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.

Hi Kevin Jones - well said. NZISM is clear on what it is and where it is going. Changing names would lead the market to thinking there was identity crisis, but there is not. Let's all make our professional organisations healthier and do this by getting engaged and more involved.

Maybe I'm being a bit naive, but isn't health an aspect of safety, although maybe one that takes time to develop?

As Safeguard readers of the last couple of years may recall, I've been quietly pushing the phrase 'healthy work design' as a concise statement of what everyone in H&S is doing, or should be doing. Because safety is a subset of health. Health comes first. And who wouldn't want to introduce themselves as a healthy work designer?
Hence: The NZ Association for Healthy Work Design. Discuss!
(stirs pot and leaves the room quietly by the back door ...)

Picking up on the Health Discussion:
Modern businesses, attempting to grow and thrive in a 21st century context have inherited a 19th century mindset around wellbeing and this is holding back our ability to get peak performance from our people.

The mental models that we have used to frame how we think about the health of our people within organisations has narrowed our thinking and our impact; these models include:
1. physical v mental health – thinking that they are independent
2. work v non-work health – thinking that conditions and opportunities can be compartmentalised
Physical and Mental Health

We’ve fragmented our workplace thinking into physical and mental health – because historically that’s what the medical profession did – not because that’s the best way to think about keeping people well. The proliferation of not-for-profit organisations with highly specific targeted interventions have supported this artificial dichotomy.

The relationship between the brain and physical health, feelings of wellness and peak performance is complex. Health and Wellbeing professionals consistently reflect on resource wastage from pendulum swings between mental health initiatives and physical health initiatives.
Work versus non-work-related health

Businesses have historically thought about health as occupational versus non-occupational and have based strategies plans and actions on that outmoded and frankly unhelpful paradigm. This reflects an obligation/responsibilities-based mindset. Businesses have traditionally focused on those things for which they may be held responsible. We see this most consistently in businesses where the occupational health risks were traditionally obvious such as, mining, the chemical industry and to a lesser extent construction. In those industries where, for example, silicosis and noise induced hearing loss were potential compensable conditions, health and wellbeing has developed, often within the compensation function and within a mindset of responsibility, cost-benefit and obligations. Non-communicable diseases and conditions such as diabetes, some cancers and cardio-vascular diseases without work-related causes are often seen as the ‘responsibility’ of the employee and therefore either out of scope for the organisation or simply issues for which the provision of information is ‘doing enough’.

It's time to think about creating workplaces with a focus on peak performance.