The occupational health and safety (OHS) profession in New Zealand has made immense progress since its origins in post-colonial times due to a large extent because of progressive legislative and administrative developments; the most impactful being the recent overhaul of the profession after Pike River Coal Mine tragedy in 2010 (Peace, Lamm, Dearsly & Parkes, 2019). General OHS professionals constitute a significant part of the OHS professional workforce that includes several OHS specialist professionals, such as occupational hygienists (HASANZ, 2019). Previous research indicates that OHS professionals in New Zealand play an important role in improving workplace health and safety but the workforce is ageing and it is largely underqualified while the demand for OHS professionals continues to rise (Dobson, 2018; HASANZ, 2019; Olsen, 2012, 2014). Though there is research on the OHS professional, it fails to throw light on the current and future competencies that OHS generalists require and the capability gaps in the profession. The focus of this study is to explore competency and capability gaps among OHS generalists, the current and future demand, and challenges facing the OHS profession in New Zealand.

The thesis begins with a background on the topic and a review of the relevant literature. A mixed method approach was used in the research design. Semi-structured interviews with OHS stakeholders, such as OHS recruiters, academics, professionals and leaders of OHS stakeholder bodies, were conducted. In addition, a Qualtrics-based online survey with close-ended questions on demographic details, professional development and perceived competencies was circulated among OHS generalists in New Zealand. Overall, 10 interviews were conducted and 53 submitted responses from OHS generalists were received.

Five key findings resulted from the data analysis. First, most organisations are in a reactive-calculative phase of safety maturity, with a “tick box” safety mentality (Hudson, 2003). Second, OHS generalists play a supportive role in organisations, improving and uplifting the overall safety culture. Third, the survey results showed that overall the OHS generalist workforce lacks relevant qualifications, soft skills and cultural competency. The quantitative results, however, showed that the majority of respondents were experienced, qualified and competent in several aspects of their role. A possible explanation for this finding is that over 80% of the survey sample worked in medium- and large-sized organisations which may have skewed the sample. Fourth, results showed that there is an anticipated demand for OHS generalists as more organisations require professional support in identifying specific risks and to carry out their OHS obligations. Fifth, the scant number of tertiary OHS qualification offerings was due in part to the academic institutions’ perception of poor financial return from such courses particularly since the onset of Covid-19. And yet the micro-credential/continuing professional development courses were seen as an attractive option for many OHS professionals and as a consequence this market was thriving. Finally, this study contributes to our knowledge by raising several issues facing the OHS profession and identifies areas of further research, for example how can the OHS professional best serve the needs of the small business sector.