Chief Adjudication Report 2022

An impressive 647 applications from 39 countries were received for the International Safety Awards in 2022 and 85% of these successfully achieved a Pass grade or higher. The grading distribution among the applications in 2022 was as follows.

  • Fail: 15%
  • Pass: 32%
  • Merit: 32%
  • Distinction: 21%

General Comments

Organisations were provided with a number of online easily accessible aides to assist them in the
preparation and submission of their award applications. These included:

• The 2022 International Safety Awards question set and marking scheme
• The Chief Adjudicator’s Report for the 2021 International Safety Awards
• A Guidance note concerning the eligibility requirements
• The list of 2021 International Safety Award winners
• British Safety Council’s webinar in December 2021, which was available to all applicants.

The webinar hosted by the Chief Adjudicator and the award scheme’s Independent
Adjudicator sought to assist applicants in addressing the questions.
The importance of applicants accessing and understanding all of the International Safety Awards
requirements as set out in the documents and aides listed above cannot be overstated.
A small but significant number of applicant organisations failed to follow the extensive advice and
guidance and their scores suffered in consequence. We urge applicant organisations which were
unsuccessful in 2022 to apply again in 2023 and succeed having taken advantage of the extensive
support material freely available.
Applicants who provided short answers inevitably failed to provide the evidence necessary to score
more than one mark. There were examples of answers running to just a couple of sentences which
did no more than confirm, for example, that the applicant had systems or arrangements in place to
address the risks associated with the hazard in that particular question.
One of the most important messages that the adjudicators are keen to get across to applicants, is
to make sure that you have properly read and understood the question. Too often low scores for
particular questions resulted from an incomplete reading and understanding of what was being
sought and/or theoretical answers that failed to identify what precisely was being undertaken at
that particular site.
Two examples. On Question 5, concerning the management of the COVID-19 pandemic, a number
of organisations extensively described the controls they had put in place to manage infection in the
workplace but had inadequately described how those control measures had been communicated
to staff.
On Question 9, a number of applicants successfully defined what an effective management of
change process encompasses but failed to relate the theory to the practice in their particular
organisation. Specific reference was required to an example in which stakeholders had been
involved, clearly demonstrating how the change process worked. The overly theoretical approach
to answering questions was evident in responses to a number of questions. The adjudicators need
to understand what is happening in the applicant’s organisation, not what the textbooks tell you.
The dividing line between a Fail and a Pass, a Pass and a Merit and a Merit and a Distinction can
be wafer-thin. A couple of marks lost for a poorly answered question, or inadequate or irrelevant
supporting evidence can make the difference.


For more see the report.