This is a stock-take of 100 of New Zealand’s largest employers, identifying the frequency and quality of workplace reporting practices in their annual reports around 2004. It follows a stock-take undertaken in 2003 that identified the frequency of workplace, social and environmental reporting.
The Department will use this analysis to promote better practice in the monitoring, reporting and ultimately the management of these aspects of business through the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy for New Zealand to 2015 and government leadership policies.
Purpose
The Department of Labour analysed one hundred annual reports of New Zealand’s largest employers to identify the level and quality of reporting to shareholders, employees and the community about:
• Workplace Health and Safety,
• Employment Relations, and
• other aspects of workplace culture.
The Department will use this analysis to promote better practice in the monitoring, reporting and ultimately the management of these aspects of business through the Workplace Health and Safety Strategy for New Zealand to 2015 and government leadership policies.
Methodology
The reports in the stock-take were graded for their use of indicators derived from occupational health and safety reporting guidance published by the Health & Safety Executive, UK, and from the findings of the earlier stock-take. The indicators were graded using a scale taken from the Pacific Sustainability Index, a checklist and scoring system for environmental and sustainability reports.
Key Results
The stock-take shows moderate to low levels of workplace reporting: more employers did not report against a range of indicators than those who did. Although most employers reported at least one indicator, few reported on a range. The level of appropriate detail and clear presentation in reporting was also low.
There was a lack of consistency between reports using versions of the same measurement (for example lost time injury rates). A greater degree of consistency would have improved the possibilities of comparison between different reports (there was a similar finding in the 2003 stock-take).
The most frequently reported group of indicators was training and development indicators, and the least reported was human resources and health and safety indicators equally.
Reporters generally showed a preference for broad level or general indicators. The broadest indicator would usually be the most reported in each group of indicators. Similarly, there was a preference for ‘narrative’ information over statistical data. This could be problematic, as it would mean that some information could not be quantified (there were equally problematic examples of statistical data provided without ‘narrative’ to give the data context).
Employers were more likely to report indicators that were relevant to their industry types. Examples were health and safety indicators, which were more reported by high-risk industries, and recruitment and retention indicators, which public sector employers were required to report.
Participants in the ACC Partnership Programme, and to a lesser degree the EEO Trust Employers Group, reported on indicators appropriate to these initiatives with greater frequency (including appropriate detail and clear presentation) than non-participants.
With health and safety reporting, there was a bias toward safety information over health information. Sick leave was reported by 15% of the sample. A similar number reported on healthcare programmes, but most of these reporters did not also include monitoring information. The sample included employers who were likely to have occupational health issues, but there was no data on this (there was a similar finding in the 2003 stock-take).
The level of Central Government reporting was average. There were areas of particular reporting strengths (training and development, equal employment opportunities) and weaknesses (human resources indicators, most quality of life and decent work indicators).