Yesterday I attended SHW Live at Olympia, where I listened to a number of thought-provoking presentations on health, safety and wellbeing.
Two speakers in particular left me reflecting long after the event had finished.
The first was Ian Cooke from the British Safety Council, who challenged the audience to think differently about how we communicate the value of health, safety and wellbeing. Rather than focusing solely on preventing accidents and complying with legislation, Ian argued that we should be better at explaining the positive outcomes that good health and safety delivers.
The second was Professor Tim Marsh, who discussed the relationship between culture, leadership and human behaviour. His message centred on the need for people to remain engaged and present in the task they are undertaking, and the critical role leadership plays in creating the conditions that make that possible.
Both presentations resonated with me, perhaps because they connected so closely with a question I have been asking myself since the beginning of 2025 – Will it prevent harm?
My Own Damascene Moment
Over the years I have reviewed thousands of documents, audits, risk assessments and safe systems of work.
Like many health and safety professionals, I have occasionally found myself questioning whether we sometimes lose sight of why we are doing what we do.
At the beginning of last year, I started distilling almost every professional judgement down to a single question.
Will it prevent harm?
It sounds deceptively simple, but it has become a remarkably useful test.
Consider a COSHH assessment. An auditor may observe that the hazard symbols on the document are no longer current and, technically speaking, they would be correct. However, if the person carrying out the task fully understands the risks, knows what controls to use and understands how to protect themselves and others, then what is delivering the value? The paperwork itself? Or the understanding it creates?
That is not an argument against compliance. Compliance matters. It is simply a reminder that documents, procedures and systems are only ever a means to an end. The real objective is preventing people from being harmed.
A Conversation That Continued After the Presentation
After Ian’s session we had the opportunity to catch up and discuss the presentation. The more we talked, the more obvious it became that we were not debating two different philosophies. In reality, we were describing opposite sides of the same coin.
My question – will it prevent harm? – is about testing whether something has value. Ian’s argument is that once we understand that value, we need to become better at explaining it.
We often talk about health and safety in terms of accidents avoided, enforcement action prevented and legal obligations discharged.
Whilst those things are important, they are rarely what motivates people. Business leaders are equally interested in productivity, quality, engagement, efficiency and resilience. Fortunately, these things are often closely linked. Safe Work Is Usually Better Work
My father had a favourite expression: “A lazy man’s load.” Most people will know exactly what he meant. Rather than making two sensible trips, someone tries to carry everything at once. They struggle, drop things, damage materials and ultimately spend more time doing the job. The safer option would have been the quicker and easier one.
I see examples of this every week.
- Good planning reduces delays.
- Good housekeeping reduces wasted time.
- Proper supervision reduces rework.
- Clear communication reduces mistakes.
The organisations with the strongest health and safety cultures are often the organisations that run most efficiently.
The lesson is not that safety improves productivity. The lesson is that both are often driven by the same underlying behaviours.
Being Present in the Moment
Professor Tim Marsh made an observation that particularly resonated with me.
For people to work safely, they need to be mentally present in what they are doing. When concentration drifts, the likelihood of mistakes increases. Most incidents do not happen because people deliberately choose to take risks. They occur because attention slips, familiarity breeds complacency or individuals stop understanding why certain controls matter.
That is why engagement is so important. Not simply telling people what they must do, but helping them understand why they are being asked to do it. Because once people understand the reason behind a control measure, they are far more likely to follow it when nobody is watching.
But What About Leadership Engagement?
One of the most thought-provoking questions raised during the discussion was whether we focus too heavily on worker engagement and not enough on leadership engagement.
- How visible are leaders in the workplace?
- How accessible are they?
- How often do they spend time where the work is actually being done?
- Do they actively seek to understand what is going wrong?
- More importantly, do they seek to understand what is going right?
Because if leaders are not learning from the workplace, how can they improve it?
This is where the Plan, Do, Check, Act cycle comes to life. The purpose of monitoring, inspections and site visits is not to find fault. It is to learn. To understand reality rather than assumptions. To identify opportunities for improvement before someone gets hurt.
Why I Remain Passionate About Site Visits
This is one of the reasons I remain such a strong advocate of regular site visits. A good site visit is not about catching people out. It is about helping leaders understand what is happening at the sharp end of the business.
- What controls are working?
- What challenges are emerging?
- What support do workers need?
- What lessons can be learned?
At THSP we also offer a toolbox talk as part of our site visiting service because sometimes the most valuable outcome of a visit is not the report that follows, but the conversation that takes place there and then.
A relevant discussion can refocus attention. It can remind people why controls exist. It can reconnect workers with the task in front of them.
In other words, it can help create exactly the level of engagement that Tim Marsh was talking about.
One Coin, Two Sides
Leaving Olympia, I found myself reflecting on that conversation with Ian. Perhaps health and safety professionals do need to become better at communicating the value we create. Not because we need to justify our existence, but because understanding that value helps organisations embrace the behaviours that keep people safe.
For me, however, it still starts with the same simple question – Will it prevent harm?
Because when you strip away the legislation, the paperwork and the terminology, that is ultimately what we are trying to achieve.
The interesting part is that Ian and I arrived at the same destination from opposite directions. One side of the coin asks whether something prevents harm. The other side demonstrates the benefits that flow from preventing it.
And perhaps that is the real lesson. The safest organisations are rarely successful despite health and safety.
They are successful for many of the very same reasons that they are safe.