Discretion in work health and safety reporting and can be both a source of strength and weakness. On the one hand, it provides organisations with flexibility to adapt WHSMSs to their specific circumstances. This was a key reason for not introducing a prescriptive approach to risk management procedures in the new harmonised model work health and safety laws (WRMC, 2009, pp. 212-216).Yet, such discretion also leaves work health and safety reporting and audit exposed to political dynamics and potential abuse. Guidance is available in the form of reporting and tools, however these also grant discretion to organisations and auditors through reliance upon their judgement. The literature shows interpretation reporting and audit practices may differ within the same set of work health and safety standards leading to different outcomes (Frick, 2011). According to Blewett and O’Keeffe (2011, p. 1018): The work health and safety is conducted against Standards, but the Standards are written in a generic manner that requires the auditor to reliably and objectively interpret subjective data; that is, data that consist of people’s opinions or interpretations of events. Furthermore, because much of the legislation (and consequently the audit criteria) is performance- based, there are multiple ways in which compliance can be achieved. This makes the audit criteria and the evidence subject to auditor interpretation. So both the audit criteria and the adequacy of workplace practices are subject to interpretation. As a result, management that is not genuinely committed to safety may choose an approach that is easier to pass, focuses on personal safety and adopts narrow audit and performance measures (Gallagher et al., 2001; Saksvik and Quinlan, 2003). Consequently, the risk is that work health and safety reporting and audit ultimately become meaningless activities. The risk is further exacerbated by the qualitative, subjective and dynamic nature of safety culture and safety information. 6.4.3. Audit methodology Rigorous and systematic audit methodology is critical to ensure appropriate information collection, risk identification and auditor response to assessed risks in terms of evidence collection and evaluation. For financial information audits, the auditing standards (ASAs) describe a systematic, top-down and risk based approach as depicted in Figure 1 below:
Discretion in work health and safety reporting and can be both a source of strength and weakness. On the one hand, it provides organisations with flexibility to adapt WHSMSs to their specific circumstances. This was a key reason for not introducing a prescriptive approach to risk management procedures in the new harmonised model work health and safety laws (WRMC, 2009, pp. 212-216).Yet, such discretion also leaves work health and safety reporting and audit exposed to political dynamics and potential abuse. Guidance is available in the form of reporting and tools, however these also grant discretion to organisations and auditors through reliance upon their judgement. The literature shows interpretation reporting and audit practices may differ within the same set of work health and safety standards leading to different outcomes (Frick, 2011). According to Blewett and O’Keeffe (2011, p. 1018): The work health and safety is conducted against Standards, but the Standards are written in a generic manner that requires the auditor to reliably and objectively interpret subjective data; that is, data that consist of people’s opinions or interpretations of events. Furthermore, because much of the legislation (and consequently the audit criteria) is performance- based, there are multiple ways in which compliance can be achieved. This makes the audit criteria and the evidence subject to auditor interpretation. So both the audit criteria and the adequacy of workplace practices are subject to interpretation. As a result, management that is not genuinely committed to safety may choose an approach that is easier to pass, focuses on personal safety and adopts narrow audit and performance measures (Gallagher et al., 2001; Saksvik and Quinlan, 2003). Consequently, the risk is that work health and safety reporting and audit ultimately become meaningless activities. The risk is further exacerbated by the qualitative, subjective and dynamic nature of safety culture and safety information. 6.4.3. Audit methodology Rigorous and systematic audit methodology is critical to ensure appropriate information collection, risk identification and auditor response to assessed risks in terms of evidence collection and evaluation. For financial information audits, the auditing standards (ASAs) describe a systematic, top-down and risk based approach as depicted in Figure 1 below:
issues-assurance-verification-wh-_information-review_1.docx