We invited Tony Kelly, Group Head of Health and Safety at IPF, to air his views on international safety operations and its associated challenges faced and ethical business practice.
With regard to safety, since the company was established what major changes have you noticed in the home credit loan market and the business culture surrounding it?
Like any business where the majority of its workforce is operating in the street and customers’ homes, the challenges faced by our people change according to societal shifts. The business has only been operating for four years as an independent entity so in terms of witnessing social change I think differences are slight.
From the start, IPF made a commitment to providing a safe workplace for all of its people and that has never changed. What we have done is spend time looking at safety management models from world-class organisations and determining how we can modify existing best practice to match our needs as well as building on our own best practices. IPF prides itself on Corporate Social Responsibilty and ethical business practices and safety is an integral part of that.
As Europe becomes more integrated, working practices change fast and often affect more than one country at a time. How to you keep abreast of what affects you and your company?
There is a head of safety in every market in which we operate and I am in the head office. We work as a global team sharing developments and practices. Each of us monitors the local law along with our company lawyers and corporate insurance companies.
That’s quite a network, so changes such as Romania’s adoption of EU standards earlier this year, become known to us all very quickly. I have tried hard to foster a team ethos of constant communication using any and every method from SMS messages to video conferencing and quarterly workshops. In fact we are exploring opportunities to use our own accident incident management database, built on technology supplied by Expolink, as a type of sharepoint for safety. Not least we are a team of global travellers (I am on first name terms with KLM cabin crew!!!) so word spreads very quickly.
What health and safety challenges do you find the most prevalent when the organisation is looking to open offices in a new country?
In every walk of life there is a tendency to fall into two traps; the first being that whatever happens in our own lives is unique to us and second is the assumption that because we don’t know about something then we presume it doesn’t exist. In terms of safety, those false assumptions could lead someone to believe that a new market won’t have safety laws equivalent to UK standards simply because in other respects the country seems less developed than our own.
In fact most, countries have very similar safety laws by virtue of being members (or aspiring to be members) of international quasi-states such as the EU or by establishing government targets to render economies sustainable as in Abu Dhabi or China. And of course providing safety to people is only humanitarian ethics in the final analysis and that is a worldwide trait; no decent person would ever wish harm on another, immaterial of where they live.
The challenge therefore is to make sure you get a copy of the local safety law in a language you can read and then do a thorough comparison to international standards such as OHSAS 18001 to establish some ground-truth.
With such a large and diverse workforce what impact, if any, do you think the UK Bribery Act will have on your organisation?
Wow that’s a question not normally asked of a safety practitioner! What I can tell you is that we already have a Code of Ethics and policies and procedures aimed at preventing bribery and corruption. With no complacency at all, we are confident that we do not have a problem with corruption in our business.
The Bribery Act will, perhaps, make people think a little harder about their conduct and will also provide us with an opportunity to revisit our current policies and procedures. We will also carry out further risk assessments and take the opportunity to ensure that our workforce’s knowledge and awareness of bribery and corruption is as good as we would want it to be.
With countries that have different HR and operational practices to the UK, what are the biggest risks to the workforce and how do you best assess and manage these?
As previously mentioned, the differences are generally pretty subtle in corporate practice. We are a global company with global standards so working conditions for our own people are pretty uniform across the group. We are rolling out global training and education schemes so wherever you are you will have had the same core skills delivered to you. The market heads of safety and their teams work to localise elements to face particular risks. Often these reflect nothing more complicated than the environment or climate.
Poland is pretty chilly in winter but in Mexico snow is something largely seen only in films, so we tailor our safety skills and communications to the target audience. We assess environmental risks at a micro-scale right down to the patch of ground covered by an individual sales agent and then these are used to form risk maps at every successive layer right through the whole group. To understand this concept, consider your own neighbourhood. Where I live is an inner city pedestrianised area with high-rise apartment blocks, lots of bars, a canal and fancy marble flooring. Where I used to live was rural with a major road of fast-moving traffic nearby. The risks associated with living and working in those two areas are clearly massively different. We then map those and build layers of what I call risk pixels into a picture for a country showing the hotspots and safer areas. We monitor and review these risk maps regularly and that’s a useful tool for educating new workers and for looking at the risks for any business expansions. I believe vehemently that risks are best assessed by those that face them and, with intelligent guidance, it is local workers who generate the best mitigation plans.
So I don’t see a single biggest risk across the group; I see single biggest risks for each neighbourhood and worker. In terms of operational practices, nobody in their right mind ever looks to get hurt and one of the things I’ve learned from thirty years of working around the world is that people are the same everywhere; they just need to be shown a better way and they will quickly adopt it. We work as a global team sharing good practice which we introduce wherever we find a gap, so homogenising operational practices is not as hard as you imagine.
How do you encourage best ethical business practice internationally?
Achieving this is like pushing on an open door. I’ve worked in all sorts of places from Afghanistan to Norway and superficially you couldn’t imagine two different places. What I have learned is that the fundamentals of ethical and social mores are the same the whole world over. We capitalise on that by showing people the positive benefits of striving for the highest ethical standards that can be achieved.
Engagement, morale, operational effectiveness and well-being all grow when a business unit is run ethically and well and that’s quickly spotted by anyone who sees a standard higher than their own. That’s our business ethic, so therefore it’s our business case for insisting our ethical standards are global, internally. Of course, as I have described, the law ain’t so very different anywhere and that provides our legal argument for insisting on compliance.
Externally, we run Corporate Social Responsibility programmes in every market in which we operate and our in-house safety mentors (like a Six-Sigma Green belt but for safety) and full time practitioners are often at the forefront of them. They can vary from helping children’s homes to education programmes at colleges and schools, all to spread the concept of ethical practice and safe working wherever we are operating.
The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007, which came into effect in April 2008, achieved its first conviction in February this year, of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings Ltd.
The case attracted huge media attention purely as it was the first conviction under the Act. However, there may be wider ramifications for employers and it remains to be seen whether or not the Act will lead to larger companies being prosecuted. As Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings was run by a sole owner and was a small organisation, it was felt that this case did not determine the full extent of the Act, which was established to address the problems of convicting larger organisations. The real test will be when a substantial organisation with an elaborate management structure is prosecuted.
When the Act initially came into force it was implied that there would be an average of 12 cases per year. However, the Crown Prosecution Service has mentioned that they are contemplating a number of other records of evidence in relation to possible further prosecutions for the offence. Prior to the law coming into effect, it had been hard to convict bigger companies but it was possible for a corporate body to be prosecuted for a selection of criminal offences including the common law offence of gross negligence manslaughter. However for an organisation to be guilty of an offence, it was imperative for a senior member of staff, such as a managing director (known as a controlling mind) to be guilty of the offence. Where any events occurred prior to 6th April, the pre-existing law applies and the current Act only applies to deaths where the injury or behaviour leading to the death, occurs on or after 6th April.
The Act focuses on the way in which a business’ activities are maintained and co-ordinated, which is generally referred to as “management failure” and whether that caused death and was a gross breach of the relevant duty of care. In addition the way in which activities are maintained and co-ordinated by senior management needs to be a significant aspect of the breach.
Organisations need to consider the sentencing guidelines, as they do not only apply to corporate manslaughter cases but also to health and safety offences that result in a person losing their life. The director of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings was charged with an offence under the HSAW as well as gross negligence manslaughter. It was the company itself who was the first to be charged under the 2007 Act. The Act indubitably predicts concurrent prosecutions for both breaches in health and safety as well as corporate manslaughter as both of these emerge from identical facts.
It is likely that both the Health and Safety Executive and The Crown Prosecution Service will persist in prosecuting senior officials with health and safety offences which carry serious sentence, including imprisonment. One of the main sanctions for conviction under the Act is an unrestricted fine. Sentencing guidelines published in February 2010 stated that fines should seldom be less that £500,000. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings were fined £385,000 to be paid in equally split amounts over a period of ten years. This decision was based purely on the company’s financial situation, although it is plausible the company may go into liquidation as a result of the conviction. The presiding judge at the time said that if the company was to go out of business that would be a consequence of the appalling breach that had been committed.
Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings has applied for permission to appeal its conviction. At the time this article has been published, no other information is currently available.
View our update on the Corporate Manslaughter Act (March 2012).
The first ever conviction of a company for corporate manslaughter emphasises the fact that organisations should collaborate with their HR departments in their approach to accidents and health and safety at work. Company HR departments will have a critical role to play in preventing future liability. Whistleblowing claims may follow a corporate manslaughter incident if employees suspect continued malpractice. Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings is the first company to be charged with gross negligence under the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act of 2007.
The company failed to adhere to stringent health and safety guidelines, which amounted to a gross breach of duty of care owed to the deceased and as a result have been fined £385,000 to be paid over the next 10 years. The accident occurred in September 2008, while geologist Alex Wright was taking soil samples from a deep, unsupported trial pit.
Since 1965 companies have been subject to manslaughter proceedings and there have been many high profile cases where corporations have been brought to trial prior to the Royal Assent of the Act. One of the most memorable was the Clapham Rail disaster that claimed the lives of 35 passengers in 1988 when three trains collided. The British Rail Board acknowledged liability for the accident which was caused due to careless work carried out by signal workers. As the board was responsible under the regulation of vicarious liability, it paid compensation extending to £1 million in some cases, but no one was prosecuted for manslaughter.
The Act came into effect in April 2008 and only applies to deaths that occurred after that date. Fatalities that happened before 6 April 2008 will continue to be covered by the previous law on corporate manslaughter. The Act specifies a new offence for convicting organisations where a gross deficiency in the way activities are organised or regulated, results in a person’s death. Before the law came into effect, employers had an opportunity to thoroughly consider how they manage risks. The offence is not part of health and safety law and does not require organisations to comply with the new regulatory standards. However they must ensure they are taking the appropriate action to meet current legal duties.
Health and safety legislation under the Act includes workplace safety as invoked by local authorities and the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Corporate manslaughter cases are prosecuted by the HSE, and in court jury panels are required to consider violations of health and safety legislation in ascertaining liability of companies for corporate manslaughter. Company health and safety practices, systems and policies will be closely scrutinised to determine how serious breaches in conduct have been. In the case of Cotswold Geotechnical Holdings its conduct fell well below what was expected and it was found guilty.
Employers have a responsibility for the health and safety of their employees. If after an employee has approached their direct/line manager, safety or trade union representative about a risk to their health or the health of others and are not satisfied that it has been adequately dealt with, the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 is there to specifically protect them if they decide to blow the whistle about wrongdoing. The Act applies where an employee has justifiable knowledge that their disclosure demonstrates one or more of the following breaches:
Most corrupt, illegal and immoral practices go undetected within an organisation, because employees, aware these things are going on, fear the consequences of reporting them through existing internal channels. International outsourced whistleblowing hotlines are one of the most successful tools for encouraging employees to report fraud, theft, compliance and ethical issues and other misconduct; helping businesses meet their corporate governance responsibilities. Addressing such issues before they impact the reputation and operations of your business is paramount in the overall success of your organisation.
During 2010, Expolink compiled its own statistics on incidents regarding organisational process problems, duty of care and health and safety issues. These reported incidents amounted to 24% of all calls the hotline received during a one year period. While a whistleblowing hotline encourages employees to report such occurrences, companies and employers need to put preventative measures in place and address issues to decrease these statistics.
Contact us to find you more about how Expolink can help give employees the peace of mind they need to speak out about malpractice in the workplace.
View our update on the Corporate Manslaughter Act (March 2012).
Expolink is pleased to announce the introduction of a new module for its Incident and Case Management solution, Report Exec. The new ‘Crime Reports’ module, partners with Police authorities across the UK and offers the largest and most accurate resource for timely, street-level crime and sex offender information on the web. The Crime Reports network offers a myriad of affordable, easy-to-use software tools, which are created to help not only Police authorities but also many businesses understand crime trends, share up-to-date information and receive actionable intelligence. Crime Reports relies on individual Police authorities to provide details on crimes. Each authority is different and may provide more or less crime information than others. At a minimum, Crime Reports requires four items of information when mapping crimes: type, location, date, and time. All additional information is voluntarily supplied.
The Crime Reports’ built-in intelligent platform focuses on external factors and risks posed to businesses and, through linking this to Report Exec, provides daily messages and alerts to the authorised users. This information can be used to inform company directors who can in turn use this in line with company strategy to communicate health and safety to employees.
To find out more about our services or to receive our quarterly newsletter, with industry updates relevant to you, please fill in the contact form below.
