In the aquatics industry, there exists a pressing need to review and address concerns surrounding the efficacy and validity of existing aquatic risk and safety led audits/programs. Through my engagements with industry leaders and operators across various aquatic facilities, it has become evident that there are widespread challenges and pain points experienced within the realm of risk, safety and education initiatives. Feedback and observations from these stakeholders underscore the importance of igniting discussions aimed at evaluating the ethical and practical dimensions of current practices. As such, the viewpoint that I share seeks to ignite critical dialogue, exploring the nuances of aquatic risk, safety, and education programs while fostering greater transparency and accountability within the industry. It is my view that healthy dialogue can be advantageous to promote greater health and safety outcomes.
Across the decades, attitudes and behaviours have matured in the domain of aquatic risk, safety and compliance. Aquatic operators commonly engage with external industry bodies, certified professionals or industry experts to provide support in work health and safety matters, including risk to achieve greater public safety outcomes/deliverables.
I recently undertook work with an aquatic operator who expressed they had undergone a pool safety assessment having achieved the ‘Gold Pool Safety Endorsement’ – a notably great achievement validating the work of key staff highlighting their commitment to safety. However, amidst the celebration of achieving such status the reality emerged, prompting profound questions about the ethical underpinnings of safety programs and their interplay with competitive forces in the name of safety.
It was realised that, despite meeting all the requirements and being verbally assured of their status, this aquatic facility could not be recognised as a ‘Platinum Pool’ due to an inundated waiting list of other facilities already holding the same status. As a certified health and safety professional, this raises the pertinent questions into the transparency and impartiality of safety accreditation processes if there is not equal representation on the provision that such status is limited, despite other facilities achieving the same benchmark. Are aquatic safety inititives like these truly agnostic, or are they influenced by underlying motives and biases? The inherent connections between regulatory councils and aquatic industry led businesses inevitably cast a shadow of doubt over the integrity of decision-making processes. Such circumstances underscore the imperative for greater scrutiny and transparency within the governance frameworks of safety led initiatives/programs.
Across Australia, a multitude of aquatic safety programs vie for operators' attention, each promising unique benefits and accreditation. However, despite the growth and demand for these services, we must find a delicate balance encouraging healthy competition while also maintaining ethical practices of workplace health and safety. This balance relies on acknowledging that safety led audits and programs should be structured in a way that is fair and equitable, ensuring that operators are recognised appropriately for their efforts without limitations. Furthermore, audits and programs should serve to aid in developing stronger frameworks that help operators navigate complex situations and risks.
Moreover, in the legal arena, the role of safety audits and programs assumes heightened significance, often serving as pivotal evidence in legal proceedings. Courts scrutinise not only the existence of safety controls but also the rationale behind risk-based decisions. Herein lies a crucial distinction: operators who can articulate and justify their risk management strategies are not shackled to a singular safety provider for guidance. Rather, they possess the autonomy to draw upon a diverse array of expertise, tailored to the unique needs and challenges of their business/facilities.
Another example that I draw upon involves an operator in a different jurisdiction who recently underwent a pool safety assessment by an industry body. As part of their assessment, the operator lost marks for not having their staff trained by the same provider which was coincidentally the same entity conducting the audit/safety assessment. Upon closer examination, it was revealed that the lifeguards possessed the same national units of competency (skills training package), and the operator was unable to arrange training with the designated provider due to a lack of available trainers. This situation is one example that raises serious questions about the fairness and impartiality of an auditing process. Audits are expected to adhere to principles of fairness, transparency, objectivity, and independence. However, penalising operators for factors beyond their control, such as trainer availability, arguably undermines the integrity of the audit and compromises its fairness. This case highlights the importance of ensuring that auditing processes uphold these fundamental principles to maintain credibility and trust within the industry.
In advocating for a fairer and more ethically informed approach to aquatic risk and safety management, prioritising the principle of beneficence is crucial. This means acting in the best interests of all stakeholders. For example, safety lead recognition or accreditation should not face barriers such as pre-determined quotas, restrictions or waitlists to achieve an advertised/promoted status. Moreover, receiving penalties for not undergoing training with the same provider conducting an audit or safety assessment arguably is an example of an audit breaching the principles of integrity, objectivity and impartially.
In summary, the argument for greater scrutiny and transparency within aquatic risk and safety program(s) governance in my view is warranted. It's essential to ensure that audits and accreditation processes are fair, equitable, and devoid of biases or pre-determined quotas given the commitment of investment by aquatic operators. Moreover, in legal contexts, the ability to justify risk management strategies and decisions empowers operators to navigate legal proceedings with confidence. Advocating for a more equitable and ethically grounded approach to safety-based audits/programs is paramount. This requires prioritising beneficence and striving for substantive change beyond mere compliance. Auditors and industry experts play a crucial role in fostering a culture of safety excellence, where continuous improvement and proactive risk mitigation are the cornerstones of success. With the end goal of achiving greater public safety outcomes.
© 2024 Ashley Presser. All rights reserved.
Extract: "The Intersection of Safety, Competition, and Ethics in Aquatic Risk and Safety Audits/Programs"
For permissions or inquiries, contact Ashley Presser.
Comments