Design of an indicator for health and safety governance

Occupational Health and Safety Governance (OHSG) is a branch of Corporate Governance by which the board directs and controls labor risks created by their own enterprise. The OHSG concept is relatively new; unlike Occupational Health and Safety Management, which is mostly related to the work of managerial ranks, OHSG deals with principles, the interests of stakeholders, and the work of directors. The paper defines the new concept, OHSG, develops an original health and safety indicator, and presents possible applications for it; as far as we are aware of, the indicator is the first proactive tool in existence to measure OHS governance. Our work is part of an ongoing research project aimed at improving health and safety standards in industry. The indicator takes into account—in its structure—the evaluation style of National Quality Awards, as a pattern to measure, by assigning points, a great number of variables. OHS Governance variables included in the indicator are grouped into areas, themes, dimensions and elements, in order to make them operative and measurable. Measurement is performed by means of a questionnaire, reproduced as an appendix. Maximum scores for each question are assigned following multiple attribute decision theory. The article concludes with reflections on the measurement problem in the social sciences and final thoughts on the characteristics of the proposed indicator.Corporate governance, health and safety governance, measurement, measurement of health and safety, health and safety governance indicator.

In pursuit of best practice : Benchmarking tools and processes for the management of hazardous substances in the workplace

Many organisations now strive to achieve excellence in various aspects of occupational health and safety. Benchmarking of the techniques and approaches of other organisations is becoming a popular way of bridging gaps and seeking to achieve high levels of performance. There exist many sources of guidance in the form of external and internal standards, regulations, codes of practice, publications by professional institutions and similar. However, there are clear shortfalls in terms of tools and processes needed to identify areas of opportunity and to overcome barriers to the efficient transfer of ideas and techniques from one enterprise to another. This is true for all organisations, but particularly so for small/medium sized facilities with limited resources and expertise. This study has sought to develop and test new tools and processes to make benchmarking activity and the transfer of technology, ideas and approaches more efficient and meaningful. It has drawn heavily from state-of-the-art management theory and has sought to establish the linkage between the people factor, the workplace environment factor and the organisation of work factor as they contribute to workplace health and safety performance. It has used qualitative inquiry methodologies and an approach based on personal contact and insight, as expressed by Patton (1990, p. 46), to generate data. The fieldwork component of the study was conducted at eight mining, mineral processing and related industry sites within Western Australia. The subject of the study was the facility\u27s processes and practices in regard to the management of hazardous materials. This was chosen partly because chemical-induced injury and disease remain a significant problem for workers in industry (Winder, 1999b, p. 168) and partly because of its complexity and degree of difficulty. Data collection was based on the three qualitative inquiry methods, namely in-depth, open-ended interviews with the Site Manager and the Site Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Professional, direct observation and review of written documents. Also tested was the assumption that if the materials developed during the study can be applied successfully in the area of hazardous materials, then other less complex areas under the OHS umbrella could be approached with confidence. There is potential for the tools and processes developed and evaluated in this work to be used widely in the transfer of best practice, that is, to be deployed beyond the hazardous substances focus of this study and beyond the Mining Industry of Western Australia. Study outcomes and the new materials that have been generated will assist with the selection of benchmarking partners and will help to identify pockets of excellence for focused attention. This will encourage and assist organisations to take steps towards identifying and implementing Industry best practice in the element of interest. There is potential for study outcomes to impact positively on OHS practices within many organisations - and thereby to reduce the personal and societal cost of injury and illness outcomes associated with the use of hazardous materials at work

A model for best practice safety regulation in the mining industry

The authors were engaged by the West Australian government in early 2005 to provide advice on best practice safety regulation for the mining industry in that state. The advice was provided in the first place to a Mine Safety Improvement Group and formed the basis of its report to government, delivered in April 2005. The full report is available at http://www.ministers.wa.gov.au/carpenter/docs/features/interim%20report%20stage%201%20w%20text.pdf The present paper aims to extricate the advice outlined in that report from the particular Western Australian context and present it in a way that is of potential relevance to other Australian jurisdictions. The aim, then, is to present a model for best practice safety regulation in the mining industry generally. Many discussions of regulatory models focus on the kinds of regulatory requirements that are to be imposed on the regulated industry. The discussion here goes beyond that to consider the regulator itself and how it might best be organized. In short, the paper deals both with the regulatory requirements and with the structure of the regulator. The latter is a pressing practical issue for any government seeking to set up a best practice regulatory regime and for this reason we devote considerable attention to it. In addition we discuss strategies for establishing such a regulator. The principles outlined are based on research carried out by the first named author (Hopkins), and on many years of practical experience as a regulator in the UK and in Australia by the second named author (Wilkinson). Wilkinson was head of the team which established the National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority

Development of a Model for Determining Factors Affecting Safety Performance in the Saudi Arabian Construction Industry Using Structural Equation Modelling (SEM)

As large-scale infrastructure investments drive rapid growth, the Saudi construction industry is among the largest in the region—and, for workers, among the most dangerous industries on the planet. Using a quantitative survey measure adapted from the Ontario Leading Indicators Project (OLIP) and administered to a small (n = 276) sample of individuals who currently work in the industry, this study aimed to contribute to empirical understandings of hazards, sources of risk, and perceptions of safety in this unique context. A multivariate safety performance model was developed based on a systematic literature review and with an eye to ensuring compatibility with the structure of the adapted OLIP measure. The model\u27s key variables were OHS Planning; OHS Policy; OHS Promotion; Communication & Awareness; OHS Training; Control, Monitoring, & Review; OHS Leadership; Safety Climate; Hazard Management; and Safety Performance. The survey data revealed a strong consensus expressing negative views of every safety dimension and variable tested, with only tiny minorities selecting positively-valenced responses. Using the survey data as a substrate, correlation analysis found significant relationships between all individual variables. In order to test the descriptive power of the model as a whole, a structural equation modeling (SEM) technique was used in order to assess the correspondence between the relationships constituting the model and their significance relative to empirical data. This analysis found that Hazard Management, OHS Training, and OHS Promotion had no significant impact on Safety Climate, and that OHS Training, Safety Climate, and Control, Monitoring, & Review had no significant impact on Safety Performance, when evaluated in the context of the model as a whole. This result, which is attributed to significant reciprocal relationships between individual variables balancing one another out in the multiple regression analysis, is not consistent with previous findings in the scholarly literature. It is possible that this result reflects a limitation in the model or in the underlying data, and further scholarly attention is recommended. Overall, however, the need to take urgent steps to improve the safety landscape of the Saudi construction industry, even in the absence of further empirical study of the topic, is stressed throughout the study. Attention from scholars, policymakers, and organizational leaders is indicated

Developing an Intervention Toolbox for the Common Health Problems in the Workplace

Development of the Health ↔ Work Toolbox is described. The toolbox aims to reduce the workplace impact of common health problems (musculoskeletal, mental health, and stress complaints) by focusing on tackling work-relevant symptoms. Based on biopsychosocial principles this toolbox supplements current approaches by occupying the zone between primary prevention and healthcare. It provides a set of evidence-informed principles and processes (knowledge + tools) for tackling work-relevant common health problems. The toolbox comprises a proactive element aimed at empowering line managers to create good jobs, and a ‘just in time’ responsive element for supporting individuals struggling with a work-relevant health problem. The key intention is helping people with common health problems to maintain work participation. The extensive conceptual and practical development process, including a comprehensive evidence review, produced a functional prototype toolbox that is evidence based and flexible in its use. End-user feedback was mostly positive. Moving the prototype to a fully-fledged internet resource requires specialist design expertise. The Health ↔ Work Toolbox appears to have potential to contribute to the goal of augmenting existing primary prevention strategies and healthcare delivery by providing a more comprehensive workplace approach to constraining sickness absence

EMPLOYERS’ ROLE IN THE IMPROVEMENT OF SAFETY LEVEL IN ESTONIAN ENTERPRISES

The key persons in safety activities at enterprises are: top manager, his(her) representatives, working environment specialist, all acting for the employer; and working environment representatives, selected by the workers and holding the workers’ rights in safety and health area. The main possibilities to improve the safety level in the firm have the working environment specialists, as they are usually educated and supported by the employer and the law. The current paper is looking for the possibilities to raise the employers’ interest for improvement of their knowledge in safety and through this also the safety level in the workplace. Safety level in 12 Estonian enterprises was investigated using MISHA method (based on standard OHSAS 18001). Some of the firms have implemented OHSAS 18001 or belong to the foreign companies. The investigated enterprises were from different industries and agriculture firms. The safety level is very much depended on the owner of the firm. The larger the enterprise is the better are the possibilities to educate the employers and employees. One of the ideas to improve the safety level at enterprise is the method “learning through the interviews”. The interview is worked out basing on MISHA method. The latter is a tool of quantitative study. The safety performance key elements were divided into three parts: formal, real, combined ones. Three hypothesis were formulated and the area in which they are proved concerning employer’s activities were as follows: H1) Standard OHSAS 18001 has an impact on Formal safety performance in companies (p value< 0.013) – if OHSAS 18001 has been implemented, then: the assignment of tasks and responsibilities in OHS is committed to the top management, the employer is revising the safety policy, and the personnel’s responsibilities in OHS are clearly defined. H2) Standard OHSAS 18001 has an impact on Real safety performance. (p< 0.013) - if OHSAS 18001 is implemented, then: the top manager promotes dissemination of safety policy: the policy is made available to all of the personnel; resources for improvement are arranged by the top management; the top manager arranges meetings in OHS; there is a system for redesigning the workplaces for the persons who have difficulties in coping with the work. H3) Standard OHSAS 18001 has an impact on Combined safety performance (p< 0.007) - if OHSAS 18001 implemented, then: the top management is participating in the preparation of safety policy, top manager is reviewing the safety policy, is it operating effectively? He is informing the external bodies about the company’s safety policy’s effectiveness; the top manager arranges safety training for all of the personnel; there is a plan for reduction of accidents; it has been elaborated by the top manager; the company has a system for measuring the social climate in the company

Implementing Health Safety Environment (HSE) Process Management to Improve HSE Performance, Competitive Advantage and Financial Performance

. Performance of health safety environmental (HSE) has been tightly demanded by stakeholders (customer, government, public, NGO, employee) and become essential factors of organization\u27s competitive advantages. High HSE performance leads to improving customer satisfaction, legitimacy and reputation from which better financial performance can be gained. In order to do that, companies must implemement HSE process management. The research aims to investigate effects of the four constructs, namely process management, HSE performance, organization\u27s competitive advantage and financial performance. The study uses descriptive and quantitative statistical methods involving 119 companies of which SEM is used to see linkages between factors. The testing results show that the process management gives significant positive effect to HSE performance after which it simulataneously affect significant and positively to competitive advantage but it has no significant relationship with financial performance. However, competitive advantage affect positively to financial performance. In conclusion, HSE process management improves HSE performance, which subsequently increases Competitive advantage but it does not affect financial performance. The increase of financial performance is given by competitive advantage

New strategies for safety regulators: beyond compliance monitoring

It is often assumed that the role of regulatory agencies is to bring about compliance with regulation. This makes sense in some contexts. For example, consumer protection agencies aim, among other things, to ensure that traders comply with regulations prohibiting misleading advertising. It may be a matter for the courts to decide whether something is misleading or not, but the law is relatively clear and the concept of compliance is relatively unproblematic. In the case of safety regulation, however, matters are more complex. The focus in this paper will be on safety in an organisational context – for example, safety at work, or safety on public transport. I shall argue that in this context the meaning of compliance is often problematic and that a focus on securing compliance may not be enough to achieve the regulatory goal of safety. Safety regulators may need to go beyond monitoring and enforcing compliance. The purpose of this paper is to outline a number of ways in which they may do this. What is distinctive about the regulation of safety is that it is the regulation of risk. Safety regulation cannot simply prohibit harm, as one might prohibit anti-competitive conduct. So-called ‘accidents’ are indeed accidents in the sense that they are unintended, and it makes little sense to prohibit them. In these circumstances the aim of regulation can only to reduce the risk of harm, not to prohibit it. The point can be put another way. It is conceivable that an employer may have done all within its power to prevent harm, and that an accident may nevertheless occur as a result of an unforeseen and unforeseeable set of circumstances. Companies should only be guilty of an offence if they have not done what they should have done to reduce the relevant risk. It is this, not the harm, that is the offence. What sort of regulatory tools are open to regulatory regimes, which seek to reduce risks to safety? One strategy is to enact and enforce preventive regulations, that is, regulations which specify things that should or should not he done, rules which, if complied with, will keep risk within acceptable bounds. Because such regulations prescribe detailed “do”s and “don’t”s, they are often described as prescriptive