How the Awards are judged
Awards are made as a result of professional, administrative adjudication under supervision of an independent, expert Adjudication Panel, which is a sub-committee of the RoSPA National Occupational Safety and Health Committee (NOSHC).
The current panel includes a number of highly experienced health and safety professionals as well as representatives from:
- The Health and Safety Executive
- Institution of Occupational Safety and Health
- Society of Occupational Health Nurses
- National Examination Board in Occupational Safety & Health
- Local Government Employers
- Electrical Contractors Association
- Trades Union Congress
- Learning and Skills Council.
Achievement Awards
The judging process for achievement awards is undertaken by the RoSPA Awards team and consultants, starting with an administrative 'sift' to allocate entrants to appropriate categories.
RoSPA adjudicators make reference to Health and Safety Executive databases and other sources to verify information on prosecutions and enforcement notices. Entrants may receive random telephone follow-up or a verification visit at any stage in the year, either before or after the closing date.
Judging criteria
In deciding the achievement award level merited, RoSPA takes account of a range of performance indicators. These include:
- Measure of occupational health and safety management 'input' such as the level of development of systems and culture
- Measures of health and safety management 'output' such as consistent application of risk control measures; and measures of 'outcome' such as reductions in near misses, notifiable injuries, the number of days lost, accident and ill health costs etc.
- Account is also taken of an entrant's enforcement record.
- More attention is paid to other Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) than to lost time accident rates due to the limitations often associated with statistical data. Nevertheless, decisions about Awards at higher levels will be influenced by whether or not organisations have experienced significant enforcement action and/or fatal or major injuries for which they were culpable.
Gold Award – would typically involve entrants demonstrating
- Excellent occupational health and safety management systems (e.g. strong audit results – system used and level achieved e.g. OHSAS 18001 or equivalent) and culture (as demonstrated by answers to the Key Performance Questions)
- A rigorous approach to occupational health
- High levels of compliance with control measures (evidence from active monitoring of performance) for principal risks
- Below average and reducing rates of error (e.g. near misses), harm (accidents and work related ill health) and loss (e.g. accident and ill health costs)
- No fatal or major injuries due to employer negligence
- No significant enforcement issues (notices/prosecutions)
Silver Award – would typically involve entrants demonstrating
- Satisfactory occupational health and safety management systems and culture (as demonstrated by answers to the Key Performance Questions)
- Improving compliance with control measures for principal risks and action on health issues
- Reducing accident rates
- No fatal or major injuries due to employer negligence
- Few significant enforcement issues (notices/prosecutions)
Bronze Award – would typically involve entrants demonstrating
- Essential occupational health and safety management systems elements were in place (as demonstrated by answers to the Key Performance Questions) but still requiring significant development
- Implementation of control measures for principal risks was proceeding (evidence from performance monitoring)
- Their accident rate was stable or reducing
- They had no fatal or major injuries (or very few, having regard to the circumstances in which they occurred)
- Evidence of learning from any enforcement experience
Merit Award – would typically involve entrants demonstrating
- Evidence of commitment to developing a health and safety management system
- An action plan to deal with principal risks
- Analysis made of accident performance
- Few fatal or major injuries (having regard to the circumstances in which they occurred)
Sector Awards
Submissions for the Industry Sector Awards are assessed initially by one of a team of independent, experienced and well qualified health and safety professionals engaged by RoSPA, liaising with a Panel member(s). As far as possible, entries from the same sector are allocated to the same assessor to minimise the effect of any variation in marking style.
All submissions are scored, with most weighting being on the answers to the Key Performance Questions and documents provided as supporting evidence. Assessors are instructed not to make assumptions about aspects of performance which, although they may happen 'on the ground', are not adequately described and supported by evidence in the written submission.
Following the preliminary marking of entries, a cut off mark is used to identify a shortlist of candidates for the Sector Award. This mark may vary, reflecting, for example, the H&S management performance of different sectors.
As the Sector Awards are competitive, success depends on the overall quality of the winning submission relative to other entries, not simply on achieving or exceeding a certain score. It is important to note however that, as the Awards aim to recognise and celebrate excellence, RoSPA reserves the right not to make a Sector Award (or Highly Commended/Commended) if no entry is judged to have demonstrated a sufficiently high standard of performance.
The expert, independent Adjudication Panel meets in February and March, when shortlisted entries are examined by pairs of judges to select the winner and commendations in each sector.
Sir George Earle Trophy
The Panel also selects the top three Industry Sector Award winners who then compete for the Sir George Earle Trophy. It meets again in April to consider presentations from the candidates, along with the findings of site visits to the finalists by RoSPA consultants.
NB: When selecting Sector Award winners and the SGET candidates, the Panel gives preference to entries from whole organisations rather than subsidiaries, although account is taken of whether a subsidiary is a distinct and separate business.
Specialist Awards
Using a scoring matrix based on the published criteria to be covered by entries, submissions are assessed by separate sub-panels made up of suitably qualified and experienced H&S professionals appointed by RoSPA.
The selection of winners is based mainly on quantitative scores, but in determining the most deserving winner for each trophy the judges will also consider a submission's merits from a qualitative perspective.
Feedback and Review of Results
Feedback will be provided for all Industry Sector Award entries as part of the registration fee, and for Achievement Award entries where this is purchased as a separate item when registering. This will be sent out from mid July onwards. Feedback observations are based solely on information provided in the submission as assessors are instructed not to make assumptions about aspects of the safety management system which are either not described or for which there is insufficient supporting evidence.
If feedback is not requested at initial registration, a re-assessment fee will be payable for the additional work required (see below).
Grade Review Requests
Queries about grades awarded will be considered after the initial judging phase has been completed, in April. Presentation of awards for entries requesting Grade Review will normally be deferred from the May ceremonies to RoSPA Scotland ceremony or alternatively the award can be posted.
Grade Review Requests must be received in writing within 1 month of result notification. A short statement is required of why the grade is considered incorrect, along with additional payment for one of the Review options listed below. This should be sent, marked 'Grade Review Request' to The Awards Department, RoSPA, 28 Calthorpe Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 1RP. Payment may be made by cheque, credit card or by invoice (for which your organisation's official purchase order is required).
Grade Review Requests will be acknowledged either in writing or by email within 10 working days of the receipt of full payment for the chosen review option.
A Grade Review Request may result in the previously advised award level being promoted, remaining the same or being demoted. As with all entries in the scheme, RoSPA reserves the right to vary the grade awarded if information is later received that would have affected the grade if known at the time of initial assessment.
The result of the Grade Review will be communicated within 40 working days of receipt of the request.
Further correspondence will not be entered into and RoSPA's decision is final.
Review and Feedback options
- Clerical Check - Cost £25 +VAT
This consists of a check that the allocated marks have been totalled correctly and the correct grade designated.
- Clerical Check with Re-assessment – Cost £75 +VAT
This consists of a check that the original marks were totalled correctly and a re-assessment of the submission. Feedback will only be provided where this was requested at the time of original registration.
- Feedback / Reassessment – Cost £220 +VAT
This option is available for Achievement Award entries that did not request feedback at the time of original registration. The fee covers the additional cost of engaging judges outside the main judging period and also reflects that assessment in order to provide feedback is a lengthier process than standard assessments where feedback is not required.
Share this page: