New “definition” of “safe system of work” proposed

Preventing psychological harm and facilitating return-to-work (RTW) processes are key components of an effective, integrated “safe system of work”, according to a new definition proposed by two Australian safety experts.


University of NSW senior lecturer of safety and risk management Dr Carlo Caponecchia, and safety specialist Dr Anne Wyatt, say existing definitions confuse “a safe system of work with management practices intended to bring about a safe system”.


They also tend to “conflate the broad system suggested in general duties clauses with procedures or work methods that are focused on particular hazards or tasks”, they say.


In a paper published in journal Safety and Health at Work, Caponecchia and Wyatt say that a safe system of work has often been equated with formal procedures for identifying hazards and devising methods to eliminate or minimise risks.



But procedures and standardised work methods are only some of the elements that help make work safe, and “are at the lower end of the hierarchy of risk controls”.

“Defining a safe system of work as a task procedure is particularly problematic in complex investigations and legal cases, such as those involving psychological injury,” they say.



“Like many workplace incidents, psychological injury cases involve many interacting failures at all levels of a workplace system (for example lack of support, poor supervision, lack of monitoring and poor return-to-work practices). A procedure or set of rules for working will not create a safe system of work in such cases.”

A safe system of work has also been defined by reference to an organisation’s safety management systems that contain its plans, policies and accountabilities to achieve and administrate safety, Caponecchia and Wyatt say.



But while a safe system of work “may emerge from a well-implemented, resourced and comprehensive safety management system… the existence of a safety management system does not necessarily create a safe system of work”, they say.

“Indeed, it is possible for a system of work to be inherently safe without such interventions. Conversely, a poorly designed and poorly implemented occupational health and safety management system may not, for various reasons, adequately render work safe.”

Work design underpins safe systems


Caponecchia and Wyatt’s proposed definition of a safe system of work is a “broad, over-arching safe system of work consistent with general duties under Robens-style legislation”.


That is, a system characterised by an integrated, continually improved set of activities undertaken within a specified work context that together:


• Ensure that work tasks, work environments and processes are designed such that they are unlikely to result in physical or psychological harm to relevant stakeholders;



• Identify and control foreseeable risks to acceptable levels

• Minimise harm when it occurs; and

• Facilitate RTW processes.

“One aspect that sets this proposed definition apart is that it emphasises the importance of work design in achieving a safe system of work,” Caponecchia and Wyatt say.



“This focuses occupational health and safety activities on proactive, preventative strategies rather than less effective risk control strategies after problems have already emerged,” they say.

They say their model is also more comprehensive in the way it addresses psychological harm, and note many businesses still aren’t aware that psychological health needs to be included in their safety management systems.


Similarly, the management of injured workers’ RTW is another area requiring more attention in wider WHS practices, they add.

“Following injury, regardless of temporary or permanent impairment, people must be returned to safe systems of work,” Caponecchia and Wyatt say.


“Data on outcomes for injured workers indicate significant negative experiences for injured workers, and particularly for those with psychological injuries.



“Incorporating the return-to-work system into the wider safe system of work, as this definition does, is a more complete view of the duties to provide safety before injury or illness, during their management, and in rehabilitation, when a worker returns to what might be a different job.”

Defining a “safe system of work”. Carlo Caponecchia and Anne Wyatt, Australia, Safety and Health at Work, online first July 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2021.07.001.

Contact Us

Zenergy News

Directors' duties for psych risks unpacked in new report
April 23, 2025
The WHS obligations of company directors include taking reasonable steps to understand the psychological hazards in their workplaces, and this is a "personal" prosecutable duty, a new guide for directors warns. Directors' obligations include establishing that their organisations and their management "are equipped with appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise these risks to the extent that is reasonably practicable", the guide by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and law firm King & Wood Mallesons says. Most of any organisation's work to address psychosocial hazards will be "driven by management", given the complexity of the risks and the deep operational knowledge required to guide action, it says. "The board plays a supporting role in constructively challenging these efforts and maintaining oversight of how effective psychosocial risk management contributes to broader organisational culture and leadership." Under Australia's national model WHS laws – adopted by all jurisdictions other than Victoria, which has similar legislation – officers have a duty to exercise due diligence to confirm their organisation is meeting its WHS obligations. (See section 27 of NSW's version of the laws, for example.) This duty is a "personal duty, meaning [officers] can be prosecuted for failing to meet their due diligence obligations", the guide says. "Prosecution typically requires proof that the officer failed to take reasonable steps to comply with their duty, assessed in the context of the organisation's overall safety and health management system," it says. These due diligence obligations apply to paid directors, and are "recommended" for volunteer directors, who can be prosecuted in limited circumstances. "While non-executive directors have not been the focus of WHS regulators to date, this can change, and regulatory expectations are rising," the guide notes. According to the 12-page document , company boards and governance play a crucial role in ensuring psychosocial risks are managed effectively. Directors must oversee management's efforts at identifying and implementing control measures, set expectations and confirm that the necessary frameworks are in place. "This includes seeking information, reviewing board reports, assessing organisational culture, and challenging management where needed to strengthen risk controls," the guide says. Examples of how boards should address the workplace factors that create psychosocial risks include: Overseeing how managers monitor the risks associated with work design by drawing on complaints data, employee surveys, and absence and turnover rates, and engaging regularly with management to assess risks and evaluate measures; Confirming that management is complying with the positive duty to eliminate workplace sexual harassment, and obtaining regular reports on key behavioural risks involving code of conduct breaches and harassment cases; Setting expectations for management to provide workers with practical assistance and timely consultation in the event of organisational change and restructures, which can create significant stress; Engaging with management to review how it is addressing remote work risks, and ensuring there they have a clear policy to guide them in determining when remote arrangements are appropriate; and Overseeing how HR and performance management processes are managed, and confirming that investigation procedures are fair, workers have access to appropriate support, and outcomes are handled as consistently as possible. Governing WHS Psychosocial Risks: A primer for directors, by the Australian Institute of Company Directors and King & Wood Mallesons, April 2025 This article has been reproduced with permission from OHS Alert, and the original version appears at www.ohsalert.com.au.
April 7, 2025
Zenergy recently hosted Women in Safety, a special networking event dedicated to fostering collaboration in the health, safety, and wellbeing sector. Held on March 20, 2025, at The Winery, Surry Hills, this event provided a relaxed and welcoming atmosphere where professionals gathered to exchange insights, share experiences, and build meaningful connections. With attendees from diverse industries—including construction, logistics, corporate sectors, and more—the event highlighted the vital role of women in shaping safer workplaces across Australia.
March 25, 2025
Podcasts have become a dominant force in the world of media, revolutionising how we consume information and entertainment and the WHS, Environment & Sustainability is no different! As the podcast industry continues to expand, listeners are discovering a wealth of benefits, from educational insights to fostering community connections. In this article, we share some of the leading podcasts and why they’ve become a growing part of modern WHS, Environment & Sustainability consumption. Here are some of the leading podcasts that every WHS, Environmental, and Sustainability professional should tune into:
March 24, 2025
Colin Hansen, WHS Director John Holland - M7M12 Project
March 3, 2025
Zenergy invites you to be part of the prestigious 2025 Australian Workplace Health & Safety Awards (AWHSA) —a national platform dedicated to recognising outstanding achievements in workplace health and safety. These awards celebrate individuals and organisations that are making a real impact in fostering safer, healthier work environments.
February 28, 2025
Australia has enacted mandatory sustainability reporting requirements, effective from 1 January 2025, through the Treasury Laws Amendment (Financial Market Infrastructure and Other Measures) Act 2024. These regulations mandate that large entities disclose climate-related financial information as part of their annual reporting obligations.
More Posts