1.1 Justify Health & Safety Improvements PDF

1.1 Morals and Money Justify health and safety improvements Due to the different aspects involved within health and safety, there can be competing and conflicting demands and barriers to good standards can be varied. For an organisation to be successful, it must balance the arguments between profi...

1.1 Morals and Money Justify health and safety improvements Due to the different aspects involved within health and safety, there can be competing and conflicting demands and barriers to good standards can be varied. For an organisation to be successful, it must balance the arguments between profit and loss, with the moral factors concerning exposing workers or indeed others to harm. It is of course understood that due to the complexities and differences of some organisations, and other industry compliance, other solutions need to be found. In order to justify any health and safety improvements within a workplace, the moral and financial arguments must be compelling and convincing in order to gain the buy in from top management. Unfortunately, some organisations choose to see health and safety as a cost, and a requirement that will provide no benefit to the organisation, except to ensure compliance. There are other barriers that should also be noted, for example, the general perception of safety in the workplace can be negative, with it being viewed as more interested in stopping people from working than keeping people safe. Moral expectations of good standards of health and safety Firstly, to understand the moral argument it is important you understand the definition of “moral(s)”. The Collins Dictionary defines morals as: “Concerned with or relating to the distinction between good and bad, or right and wrong behaviour, according to conscience or principals of behaviour in accordance with standards of right and wrong”. As adults the majority of us understand what is right and wrong without this being written down in law, it is taught to us from an early age. So, when we are considering our moral arguments for making improvements, regard- ing health and safety, the rights and wrongs of any actions, or lack of action must be consid- ered, as detailed below. Our moral obligations consider beyond just our responsibilities to the health, safety, and welfare of our employees. Employers owe a duty of reasonable care to anyone affected by their activities including contractors, visitors, members of the public, customers and suppliers, extending our social and public expectations. It is also deemed socially moral for organisations to seek to prevent and/or reduce accidents and injuries, including the pain and suffering of employees. Morally, it is not acceptable to put employees at risk or to expect them to risk life or limb in order for the organisation to make money or to achieve its goals. Ultimately, it is unacceptable to put people at risk from health and safety failures. Regardless of work activity, no one should be at risk of injury, illness, or death. The social attitude to work has undergone a considerable change, from previously tolerating poor working environments and conditions and accepting injuries and ill health as part of the job, to currently having high expectations of a comfortable working environment, suitable working hours, returning home to spend more time with family and friends, and being free from illness and injury. The media puts much emphasis on the restrictions of health and safety, often using “The world gone mad” scenarios, which have prevented events going ahead, or restricted the liberties of individuals, and citing health and safety (mostly incorrectly) as the cause. The extent of the problem that is faced is undermined by such reporting and does nothing to promote the positivity that actively caring for health and safety brings. Who does not want to be safe and healthy! Both at work and at home, it is our moral right and should be reported as such, in the media and within organisations. Health and safety still has a long way to go, as nationally and internationally the accident rates are still too high and we are still getting things wrong, as the statistics below confirm. Of course, the moral argument should be the most compelling and relies on the premise that, “everyone wants to do the right thing, to ensure either themselves or others are not harmed”. The moral argument is also described as, “what a reasonable person would do”. Sometimes this premise can be lost in the pursuit of profit as that is where the focus is in business terms. The moral thing to do of course is ensure suitable provisions are made within each organisation to ensure the balance is in the favour of the moral expectations. If the employer is unreasonably exposing its work- force to situations that could endanger them, leading to either loss of life; injury (mental, physical, or psychological); impact on health or their state of well-being, then this argument takes precedent over “getting the work out the door”. Health and safety is not just concerned with objects and premises; predominantly the objective is to protect people. To do this introduces a broader challenge because it is extremely difficult to legislate for behaviour. The proactive management of health and safety at work helps organisations prevent injuries and ill-health and if this is carried out effectively, the organisation will see the rewards in increased morale, productivity, trust, confidence, and increased reputation as being an organisation that actively cares for its employees. This in turn results in a successful profitable business.