What this is
What is a just culture determination?
What is a just culture determination?
A structured set of questions, run whenever an investigation involves a specific person's actions, that decides whether an outcome came from a system problem, an at-risk choice, or reckless conduct. It separates that judgement from the emotional read of the event, using the substitution test, the foresight test and a set of system checks.
How is it different from a disciplinary hearing?
The determination decides which category the conduct falls into, and HR review confirms that before anything happens. The hearing, if one follows, is a separate process with its own procedure. The determination should exist before the hearing is scheduled, not be written to justify one already planned.
Who has to be involved besides the manager?
HR review is a required field, not optional. The person's account is expected to be captured factually before the tests are applied, and where the determination points at a system cause, it links to an extent of condition review rather than stopping at the individual.
Scope
When is a just culture determination required?
This record is one step in a larger programme. Using it for work that belongs to a neighbouring template produces records that are hard to report on later.
Use this template when
- An investigation involves a specific person's actions and a determination is needed on whether it was a system problem, an at-risk choice, or reckless conduct
- A root cause analysis has identified a human action as a contributing factor and the case needs to move from cause to consequence
- A disciplinary or coaching response is being considered and needs a documented, tested basis rather than a manager's judgement alone
- A linked record needs this one to exist, as with root cause analysis referencing it directly
- The event or activity this record covers has occurred, or is about to
Do not use it for
- Root Cause Analysis, which explains the system and conditions that allowed the event, independent of whether any individual is judged.
- Corrective and Preventive Action, which the system actions arising from a determination should be raised into, rather than left as a note on this record.
- Witness Statement, which captures a factual account without judgement, and should exist before the tests are applied rather than be reconstructed from them.
- Whistleblowing Report Record, which protects a person reporting someone else's misconduct, a different relationship from the one this record examines.
- Anything outside General, which belongs in the workspace that owns that process
Compliance mapping
Which Reason requirements does this satisfy?
Just culture is a management principle, not a numbered regulatory clause, so this record does not sit under a single instrument. Its legal traction comes from adjacent law on non-punitive reporting, retaliation protection and disciplinary fairness, which this determination either supports or puts at risk depending on how it is completed.
| Clause | Requirement | Where it lands |
|---|---|---|
| ISO 45001:2018 cl.5.4 | Worker consultation and participation carried out in conditions free from retaliation for reporting hazards, incidents or nonconformities | Circumstances |
| ISO 45001:2018 cl.10.2 | Investigation of incidents to determine underlying cause, distinct from and prior to any decision on individual conduct | Tests |
| ISO 45001:2018 cl.9.1.1 | Monitoring and measurement of the effectiveness of corrective actions arising from an investigation | Related records |
| OSH Act sec.11(c) | Prohibition on retaliation against a worker for reporting a hazard or participating in an investigation | Header |
| UK Employment Rights Act 1996 Part IVA | Protection from detriment or dismissal for a worker who has made a protected disclosure | Determination |
| ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures | A disciplinary response proportionate to the conduct found, reached through a fair and consistent process | Determination |
| EU Directive 2019/1937 art.19 | Prohibition of any form of retaliation against a person who has reported a breach | Approval |
What it does not cover
- Root Cause Analysis, which explains the system and conditions that allowed the event, independent of whether any individual is culpable.
- Disciplinary hearing or due process, which lives in HR's own procedure and must still run its own steps regardless of what this record concludes.
- Corrective and Preventive Action, which is where system actions arising from the determination are tracked to closure; naming them here does not verify they happened.
- Whistleblowing protection, which lives in a separate reporting-channel record when the concern is about someone else's conduct rather than an incident under investigation.
- The training or procedure fix a system induced finding points to, which needs its own corrective action once the determination names the gap; the determination identifies it, it does not close it.
Global
Just Culture Determination requirements by country
No jurisdiction mandates a just culture determination by name. What several mandate is protection from retaliation for reporting, and a fair process before a disciplinary consequence, both of which this record is evidence toward or against.
OSH Act sec.11(c) and the sector-specific statutes OSHA's Whistleblower Protection Program enforces
No general just culture mandate. Retaliation protection is statute-specific and enforced case by case.
A reckless determination landing soon after the same person raised a safety concern is exactly the fact pattern an OSHA whistleblower investigator looks for, and this record is the first document they ask for.
Employment Rights Act 1996 Part IVA and the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
Protected disclosure law bars detriment for whistleblowing; the ACAS Code sets the fairness standard any disciplinary outcome is measured against.
A tribunal can increase an award by up to 25 percent for a non-compliant process, and a determination showing the tests were run before the conclusion is the clearest evidence of compliance available.
ISO 45001:2018 cl.5.4
Certification requires organisations to maintain conditions free from reprisal for participation in safety processes, including investigations.
Auditors check the pattern across determinations, not one record alone, because a system that reliably finds individuals reckless is one people will stop reporting to.
How to complete it
How to complete a just culture determination, step by step
The form asks the right questions in the right order. Whether the record is defensible depends on choices the fields themselves cannot force.
Complete Action Taken By Person, then the three tests, before Determination is touched. If a manager already knows what they intend to write, the tests stop being an investigation and become a checklist retrofitted to a conclusion. The sequence is not decorative; it is the point of the record.
Foresight and normalisation matter, but the substitution test is the closest the framework gets to an objective standard. Where it says most would have acted the same and the determination lands on reckless anyway, that gap needs a written reason, not a default to instinct.
The HR Reviewed field records a checkbox, not what was reviewed. A determination that gets a real HR read has its rationale challenged against the test answers before it goes further; one that gets a rubber stamp is only challenged later, by a grievance, when the cost is higher.
Response and System Actions Required sit next to each other but answer different questions. A system induced determination with no system action is an unclosed loop dressed as leniency; a reckless determination with a system action attached is quietly admitting the system contributed too.
What auditors find
Most common just culture determination findings
Findings here concentrate in one place: the gap between what the tests say and what the determination concludes.
| Finding | Clause | What fixes it |
|---|---|---|
| Determination and rationale drafted before the tests were completed, with test answers filled in afterward to fit the conclusion. | Marx just culture model | Timestamp the three tests ahead of the determination field; reject records where the sequence is reversed. |
| Substitution test result and final determination contradict each other, with no explanation for the override. | Marx just culture model | Where the substitution test points to system induced and the determination does not follow it, require a named reason. |
| HR Reviewed checked with no reviewer named and no note beyond the box. | ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures | Require a named HR reviewer and a short note on what was checked, not just a flag. |
| System induced determination recorded with System Actions Required left blank. | ISO 45001:2018 cl.10.2 | Block closure of a system induced determination until a linked corrective action reference is entered. |
| Determination reached shortly after the person made a protected safety report, with no independent review of retaliation risk. | OSH Act sec.11(c) | Flag any determination following a protected disclosure for review by someone other than the person's own manager. |
| Response selected does not match the determination category: a system induced finding met with discipline, or a reckless finding met with coaching alone. | Marx just culture model | Require Response to be consistent with Determination; a mismatch is the finding, independent of any view on harshness. |
Case in point
Case in point: the tests said one thing and the form said another
An operator overrode an interlock during a changeover and product spilled onto the floor. In the debrief that afternoon, the site manager told two supervisors the operator had been careless and would be disciplined. The formal determination was opened two days later by the same manager, who completed all three tests before writing the conclusion.
The substitution test came back most would have acted the same, since the interlock routinely required overriding to finish the changeover within the time the schedule allowed. Procedure Available And Workable was marked No. Both pointed at a system problem. The determination nonetheless read Reckless, with Discipline as the response. HR Reviewed was checked, but HR had never seen the file. A grievance succeeded on the strength of the manager's own debrief comments against the record he had completed himself: the tests said system induced, and the form said otherwise, with nothing explaining the gap.
The template
The template, field by field
The form exactly as it installs. Every field, option, score and conditional rule is editable, and the links to other templates come with it.
6 sections
- Reference
- FDN-017
- Archetype
- Record
- Record ID
- JCD-2026-000
- Scoring
- Not scored, categorical
- Direction
- n/a
- Singleton
- Yes
- Basis
- Reason, Marx Just Culture
- Links
- Linked from Root Cause Analysis
- Tags
- Investigation, Culture
- Sections
- 6
- Fields
- 27
- Follow up fields
- 0
- Repeating sections
- 0
- Links out
- 3
Header
5 fieldsDetermination ID*
Format JCD-2026-00000.
The record's own ID. Other templates point at this value.
Case ID*
Thread key
RCA ID
Links to FDN-013 RCA ID
Determination Date*
Purpose Note
This process separates a system problem from a genuine choice to take a risk. It protects workers from unfair blame and keeps people willing to report.
Circumstances
5 fieldsPerson Involved*
Access to this record is restricted.
Person ID*
Links to FDN-003 Person ID
Action Taken By Person*
What the person actually did, factually and without judgement.
Was Outcome Intended*
Did the person intend the harm that resulted.
Knowingly Departed From Procedure*
Did they know they were departing from the rule at the time.
Tests
8 fieldsSubstitution Test*
Would three other competent people in the same situation, with the same information, likely have acted the same way.
Substitution Test Notes
Foresight Test*
Could the person reasonably have foreseen the risk their action created.
Foresight Test Notes
Procedure Available And Workable*
If the procedure could not be followed as written, that is a system problem.
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Training And Competence Adequate*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Time And Resources Adequate*
- Yes2 pts
- No0 pts
- N/Aexcluded from denominator
Behaviour Normalised In Team*
If everyone does it this way, it is a system issue rather than an individual one.
Determination
4 fieldsDetermination*
System induced, at risk behaviour or reckless. Most outcomes should be system induced.
Rationale*
How the tests led to this conclusion.
Response*
Console, coach or discipline, matched to the determination.
System Actions Required
What changes regardless of the individual outcome.
Related records
1 fieldExtent of Condition ID
Where the determination pointed at a wider condition.
Links to FDN-018 Review ID
Approval
4 fieldsDetermined By*
HR Reviewed*
HR involvement is required before any determination is finalised.
Person Informed*
Signature*
FDN-017 · record IDs look like JCD-2026-000 · Linked from Root Cause Analysis
Open in KnowellaRun it with agents
From a document you fill in to a programme that runs itself
The form asks the right three questions. What fails is the sequence they get answered in, and whether anyone outside the manager's own chain actually reads the answers before the response is decided.
Links the determination to the root cause analysis and incident record it belongs to, so the case reads as one thread.
Flags any determination following a protected disclosure for independent review before the response is finalised.
Turns a system induced finding naming inadequate training into a tracked requirement, rather than a note that goes no further.
Checks the test answers against the determination before it is marked reviewed, and holds it open where the two disagree.
This template lives in General — control tower. The orchestration layer. Registries and engines every other workspace reads from.
Meet General→Glossary
Just Culture Determination definitions and key terms
- Just culture
- An approach to accountability that separates system-caused error from a genuine choice to take a risk, so blame falls where a choice was actually made, not on whoever was present when the system failed.
- Substitution test
- Whether other competent people, in the same situation with the same information, would likely have acted the same way. If yes, the cause is treated as systemic rather than personal.
- Foresight test
- Whether the person could reasonably have foreseen the risk their action created, judged against what was knowable at the time, not what is obvious in hindsight.
- System induced
- An outcome caused by conditions the organisation created or allowed to persist, such as an unworkable procedure or inadequate training, rather than an individual's choice.
- Reckless
- A conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, the only category where discipline is the default response.
FAQ
Frequently asked questions about just culture determination
What is a just culture determination for?+
It decides whether an action that contributed to an incident was caused by the system, was an at-risk choice, or was reckless, using a consistent set of tests rather than a manager's own judgement. Getting it wrong either lets a system problem go unfixed or blames someone for conditions they did not create.
How is this different from a disciplinary hearing?+
The determination decides the category; a hearing, if warranted, is a separate process with its own procedure. It should be complete and reviewed before a hearing is scheduled, not written afterward to support a decision already made informally.
Which test matters most?+
The substitution test. It is the closest thing the framework has to an objective standard, and a determination that overrides it needs to say why.
Does HR review actually change the outcome?+
It should. HR review exists to catch a determination that doesn't match its own test answers, before that gap becomes a grievance. A checkbox with no named reviewer defeats the purpose.
What happens after a system induced determination?+
A system action should be raised, typically into corrective and preventive action, and where it points at a wider condition, an extent of condition review. A system induced finding with no follow-up has identified a problem and dropped it.
Can a determination be appealed?+
Not directly, but a grievance or tribunal challenging the resulting discipline will examine it closely, and a record where the tests contradict the conclusion is the easiest thing for that challenge to succeed on.
Keep going
Related templates and programmes
Industries this is written for
Programmes this belongs to
Incident and Investigation
A single case thread from the event to a verified corrective action, with regulatory reporting handled.
Ethics, Labour and Anti-Bribery
A reporting channel people trust, and labour risk assessed where it actually sits.
Master Data and Foundations
One place for each thing, so a change updates everywhere rather than in eight lists.
Used together in Incident and Investigation
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Corrective and Preventive Action
The single action record used everywhere
Finding
Records a single deficiency picked up during an audit, inspection or check
Effectiveness Verification
Checks whether an action actually worked, some time after it was put in place
Extent of Condition Review
Asks two questions after an investigation: where else does this same condition exist, and where else could this same cause bite us
Witness Statement
Captures what one person saw, heard or did, in their own words
More in Engines
Risk Assessment
The single risk assessment used across the whole business
Root Cause Analysis
Finds out why something happened rather than who was involved
Corrective and Preventive Action
The single action record used everywhere
Finding
Records a single deficiency picked up during an audit, inspection or check
Effectiveness Verification
Checks whether an action actually worked, some time after it was put in place
Extent of Condition Review
Asks two questions after an investigation: where else does this same condition exist, and where else could this same cause bite us
Written and reviewed by
Siddarth Singh
Founder & Chief Executive Officer, Knowella
Certified Safety Professional and industrial and systems engineer with more than a decade inside food supply chain, freight and manufacturing operations. This page was written against the current text of the standards it cites, not against secondary summaries of them.
- Certified Safety Professional (CSP), Board of Certified Safety Professionals
- MBA, University of Chicago Booth School of Business
- MS and BS, The Ohio State University, Industrial and Systems Engineering
- Six Sigma Black Belt
Sources and last review. Reviewed 16 August 2026 against:
- Reason — Organisational accident model
- Marx — Just culture model
- ISO 45001:2018 clauses 5.4 and 10.2
- OSH Act Section 11(c), whistleblower protection
- ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance Procedures
This page is general guidance, not legal advice. Confirm requirements with your jurisdiction’s regulator.