Where Does Health & Safety Belong in an Organisation?

When it comes to workplace safety, the organisational structure matters. Who “health and safety” reports to can make or break the impact it has. Get it right, and safety becomes quickly embedded into the company culture. Get it wrong, and it becomes a box ticking exercise buried under bureaucracy.

Let’s break down the common reporting line options and the pros and cons of each.

Reporting to HR

Pros:

• HR understands people, behaviour, and training which are all vital for developing a strong safety culture.

• There are synergies around onboarding, mental health, wellbeing, and return-to-work.

Cons:

• They can be seen as too “soft” or reactive.

• The may lack operational credibility with frontline teams.

• Safety risks become compliance focused rather than risk-focused.

Bottom line: Great for psychosocial risk and onboarding processes, but can lack operational clout if not closely aligned with day to day hazards.

Reporting to Operations or the GM

Pros:

• Higher visibility across the work being done.

• Faster corrective action; closer alignment with risk.

• They are often better resourced and supported.

Cons:

• Safety can be overridden by productivity or profit pressures.

• Can become reactive and incident-focused instead of looking to be proactive.

Bottom line: Strong operational integration, but only works if the operational leaders walk the talk and genuinely care about safety.

Reporting Directly to the CEO / Executive

Pros:

• Maximum visibility and authority.

• Shows safety is strategic, it’s not just about compliance.

• Better alignment with general culture, resourcing, and decision making.

Cons:

• Can be too far removed from operational detail.

• It becomes reliant on the CEO’s values and priorities.

Bottom line: Ideal structure *if* the CEO is engaged, otherwise it risks becoming symbolic rather than functional.

Safety as a Standalone Department

Pros:

• Provides independent oversight.

• Can provide objective challenge to all departments.

Cons:

• The risk of the department becoming isolated and being seen as the “safety police.”

• Can struggle to drive change if there are no strong relationships across the business.

Bottom line: Works well in large or high risk organisations where governance is key, but there does need to be involvement with other departments to avoid silos.

Final Thoughts

Unfortunately, there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer, but here’s what must be true regardless of structure:

• Safety needs access to be able to influence.

• Safety needs a voice at the table.

• Safety needs to be measured by more than just incident rates.

If your safety team isn’t seen, heard, or properly resourced, it’s not a structure problem that you have, it’s a leadership one.

Want help embedding safety into your business structure without all the bureaucracy?

Contact the Engage team today. We don’t just tick boxes – we build systems that work in the real world.