The podcast explores the ethical and practical implications of holding a single CEO accountable for a workplace death under new health and safety legislation, questioning whether such liability undermines corporate safety culture and decision-making in large organisations.
Stacked weekly counts; colour by lean. “n/a” covers government and iwi-Māori sources where lean isn't applicable.
How this topic has been named, week by week. A new alias winning out is usually a framing shift.
How the news corpus has covered this same topic over the last 12 weeks. 1 article from RNZ, Stuff, NZ Herald, ODT, 1News, Newsroom and The Spinoff. Click through to the press view for the full panel.
Verbatim segments from politicians speaking on podcasts and radio shows about this topic. Sourced via the voice-reference library — each speaker has been confirmed manually from their voice clip. Click play to stream the original audio from the publisher, pre-seeked to the moment the quote starts.
There's not a lot of coverage has been given to the failed appeal by Tony Gibson. Now, he was the head of the Port of Auckland, a worker died, you might remember. He was charged under health and safety and found guilty. Now, it was the Health and Safety Act of 2015. He was the first person of a large corporation to be charged and found guilty under it. Now, this in no way takes away from the tragedy and seriousness of the accident, but... The question for all of us is can you reasonably hold a single person responsible in a company where so many people if you were looking to cast a wide net potentially could also be and if you can what sort of chilling effect does that have around the running of a large company in which you can potentially be held to account for Lord knows what the court found he had overall responsibility which in theory is not unfair it's the buck stops at the top argument but what about the board And what is the point in having management and managerial responsibility if it all eventually gets cheated back to one person anyway? In a business where safety is a key aspect of operation, you presumably have people and groups or committees that operate procedures and rules. What level, if any, of responsibility do they hold or share? Can one person really be held to account for the singular accident on a single day in a single incident in a company of hundreds or potentially thousands of people? And if you answer... As the court seems to have, yes, then how does the CEO change the way they approach the running of that particular business? Are they risk averse? Do they take longer to make decisions? Does progress get slowed as we guess, second guess and then guess one more time just in case? Do you overspend or invest in areas just in case? How much sleep do you lose doing all of this? If the rules around being on a board are increasingly arduous, and they are, is making life as a CEO harder productive? Or is finding a single person culpable for any event in the workplace an easy out of a complex problem, allowing everyone else to wash their hands?
Up to 12 framings spread across orientations. Each framing is a short phrase the topic extractor generated to characterise the piece's stance — not a quote from the source. Click through to read the original.
distributed accountability undermines top-down blame
Mike's Minute: Is the boss responsible for a death in a major company?Spotted something wrong on this page? Report a correction.
