribe to Health and Safety at Work magazine
Regular news updates
"Behind the headlines" coverage of key prosecutions
In-depth features and interviews
Expert opinion pieces
EVERYTHING YOU NEED
iPad screenshot
Exclusive access to all online content
Case studies from safety leaders
Weekly news alert emailsto allow the use of cookies. For more information and to
change settings click here. If you are happy with cookies please click 'Continue'
or simply continue browsing.
Skip to main content
The shock of the new
16 February 2017
The workplace is set for drastic change as the fourth industrial revolution brings
new technologies into play. Chris Warburton considers the new challenges
practitioners will face.

Recommended articles:
Five things you need to know about nanotechnology
The safety net
Safety in the cloud
Digital ergonomics
We stand on the brink of the fourth industrial revolution which, according to the
World Economic Forum (WEF), will fundamentally alter the way we live, work
and relate to one another. This revolution will not feature the dark satanic mills
that the first did, nor be catalysed by the mass production lines or computers of
the second and third industrial revolutions. Rather, in the words of the WEF, it
will be characterised by a fusion of technologies that is blurring the lines
between the physical, digital and biological spheres.

This nascent upheaval coincides with other major winds of change. These
factors, known as megatrends, include changing workforce demographics
people are living longer and therefore working longer; globalisation and global
instability have increased migration and diversified the workforce; people are
having fewer children and economic change, including the long recovery from
the financial crisis of 200708.

This new workplace will present opportunities for health and safety practitioners,
but it is likely to throw up new risks and challenges for professionals and
regulators to address. This workplace may be transformed by technologies such
as 3D printing, which could decentralise manufacturing, encouraging smaller
businesses which may not have the resources of traditional manufacturers to
manage risk; collaborative robots or cobots which work with and alongside
humans, and could undermine traditional approaches machinery safety (how do
you provide guarding on such a device?); and the Internet of Things, which could
leave equipment vulnerable to hacking.

"All types of business across all sectors will be confronted with change, mainly
because they want to remain competitive."

To be prepared, it would be sensible for health and safety managers to think

about this fourth industrial revolution, says Stephen Kinghorn-Perry from the
Foresight Centre based at HSEs Health and Safety Laboratory. The change of
ICT related activities is expanding so quickly now that these different ways of
working could be upon us in a very short space of time.

No companies will escape this transformation, says Emmanuelle Brun, senior

project manager at the European Agency for Safety and Health at Works (EU-
OSHA) European Risk Observatory. All types of business across all sectors will be
confronted with changes, mainly because they want to remain competitive. It is a
responsibility of the health and safety community to make businesses aware of
new risks and help manage them.

Anywhere, any time, any place

Kinghorn-Perry leads the Foresight Centres futures work, which helps to prepare
HSE policymakers and inspectors for future developments. He identifies the shift
in demographics and the move towards increasing digitisation as the two trends
that are set to dramatically shape the workplace.

If we take demographics, the evidence says that were going to see more older
people in the workplace, Kinghorn-Perry says. In 2011, the introduction of the
Equalities Act brought about the end of the default retirement age, which had
allowed employers to force staff to leave the workforce at the age of 65. At the
same time, the state pension age has been extended and equalised for men and
women. All this is magnified by the fact that people are living longer and
therefore wanting to work longer.

Placing himself in the shoes of a business owner, Kinghorn-Perry asks: What will
that mean then when people in my factory, who might be working from 18 to 68
years of age, are exposed [to chemicals] for even longer periods of time, maybe
 50 years? Will I have to change the working practices to ensure that a 68 year
old can continue to work?

Five things you need to know about

nanotechnology
22 February 2017
Institute of Occupational Medicine
Health

They may be engineered on the smallest scale, but nanoparticles pose some
big health questions.

Recommended articles:
The shock of the new
Digital ergonomics
The safety net

What is nanotechnology and why are nanoparticles

special?
Nanotechnology is often referred to as the science of the very small. It is defined
by the International Organisation of Standardisation (ISO) as the application of
scientific knowledge to manipulate and control particles in the nanoscale (size range
from approximately 1 to 100 nanometres (nm), or billionths of a metre). A European
Commission definition defines nanomaterial for EU legislative and policy purposes as
a material where at least 50% consists of particles with a size between 1nm and
100nm. The definition covers natural, incidental and manufactured materials. For
comparison, an asbestos fibre is reckoned to measure 700nm to 100,000nm.

Being smaller, nanomaterials have a much higher surface area in proportion to their
mass. An increased surface area typically means the particle can be more reactive,
which has advantages and disadvantages.

Nanotechnology is applied in a wide range of industrial and technological uses,

including composites, anti-microbial surface treatments, paint, energy storage,
textiles and new medicines.

How are nanomaterials being regulated?

From a health and safety perspective, it is typically nanomaterials, rather than the
nanotechnology, that are regulated. These nanomaterials include chemical
substances or materials that are manufactured and used to exploit novel
characteristics, such as graphene, nano-gold or nano-copper.

Regulatory bodies in the EU, US, Canada, Australia and a number of other countries
are engaged in assessing nanomaterials under substance and products-based
regulations. Specific provisions on nanomaterials have been introduced into
consumer product legislation, including for biocides, cosmetics, food and food
 contact materials. A number of mandatory reporting schemes have emerged in
European member states for nanomaterials.

In the UK, as with other chemicals, the HSE regulates nanomaterials under the
applicable European Directives and Regulations (such as REACH), as well as through
the CoSHH Regulations, so that employers ensure that people are protected from
any health and safety risks due to work activities.

What happens when nano-materials are released?

Exposure assessment involves measuring or estimating emissions, considering
pathways of exposure and influencing factors, in order to calculate the degree to
which workers might be exposed. Exposure monitoring using a combination of
real-time direct reading instruments, filter sampling and contextual observations
can help to identify the presence of any process-related particles that pose a
potential inhalation hazard to health. However, monitoring should include
consideration of all respirable-sized particles, not just nano-sized particles. Several
international standards exist for exposure monitoring of airborne particles in the
workplace.

Employers have a general duty to ensure the health and safety of workers in all
aspects related to their work, including possible risks associated with working with
nanomaterials. This is achieved by means of a risk management programme and by
conducting regular risk assessments, which should be informed by an exposure
assessment and result in the implementation of a control strategy. As with any other
chemical, appropriate steps should be taken to minimise worker exposure by
applying protection measures appropriate to the activities, in line with the hierarchy
of control.

Are there any workplace safety levels (eg OELs) for

nanomaterials?
Currently, there are no regulatory occupational exposure limits (OEL) for engineered
nanomaterials, although it is being considered across Europe. In the US, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has proposed
Recommended Exposure Limits (REL) for:

Respirable carbon nanotubes and carbon nanofibres worker exposure should

not exceed 1 microgram/m3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average;

Ultrafine (nanoscale) titanium dioxide worker exposure should not exceed

0.3 milligram/m3 as an eight-hour time-weighted average; and

Pigmentary titanium dioxide (particle size greater than 100nm) worker

exposure should not exceed 2.4 milligram/m3 as an eight-hour time-weighted
average).

In addition, a number of companies have developed in-house exposure limits. There

exists a degree of variability in the suggested limits, partly due to the data set upon
which the exposure limit is based, but also the nature of the derivation process
including what safety factors are applied.
 It is clear that certain nanoparticles may be more hazardous than larger particles of
the same substance. Existing occupational exposure limits for a substance may not
provide adequate protection from nanoparticles of that substance. Employers should
seek to minimise worker exposure by using appropriate exposure control measures.

What guidance is available?

General and specific guidance, standards and journal articles relevant to
nanomaterials safety have been published, including on safe handling and control,
exposure assessment, hazard assessment, risk assessment and control banding. A
number of information hubs, for example, Safenano, are able to provide direct
access to key guidance, information and services to support the safety community.

Dr Steve Hankin is director of the Safenano project at the Institute of

Occupational Medicine

Because were only human

7 December 2016

Insight into human error and human fallibility is a key skill in health and
safety not to blame individuals but rather to design systems and
processes around our shortcomings. Teresa Budworth on what can go
wrong, and why.

Recommended articles:
How good design can reduce human error
Behind Human Error book review
Field Guide to Understanding Human Error

All too often an accident is attributed to human error, a description thats normally
accompanied by a shrug. The implication is that nothing can be done, and the only
corrective action is to retrain the individual, or tell them to be more careful. In fact,
human error is rarely the root cause of an accident, and research has shown that it
is both predictable and, to some extent, preventable.

Human error is commonly defined as a failure of a planned action to achieve a

desired outcome. There are factors related to the individual, the job, the
organisation or the task being performed that can increase the likelihood of an error
or human failure occurring in the workplace.

Human factors, behavioural sciences and ergonomics have been part of the
professional education of safety and health practitioners for many years, with good
reason. A clear understanding of the concepts of causation and prevention of error
can underpin and inform risk assessments. This can help to:

identify the types of error likely to occur; evaluate the probable impact of an error;
and design equipment and systems of work, to avoid errors and mitigate
consequences.
After an accident, an understanding of why and how errors arise can inform more
meaningful accident investigations. In turn, this can lead to controls that address
root causes and which are more likely to prevent recurrence.

Types of human error

Much of our understanding of human error in the context of health and safety at
work is down to James Reason, formerly professor in psychology at the University of
Manchester. He has identified a number of ways of classifying error, including the link
with attention mechanisms.

This builds on the work of Jens Rasmussen, formerly a professor in system safety
and human factors at the Technical University of Denmark. He identified three levels
of attentional or conscious control over what we are doing in day to day life, which
are:

knowledge based; rule based; and skills based.

However, each of these types of control is prone to different types of error.

Knowledge-based operations

When we undertake a task that is new to us, which requires us to work something
out, we use knowledge based attention. An example might be booking a trip over
the internet. We might visit several flight-booking websites to consider the routes
and airlines for our destination, compare different flight times to minimise cost or
maximise convenience, and then view different hotel options, considering whether it
is cheaper to book as a package or book the components separately. Eventually, we
come to a conclusion. All of this activity requires a great deal of attention.

The type of error that typically occurs when undertaking a task in knowledge based
operations is straightforward: we make a mistake. We make an incorrect decision
due to not having all the information we need; or we simplify the information
available to us and move too quickly to a decision without considering all options.
(This is how my brother ended up spending 80 on a taxi because he wrongly
thought he was flying into Dsseldorf airport with a well-known budget airline.)

Sometimes these errors occur at work because an individual has to deal with a
situation which is beyond their level of understanding.

"We all built up a repertoire of rules, based on experience,

which helps us behave efficiently. This is the basis of
expertise. We have the solutions to problems we commonly
encounter."
This type of error seemed to explain an accident at the Esso Gas plant in Longford,
Victoria, Australia in 1998. Two people were killed, and Melbournes gas supply was
cut off for two weeks. The direct cause of the accident was initially attributed to the
operators failing to recognise exactly what was happening at the plant and carrying
out an incorrect sequence of actions.

However, the underlying cause, ...

If there were a prize for the most misused term in accident investigation
reports, human error would probably win hands down. Its now well
recognised that this cop-out explains nothing; it just begs the question: So
then, why did people act as they did?

Field Guide to Understanding Human ErrorExploring this and related issues is the
main theme of this third edition of Sidney Dekkers book. In the first chapter, Dekker
draws a comparison between an old view that human error is cause and a (more
enlightened) new view that it is effect.

Subsequent chapters explore how we respond to failure and how to avoid the pitfalls
of human error investigation. Here, the key message is that hindsight biases our
view: knowing the actual outcome alters our risk perception because it ups our
rating of both likelihood and severity. Its far fairer, Dekker argues, to see the
situation from the perspective of the people who were there at the time. Often what
they did makes much more sense if you have access to just the information they
had, know the pressures they were under, and understand the priorities to which
they were working.

The book then moves on with chapters on patterns of breakdown, understanding

your accident model and creating an effective safety department. Here, Dekker
criticises safety bureaucracies for being obsessed with meaningless rates and out of
touch with the people at the sharp end.

The guide closes with chapters on safety culture and the fallacy of a quick fix, and
an epilogue speaking for the dead those (often blamed for their human errors)
who are no longer able to speak for themselves.

I really like this book. Its very readable helped by good use of different text sizes
and a nice, open layout with illustrations that help you understand the points and
there are lots of case studies. These are drawn from many areas of risk, including
chemical plants, mining and transport, but most feature pilots making right and
wrong decisions in the cramped and pressured environment of a commercial flight
deck.

I also like the progression as this book went through its editions. Dekker is on a
lifelong journey of discovery and here he has added his latest insights and has
tackled issues that readers have raised with him, such as (I paraphrase): Can you
buy a just culture off the shelf and make it work?, How can we keep people
engaged when theres never been a serious accident?, and How can we make
safety positive instead of just the avoidance of bad things?.
He believes that brevity is a virtue and makes no apology for having cut out material
that appeared in the previous two editions.

Be ready for a challenge to traditional ways of thinking about safety. Do you believe
from Heinrichs triangle that the causes of all accidents are basically the same? Why,
then, do some firms fatality rates go up even when their incident rates fall? Do you
believe that safety lies in strictly following procedures?

Sometimes its peoples creative workarounds that should be studied as the way
forward, because theyre evidence of resilience. Do you see success as having all the
right systems in place? Dont kid yourself, warns Dekker: unease, worry and
suspicion are far healthier if you want your organisation (and your colleagues) to
survive.

Highly recommended and great value at the price.