Objectives Without a Baseline

Clause 6.2.1 requires objectives to be consistent with the OH&S policy, measurable (if practicable), monitored, communicated, updated as appropriate, and to take into account applicable requirements and the results of hazard identification and risk assessment.

1. LTIFR reduction of 20% - measurable and specific, so structurally compliant. But it is a lagging indicator and, on its own, may not reflect the organisation's significant risks. It is acceptable as an objective, but a strong answer notes that it should be paired with leading indicators (e.g., near-miss reporting rate, control effectiveness audits).
2. 100% manual handling training completion - measurable, but it measures activity, not outcome. Completing training does not demonstrate competence or reduced risk. It is a weak objective and arguably does not meet the spirit of 6.2.1 because it does not address the reduction of OH&S risk. It should be reframed as a competence objective with an assessment component.
3. 'Improve safety culture' - not measurable, not defined, and not monitored. This fails 6.2.1 outright. There is no metric, no baseline, no target, and no way to determine whether it was achieved. It is a slogan, not an objective.

The correct judgement: only the first is structurally compliant; the second is weak; the third is non-compliant.

The claim is not supportable on the evidence.

• Objective 1 was missed by a wide margin (4.9% vs 20%). Reporting it as 'mostly met' obscures a 15-point shortfall. Under 9.1.1, the organisation must monitor and measure the extent to which OH&S objectives are met - the data shows the objective was not met.
• Objective 2 at 96% is close but not 100%; the shortfall should be analysed (who did not complete, and why) rather than rounded up.
• Objective 3 cannot be assessed at all because no metric exists. This is itself a finding: an objective that cannot be measured cannot be monitored, which breaches 6.2.1.

Consequence for management review (9.3): the review must consider the status of actions from previous management reviews, changes in external and internal issues, the extent to which OH&S objectives have been met, OH&S performance and effectiveness of the OH&S MS, and adequacy of resources. Presenting 'mostly met' as the status would feed inaccurate input into the review, undermining the review's purpose. The review should record the shortfall, the reasons, and decisions on whether to revise the objectives, actions, or resources. A strong answer notes that the management review is where the organisation decides whether the objectives remain relevant and appropriate - which is exactly what the CEO's 'set the same ones next year' proposal should trigger.

A model revision should show each objective with: baseline, target, metric, owner, timeframe, and how it will be monitored (6.2.1 and 6.2.2).

• Objective 1 (revised): reduce LTIFR from 3.9 to 3.3 per million hours within 12 months, plus a leading indicator: increase near-miss reporting from X to Y per quarter, and complete control-effectiveness audits on the top 5 risks. Owner: OH&S manager. Monitored monthly. This addresses the lagging-only weakness.
• Objective 2 (revised): achieve 100% manual handling training and 90% pass rate on a practical competence assessment; analyse and close the 4% gap. Owner: training lead. Monitored quarterly. This shifts from activity to outcome.
• Objective 3 (replaced): replace 'improve safety culture' with a measurable proxy - e.g., achieve a defined score on a validated safety climate survey (baseline measured in Q1, target set after baseline), and increase worker participation in hazard reporting. Owner: site managers. Monitored semi-annually.

Each objective should be communicated (6.2.1), documented (6.2.2), and reviewed at management review (9.3). A strong answer explicitly notes that a culture objective is only acceptable if operationalised into a measurable indicator - otherwise it fails 6.2.1.