An independent review of British health and safety regulation? From common sense to non-sense
Dados Bibliográficos
| ID | 11636016 |
|---|---|
| Autores | Philip James (0000-0001-9079-3953, Oxford Brookes University), Phil James, Steve Tomb (0000-0002-0512-2563, Liverpool John Moores University, autor correspondente), Steve Tombs, David Whyte (0009-0008-4830-5010) |
| Ano | 2012 |
| Volume | 34 |
| Fascículo | 1 |
| Páginas | 36-52 |
| Data de publicação | 2012-11-12 |
| Peer Reviewed | Sim |
| Open Access | Não |
| Tipo | ARTICLE |
| Periódico | Policy Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Identificadores do periódico | ISSN: 0144-2872 • E-ISSN: 1470-1006 |
| Editora | Taylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/01442872.2012.740240 |
| OpenAlex | W2012847441 |
| Idioma | EN |
| Citações recebidas | 4 |
| Referências citadas | 9 |
The view that regulatory provisions protecting the employment conditions of workers need to be minimised in order to protect the business needs of employers has been an ongoing theme in British governmental policy discourse over the past three decades. For the present Coalition government, the assumption that current levels of regulation are unduly burdensome on employers and hence harmful to the economy has continued to be enthusiastically voiced, most notably in respect of the regulation of workplace health and safety. Against this backcloth, this paper develops a critical examination of the conclusions of an ‘independent’ review of health and safety regulations commissioned by the present UK Government to shed light on the way in which a deregulatory policy agenda is being furthered. The paper commences by locating the recent review of health and safety regulations, the ‘Löfstedt review’, in the context of other recent government initiatives aimed at alleviating the burden of health and safety regulation from the shoulders of employers. It then moves on to outline the nature of this review and its main conclusions and recommendations, before considering in turn its use of evidence, deployment of the notion of ‘low risk’ and lack of attention to the issue of enforcement. Finally, a concluding section draws together the key points to emerge from the preceding analysis and highlights how the Löfstedt review can be seen to form an integral part of a misleading deregulatory discourse that threatens to engender the wholesale undermining of workplace health and safety protections
Business · Context (archaeology · Enforcement · Government (linguistics · Occupational safety and health · Political science · Public relations · Theme (computing · Employment and Welfare Studies · Law · Public Administration · Retirement, Disability, and Employment · Social Policy and Reform Studies
| Obras citantes distintas | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citações por ano | 0,31 |
| Intervalo de citações | 2013 - 2020 (8) |
| Velocidade de citação | historical |
| Altamente citado | Não |
| Tipos de citação | Neutras: 4 |