Answer review – Financial arguments to improve health and safety

Learners will frequently include things like medical expenses for the injured workers, or compensation claims by the injured workers. However, the question clearly instructs you to base your answers on the scenario and in the scenario, the injured workers died at the scene!

For example, learners will use the threat of prosecution or something similar in their answer, which is a legal argument and the question asks specifically for financial arguments.

This is covered in the question hint, so it’s disappointing that many answers include very brief bullets, with no attempt at all at making a persuasive argument or linking it with any of the circumstances in the scenario.

The question seeks brief technical points such as sick pay, investigation costs, fines etc. The scenario may reveal examples of these theoretical points, such as the employer receiving a £350,000 fine. Identifying this would merit an extra mark.

The question includes a specific note directing you to base your answer on the scenario. The note may take various forms; this is just an example of one form it can take. Generic answers from the Internet or a textbook will not gain marks. For instance, if you respond with an answer like:

‘large fines’

you will not be awarded a mark. However, if you respond with information that applies to the scenario alone, such as

‘as a result of this accident, the company was fined £350,000. Large fines like this can be avoided in future by making improvements to health and safety’

then a mark would be awarded.

Remember also that it’s financial arguments you’re trying to make. If you include moral arguments and legal arguments, you haven’t read the question properly!