Recently, Federation Press published a weighty tome written by Arie Freiberg called “Regulation in Australia. 2nd Edition“. For those of you who are legislative junkies and can quote sections of occupational health and safety (OHS) law, you will love this, as it examines the mechanics of regulation, not just those of Industrial Relations or OHS. And there is some powerful context to market failures that often lead to new regulations, a perspective shared with Naomi Oreskes and Erik M Conway in their 2024 book, “The Big Myth“.
Category: economics
Can I be convinced EUs are good?
In the realm of occupational health and safety (OHS), Enforceable Undertakings (EUs) have emerged as a significant alternative to prosecution for companies that breach safety legislation. Recently, I had the opportunity to catch up with Naomi Kemp to explore the concept of EUs, their implications for workplace safety, exceeding compliance, and the restoration of relationships following incidents.
The road looks slow for OHS research in Australia
In May 2024, Safe Work Australia’s (SWA) Chief Executive, Marie Boland, said she would “be reestablishing a research team and that team will look at options for how we support research and evaluation for the future.” On June 12 2025, SWA announced its “New roadmap for work health and safety and workers’ compensation research“. Progress on occupational health and safety (OHS) is welcome, but it is lacking a few key elements.
Stakeholder vs. Shareholder: The Capitalism Clash Shaping Safer Workplaces
Elements of Andrew Hopkins’ latest book have been spinning in my head for a couple of weeks as they echo my thoughts on occupational health and safety (OHS) over the last few years. I cannot shake his discussion of stakeholder capitalism and shareholder capitalism. These two elements of business management are crucial to our understanding of OHS and how we should proceed, particularly in relation to psychological health.
Workplace harm and harmful behaviours
A typical excuse, or a sentence, people use after they’ve caused harm, injury or created an offence, is that “I didn’t mean to do any harm or think anybody would be harmed”. Potential harm may not have been considered, and the consequence of the act or a word was not anticipated. But it’s also possible that it’s a lie, and that they did intend harm, and they’re just looking for a way to excuse themselves from the responsibility and the consequence of that harm. And that’s a problem with including intent in a definition of work-related harm.
We can build better safety from the decline of the free market
Business ethics has never been a significant focus of occupational health and safety (OHS) organisations or regulators beyond what the law says. OHS advisers in companies and through consultation constantly address ethical or unethical behaviour, even though this is rarely discussed at the academic level or outside of the possibility of prosecution. Over the last four decades, neoliberal ideology and policies have given OHS only grudging attention, if any at all. Neoliberalism is gaining more attention in the OHS literature as the socioeconomic and political sources of hazards are finally receiving serious attention. However, most OHS people cannot remember a world before neoliberalism. It is important to remember that trust in the “free market’ on which neoliberalism was built, the promises of wealth for all, and reflect on how worker health and safety suffered.
Cost estimation, safety and economists
American legal scholar Cass R. Sunstein does not write about occupational health and safety (OHS) directly, but he writes about the society in which OHS operates. In November 2022, he reviewed an economics book in an article called “Accounting for the Human Cost.” OHS may have a strong moral core, but one can argue that it is more of an economic discipline due to the necessity for analyzing costs and benefits to gauge compliance with laws and regulations.