|Theme||Visible||Selectable||Appearance||Zoom Range (now: 0)|
Many organizations are working on long-term sustainable growth. While there are differences between sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR), working on one typically means that you are working on the other. Sustainability requires a balance of environment, economic and social aspects, often referred to as the triple bottom line. While environment has a large and natural foundation in sustainability, the strategic role of safety is less visible. Once the context of the "big picture" is understood, the challenges and opportunities of better integrating safety into the bigger picture are explored. Both sustainability and CSR have significant focus on societal impacts, suggesting that safety must expand its focus beyond the workplace. The constraints of current metrics, the "safety silo" and limited safety focus are discussed. Turning those constraints into opportunities offers exciting challenges for SH&E professionals. Proven methodologies to improve operational excellence built upon safety as a core value are presented.
This article, written by JPT Technology Editor Judy Feder, contains highlights of paper SPE 191537, “Transforming Natural Resource Management for a Sustainable Planet,” by David MacDonald, SPE, BP; Julian Hilton, Aleff Group; David Elliott and Sigurd Heiberg, SPE, Petrad; and Harikrishnan Tulsidas and Charlotte Griffiths, United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, prepared for the 2018 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Dallas, 24–26 September. The paper has not been peer reviewed. The global acceptance of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development marked a new era in global development. Natural resources are essential for attaining most of the agenda’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Whether these measures have created value will depend on why, how, when, and where natural resources are discovered, produced, consumed, recovered, and reconsumed. In response, the United Nations Framework Classification for Resources (UNFC) is transforming into a comprehensive and integrated system that can be used for managing these resources to ensure balanced, responsible, and resilient development. This paper presents the recent expansion of UNFC guidance to cover social and environmental effects and the further transformation of the system to make it a•valuable tool in resource management for governments and•businesses. Introduction The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, with its SDGs, has ushered in a new era in global development marked by pursuit of economic, social, and environmental gains in equal measure. The transformation is accompanied by a commitment to meeting the needs of two key beneficiaries—the people and the planet—through the common goal of sustainable prosperity for all. The UNFC is a unified, global system for policymaking, government resource management, business-process innovation, and financial management and reporting that applies to key energy resources, including oil and gas, renewable energy, nuclear fuel resources, minerals resources, injection projects, and anthropogenic resources. The current UNFC grew partly out of the pre-existing United Nations International Framework Classification for Reserves/Resources–Solid Fuels and Mineral Commodities and the Society of Petroleum Engineers Resource Classification of 2000. It largely is compatible with the current SPE Petroleum Resource Management System in that it addresses not just what has been found, which was the case for the earliest classifications, but also what can be gained, in a manner that follows the industrial value chain. The UNFC additionally addresses the economic and social conditions that allow, or do not allow, projects to proceed.•• Agenda 2030 makes it imperative to transform resource management to meet these new challenges. This transformation is based on the premise that various stakeholders, such as governments, financial institutions, and commercial enterprises, will require a balanced, integrated, and comprehensive resource-management system fully capable of supporting the realization of SDGs. As a first definitive step, the UNFC has incorporated high-level guidelines for applying social and environmental considerations to resource classification and management, and has incorporated consistent concepts and terminologies in regard to these aspects. Even more-detailed guidelines are being prepared. These guidelines provide the critical social and environmental bases for classification of resources in a manner that facilitates an equilibrium between environmental, social, and economic aspects.
First let me apologise to J.K. Rowling; Paraphrasing your title was a mark of respect, for I thought it conveyed part if not all of just what it was I wanted to get across in this paper.
Very recently I had a communication from another safety professional organisation, it said, “You have been a member for 25 years. Thank you!” This, believe it or not, started me thinking as to just what I have learned in those 25 years plus as a safety professional and what legacy I would be able to leave when I finally complete my career. Could I say that I have left the working environment a ‘safer place?’ Could I leave anything positive behind me?
So this paper then is a reflection on those 25 years in the ‘business’ as a way of leaving to the newly qualified, appointed safety professional some thoughts as to navigating through that minefield of application of the theory and what is practical in the working environment.
When I started in this ‘safety profession,’ I was convinced that there were some secrets, some magic bullet that, if I discovered it, I would not only find my fame and fortune but would make a major contribution to the safety and welfare of my work colleagues.
I didn’t appreciate that there was even such a concept as a ‘wicked problem’ and that is something bears a few moments of our time to explore. The concept of a wicked problem was, as far as I can see, first outlined by Horst W.J. Rittel and Melvin M. Webber, two Berkeley professors in an article published in Policy Sciences during 1973. (1) Before we get too technical, it will be worth defining the difference between tame and wicked problems:
• A tame problem is in essence one for which we know the starting point and we know when we have a successful outcome to the solution that we have devised and implemented.
• A wicked problem is therefore one in which there a degree of uncertainty as to the causation and certainly difficulty in ensuring a successful outcome.Let me try and put that into a ‘safety related’ issue. It is well understood that working with computers (display screen equipment) can cause a multitude of physical ailments, (work-related upper limb disorders). It is probably fair to say that this is well understood by not only those of us in the safety profession but also by the vast majority of individuals within the general public as well.
During the past two years, The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company invested time and effort to change and improve the safety culture of the workplace and global organization. A major component of the focus has been improving the ergonomic conditions of the workplace and work practices by associates. The purpose of this presentation is to share Goodyear's approach, successful practices, and challenges deploying a common, sustainable and effective ergonomics improvement process in a global organization. In late 2004 Goodyear's executive Environmental, Health and Safety (EHS) Leadership Council asked if more could be done to improve safety performance. Although Goodyear was the safety leader in the global rubber manufacturing industry, it was believed that too many associates were getting hurt.
Abstract Since conducting a global review of drilling safety in 2001, BP has been focusing on methods of improving the HSE leadership competencies of its wellsite and other operational leaders. BP has started working with Enterprise Development Network (edn) to achieve that goal. Edn's generic methodology focuses on developing a greater understanding of the organization's safety vision and values, exploring and experiencing leadership, team behaviours and skills necessary to achieve safe work outcomes and having participants develop an action plan that is revisited shortly after workshop attendance. BP has taken that a step further and jointly developed (with edn) an HSE Leadership Development Center that includes BP specific context to assist operational leaders in really understanding what it means to be a leader in HSE in BP. It also provides specific, focused feedback for each participant. Two programs have been conducted as of November 2003. Initial feedback from participants is very positive. Introduction There is a general consensus in the industry that to improve safety outcomes, a need exists to focus on improving the integrity of work processes, assuring the management of these processes through the development of safety management systems. In the past few years a focus has developed on people and their behaviour in relation to the use of such systems in working individually or in groups safely. Efforts in these areas have shown undeniable and demonstrable success in safety outcomes. In many respects, they are easy to design and measure in terms of their contribution to safety. For example, redesigning equipment to make it safer, redesigning maintenance processes to ensure that equipment does not break down, or designing a risk hazard analysis work procedure. On the other hand programs designed to change behaviour to improve safety are far more difficult to design and to measure their effectiveness. Nevertheless, there is an abundance of behaviour-based safety improvement initiatives currently in operation within the industry and/or on offer to the industry. Those concerned about safety in the industry and who are interested in such programs face many challenges. These can be summarized as: knowing which programs to choose, creating an environment within the organization that is conducive to implementation, and evaluating program success. This paper will focus on these challenges and provide case study information, which is indicative of their relative success. Safety Performance and Leadership within BP BP conducted a global review of safety within their drilling and wells operations in 2001. One of the most significant findings that the Review Team delivered was:BP site leaders are our most visible safety leaders. Site leadership is inconsistent and support of site leadership is inconsistent. Since then, we realized that while we were asking our wellsite leaders to be leaders in safety, we were not providing them with proper training and coaching to be effective in this aspect of their job. They wanted to be leaders in safety, as they were in their operational roles, but did not know exactly how to go about it or what exactly good safety leadership looked like. In a review of BP's 2002 High Potential incidents in drilling and completion activities, the following four most common root causes were identified:Poor safety leadership - Safety expectations not communicated, enforced or audited to ensure compliance. Unsafe individual behaviours or rule violations - Poor judgment or breaking of the rules indicative of high tolerance of risk (either underestimate impact of hazard or don't think it will happen to them). Complacency in routine tasks.