Skip to content

A total of 1251 applications were received for the British Safety Council’s International Safety Awards in 2024. The number of applications has more than doubled since the 2022 Awards, a reflection of the esteem in which these awards are held across the globe.

A Distinction, Merit or Pass was achieved by 90% of applicants.

The distribution of grades among the applications submitted in 2024 was as follows:

  • Distinction 269 (22%)
  • Merit 456 (36%)
  • Pass 399 (32%)
  • Fail 127 (10%)


Download the Chief Adjudicator's Report 2024

General Comments

Organisations were provided with online ‘easy-to-access’ aides to assist them in the preparation and submission of their award applications. These included:


  • The 2024 International Safety Awards question set and marking scheme
  • The Chief Adjudicator’s Report for the 2023 International Safety Awards
  • A guidance note concerning the eligibility requirements
  • The list of 2023 International Safety Award winners; and
  • Webinars hosted by the British Safety Council.


The webinars hosted by the British Safety Council staff, the Chief Adjudicator and the award scheme’s Independent Adjudicator in October 2023 and January 2024 were well attended. Through the medium of webinars, we sought to assist applicants in navigating the online application form and assist their understanding of how best to provide the evidence necessary to correctly answer the questions and earn high marks.

The importance of applicants accessing and understanding the International Safety Awards eligibility requirements as set out in the regulations, guidance and advice listed above cannot be overstated. Key to an applicant succeeding in obtaining a high grade is the need to closely follow the regulations, guidance and advice we provide.

We cannot overstate the importance of reading and understanding the questions. Low scores in many cases resulted from an incomplete reading or misunderstanding of what was being sought.

Particular questions had distinct elements all of which had to be addressed in order to score high marks. Partial answers, for example, to Question 7 concerning emergency arrangements in the event of the fire that failed to provide details of a recent mock drill failed to achieve a high score.

In our webinars we recommended applicants draft answers in a separate word document before transferring to the online application. It is essential that all answers are proofread and ideally peer reviewed by a colleague before the application is submitted. The time taken to do so is time well spent as it can result in the extra marks that make the difference, for example, between a Pass and a Merit or a Merit and a Distinction.

This year many of the questions specifically asked for evidence of arrangements and actions being taken to prevent injury and ill health and ensure wellbeing at the applicant site. Low scoring applicants often failed to provide substantive evidence and examples or provided theoretical answers lifted from websites that provide guidance on the management of health and safety and wellbeing programmes. An overly theoretical approach to answering questions was evident in responses by poor performing applicants. The adjudicators need to understand what is happening at the applicant’s site not solely what the textbooks say.

Applicants who provided too short answers inevitably failed to provide the evidence necessary to score more than one mark. Additionally, our advice and guidance made it clear that applications had to be submitted in the English language. Even so we still received a few applications in other languages and others with answers in a mixture of languages. Answers in languages other than English were not marked by adjudicators.

To read more download the full report.