Before diving into the heart of this discussion, let’s look at the legal foundation:
Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 (HASAWA) states:
“It shall be the duty of every employer to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees.”
Now, let’s break this down. In simple terms, it suggests that an employer must ensure the safety, health, and welfare of employees—but only where they deem it reasonably practicable.
This raises an uncomfortable question: If an employer decides something isn’t “reasonably practicable,” does that mean they don’t have to ensure safety?
The Problem with “Reasonably Practicable”
Many years ago, a student in one of our training sessions asked a simple question:
“Does my employer have to make sure I’m safe at work?”
Of course, our tutors instinctive response was “Yes!” But then they hesitated—because, legally speaking, the real answer was:
“Yes, but only where they feel it is reasonably practicable.”
How would you feel hearing that? It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it?
Now, as safety professionals, we all know the legal balancing act behind this phrase. The definition of reasonably practicable weighs time, cost, effort, and inconvenience against the level of risk.
But let’s be honest—it’s vague, subjective, and open to interpretation.
Money is often the biggest argument—but value is relative. What one company sees as excessive costs, another might view as a worthwhile investment. A Premier League footballer wouldn’t hesitate to spend £200,000 on a car, but for the average person, that’s an impossible expense.
Many of us have had legitimate safety decisions overturned because someone somewhere didn’t deem them reasonably practicable.
Time for Change?
So, here’s our argument:
The phrase “so far as is reasonably practicable” creates unnecessary grey areas.
It weakens the core principle of workplace safety by allowing subjectivity.
It leads to endless disputes over what is “reasonable” rather than focusing on safety itself.
Wouldn’t a more structured, absolute approach be better?
Some might argue that removing SFARP would open the door to excessive litigation—what if companies were prosecuted for minor issues like paper cuts? But let’s be real: The HSE would never take it that far.
SFARP might have made sense 40 years ago, but in today’s world, where technology, safety equipment, and risk assessments have advanced significantly, shouldn’t we refine our approach?
What’s Easier?
A clear, absolute duty to ensure safety Or a duty that only applies when someone deems it “reasonably practicable”?
It’s time to ask the question: Is SFARP outdated? And more importantly—should we redefine it?
What do you think? Let’s start the conversation.
