Master Dissertation 11

8/12/2019 Master Dissertation 11

1/125

i

HEALTH AND SAFETY RISK ASSESSMENT INTHE UK EVENT PRODUCTION INDUSTRY

Untangling the red tape: What is the attitude

towards the subjective nature of interpretation

of health and safety legislation in the events

industry?

OLIVER ADAMS

A Management Research Paper submitted in partial fulfilment of the

Degree BA (Hons) Music, Theatre and Entertainment Management

The Liverpool Institute for Performing Arts

May 2014


2/125

ii

COPYRIGHT NOTICE

The contents of this document are copyright Oliver Adams 2014.

All rights reserved.


3/125

iii

DISCLAIMER

Content of this paper is intended for educational purposes only and is no substitute

for full legal advice. All facts are correct to the best of the authors knowledge and

belief. Any advice given, or comments made, are personal opinions of the author

only and do not constitute legal advice as individual circumstances may differ.


4/125

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my parents for their constant support throughout the process;

Maria Barrett for her constructive criticism and frequent encouragement; my

classmates and friends for their support and for providing frequent social relief; and

my interviewees for their willingness to take part.

I would also like to acknowledge the Learning Resources Centre at the Liverpool

Institute for Performing Arts for having an excellent selection of resources, Aldham

Robarts library at Liverpool John Moores University for providing such a pleasant

work space and Apple Inc. for having such dependable systems.


5/125

v

ABSTRACT

Health and safety obligations in the live event production industry have become a

topic for increasing discussion in the last two decades. This research paper examines

the industry attitude towards the subjective nature of health and safety legislation

and the practice of risk assessment together with the consequential perception of

these. It aims to identify any potential weaknesses in legislation, guidelines or

practice, the reasons for these and provides recommendations towards solutions.

The relevant legislation is outlined whilst examining how it may be connected to

attitudes towards health and safety within the industry and how this perception is

changing. It has been determined that that there are no fixed rules regarding health

and safety risk assessment but that there are some items which must be included.

Also suggested is the fact that broad terminology in the legislation may invite

subjectivity during the completion of risk assessment and that there appears to be a

broadly negative attitude towards health and safety within the industry.

The process by which qualitative data was collected, via individual interviews

conducted in person, via video-conference and via telephone call, has been detailed

and qualified. These interviews used semi-structured questions to explore the views

of industry professionals regarding the impact of legislation on attitudes towards and

perception of health and safety and risk assessment. The responses of interviewees

then identified a lack of clear understanding of risk assessment procedure at low

hierarchal levels and also amongst personnel completing risk assessments.

Based on suggestions made during research and examples set by the construction

industry, the concluding recommendations suggest the compulsory introduction of a

dedicated health and safety operative for every event, an event site health and

safety induction for all personnel entering the site and the acquisition of accredited

health and safety qualifications for employed staff.

Key words: live events, health and safety, risk assessment, health and safety

legislation


6/125

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................................... viii

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS................................................................................ ix

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1

2. LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................. 3

2.1. INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................... 3

2.2. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVENT INDUSTRY AND EVENT PRODUCTION .......... 3

2.3. THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS .................................................................... 4

2.4. RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S) ................................................................................ 6

2.5. INDUSTRY PERCEPTION ................................................................................... 7

2.6. LEGISLATION .................................................................................................... 9

2.7. CRITICISMS OF RISK ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 12

2.8. CHAPTER SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 14

2.9. CHAPTER CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 15

3. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 16

3.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 16

3.2. METHODS ...................................................................................................... 16

3.2.1. Chosen Data Type .................................................................................. 16

3.2.2. Sample .................................................................................................... 17

3.2.3. Data Collection ....................................................................................... 19

3.2.4. Interview Content .................................................................................. 21

3.2.5. Ethics ...................................................................................................... 22

3.2.6. Procedure ............................................................................................... 22

3.3. IMPORTANCE AND LIMITATIONS .................................................................. 23

3.3.1. Importance of Study .............................................................................. 23

3.3.2. Limitations of the study ......................................................................... 24

DATA ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ 25

3.4. REVISIONS TO METHODOLOGY ..................................................................... 26

3.5. CHAPTER SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 26


7/125

vii

4. FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................... 28

4.1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 28

4.2. EFFECTS OF HIERARCHY ................................................................................ 28

4.3. PERCEPTION .................................................................................................. 29

4.4. LEGISLATION .................................................................................................. 32

4.4.1. Awareness and Understanding .............................................................. 32

4.4.2. Standardisation ...................................................................................... 33

4.4.3. Terminology ........................................................................................... 34

4.5. COMPETENCE ................................................................................................ 36

4.6. SUING CULTURE ............................................................................................ 37

4.7. REFLECTION ON CONTENT OF LITERATURE REVIEW .................................... 38

4.8. REFLECTION ON INTERVIEWEE RESPONSES .................................................. 39

4.9. CHAPTER SUMMARY ..................................................................................... 39

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS........................................................ 41

BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................. 44

APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 50

APPENDIX 1: Explanation of production department operations and associated

risks .......................................................................................................................... 50

APPENDIX 2: Common problems with health and safety risk assessment.............. 53

APPENDIX 3: Interview Transcripts .......................................................................... 54

APPENDIX 4: Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM) ............ 112

APPENDIX 5: Recommendations for Future Improvement ................................... 113


8/125

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NUMBER PAGE NUMBER

Table 1: Summary of professional activity and reasons for choosing interview

participants .................................................................................................... 19

Table 2: Interview questions with rationale ................................................................ 22


9/125

ix

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

TERM DEFINITION

BETA testing: A trial of machinery, software or other products in the final

stages of development, carried out by a party unconnected

with the development process (Oxford Dictionary online,

2014)

CDM: Construction Design and Management (Regulations)

CDMC: Construction Design and Management Co-ordinator

CITB: Construction Industry Training Board

COSHH: Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (Regulations)

CSCS: Construction Skills Certification Scheme

ESAG: Local authority Event Safety Advisory Group; conducted by

event managers with local emergency services and other

relevant parties

ESP: Event Safety Passport (see Safety Passport)

Flying: The act of suspending equipment, structure or set for a

performance (see also: Truss)

Genie: Access equipment brand making scissor lifts and cherry pickers

H and S, H&S: Health and Safety

HASAWA: Health and Safety at Work etc. Act

Hi-vis: High visibility clothing

HSE: Health and Safety Executive

IOSH: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health

LOLER: Lifting Operations and Lifting Equipment Regulations

MHSWR: Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations

NEBOSH: National Examination Board in Occupational Safety and Health

PAT: Portable Appliance Testing (electrical)


10/125

x

PPE: Personal Protective Equipment

PSA: Production Standards Association

RIDDOR: Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences

Regulations

Rig/Derig: The act of installing or uninstalling equipment into or out of

a venue for use in at event

Rigging: The departmental term for the construction of truss and the

act of flying performed by a Rigger

Safe:Contractor: Health and safety pre-qualification assessment scheme

(Santia, 2014)

Safety Passport: Nationally recognized standard of health and safety training

(Safety Pass Alliance, 2014)

Tallescope: Access equipment

Truss: A metal framework from which equipment is flown

(see also: Appendix 1, Rigging)

Working at Heights: The Work at Heights (Regulations)


11/125

INTRODUCTION

1

1.INTRODUCTIONIt is vital for event management personnel to be aware of the challenges that face

them regarding health and safety and the attitudes of co-workers and other staff

towards its theory and practice on event sites. Event managers are ultimately

responsible for the safety and welfare of personnel involved in their production and

the outcome of careful risk management might be to save someones life (Shone

and Parry, 2010, p.173).

The topic this paper concerns is the healthy and safe conduct of work within theevent production industry. This primarily involves the risk assessment of all hazards

involved in any industrial activity conducted on a temporary or permanent event site

by any personnel present.

Although a great deal of literature exists discussing the regulations that must be

observed and detailing the method by which risk assessments should be conducted,

there is very little that discusses the inherent limitations of the process or the

attitude event staff have towards health and safety. This paper aims to establish

these attitudes, the reasons for them and the effect legislation has upon them via a

review of relevant literature and the interviewing of industry professionals. It will

also use recommendations from reviewed literature and interviews to generate

recommendations that may be used to assist in alleviating any problems found.

The key limitation of this study lies in its scope; ideally, more subjects would be

interviewed for primary research to generate more accurate and detailed opinions

on the topic, however due to the time constraints involved, this has not been

possible.

There are several differing opinions on the topic; some that suggest that the content

of the legislation, particularly the terminology may be at the root of problems

associated with practice.


12/125

INTRODUCTION

2

Others suggest that it is, in fact, a lack of understanding on the part of operatives

themselves creating problems. Most sources do however, agree that attitude

towards health and safety within the live event production industry is broadly

negative.

I have a keen personal interest in the world of event production and in recent years,

have worked on many different scales of events, in a variety of roles. Whatever the

scale or application, although health and safety is always a primary concern, it is

often a contested topic. Through this paper, I would like to establish the reasons why

attitudes towards health and safety in our industry are often so poor and what can

be done by way of improvement.


13/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

3

2.LITERATURE REVIEW2.1. INTRODUCTION TO LITERATURE REVIEWThere are a variety of different sources available that examine health and safety risk

assessments from different perspectives. It is vital for management staff to be aware

of relevant legislation, accepted code of practice and any pitfalls involved in the

process because ultimately, they are liable for any serious mistakes that occur. The

review and analysis of this literature may assist management. The majority of the

publications available are either generic or specific how to guides. Generic guides

are intended for anyone working with risk assessment (psychological, physical,

performance or economic), and include legislative documentation that provides

regulations and an accompanying accepted code of practice. Some publications are

also based on the risks specific to event management, intended for use by relevant

staff to assess hazards in both production and crowd safety. These usually

incorporate explanations of legislation, methods of quantifying risk, employer and

employee responsibility, risk management, identification of hazards and reviewing of

assessments.

Other available publications give an analytical approach towards the completion of

risk assessment. These are much fewer in number and generally exist in the form of

journal articles or critical elements within how-to guides. Authors such as Hannam

(1997, p.10-12) provide suggestions about possible flaws with the assessment

process and an outlook on health and safety in general from within the live

entertainment industry.

2.2. INTRODUCTION TO THE EVENT INDUSTRY AND EVENTPRODUCTION

The area of event management this study is concerned with is production. This

encompasses activities involved with organising and implementing the technical and

logistical delivery of an event.


14/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

4

The issues addressed by this type of risk assessment will be relevant to one of the

production departments; these are explained in Appendix 1. Within the context of

production, the event industry comprises several main areas: festivals, touring

performance, static performance, conferences, exhibitions and special events, all of

which will require logistical and technical production.

2.3. THE RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESSVan Beek suggests

there are three main stages to any risk assessment, identification,

assessment and control [] we must first identify the hazards. We mustdescribe them sufficiently so that another, less experienced person can

recognise the hazard if confronted with it (Van Beek,2000, p.25).

Control methods must then be generated to reduce the level of risk. He goes on to

say that there are too many systems in place for assessing the risk with many

results, some are too simple, some are too complex (Van Beek, 2000, p.26).

Within the production department, risk assessments are written to cover any

operation which, when performed incorrectly, will endanger staff involved in the

production. Van Beek (2000, p.26) explains that the risk assessment should outline

how to reduce the probability of death or injury.

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) give advice on regulations and legislation,

stating that there are no fixed rules about how a risk assessment should be carried

out (2004, p.8), but provide guidelines for what should be included. There may be

an advantage for some in the development of a custom method of evaluating the

level of risk, a custom format and a list of compulsory inclusions. However, a lack of

solid guidelines or format will mean that both time and financial investment are

required in order to produce all of the risk assessments necessary to stage a

production, covering activities from very low to very high risk. Van Beek suggests

that there are three aspects that all health and safety risk assessments should

contain, seriousness of injury, frequency of task and the likelihood of injury should

accident happen (2000, p.26).


15/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

5

Hannam states that the employer has a duty to identify any significant hazards but

does not explain or quantify the meaning of significant hazards. The HSE (2004, p.9-

10) suggest a similar method but with the additional requirement to review and

revise documents and practice regularly.

An official HSE commissioned review of good practice and common pitfalls in risk

assessment suggests that, in order to evaluate a risk fully, one must consider of

what, to what, from what (HSE, 2003b, p.8-9), so, where the risk is coming from,

who is at risk and what the implications are of the hazard occurring.

In order to assess risk, both HSE (2004, p.7) and Shone and Parry (2010, p.172)

suggest beginning by acquiring professional advice from experienced services such as

the fire brigade, police and ambulance service to establish known risks, bottlenecks

in process and in order to identify potential problems in current plans as early as

possible.

Hannam (1997, p.11) states that in a risk assessment, several items should be

included. He uses [*] to denote which are required by law. Firstly, identification* and

recording of the hazard and the listing of those at risk and approximate numbers*.

The employer must then assess the likelihood of an accident and the worst possible

outcome in the situation when controls are not in place and provide a risk

assessment accounting for information on any relevant codes of practice. They must

list any controls that are currently in place* and state what further action is

required to reduce the risk to an acceptable level. Finally they must monitor the

hazard and control systems to ensure they are functioning correctly.*

This method has been selected as an example because it is both the most common

(Hannam, 1997; Van Beek, 2000; AEV et al.,2010; Higgs, 2008) and the most

thorough, covering all of the items accounted for in the most publications reviewed

without being excessive. Higgs (2003, p.39) suggests a numerical method for

establishing level of risk, by multiplying likelihood of accident by hazard severity

(both from 1-3) whereas Hannam (1997, p.12) suggests using the qualitative

method, No injury, trivial injury, minor injury, major injury and fatal injury.


16/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

6

In a later publication, Hannam (2009, p.114) suggests rating severity, likelihood and

frequency out of 10 to give a rating out of 1000. Woking Borough Council (2014) also

suggest a similar qualitative method of High, Medium and Low risk. It is clear from

the number of different methods suggested across reviewed literature that methods

of evaluating and quantifying the hazards do vary.

Although these methods may work in theory, they are all liable to suffer from

subjectivity, particularly if guidelines are unclear. Strauch (1980, p.4) suggests that if

a problem has an unclear origin or the method by which it is solved is squishy, the

resulting solution will consequently be subjective. HSE (2004, p.6) states that the

level of detail in a risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk, however,one staff member, for example, (via whichever method of evaluation) may deem a

hazard to have a different severity level than another staff member, based on a

subjective interpretation. One could argue better safe than sorry and opt to use a

longer and more detailed risk assessment, however, this will require more resources

in terms of both time and finance, which may not necessarily be an option for those

with a low budget or a short time frame. Alternatively, if the hazard is not assessed

fully, an injury may be more likely to occur, furthermore, it could be deemed by a

legal authority that the hazard was not given enough attention and the responsible

person(s) could be reprimanded or worse. Additionally, in reference to the method

suggested by Woking Borough Council, though having fewer options may simplify

the evaluative process, it may also force inaccurate conclusions.

2.4. RESPONSIBLE PERSON(S)An appreciation of where responsibility for assessing risk lies and the hierarchal level

at which the assessment occurs and is enforced is essential to understanding liability

implications.

There are several staff members present at all events (beyond the very small), who

are responsible for the wellbeing of crew and those in direct contact with the

production.


17/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

7

The Managing Director (Hannam, 1997, p.10) or Production Manager (sometimes

referred to as Technical Director) is ultimately responsible for ensuring that crew

operations and workflow are conducted in a healthy and safe manner (Van Beek,

2000, p.16).

The Stage Manager is also responsible for overseeing any activity that takes place

on, adjacent to or behind the stage [...] and the overall layout and physical

preparation of the stage and all its setting(StageSafe, 2014, p.7). The staff member

in charge of distributing and organising crewing for an event, the Crew Chief, is

responsible for ensuring that people working for them are protected from hazards

[] and that safe working practices are in place and followed (Van Beek, 2000,p.16).

While the Production Manager is responsible for co-ordinating all the technical and

staging requirements of a production (Theatres Trust, 2014), in a theatre, the Front

of House Manager is responsible for the safety and wellbeing of the audience. He or

she will be trained in security and health and safety, including the safe and speedy

evacuation (Theatres Trust, 2014). The lack of reference to the Front of House

Manager in relevant literature suggests that there is no direct equivalent to this

theatre role at an outdoor festival. In this instance, overall responsibility for health

and safety will belong to the Event Manager (Ineson, 2012).

Although the Production Manager (or equivalent) is usually responsible for the

production of risk assessments, he or she is not ultimately liable for any injuries that

occur. It is the responsibility of overall management, such as a promoter, to maintain

the welfare and safety of persons involved in a production and to ensure any

documentation and practice that is in place is adequate.

2.5. INDUSTRY PERCEPTIONUnfortunately, due to a history of lax attitude towards health and safety within the

events industry suggested by Hannam (2009, p.21), there are very limited records to

illustrate the history of accidents in the area.


18/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

8

Hannam (2009, p.21) further states:

Tim Norman of Edwin Shirley Staging [] rightly states we have a very good

record for Health and Safety within our industry, but the reason we have

such a good record is not necessarily because we are safe, but because there

are no records!.

Various pieces of legislative practice such as Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and

Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) and Management of Health and

Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) have put control and monitoring measures

into place. However, if, as Hannam and Norman suggest, there are no (or very few)

existing records of injuries in the event industry prior to these being put in place,

assessing the differences made by them would be difficult. This method of working,

assessing and reviewing has received a slow uptake within the industry.

Despite being aware and knowing what is required of them, the majority still

do very little about complying with H&S law and regulations [] others

produce documentation [] but do nothing about implementation and

operating the required control systems (Hannam, 2004, p.21).

Later, Hannam (2004, p.23) also notes that

over the last five or six years, I have seen changes starting to take placeregarding peoples attitudes towards H&S, together with a growing number

of companies really starting to make very serious efforts towards better

health and safety management.

Patterns are also suggesting that it is small, upcoming companies wishing to

establish themselves with good practice who are adopting new methods, rather than

large companies. This can help them towards gaining preferred or approved

contractor statuses such as Safe:Contractor (Hannam, 2004, p.23).

Cox (2014) suggests that there are five major possible causes for accidents in the

entertainment industry, all of which are within the control of staff members. These

include the necessity to constantly work at a fast pace and under physiological

stress, which can lead to corner cutting.


19/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

9

Unsafe conditions may involve the use of poorly maintained equipment or working

in low light conditions and negative attitudes and laziness can lead to reluctance to

adopt recommended safety advice. Staff may not have received sufficient training

to complete activities to a safe standard. However, all of these factors can be risk

assessed and control measures put in place. These may include education to

illustrate the necessity for health and safety measures and thus improve attitudes,

improvement of working conditions, ensuring good upkeep of equipment, and using

contingency time combined with the monitoring of staff working hours so stress and

tiredness is kept to a minimum.

However, there is some evidence that larger institutions are improving on health andsafety practice. Katrina Gilroy (2011), Production Manager at the National Theatre

does suggest that some changes are being made at a higher level, "When I started

out, you didn't train to be a production manager. In the last four to five years, that's

actually changed, in many ways because of legislation and health and safety.

2.6. LEGISLATIONHSE (2014c) state that both The Health and Safety at Work etc. Act (HASAWA) 1974

and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations (MHSWR) 1999 place

duties on companies and individuals to ensure that adequate provision is made for

health and safety at work.Making an assessment of health and safety risks arising

out of work is a legal requirement underMHSWR. Regardless of industry or

application, all employers with more than five employees are required to produce a

written risk assessment outlining safe operating practice (HSE, 2014b).

For any event to be staged, responsible parties are legally obliged to produce risk

assessments, this being necessary under the legal principle, duty of care. This is in

place to ensure those parties take all reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions

that could injure employees, contractors, users, participants and visitors(Shone and

Parry, 2010, p.173).


20/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

10

Breach of duty of care is covered under statute law and offenders may receive a fine,

or in serious cases, be sent to prison (Hinde and Kavanagh, 1998, p.2).

For event managers, duty of care means taking actions that will prevent any

foreseeable risks of injury to the people who are directly affected by, orinvolved in, the event [] including event staff, volunteers, the performers,

the audience or spectators and the public in the surrounding areas (Shone

and Parry, 2010, p.576-7).

Accepted healthy and safe working practice is documented by the Health and Safety

at Work etc. Act 1974 (HASAWA) which requires employers to take reasonably

practicable precautions in various areas to safeguard employees and, to do this, an

assessment of the risk and the steps needed to remove or reduce them needs to be

made (Office Safety Company, 2014).

Additionally, the MHSWR 1992 also requires employers to record significant results

and information based upon risk assessments (Office Safety Company, 2014).

Regulation 3 of MHSWR states that all employers should make an assessment

of the risks to the health and safety of employees to which they are exposed

while they are at work and of the risks to the health and safety of persons not

in employment arising out of or in connection with the conduct of theemployers undertaking (Office Safety Company, 2014).

There are several areas where, should an employer find a breach of regulations, this

must be fully assessed and either removed or alternative methods of completing the

task put in place. These areas include noise and electricity, manual handling and

hazardous chemicals, The Health & Safety Executive publish copies of the latest

legislation (Van Beek,2000, p.30) with accompanying suggestion and guidelines.

There are many regulations under the umbrella of HASAWA and these must be

applied where applicable(Hannam, 1997, p.53). Health and Safety Group (2014)

further state that specific risk assessments should also be conducted to encompass

the regulations covering hazards such as toxic substances, safe use of electrical

systems, noise at work and personal protection equipment.


21/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

11

The accepted code of practice accompanying MHSWR states that anything with the

potential to cause harm [] (including articles, substances, plant or machines,

methods of work, the working environment and other aspects of work organisation)

will impact upon those affected and what measures can be taken to manage

those risks (HSE,2004). This legislation states that two things combine to create

risk, the threat (meaning level of harm) a hazard poses and the likelihood of an

incident taking place.

HSE (2004, p.6) approved code of practice for regulation 3 states that the level of

detail in a risk assessment should be proportionate to the risk and that

insignificantrisks can be ignored. Risk assessments conducted should also besuitable and sufficientand a thorough explanation of these terms is given in the

guidance. Despite this, no qualification is supplied as to the meaning of the phrases

impact upon those affectedand insignificant. Later in the text, it is stated that a

risk assessment should ensure the significant risks and hazards are addressed (HSE,

2004, p.8) and as before, no further explanation as to the meaning of significant is

mentioned. It is therefore left to the responsible person(s) to decide at what point a

health hazard is worth the time and financial outlay required to make it safe.

The explanation of RIDDOR found in Hughes and Ferrett (2006, p.259) does state

that if an employee has to take leave as the result of an injury for more than three

days then they must notify the enforcing authority within ten days. This may

suggest that a serious injury should be seen as anything that causes an employee to

be unable to work for more than three days, however this is the only guide to

severity found in these regulations.

All publications suggest that a risk assessment should cover any hazard that has the

potential to seriously injure or kill, but the lower levels of potential harm necessary

to warrant the use of a risk assessment was an area of particular vagueness. Hannam

states that there are five classes of injury: no injury, trivial injury, minor injury,

major injury and fatal injury (1997, p.12) but makes no suggestion as to which

require the risks to be assessed and which do not.


22/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

12

He later states a lot more work has to be done to get clarification on the regulations

and standard set for rigging and climbing operations. We need set standards that are

acceptable to the HSE and not just ourselves (1997, p.53).

In the literature reviewed, it is unclear at what stage a risk is severe enough to

qualify financial outlay. For example a Production Manager may have to decide

whether to spend the large additional cost of hiring an access vehicle to hang rigging

points as opposed to climbing with a harness and safety net. The former is certainly

safer, but at a very high cost. If there are different methods in place to assess these

risks, an employer may decide that using a rated harness and a safety net is safer

than using an access vehicle to save on costs. This lack of standardisation may leadto increased subjectivity whilst assessing risks and consequently lead different

personnel to different conclusions about how safe performing an activity may be.

Hindmarsh and Simpson suggest that people suffer subjectivity based on several

physiological factors including context, familiarity, control, cost and benefit and

likelihood of being caught. They go on to suggest that the variability of influence in

individual risk perceptions makes it important not to rely on individual assessors

(Hindmarsh and Simpson, 1996, p.63) and suggest that a committee should be used

instead. Furthermore, to combat the potential reduction of financial outlay on

Health and Safety, Hannam (1997, p.53) states that HSE consider that the amount

spent by any business on training and H&S must be proportionate to the turnover of

the business in question. However, without quantification, proportionate is a

vague term.

2.7. CRITICISMS OF RISK ASSESSMENTIt has been suggested that the sheer level of health and safety regulation is stifling

some areas of the industry,

in particular, small-scale local community and cultural events. Organisers []

often find the myriad rules, regulations and legalities intimidating. They fear

that they might face the cost of acquiring licenses and permits, and worry

about navigating the legal system, so [] frequently come to the conclusion

that it is not worth the effort (Baldenet al., 2012, p.198).


23/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

13

Further to this, Brett (1995, p.168) suggests

good workingpractices have been established for most activities and when

these are followed, the likelihood of serious injury or fatality is minimised []

It is likely that in almost any situation the lack of application of common

sense and responsible supervision may have a part to play.

He also cites familiarity, repetition and tiredness as reasons for alteration of safe

working practices, which lead to an increased chance of accidents.

Hannam (2009, p.59) suggests there are financial implications of being legally

obliged to produce risk assessments. Not only is there an added production cost, but

the value of an individuals time is compromised with an extra work load. This is

particularly true for anyone working as a freelance Production Manager (or

equivalent); they are required to spend an amount of time producing risk

assessments, increasing the amount of time spent providing a service to achieve the

same result. If risk assessment processes were standardised, this may result in

Production Managers having to spend less time producing risk assessments for

generic tasks or potentially causing a compromise in safety if risks are not thoroughly

considered. Alternatively, Hannam states the whole point about these assessments

is that they should not just be a paper exercise (1997, p.13) and that practices

should be constantly monitored in order to ensure they are working. If the

responsible person wrote a risk assessment using a standardised method, that

assessment may receive less attention in the long term, not be properly enforced or

may not be revised with due attention.

HSE (2003b, p.51) states that

While there exists a large body of published material on the general topic of

risk assessment and its application, very few references were found that

include material of relevance to the critical review of methodologies or

information on risk assessment pitfalls.

The study they conducted as a result found a series of common faults with risk

assessment; these can be found in Appendix 2.


24/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

14

Most relevant of these to this Literature Review include the use of a generic

assessment when a site-specific assessment is needed, (if the site in question has

unique risks or circumstantial hazards) and

carrying out a detailed quantified risk assessment without first consideringwhether any relevant good practice was applicable, or when relevant good

practice exists. Not involving a team of people in the assessment or not

including employees with practical knowledge of the process/activity being

assessed,

leading to failure to identify all hazards associated with a particular activity and

failure to fully consider all possible outcomes (HSE, 2003b, p.51).

Although some hazards may require site-specific risk assessments, there are many

items that will be general and can be sufficiently covered by a generic assessment.

This would also alleviate the problem of not involving employees in creating control

methods and failure to identify hazards. If assessments were already completed

using advice from consultants and employees with a good practical knowledge of

approved practice, time and expense may be saved. However, complacency brought

about by this may lead to failure to consider all risks that are present.

2.8. CHAPTER SUMMARYThis Literature Review has detailed the way in which legislation regarding health and

safety risk assessment interacts with the practice of assessing risk and the way it is

perceived by members of the industry. It has identified that there are no fixed rules

regarding risk assessment in the HASAWA or MHSWR but there are some items that

must be included by law. The event organiser, such as a promoter, is liable for the

enforcement of this at an event and generally, a Production Manager or equivalent is

responsible for the production of these documents. There was also debate over the

impact of the broad nature of terminology in relevant legislation upon the scope and

level of detail included in risk assessments in different given situations. It appears

that there is however, a broadly negative attitude towards health and safety within

the industry, something which research will attempt to establish a reason for.


25/125

LITERATURE REVIEW

15

2.9. CHAPTER CONCLUSIONThis Literature Review has examined documentation with varying levels of formality,

from official legislative documents to informal commentary of risk assessment

practice and theory. The process of production within the event management

industry involves the logistical and technical facilitation of live events, within which,

the protection of the welfare and safety of staff associated with the production is

necessary under the HASAWA and MHSWR. The method by which these pieces of

legislation dictate that a responsible person must ensure the welfare and safety of

his or her staff is via the use of risk assessments.

Drawing on the information gathered, several key issues have been identified: The

first is that accidents are still occurring in places of work and according to Hannam

(2004, p.28), up to 75% of these may be preventable which may be attributed to

several factors. The open-endedness of many guideline documents (for example

HSE, 2004; Hannam, 1997; Hughes and Ferrett, 2006) leaves much of the legislative

terminology open to interpretation, particularly that regarding severity of injury and

required level of detail. This provides potential for increased subjectivity in

assessment of risk level and consequently, the level of detail and time given to risk

assessments and the level of control measures put in place to assist in the reduction

of those risks (Hindmarsh and Simpson, 1996). It is also possible that some

conclusions in risk assessment may be reached as a result of financial and time

constraints.

In order to examine these theories in greater depth, research has been conducted to

establish the extent to which subjectivity in the evaluation of hazards affects the

control measures provided to reduce risk level and if standardisation of the risk

assessment process is consequently necessary. The following chapter will explain the

methods by which the research will be conducted and the limitations that will have

to be considered.


26/125

METHODOLOGY

16

3.METHODOLOGY3.1. INTRODUCTIONThe primary issue identified in the Literature Review was that of the potential for

subjectivity in the risk assessment process as a result of vague terminology and lack

of detail in relevant guidance documentation. The research conducted will assess the

degree to which this subjectivity is a problem in practice, and if so, how the partial or

complete standardisation of either risk assessment procedure or situation-specific

control measures would affect this subjectivity.

3.2. METHODS3.2.1.Chosen Data TypeThe information collected to provide the study with a basis for report and analysis of

thoughts from within the industry will exist in the form of qualitative data. This will

be collected using individual interviews, discussed in the Data Collection section of

the Methodology (3.2.3). During these interviews, open-ended questions will invite

discussion of surrounding topics to aid in the identification of any additional issues.

Qualitative data provides a large amount of detail on a topic in the subjects own

words, meaning statements have a high level of validity. There is also increased

potential for complex answers as necessary, allowing more detail to be obtained

(Yum, 1998). The method also allows a detailed picture to be built up about why

people act in certain ways and their feeling about these actions (Kruger, 2003).

Conversely, the length of time required to gain information means that more people

can be studied in the same amount of time using quantitative methods. This,

combined with the open-endedness of answers can also make it more difficult to

generalise, and for consistent comparisons to be drawn (Anderson, 2010).

However, because of the level of validity and depth of available information, the

collection of qualitative data is the chosen method.


27/125

METHODOLOGY

17

According to Whittlemore et al., the use of qualitative data puts the validity of the

results at risk. He suggests that the researcher may be drawn to subjective

conclusions because information is convenient or related to the expected outcome.

In order for research to be fully valid, the researcher must not lose sight of the

original intentions of the study by focusing on methods and procedure, he or she

must be unbiased and focus on the original objective of the research to gain the

most valid data (2001, p.543).

3.2.2.SampleIn order to assess the subjectivity and practical viability of standardisation, the

population consists of staff with industry experience of dealing with risk assessment

procedure. The population comprises of technicians, working in both theatre and

music, across various technical specialisms in both freelance and contract capacities.

They must not be too new to the industry not to be aware of the use or application

of risk assessments. Using staff in technician positions should mean they understand

risk assessment procedure and at least some of the legislation involved. They will

also deal directly withthe control measures put in place by staff above them.

This sample has been selected using convenience sampling. Cresswell and Maietta

(2002, p.55) state that this is the process of selecting sampling units by some form

of random sampling. In this case, the sample has been selected based on accessible

population, combined with a spread of roles within the event production industry.

Interviewees in this cross section were then selected as a sample group. The selected

subjects perform a variety of different roles across the industry, but all involve

health and safety management and regular contact with risk assessment procedure

and control measures. Each interviewees industry position has been indicated in

Table 1. Cresswell and Maietta (2002, p.55) do, however, suggest that there is a risk

of duplication or omission of parts of the sector if care is not taken.

The sample selected contains five event and health and safety professionals who

deal with health and safety on a regular basis.


28/125

METHODOLOGY

18

Many of them are also able to identify changes in perception and acceptance of

health and safety across the industry since relevant legislation was introduced. Their

professional status and experience suggests they are competent and able in the

completion of risk assessments and the design of control methods, sufficient to

reduce risk level. For these reasons, they are able to suggest the impacts that

standardisation may have, along with other recommendations for improving risk

assessment practice, guidelines and legislation.

Below is a table of interview participants with a summary of their professional

activity and the reasons why they were chosen as interviewees.

Participant

and industry

position

Professional Summary Reason Chosen

Interviewee 1

Festival

Producer

This multi-scale Event

Producer has experience

of primarily outdoor

festivals with capacities of

between 1,000 and 15,000

for the past three years.

This participant regularly produces risk

assessments for events, sometimes in

conjunction with a Production Manager.

They also spent ten years working in health

and safety in construction so are able to

draw comparisons between the two

industries and what the event industry maybenefit from.

Interviewee 2

Venue

Production

Manager

A Venue Manager

overseeing all technical

aspects of several 500

capacity venues around

London for the past two

years.

This participant has seen a significant

increase in the presence of health and

safety procedure during their time working

as a freelance technician, Venue Technician

and Venue Production Manager over the

last ten years. They now deal directly with

risk assessments on a very regular basis,

writing their own for the venue in which

they are Production Manager.

Interviewee 3

Crew Chief

Overall coordination of up

to 100 local crew in a

major UK arena for the

past two years

Even in their short time working in this job

role, this participant has observed

considerable changes in attitudes towards

health and safety at the large-scale end of

the industry. They have a comprehensive

understanding of the production process

and all its hierarchal levels and their

respective responsibilities. As a

consequence, they have a sound knowledge

of risk assessment procedure and its affect

on different levels in an organisation.


29/125

METHODOLOGY

19

Participant

and industry

position

Professional Summary Reason Chosen

Interviewee 4

H&S Advisor

(music

performance)

Working in the event

industry for over 40 years,now considered a leading

industry expert in health

and safety in event

production. They also

created the Safety Pass

Alliance (SPA) Live Event

Safety Passport Scheme.

This interviewee spent time as Production

Manager for one of the worlds largestgreenfield music festivals, at which point

they became aware of relevant legislation.

Since then, they have written several books

and papers about both health and safety in

general and risk assessment specifically.

Interviewee 5

H&S Manager

(culturalevents)

Working on large scale,

high budget events for six

years, Health and Safety

Manager for one of the

largest events in the UK in

2015.

This interviewees main job role is the

writing and approving of risk assessments

for their own company and sub-contractors.

They advise companies and help bring them

up to the high standards of their employing

company using extensive knowledge of

relevant legislation.

Table 1: Summary of professional activity and reasons for choosing interview

participants

3.2.3.Data CollectionData was collected via individual interviews with subjects. These interviews were

semi-structured so that conversation could be in more depth. It is suggested by

Langley (1987, p.24 cited in M.K., 2010) that these in-depth, less structured

interviews are more valid. A less formal interview may also encourage the subject to

be more open and honest, a fact particularly relevant to this study, as there is

potential for answers to be of a compromising nature. The lengthy nature of this

style of interview also meant that fewer interviews could be conducted than by using

a more structured style, however, using this method allowed subjects to discuss, at

length, what they perceive as key issues on the topic. As points of interest arose,

they could be discussed further by the interviewer and interviewee, which in turn

revealed previously unexplored areas of relevance.

Several other methods of data collection were considered; these were via group

interview and by survey.


30/125

METHODOLOGY

20

In comparison to individual interviews, discussion between interviewees in group

interviews may result in new ideas being generated and discussed. The Institute of

Customer Studies (2012), Kitzinger (2004, p.269) and Seale (2004, p.254) all agree

that they help in providing a more naturalistic environment since people are

influenced in what they can say and do by the presence of others. However,

opinions may be over-emphasised or not fully articulated if an interviewee is less

confident in their ideas or experience. Furthermore, this environment may cause

some interviewees to be reluctant to share sensitive information (Institute of

Customer Studies, 2010). For this reason, the method was rejected. The chosen

method is also subject to the same issue of the interviewees being reluctant to share

sensitive information; in order to avoid this, interviews were conducted

anonymously. In order to re-create this naturalistic environment in an individual

interview setting, Oakley (2004, p.254-5) suggests researchers

ought to tell interviewees about their own experiences so that the

encounter becomes a mutually co-operative event [so that] the level of trust

and commitment is likely to generate more authentic information.

For the purposes of preserving anonymity some names of events, personnel and

companies have been excluded. There are instances in which companies or

individuals have been named which could be interpreted as libel so these titles have

also been excluded. Full interview transcripts can be found in Appendix 3.

Surveys were also considered for this study. Surveys are easier to develop than

interview questions and are more convenient because they can be remotely

administered.

The information supplied by them is also primarily quantitative, making it easier to

present clearly. However, the closed nature of the answer options provides a validity

rate lower than interview methods. This method also limits depth of discussion and

it is primarily for this reason that the method has been rejected (Wyse, 2012).


31/125

METHODOLOGY

21

3.2.4.Interview ContentJones (2004, p.258) suggests that over-structuring of questions can become an issue.

There is a risk that an interviewer has already predicted [] what is relevant and

meaningful to their respondents about the research topic and in doing so, have

significantly prestructured the direction of the enquiry. As a result of these

subconscious choices, a level of structure and direction for the interview is added.

The interviewer must ensure their own values and theories are not getting in the

way of understanding those of the respondents (2004, p.259). To combat this,

information will be received in an open manner. The interviewer will limit the range

of topics discussed, however, the opinions given during that discussion, whether

agreeing or disagreeing with the hypothesis of study, will be taken into account.

In order to gain a breadth of information and allow previously unconsidered topics

to be discussed, questions have been written in an open manner so subjects are not

lead to conclusions by the interviewer. Below is a list of questions asked in

interviews and a rationale behind them.

Question Rationale

What has your involvement with risk

assessment been during your career?

To establish the level of knowledge and

previous experience the interviewee has

with risk assessing and using control

methods.

In your experience, has there been any

change in perception and application of

health and safety in the industry?

To establish the extent to which changes

indicated by research have been felt by the

interviewee.

To what extent are you aware of relevanthealth and safety legislation such as

HASAWA and RIDDOR? Have you ever read

these? What is the effect of responsible

persons completing documentation using

received understanding of legislation?

To establish whether or not the intervieweeis aware of the content of relevant

legislation and if so, their opinion on it.

Furthermore, the effect any lack of direct

contact with this has.


32/125

METHODOLOGY

22

Question Rationale

There are various statements within

HASAWA such as guidelines like the level of

detail in a risk assessment should be

proportionate to the risk HSE (2004, p.6),and that insignificant risks can be ignored.

Risk assessments conducted should also be

suitable and sufficient (HSE, 2004, p.6).

What do you think of the use of terminology

like this? Does its open nature enable or

hinder? Does this invite unnecessary

subjectivity?

Does the interviewee think the terminology

is too vague or that this is necessary because

of the number of different things risk

assessments have to cover and the differingcircumstances in which they have to be

applied.

If either the content or the structure of risk

assessments were to be either fully or partly

standardized, what would the implications

be? Can you give examples of circumstances

in which this would assist or obstruct process

or control measures?

To establish the interviewees opinion

whether or not full or partial standardisation

is possible and if it would then work in

practice.

Are there any other methods you think could

be used to improve legislation, guidelines or

practice in assessing risk?

Are there any other changes, aside from

standardisation, that the interviewee

believes could improve risk assessment

procedure in terms of both health and safety

and financial outlay.

Table 2: Interview questions with rationale

3.2.5.EthicsMcNiff et al.(1996, p.101-2) suggest that there are some ethical issues involved in

the interview process. They advocate that if possible, the interviewer should explain

the rationale for the research, that the interviewer should not deceive people in

order to get (the interviewee) to impart information and the interviewer should be

prepared to maintain complete confidentialityif this is requested or promised.

3.2.6.ProcedureThe interviews will be conducted either face-to-face, via telephone call or via video-

conferencing software such as Skype or FaceTime, allowing access to subjects who

may be geographically out of reach.


33/125

METHODOLOGY

23

As interviews are still effectively face-to-face, the main issue is possible technical

failure, such as poor internet or telephone connection. If problems arise regarding

this, the conversation will be stopped and resumed when an adequate connection is

available. Data will be audio-recorded during interviews using software on a mobile

device and then transcribed. The primary pitfall of this method is that it leaves the

interviewer with a lot of information to transcribe, consider and analyse. There is

also risk of technical failure and loss of original files. To combat this, two separate

recording devices will be used and files will be stored online.

Whilst reviewing the interview recordings it became clear that small sections were

inaudible. As a second recording could not be made, the transcriptions of theseinterviews indicate when audio quality was too low to be heard. However, these

sections are broadly names of personnel or parts of connecting sentences and

although this is inconvenient, it is not detrimental to the coherence of the transcripts

and does not impede gathering of information from them.

3.3.

IMPORTANCE AND LIMITATIONS

3.3.1.Importance of StudyAs is evidenced in the Literature Review of this study, accidents still take place,

despite the existence of control measures such as HASAWA and RIDDOR. There is

also a suggestion that up to 75% of these accidents may be avoidable (Hannam,

2004, p.27). Hannam (1997) suggests that legislative guidelines on risk assessments

must be made clearer, and an assessment of the degree of subjectivity present in

risk assessments would assist in evidencing a need for new, clearer guidelines to be

issued.

Furthermore, examining standardisation as a solution for the reduction of

subjectivity will provide research upon which to draw for anyone intending to

research the improvement of risk assessment legislation.


34/125

METHODOLOGY

24

The study therefore will be useful for several parties; anyone seeking to improve

their own risk assessment procedure may use the study to assist in the identification

and control of any subjectivity present in their procedure. Additionally, anyone

seeking to make recommendations towards the improvement of legislation or

guidelines may find both subjectivity and standardisation useful areas for further

research.

It is also important to note the context of health and safety and risk assessment

within management. A manager is ultimately responsible for the welfare and safety

of those involved in the event, including audience, performers and production staff.

If serious injuries occur it is not unusual for liability to be traced back to eventmanagement such as a promoter, despite the likelihood that they had no direct

involvement with the incident and management can be penalised with serious fines.

The reasons for this are discussed further in the Legislation section of the Literature

Review (2.6).

3.3.2.Limitations of the studyThe primary limitation of the study is its scope. Ideally, more subjects would be

interviewed to give a more accurate and wider impression of opinions on the topic.

This would in turn, increase reliability (Langley, 1987, p.24 cited in M.K., 2010). In

order to increase the scale of the study, between 30 and 40 subjects would be

required, which, combined with the amount of time required to analyse this quantity

of data, would make this increase in size unviable in the time allotted to complete it.

The second limitation is that of accuracy. Although care has been taken to use

interviewees with sound knowledge and experience of health and safety in the event

industry, it cannot be ensured that all facts supplied are correct. Any facts given by

interviewees regarding legislation, which are used during the analysis, will be cross-

referenced to ensure their accuracy.


35/125

METHODOLOGY

25

DATA ANALYSIS

Based on the models suggested by Cresswell and Maietta (2002, p.147), the method

of data analysis will be to identify narrative aspects such as stories, themes,

descriptions and assertions. In this type of collection, the stories constitute as the

data (Cresswell and Maietta, 2002, p.147). The transcripts generated from this data

collection provide the raw data for researchers to analyze [sic] as they retell or

restory based on narrative elements such as problems, actions and resolutions

(Ollerenshaw & Cresswell, 2000 cited in Cresswell and Maietta, 2002, p.149).

Perakyla (2004, p.325) suggests that the quality of transcribed data may be

dependent on the audio quality of the original recording, but as mentioned, multiple

recordings will be made to ensure at least one good quality recording. However,

during the transcription process, prosody (rhythm of speech) and intonation may be

omitted, providing a document that may not accurately display the interviewees

comments. However, it would be beyond the scope of this research paper to analyse

prosody, intonation or tone of voice as the parties analysing the data are not

qualified to do so.

In order to analyse this data, transcripts of conducted interviews will be reviewed. In

each transcript, statements and concepts considered to relate directly to any of the

questions will be highlighted and summarised so they can be easily located in the

documents. This information will then be compiled into a summary table of findings,

in which conflicting and common opinions and suggestions can be identified, as data

is analysed question by question. Any additional points that are raised in more than

one document that do not relate directly to an individual question will also be

highlighted, and if patterns are found to occur, findings will be reported and

analysed.

If an alternative method of data analysis was to be required or if this process were to

be repeated, the method of coding would be used. Strauss and Corbin (2004, p.303)

state that this is the method of highlighting phenomena in raw data to identify

categories into which patterns of consistent or conflicting information can be sorted.


36/125

METHODOLOGY

26

This would be grouped according to relevance to questions asked during the

interviews.

3.4. REVISIONS TO METHODOLOGYDuring interviews, it became apparent that the part-question Have you ever read

(relevant legislation such as HASAWA and RIDDOR)? was too leading and was

generating brief and simple answers. Further to Jones (2004, p.258) comment about

over structured questions, it was changed to What is the effect of responsible

persons completing documentation using received understanding of legislation?

This question proved to be considerably more insightful and constructive in gaining

information from interviewees. Although these questions appear different, the latter

question assumes most responsible persons do not read relevant legislation (as

evidenced in interview findings) and so seeks to establish the implications of this.

3.5. CHAPTER SUMMARYThis section has identified the purpose of the study and the type of data that will be

collected in order to address the question posed along with advantages and

disadvantages of that data type. Qualitative data will be collected via individual,

semi-structured interviews in person, via telephone call or via video-conference; the

advantages and disadvantages of this method have been identified alongside a

discussion of other methods that were considered. The questions that will be posed

to the interviewees have also been listed and their rationales and links to secondary

research explained. The population, frame and sample of event technicians have also

been discussed and the method by which the data collected will be analysed has

been explained.

Finally, the importance of the study has been discussed, primarily the fact that

despite legislation being in place, potentially avoidable accidents are still occurring.

Limitations, including the restricted scope and possible control measures have been

highlighted and considering these, parties that may find the study useful have been

identified.


37/125

METHODOLOGY

27

The next chapter of this study will summarise and examine the results of the

interviews, analyse them and attempt to identify any conclusions that can be drawn.

Where possible, it will make recommendations for potential improvements or

measures that can be taken by responsible persons to address any pitfalls that are

identified.


38/125

FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS

28

4.FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS4.1. INTRODUCTIONThe previous chapter discussed the methods by which research would be conducted

into the effects of health and safety risk assessment legislation on its practice and

consequent industry attitudes towards it, alongside the advantages and

disadvantages of each approach. This chapter details the findings of those interviews

and analyses the raw data supplied by interviewees. The topics discussed appear in

the same order as in the Literature Review for ease of understanding. Full transcripts

of the interviews can be found at Appendix 3.

Detail of interviewees backgrounds and a rationale for their suitability for this study

can be found in Table 1in the Sample section of the Methodology (3.2.2). A list of

guide questions that were posed to each of the interviewees can also be found in

Table 2 in the Interview Content section of the Methodology (3.2.4).

4.2. EFFECTS OF HIERARCHYThe Venue Production Manager (2014), Crew Chief (2014) and H&S Advisor (2014)

agreed that staff low down in the production hierarchy, such as local crews, are

often not aware of and do not understand the application or need for risk

assessments written to protect them from common hazards. The Crew Chief (2014)

stated that they never understood the necessity for risk assessments and that their

importance is not fully understood at the bottom of the ladder. The H&S Advisor

(2014) also agreed that this was a problem.

In contrast, the Venue Production Manager (2014) gave an example of a mid-scale

council-run music festival they had worked on at which no safety lighting was

supplied for the night time get-out, a responsibility that falls to the client. However,

the crew at the show carried on with the job regardless, despite admitting that, if

their employer had been contacted regarding the situation, they would have

recommended that the job be left until the morning.


39/125


29

The interviewee suggested that the crew did not want to let down their employer.

This could illustrate either a disregard or lack of proper understanding of health and

safety compliance during that performance, potentially at the fault of the employer,

and demonstrates a lack of understanding of responsibility from the overall client,

(in this case, the relevant council), a particular culture within the organisation or the

effects of high time pressure on the event.

During the production of several festivals (ranging in capacity from 1,000 to 15,000

people), the Festival Producer (2014) has attempted to arrange Event Safety

Advisory Group (ESAG) meetings to which have been invited relevant authorities

and bodies and that generally involves the council, environmental health, police, firesafety group. On the five or so occasions when these meetings have been planned

in the past year, none had yet taken place. They have been turned down, because

in their mind there are more important things to do(Festival Producer, 2014).

These examples suggest that even some personnel at higher levels do not

understand their legal obligations regarding health and safety.

At lower levels in the hierarchy, much of the feedback from interviewees on the

topic reflected a lack of understanding of the process and the necessity for it,

resulting in a feeling of hostility towards the practice and a reduced desire to

comply. The Venue Production Manager (2014) recalled an instance when a ceiling

was being painted whilst standing on a table which collapsed and, although no one

was hurt, the interviewee agreed with the fact that most minor injuries occur simply

when corners are being cut. The Responsible Person(s) section of the Literature

Review (2.4) discusses which members of staff are responsible for producing risk

assessments for hazards. Other theories on perception and potential solutions to

combat these are discussed in the following section.

4.3. PERCEPTIONSources examined in the Literature Review indicated that attitude and perception

towards health and safety and risk assessment were often poor.


40/125


30

There was also indication that some larger companies were amongst the number

with this lax attitude towards health and safety, with some smaller companies

displaying much better standards. The H&S Advisor agreed and also suggested that

there are currently four groups which summarise attitude towards health and safety

compliance amongst equipment hire companies within the industry:

The first group suggested do absolutely nothing; they make no effortstowards health and safety compliance at all.

Group 2 have all the necessary paperwork in place so that when theyreasked for it by their clients [] they can produce some generic documents,

which they give, together with their insurance documents and that seems to

satisfy. The name of a high profile promoter that fits into this group was also

given.

Group 3 have all the documents in place (and usually have corporatebranding all over them) and promote themselves in being the leaders in

health and safety [] and in fact they dont actually do anything.

Group 4 have all the documents in place and they try and do it properly;there is a small minority that really try hard to do it properly and work hard

at it(H&S Advisor, 2014). Several examples of high profile companies were

given that fit into this particular group.

(H&S Advisor, 2014).

Despite this summary, the Venue Production Manager (2014), Crew Chief (2014),

H&S Advisor (2014) and H&S Manager (2014) agreed that there had been a notable

change during their time in the industry (the Festival Producer had not been involved

in the industry long enough to comment). The Venue Production Manager suggested

that they believed that amongst technicians, there were several schools of thought

on the matter; some believe that it is over the top (and admitted they were one of

those people) and that it can sometimes hinder the outcome of a performance or

the potential for a performance(Venue Production Manager, 2014).


41/125


31

Others believe it is fully necessary; they went on to say that it shouldnt be life or

death in this industry, we should do everything safely and no one should risk their

life for entertainment(Venue Production Manager, 2014).

The Crew Chief (2014) noted that, when they started working in UK arenas, Personal

Protection Equipment (PPE) was not compulsory for crew but now there is a country-

wide agreement in place so even cleaners working on the arena floor and stalls are

required to wear hi-vis (high visibility) jackets, steel cap boots and hard hats. The

Venue Production Manager (2014) also referenced the existence of the Facebook

group Dodgy Technicians which is an open page to which event staff can post

stories and photos of shody [sic] workmanship you have witnessed in the []Entertainment Production Industry (Horn et al., 2014) as proof alone there is not

enough legislation to enforce it (health and safety in the industry).

The reasons for this attitude appear to be ingrained into the industry; both the time

and costs associated with health and safety management have a significant impact

on its application. The Venue Production Manager suggested that not enough time is

available to do things in a healthy and safe manner because an extra day [] costs X

amount more(Venue Production Manager, 2014). It is clear however, from the

responses of both the Venue Production Manager (2014) and the Crew Chief (2014)

that new regulations such as the compulsory use of Personal Protective Equipment

and the employment of staff with the sole duty of looking for health and safety

breaches would be advantageous. All of the parties contacted were aware of the

importance of health and safety, yet breaches still take place. The Crew Chief

suggested that In high budget (arena) performances at least, (health and safety) is a

huge factor and is taken very seriously(Crew Chief, 2014).

The H&S Manager suggested that this increase has, in fact, become a hindrance

because, as a Health and Safety Manager, in some cases they have had to drag

them (companies) up (to standard) kicking and screaming, whereas in others, just

need to be made more aware of what they need to do (H&S Manager, 2014).


42/125


32

Further to this, the Festival Producer (2014) suggested that companies should be

made more aware of their legal responsibilities because, on occasion, they had had

to introduce event organisers to necessary health and safety documentation, just in

the last two years. The interviewee pointed out that there had previously been no

one enforcing it to the managers or on-site staff during the festival.

This suggests that some parties are not aware that by law, they must ensure that

staff are using sufficient documentation and safe practice, and if an issue does occur,

they will be held liable. If this were more widely understood, clients may choose to

take more responsibility and invest more resources in ensuring requirements are

fulfilled. The Crew Chief (2014) highlights this point, stating that the over-archingcompany should reinforce the importance of health and safety to the Production and

Stage Managers.

4.4. LEGISLATION4.4.1.Awareness and UnderstandingAccording to The H&S Advisor (2014), at the time s/he became aware of new

legislation in 1992, they were the first at a major industry conference to have done

so. The H&S Advisor (2014) also mentioned that at this conference they were

berated at the suggestion of the use of risk assessments and that others denied its

existence. The H&S Manager (2014) suggested that there are two groups of

understanding in the industry; those that understand legislation and are able to

interpret it correctly and produce adequate documentation, and those that simply

cannot because of lack of understanding. However, the interviewee went on to say

that the company in question invests extensive resources in education to ensure

that we are the leading agency in our field(H&S Manager, 2014), a luxury that is not

always available to companies with fewer resources.

All interviewees were aware of legislation but only the H&S Manager had consciously

read any content from HASAWA.


43/125


33

The Venue Production Manager on the other hand, had completed risk assessments

previously but could not recall any specific details about legally required risk

assessment content. Both the H&S Advisor (2014) and the H&S Manager (2014)

agreed that, although reading of legislation may not be completely necessary,

research into it is necessary in order to gain a sound understanding of what is

required.

The Festival Producer (2014), H&S Advisor (2014) and H&S Manager (2014) drew

comparison with the construction industry regarding awareness of legislation,

discussed further in the Construction Design and Management Regulations (CDM)

section in Appendix 4.The Festival Producer (2014) opened their interview bysuggesting that they do not think there is nearly the same level of attention to health

and safety in the event industry as there is in construction, despite some comparable

activities and suggested that more training into its content should be necessary.

4.4.2.StandardisationIn the Literature Review, the possibility of the standardisation of risk assessments

was discussed. This concluded that, although there are legal minimum requirements

for the content of risk assessments, when responsible persons are required to

produce their own set of assessments, the openness and consequent lack of

structure of the guidelines may not only have financial implications but could impact

on the welfare of people involved in the production. Financial implications could be

as a result of hiring an advisor, the time required to complete the process or develop

a custom one. The Venue Production Manager (2014) suggested that risk

assessments Should be structured in a matter of fact way, standardised. I mean,

you need someone to put in a law basically to make it happen the way it should as

opposed to people interpreting it(Venue Production Manager, 2014). The Festival

Producer (2014) also suggested that a template should be provided by the HSE to

assist those inexperienced in the completion of risk assessments to do so.


44/125


34

Conversely, the H&S Advisor (2014) believed the system in place is perfectly

adequate and stated that the minimum requirement is given in the relevant

legislation; explained by Hannam in the Risk Assessment Process section of the

Literature Review (2.3). This interviewee pointed out that generic risk assessments

used by many companies, should be replaced by site-specific assessments,

concurring with the idea suggested in the Criticisms of Risk Assessment section of

the Literature Review (2.7).

The Crew Chief (2014) and the H&S Advisor (2014) further suggested that there are

too many variables to have a generic format or a generic assessment for each

hazard. The Crew Chief (2014) however, suggested that even if standardisation werein place, mistakes would still be made by crew members and injuries would still

occur.

Putting standardised methods in place would however, alleviate the issues raised in

the Literature Review of there being potential for responsible persons to assess the

level of risk involved in an activity with a view to financial benefit. The H&S Advisor

(2014) pointed out that a Production Manager completing risk assessments faces a

conflict of interest. The person in this position aims for the best value, quickest and

simplest method to make a performance happen and having to conform to health

and safety guidance may be counter-productive to these objectives. Standardised

risk assessments would be likely to be used for the same reasons, which would also

ultimately create a conflict of interest. For the same reasons, a Production Manager

may not be able to properly complete a risk assessment, therefore standardisation

of risk assessments has not been considered as a potential method of improvement.

4.4.3.TerminologyThe Literature Review discussed the implications of open terminology in legislative

documents and the interviewees were asked what implications they thought this had

on the practice of risk assessment, including the suggestion that if the method for

completing risk assessment was unclear, the resulting solution may be subjective.


45/125


35

However, the H&S Advisor (2014) and the H&S Manager (2014) agreed that the

openness of terminology was necessary because of the number of variables involved

in each individual hazard requiring risk assessment. Both also agreed that the reason

for this terminology is to avoid prescriptive legislation.

The H&S Manager (2014) added that this terminology was only a hindrance to those

that did not understand the legislation and requirements, (a matter which is

discussed further in the Competence section of Findings and Analysis (4.5)) and that

it is helpful because it forces the people producing the documentation to think

through the process and qualify the reasons why it is safe and practicable. This is

aided by the fact that codes of practice are also being slowly removed in place of lessrigid guidelines that suggest how to perform tasks instead of stating what should not

be done.

In contrast, the Festival Producer (2014), Venue Production Manager (2014) and the

Crew Chief (2014) suggested that there should be more formalised rules because

interpretations are too varied; a method should have to be qualified. Notably the

Crew Chief (2014) suggested that there should be legal and standard codes for

practice put in p

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	clifton-freeman
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Master Dissertation 11

Documents