Peter, this is an example of the perception problems that dogged the UK HSE for years and how the media is hungry (pun not intended) for colourful news stories.

I know that greasy food on floors is a potential hazards and so Bunnings' decision has some logical merit BUT I suspect that the extent of the hazard is overstated and I support your comment that Bunnings needs to be more explanatory about its decision.
This explanation could include:

• the number of slips incidents related to food (not specifically onions, I am being generous), and
  
  • whether the incidents involved employees or customers.

The latter point is to identify whether any injuries have been addressed under workers compensation or public liability.

And, of course, the directive to redesign the sausages and onions is, in OHS terms, an Administrative Control. Bunnings may look at stripping the concrete areas around the barbecues of the build-up of grease (if they don't already) or regularly rotating the barbecue location between both major entrances (most Bunnings have a double main entry).

IF the hazard is serious enough to instigate a change in an official change in onions, Bunnings should have reached this decision after a risk assessment process. It would be fascinating to see this process not for the purpose of mocking but to illustrate how all hazards can be subjected to assessment and how Bunnings came to the onion redesign as the most appropriate control measure.

Disclaimer: I sometimes eat sausages from Bunnings and have cooked sausages and onion twice as a volunteer for charity.

There are some great authorities on safety culture in this thread. Safeguard Forum is very lucky.

I notice that many of the comments still hold up if the word "culture" is removed. In many instances, people are talking about safety, how safe work is done and how it is enforced and encouraged. In my mind, that in itself is indicative of the culture of safety at work.

Jumping back to Simon's original query, he needs only to talk about safety as he manages it and how it operates within his long-term client's business to identify the safety culture. Improving the safety culture is almost impossible without improving safety. I think in terms of Safety Culture - if you manage Safety, Culture will come.

But don't stop reading the sociological and organisational analyses of safety culture as they provide some rigorous assessments of how our profession operates and, sometimes, fails.

I don't think an apology is an unreasonable expectation. The fatality is proof that something went wrong at the workplace operated by the employer.

However, there is an increasing prevalence for non-apologies or part-apologies and this may be acceptable to the employer (and their lawyers and insurers) but not meet the expectations of the relatives. A non-genuine apology may be worse than none at all.

I would also ask whether the apology needs to be public. That implies a desire to shame the employer. Would a private apology from an Executive be sufficient?

Peter, cultural change will take as long as it has to, depending on the willingness of the business and its workers to change. Companies with entrenched beliefs, supported by rigid organisational structures and policies will take a long time, and the journey will be disruptive and painful. Companies with the opposite “qualities” are likely already in the cultural change process.

In relation to the Russell McVeagh inquiry, it is useful to note the Australian experience illustrated in today’s media stories about women partners and recruits in law firms. https://www.afr.com/business/legal/eight-is-enough-with-no-room-for-male-lawyers-at-freehills-20180705-h12ba9

On the matter of OHS and psychological harm, the OHS sector has been ignoring the hazard for decades as, partly, it is easier to deal with visible injuries caused between a person and a thing. Harm resulting from Person to person interaction can be uncomfortable, difficult and without a clear resolution. It was easier to leave this to HR and hope they could fix it, whatever “it” was.

We have to be careful, though, to only think of work-related psychological harm as only coming from person to person. To truly reduce or eliminate the potential harm, businesses must look at the “ways of business” (as John Berger looked at “Ways of Seeing”) - the structures that create the conditions that foster bad behaviour, the rosters and IR negotiations that allow for “unsafe” hours, the systems that pay off workers for accepting unsafe or unreasonable working conditions, the accommodation of unsafe practices rather than improving safety......

Great start to the SafeGuard blog experience. Best of luck.

I generally argue against adding more descriptors and adjectives. I much prefer a broader application of “safety” rather than building silos which we then have to bridge or dismantle.

Also, rebranding can often focus more attention on the change and the reasons behind the perceived need for change. (Problems? Scandals?). You then have to explain why the rebrand is necessary and how it will benefit stakeholders. You will also need to reassure current stakeholders that you are not dismissing the decades of history that got the organisation to this point

There is an old saying about putting lipstick on a pig. I would prefer to make a healthier pig.

Kevin Jones, consultant and writer of the SafetyAtWorkBlog. For some organisations I have recommended moving these sorts fo forums to other platforms, mainly because the moderation and oversight was poor, non-existent and sometimes nasty and combative.

In my experience the SafeGuard Forum has been managed very well and I am very glad to see it back.