Being Relevant, Reasoned & Concise - for your Due Diligence Argument

In this episode of Risk! Engineers Talk Governance, due diligence engineers Richard Robinson and Gaye Francis discuss why effective due diligence arguments need to be relevant, reasoned, and concise.

They share their frustrations with overly complex safety documentation that fails to deliver clear, defensible arguments, and explain why safety cases should be brief yet comprehensive enough to stand up to legal scrutiny.

Drawing from their extensive experience as expert witnesses and consultants, they offer practical advice on creating effective safety documentation that not only satisfies the courts and makes sense to lawyers and Boards, but actually improves safety outcomes at optimal cost.

The episode starts with them explaining (following a question from their producer) how safety approaches shifted from target-based risk assessments to the SFAIRP (So Far As Is Reasonably Practicable) principles with the OHS Act in Victoria, and why it was necessary.

For further information on Richard and Gaye’s consulting work with R2A, head to https://www.r2a.com.au.

Gaye is also founder of women’s safety workwear company Apto PPE if you’d like to check out the garments at https://www.aptoppe.com.au