ACC audit makes no difference

There is little or no difference in injury claims between the roughly 50% of Foodstuffs (Auckand)’s 70 stores which have passed the ACC audit and those which have not attempted it, regardless of the level attained by those which have passed.

The company’s health and safety manager, Paul Reyneke, told delegates at last month’s LegalSafe conference that the same lack of relationship between audit and claims exists for all companies in New Zealand with 20 or more staff.

“I have done the same analysis. Companies which have not passed the audit have on average fewer ACC claims than those which have.”

Taking into account the size of claims in terms of their cost to ACC, he said the difference between companies which have passed the audit and those which have failed it or never attempted it lies within the statistical margin of error.

“We spend our time on things which make no difference to the health and safety of our staff.”

He criticised what he called the traditional linear, cause-and-effect hazard management approach embedded in the HSE Act.

“Most people now accept that Frank Bird’s pyramid is not true, but the legal people focus on the very tip of the pyramid – the fatalities. I don’t have that luxury. I have to concentrate on the whole pyramid.”

The ACC audit, he said, is also focused on hazards.

“It’s comprehensive and cumbersome and damned hard work, especially at tertiary level. The problem is that the audit is a poor indicator of injury prevention.”

Reyneke said hazard management is important but is not the only thing to focus on, because people do not act in a cause-and-effect way.

“People act in a complex manner, and are adaptive.”

Safety, he said, is about how you do your work, not about “doing safety”. If you are being unsafe, you are not doing your job properly.

Work groups form complex adaptive systems which cannot be controlled, but which can be disturbed in an effort to change their patterns. Reyneke noted there were two ways often used to initiate change among work groups, but they did not work. One is behaviour-based safety.

“It doesn’t work because it is trying to control the uncontrollable.”

Another is the use of abstract language.

“How many of you use the word ‘hierarchy’ outside health and safety? How do your staff or managers understand the word?”

He cited the definitions of serious harm, significant hazard, and all practicable steps as common examples of abstract language which alienates rather than informs.

“We kill people with our words.”

Concluding, he had a go at the goal of zero lost-time injuries, saying he did not want to see fewer than 10 LTIs reported per million hours worked at a warehousing and distribution business like Foodstuffs.

“People are frail. We shift 600,000 pallets a year. Unless you are working in an office [environment only], if your managers tell you they have five LTIs per million hours worked, they are lying.”

This story appeared in Safeguard Update newsletter of 19 October.

For more stories visit the news story archive.

To get all the news every fortnight – subscribe now!