As a former Chief Audit Executive, sometimes health and safety (and related) audits felt like an excellent opportunity to drive real change and surface hidden issues.
But some of the most compliant workplaces I’ve audited were also the riskiest — because no one was thinking anymore. They were just ticking boxes.
How Routine Becomes a Risk in Disguise
While HSE testing has undoubtedly matured and education about its importance has grown, inspections are often on static environments. The sites might have been providing this service or that function for years, maybe even decades, along with some form of HSE testing almost from the beginning.
As with many functions that have existed for many years without massive upheaval – think procurement, internal human services – many activities can be lumped into a category of routine.
And with routine comes complacency: inspections that were once scrupulous become rote.
When the Why Gets Lost, So Does the Point
Many tests are initially implemented to address a massive risk or to mitigate something that had already happened, not only because some new law or regulation required it.
Yet those very real dangers get forgotten after a number of years, and we begin to test the procedure “because it’s on the list.” To refocus on real exposures, patterns in fork-truck safety risks illustrate how routine tasks still produce serious harm. Examples like these help teams reconnect tests to the risks they were meant to control. We’re not necessarily trying to ensure that a risk has been mitigated – we’re only trying to complete the work on time.
And if we’ve lost sight of “why” we’re performing the test, chances are we’re not in a position to determine if the mitigation will ever be effective.
After all, if we’re not thinking of the end result, how do we know if we’re pointed in the right direction?
When Safety Metrics Become a Smokescreen
Without intending to, HSE audits can become a volume game:
- X number of sites were audited
- Y number of procedures were tested
- Z number of remedial actions were identified
The focus can evolve into “how much,” rather than what or why.
To compound this issue, reporting metrics blur the lines even further, bundling everything into overall dashboards that just show the entire organization as a bunch of colors (red, yellow, or green) and numbers.
Oversight of these metrics becomes a collective of visual noise, only made worse by efficient teams: the better they are at producing results, the less scrutiny they receive.
And how can we ensure that we snap out of this learned behavior?
We break the routine of the approach.
Ask the One Question That Metrics Can’t Answer
When my teams would present me with the results of process-based audits (in any operational area), I would review their detailed observations, but I would always put them to the side and ask the team a single question.
“Is the program working as intended?”
I’d ask them to avoid giving complicated answers and just address whether things are running well or not – forget the detailed numbers, and just speak their minds.
If that answer was inconsistent with the audit findings, I would ask them to revisit both their conclusion and their work, and analyze the gap.
Because if the process was detached from the results, then the message would be lost.
Senior Leaders Don’t Speak in Audit Scores
And that message should always be easily communicated to senior management. Very often – outside of formal settings – the most senior leaders in an organization will casually ask, “How did the inspection go?”
If they receive an answer such as, “73 out of 78 tests were compliant,” they will likely follow up with another simple question: “Is that good or bad?”
This question isn’t oversimplifying a complicated procedure.
It cuts to the very heart of why that procedure is being performed in the first place.
Bring the Work Back to Its Real-World Purpose
To ensure that HSE inspections stay true to their purpose, it’s paramount that the inspection teams perform regular reviews of how they conduct their work.
Yes, this should definitely include revisiting their tools and their procedures.
But just as importantly: force the inspectors to actually conclude on what they’ve observed. And rather than just pointing back to a compliance requirement (i.e. “Does this function comply with all requirements?”), have the inspectors answer simple, intuitive, and plain-language questions, such as “Is this a safe working environment?” or “What’s the biggest issue facing employees on this site?”
These questions don’t have to appear on the final report, of course. But even asking these types of questions within the team can recalibrate the team’s approach toward the purpose of their work.
Because if the purpose of HSE inspections isn’t to ensure a healthy and safe environment, then what is?
About the Author
Matthew Oleniuk is a public sector transformation and leadership advisor and former Chief Audit Executive who has provided oversight of billions of dollars in government transformation projects. Through his practice at TheRiskInsider.com, he helps senior leaders protect ambitious project outcomes and navigate high-stakes delivery environments. Download his free Public Sector Project Health Check to find out if hidden dangers are quietly jeopardizing your project’s success—or if there’s still time to turn it around.
