[Link]

org/cpd

The business case

for engineering in
health and safety
A paper provided by the Joint Institution Group on Safety Risk - JIGSR

[Link]
Joint Institution Group on Safety Risk Contents
The mission of the group is to work together by consensus to Executive summary���������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3
promote action and enhance awareness and knowledge of Introduction��������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 4
health and safety risk issues in the interests of the engineering Why make the business case? ����������������������������������������������������������� 5
profession. How engineers can make a difference������������������������������������������������ 6
Making the business case������������������������������������������������������������������ 7
The aims of the Group are: References���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 9
„„ To raise awareness of health and safety risk issues of Relevant training����������������������������������������������������������������������������� 10
interest to the profession - in particular acting as a forum ANNEXE 1 - Engineering-related design successes���������������������������� 11
for the exchange of information between members ANNEXE 2 - Engineering-related design failures�������������������������������� 12
„„ To promote and support more widely initiatives and Members of Working Group�������������������������������������������������������������� 13
activities originating in member organisations where
engineering benefits the wider community
„„ To promote joint action on agreed topics of mutual concern
and interest where there are agreed benefits to the wider
engineering community

This group was formally know as the Inter-Instutional Group on

Health and Safety.

Issue July 2013

© Content - Inter Institutional Group on Health and Safety 2013

(now known as the Joint Institution Group on Safety Risk - JIGSR)
© Publication - IOSH 2013

Cover images (clockwise from top left)

„„ Thames barrage, London

„„ 2012 Olympic Velodrome, London (courtesy of IOSH)
„„ Chernobyl nuclear reactor, Ukraine
„„ Piper Alpha disaster, North Sea
Executive summary
This paper highlights the essential and growing role of engineering in supporting health and safety risk management and economic
sustainability, listing some key steps for engineers, managers and government to consider. The business case for health and
safety engineering solutions is outlined, providing real-life examples of many engineering-related successes and failures. This is
supported by an explanation of how and why the case needs to be made more strongly.

A holistic, joined-up approach to the future challenges and opportunities is key to the UK’s economic and social development and
prosperity. It is therefore vital that the business and wider societal case for achieving improvements in health and safety, and the
invaluable role that the early adoption of engineering solutions can play, are more widely appreciated. This will help inform better
choices; counter negative misperceptions about the ‘burden’ of health and safety, all too prevalent in our modern media; and
foster greater ‘risk intelligence’.

Making the case that good engineering is ‘socially responsible business’ will help to: encourage more investment and action to
prevent injury and illness (e.g. through design and engineering solutions); increase resilience to disasters and their potential
impact on infrastructure (e.g. through better materials and assembly and continuity planning); manage health problems at work
(e.g. through ergonomics and work adaptation); and improve people’s health and wellbeing (e.g. by accommodating physical
activity and providing conducive working environments).

A greater understanding of health and safety risk management is needed at the conception stage of engineering and construction
projects and in all workplace settings where problems can potentially be ‘engineered-out’. Retrofitting in such situations, even if
feasible, can be costly and less effective than putting in the right design at the start. Effective collaboration between engineers,
health and safety professionals and workers themselves can lead to more effective risk control and prevent money being wasted
on ineffective measures. Successes need to be evaluated and failures thoroughly investigated, so that lessons can be learned and
shared.

Many of the costs, human and financial, that are associated with failure to capitalise on engineering can be ‘hidden’ - while many
of the benefits can be long-term, societal and not attributed or recognised properly, if at all. So to be persuasive, it is necessary to
address both of these problem areas, by building an accessible and authoritative evidence-base and improving communication
and influence.

Some key steps for engineers

„„ Use a multidisciplinary approach1 and work closely with health and safety professionals, risk managers, human
resources personnel and others, taking a ‘whole lifecycle’ or ‘systems’ approach
„„ Research the health and safety risk implications of the project being proposed, tendered for or worked on
„„ Actively seek to eliminate hazards and reduce the risks through engineering solutions and design, using guides such
as ‘Healthy by Design’2
„„ Prepare and present an economic case to complement the legal and moral one, using for example, the IOSH ‘Li£e
Saving’ resources3
„„ Evaluate interventions to help increase the evidence-base and share lessons with fellow engineers and other
stakeholders, as appropriate, following professional guidance.

Some key steps for managers

„„ Foster a multidisciplinary approach1 to avoid money being wasted on ineffective measures and consider the lifecycle
costs (from design to disposal) of projects when assessing the value of engineering-related proposals
„„ Encourage the use of evidence-based practice and the evaluation of engineering interventions at work
„„ Embed ‘risk intelligence’ in procurement standards and apply the hierarchy of risk controls
„„ Seek examples of good engineering practice and consider the wider organisational and cultural benefits from
improved health and safety.

Some key steps for government

„„ Ensure all publicly-funded projects use suitable engineering solutions and design to reduce occupational health and
safety risks and the societal costs of failure
„„ Promote the business case for the early adoption of good engineering and health and safety risk management as vital
components of a growing and sustainable economy
„„ Actively involve engineers, health and safety professionals and others1 in developing and implementing the national
industrial strategy and in fully assessing the risks and benefits
„„ Promote wider understanding of good health and safety risk management, the benefits of a holistic approach, and
the need for more ‘risk intelligence’ within the education process.

3
Introduction
This paper highlights the essential and growing role of engineering in supporting health and safety risk management and
economic sustainability, listing some key steps for engineers, managers and government to consider (see above). The business
case for health and safety engineering solutions is outlined, providing real-life examples of many engineering-related successes
and failures. This is supported by an explanation of how and why the case needs to be made more strongly.

The impact of failures in health and safety across all sectors in the UK are very considerable in both human and financial terms.
The HSE estimates4 that work-related injuries and ill health in Britain cost society £13.4 billion in 2010-11, excluding occupational
cancer and property damage from accidents at work costs. It is likely that these additional costs would be of a similar order of
magnitude.

In 2011-125 there were 172 people killed at work, an estimated 212,000 serious injuries and 1.1 million workers suffered an
illness they put down to work. There were an additional estimated 12,000 deaths due to work-related illness from avoidable past
exposures to hazardous substances. In total, 27 million working days were lost to work-related injury and ill health.

Nationally, the cost of general ill health for Britain’s working age population has been put at a staggering £100 billion. Dame Carol
Black also noted that every year around 300,000 people fall out of work onto health-related state benefits and of the 27.5 million
people in employment, 26% had a health condition or disability6.

All of this has a significant impact on individuals and their families, business, government and society as a whole. So the true
potential of engineering for prevention and mitigation must be fully exploited to reduce suffering and loss, while at the same time
supporting innovation and growth. Taking a holistic view, it is possible to plan early for emerging issues and opportunities. This
means considering loss reduction and the benefits of health and safety management over the engineering lifecycle - from better
design, through operations and beyond.

Emerging issues that need to be considered include the impact of living longer - a growing ageing population will suffer age and
lifestyle related health conditions, as well as more years of exposure to work-related health hazards. Then there are developing
economies and markets, which will become future customers and suppliers; and emerging technologies, the risk profile of which
is, as yet, unknown. Additionally, UK industry is starting to experience the negative effects of ageing infrastructure and climate
change.

Engineering supports innovation and provides many of the solutions for keeping work safe, healthy, profitable and sustainable. So,
complementing the legal and moral imperatives, there needs to be greater appreciation of the business case for the early adoption
of engineering solutions in occupational safety and health and their potential societal, micro- and macro-economic benefits.

Within organisations, engineering controls can reduce health hazard exposures, as well as addressing safety concerns and
avoiding catastrophes (such as major fires; chemical explosions; releases of radioactivity; gas and fume releases; structural
collapses; and major rail, shipping and aircraft accidents). While within economies, engineering solutions can help avoid the cost
of national and international disasters, as well as preventing future disease, injury and death - keeping people, businesses and the
economy healthy, productive and sustainable.

The importance of avoiding disasters has been highlighted many times, including by incidents such as Buncefield, Deepwater
Horizon, and Fukushima. The National Security Strategy classifies major industrial accidents as a Tier 1 risk to the UK alongside
international terrorism, military crises and hostile cyber attacks7. And the need to avoid the terrible legacy of ‘slowly unfolding
disasters’ is clearly demonstrated through the unremitting toll of asbestos-related deaths witnessed across the decades.

This appalling catalogue of preventable loss stands in stark contrast to the major benefits that have accrued from the many
successful engineering interventions such as the Thames Barrier. Effectively deployed more than 100 times over the last 25 years,
it has helped protect an estimated 1.25 million people, £80 billion worth of property and infrastructure, much of the London tube
network and many historic buildings, power supplies, hospitals and schools8.

All those involved in taking budget-related decisions (e.g. governments, councils, employers) and those who may subsequently be
affected by them (e.g. consumers, workers, facility users) need sufficient information and ability to evaluate the costs and benefits
of any proposals. Reliable risk assessment and ‘risk intelligence’ are key to facilitating proportionate and workable solutions that
are safe, healthy and practical and also, to debunking myths9. Embedding sensible risk management throughout the education
and training system will help achieve this10.

Key points: a holistic, joined-up approach to the future challenges and opportunities is key to the UK’s economic
and social development and prosperity. It is therefore vital that the business and wider societal case for achieving
improvements in health and safety, and the invaluable role that the early adoption of engineering solutions can play, are
more widely appreciated. This will help inform better choices; counter negative misperceptions about the ‘burden’ of
health and safety, all too prevalent in our modern media; and foster greater ‘risk intelligence’.

4
Why make the business case?
Making the business case for suitable engineering solutions to improve health and safety performance, means that the many
benefits will be clearly explained and understood by business and government. As a result, positive decisions and behaviours will
be reinforced and encouraged and public awareness of the benefits of improved health and safety will be raised, helping counter
some of the myths.

Vital though it is, reducing deaths, injuries and ill health, is only part of the story. ‘Good work’ is generally good for health and
wellbeing and positive feelings about work have been linked to higher productivity, profitability and customer and worker
loyalty11,12. For work to be considered ‘good work’, among other things, it should be safe, supportive and accommodate people’s
needs. It is important that more engineers, employers, managers, investors and government officials recognise this and
understand what ‘good work’ is and how it affects products, services and the bottom line. To do this, professionals in the field
need to gather, analyse and present risk management data, showing the many ways in which engineering can improve health and
safety, and in turn, benefit business and society.

Strong leadership, worker involvement, health and safety competence and adequate enforcement are all important for effective
health and safety management and positive culture13. And within this, making the ‘business case’ for engineering intervention in
health and safety issues is crucial because, as well as supporting the legal and moral imperatives, it helps justify its appropriate
use and prioritisation. If the case is not made, engineering interventions for reducing or managing risk may either not be
considered at all or may wrongly be seen as just adding cost without adding business benefit. Helping policy-makers and budget-
holders see the ‘bigger picture’ and to appreciate the financial savings and opportunities for growth from improved design, quality
assurance, project delivery and productivity can assist their decision-making and focus.

Increasingly, employers are looking to do more with less as they struggle to cope with reduced budgets and squeezed margins.
But, unfortunately, many do not track the losses* arising from poor health and safety management; so that the potential savings
from prevention are not readily apparent14. It is important that more organisations monitor the cost of poor health and safety
management, so that they can appreciate its scale and the extent of their uninsured losses. Even for organisations where no
serious incident has occurred, the cost of accidents can be significant. A study found that for one organisation this amounted to
37% of profits; in another, 8.5% of tender price; and a third, 5% of running costs. It also suggested that the ratio of insured to
uninsured cost could be £1 to £8-3615. The IOSH website provides free tools and case studies to help employers track their costs3.

Many organisations, particularly those that rely heavily on their reputations in order to trade, will want to demonstrate good
corporate social responsibility and to reflect this in their operations and public reports16. The costs of engineering solutions are well
known, so it makes good sense to balance these against a full inventory of the benefits. Not only in the short-term, but also in the
long-term; and not only to the individual employer and their supply chain, but also, more holistically, to society as a whole.

As the UK and Europe focus on improving economic growth and seek to reduce the perceived regulatory burden, the strong
rationale and evidence for engineering solutions in health and safety needs to be heard. The case should be made to all
stakeholders and integrated into the education and training of engineers17,18 and managers and also into relevant vocational
qualifications and apprenticeships. The development of new and ‘green’ technologies provide ideal opportunities to get sensible
health and safety management, and sound engineering, embedded at the start of all industrial initiatives, just as happened for
safety design in the Olympic Park and Athletes’ Village in London19. It is also highly relevant to smaller projects.

The failure statistics above, including the 1.1 million workers with illness they put down to work and the 12,000 deaths a year
due to work-related illness, highlight the need to ensure health issues are managed with the same preventative focus as safety.
Language is important. For instance, health failures leading to long-latency conditions, such as occupational cancers and hearing
loss, can be termed ‘slow accidents’20. This helps to highlight that though less dramatic, immediate and visible than safety failures,
they are equally devastating. The key message is that health affects work and work affects health - both need to be properly
managed.

Looking forward into this decade and beyond; our ageing population, the increasing prevalence of obesity and unhealthy lifestyles,
combined with increasing work intensification, remote working and globalisation will all require engineering and built-environment
solutions to facilitate healthier working. Better prevention of harm and practical support for those with health conditions are vital
for maintaining an inclusive and diverse workforce of ‘all the talents’ and a strong and vibrant economy. And engineering should
also be embedded as part of emergency and contingency planning, to help minimise damage and optimise recovery in crisis
situations.

The government is promoting major infrastructure development plans (such as for high speed rail, increased airport capacity,
energy production and distribution and the Commonwealth Games build), together with national house-building and home
improvement programmes. There are also initiatives related to new scientific developments and future energy production,
including green technologies, novel gas production and nuclear power. Prompt and decisive action is needed to make sure that
the benefits of good health and safety are considered at the early planning and design stage and become firmly embedded in the
national ‘industrial strategy’21.

* For example: the costs of loss of business, damage to reputation, unscheduled downtime, temporary staff, civil actions, poor staff morale and engagement and
prosecutions.
5
 Key points: making the case that good engineering is ‘socially responsible business’ will help to: encourage more
investment and action to prevent injury and illness (e.g. through design and engineering solutions); increase resilience
to disasters and their potential impact on infrastructure (e.g. through better materials and assembly and continuity
planning); manage health problems at work (e.g. through ergonomics and work adaptation); and improve people’s
health and wellbeing (e.g. by accommodating physical activity and providing conducive working environments).

How engineers can make a difference

Having explored the reasons to promote the economic argument for engineering interventions, there is also a need to highlight
how and when they work and the scale and range of the positive effects. From original concept through to design, plan, execution
and disposal, engineering can help prevent future suffering and costs and improve outcomes, growth and sustainability.

Within the ‘risk control hierarchy’†, engineering solutions feature higher than individual protection, because they can combat
the risk at source, benefit more workers at once and are not dependent on workers wanting to use them. Resorting to the
use of personal protective equipment as a first option, rather than improving design, is poor practice. It is also less efficient,
potentially leading to more hazard exposure and illness; requiring more training, monitoring, signage, supervision, equipment and
maintenance, with all the associated costs.

Engineers, as individuals or members of multidisciplinary teams, can provide invaluable professional insights into the effectiveness
of engineering interventions. Where they collaborate with health and safety professionals and workers themselves to ensure
that engineering solutions are relevant to the tasks performed and are properly installed, engineers can help ensure that
risk is properly controlled and money is not wasted on ineffective measures. They can also contribute useful information for
investigations into accident causation and data to support project designs and plans. Additionally, they can identify situations, not
apparent to others, where good engineering can help to manage risk.

The obligation on engineers to address health and safety risk issues is set out in various documents, including the Engineering
Council Guidance on Risk22 and the Royal Academy of Engineering / Engineering Council’s Guidance on Ethics23. At all stages
of their careers, engineers have a key role in the management of health and safety risks, through planning and design, project
supervision and management and corporate decision-making17,18. Their willingness and ability to take a holistic approach to risk,
throughout the project lifecycle, can make a vital difference. It can reduce the human toll and the costs involved in the three
broad areas discussed above: day-to-day safety for workers and the public; the often neglected area of occupational health; and
minimising disasters and major incidents (see Annexes 1 and 2). Training and ongoing professional development should cover not
only good engineering risk management principles and application, but also evaluation techniques.

There are many success stories and examples of engineering design improving quality, project delivery and health and safety.
In a study into the commercial case for applying the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations, it was concluded
that “...professional added value design in its widest sense as part of the delivery of successful projects is inextricably linked
to professional health and safety management.” From an estimated £80 million saved on the Heathrow Terminal 5 project, by
ensuring safe and efficient supply flow; through to £1 million saved on the Royal Bank of Scotland new office build, using value-
engineering24. And, though perhaps now taken for granted, introducing electrically-interlocked doors on trains has impressively
saved around 200 lives over 10 years25. While more recently, the Olympic-build of the high-profile ‘Velodrome’ deployed effective
design to shave six months off the length of the project, as well as reducing the need to work at height, lowering the safety risk19.

Early involvement of relevant professionals in the design-stage is essential (e.g. health and safety practitioners, safety engineers,
health professionals, ergonomists and occupational hygienists)1. In a study into ‘Improving inherent safety’ in the offshore oil and
gas installations (i.e. careful attention to the fundamental design and layout), interviewees felt that this design approach was worth
pursuing, offering capital or operating cost savings, as well as better safety. The report concluded that project managers should
consider allocating more time at the concept design stage and it should be recognised that the most critical part of any project
can be at the very start when all the major decisions are taken26. A point clearly reiterated by those researching the provision of
occupational health/hygiene services at the Olympic Park and Athletes’ Village. They concluded that earlier engagement with
design teams and further training on occupational health awareness for designers, architects and CDM Co-ordinators would have
been necessary to effectively ‘design-out’ health risks20,27.

It is not only large firms and major projects that make savings - smaller ones do too. One medium-sized engineering firm28
introduced a health and safety and quality improvement to its metal preparation process and discovered that it increased
productivity by tenfold. And through investing in innovative design - a church24 installed a new lighting system so that fittings could
be lowered for maintenance. This avoided the cost and risks of repeated work at height and has a projected return on investment
after 12 years and decades of lower maintenance costs. Two case studies also explored the business benefits of good health and
safety management for small and medium sized enterprises. They highlighted the tangible and intangible benefits of engineering-
related interventions, including improved reputation and morale and lower accident rates and insurance premiums29.
While on the other hand, poorly designed or installed interventions are both ineffective and wasteful. For example, one small

† Elimination; substitution; engineering controls; administrative controls; and personal protective clothes and equipment, see the HSE’s website [Link]/
construction/lwit/assets/downloads/[Link]
6
alarm manufacturer invested in an extractor system that was incorrectly designed and installed and proved inadequate for
controlling workers’ exposure to solder fumes. As such, it was a waste of money. But through collaboration with health and safety
professionals and the workers themselves, an improved and cost-effective hood design was introduced, which controlled worker
exposure and made workstations more productive30.

And it is very important to learn from mistakes. There have been many disasters and incidents costing numerous lives and/
or many millions of pounds, which better design and engineering practice could have mitigated or even prevented altogether.
Examples in the UK include events from a wide range of engineering-related operations and projects, such as the Port Ramsgate
elevated walkway collapse; Hatfield railway accident; the THORP nuclear fuel re-processing facility loss of containment; and the
Buncefield oil storage depot explosion. All of these involved issues of design failure and/or failures in good engineering practice,
together with significant organisational and cultural failures. These events, together with other examples of successes and failures,
are summarised in Annexes 1 and 2.

Looking more locally and at specific situations that employers seek to tackle, such as preventing asthma or fatal accidents, the
need for good engineering is clear to see. Well-designed and properly used containment, automation or local exhaust ventilation
can be effective in reducing airborne contaminants; while, conversely, inadequate control can leave workers at risk. The
engineering control cost is off-set by improved attendance and productivity and less need for personal protective equipment.
It can be dwarfed‡ in comparison to the societal cost of asthma cases31, 4% of which are met by employers, 49% by affected
workers and the remainder by taxpayers. This further demonstrates the need to look at the ‘big picture’ (and take a ‘systems
approach’) in assessing costs and benefits. Another practical example is action taken due to design problems related to semi-
automatic quick hitches, used by employers’ for excavator attachments and which have been implicated in a number of deaths.
Better guidance, training, supervision and checking have been promoted and international standards work is addressing the root
cause of the problem.

[For more practical guidance on how to design-in health and safety and design-out problems, see ‘Healthy by Design’2. To view a
video-clip showing a ‘design-stage risk assessment’ initiative, please see [Link]

Key points: a greater understanding of health and safety risk management is needed at the conception stage of
engineering and construction projects and in all workplace settings where problems can potentially be ‘engineered-out’.
Retrofitting in such situations, even if feasible, can be costly and less effective than putting in the right design at the
start. Effective collaboration between engineers, health and safety professionals and workers themselves can lead to
more effective risk control and prevent money being wasted on ineffective measures. Successes need to be evaluated
and failures thoroughly investigated, so that lessons can be learned and shared.

Making the business case

Well-presented supporting data will help decision and policy makers to understand and support the case for engineering solutions
for health and safety issues. This information can assist managers to secure the necessary budget, resources and commitment for
specific interventions.

Problems and their solutions should be as ‘fully costed’ as is feasible and proportionate. To win the support of decision-makers,
proposals need to be communicated in a coherent and persuasive way. Interventions should be evaluated from a technical, legal,
social, financial and reputational perspective, using ‘before and after’ data, and appropriate consideration of stakeholder views17,18.
The analysis should take account of any confounding factors, data sensitivities and, where possible, use a ‘systems view’, covering
project/operation lifecycles and any ‘knock-on’ effects. Updating budget-holders and investors regularly on what has actually been
achieved will mean that further interventions can be proposed and considered.

When costing the problem, the organisation can use exposure data (e.g. on noise or dust levels); or behavioural safety observation
data (e.g. on manual handling) and related accident and absence data. This can also be supplemented by information on any
associated civil claims and enforcement action penalties. When costing the solution, the organisation can estimate the cost of
improving health and safety management, such as the use of lifting devices or occupational hygiene controls, including noise
attenuation and containment / extraction of dust. It should also cost the ongoing evaluation of the activity (monitoring and analysis)
to gauge its efficacy.

It can be helpful to translate current corporate losses from health and safety failure into what the organisation concerned would
have to do to recoup them financially. For example, if the company is losing £20,000 to back pain absence, assuming it makes
£10 profit on each of its components, it would need to manufacture and sell an additional 2,000 of them. In the public sector, this
can be equated to client delivery (e.g. number of social worker visits) that could be funded, if the losses were avoided.

For organisations with a strong corporate social responsibility culture - the societal costs of non-intervention can also be very
persuasive. The reputational enhancement may be difficult to quantify and monetise, but the loss of reputation can be less so

‡ For male workers the estimated total lifetime costs to society range from £121-176,000 per case and for female workers, it is £96-117,000 per case. Figures
given are in 2006 prices. [source RR474, 2006]30
7
in terms of losing a major client or a projected drop in share price. This has been clearly demonstrated by the reputational and
financial impact suffered by major companies and regions/economies following high-profile disasters such as Deepwater Horizon
and Fukushima.

[For free resources on making the business case, see IOSH ‘Li£e Savings’.]3

Key points: many of the costs, human and financial, that are associated with failure to capitalise on engineering can be
‘hidden’ - while many of the benefits can be long-term, societal and not attributed or recognised properly, if at all. So
to be persuasive, it is necessary to address both of these problem areas, by building an accessible and authoritative
evidence-base and improving communication and influence.

8
References

1
Health and Safety Executive web page on ‘sources of advice’ [Link]

2
Crossrail. Healthy by Design - a guide for Crossrail design teams. London: Crossrail, accessed July 2013. [Link]

3
IOSH Li£e Savings campaign web pages. [Link]

4
Health and Safety Executive. Costs to Britain of Workplace Accidents and Work-Related Ill Health: 2010/11 Update”. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2012. http://
[Link]/statistics/pdf/[Link]

5
Health and Safety Executive statistics web pages [Link]

6
Black C. Working for a healthier tomorrow: Review of the health of Britain’s working age population. London: TSO, 2008. [Link]
[Link]

7
HM Government. A strong Britain in an age of uncertainty: The national security strategy (Cm7953). London: TSO, 2010.
[Link]

8
Royal Geographic Society website, Thames Barrier. [Link] [accessed July 2013]

9
Health and Safety Executive web pages on myths [Link]

10
IOSH. IOSH submission to Löfstedt review of health and safety legislation. Wigston: IOSH, 2011. [Link]

11
Waddell G and Burton K. Is work good for your health and wellbeing? The Stationery Office, 2006. [Link]
[Link]

12
Harter J K, Schmidt F L and Keyes C L M. Well-being in the workplace and its relationship to business outcomes: a review of the Gallup studies. 2002.
[Link]

13
Health and Safety Executive. Managing for health and safety web pages [accessed July 2013] [Link]

14
Haefeli K, Haslam C and Haslam R A. Perceptions of the costs of health and safety failures (RR 403). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2005. [Link]
uk/research/rrpdf/[Link]

15
Health and Safety Executive. The costs of accidents at work (HS(G)96). Sudbury: HSE Books, 1991. [no longer in print; reference British Library]

16
IOSH. Reporting performance - guidance on including health and safety performance in annual reports. Wigston: IOSH, 2011. [Link]
guidance

17
Inter Institutional Group on Health and Safety. Lifelong learning for health and safety risk management. London: The Institution of Engineering and
Technology, 2012. [Link]

18
Inter Institutional Group on Health and Safety. Risk communication and professional engineers. London: The Institution of Engineering and Technology,
2012. [Link]

19
Frontline Consultants. London 2012: The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 – Duty holder roles and impact (RR941). Sudbury:
HSE Books, 2012. [Link] [Velodrome, p.14]

20
Tyers C and Hicks B. Occupational health provision on the Olympic Park and athletes’ village: Final report (RR921). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2012. http://
[Link]/research/rrpdf/[Link]

21
Institution of Engineering and Technology. Engineering an industrial strategy. London: IET, 2012. [Link]
[Link]

22
Engineering Council. Guidance on Risk: for the Engineering Profession. London: Engineering Council, 2011. [Link]
on-risk

23
Royal Academy of Engineering. Engineering ethics in practice: a guide for engineers. London: Royal Academy of Engineering, 2011.

24
Bennett L and Gilbertson A. The commercial case for applying CDM: Case studies (RR467). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2006. [Link]
rrpdf/[Link]

9
 25
Eves D. Disasters: learning the lessons for a safer world. Wigston: IOSH, 2010. [Link]

26
Mansfield D, Poulter L and Kletz T. Improving inherent safety (OTH 96 521). Sudbury: HSE Books, 1996. [Link]
othpdf/500-599/[Link]

27
Tyers C, Speckesser S, Hicks B, Baxter K, Gilbert M and Ball E. Occupational Hygiene at the Olympic Park and Athletes’ Village: can workplace health
management be cost effective? (Report 497). Brighton: IES, 2012. [Link]

28
Health and Safety Executive website, SME case studies, Mech-Tool Engineering Ltd. [Link]

29
Antonelli A, Baker M, McMahon A and Wright M. Six SME case studies that demonstrate the business benefit of effective management of occupational
health and safety (RR504). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2006. [Link]

30
Health and Safety Executive. Health and safety of Great Britain \\ One year on: Being part of the solution (p.20). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2010. [Link]
[Link]/

31
Boyd R, Cowie H, Hurley F and Ayres J. The true cost of occupational asthma in Great Britain (RR474). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2006. [Link]
uk/research/rrpdf/[Link]

32
Health and Safety Executive. Cancer case study 1. HSE website [Link]

33
Bennett L. Peer review of analysis of specialist group reports on causes of construction accidents (RR218). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2004. [Link]
[Link]/research/rrpdf/[Link]

34
Health and Safety Executive. Walkway collapse at Port Ramsgate, a report of the investigation. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2000.

35
Van Hecke G, Aubrey G, Hakenbeck U, Leveritt S and Smith P. High-speed railway construction projects (IMIA WGP 32(03)). IMIA conference 2003,
page 14. [Link]

36
Health and Safety Executive. Preventing catastrophic events in construction (RR834). Sudbury: HSE Books, 2011. page 55 [Link]
research/rrpdf/[Link],

37
Office of Rail Regulation. Train Derailment at Hatfield: A Final Report by the Independent Investigation Board. London: ORR, 2006. [Link]

38
Health and Safety Executive. Report of the investigation into the leak of dissolver product liquor at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP),
Sellafield, notified to HSE on 20 April 2005. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2007. [Link]

39
National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling. Deep Water: The Gulf Oil Disaster and the Future of Offshore Drilling -
Report to the President. Washington: Oil Spill Commission, 2011. [Link]

40
Williams S. BP Expects Some US Gulf Oil Spill Claims To Be Higher Than Anticipated. Rigzone, 8 March 2013. [Link]
gas/a/124903/ [accessed July 2013]

41
Weightman M. Japanese earthquake and tsunami implications for the UK nuclear industry. Final Report. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2011. [Link]
uk/nuclear/fukushima/[Link]

42
[Link]. Fukushima cleanup could cost up to $250 billion. [Link] [accessed July 2013]

Relevant training
Professional bodies offer a range of professional development courses. For example, IOSH, the Chartered body for health and
safety professionals, offers the following related courses:
„„ Meaning business - developing and delivering the business case for health and safety (1 day)
„„ Risk communication (2 days)

For details see [Link]

10
ANNEXE 1 - Engineering-related design successes
Listed below are some examples of UK engineering-related successes from the last few decades, helping to demonstrate the
key role of good design, early planning and appropriate material selection in safe and sustainable project delivery. This list is not
intended to be comprehensive, but to highlight some cost-effective cases of good engineering in action.

„„ The Thames Barrier - this barrier protects around 1.25 million people, £80 billion worth of property and infrastructure,
much of the London tube network and many historic buildings, power supplies, hospitals and schools. Since 1982, it has
been effectively deployed 106 times to protect London from flooding. It cost £535 million to build and the running costs are
estimated at £6 million per year. Without the barrier, London’s defence walls would need to be so high that they would deprive
people of much-loved river views and iconic skylines8.
„„ Landsdowne Chemicals - this chemical manufacturer employed an innovative engineering control to eliminate their workers’
and customers’ potential exposure to Hydrazine Hydrate, a carcinogen. As well as controlling exposure, the automated system
allowed Landsdowne to increase production capacity five-fold with the same staff numbers and their state-of-the-art sealed
containers gave them an advantage against EU competitors32.

Research for the HSE examined the commercial case for applying the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
(CDM)24. The report contains case studies, a number supported by persuasive estimated project-cost savings (excluding any
monetary values for health and safety benefits, which would be additional), some of which are listed below.

„„ Heathrow Terminal 5 - during this project there was an initiative to ensure safe and efficient flow of supplies via a
‘consolidation centre’. The estimated savings over the course of the project were around £80 million. The health and safety
benefits included well-organised, cleaner work areas and reduced and controlled site traffic.
„„ Colchester Garrison - this involved construction of a range of buildings at one large site making use of prefabricated
‘volumetric’ units. The estimated savings were around £4 million. The health and safety benefits included less working
outdoors, manual lifting, working at height and interface with on-site traffic.
„„ Newport relief road - this road-building work involved construction of a length of dual-carriageway, using the ‘comprehensive’
approach and investigation of the sub-surface zone. The estimated savings were around £500,000. The health and safety
benefits included reduced overall injury risk during excavation of services, by using good planning to avoid the need to make
late changes under pressure.
„„ Bridge on the Newport relief road - this project opted to spend more on materials in order to reduce hazardous tasks from the
ongoing maintenance schedules and avoid lane unavailability penalties. The estimated savings were around £210,000 over
the projected life of the bridge (i.e. 40 years). The health and safety benefits included avoiding the need to replace lamp-posts
adjacent to live traffic and major internal maintenance in confined spaces.
„„ North Circular Road (A406) - during this project, ‘observational’ methods were used to manage difficult foundation conditions.
There were an estimated 5% direct cost savings, plus a time saving of 18%. The health and safety benefits included that the
observational method allowed for a much more open site, where lower risk plant operations and routine lorry loading could
take place. There was a reduced risk of collisions, which could have led to catastrophic collapse, death and injury.
„„ Royal Bank of Scotland - for the new office build at this bank, floor plates were constructed which were ‘value engineered’ to
reduce costs and increase programme security. This meant that the costs were reduced by £1 million. The health and safety
benefits included reduced risk from work at height and manual handling.
„„ St Giles Church lighting - as part of a refurbishment project, a new lighting scheme was designed for this church. This allowed
fittings to be lowered, so that ‘re-lamping’ could take place at ground level by unskilled people. It was estimated that a return
on investment would be achieved after 12 years, followed by decades of free maintenance and lamp changing. The health
and safety benefits included eliminating the risk of falls from height.

In addition, the business benefits of good health and safety management to SMEs were explored via six case studies,29 two of
which are listed below:

„„ Data Scaffolding - this firm bought high quality metal scaffolding components (instead of wooden scaffold boards) to prevent
workers falling through; engaged external health and safety services; and trained staff in safe erection and dismantling. As
well as good health and safety and morale, this has led to a drop in insurance premiums by over half in 4 years, saving tens
of thousands of pounds. And ease of use allowed a saving of around £70 per man day per job. The firm felt that the good
reputation enabled them to expand towards larger-scale commercial projects, which reap higher returns.
„„ Huntsman Quarries Ltd - this firm improved worker involvement and health and safety training. There were also improvements
to the safety of maintenance operations on rock crushing plant, cutting the time for routine maintenance, yielding an extra
5% productive time each day. Reported benefits included increased employee productivity due to fewer accidents; improved
morale and reputation; and 15% lower insurance premiums, saving around £15,000 a year.

11
ANNEXE 2 - Engineering-related design failures
Listed below are some examples of disasters from the last few decades, mainly in the UK, where failures in design and generic
organisational and cultural deficiencies played a major part. This list is not intended to be comprehensive, but to serve as a
reminder that similar fundamental causes of disasters are more deep-seated than failed engineering components or human error
and affect all areas of engineering.

„„ A 2004 peer review of HSE reports on causes of construction accidents33 concluded that “…almost half of all accidents in
construction could have been prevented by designer intervention and that at least 1 in 6 of all incidents are at least partially
the responsibility of the lead designer in that opportunities to prevent incidents were not taken.”

The report also concluded that around 13 deaths a year could be prevented by designer action and proportionate savings in injury
and ill health made. Furthermore, there were also incidents where the original design made maintenance activities difficult and
unsafe. Generally, it was felt the design community did not give adequate information about the suitability or otherwise of their
products for particular situations.

Some further historic disasters25 (in chronological order) in which better design could have helped avoid or reduce the suffering
and loss include:

„„ Ronan Point (1968) - a gas explosion in this 22-storey (about 200 feet high) block of flats killed 4 people and injured 17. The
design and construction made the incident worse because of a ‘domino-effect’. The partial collapse of Ronan Point led to
major changes in the building regulations.
„„ Herald of Free Enterprise (1987) - this car ferry sailed with its bow doors open and capsized, killing 193 passengers. The
main cause was poor corporate safety culture, but post-incident a number of design improvements were made to Ro-Ro
ferries.
„„ Piper Alpha (1988) - a series of explosions and fire on this offshore platform killed 167 people and the cost at the time was
estimated at £1.7 billion. As well as cultural, system, procedural, communication and leadership failures, inherent design
flaws were a contributory factor.
„„ Port Ramsgate (1994) - an elevated walkway collapsed killing 6 passengers and seriously injuring 7. The walkway design did
not provide the support and articulation necessary and the design calculations of the loadings were inadequate. The design
errors were compounded by defective fabrication and a lack of adequate maintenance procedures34.
„„ Heathrow Express Tunnel (1994) - during construction of the Heathrow Express rail link, a tunnel collapsed 30 metres below
ground. Thankfully, no-one was injured, but losses are estimated to be as high as £400 million35. The collapse could have
been avoided but for sub-standard construction and repairs and a failure to manage parallel tunnelling in failing ground36.
„„ Hatfield railway (2000) - a derailment caused the death of 4 passengers and the injury of over 70 people, 4 of them seriously.
The accident was due to multiple and pre-existing fatigue cracks in the rail. The underlying cause was failure to manage
inspection and maintenance37.
„„ THORP nuclear fuel re-processing facility (2005) - this facility experienced a loss of containment of 83,000 litres of nuclear
material between 2004-05. This was believed to be due to suspended tank movement, causing a fatigue fracture of
connected pipe work. Design inconsistencies and modifications had failed to take account of these risks and the leak went
undetected for 8 months38.
„„ Buncefield oil storage depot (2005) - a massive early Sunday morning explosion at this oil depot (Richter scale, 2.4),
destroyed or damaged property for miles, injuring 43 people. Fortunately, no one was killed. A defective safety device failed
to prevent overfilling of a large unleaded petrol storage tank, which led to a huge vapour cloud. The explosion caused an
estimated £1 billion worth of damage and distress.
„„ Deepwater Horizon (2010) - the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig claimed 11 lives and left oil gushing
unabated into the Gulf of Mexico for 3 months, releasing nearly 5 million barrels. There were systematic failures in risk
management, with a defective cement-design process and failure of the ‘blow-out preventer’39. In March 2013 BP had spent /
provisioned more than US$40 billion in related costs for the incident40.
„„ Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear plant in Japan (2011) - an earthquake and tsunami caused major destruction to this plant. There
were several explosions and reactor meltdown leading to major radioactivity release. The plant planned for a tsunami height
of 5.7 metres, and was overwhelmed by the 14 metres that occurred41. The consequences of this disaster led regulators
worldwide to reassess plant-vulnerability to floods from tsunami, swollen rivers or failed dams. It has been estimated that the
disaster could cost Japan up to US$250 billion over the next 10 years42.

Feedback, additional case study material on successes and failures and further references are welcomed – please send
to [Link]@[Link]

Richard Jones
Chair: Business Case
July 2013

12
Members of Working Group

Richard Jones (Chair) Head of Policy and Public Affairs, Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

Harry Hopkins H H Risk Ltd, Safety and Reliability Society

Andy Mackiewicz AMPA Associates Ltd, Institution of Chemical Engineers

Robin Smith Airbus Operations Limited, British Occupational Hygiene Society

Ian Spencer Economic and Social Analysis Unit, Health and Safety Executive

Richard Taylor Chair IIG, Institution of Engineering and Technology

13
The Joint Institution Group on Safety Risk - JIGSR (formally known as the Inter-Institutional Group on Health and Safety) is made up
of representatives (members and staff) from the following organisations:

„„ Hazards Forum
„„ Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors
„„ Institute of Marine Engineering Science and Technology
„„ Institution of Chemical Engineers
„„ Institution of Civil Engineers
„„ Institution of Engineering and Technology
„„ Institution of Mechanical Engineers
„„ Institution of Occupational Safety and Health
„„ Institution of Structural Engineers
„„ Royal Institute of British Architects This content can
„„ Royal Institution of Naval Architects contribute towards your
„„ Safety and Reliability Society Continuing Professional
„„ Health and Safety Executive Development (CPD) as
„„ Engineering Council part of the IET’s CPD
Monitoring Scheme.
Additional information can be found at the JIGSR webpage hosted by the IChemE [Link]
„„ [Link]

Documents produced by JIGSR can be downloaded from the IET website

„„ [Link]

For more information on JIGSR contact:

„„ Email: Matt Stalker