Four documents, not four translations
A UK method statement, an Australian SWMS, an American JHA and a Canadian hazard assessment do a similar job and are not interchangeable. They have different triggers, different structures and, most importantly, different legal weight.
Only one of the four is required by law as a named document.
| Market | What it is called | Required by law? | Tool |
|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Method statement, usually issued as RAMS | No. Contractual, not statutory | Method statement |
| Australia | SWMS, safe work method statement | Yes, for defined high risk construction work | SWMS builder |
| United States | JHA, job hazard analysis | No. OSHA recommends it | Job hazard analysis |
| Canada | Hazard assessment, sometimes called a JSA | The assessment yes, a named document no | Hazard assessment |
The thing nobody tells you
In three of these four markets, the document people search for is not the document the law asks for.
In the UK, nothing in law says produce a method statement. What the law requires is that risks are assessed and the significant findings recorded, which is the risk assessment. The method statement exists because principal contractors ask for one, and the two are usually issued together as RAMS.
In the United States, no OSHA standard requires a job hazard analysis. It is a recommended practice. What OSHA does require in writing is a certification of the PPE hazard assessment under 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2), naming the workplace assessed, the person certifying, the date, and stating on its face that it is a certification of hazard assessment. An inspector who finds correctly equipped workers and no certificate can still write a serious citation. Every free template site offers you a JHA and none of them mention that the JHA is the optional one.
In Canada, there is no national requirement and no named statutory document at all. The duty is provincial, and it is framed as assessing hazards rather than as producing a form.
Australia is the exception. A SWMS is genuinely required, and the requirement is specific.
Australia: the only mandatory one
A SWMS must be prepared before high risk construction work starts. Eighteen kinds of work trigger it under the model WHS Regulations, and it has to contain something the others do not: how the control measures will be implemented, monitored and reviewed.
That single requirement is why a method statement cannot be relabelled and submitted. It also has to stay available at the workplace and be reviewed if the work, the plant or the people change.
Two numbers to check rather than assume. Falls trigger it at more than two metres, except in Queensland where housing construction uses three. And Victoria never adopted the model laws, so its duty sits under regulation 327 of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations 2017 with a list of nineteen items rather than eighteen.
United States: the shape is different too
A JHA is not a narrative. Where a method statement runs as a sequence of steps in the order they happen, a JHA is normally laid out as task, hazard, consequence, control and the reasoning behind the control.
Separately, and mandatorily, particular work carries its own written requirements: a written permit space program under 29 CFR 1926.1204 and an entry permit under 1926.1206 for confined spaces, and a documented process hazard analysis under the process safety management standard at 1910.119.
Check the part number before you follow anybody's citation on this, including ours. This page said 1910.146 until it was caught. That is the general industry confined space standard, and OSHA states it does not apply to construction, which has had its own standard in 1926 Subpart AA since 3 August 2015. It is an easy error to make and a dangerous one to inherit, because 1910.146 has no controlling contractor duty in it and Subpart AA does. Anything numbered 1910 is general industry unless a construction standard points at it. Anything numbered 1926 is construction.
Canada: written, dated, and the workers involved
There is no federal requirement covering ordinary construction, and no province names a document the way Australia does. What is consistent, across Alberta's OHS Code, Ontario's general duty and the Canada Labour Code, is the shape of the obligation: identify the hazards before work starts, write it down, record the date, say what the controls are, and involve the workers in doing it.
Alberta is the most explicit, requiring a report of the results and the methods used to control the hazards, with the date it was prepared or revised recorded on it.
What none of these tools will tell you
That your document is compliant. That is not something any free tool can know, because it depends on your actual work, your plant, your site and your people, and on what the reviewer wants.
What these tools do is make sure you are not missing a field the regulation names, and tell you plainly which parts are law and which parts are habit. The judgement stays with whoever signs it.
Common questions
Can I use a UK method statement in Australia?
Not as it stands. A SWMS has to identify which high risk construction work is involved and say how the controls will be implemented, monitored and reviewed. A method statement describes a sequence of work and normally has no column for that last part, so it will be sent back. It is a starting point for the content, not a substitute for the document.
Which of these is actually required by law?
Only the Australian SWMS is required as a named document, and only for defined high risk construction work. The UK method statement is contractual. The American JHA is recommended by OSHA and not mandated. Canada requires the hazard assessment but does not name a document. That is why these are four tools rather than one.
If a JHA is not required, what does OSHA actually require?
A written certification of the PPE hazard assessment, under 29 CFR 1910.132(d)(2), naming the workplace assessed, who certified it, the date, and stating that the document is a certification of hazard assessment. An inspector who finds correctly equipped workers and no certificate can still issue a serious citation. Confined space entry and process safety management carry their own written requirements too. The JHA is the optional one.
Why not one tool with a country dropdown?
Because these are four different documents rather than four translations of one. They have different triggers, different structures and different legal weight. A single tool with a dropdown would be subtly wrong in every market at once, and it would rank for none of the terms people actually search, because an Australian searches for a SWMS template and never for a method statement for Australia.
Is a JSA the same as a JHA?
In ordinary use yes, and the difference is not worth arguing about. Job safety analysis and job hazard analysis describe the same exercise of breaking a task into steps and naming the hazard and the control at each one. OSHA settled on job hazard analysis in its own guidance, which is why that is the name used here. What matters far more than the letter is that neither is the thing OSHA actually requires in writing.
My American client asked for a method statement. What do I send them?
Send the JHA and say what it is. A general contractor asking a British subcontractor for a method statement is usually repeating a phrase from the tender rather than naming an American instrument, because there is no American document by that name. A JHA covers the same ground in the layout their reviewer will expect. If the contract genuinely specifies a method statement, that is a contractual term and you write one, but you are writing it for them rather than for a regulator.
Does an FLHA or a Take 5 replace any of these?
No, and treating them as a replacement is the mistake worth avoiding. A field level hazard assessment in Canada and a Take 5 in Australia are filled in at the start of a task by the crew doing it, and they capture what has changed on that day: the weather, the ground, who else is working nearby. The four documents here are written before the job starts by somebody planning it. One is a plan and the other is a check that the plan still fits this morning, so you need both and neither does the other one’s job.
Who signs these, and does the signature mean anything?
It means the person signing has read it and accepts it applies to their work, which is exactly why an unsigned document is the first thing picked up after an incident. In Australia the SWMS also has to name who will monitor the control measures, so a signature there attaches to an ongoing duty rather than to a single reading. None of these tools sign anything for you, and none of them can tell you the document is adequate. That judgement belongs to whoever puts their name on it.