Achieving safe procurement
August 31st 2006 Subsequent to the publication of the BSIF research, following availability of the BOMEL information from the HSE on RIDDOR reports involving PPE, there has been dialogue across the safety industry on the fact that over 22 000 incidents involving PPE are generated each year. The significant findings are that most are caused as a result of mis-selection and/or misuse.
It appears that a major cause of mis-selection is a disconnect between the employer's safety officer, their internal procurement organisation and the supplier of the PPE which all seems to be driven by commercial imperatives. There is little evidence to suggest that safety officers are specifying incorrectly. Their level of competence appears to be of a high order. However, it is true to say that the main dialogue has been with safety professionals who are interested, work with bluechip companies and/or are independents who involve themselves with professional institutions. What is apparent is that employed safety officers often feel under pressure to modify their judgements on PPE towards lower cost 'suitable' alternatives mindful, perhaps, that their job might be jeopardised if they dig their heels in.
It seems that once the specification process is complete and the purchasing process begins, safety officer involvement is minimised. Purchasing personnel, looking for the best deal and with little understanding of the safety requirements, tend to pressure suppliers through 'reverse auctions' and the use of questionable supplier accreditation schemes. As a result, suppliers will quote 'as similar' alternatives without having details of the nature of the protection required. It is, after all, the employer's responsibility to provide suitable protection and, if he chooses only to give the supplier a reference to a particular standard and no details of circumstances in which the PPE will be used, the employer will carry the can if anybody is harmed.
The BSIF is canvassing opinion on how this situation might be resolved. Some thoughts involve potential relationships with insurers to provide a positive premium incentive for evidence that the safety officer is competent and that his principle (the employer) has actively purchased PPE that matches his advice based on informed risk assessments. Comments to the editor please. More articles from HSM News Desk: | 
