WHS Gap Analysis and Governance Review (WHS Review)

A WHS Review provides a structured, point-in-time assessment of the effectiveness of governance across WHS arrangements, including documentation, operational practices, and oversight mechanisms. The focus is on identifying strengths, areas of legal and governance exposure, and opportunities to improve system performance where it matters most to leadership accountability.

Organisations typically engage a WHS Review at key governance or risk inflection points. This may include preparation for regulatory scrutiny, following incidents or emerging concerns, responding to board or audit committee requests, or seeking independent confirmation that existing WHS arrangements remain fit for purpose as the organisation evolves.

Findings are translated into clear, practical, and prioritised recommendations, supporting leaders to understand where attention is required, what action is proportionate, and how due diligence can be demonstrated in practice.

Many organisations encounter challenges such as:

• Senior leader confidence: How confident are you that your organisation can demonstrate effective WHS governance and due diligence to regulators, clients, insurers, or other external parties if required? 

• Unclear compliance position: Does your organisation have clarity on how its WHS systems align with jurisdictional legislative requirements and, where relevant, across multiple sites or operating environments?

• Documentation versus practice: Do documented WHS procedures accurately reflect how work is actually performed, and would those arrangements withstand regulatory or client scrutiny in practice?

A WHS Review provides senior leaders with assurance that extends beyond documentation and checklist-based compliance, focusing on how WHS systems support effective governance and risk oversight in practice.  

The WHS Review provides: 

• Decision-ready insight: Independent analysis distilled into clear, executive-level reporting that supports confident leadership decisions and informed oversight of WHS risk.

• Governance clarity and assurance: Visibility over how WHS systems, roles, and controls operate in practice, supporting accountability, due diligence, and effective governance decision-making.

• Strategic readiness: Improved preparedness for regulator engagement, audits, stakeholder review, and tender submissions, with priority risks and exposures clearly identified.

• ISO alignment (optional): Where relevant, consideration of key elements of ISO 45001 and ISO 45003 to assist organisations in understanding their level of alignment with recognised best-practice standards.

• Ongoing assurance (optional): Many organisations re-engage six to twelve months later for a follow-up review, providing visibility of progress and assurance that priority risks identified in the initial review are being addressed.

Many organisations seek confidence not only in their overall WHS approach, but in the legal defensibility of their systems. 

A WHS Review can place particular emphasis on risk management and legal compliance, including:

• Regulatory defensibility: Testing whether WHS documentation and records would withstand regulator or client scrutiny if relied upon. 

• Internal investigations:  Reviewing whether investigation processes are sufficiently thorough, factual, and support due diligence and organisational learning. 

• System documentation: Identifying gaps or weaknesses in policies, procedures, and records, with recommendations to improve alignment with WHS Acts, Regulations, and relevant industry standards.

This approach draws on our combined WHS, investigative, and legal expertise to identify areas of exposure and strengthen organisational readiness under scrutiny. 

Organisational Risk Consulting offers a unique combination of expertise that strengthens confidence in every WHS Review:

• Legal insight: A foundation in workplace injury law ensures our recommendations are not only practical but also defensible under regulatory or stakeholder scrutiny.

• Investigative experience: Licensed factual investigation capability, supporting independent, evidence-based reviews that enhance accountability and transparency.
   
• WHS leadership: With more than twenty-four years of experience across legal and senior WHS roles in multiple sectors, this background provides insight into both governance requirements and operational realities. 

• Trusted independence: Confidential, objective assessments that highlight strengths, uncover risks, and provide executives with clarity to act decisively. 

The WHS Gap Analysis and Governance Review follows a structured, proportionate process focused on leadership priorities, governance outcomes, and practical risk oversight.

All reviews are conducted in accordance with disciplined assurance principles consistent with ISO 19011:2018 Guidelines for Auditing Management Systems, applied across our work to ensure integrity, independence, and evidence-based outcomes.

Our process: 

1. Scoping Discussions: Confirm organisational context, governance arrangements, leadership objectives, and areas of focus to ensure the review addresses matters most relevant to due diligence and oversight responsibilities.

2. Information gathering: Working with the organisation to collect information aligned with the project scope, including WHS documentation, governance arrangements, and operational practices. This may include desk-top reviews, site visits, and discussions with key personnel to ensure a clear and accurate understanding of how systems are designed and operate in practice.

3. Analysis of information: Assess the available information against applicable WHS legislative obligations and, where required, relevant ISO elements. This analysis is evidence-based, applying professional judgement to identify areas of strength, gaps, and exposure.

4. Reporting findings and practical recommendations: A WHS Review report is prepared
to document verified findings, including notable positive attributes, areas of legal or governance risk, and other opportunities for improvement. Recommended actions to address risks are practical, proportionate, and prioritised by risk and potential impact on leadership accountability. Sourced information and reporting remain confidential.   

5. Optional Follow-Up Review
Organisations may re-engage for a subsequent review to provide senior leaders with visibility of progress and assurance that priority risks identified in the initial review are being addressed and embedded.