Taking responsibility for safety does not merely involve assigning a title; it involves fostering accountability, expertise, and a culture in which each employee takes responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others.
Jane Clark
Key takeaways
- Safety ownership varies by organization size, with larger companies often having dedicated safety managers and smaller ones relying on HR.
- HR involvement has benefits and challenges, as it can streamline safety initiatives while lacking the technical expertise for comprehensive oversight.
- A balanced approach that combines HR’s administrative role with a safety manager’s technical oversight can effectively promote safety as a core organizational value.
Safety is one of the most critical concerns in our industry, whether it’s protecting our drivers on the road, safeguarding our technicians in the shop, or ensuring the well-being of other motorists. It’s a multifaceted responsibility that demands consistent attention to safe driving habits, rigorous asset maintenance, and strict adherence to regulatory standards. Yet even with these measures in place, accidents can and do happen. When they do, the question arises: Who in the organization truly owns safety?
At a recent NationaLease meeting, Glenn Hebert, president of Cox & Smith Risk Management, emphasized that ownership of the safety function often depends on the size and structure of the organization. While larger companies may benefit from a dedicated safety manager, smaller organizations often delegate safety responsibilities to the human resources department because of their limited resources.
When HR owns safety
In smaller operations, HR often integrates safety into broader employee welfare initiatives. This approach can streamline communication and embed safety into the overall employee experience. HR’s involvement can foster a unified focus on well-being, which in turn boosts morale and reinforces a culture of care. It also offers a practical solution for resource-constrained companies, eliminating the need for a separate safety role.
However, this model is not without its drawbacks. HR professionals may lack the technical expertise required for comprehensive safety oversight, which can result in compliance gaps or missed opportunities for proactive risk mitigation. Additionally, with HR juggling multiple responsibilities, from recruitment to benefits administration, safety may be unintentionally deprioritized.
When a safety manager owns safety
In contrast, larger organizations often appoint a dedicated safety manager to oversee safety protocols across departments. This role brings specialized knowledge, ensuring that safety regulations are met and that best practices are consistently applied. A safety manager can also cultivate a proactive safety culture, identifying risks before they escalate and implementing targeted training programs.
While this model enhances safety outcomes, it does come with increased costs. Moreover, if responsibilities are not clearly delineated, overlaps with HR or operations can lead to confusion and inefficiencies. Still, for high-risk industries, the investment in a dedicated safety professional is often justified by the reduction in incidents and liabilities.
Striking the right balance
Ultimately, the decision of who owns safety should be guided by the organization’s size, risk exposure, and operational complexity. In some cases, a hybrid model may be the most effective, where HR handles the administrative aspects of safety, while a safety manager oversees technical compliance and execution. Regardless of the structure, what matters most is that safety is not treated as an afterthought but rather as a core organizational value.
Taking responsibility for safety does not merely involve assigning a title; it involves fostering accountability, expertise, and a culture in which each employee takes responsibility for their own safety and the safety of others. Whether through HR, a safety manager, or a collaborative approach, the true owner of safety is the organization itself.
