NEBOSH

KNOW - WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY

PRINCIPLES (INTERNATIONAL)

UNIT ID1:
For: NEBOSH International Diploma for Occupational Health and Safety
Management Professionals

General note about this sample assessment

Please note that this is a sample assessment, designed to be illustrative of the different
types of tasks/activities learners will face. It is therefore not a full sample; it does not
contain as many tasks/activities as a live paper will have. This sample has only around
500 marks available, whereas a full paper will have 600 marks available, split equally
between 4 parts (150 marks per part).

Guidance to learners

The assessment is split into four parts.

All the tasks and activities in all parts of the assessment are mandatory.

• Part 1 contains questions based on a fictitious, but realistic scenario.

• Part 2 contains tasks that you will need to complete in a suitable workplace.
• Part 3 contains reflective tasks.
• Part 4 is a short research project.

You will have 6 weeks (30 working days) to complete all four parts of the assessment.
Please refer to your registration confirmation email for the upload deadline.
Please note that NEBOSH will be unable to accept your assessment once the deadline has passed.

The assessment is not invigilated, and you are free to use any learning resources to which you have
access, eg your course notes, or the HSE website, etc.

By submitting this completed assessment for marking, you are declaring it is entirely your own work.
Knowingly claiming work to be your own when it is someone else’s work is malpractice, which carries
severe penalties. This means that you must not collaborate with or copy work from others. Neither
should you ‘cut and paste’ blocks of text from the Internet or other sources.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 1 of 10

Part 1: Scenario-based questions

The first part of the assessment requires learners to answer questions that are based on
a scenario. The number of tasks and questions per paper may vary but will not cover
the whole of the ID1 syllabus on a single paper. The scenario, tasks and questions will
change in each paper.

The assessment begins with a realistic scenario to set the scene. You will then need to complete a
series of tasks based on this scenario. Each task will consist of one or more questions. Your
responses to most of these tasks should wholly, or partly, draw on relevant information from the
scenario. The task will clearly state the extent to which this is required.
The marks available are shown in brackets to the right of each question, or part of each question.
This will help guide you to the amount of information required in your response. In general, one mark
is given for each correct technical point that is clearly demonstrated. Avoid writing too little as this
will make it difficult for the Examiner to award marks. Single word answers or lists are unlikely to
gain marks as this would not normally be enough to show understanding or a connection with the
scenario.

Please attempt ALL tasks.

SCENARIO

A haulage company owns and operates one site from which it runs a fleet of 40 trucks, many of
which are over 10 years old. The organisation has been operating for nearly 60 years and has grown
from an initial workforce of 5, to 150 workers (a mixture of drivers, vehicle maintenance and office
workers). The haulage company is still operating on the same site and using the same buildings as
they did 60 years ago. The current managing director (MD) took over the role when their father
retired 25 years ago.

The haulage company’s main contract is to deliver car parts across Europe for a major car
manufacturer. This contract was put in place nearly 20 years ago, at a time when the car
manufacturer only made and sold cars in their country (they did not export). The contract was
negotiated between the MD’s of the two organisations, who are old school friends. There has been
no significant review of the contract terms since it was signed, other than an annual financial review.

Over the past few years there have been numerous health and safety breaches at the haulage
company’s site. For example, six months ago a family member of one of the maintenance workers
entered the site and was run over by a forklift truck which broke their foot. The worker took their
family member to hospital. After leaving the hospital, they rang a lawyer for an initial consultation
about bringing a compensation claim against the haulage company. Following the consultation, the
lawyer also advised the worker to check that the organisation had reported the issue to the
enforcement authority. When the worker approached the MD, they were told that it would not be
reported as the family member should not have been on site, so it was their own fault. Nevertheless,
the worker contacted the enforcement authority and explained the circumstances. The worker
subsequently resigned as they did not want to work for an organisation whose MD had such a bad
attitude.

In the past, the enforcement authority had tried to work with the management at the haulage
company’s site and had, on several occasions, provided advice on how safety could be improved.
Following the report about the broken foot, a labour inspector visited the site again. The MD was not
available to speak to the inspector at this visit. The inspector found evidence of at least six different
health and safety breaches across the site. They also noticed that the perimeter fence had a large
hole in it and that there was no signage on the perimeter fence to communicate the dangers of
entering the site. The inspector issued an enforcement notice for the health and safety breaches that
were found across the site.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 2 of 10

The inspector visited the site again 21 days after the notice date and then again, a further three
weeks later. The MD was not available until the last visit. During this visit the MD told the inspector
that the notices would not be actioned as it was the MD, not the inspector, who was in charge. The
inspector issued a final enforcement notice which the MD tore up in front of them, saying that it would
cost too much to put things right and that bonuses would be at risk if the improvements were made.
The enforcement authority subsequently prosecuted both the haulage company and the MD, and
both received fines.

Since then, there has recently been a fatality at the site. A 10-year-old child had entered the site with
some friends through the hole in the perimeter fencing. The child was knocked over and killed by
one of the trucks reversing into a parking bay.

There have been a lot of reports in the press and on social media about the child’s death, which have
included information on the haulage company’s poor health and safety performance record. The car
manufacturer’s procurement director has seen these reports and visits the site to discuss the ongoing
relationship between the two organisations. The procurement director tells the MD that they are very
concerned about the relationship and that the car manufacturer is now a supply chain focal company.
The procurement director explains that Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) is also a top priority
and that they have signed up to one of the codes on CSR which has health and safety requirements
within it. The car manufacturer takes both their focal company and CSR responsibilities very
seriously.

Following the fatality, the board of directors of the haulage company voted to recruit a health and
safety manager as they realised that something had to change. The MD did not agree with this
decision, but was outvoted by the rest of the board. You were successful in obtaining the role of
health and safety manager.

Your first job is to review the health and safety policy and any procedures currently in place. You are
concerned to find out that there is no policy or written procedures. Procedures are passed by word-
of-mouth from worker-to-worker. The drivers have told you that “this is just the way things are done
around here”. You check to see what driver training there is, but can find no training records. You
also check that you have up-to-date drivers’ paperwork and find that many of the driving licences on
record have either expired or do not exist; in some cases, drivers are driving categories of vehicles
for which they do not hold a licence. You also discover that many of the drivers are not taking
sufficient driving breaks during the working week. This is due to pressure from management to get
the job done quickly, at all costs. Drivers accept this as the normal way of working and have the
attitude that if that is the way management want it done then that is what will be done, even if it
means that they are working under excessive pressure.

You then carry out an investigation into the fatality and find out that unauthorised visitors and
trespassers, including children, are a regular occurrence and that various workers have chased
children off the site on many occasions. You hear reports from most of the drivers that this was “an
accident waiting to happen” as there have been a lot of near misses in the past involving children and
site vehicles. The drivers tell you that most of the fleet go out on Monday mornings and return Friday
afternoons or early evenings; at both of these busy times there are always children inside the
perimeter fencing watching the trucks manoeuvring.

You also discover that the hole in the perimeter fence has been reported to the MD on several
occasions by different workers and that, despite numerous requests from drivers, the trucks have no
reversing cameras or audible alarms. The drivers also tell you that they have stopped reporting
issues and asking for safety-related equipment/clothing as these requests are always ignored. They
also say that they think, with hindsight, that this equipment/clothing is not required because they have
not been involved in any incidents. You find that even if the MD authorises the purchase of the
safety-related equipment/clothing they will very often change their mind and tell the drivers to buy it
for themselves. You ask the drivers why they stay with the haulage company, and they all reply
because they can turn up, get the job done but not care if they do a good job or not. Their attitude is,
that if management do not care how the job is done, neither should they. The drivers also tell you
that the pay is exceptional, much higher than the industry average.
ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 3 of 10
You ask the MD for the site’s risk assessments. The MD tells you that there is “no such thing as
risk”! The MD goes on to say that it is up to the individual to make sure that they act responsibly so
that they do not cause themselves or anyone else an injury; so there is no need for the MD to bother
doing risk assessments. You raise the issue of the reversing devices for the trucks and say that the
workforce must be consulted on such issues, rather than the MD making a unilateral decision. The
MD’s response is to laugh at you before walking away.

The Police and the enforcement authority carried out a joint investigation into the accident where the
child died. The MD initially co-operated with the enforcement authority. However, when the labour
inspector asked to see the site’s risk assessments, the MD’s attitude changed. After this, the MD
refused to co-operate with the investigators, insisting that it was the child’s fault as they were not
authorised to be on the site and that it was nothing to do with the haulage company.

You later found out that the MD had destroyed a lot of evidence directly after the fatality. The MD’s
personal assistant told you this in confidence, but would not go ‘on the record’ as they were afraid of
repercussions. After the investigation, you find out that another driver voluntarily told the labour
inspector that near miss incidents between reversing vehicles and pedestrians were common on the
site. They said they were concerned about the number of incidents that were happening even after
they had reported the issue to the MD. This driver also resigned as they did not want to work for an
organisation that had so little regard for safety.

The haulage company’s insurers were copied into the Police/enforcement authority findings relating
to the fatality and carried out their own investigation following a claim submitted to the MD relating to
the fatality case.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 4 of 10

Task 1: Insurance

1 Outline how the insurance company can positively influence the haulage
company’s health and safety standards. (10)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 2: Role of the enterprise

2 The International Labour Organisation Recommendation R164 requires ‘action

at the level of the undertaking’ and places obligations upon employers.

Explain how the haulage company may have contravened its obligations
under recommendation 10(a) to 10(e) of R164. (15)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 3: Organisational and individual factors

3 (a) Comment on the organisational factors that could have contributed to

the poor health and safety culture at the haulage company. (15)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

(b) Comment on the individual factors that could have contributed to the
poor health and safety culture at the haulage company. (15)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

Task 4: Supply chain and corporate social responsibility obligations

4 (a) The haulage company’s main client is a car manufacturer that is a

supply chain focal company.

(i) Outline the role of a supply chain focal company. (4)

(ii) Based on the scenario, what are the implications for the haulage
company of the car manufacturer’s focal company role? (6)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

(b) Comment on what the car manufacturer’s corporate social

responsibilities (CSR) responsibilities are likely to be. (10)
Note: You should support your answer, where applicable, using relevant
information from the scenario.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 5 of 10

Part 2: Workplace-based activities

This part of the assessment requires learners to carry out activities in a workplace. You
must, therefore, ensure that you select a suitable workplace/organisation for this part of
the assessment. This does not have to be your own workplace/organisation.
Each paper will generally contain up to six activities in this part that will change with
each paper.

Activity 1: Create an organisational risk profile

1 (a) Introduction

Give a clear description of your chosen organisation that includes detail

on the size of the organisation in terms of worker numbers, the typical
activities carried out (which should include brief details of any raw
materials used if relevant), shift patterns (if relevant) and any other
relevant details.
Note: You must ‘paint a clear picture’ for the Examiner so that they can
get an understanding of your organisation to be able to award marks for
your risk profile. (5)

(b) Produce a risk profile of your chosen organisation’s health and safety
risks only.

The risk profile must consider the

- nature and level of threats faced by the organisation
- likelihood of adverse effects occurring
- likely level of disruption should adverse effects occur
- likely costs associated with each type of risk
- effectiveness of the controls in place to manage the identified
risks. (40)

Activity 2: High reliability organisations

2 Analyse your chosen organisation against the five characteristics of high

reliability organisations (HROs).

Your analysis must

- evaluate how your chosen organisation performs against each of these
HRO characteristics
- make 5 realistic recommendations to improve the reliability of your
chosen organisation (one taken from EACH of the characteristics). (40)

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 6 of 10

Activity 3: Monitoring and measuring

3 (a) Comment on how effectively your chosen organisation monitors and

measures health and safety performance. (15)

(b) Produce an action plan for five health and safety monitoring and
measuring improvements that your chosen organisation could put into
place.

These improvements must be realistic and the action plan must include
- a detailed description of what the action is intended to do
- a detailed description of what will actually be done/put into place
- who is responsible for carrying out/implementing the action
- timescales for the action to be carried out
- when and how you will check the effectiveness of each action. (15)

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 7 of 10

Part 3: Reflection

The aim of this part of the assessment is for you to reflect on transferable leadership and
professional skills that you may already have and/or need to develop. These skills could
have been acquired either through your work life (whether this is in health and safety or
some other work activities) or your personal life.
For instance, you may want to draw examples where you have been chairing a meeting or
been required to make decisions under pressure. Alternatively, you may carry out
voluntary work and want to draw on this for your examples. The examples can be from
any element of your working or personal life.

Task 1: Transferable leadership skills

1 (a) Using relevant examples from your personal experience, evaluate your
leadership style against the characteristics of EACH of the following leadership
styles
(i) transformational
(ii) transactional
(iii) authentic
(iv) resonant. (40)
Note: You should aim to complete your evaluation in approximately 1 000
words.

(b) Produce an action plan that details three realistic improvements that you could
make to your own leadership style. (30)
Note: You should aim to describe EACH improvement in approximately 250
words.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 8 of 10

Task 2: Effective communication and financial justification
2 Explain how you have influenced or negotiated an issue/situation by using
effective communication.

Your answer must include

1. Background to the issue/situation.
2. The role that you played.
3. The types of significant stakeholders and their influence.
4. The effectiveness of consultation.
5. Why you chose the communication methods you did and how effective
they were.
6. The feedback you received from the process and why this was
important.
7. The actual outcome and how well this compared to the intended
outcome.
8. The impact of your involvement and what you brought to the process.
9. Any lessons that you learned from the process. (50)
Note: The issue/situation can be from an existing or a previous job role and
does not have to be a health and safety issue/situation.
You should aim to complete this part of the assessment in approximately
1 500 words.

Task 3: Role of the health and safety professional

3 (a) Describe your role in an organisation’s health and management system

(this could be a formal or informal system). (15)

(b) Describe a situation where you had to recognise the limits of your own
competence and how you dealt with this. (10)
Note: You should aim to provide a description of EACH case in approximately
300 words.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 9 of 10

Part 4: Research project

There is no unique answer for this part of the assessment. The research project
allows the learner to demonstrate and evidence informed arguments.
The research topic will change with each paper.

Research topic – how health and safety has changed

The International Labour Organisation’s Convention C187 and associated

Recommendation R197 requires member states to have a national system ‘With a view
to preventing occupational injuries, diseases and deaths, the national system should
provide appropriate measures for the protection of all workers, in particular, workers in
high-risk sectors, and vulnerable workers such as those in the informal economy and
migrant and young workers.’

You must provide a justification for your reasoning and provide a list of reference
sources. (150)

* If your country has not ratified this recommendation, your research can look at
another country that has. You can search a list of countries that have ratified the
convention and recommendation here:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=1000:11001:::NO:::.

ID1-SAMPLE-ENG-OBE-QP-V1 © NEBOSH 2021 page 10 of 10