Bretones, F. D.

Costa, P.

Delgado, A.

Doulougeri, K.

Georganta, K.

Giacominelli, B.

González, J. M.

González, R.

Montgomery, A.

Pasini, M.

Passos, A. M.

Ramos, S.

Silva, S. A.

Tavares, S. M.

English

Repositório Institucional do ISCTE-IUL

146 ehpvolume 17 issue 4ehps.net/ehpThe European Health Psychologist“Participative Prevention of PsychosocialEmergent Risks in SME's” (PPPSER) was aEuropean Project, funded by the EuropeanCommission (VS/2014/0053), with theparticipation of four European countries-Portugal, Italy, Spain and Greece- andcoordinated by BRU-IUL- Business ResearchUnit, ISCTE-IUL – Instituto Universitário deLisboa, Lisbon, Portugal. The project, with theduration of one year, aimed at transferringknowledge on psychosocial risks prevention to anumber of stakeholders with a specific emphasison Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs).The present article presents an overview of theproject’s objectives, the description of theproject’s activities and main results, as anexample of a good cooperation between academiaand the practitioners with regard to theprevention of psychosocial risks. Moreinformation can be found at the project’swebsite: http://risksinsmes.wix.com/risksinsmesBackground of the projectAccording to OSHA (2014), psychosocial risks“refers to the likelihood that certain aspects ofwork design and the organization andmanagement of work, and their social contexts,may lead to negative physical, psychological andsocial outcomes” (OSHA, 2014, p. 10). Withinthese aspects, we find that psychosocial risks arerelated to the job content (e.g. type of task),workload and work pace (e.g. working at veryhigh speed), work schedule (e.g. shifts), jobcontrol (e.g. level of autonomy), or interpersonalrelationships at work (e.g. lack of social support).Portugal, Spain, Italy, and Greece are facingthe biggest consequences of the economic crisisand represent the appropriate countries toaddress with regard to psychosocial risks. Notsurprisingly, psychosocial risks are exacerbatedby the ongoing economic crisis in Europe, andParticipative prevention of psychosocialemergent risks in small and medium enterprisesOverview of a collaborative projectoriginal articleparticipative prevention of psychosocial risksPatrícia CostaInstituto Universitário de LisboaSara RamosInstituto Universitário de LisboaSílvia A. SilvaInstituto Universitário de LisboaAna M. PassosInstituto Universitário de LisboaSusana M. TavaresInstituto Universitário de LisboaFrancisco Diaz BretonesUniversidad de GranadaAntonio DelgadoUniversidad de GranadaKarolina DoulougeriUniversity of MacedoniaKaterina GeorgantaUniversity of MacedoniaBarbara GiacominelliUniversità Degli Studi di VeronaJosé María GonzálezUniversidad de GranadaRocio GonzálezUniversidad de GranadaAnthony MontgomeryUniversity of MacedoniaMargherita PasiniUniversità Degli Studi di VeronaCosta et al.147 ehpvolume 17 issue 4ehps.net/ehpThe European Health Psychologistthere is a need to support the SMEs that play animportant role in the economy of these countries.Overview of the projectThe present project intended to contribute tothe promotion of knowledge dissemination andto support the development of preventiveactions. Social dialogue with different formalstakeholders was one of the touchstones of theproject: workers’ representatives andcommittees, health and safety personnel, unions,management or other organizational leaders. Theproject had four main objectives: (1) tosummarize the existing scientific knowledge,policies about psychosocial emergent risksprevention, and mapping SMEs knowledge aboutthese risks; (2) to characterize the best practicesin emergent psychosocial risks management andto identify the difficulties/obstacles toimplement good preventive practices in SMEs; (3)to organize a workshop with stakeholders todisseminate knowledge and define an action planfor helping SMEs in the prevention ofpsychosocial emergent risks, and (4) to presentan informative toolkit with practices that can beimplemented by SMEs to help them to preventthe emergent psychosocial risks.The project included a first qualitative phase,where information was gathered from relevantstakeholders. Next, a survey was presented tohealth and safety technicians of SMEs, workerrepresentatives and to organizations that provideexternal health and safety services. With thisinformation, four workshops were organized (onein each country) and the structure and content ofthe toolkit was developed. In the next sections,we present a summary of these activities, as wellas the main conclusions of each.Qualitative studyWe conducted individual semi-structuredinterviews and focus groups in all the countriesinvolving different stakeholders. The interviewguides were developed considering PRIMA-EF,ESNER and following Langenha, Leka, and Jain(2013) and Leka and colleagues (Leka, & Cox,2008; Leka, & Jain, 2010) work. Generalguidelines were established for focus groups,covering its duration, composition andprocedures. Data was analyzed through contentanalysis. Table 1 presents the number ofinterviews and focus groups conducted. In Spain,no focus groups were conducted due to the greatdifficulty of gathering participants.In Greece, participants reported that there waslimited awareness with regard to psychosocialrisks. They stressed the importance of writtenguidelines on prevention and intervention, aswell as the necessity of adapting the law toinclude at least the obligation of psychosocialrisks assessment as part of the established healthand safety assessment. The Italian participantshighlighted the gap between policies andpractices, due to a lack of information andregulatory frameworks on the management ofpsychosocial risks. Education and training wererecognized as a key tool to promote awareness ofpsychosocial risks, namely on the relationshipbetween psychosocial risks and absenteeism. InPortugal, although almost intervieweesparticipative prevention of psychosocial risksCosta et al.148 ehpvolume 17 issue 4 The European Health Psychologistehps.net/ehprecognized the relevance of this topic forindividuals, companies and society, theassessment, management and prevention ofpsychosocial risks is still unusual, particularly inSMEs. In general, participants stressed theimportance of disseminating concrete examplesof good practices. Finally, Spanish participantsconsidered that work intensification, the use ofnew technologies, the increased flexibility,competitiveness, and job insecurity, all affectworker health and welfare. They frequentlymentioned the need for the social andpsychological support of their co-workers for themitigation of the negative effects of psychosocialrisks on heath.SurveyThe main goal of the survey was to determinethe SMEs’ perspective about emergentpsychosocial risks, difficulties and concernsrelated to its prevention. It also aimed to assesstheir knowledge and existing practices regardingpsychosocial risks prevention.The research team decided to develop twodifferent but related surveys, one directed to SMEsafety and health technicians and workersrepresentatives and another directed atorganizations that provide services related tosafety and health to SMEs. Both surveys weredistributed in all the countries. To increaseparticipation, the surveys were accessible eitherin an online format or as a paper copy.The surveys were based on the EU-OSHA’sEuropean survey of enterprises on new andemerging risks (ESENER) and on the EuropeanFramework for psychosocial risk management(PRIMA). The use of validated instrumentsfacilitates the comparison of results of thisproject with those produced in other studies andreports. We also introduced some questions thatemerged from the analysis of the interviews andfocus groups. Most of the items were measuredwith 7 points rating-scales (e.g. from notimportant (1) to extremely important (7), or fromnever (1) to always (7)).The number of respondents was modest in allfour countries for both surveys (Table 2). It islikely that SMEs are not used to participating inresearch projects, and probably even lessconcerning health and safety issues. In thispaper, we present the results from survey 1.Only in Spain the majority of SMEs (57.7%)reported having specific policies, managementsystems, or action plans on psychosocial risks,with all countries mentioning that health andsafety issues are rarely raised in seniormanagement meetings. In Greece, Portugal andSpain one third of the SMEs reported havingpsychosocial risks assessment; while it isnoteworthy that in Italy all the SMEs are alreadyconducting psychosocial risks assessments. Thelack of awareness about the importance ofpsychosocial risks is one of the main reason forthe lack of assessment in Portugal (M = 4.33),Greece (M = 4.31) and Spain (M = 4.39). For Italy,the main obstacles to risk assessment are the factthat they are too time consuming or expensive (M= 4.87) and the unavailability of financialresources (M = 4.93). The fulfillment of the legalobligations is the main reason for Portugal (M =5.58), Italy (M = 5.20) and Spain (M = 5.73) toparticipative prevention of psychosocial risksCosta et al.149 ehpvolume 17 issue 4ehps.net/ehpThe European Health Psychologisttackle psychological risks. For Greece the mainreasons are economic or performance related (M= 5.31), requirements from clients or concernabout the organization's reputation (M = 5.15).The number of measures implemented to dealwith psychosocial risks is still low in everycountry. Spain is the country with more formalways to deal with psychosocial risks with 1/3 ofthe SME indicating that they have at least oneprocedure.In general, participants agree that they needmore information to promote risk assessment.With the exception of Italy, contracted health andsafety experts were the main source ofinformation, closely followed by the laborinspectorate and in-house health and safetyservices.Organizational culture and top managementcommitment to health and safety risks issues hasbeen recognized as a key factor in the literature(Pidgeon, 1991; Hale, 2000; Silva, 2008; Reader etal., 2015). While health and safety is already anintegral part of the management philosophy inmost SME’s (% of agreement: Portugal = 60.8;Greece = 72.8; Italy = 76.7; Spain = 60.0), theintroduction of preventive actions beyond legalrequirements still need improvement.One of the main goals of the project was tobuild a toolkit to help SMEs in preventing andmanaging psychosocial risks. We askedparticipants to indicate what should be part ofthe toolkit (Figure 1).WorkshopsFour workshops were organized (Table 3). Allof the workshops had a first part consisting of adiscussion on psychosocial issues and a secondone, for discussing the proposed toolkit,Figure 1. Useful aspects for the toolkitparticipative prevention of psychosocial risksCosta et al.150 ehpvolume 17 issue 4 The European Health Psychologistehps.net/ehpdeveloped by the project’s team after the twofirst project phases (qualitative study andsurvey).In Greece, the toolkit was evaluated positively.The participants commented on its clearstructure and non academic writing, and thevariety and amount of the topics presented. Mostparticipants asked for more good practices to beincluded in the toolkit. In Italy, the evaluationwas also constructive. Participants positivelycommented on its clear structure and non-specialist language, and the clear division ofinformation for employers, employees andconsultants. In Portugal, the overall assessmentof the project and toolkit was very good.Participants stressed the need to promotepsychosocial risks assessment and to offertraining for all hierarchical levels and targetgroups; the need to give information about goodpractices and the need to develop several actionsthat support prevention, ideally offeringresources without “costs”. Spanish participantsexpressed the relevance and timeliness of resultsand the need for further research on these issuesin order to realize further prevention strategiesand intervention on psychosocial risks in SMEs.They were thankful for the assessment tools andintervention of psychosocial risks.ToolkitThe final toolkit comprised information aboutpsychosocial risks and identified tools andpractices that can be implemented. Morespecifically, it has information about the risks(i.e., causes and consequences, riskmanagement), available resources (i.e., reliablesites, institutions, training, etc.), preventionbenefits, risk assessment instruments andprocedures. The toolkits are now available in theproject website, in the language of the countriesinvolved in the project as well as in English.ConclusionsThe project revealed a low level of awarenessabout psychosocial risks, the almost inexistenceof risk assessment practices and a lack ofresources for investing in its prevention. Tofacilitate the change in the prevention practicesit is critical to develop resources thatorganizations could easily use at a low cost.The project has two main contributions: theproject website and toolkits that will be stillavailable in the next years; and the dialogue andpartnerships developed, involving theuniversities and stakeholders, that resulted in asolid network that will give an impetus to developnew actions and projects (both national andEuropean) .ReferencesEurofound, & EU-OSHA (2014). Psychosocial risksin Europe: Prevalence and strategies forprevention. Luxembourg: Publications Office ofthe European Union. doi:10.2806/70971European Agency for Safety and Health at Work(2010). European survey ofeEnterprises on newand emerging risks managing safety.Luxembourg: Publications Office of theEuropean Union. Available at:https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/reports/esener1_osh_management/viewHale, A. (2000). Culture’s confusions. SafetyScience, 34(1-3), 1–14. doi:10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00003-5Langenhan, M., Leka, S., & Jain, A. (2013).Psychosocial risks: Is risk managementstrategic enough in business and policymaking? Safety and Health at Work, 4(2), 87-94.doi:10.1016/j.shaw.2013.04.003Leka, S., & Cox, T., (2008). The EuropeanFramework for psychosocial risk management:PRIMA-EF. Nottingham: I-WHO Publications.participative prevention of psychosocial risksCosta et al.151 ehpvolume 17 issue 4ehps.net/ehpThe European Health PsychologistLeka, S., & Jain, A., (2010). Health impact ofpsychosocial hazards at work: An overview.Geneva: WHO.Pidgeon, N. F. (1991). Safety culture and riskmanagement in organizations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 22(1), 129-140.doi:10.1177/0022022191221009Reader, T. W., Noort, M. C., Shorrock, S., &Kirwan, B. (2015). Safety sans frontières: Aninternational safety culture model. RiskAnalysis: An International Journal, 35(5), 770-789. doi:10.1111/risa.12327Silva, S. (2008). Culturas de segurança e prevençãode acidentes de trabalho numa abordagempsicossocial: Valores organizacionais declarados eem uso [Safety cultures and work accidentsprevention in a psychosocial approach:Organizational values espoused and inpractice]. Lisboa: Fundação CalousteGulbenkian.Patrícia CostaBusiness Research Unit - BRU,ISCTE - IUL, Lisbon, Portugalpatricia.lopes.costa@gmail.comparticipative prevention of psychosocial risksCosta et al.

Participative prevention of psychosocial emergent risks in small and medium enterprises Overview of a collaborative project

https://repositorio.iscte-iul.pt/bitstream/10071/10695/5/17_4_EHP_August_01_Costa_et_al.pdf

Participative prevention of psychosocial emergent risks in small and medium enterprises Overview of a collaborative project

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositório Institucional do ISCTE-IUL