The Workplace Safety and Health (WSH) Council’s decision to revoke an award from a company that falsified workplace injury records is a step towards maintaining integrity in its awards programme.
In its statement last Saturday, the Council revealed that the company lied about its safety record to secure the SHARP award, but it did not disclose the company’s identity.
This selective transparency weakens the impact of the Council’s actions and undermines the deterrent effect that such penalties are supposed to create.
The circumstances surrounding the investigation into the company are especially concerning. The Council’s statement did not mention conducting its own audits or proactive checks on award recipients.
Instead, one might even speculate that the revocation came only after a whistleblower alerted the authorities to the falsification—particularly given the Council’s silence about the company’s name.
Did the Council act only because of the risk that the whistleblower might escalate the matter to the media?
Insufficient consequences for dishonesty
The penalties imposed—revoking the award and barring the company from applying for future awards for three years—are inadequate in addressing the gravity of the violation.
Falsifying workplace safety records is not a victimless act; it compromises the integrity of the awards programme and potentially puts employees’ welfare at risk. Yet, the offending company has escaped public accountability and stronger consequences.
Naming and shaming violators is an effective way to deter similar behaviour in others. By protecting the company’s identity, the WSH Council has missed an opportunity to set an example and send a clear message that dishonesty will not be tolerated.
Moreover, the company has already benefited from winning the award and the positive publicity that came with it.
Quietly rescinding the award now does little to mitigate the advantage they have gained or to hold them accountable. The reputational and commercial gains remain largely intact, making the penalty ineffective as a deterrent.
On top of that, the company should be barred permanently from participating in the awards. It is not as though the company needs the award to survive financially. The situation is comparable to athletes engaging in doping—there should be no second chances.
In doping cases, the rescinding of awards or titles is typically done publicly, ensuring transparency and accountability. This public disclosure not only deters others from similar misconduct but also restores fairness by informing stakeholders, competitors, and the public about the violation.
By contrast, the WSH Council’s decision to quietly withdraw the award from the company undermines this principle.
Without naming the violator, the Council denies other industry players and the public the opportunity to see that accountability is enforced.
Transparency in such matters is essential to uphold the integrity of the awards programme and reinforce trust in the system.
A flawed incentive system
The incident also highlights the flaws in the SHARP awards criteria.
Rewarding companies for the absence of reported incidents creates a perverse incentive to underreport or conceal workplace injuries. The company in question concealed two minor injuries to maintain its eligibility—a practice that undermines the very goals of the awards programme.
A better approach would be to recognise companies for demonstrating integrity, robust safety practices, and transparent incident management. Instead of incentivising concealment, the Council could reward firms for their ability to identify, address, and learn from workplace risks and incidents.
The WSH Council’s reluctance to name the company creates the impression that it is more concerned with protecting reputations than holding companies accountable. Moreover, this case highlights the need for the Council to develop a more proactive auditing mechanism for award recipients.
Strengthening accountability
The WSH Council has taken a necessary step by revoking the award, but more must be done to strengthen accountability.
Public disclosure of violators should be a standard practice to foster transparency and deter similar violations. The Council should also reform its awards criteria to shift the focus from incident-free records to a company’s overall safety culture and response to incidents.
Additionally, MOM should consider imposing harsher penalties on companies that falsify safety records, such as fines or suspensions from government tenders. These measures would send a clear signal that dishonest practices will not be tolerated.
To truly uphold its mission, the WSH Council must go beyond revoking awards and commit to meaningful reforms.
