Editorial

Citation

(2008), "Editorial", Facilities, Vol. 26 No. 13/14. https://doi.org/10.1108/f.2008.06926maa.001

Editorial

Article Type: Editorial From: Facilities, Volume 26, Issue 13/14

What’s in a number? Academics and scholars depend on reliable data. Yet in the field of facilities management there are often burning debates about the reliability of such data. To quote Albert Einstein “Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.”

This debate is brought into sharp focus in the recent publication by the UK’s Centre for Crime and Justice Studies entitled A Crisis of Enforcement[1] (Tombs and Whyte 2008). The report considers workplace injuries, both fatal and non-fatal. It argues that a significant proportion of such injuries can be described as “crimes”. Indeed, the data produced by the UK’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE) indicate that more than two-thirds of injuries to workers arise from management failing to meet their legal duties under criminal law. The report contends that “safety crime represents a significant violent crime problem”. The report goes on to say that “most safety crimes – including many of the most serious crimes – remain undetected. If they are detected they are likely to be filtered out … .” This filtering process is attributed to two factors:

1. 1.

   the erosion of HSE staff capable of carrying out investigations; and

2. 2.

   UK government attempts to mimimise regulatory and administrative costs on business owners.

This is just one example where a greater understanding of the statistics can help to sharpen debates in facilities management – one where the facilities manager is increasingly held accountable.

A copy of the full report can be obtained from: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/acrisisofenforcement.html