Web Forms

News - Company

Changing Attitudes to Risk Management

2005 has seen numerous issues raised about a company's responsibility to its drivers and the risk they pose on the road. In response, companies have had to think hard, and introduce risk management programmes to reduce the risks and costs associated with driving for business.

Corporate manslaughter has raised its head, only to sink back below the surface. It's still there though, and although it may have had some of its teeth drawn in terms of Director's responsibility, it is still a piece of legislation we need to keep to the fore when we think about risk management for fleets.

2005 saw the suggestion of the Road Safety Bill, which ran out of time. It covered a spectrum of issues including: drink driving, speeding, penalties and enforcements, driver training, foreign drivers and support for enforcement. Although it didn't get into the statute book, they were sound ideas that would enhance road safety.

Because of these proposed changes ING Car Lease has noticed a difference in the way clients are approaching the issue. It is encouraging to see them place a greater emphasis on risk management as a tool to protect employees and increase productivity rather than as something to protect the company and Directors from prosecution. Ironically, this has given the Risk Assist programmes that ING Car Lease operate a greater degree of integrity and generated much more positive feedback from individual drivers.

In 2005, employees taking a cash option and/or drive private vehicles on business have become more and more of an issue. It is clear that fleet operators can't shift all responsibility onto its drivers. The Driving at Work guidelines make no distinction between company and cash cars, and state that 'all vehicles used for business must be managed to the same standard, irrespective of how they are provided'. It is essential to make sure that cash vehicles are insured, maintained and taxed properly – a requirement of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations.

Rumblings have also been heard on potential civil cases arising from road traffic accidents – cases where drivers haven't been trained adequately, or have been driving unsuitable or poorly maintained vehicles. Probably the best known of these is the case of Stimson v Curran, Exel and Land Rover, where a passenger injured in an accident was awarded substantial damages due to poor vehicle maintenance.

Just as the needs of individual fleets differ, so risk management programmes should also be flexible. However, each programme needs to have the same objectives: to increase the safety of employees and those around them, to generate fleet cost savings and to maximise compliance with current and anticipated legislation.

As an example, ING Car Lease's Risk Assist programmes begin with a 'Customer Healthcheck'. This looks at the dynamics of the fleet in terms of risk assessment, driver training and driver management, along with a review of the company's current fleet policy. In addition, it will look into cultural acceptance to ensure that a proactive and thorough approach to safety is recognised and incorporated into daily activities by employees at all levels of the organisation.

Once the issues are identified, a detailed Risk Management Strategy can be established. This corrects any shortfalls in current practices. But the process does not end there: once a strategy is implemented, regular reviews ensure that any areas of concern are addressed as they arise.

The benefits of an all-encompassing risk assessment strategy such as Risk Assist are varied. In inancial terms, simply raising the awareness of road risk and providing targeted driver training results n fewer accidents and reduced vehicle repair costs, downtime and personal injury claims.

Thankfully, the days are gone when a blanket training programme would see every single driver on he fleet have one-to-one instruction, whether they required it or not. Sophisticated yet simple risk ssessments are now carried out to identify individuals who would most benefit from intervention, and range of training programmes, whether on-road or PC-based, are available to ensure the most ppropriate training is made available.

Legally speaking, with legislation surrounding corporate responsibility becoming more stringent, employers must be able to prove they have protected the safety of all employees 'as far as reasonably possible'. Proof is required in the form of an audit trail and fully functional health and safety and company car policies.

On a social level, drivers who take part in risk assessment programmes are less likely to be involved in an accident – clearly this reduces the risk to themselves and those around them. This ultimately impacts a company's public image. And of course, all employees respond positively to employers who take action to protect their general safety.

Risk management has been a hot topic this year, and some companies are yet to realise its significance. In the coming year, we hope to see companies being more proactive in their approach and not have the need of a large case, relating to company negligence, as the trigger to introduce a structured risk management programme.

23 December 2005