NEBOSH IGC common mistakes
NEBOSH IGC · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing long, general prose about a hazard (for example, a paragraph describing what a forklift is) instead of stating the specific control measures the question asked for, so the answer contains one usable point buried in several lines of context.
Candidates treat the paper as an essay and try to show breadth of knowledge, or they copy the scenario wording back to 'set the scene'. NEBOSH marking is point-based: each discrete, correct, relevant point scores, and padding earns nothing while consuming time.
What to do instead
Before writing, underline the command word (identify, outline, explain, describe, give) and the subject. Then answer in one short bullet per mark available, each bullet being a single control or effect. Practise by taking past-style questions and forcing yourself to produce exactly the number of bullets the marks require, no introduction and no conclusion.
Answering 'outline' or 'explain' questions with bare one-word or two-word lists (for example, 'PPE' or 'training') that would only satisfy an 'identify' command word.
Under exam pressure candidates default to the fastest format and do not distinguish command words. They know the material but lose the second mark in a two-mark outline because no consequence, mechanism or expansion is given.
What to do instead
Learn the command-word ladder explicitly: identify = name it; outline = name it plus one line of what it does or why it matters; explain = name it plus the mechanism and consequence, often with 'because' or 'which means'. For every outline point write a minimum of one full sentence linking the measure to the harm it prevents. Drill by converting your own identify answers into outline answers.
Giving generic controls ('provide training', 'use PPE', 'follow procedures', 'raise awareness') without tying them to the specific hazard, task or worker group in the scenario.
These are the phrases candidates memorise first, and they feel safe. Markers cannot award credit for a control that would apply identically to every hazard, because it demonstrates no understanding of the risk in the question.
What to do instead
Use a three-part structure for each control: what is done, to what or whom, and how it removes or reduces this specific risk. For example, not 'training' but 'toolbox talk for maintenance staff on isolating the conveyor at the local isolator before clearing blockages'. Before the exam, build a hazard-to-control map (falls from height, noise, manual handling, electricity, confined spaces, vehicles) and rehearse specific wording.
Confusing hazard with risk, or writing 'risk assessment' as the answer whenever any risk-related question appears, without describing the process steps (identify, who might be harmed and how, evaluate and decide precautions, record, review and update).
The terms are used loosely in everyday speech, and 'do a risk assessment' is a single memorable phrase. Candidates then cannot unpack it when the question asks how the assessment should be carried out or what it should contain.
What to do instead
Fix the definitions in memory: hazard = something with potential to cause harm; risk = likelihood and severity of harm from that hazard. Memorise the five-step process as a numbered list and be ready to expand each step with one specific example. When a question asks about reviewing assessments, give triggers: accident, near miss, new equipment, change in process, new worker, change in legislation.
Describing the hierarchy of control as a list of five words in the wrong order, or jumping straight to PPE and training without addressing elimination, substitution, engineering controls and administrative controls.
PPE and training are the most visible and easiest controls to recall, and the mnemonic order is often half-learned. Candidates also do not realise that the order itself carries marks and that higher-order controls must be justified by effectiveness and reliability.
What to do instead
Memorise the order as elimination, substitution, engineering controls, administrative controls, PPE, and be able to state why the order exists: controls at the top protect everyone without relying on individual behaviour. In answers, work down the hierarchy and explicitly say when a higher control is not reasonably practicable and why. Link each level to a concrete example from the scenario.
Treating accident investigation as a blame exercise, writing that the worker was careless or should be disciplined, rather than identifying root and underlying causes such as inadequate supervision, poor maintenance, missing procedure or design failure.
The instinct to assign fault is strong, and some workplace cultures reinforce it. Exam questions on investigation ask for causes and for the purpose of the investigation, and blame-focused answers miss the systemic causes that carry the marks.
What to do instead
Structure investigation answers around immediate cause, underlying cause and root cause, and always state the purpose: prevent recurrence, not punish. Use a model such as the '5 whys' or a cause tree and show it in your answer by asking why until you reach a management-system failure. Include the reporting and recording steps, evidence gathering and preservation, witness interviewing and the follow-up action plan with responsibilities and timescales.
Describing RIDDOR reporting only as 'report accidents to the HSE' without distinguishing reportable categories, the responsible person, the reporting route and the timescales.
Candidates learn the acronym and stop there. The detail (over-seven-day injuries, specified injuries, dangerous occurrences, occupational diseases, reporting via the online system within set deadlines, and keeping records) is what the questions actually test.
What to do instead
Build a table of the reportable categories with one example each, and learn who reports (the responsible person, usually the employer or person in control of the premises), the route (the HSE online reporting service, with telephone reporting for specified incidents) and the deadlines. Distinguish the accident book entry, the internal report and the RIDDOR report as three separate records.
Writing about the moral and legal duty to manage health and safety without naming the actual statutory framework, the general duties owed, and the concept of reasonably practicable.
Candidates know 'it is the law' but cannot cite the duties or explain the qualifying phrase, so answers on employer and employee duties stay vague and score low.
What to do instead
Learn the core duties: the general duty on employers to ensure health and safety of employees and others affected so far as is reasonably practicable, the written health and safety policy requirement above a threshold number of employees, the duty to consult employees, and employee duties to take reasonable care and cooperate. Be able to explain reasonably practicable as weighing risk against the cost, time and effort of control, and apply it to a scenario.
Answering a question about monitoring and measuring performance by listing only accident statistics, ignoring proactive (active) monitoring such as inspections, audits, safety sampling and behavioural observation, and reactive monitoring such as accident and near-miss data.
Accident rates are the most familiar metric and the active/reactive distinction is easily blurred. Candidates also forget that near misses and ill-health data are part of reactive monitoring and that statistics need interpretation.
What to do instead
Learn the two categories with three or four examples each and the purpose of each: active monitoring checks that controls are in place before harm occurs; reactive monitoring learns from events that have occurred. Practise explaining why accident rates alone are a poor measure (under-reporting, small numbers, latency of ill health) and what complementary indicators you would add.
Ignoring the mark allocation and spending equal time on a two-mark question and a ten-mark question, or leaving whole sections blank because time ran out.
Candidates write in the order questions appear and get absorbed in early long answers. There is no time discipline, and unanswered marks are the cheapest marks to lose.
What to do instead
Convert marks to minutes before you start (roughly one minute per mark plus reading time) and write the allocation next to each question. Answer the highest-value questions you know best first if the paper allows, keep strictly to the minute budget, and leave space to return. In the final minutes, fill any blank with your best bullet points rather than leaving it empty.