“I’m sure we’d be covered… wouldn’t we?”
It’s rarely said out loud.
But if you’ve spent any time working with senior leadership teams, you’ll recognise it.
That assumption that if something goes wrong, responsibility will sit somewhere within the business, the systems, the processes, the health & safety team.
Not with them.
Not personally.
And to be fair, it’s not coming from avoidance. It’s coming from a gap.
The gap no one talks about
Most senior leaders I work with are capable, experienced, and genuinely committed to doing the right thing.
They care about their people.
They want the business to succeed.
They’ve invested in systems, policies, and often good H&S support.
But when we start to explore Section 37 of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, there’s usually a pause.
Because what it actually asks is different to what many expect.
It’s not about what you intended.
It’s not about whether you delegated.
It’s about what you knew, what you should have known, and what you allowed to continue.
And this is the part that often lands differently:
Under Section 37, where a breach is linked to consent, connivance, or neglect, directors and senior leaders can be held personally liable, including facing prosecution alongside the organisation.
That’s where assumption starts to give way to accountability.
Experienced… but not always prepared for this level.
Many of the senior leaders I work with didn’t set out to become “leaders” in the formal sense.
They were excellent at what they did.
They delivered results.
They built credibility.
They were trusted.
And over time, they were promoted through the organisation, step by step, until they found themselves operating at senior or board level. In many ways, they’ve earned their position.
But here’s the challenge.
Very few have ever been shown what leadership accountability actually looks like at that level.
Not in a way that connects legal duty, operational reality, and personal responsibility.
So they continue to lead in the way they’ve always known.
Often without realising that the expectations, particularly under Section 37, have fundamentally changed.
“We’ve got policies in place…”
Of course you have.
Most organisations do.
But policies don’t protect leaders.
Oversight does.
Understanding does.
Challenge does.
Clarity around roles, responsibilities, and decision-making does.
I’ve sat in boardrooms where everything looked in order, electronic folders full of documentation, reports being shared, activity taking place.
But when you go a level deeper, questions start to surface:
What are our real risks right now, not last year, and not in theory?
How confident are we that controls are actually working in practice?
If something went wrong tomorrow, what evidence would demonstrate leadership oversight?
Where are we relying on assumption rather than assurance?
These aren’t always comfortable questions.
But they’re the ones that matter.
Strong operationally. Less clear strategically.
Many organisations I work with have capable, committed H&S teams.
The day-to-day is being managed.
Incidents are investigated.
Policies are in place.
Training is delivered.
And that matters.
But operational activity doesn’t always translate into strategic assurance at leadership level.
Because they’re two different things.
One is about what is being done.
The other is about how confident leaders can be that risk is understood, controlled, and moving in the right direction over time.
And that gap isn’t a failure of the H&S team.
It’s often a reflection of how the role has been positioned.
Many H&S professionals have never been asked, or supported, to operate at that level.
Which means leadership teams can be left with activity but without a clear line of sight on what it actually means for them.
And that’s where exposure lies.
The shift from comfort to clarity
What I’ve learned over the years is this: Leaders don’t need more information.
They need clarity.
They need confidence in what’s really happening beneath the surface.
And they need space to think properly about the decisions they’re making and the ones they’re not.
Because the reality is, leadership can be isolating.
You’re expected to have the answers.
To make the call.
To balance commercial pressure with safety, reputation, and people.
And often, those decisions are made without real challenge.
Not because people don’t care but because there isn’t always the right environment to explore them properly.
The opportunity here isn’t just about avoiding risk.
It’s about making better, more defensible decisions with clarity before they’re tested under pressure.
Where H&S professionals come in
This is where the role of the H&S professional becomes far more than compliance.
You’re not just there to implement systems.
You’re there to help leaders see what they can’t see from where they sit.
To translate legal duties into real-world implications.
To create clarity where there’s uncertainty.
To challenge, constructively, where assumptions are sitting.
And sometimes, to give leaders the confidence to say: “I’m not completely sure…let’s look at this properly.”
That’s not weakness.
That’s good leadership.
Creating space for better decisions
In my experience, the most effective leaders are the ones willing to step back and ask: Are we genuinely in control of this? Or do we just believe we are?
But that requires something many organisations don’t naturally provide:
A safe, confidential space to explore decisions before they’re tested in the real world.
A space where leaders can:
- Sense-check their thinking
- Be challenged by others who understand the weight of responsibility
- Talk openly, without fear of judgement or consequence
Because when that space exists, something beautiful happens.
Assumptions get surfaced.
Blind spots become visible.
Decisions become clearer, more confident, and easier to stand behind.
Not just in the moment but if they’re ever scrutinised later.
And over time, accountability stops being something leaders hope never lands on their desk and becomes something they actively own.
Final thought
Section 37 isn’t there to catch people out.
It exists to ensure that those with influence over how organisations operate take responsibility for how risk is managed.
Not just in theory.
But in practice.
And the leaders who understand that, who actively seek clarity, challenge, and oversight, are the ones best placed to protect:
Their people.
Their organisation.
And themselves.
If you’re working with senior leaders, it’s worth asking:
Are they operating from assumption… or from true accountability?
About the Author: Nicky Cheetham-Whitfield
Nicky is the founder of accuSafe and The Compliance & Leadership Collective (TCLC) and a passionate advocate for psychological safety in the workplace. Over her 30-year career, she has supported organisations in building clear and protective health and safety governance systems across numerous regulated sectors, including healthcare, education, utilities, manufacturing and more.
