Mind the gapIOSH research workshop

summary paper

Contents Acknowledgements 03

Introduction 04

Research workshop sessions 05

Individual competence 05

Organisational competence 06

EU view on competence 08

Priorities 10

Conclusions 11

References 11

Appendix 12

03

AcknowledgementsIOSH would like to thank the workshop speakers – Dr Peter Claffey, Hazel Harvey, DrLuise Vassie and Lawrence Waterman – and all those who attended this event. Theirvaluable contributions were greatly appreciated. Thanks are also extended to CardiffUniversity, who provided the facilities, in particular Professor David Walters and DeborahWatkins, who helped organise the event. We are also grateful to Becky Allen, who actedas rapporteur for the event and helped draft and produce this paper.

IntroductionIOSH held its first Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Research Workshop at CardiffUniversity on 28–29 June 2004: ‘Competence – how can we evaluate what is needed toachieve the goals of the Framework Directive’. This paper describes the event andoutlines the main discussion points that emerged.

In order to help establish an evidence base for OSH policy and practice, the IOSHResearch and Development Sub-committee (R&DSc) and Technical Affairs departmentorganised an interactive workshop to identify knowledge gaps in the area of OSHcompetence linked to the EU Framework Directive (89/391/EEC). Three speakers inviteddiscussion on individual, organisational and EU competence issues from around 40delegates, including six from outside the UK. Delegates represented a cross-section ofpolicy-makers, researchers, practitioners and agencies (see Appendix for list of delegates).The outcome of the event will help to inform a list of directed research topics for possibleIOSH research grants.

This pioneering Cardiff event was opened by Lawrence Waterman, President Elect ofIOSH, explaining that it had been initiated to further IOSH’s mission, as a charteredprofessional body, charity and learned society, in promoting and developing excellence inOSH. In addition to the provision of training and guidance for both practitioners andnon-practitioners, IOSH is actively seeking to help the development of evidence-basedOSH practice in its widest sense. An important part of our outward-looking focus hasbeen the establishment of the IOSH Research and Development Fund, set up in 2003 tofund research designed to foster both professional practice and wider acceptance of OSHideas. Competence is an IOSH priority area for research funding, and hence was chosenas the subject for this first Research Workshop.

Two possible approaches to competence were outlined: the first, ‘more people like us’,doing the same sort of work that practitioners have traditionally done; and the second,more outward-looking and outcome-driven, identifying the range of skills required bypractitioners in today’s world of work, in order to positively influence other stakeholders,including workers, managers and politicians, as well as the OSH skill-base required bythese groups.

As well as a challenge to researchers, this also represents a challenge to OSHprofessionals – we need to determine what we know, as well as what we don’t know butwould be useful to explore.

04

05

Research workshopsessionsThe workshop was divided into threesessions, each of which debated an area ofcompetence:• individual competence• organisational competence• the EU view on competence.

Invited speakers gave an openingpresentation to the sessions. Thepresentations were followed by discussionin three syndicate groups, which then fedback key points to the whole workshop.The key points were then drawn from eachfeedback session in order to provide inputsto identify those knowledge gaps requiringquality research.

Individual competence

BackgroundThe first discussion, ‘The evaluation of anindividual’s OSH competence and influenceand potential areas for research’, waspresented by Hazel Harvey, Head ofProfessional Affairs at IOSH.

The presentation opened with definitions ofcompetence, including one taken fromArticle 7 of the Framework Directive:• an employer shall designate one or more

workers to carry out activities related tothe protection and prevention ofoccupational risks

• designated workers must have thenecessary capabilities and means

• external services or persons consultedmust have the necessary aptitudes andthe necessary personal and professionalmeans

• designated workers and the externalservices/persons consulted must besufficient in number.

The Management of Health and Safety atWork Regulations 1992 introduced anexplicit requirement for a ‘competentperson’ to assist employers with health andsafety matters. In the 1999 revision of thedocument, regulation 7 states: ‘Everyemployer shall appoint one or morecompetent persons to assist him inundertaking the measures he needs to taketo comply with the requirements andprohibitions imposed upon him by or underthe relevant statutory provisions.’

The guidance supporting the Regulationsand approved code of practice refers to the

Qualifications and Curriculum Authorityframework, which describes competence as:‘The ability to perform to the standardsrequired in employment across a wide rangeof circumstances and to meet changingdemands.’

In case law, Gibson v Skibs A/S Marina andOrkla Grobe A/B and Smith Coggins Ltd 1966defines a competent person as: ‘One who isa practical and reasonable man who knowswhat to look for and how to recognise itwhen he sees it.’

Knowledge, skills and experienceCompetence results from the overlap ofthree attributes: knowledge, skills andexperience.

Knowledge needs to be current, relevantand specific, and may be gained via formaleducation, training or on-the-job learning.

Skills are developed and honed throughpractical application, and certain core skillsare common to both low- and high-riskenvironments. However, we should explorewhether total skill-set requirements arespecific to the needs of the particularindustry.

Experience also needs to be current,relevant and specific, and is acquired overtime – but how is its quality and adequacyassessed, and does it need to be sectorspecific?

Current (2002) national competencestandards for safety practitioners are genericand based on a safety management system.Standards cover five main topics:• policy and culture• communication• risk assessment and management• monitoring• audit and review.

Similar standards, albeit simplified, exist forhealth and safety representatives andmanagers.

Key questions on individual competence,therefore, include:• should competence levels vary according

to the industry concerned?• do businesses need competence

matrices?• how transferable are skills and

experience across sectors?• what evidence exists that competent

advice leads to improved OSH?• does current education and training

‘Competence resultsfrom the overlap ofthree attributes:knowledge, skills andexperience’

06

provide advisers with the necessaryskills?

• how should competence be updated anddeveloped?

• who should verify competence?

Discussion During the discussion that followed,delegates expressed the view that OSHpractitioners make less impact in businessesthat lack good OSH leadership,management and a competent workforce.An important element of competence,therefore, was felt to be the ability of OSHpractitioners to act as agents of change inthe workplace. It was suggested that OSHpractitioners/managers may havesomething to learn in this respect fromworkers’ representatives, whosecompetence often includes communicationskills and experience gained from regularnegotiation with management andcolleagues. The question ‘How effective iscompetence in the absence of influence?’was also raised.

There was discussion regarding the UKimplementation of the Framework Directive,which explicitly refers to participation/worker involvement, with Dutch andSwedish delegates suggesting that,compared with other countries, UKqualifications and competencies were verystructured.

The changing nature of work hazards,including the impact of new technologiesand the increasing prominence of mentalhealth issues, should also be consideredwith respect to competence, posing thequestion: ‘Do we have a model ofcompetence established to deal withyesterday’s, rather than today’s, OSHproblems?’

A view emerged that OSH practitioners areoften reluctant to become involved in whatthey regard as ‘office politics’. As a result,they are less able to exert influence in thedesign of new processes and equipment. Itwas felt that there is a need for thedevelopment of educational resources tomake OSH practitioners reflect more ontheir practice.

Other key issues raised were:• how can OSH professionals become

involved at the beginning of the designstage? – case histories would be usefulhere

• what skills do OSH professionals need tobecome effective change agents?

The question of how an OSH practitioner’sinfluence is affected by organisationalculture also emerged. It was felt that astudy of practitioners’ skills might be useful,spanning their technical, business/management and public/customer OSHexpertise.

Summary • What are businesses’ (especially SMEs’)

needs with respect to competence?• Do competent practitioners make a

difference to effective risk management?• Is research needed on practitioners’

‘softer’ skills, such as communicatingand influencing, so that effectivestrategies for bringing about change canbe identified?

• What are the core competencies formanagers as well as OSH practitioners?

• Is the UK implementing the FrameworkDirective with respect to competence?

• Is there enough health in OSH practice?

Organisational competence

Background‘Assessing the value of competence inorganisations and potential areas forresearch’ was the subject of the seconddiscussion, presented by Dr Luise Vassie,Lecturer in Health and Safety Managementat the University of Leicester.

Increasing competitive demands onbusinesses have resulted in new ways ofworking and greater emphasis oncompetence throughout the workforce.Human capital is increasingly recognised asthe key to growth and competitiveness.Several studies have looked at the impactof competence on organisationalperformance. For example, Winterton andWinterton1 explored the business benefitsof competence-based managementdevelopment; the European Observatory2

has addressed competence development inSMEs; and CEDEFOP3 has reported on acomparative analysis of competencedevelopment in multinationals in the EUmember states. However, Dr Vassiecautioned that with all studies limitations ofstudy design, such as confoundingvariables, needed to be borne in mind inconsidering the strength of the evidencegathered.

In turning to consider OSH competence, anumber of factors that influencedorganisational OSH competence wereoutlined, including: legislation, corporateculture, hazards, stakeholders, workers and

‘Human capital isincreasingly recognisedas the key to growthand competitiveness’

‘Do we have a modelof competenceestablished to deal withyesterday’s, rather thantoday’s, OSHproblems?’

07

managers, as well as OSH practitioners. DrVassie highlighted the need for therelationship between these factors andorganisational OSH competence to beexamined.

According to Hale,4 it is unclear whetherfirms that are good safety performersemploy safety practitioners, or whethersafety practitioners make their employersgood at safety. There is a paucity ofevidence on this issue. While economicconditions have been overridden by asteady rise in the number of employmentopportunities in the OSH field, the impactof this rise on OSH performance has notbeen quantified.

Wright et al.5 found that large firms aremore responsive to OSH advice andintervention, partly because of the presenceof in-house OSH professionals, but alsobecause of more clearly defined roles withinthe organisational structure. Assuming thisto be true, Dr Vassie questioned whether itwas the in-house expertise or theorganisational structure that is the key, andwhether this can be modelled?

The HSE’s ‘Worker safety advisors’ pilot6

was outlined as a small study into thepossible benefits of introducing temporarycompetent worker safety advisors intoSMEs. The study found that the majority ofemployers involved in the pilot reportedimprovements in OSH management,including introducing or updating OSHpolicies, setting up OSH committees, andundertaking risk assessments. Over half ofthem felt that improvements were as aresult of the intervention of worker safetyadvisors. However, the limitations of ‘beforeand after’ studies should be borne in mind.

Examining the OSH professional’scontribution to OSH performance, Dr Vassieraised the issue of how individual OSHcompetence leads to organisational OSHcompetence, given that individualcompetence has been considered as anecessary but not sufficient input fororganisational competence,7 and thatorganisational competence requires atransfer mechanism allowing interchangebetween individuals and organisationalstructures.8 In addition, Dr Vassieintroduced the distinction betweencapability (effective and appropriateapplication of a combination of knowledge,skills and personal qualities in a range ofsituations, both familiar and unfamiliar) andcompetence.

Finally, some issues associated withassessing the cost–benefit of OSHprofessionals, both to organisations andthe national economy, were brieflypresented. Manuele9 suggested that OSHprofessionals should be able to explaintheir cost–benefit to their employer.

Other key questions• How do we measure whether and to

what extent organisations that employcompetent OSH professionals performbetter?

• Is there an optimum number of OSHadvisers?

• How do we measure whether and towhat extent the UK economy benefitsin relation to the numbers of competentOSH advisers?

• How do we address the confoundingfactors?

DiscussionDuring exploration of organisationalcompetence issues, the input–outputmodel acted, as intended, as a useful focalpoint for discussion. Some concern wasexpressed about treating the transferprocess from individual to organisationalcompetence as a simple input–outputmodel. It was felt that this was based onunproven assumptions about cause andeffect, conflated individual andorganisational competencies, and that amore systematic approach was required.

Although there is a need to look at firmsthat perform well against those that donot, before deciding if OSH professionalsaffect OSH performance, ‘OSHperformance’ needs to be debated anddefined. For example, performance is notmerely the absence of harm as measuredby lost-time injury frequency. Questionswere raised about the evidence behind theHSE’s ‘good health is good business’mantra, and the group felt that a criticalreview of current concepts of performancewould be a useful starting place.

In a ‘perfect world’, OSH practitionerswould gradually work themselves out ofjobs as workers and management becamesufficiently competent and resourced inOSH. Echoing discussion on individualcompetence, key questions are, therefore,how do managers become competent inOSH, and what makes senior managementinterested in the issue?

It was felt there is a need for moreeffective sharing and signposting of OSH

How do we measurewhether and to whatextent organisationsthat employ competentOSH professionalsperform better?

08

advice and that intermediaries such astrade associations and accountants couldbe effective conduits for information. Itwas thought that research on knowledgetransfer would be useful case studies totest whether the input–output modelworks and, if it does, how it could beexpanded. A review of the different rolesof players in the OSH infrastructure wouldalso be useful and brief mention was madeof whether workplace OSH would benefitfrom a high-profile, campaigning-styleorganisation.

The ‘safety representative effect’ has beenwell studied, but there are many otherorganisational issues that it would beuseful to review, including:• the role/impact of subcontractors• the impact of passport schemes• the impact of contracting-out OSH

services• knowledge transfer between

organisations• case studies of OSH improvements• what ‘switches managers onto’ OSH?

It was emphasised that lessons can belearned from other EU member states onthe above issues.

Summary• Thorough literature reviews are needed

before research is undertaken.• Although there is work in progress,

there is still a lack of clarity aboutexactly what is being measured whenOSH performance is discussed.

• There is a need for ongoing review ofthe efficacy of current performanceindices, such as CHaSPI, in predictingfuture performance.

• Quantitative studies should not be theonly focus, as qualitative research andcase studies can also be useful,particularly those illustrating whatworks well in various organisationalstructures, including – but not limitedto – the role of the OSH professional.

• A better understanding of knowledgetransfer mechanisms could be beneficial.

EU view on competence

Background ‘The EU Framework Directive requirementfor competence and potential areas forresearch’ was the subject of the third andfinal discussion, presented by Dr PeterClaffey, Deputy Chief Inspector of theHealth and Safety Authority, Republic ofIreland.

The session opened with a review of thelegislative background on competence,outlining the level of implementation ofArticle 7 of the Framework Directive invarious member states.

• Belgium: employers must use either anin-house or external OSH service, thelatter being certified by the LabourMinistry. OSH services are required toinclude medical, nursing, safety,ergonomic and psychological expertise,but competence is not defined.

• Finland: Labour inspectors check theOSH competence in high-risk industriessuch as construction and mining.

• Germany: German law on the Directiverequires that workers must be capableof performing tasks assigned to themwith regard to the protection of OSH,and that the employer may give reliableand skilled persons the tasks, inwriting, to perform any obligations. Aseparate statute describes duties ofoccupational physicians, safetyengineers and other safety specialists.

• Netherlands: both in-house andexternal OSH services exist – thesebodies are certified by the NationalCertifying Institution, under the ArboDietsen system.

• Republic of Ireland: Regulation 8 of the2003 General Application Regulationson Protective and Preventative Servicesstates: ‘…a person shall be deemed tobe competent where, having regard tothe task he or she is required toperform, and taking account of the sizeor hazards (or either of them) of theundertaking or establishment in whichhe or she undertakes work, he or shepossesses sufficient training, experienceand knowledge appropriate to thenature of the work to be undertaken.’

• Sweden: OSH services used to be statesubsidised – now employers get taxrebates if they use OSH services. Arange of expertise is provided by OSHservice organisations (as in Belgium),certification bodies are involved, butcompetence is not defined.

It was suggested that competence shouldinclude:• working knowledge of relevant

legislation• ability to identify basic OSH problems• keeping required OSH knowledge up to

date via continuing professionaldevelopment

• familiarity with workplace processes,policies and procedures

‘...there is still a lack ofclarity about exactlywhat is being measuredwhen OSHperformance isdiscussed’

09

• awareness of competence limitations, egwhen to call in an expert.

As well as these, the following weresuggested as possible areas of research:• national registers of competent persons• specification of basic qualifications and

certification schemes• the benefits of a more prescriptive, as

opposed to a market-driven, system• how best to measure and assess

competence.

DiscussionDiscussion began with a comment that‘…to learn from the Framework Directive’simplementation in other member states, wemust get our facts straight and avoidmaking assumptions’. Most member states,for example, do not have generalist OSHspecialists, but use individual specialistswho collectively provide integrated services.Although legislation across the EU is welldocumented, its implementation is not.Discussion returned to the role of thespecialist as facilitator – acting to improvethe competence of workers and managers– and the question was raised as to whoshould be assessing competence. It was feltthat although there is a wealth of researchon OSH competence, very little of this is inEnglish. There is an opportunity, therefore,for UK professional and research bodies,such as IOSH, to become involved infacilitating translation.

There was debate concerning globalisationand migrant labour and the impact ofmultinational firms on OSH performance,and whether or not there should be pan-European standards for OSH professionals.Recent ENSHPO research resultsdemonstrating the diversity of the UK OSHpractitioner’s role were briefly discussedand whether this role should be narrowed.Also considered was whether gap analysisof the wide range of organisationsproviding OSH advice/information services

would help businesses to find out what isavailable and how to obtain it.

Further discussion centred on the state ofknowledge about OSH service provisionwithin the EU and its potential relevance tothe UK. Although it was acknowledgedthat large pan-European studies are beyondthe scope of available funding, whencommissioning research, it was felt thatconsideration should be given to usingquestionnaires designed for use in morethan one member state.

Summary• In view of the potential EU market for

practitioners, it would be prudent toexplore what might be learned fromother professionals (eg occupationalphysicians) and groups (eg EurEng)about defining and developingstandards, criteria and certificationmodels.

• Examining OSH service provision in theEU, a complex picture reflecting manyfactors, not least the presence of bothmarket-driven and state services, couldbe very influential, if costly. One wayforward could be to look at individualtopics, such as occupational road risk orthe impact of outsourcing OSH services.

• In evaluating training within the UK,there are national standards (ENTO)against which training may beevaluated, and IOSH has developed anumber of accredited courses. Arecognised and accepted European-widetraining evaluation methodology and setof standards does not currently exist,and what would be required to establishthis could be explored.

• Taking account of the volume ofresearch not published in English, IOSHcould play a role in facilitatingtranslation and dissemination ofpreviously localised knowledge or incommissioning review articles based ontranslations.

‘…to learn from theFramework Directive’simplementation inother member states,we must get our factsstraight and avoidmaking assumptions’

10

Priorities

Based on the day’s discussion, the workshopended by emphasising that all IOSH researchshould be predicated on a thoroughliterature review, and went on to identify anumber of areas that could possibly benefitfrom research:• specific OSH literature reviews, where

these have not been undertaken before • the content of an IOSH guide for

businesses on assessing OSH needs • effective and sustainable interventions

for SMEs that address their needs• case studies of OSH best practice• identifying core OSH competencies

• assessing the competence of OSHprofessionals

• examining ‘outstanding’ OSHprofessionals to understand whetherthey have any determining attributes,what these are and whether they can beacquired by others

• studying/systematically reviewingknowledge transfer mechanisms

• measurement of OSH performance • examining several ‘good’ organisations

and assessing the OSH competencewithin their organisational structures

• how to build on the corporate socialresponsibility agenda

• how to include OSH in MBAs and othermanagement courses.

11

Conclusions

The R&DSc discussed the outcome from theResearch Workshop and felt that theoverriding topic was the measurement andevaluation of OSH performance.Consequently, it put forward the followingbrief for research:

‘Studies into the effect on measured OSHperformance from the use of competentOSH advice by employing organisations. Thefollowing aspects to be of particularinterest:• relations between/relative contributions

of corporate culture and competent OSHadvice

• inter- and/or intra-sector comparisons • the effect of competent OSH advice on

changing styles of organisationalstructure or employment practices andvice versa.’

Such research will include/be preceded by aliterature review of published evidence.

References

1. Winterton J and Winterton R. Thebusiness benefits of competence-basedmanagement development. Researchstudies RS16. London: HMSO, 1996.2. Observatory of European SMEs.Competence development in SMEs.Luxembourg: Office for Official Publicationsof the European Communities, 2003.3. CEDEFOP. Competence and humanresource development in multinationalcompanies in three European memberstates. Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications of the European Communities,2002.4. Hale A R. ‘OSH intervention deliversbetter safety: faith, fact or fantasy?’ IOSHConference 2004, Harrogate, 20–21 April.5. Wright M, Marsden S and Antonelli A.Building an evidence base for the Healthand Safety Commission strategy to 2010and beyond: a literature review ofinterventions to improve health and safetycompliance. RR196. Sudbury: HSE Books,2004.6. Shaw N and Turner R. The worker safetyadvisors (WSA) pilot. RR144. Sudbury: HSEBooks, 2003.7. Mabey C, Salaman G and Storey J.Human resource management: a strategicintroduction. Oxford: Blackwell, 1995.8. Kim D K. The link between individual andorganizational learning. Sloan ManagementReview 1993; 35 (1): 37–50.9. Manuele F A. Innovations in safetymanagement: addressing career knowledgeneeds. New York: Wiley-Interscience, 2001.

12

Appendix

List of delegatesRoger Bibbings Occupational Safety Adviser, RoSPADr Tony Boyle Director, HASTAMDr Tim Carter* Chief Medical Adviser, Department for TransportDr Peter Claffey* Deputy Chief Inspector, HSA (Speaker)Murray Clark Technical Affairs Researcher, IOSHGail Cotton Head of Occupational Health and Safety, Leicestershire

Fire and Rescue ServiceCharles Dalton Head of Trust Health and Safety Department, Cardiff and

Vale NHS TrustDr Rob Davies* Head of Unit/Associate Senior Lecturer, University of

Wales College of MedicineAnn Drummond Academic Director, University College DublinProfessor Richard Ennals Director, Centre for Working Life Research, Kingston

UniversityDavid Evans Director, Link Associates InternationalDavid Eves* Honorary Vice President, IOSHLisa Fowlie Assistant Safety Advisor, University of BangorProfessor Kaj Frick Researcher, National Institute for Working LifeDavid Harrison Assistant Director of Personnel (H&S and Staff

Development), The University of BirminghamHazel Harvey Head of Professional Affairs, IOSH (Speaker)Professor Per Langaa Jensen National Technical University of DenmarkRichard Jones Head of Technical Affairs, IOSHBrian Kazer* Chief Executive, BOHRFDr John McGuinness Head of Chief Scientist Unit, HSEMalcolm McIntyre* Chief Safety Manager, Bovis Lend Lease LimitedVincent McNeilly* SHEQ Manager, Oxford Chemicals LimitedProfessor Sergio Miguel Invited Full Professor, University of MinhoProfessor Theo Nichols Distinguished Research Professor, Cardiff UniversityDr Paul Nicholson Associate Medical Director, Procter & GambleMary Ogungbeje Technical Affairs Advisor, IOSHProfessor Andy Smith Director, Centre for Occupational & Health Psychology,

Cardiff UniversityDr David Snashall Head of Service and Senior Lecturer, Guy’s and St

Thomas’ Hospital NHS TrustDr Michelle Thomas Senior Research Associate, SIRC, Cardiff UniversityDavid Turner Consultant, Greenstreet BermanDr Luise Vassie Lecturer & Safety Management Consultant, University of

Leicester (Speaker)Deborah Walker Lecturer in OHSM, Loughborough UniversityProfessor David Walters* TUC Professor of Work Environment, Cardiff UniversityProfessor Peter Waterhouse Visiting Professor and Lecturer, Robens Centre, EIHMSLawrence Waterman Chairman, Sypol Limited and President Elect, IOSH (Event

Chairman)Dr Nerys Williams Head of EMAS, HSE/DWPProfessor Dr Gerard Zwetsloot Senior Researcher and Consultant, TNO Work and

Employment

Event supportAndrea Alexander Technical Affairs Administrator, IOSH (Event Co-ordinator)Becky Allen Journalist (Event Reporter)

*Members of the IOSH Research and Development Sub-committee