HSE Tools: Which Tools are Appropriate?

Abstract A study into different HSE tools reveals why some tools may be better than others. Tools can be structured along two dimensions. One dimension loads on how much a tool is a managerial, long-term aid, providing information for improvement. The other dimension loads on the extent to which a tool is applicable at the workforce level, helping to manage immediate hazards and make current practices better. The appropriateness and acceptability of tools is also strongly determined by the company's safety culture and the national culture. The analysis of why tools work found four crucial dimensions: Proactive vs Reactive – Reactive tools are more appropriate in early stages, proactive tools are needed and effective only when the safety culture is sufficiently advanced. Hazard Recognition vs Hazard management – Some tools help people recognise the presence of their hazards, other tools help them to manage and prioritise. Behaviour vs Attitude – Early stages of safety culture require behaviour to lead attitude change; later stages are characterised by attitudes leading behaviour. Reward vs Punishment – Disciplinary methods have their place in abolishing specific bad practices, rewards help cultivate generally good practices but are easy to misapply. Continuous striving for improvement creates a tension between how people think and feel about HSE and how they actually behave. This tension can be structured by the right tools to generate real improvement. Internal or mental models of what HSE management is about can only develop slowly. Proactive approaches rely on such models as positive attitudes become internalised.