NEBOSH International Diploma for Occupational Health and Safety Professionals Quiz Exam

To understand the implications of ISO 45001 on an organization’s health and safety management system, we must consider how it integrates with existing frameworks. ISO 45001 emphasizes a proactive approach to risk management, requiring organizations to identify hazards, assess risks, and implement controls. This standard also mandates the involvement of leadership in promoting a culture of safety and continuous improvement. The effectiveness of an organization’s health and safety management system can be evaluated through audits and performance metrics, which should align with the strategic objectives of the organization. By adopting ISO 45001, organizations can enhance their operational efficiency, reduce workplace incidents, and improve employee morale. The standard also facilitates compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, which can mitigate potential liabilities. Therefore, the overall impact of ISO 45001 is a comprehensive enhancement of workplace safety culture and operational performance.

To determine the appropriate control measures for physical hazards in a manufacturing environment, we must first assess the risk associated with each hazard. For example, if a machine has a noise level of 90 dB, we need to consider the duration of exposure. According to the HSE guidelines, exposure to noise levels above 85 dB for more than 8 hours can lead to hearing loss. If an employee is exposed to 90 dB for 4 hours, we can calculate the equivalent exposure using the formula: Equivalent exposure (dB) = 10 * log10(T1/T2) + L1 Where: – T1 = duration of exposure at L1 (4 hours at 90 dB) – T2 = standard duration (8 hours) – L1 = noise level (90 dB) Calculating: Equivalent exposure = 10 * log10(4/8) + 90 = 10 * log10(0.5) + 90 = 10 * (-0.301) + 90 = -3.01 + 90 = 86.99 dB This indicates that the employee’s exposure is above the action level, necessitating control measures such as hearing protection and engineering controls to reduce noise levels.

To assess the risk associated with a specific task, we can use a qualitative risk assessment matrix. In this scenario, we have identified a task with a likelihood of occurrence rated at 3 (possible), and the severity of the potential outcome rated at 4 (major). To calculate the risk level, we multiply the likelihood by the severity: Risk Level = Likelihood x Severity Risk Level = 3 (Likelihood) x 4 (Severity) Risk Level = 12 In a typical risk assessment matrix, a risk level of 12 would fall into a moderate risk category, which may require specific control measures to mitigate the risk. This calculation illustrates the importance of understanding both the likelihood of an event occurring and the potential severity of its consequences. By quantifying these factors, safety professionals can prioritize risks and allocate resources effectively to manage them.

To determine the appropriate risk control measures for a workplace scenario, we first need to identify the hazards, assess the risks associated with those hazards, and then evaluate the effectiveness of existing controls. In this case, let’s assume we have identified a hazard (e.g., a moving vehicle in a warehouse) with a likelihood of occurrence rated at 4 (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is very likely) and a severity rating of 3 (on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is catastrophic). The risk level can be calculated by multiplying the likelihood by the severity: Risk Level = Likelihood x Severity = 4 x 3 = 12. Next, we need to consider existing controls. If the existing controls reduce the likelihood by 2 points (to 2) and the severity remains unchanged, the new risk level would be: New Risk Level = 2 x 3 = 6. This indicates a significant reduction in risk, but we must also consider whether this level is acceptable or if further controls are needed. The acceptable risk level is often determined by organizational policy or regulatory requirements. In this case, if the acceptable risk level is 5 or lower, additional controls would be necessary.

To determine the correct answer, we need to analyze the requirements for the NEBOSH International Diploma for Occupational Health and Safety Professionals. The diploma consists of three units: Unit A (International Management of Health and Safety), Unit B (International Control of Hazardous Agents in the Workplace), and Unit C (International Workplace and Work Equipment Safety). Each unit has specific assessment methods, including written examinations and practical assessments. The overall pass mark for the diploma is typically set at 45%, which means that a candidate must achieve at least this percentage across all units to be awarded the diploma. Given these details, we can conclude that the correct answer is the overall pass mark of 45%.

In an incident investigation, the primary goal is to identify the root causes of an incident to prevent future occurrences. The investigation team collects data, interviews witnesses, and analyzes the sequence of events leading to the incident. The effectiveness of the investigation can be measured by the number of corrective actions implemented as a result of the findings. For example, if an investigation leads to the identification of three key areas for improvement and each area results in two corrective actions, the total number of corrective actions would be calculated as follows: Total Corrective Actions = Number of Key Areas x Number of Actions per Area Total Corrective Actions = 3 x 2 = 6 Thus, the investigation resulted in six corrective actions being implemented. This demonstrates the importance of thorough investigations in enhancing workplace safety and preventing similar incidents in the future.

To determine the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) for a work environment where a worker is exposed to varying noise levels over a specific period, we can use the formula for Leq: Leq = 10 * log10( (1/T) * ∫(10^(L/10) dt) ) Where: – L is the noise level in decibels (dB) – T is the total time of exposure in hours – The integral calculates the average sound energy over the exposure time. In this scenario, a worker is exposed to three different noise levels over an 8-hour shift: 1. 85 dB for 3 hours 2. 90 dB for 2 hours 3. 95 dB for 3 hours First, we convert each noise level to its linear scale: – For 85 dB: 10^(85/10) = 316227.766 – For 90 dB: 10^(90/10) = 1000000 – For 95 dB: 10^(95/10) = 3162277.66 Next, we calculate the total energy exposure: Total energy = (316227.766 * 3) + (1000000 * 2) + (3162277.66 * 3) Total energy = 948683.298 + 2000000 + 9486832.98 = 1340683.576 Now, we divide by the total time (8 hours): Average energy = Total energy / 8 = 1340683.576 / 8 = 167585.447 Finally, we convert back to dB: Leq = 10 * log10(167585.447) = 10 * 5.224 = 52.24 dB Thus, the equivalent continuous noise level (Leq) is approximately 85 dB.

To determine the effectiveness of a health and safety management system (HSMS), we can analyze the number of incidents reported before and after the implementation of the system. Suppose a company had 50 incidents reported in the year before the HSMS was implemented. After one year of the HSMS being in place, the number of incidents reported dropped to 30. To calculate the percentage reduction in incidents, we use the formula: Percentage Reduction = [(Initial Incidents – Final Incidents) / Initial Incidents] × 100 Substituting the values: Percentage Reduction = [(50 – 30) / 50] × 100 Percentage Reduction = [20 / 50] × 100 Percentage Reduction = 0.4 × 100 Percentage Reduction = 40% Thus, the effectiveness of the HSMS in reducing incidents is 40%. This calculation illustrates the importance of measuring the performance of health and safety management systems. A reduction in incidents not only indicates that the system is functioning effectively but also reflects improvements in workplace safety culture, employee engagement, and compliance with safety regulations. Organizations must continuously monitor and evaluate their HSMS to ensure ongoing effectiveness and to identify areas for further improvement. Regular audits, employee feedback, and incident analysis are critical components of this evaluation process, enabling organizations to adapt and enhance their safety strategies over time.

To determine the total cost of compliance with environmental legislation for a company, we can use the formula for total cost, which is given by: $$ \text{Total Cost} = \text{Fixed Costs} + \text{Variable Costs} \times \text{Quantity} $$ In this scenario, the fixed costs for compliance are $C_f = 5000$ (in currency units), and the variable cost per unit of waste treated is $C_v = 200$ (in currency units). If the company treats $Q = 30$ units of waste, we can substitute these values into the formula: $$ \text{Total Cost} = 5000 + 200 \times 30 $$ Calculating the variable costs: $$ 200 \times 30 = 6000 $$ Now, substituting back into the total cost formula: $$ \text{Total Cost} = 5000 + 6000 = 11000 $$ Thus, the total cost of compliance with environmental legislation for the company is $11000$ (in currency units). This calculation illustrates the importance of understanding both fixed and variable costs in the context of environmental compliance, as companies must budget accordingly to meet legal requirements while managing operational expenses.

To analyze the lessons learned from incidents, it is crucial to understand the root causes and the effectiveness of the corrective actions taken. In this scenario, a manufacturing plant experienced a significant incident due to inadequate safety training, resulting in injuries and production downtime. The investigation revealed that the lack of a structured training program was a primary factor. The best practice identified was the implementation of a comprehensive training module that included regular assessments and updates based on incident reports. This approach not only addressed the immediate training gaps but also fostered a culture of continuous improvement. By regularly reviewing incident reports and adjusting training accordingly, the plant reduced similar incidents by 40% over the next year. Therefore, the lesson learned emphasizes the importance of proactive training and the need for ongoing evaluation of safety practices.

In the context of professional standards and ethics, the concept of integrity is paramount. Integrity involves adhering to moral and ethical principles, ensuring that actions align with professional standards. In this scenario, the safety officer must navigate a situation where a colleague is not following safety protocols. The correct course of action involves reporting the behavior to maintain workplace safety and uphold ethical standards. The reasoning behind this is that failing to act could lead to potential harm and compromise the safety culture within the organization. Upholding integrity not only protects individuals but also reinforces the importance of ethical behavior in occupational health and safety practices.

Effective communication strategies in occupational health and safety (OHS) are crucial for ensuring that all stakeholders understand safety protocols and procedures. In a scenario where a company is implementing a new safety management system, the effectiveness of communication can be evaluated through various methods. One method is to assess the clarity of the information shared, the channels used for communication, and the feedback mechanisms in place. For instance, if a company uses multiple channels such as emails, meetings, and training sessions to communicate the new system, it can be evaluated based on employee understanding and engagement. If 80% of employees report understanding the new procedures after the communication efforts, this indicates a successful strategy. However, if only 50% understand, it suggests a need for improvement. In this context, the effectiveness of communication can be measured by the percentage of employees who feel informed and confident about the new system. Therefore, a successful communication strategy would ideally result in a high percentage of employee comprehension and engagement, reflecting the effectiveness of the methods employed.

To effectively monitor and review control measures, organizations must establish a systematic approach that includes regular assessments, feedback mechanisms, and performance indicators. The effectiveness of control measures can be evaluated through various methods such as audits, inspections, and employee feedback. For instance, if an organization implements a new safety training program, it should measure its impact by comparing incident rates before and after the training. If the incident rate decreased from 10 incidents per month to 4 incidents per month, the effectiveness of the control measure can be calculated as follows: Effectiveness = (Initial Incidents – Post-Implementation Incidents) / Initial Incidents * 100 Effectiveness = (10 – 4) / 10 * 100 = 60% This indicates a 60% reduction in incidents, suggesting that the control measure is effective. Regular reviews should also consider changes in the workplace environment, employee feedback, and compliance with legal requirements to ensure that control measures remain relevant and effective over time.

To analyze the effectiveness of an incident investigation process, we can use a hypothetical scenario where an organization has experienced a total of 10 incidents over the past year. Out of these incidents, 6 were classified as minor, 3 as moderate, and 1 as severe. The organization implemented a new investigation protocol aimed at reducing the number of incidents. After one year of applying this protocol, they recorded 4 incidents: 2 minor, 1 moderate, and 1 severe. To calculate the percentage reduction in incidents, we first determine the total number of incidents before and after the implementation of the new protocol. Initial incidents = 10 Post-implementation incidents = 4 Percentage reduction = [(Initial incidents – Post-implementation incidents) / Initial incidents] × 100 Percentage reduction = [(10 – 4) / 10] × 100 Percentage reduction = (6 / 10) × 100 Percentage reduction = 60% This indicates that the new investigation protocol was effective in reducing the number of incidents by 60%. In conclusion, the effectiveness of an incident investigation process can be quantitatively assessed by comparing the number of incidents before and after the implementation of new protocols. A significant reduction in incidents suggests that the investigation process is functioning well, leading to improved safety outcomes.

To determine the most effective waste management strategy for a manufacturing facility that generates both hazardous and non-hazardous waste, we must consider the principles of waste hierarchy: prevention, minimization, reuse, recycling, recovery, and disposal. The facility produces 100 tons of hazardous waste and 200 tons of non-hazardous waste annually. If the facility implements a waste minimization program that reduces hazardous waste by 30% and non-hazardous waste by 20%, the new waste generation would be calculated as follows: Hazardous waste after minimization: 100 tons – (30% of 100 tons) = 100 tons – 30 tons = 70 tons Non-hazardous waste after minimization: 200 tons – (20% of 200 tons) = 200 tons – 40 tons = 160 tons Total waste after minimization: 70 tons (hazardous) + 160 tons (non-hazardous) = 230 tons Thus, the total waste generated after implementing the waste minimization program is 230 tons.

In emergency situations, effective communication and coordination are critical to ensure safety and minimize risks. The correct approach involves establishing clear lines of communication, utilizing designated roles, and ensuring that all personnel are aware of emergency procedures. The effectiveness of communication can be evaluated based on the clarity of messages, the speed of information dissemination, and the ability to adapt to changing circumstances. In this scenario, the focus is on the importance of a structured communication plan that includes regular updates and feedback mechanisms. This ensures that all team members are informed and can respond appropriately to emergencies. The final answer reflects the best practice in emergency communication, which emphasizes the need for a coordinated response that is well understood by all involved parties.

To determine the effectiveness of a safety training program, we need to analyze the data collected before and after the training sessions. Let’s assume that prior to the training, the incident rate was 12 incidents per 100 employees over a year. After implementing the training, the incident rate dropped to 6 incidents per 100 employees. To calculate the percentage reduction in the incident rate, we use the formula: Percentage Reduction = [(Old Rate – New Rate) / Old Rate] × 100 Substituting the values: Percentage Reduction = [(12 – 6) / 12] × 100 Percentage Reduction = [6 / 12] × 100 Percentage Reduction = 0.5 × 100 Percentage Reduction = 50% Thus, the training program resulted in a 50% reduction in the incident rate. This analysis highlights the importance of evaluating safety training programs through measurable outcomes. A 50% reduction in incidents indicates that the training was effective in enhancing employee awareness and safety practices. It also emphasizes the need for continuous monitoring and evaluation of safety initiatives to ensure they are achieving their intended goals. Organizations should regularly assess the impact of their training programs and make necessary adjustments based on the data collected to further improve workplace safety.

Stakeholder engagement and consultation are critical components of effective health and safety management systems. Engaging stakeholders involves identifying all parties affected by health and safety decisions, including employees, management, contractors, and the community. The process of consultation should be systematic and ongoing, ensuring that stakeholders have the opportunity to contribute their views and concerns. This engagement can lead to improved safety outcomes, as it fosters a culture of collaboration and shared responsibility. In this scenario, a company is planning to implement a new safety policy. They decide to hold a series of meetings with various stakeholders, including employees, safety representatives, and management. The goal is to gather feedback and ensure that the policy addresses the concerns of all parties involved. The effectiveness of this engagement can be measured by the level of participation in the meetings and the quality of feedback received. A successful stakeholder engagement process will not only enhance the policy’s acceptance but also improve its implementation and compliance.

To determine the effectiveness of a health and safety management system (HSMS), we can use the concept of the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) cycle. The effectiveness can be evaluated by assessing the number of incidents reported before and after the implementation of the HSMS. Suppose a company had 50 incidents reported in the year before the HSMS was implemented and 20 incidents reported in the year after. The effectiveness can be calculated as follows: Effectiveness = (Incidents before – Incidents after) / Incidents before * 100 Effectiveness = (50 – 20) / 50 * 100 Effectiveness = 30 / 50 * 100 Effectiveness = 0.6 * 100 Effectiveness = 60% This means that the HSMS has led to a 60% reduction in reported incidents, indicating a significant improvement in workplace safety. The effectiveness of an HSMS is crucial for organizations to understand as it reflects the system’s ability to reduce risks and enhance safety culture. A reduction in incidents not only demonstrates compliance with legal requirements but also contributes to employee morale and productivity. Organizations must continuously monitor and evaluate their HSMS to ensure ongoing improvement and adaptation to changing workplace conditions.

To determine the effectiveness of a health and safety training program, we can use the Kirkpatrick Model, which evaluates training across four levels: Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results. In this scenario, we will focus on the Results level, which measures the impact of training on organizational performance. Assuming a company implemented a training program that cost $50,000 and resulted in a 20% reduction in workplace incidents, we can calculate the financial impact of this reduction. If the average cost of an incident is $10,000, and the company had 50 incidents before training, the total cost of incidents was 50 x $10,000 = $500,000. A 20% reduction means the new number of incidents is 50 x 0.20 = 10 incidents, leading to a new total cost of incidents of 40 x $10,000 = $400,000. The financial benefit from the training program is the difference between the costs before and after training: $500,000 – $400,000 = $100,000. To assess the return on investment (ROI), we can use the formula: ROI = (Financial Benefit – Training Cost) / Training Cost x 100%. Substituting the values: ROI = ($100,000 – $50,000) / $50,000 x 100% = 100%. Thus, the ROI of the training program is 100%.

To determine the effectiveness of a health and safety management system (HSMS), organizations often use performance indicators. In this scenario, we are evaluating the effectiveness of an HSMS based on the reduction of workplace incidents over a year. If the initial number of incidents was 120 and the number of incidents after implementing the HSMS is 90, we can calculate the percentage reduction in incidents as follows: 1. Calculate the reduction in incidents: Reduction = Initial Incidents – Final Incidents Reduction = 120 – 90 = 30 incidents 2. Calculate the percentage reduction: Percentage Reduction = (Reduction / Initial Incidents) × 100 Percentage Reduction = (30 / 120) × 100 = 25% Thus, the effectiveness of the HSMS in reducing incidents is 25%. This calculation illustrates the importance of measuring performance indicators in health and safety management systems. By quantifying the reduction in incidents, organizations can assess the impact of their safety initiatives and make informed decisions about future improvements. A 25% reduction signifies a significant improvement, indicating that the HSMS is functioning effectively. This metric can also be used to communicate success to stakeholders and justify further investments in health and safety programs.

In emergency preparedness, the effectiveness of a response plan can be evaluated through a risk assessment process. This involves identifying potential hazards, assessing the likelihood of their occurrence, and determining the potential impact on the organization. For instance, if a company operates in an area prone to flooding, the likelihood of flooding might be rated as high (let’s say a score of 4 on a scale of 1 to 5), while the impact on operations could be rated as severe (a score of 5). The overall risk score can be calculated by multiplying the likelihood score by the impact score. In this case, the calculation would be: Likelihood (4) x Impact (5) = Risk Score (20). This score can then be used to prioritize emergency preparedness measures. A higher score indicates a greater need for robust emergency planning and resource allocation. Therefore, understanding how to evaluate and prioritize risks is crucial for effective emergency preparedness.

To classify and label chemicals correctly, one must understand the Globally Harmonized System (GHS) of Classification and Labelling of Chemicals. This system categorizes chemicals based on their physical, health, and environmental hazards. The classification involves determining the hazard class and category based on the chemical’s properties and the associated risks. For example, a chemical that is flammable would fall under the “Flammable Liquids” category, while a chemical that causes skin irritation would be classified under “Skin Corrosion/Irritation.” The label must include specific elements such as hazard pictograms, signal words (like “Danger” or “Warning”), hazard statements, and precautionary statements. In a scenario where a chemical is identified as a Category 2 carcinogen, it would require a label that clearly indicates this classification. The label must also provide information on the necessary precautions to minimize exposure. Understanding these classifications and their implications is crucial for ensuring safety in the workplace and compliance with legal requirements.

To determine the most effective method of controlling exposure to a hazardous substance in a manufacturing environment, we must evaluate the hierarchy of controls. Engineering controls are designed to eliminate or reduce hazards at the source, administrative controls involve changes in work procedures or policies, and personal protective equipment (PPE) is the last line of defense. In this scenario, if a company implements a local exhaust ventilation system (an engineering control) to capture fumes at the source, it significantly reduces the concentration of hazardous substances in the air. If the company also provides training and establishes work procedures (administrative controls) to ensure proper use of the ventilation system, this further enhances safety. However, if workers are only provided with respirators (PPE) without addressing the source of the hazard, they remain at risk. Therefore, the most effective control method in this scenario is the combination of engineering controls and administrative controls, which collectively provide a more comprehensive approach to hazard management.

To determine the risk level associated with a specific task, we can use the formula for risk, which is defined as: $$ \text{Risk} = \text{Likelihood} \times \text{Consequence} $$ In this scenario, let’s assume the likelihood of an incident occurring during a specific task is quantified as $0.3$ (or 30%), and the consequence of that incident is rated on a scale from $1$ to $5$, where $5$ represents a catastrophic outcome. For this task, the consequence is rated as $4$. Now, substituting these values into the risk formula: $$ \text{Risk} = 0.3 \times 4 = 1.2 $$ This calculated risk value of $1.2$ indicates a moderate level of risk associated with the task. In occupational health and safety, understanding this risk level is crucial for implementing appropriate control measures. A risk value below $2$ typically suggests that the risk is manageable with standard controls, while values above $2$ may require more stringent measures. In summary, the risk assessment process involves quantifying both the likelihood of an event and its potential consequences, allowing safety professionals to prioritize risks and allocate resources effectively. This mathematical approach is essential for making informed decisions in occupational health and safety management.

In an organization, leadership commitment to health and safety is crucial for fostering a positive safety culture. When leaders actively demonstrate their commitment, it influences employee behavior and attitudes towards safety. For instance, if a manager regularly participates in safety training sessions and openly discusses safety issues, it sends a strong message that safety is a priority. This can lead to increased employee engagement in safety practices, reduced incidents, and a more proactive approach to risk management. Conversely, if leadership is disengaged or only pays lip service to safety, employees may feel that safety is not genuinely valued, leading to complacency and higher risks. Therefore, the effectiveness of leadership commitment can be assessed by observing changes in safety performance metrics, employee feedback, and the overall safety climate within the organization.

To determine the most effective environmental management strategy for a manufacturing facility aiming to reduce its carbon footprint, we must consider the principles of the ISO 14001 standard. This standard emphasizes continuous improvement and compliance with environmental regulations. The facility currently emits 500 tons of CO2 annually. By implementing a combination of energy efficiency measures, waste reduction strategies, and employee training programs, the facility can potentially reduce emissions by 20%. Calculation: Current emissions = 500 tons CO2 Reduction potential = 20% of 500 tons = 0.20 * 500 = 100 tons CO2 New emissions after reduction = 500 tons – 100 tons = 400 tons CO2 Thus, the facility’s new emissions level would be 400 tons of CO2 annually after implementing the proposed strategies. The ISO 14001 standard provides a framework for organizations to manage their environmental responsibilities systematically. By focusing on continual improvement, organizations can not only comply with legal requirements but also enhance their operational efficiency and reduce costs. The integration of employee training ensures that all staff members are aware of their roles in achieving environmental objectives, fostering a culture of sustainability within the organization. This holistic approach is essential for long-term success in environmental management.

To determine the effectiveness of a health and safety management system (HSMS), we can analyze the number of incidents reported before and after the implementation of the system. Suppose a company had 50 incidents reported in the year prior to implementing the HSMS. After one year of the HSMS being in place, the number of incidents reported dropped to 30. The effectiveness can be calculated using the formula: Effectiveness = (Initial Incidents – Post-Implementation Incidents) / Initial Incidents * 100 Substituting the values: Effectiveness = (50 – 30) / 50 * 100 Effectiveness = 20 / 50 * 100 Effectiveness = 0.4 * 100 Effectiveness = 40% This means the HSMS was effective in reducing incidents by 40%. A detailed explanation of this calculation reveals that the effectiveness of a health and safety management system is often measured by its ability to reduce incidents over time. In this scenario, the company successfully reduced its incident rate by 40% after implementing the HSMS, indicating a significant improvement in workplace safety. This reduction not only reflects the system’s effectiveness but also highlights the importance of continuous monitoring and evaluation of health and safety practices. Organizations must regularly assess their HSMS to ensure it meets the evolving needs of the workplace and effectively mitigates risks. The calculation serves as a quantitative measure of success, but it is also essential to consider qualitative factors, such as employee engagement and safety culture, which contribute to the overall effectiveness of health and safety management.

In ethical decision-making within health and safety, one must consider the principles of utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number, while deontology emphasizes adherence to rules and duties. Virtue ethics centers on the character and intentions of the decision-maker. In a scenario where a safety manager must decide whether to implement a costly safety measure that would prevent a rare but severe accident, the ethical implications must be weighed. If the measure protects a small number of employees but incurs significant costs that could affect the company’s viability, the decision may lean towards utilitarianism, prioritizing the overall welfare of the organization and its employees. However, if the safety measure aligns with legal obligations and moral duties, deontological ethics would support its implementation regardless of cost. The decision ultimately reflects a balance of these ethical frameworks, leading to a conclusion that prioritizes both safety and organizational sustainability.

In the context of professional standards and ethics, the concept of integrity is paramount. Integrity involves adhering to moral and ethical principles, ensuring that actions align with professional standards. In this scenario, the safety officer must navigate a situation where a colleague is not following safety protocols. The correct course of action is to address the issue directly with the colleague, emphasizing the importance of compliance for the safety of all employees. This approach not only upholds ethical standards but also fosters a culture of safety within the organization. The other options, such as ignoring the behavior or reporting it without discussion, do not promote a constructive resolution and could lead to a breakdown in team dynamics. Therefore, the best answer reflects a commitment to ethical practice and professional responsibility.