Research to explore the effect of post ‘Common …

1 Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2013 Health and Safety ExecutiveResearch to explore the effect of post common Sense, common Safety amendment to RIDDOR Regulation 3(2) on Health and Safety Standards in Great BritainRR984 Research ReportDr Chrysanthi Lekka, Sarah Binch, Jo Bowen and Dr Nadine Mellor Health and Safety LaboratoryHarpur HillBuxtonDerbyshire SK17 9 JNThis report examines employers perceptions of the change in RIDDOR reporting requirements, and explores its perceived influence on employers behaviours and the management of health and safety. Forty telephone interviews were conducted with employers across the manufacturing, construction, public services and retail sectors.

2 Perceived benefits associated with the changes to the reporting requirements included focusing reporting on more serious injuries, better management of work-related sickness absence, and allowing employers more time to conduct incident investigations and submit the RIDDOR report. Some concerns were expressed that employers may either forget to report or view the submission of the RIDDOR report as less of a priority as a result of the extended reporting period. Issues associated with the increased reporting threshold included employers failing to act on over-three-day incidents; however, these concerns were not widely shared among the sample. The changes in the RIDDOR reporting requirements were not perceived as having a prominent influence in the management of health and safety.

3 A number of internal (eg duty of care, organisation-specific trends in incidents and near misses) and external (eg customer pressures, costs associated with potential claims) drivers, other than RIDDOR, were identified as important for the management of health and safety. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. Research to explore the effect of post common Sense, common Safety amendment to RIDDOR Regulation 3(2) on Health and Safety Standards in Great BritainHSE BooksHealth and Safety Executive Crown copyright 2013 First published 2013 You may reuse this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

4 To view the licence visit , write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email images and illustrations may not be owned by the Crown so cannot be reproduced without permission of the copyright owner. Enquiries should be sent to authors would like to thank all the participants for their time and views on the issues raised in this report. Thanks also go to HSE colleagues for their help during the recruitment iii KEY MESSAGES The majority of participants (32/40) were aware of the increased reporting threshold to over-seven days, however, fewer than half of them (16/40) were aware of the extended reporting period.

5 A number of perceived benefits were associated with the increased reporting threshold including focusing reporting on more serious injuries ( often perceived to be injuries leading to hospitalisation, and or incapacitation), better management of work-related sickness absence and reducing uncertainty regarding the length of absence and nature of work-related injury among others. A number of internal ( duty of care, organisation-specific trends in incidents and near misses) and external (customer pressures, costs associated with potential claims, and sector-specific influences, such as compliance with specific legislation) drivers were identified as important for the management of health and safety.

6 As such, the changes in the RIDDOR reporting requirements, and RIDDOR more broadly, were not perceived to be a significant driver in the management of health and safety. Concerns expressed regarding the increased reporting threshold included employers failing to act on over-three-day incidents potentially leading to complacency and a drop in health and safety standards; however, these concerns were not widely shared among the sample. Perceived benefits associated with the extended reporting period included amongst others, allowing more time for employers to conduct incident investigations and submitting the RIDDOR report.

7 Some concerns were expressed that employers may forget to report and/or submitting the RIDDOR report may become less of a priority as a result of the extended reporting period. Participants that had not submitted a RIDDOR report within the last two years were more likely to hold neutral views regarding any perceived benefits (or lack thereof) of the changes to the reporting requirements, whilst some found it difficult to comment on the changes. Approximately half of the participants (18/40) stated that the changes to the reporting requirements would not influence their levels of reporting to the HSE, whilst just under half of the participants (15/40) suggested that the changes would facilitate reporting .

8 Although the majority of participants stated that they would still record over-three-day injuries (39/40), very few appeared to be aware that keeping an internal record of over-three-day injuries was a legal requirement. Only three participants explicitly mentioned that they would continue to record over-three-day incidents because it is a legal requirement whilst one participant mentioned that the organisation would not record O3D incidents because it was not a legal requirement. iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND The reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations 1995 (RIDDOR) require employers and others with health and safety responsibilities to report certain types of injury, some occupational diseases and dangerous occurrences that arise out of or in connection with work.

9 As of 6th of April 2012, the requirement to report incidents resulting in incapacitation for over-three-days was changed to over-seven-days. However, under EU law, employers and others with responsibilities under RIDDOR must still keep a record of all over-three-day (O3D) injuries if the employer keeps an accident book, then this record will be enough. This means that employers are legally required to report injuries where employees are absent from work or are unable to carry out the full range of their normal duties for more than seven consecutive days (not counting the day of the accident, but including weekends and rest days).

10 Employers are also given a longer period to report increasing from ten to fifteen days from the time of the accident. The increase in the reporting threshold from over-three to over-seven days helps align injury reporting more closely with the fit note, which employees must obtain from their doctor if they are absent from work due to ill health or injury for more than seven days. It is anticipated that the change to RIDDOR will reduce administrative costs for businesses as well as help employers to better manage sickness absence. The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) commissioned the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to examine employers views and perceptions of the change in RIDDOR reporting requirements, and explore its perceived influence on employers behaviours and the management of health and safety.