Recently, occupational health and safety (OHS) lawyer Steve Bell issued a challenge to all those who provide leadership training to executives.
At the annual breakfast for the Australian Health and Safety Institute, supported by Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, Bell shared this leadership training scenario with his panel of experts:
The most popular solution to physical and psychological occupational health and safety (OHS) problems is leadership. Leadership is crucial to implementing changes to work processes and policies that can prevent harm, yet we often view leadership as executive benevolence, without really examining executive leadership in modern workplaces.
Looking at current leadership traits through a different lens may help us understand why it continues to be so difficult to improve worker health and safety.
Canada’s Institute for Work & Health (IWH) has produced a bold forecast of the future of occupational health and safety (OHS) in its new report, “Work & health 2040: Anticipating changes impacting the futures of occupational health and safety”. The seven trends identified are not greatly surprising. Change is needed to address these trends, but who should, and how to, make the changes is unclear.
Every summer in Australia, it seems we are in crisis. Somewhere there is a bushfire, and somewhere else there are cyclones and floods. Somewhere, there are places that experience these two extremes almost at the same time. In all these circumstances, Australians expect strong, effective and compassionate leaders. These expectations affect how corporate executives behave and employ their “soft skills”.
I have written several articles on the moral foundations of occupational health and safety (OHS). This week, I sought assistance from the Bible via artificial intelligence apps, Text with Jesus and others. Below is that conversation and some useful, but synthetic, Biblical advice on managing a business safely.
Safe Work Australia states that :
“A psychosocial hazard is anything that could cause psychological harm (e.g. harm someone’s mental health).”
Preventing these hazards is most effective and sustainable through redesigning work, but this approach should not deny that personal decisions can also be hazardous. In the broader social and occupational contexts, it is worth considering workism as a psychosocial hazard.
Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.
For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.
This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.
Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.
