|
Scope and Objectives
Smiths Group commissioned csrnetwork to provide
independent assurance on the environment health and safety (EHS)
information and data within the Smiths Group 2003 Environment
Health and Safety Report (the Report). Any financial performance
information contained within the report is excluded from the
scope of this assurance process. The objectives were to check
claims and review the arrangements for the management of EHS
issues and the systems for collection of data. We were also asked
to comment on the completeness and accuracy of the reporting
and on the Smiths Group EHS management programme. csrnetwork
took account of the principles underlying the new AA1000 Assurance
Standard in designing the assurance process.
Responsibilities of the Management of Smiths Group
and the Assurance Providers
The management of Smiths Group have sole responsibility for
preparation of the Report. This statement represents our independent
opinion. We were not involved in the preparation of any part
of the Report although we did provide information on emerging
best practice in reporting. We have no other contract with Smiths
Group. This is the first year that we have acted as independent
assurance providers for Smiths Group. We adopt a balanced approach
towards all Smiths Group stakeholders. A Statement of Impartiality
relating to our contract with Smiths Group will be made available
on request. The opinion expressed in this assurance statement
should not be relied upon as the basis for any financial or investment
decisions. The independent assurance team for this contract with
Smiths Group comprised Mark Line, Jon Woodhead, Elizabeth Ness,
Lucy Candlin and Todd Cort. Further information, including a
statement of competencies relating to the team can be found at: www.csrnetwork.com.
Method
The independent assurance process was conducted through meetings
at Smiths Group premises in London, and at operational sites
in the UK and USA. Meetings were conducted with managers at Corporate
and Division level responsible for areas of management and stakeholder
relationships covered by the report, and for collating the data
and information on which the report text and data was based.
These meetings included the Chief Executive, three (out of four)
Group Managing Directors, other Board members and senior Directors,
and members of the Smiths Group EHS Committee. During these meetings,
claims were discussed and a review was undertaken of the systems
and processes for data collection and analysis. Specific areas
of reported data were checked for consistency against these systems
and processes.
In the UK, we visited an Aerospace site in Cheltenham, a Detection
site in Watford, and a Medical site in Hythe. In the USA, we
visited a Specialty Engineering site in Springfield (MA) and
an Aerospace site in Grand Rapids (MI). The visits to operational
sites were to discuss local management arrangements and to check
reported performance data and relevant case study information
with local management representatives. The assurance process
included interviews, site visits and document reviews to review
the company's reporting and management process. In addition,
we reviewed the outputs of the internet based consultation exercise
held by Smiths Group on the draft report, and contacted selected
stakeholders involved in the exercise to discuss individual issues
and concerns.
Opinion
Accuracy
On the basis of the method and scope of work undertaken and
the information provided to us by Smiths
Group, we have found that the underlying trends in reported
data are generally robust, although data from previous years
are less reliable and analysis is made difficult by the significant
changes in the profile of operating companies within the Smiths
Group.
The electronic system for collation of EHS data (known as Trilogy)
is beginning to become embedded, although further guidance on
its use at certain sites is required. In particular, guidance
on health and safety data reporting is needed, and is already
being developed. Real improvements in the scope and quality of
reported data have been achieved over the last year, although
at most of the sites we visited, some discrepancies between reported
data and onsite records (where available) were noted.
Completeness
The stated scope of the Report is EHS. The Report has addressed
the main EHS issues and areas of performance, and many of the
additional issues raised by stakeholders such as an explanation
of Smiths Group EHS strategy and governance arrangements.
No material issues appear to have been omitted from
the scope of the Report. However, Smiths Group continues to explore what level of detail on specific performance areas to include in the report, to support internal and external monitoring and decision making processes.
Prior to last year's Report, a consultation exercise was
conducted with stakeholders to understand their interests and
concerns. This year, a draft of the Report was shown to selected
stakeholder representatives, and some text within the Report
was redrafted in response to feedback received. Our review of
this consultation process indicated that it is an effective mechanism,
and that Smiths Group did respond to feedback received where
appropriate, given the scope of this Report.
Recommendations for the Group EHS Management Programme
Overall, the Report is a step forward from last year; the completeness
of data has improved, as has the coverage of issues and explanation
of management arrangements. These achievements have been
supported by the formation of the Smiths Group EHS Committee
during 2003. Key to the success of this Committee
will be the monitoring of performance and communication of Group
requirements to the operating companies.
We have provided the Company with a number of suggestions that
may assist them in responding to this Statement. These
include making improvements to the data checking process at site
level prior to submission to Group. Future reports would
benefit from further information being provided on the management
of health and safety and consideration should also be given to
setting a performance related target in this area. We also
recommended that existing performance targets be reviewed, given
the changes in the profile of the operating companies in the
Group.
csr network ltd
U.K. March 2004
Mark Line, Director
Jon Woodhead, Director |
