Occupational Safety and Health OSH

STUDY UNIT

LEARNING OBJECTIVES
After having worked through this study unit, students are expected to:

• Understand the basic concepts and principles of OSH

 

CONCEPTS, PRINCIPLES AND FUNDAMENTALS OF OSH        
Introduction
It was already mentioned that Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) is a field comprised of different disciplines, perspectives and philosophies. Frequently, there is a differing understanding on the aims of OSH, on the principles and fundamentals that should guide its action and even on the meaning of the OSH concepts. This lack of common language hinders the establishment of a shared viewpoint and basis for fruitful work on OSH. This learning unit, in addition to a learning tool, has the aim to serve as a guide of reference in this regard.

The main principles and concepts of OSH are set out in various Conventions and Recommendations adopted by the International Labour Conference as well as other documents of the International Labour Office (ILO), such as codes of practice, resolutions and guidance documents and most of all, the ILO’s Encyclopaedia of Occupational Health and Safety. The contents of this learning unit are derived from information embodied primarily in the above-mentioned ILO documentation as well as other national and international bodies of recognized competency in the field.

This learning unit can not hope to cover all the subject areas in the vast field of OSH. Therefore it focuses on the key and essential concepts, principles and fundamentals, summarizing them in a form that will be useful for those involved with occupational safety and health.

What is occupational health and safety?
“Health” is defined in the Preamble of the Constitution of the World Health Organization as a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. “Safety” is a property of a system that will not endanger human life. “Occupational” refers to issues related to the working life. Occupational safety and health studies the effects on the health and well-being of the workers, the working conditions and the environment as well as the best ways to improve the working conditions and environment.

Occupational safety and health is identified as the discipline (or group of disciplines) dealing with the prevention of work-related injuries and diseases as well as the protection and promotion of the health of workers. It aims at the improvement of working conditions and environment and involves many specialized fields (occupational medicine, industrial hygiene, toxicology, education, industrial safety, ergonomics, psychology, etc.). In its broadest sense, it should aim at:

• the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations;
• the prevention among workers of adverse effects on health caused by their working conditions;
• the protection of workers in their employment from risks resulting from factors adverse to health;
• the placing and maintenance of workers in an occupational environment adapted to physical and mental needs;
• the adaptation of work to humans.

Both health and safety issues must be addressed in every workplace. However, occupational health issues are often given less attention than occupational safety issues because the former are frequently less evident and are generally more difficult to confront.

Occupational accidents
An occupational accident is an undesired and sudden occurrence arising out of or in connection with work that results in physical harm to one or more workers. Usually, it is the result of contact with a source of energy: gravity (falls, slips, trips), kinetic, electricity, etc.

Acts of violence can also be considered occupational accidents. Frequently, travel, transport or road traffic accidents in which workers are injured and which arise out of or in the course of work (i.e. while engaged in an economic activity, or at work, or carrying on the business of the employer) are also considered occupational accidents. The legal definitions of occupational accidents in some countries restrict the consideration of “occupational” to these or other types of accidents. On the other hand, the workers’ compensation laws of many countries cover “commuting accidents”, i.e. accidents happening on the way to or from work.

It is important to differentiate the concept of “accident” from the concepts of “incident” and “near miss”:

Incident: An undesired occurrence that that does not produce physical harm but could or does degrade the efficiency of an operation.

Near miss: An undesired occurrence that has the potential to become an incident or accident.

Occupational diseases
The ILO Employment Injury Benefits Recommendation, 1964 (No. 121), paragraph 6(1), defines occupational disease as follows: “Each Member should, under prescribed conditions, regard diseases known to arise out of the exposure to substances and dangerous conditions in processes, trades or occupations as occupational diseases.”

When it is clear that a causal relationship exists between an occupational exposure and a specific disease, that disease is usually considered both medically and legally as occupational and may be defined as such. However, not all work-related diseases can be defined so specifically. There are a wide range of diseases that can be related in one way or another to occupation or working conditions.
Many of these diseases with a multifactorial etiology may be work-related only under certain conditions.
The relationship between work and disease can be identified in the following categories:

• occupational diseases, having a specific or a strong relation to occupation, generally with only one causal agent, and recognized as such;

• work-related diseases, with multiple causal agents, where factors in the work environment may play a role, together with other risk factors, in the development of such diseases, which have a complex etiology;
• diseases affecting working populations, without causal relationship with work but which may be aggravated by occupational hazards to health.

Two main elements are present in the definition of occupational diseases:

• the exposure-effect relationship between a specific working environment and/or activity and a specific disease effect;
• the fact that these diseases occur among a group of persons concerned with a frequency above the average morbidity of the rest of the population.

Why occupational safety and health?
“Work is central to people’s lives, to the stability of families and societies. It is key to poverty reduction and to the achievement of social inclusion and social cohesion. Such work must be of acceptable quality. Decent Work must be Safe Work and we are a long way from achieving that goal.” Juan Somavia, Director-General, International Labour Office.

Millions of workers are affected every year by occupational injuries or diseases caused by workplace hazards. Some highlights to understand the dimensions of the problem according to the ILO projections for the year 2000, based on 1998 statistics, in the world are:

• 270 million work accidents occur every year. 
• Work-related diseases affect over 160 million workers every year.
• Two million work-related deaths.

• The average reduction of retirement age is about 5 years, e.g. from 65 to 60, (which represents one seventh of a working life) which is caused by disability

• A large number of unemployed workers have an impairment of working capacity, not necessarily enough for the worker to be entitled to a personal disability pension or compensation. However the loss of the working ability can be of such magnitude that it can seriously reduce his or her re-employability.

• An average of 5% of the work force is absent from work every day. This may vary from 2% to 10% depending on the sector, type of work and management culture.
• Work kills more people than war or malaria.
• In the most hazardous industries, the mortality rate in a period of ten years is higher than the unemployment rate for the same period (for example, forestry).
• Developing countries have ten times more risks than industrialized countries.

These data show the dimension of human suffering and the human and social costs of work-related health problems and the need for action from an ethical point of view, especially considering that OSH disciplines have the knowledge and experience to prevent most of the work-related health problems (as the experience of the countries with high-performance OSH systems can show).

In addition, the work-related health problems have an important economic dimension. The estimated costs of occupational accidents and illnesses can be as high as three to four per cent of a country’s gross national product. It can therefore seriously endanger development, especially in developing countries. Conversely, improving OSH can be beneficial at all levels.

An often-heard argument is that poor countries and poor companies cannot afford safety and health measures. There is no evidence that any country or company in the long run would have benefited from a low level of safety and health. On the contrary, recent studies by the World Economic Forum and the Lausanne Institute of Management (IMD) demonstrate that the most competitive countries are also the safest. Selecting a low safety, low-health and low-income survival strategy may very well not lead to high competitiveness or sustainability.

Although the economical dimensions of occupational accidents and diseases are such an important issue, it is necessary to emphasize the ethical imperative of taking care of the safety and health of workers. As Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations said:
“… Safety and health of workers is a part and parcel of human security. As the lead United Nations agency for the protection of workers’ rights, the ILO has been at the forefront of advocacy and activism in promoting safety and health at work. Safe Work is not only sound economic policy; it is a basic human right…”

According to the National Safety Council, there are six reasons for working hard to prevent accidents and occupational illnesses:

1. Needless destruction of life and health is morally unjustified.
2. Failure to take the necessary precautions against predictable accidents and occupational illnesses makes management and workers morally responsible for those accidents and occupational illnesses.
3. Accidents and occupational illnesses severely limit efficiency and productivity.
4. Accidents and occupational illnesses produce far-reaching social damage.
5. The safety movement has demonstrated that its techniques are effective in reducing accident rates and promoting efficiency.
6. Recent state and federal legislation mandates management’s responsibility to provide a safe, healthy workplace.

ACCIDENT CAUSATION THEORIES
Preventing accidents is extremely difficult in the absence of an understanding of the causes of accidents. In some cases, it appears that the cause of an industrial injury is easy to identify. However, very often there is a hidden chain of events behind the accident which lead up to the injury. For example, accidents are often indirectly caused by negligence on the part of the employer who may not have provided adequate worker training, or a supplier who gave the wrong information about a product or sold a machine without the required safety devices, etc.

Researchers from different fields of science and engineering have been trying to develop a theory of accident causation which will help to identify, isolate and ultimately remove the factors that contribute to or cause accidents. Many attempts have been made to develop a prediction theory of accident causation, but so far none has been universally accepted. Some of the most common theories are:

Psychological/behavioural Causation Theories

Focus on human behaviour as the major cause of accidents and congruently focuses the prevention measures on changing attitudes and behaviours, mainly those of the workers.

The Domino Theory
According to W.H. Heinrich, who developed the so-called domino theory, 88% of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts of people, 10% by unsafe conditions and 2% by “acts of God”. He proposed a “five-factor accident sequence” in which each factor would actuate the next step in the manner of toppling dominoes lined up in a row. The sequence of accident factors is as follows:

• Ancestry and social environment.
• Worker fault.
• Unsafe act together with mechanical and physical hazard.
• Accident.
• Damage or injury.

In the same way that the removal of a single domino in the row would interrupt the sequence of toppling, Heinrich suggested that the removal of one of the factors would prevent the accident and resultant injury; with the key domino to be removed from the sequence being number (unsafe act together with mechanical and physical hazard). This theory has largely been replaced by the Theory of Multiple Causation.

Theory of Multiple Causation
It postulates that a single accident is not caused by one unsafe act or condition, but rather by many contributory factors, causes and sub-causes, and that certain combinations of these give rise to accidents.
According to this theory, the contributory factors can be grouped into the following two categories:
Behavioural. This category includes factors pertaining to the worker, such as improper attitude, lack of knowledge, lack of skills and inadequate physical and mental condition.
Environmental. This category includes improper guarding of other hazardous work elements and degradation of equipment through use and unsafe procedures.
The major contribution of this theory is to bring out the fact that rarely, if ever, is an accident the result of a single cause or act.

The pure chance theory
According to the pure chance theory, every one of any given set of workers has an equal chance of being involved in an accident. It further implies that there is no single discernible pattern of events that leads to an accident. In this theory, all accidents are treated as corresponding to Heinrich’s acts of God, and it is held that there exist no interventions to prevent them.

Biased liability theory
Biased liability theory is based on the view that once a worker is involved in an accident, the chances of the same worker becoming involved in future accidents are either increased or decreased as compared to the rest of workers. Although this theory contributes very little, if anything at all, towards developing preventive actions for avoiding accidents, it suggests the presence of different typologies of workers. The most common group of workers being those that learn from experience and are successful in avoiding similar occurrences; whereas other groups of workers instead are polyinjured,  due to deficits of attention and selfcare, skills and training.

The “symptoms versus causes” theory
The “symptoms versus causes” theory is not so much a theory as an admonition to be heeded if accident causation is to be understood.

Usually, when investigating accidents, we tend to fasten upon the obvious causes of the accident to the neglect of the root causes. Unsafe acts and unsafe conditions are the symptoms - the proximate causes -and not the root causes of the accident. This theory is in the basis of the methodology of accident investigations as well of other specific techniques to identify the underlying causes of the accidents.

The energy transfer theory
Those who accept the energy transfer theory put forward the claim that a worker incurs injury or equipment suffers damage through a change of energy, and that for every change of energy there is a source, a path and a receiver. This theory is useful for determining injury causation and evaluating energy hazards and control methodology. Strategies can be developed which are either preventive, limiting or ameliorating with respect to the energy transfer.

Control of energy transfer at the source can be achieved by the following means:

• elimination of the source;
• changes made to the design or specification of elements of the work station;
• preventive maintenance.

The path of energy transfer can be modified by:

• enclosure of the path;
• installation of barriers;
• installation of absorbers;
• positioning of isolators.

The receiver of energy transfer can be assisted by adopting the following measures:

• limitation of exposure;
• use of personal protective equipment.

Iceberg theory of accidents
Although it is not a purely accident causation theory, its study is important. According to this theory there is a proportion and relationship among the number of fatal accidents, accidents with minor injuries, incidents and “near misses” that take place in an enterprise. It also suggests that they all share common causes. The investigation and analysis of the incidents (near misses) approach would then be a good way of identifying the potential causes of accidents as well as the precautions needed.
This theory also suggests that the potential of an occurrence to become a near miss, or an incident, or an accident with injuries is just probabilistic.

 

From a historic point of view, in the 1920s, the causes of workplace accidents were attributed to the insufficient and poorly-planned technical systems. In the 1900s, the emphasis shifted towards the so-called human factors focused in the psychological factors of individual behaviour (especially regarding incorrect behaviour in following the safety rules). In the 1960s the emphasis on accidents’ explanations changed to the so-called “social-technical system”, the interaction between workers and machine. Since the 1970s, following the systems theory, the focus is on a wider system including, not only workers and machine, but also the environmental and the organizational context. It emphasizes the role of the management system of the enterprise to prevent occupational accidents and diseases, transferring the responsibility for these occurrences from the unsafe acts and unsafe conditions to the system defects, to the wrong management decisions, to the lack of employer commitment, and to the preventive culture.

At present, theories of accident causation are conceptual in nature and, as such, are of limited use in preventing and controlling accidents. With such a diversity of theories, it is not difficult to understand that one single theory does not exist that is considered right or correct and is universally accepted. These theories are nonetheless necessary, but not sufficient, for developing a frame of reference for understanding accident occurrences.

Exercise 2: refer to assignment schedule

PREVENTION
Prevention is the central concept of occupational safety and health, to such an extent that even the concept “prevention of occupational risks” is often used as an equivalent to “occupational safety and health”. Sometimes it is just defined in terms of the preferred approach to work on occupational safety and health: all the steps or measures taken or planned at all stages of work in the undertaking to prevent or reduce occupational risks. Prevention is also an attitude of individuals and organizations in the way to deal with the OSH problems. The concept “prevention” is associated with other relevant principles and considerations:

• The principle of prevention. It asserts that avoiding harm is much better than trying to remediate that harm.
• The principle of precaution. When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.
• Most hazardous conditions at work are preventable. The development and maturation of the OSH as a discipline, discovering the cause-effect relationships and the best control measures, or its progress in reducing the occupational injuries and diseases has increased confidence in the prevention.
• Occupational accidents and diseases can be managed. The realization that many principles of industrial knowledge and procedures used for the production and the labour organization can be applied to accident prevention was an important step. Managers also discovered that efficient production, quality and safety were closely related.
• Although the compensation, curation and rehabilitation of sick and injured workers are and will remain very important issues, the main focus and efforts of OSH should be concentrated on prevention in the workplace, as this offers the most cost-effective strategy for their elimination and the control of hazards.
• Prevention is preferred to protection. Protection implies the presenced of hazards not removed and the presence of risks in the workplace. Protection measures try to reduce the risk by avoiding the probability of contact between the hazard and the worker and/or the severity of the consequences in an eventual contact between the hazard and the worker. Although protection measures can prevent occupational accidents and diseases, the “preventive approach” implies the prevention of occupational risks by acting directly on the hazards eliminating them or reducing their dangerousness.
• Proactive approaches are preferred to reactive approaches. Reactive approaches involve the use of actions which are triggered by events (injuries, accidents, incidents, complaints, losses, etc). Active approaches involve data collection on the health and safety performance and actions before an accident, incident or case of ill-health occurs. In general terms, this means collecting data and taking all reasonable actions and precautions to avoid occupational diseases and injuries at the earliest stages (at the planning and design of workplace).

Traditionally, occupational medicine has established some terminology including the term prevention to categorize its different activities, screeening, curation, rehabilitation, etc.:

• Primary prevention: Measures seeking to prevent the occurrence of an injury event.
• Secondary prevention: A set of measures as early detection and prompt intervention, used to prevent injury, control disease, reduce the severity of injury and minimize disability.
• Tertiary prevention: Measures to minimize and alleviate an established disease or disability from injury, in order to improve or maintain its functional status.

However, only the primary prevention of these categories corresponds to the meaning of prevention as previously defined in this section.

To better understand the meaning and contents of prevention, the following table shows the general principles of prevention as they appear in the European Union OSH legislation11:

General principles of prevention
The employer shall implement the measures (…) on the basis of the following general principles of prevention.
a) avoiding risks;
b) evaluating the risks which cannot be avoided;
c) combating the risks at source;
d) adapting the work to the individual, especially as regards the design of work places, the choice of work equipment and the choice of working and production methods, with a view, in particular, to alleviating monotonous work and work at a predetermined work-rate and to reduce their effect on health.
e) adapting to technical progress;
f) replacing the dangerous with the non-dangerous or the less dangerous;
g) developing a coherent overall prevention policy which covers technology, organization of work, working conditions, social relationships and the influence of factors related to the working environment;
h) giving collective protective measures priority over individual protective measures;
i) giving appropriate instructions to the workers.

HAZARD AND RISK
The term “hazard” is often confused with the term “risk”. These two concepts are very relevant for many of the process and activities in OSH and need a clear definition and diferentation.

Definitions
Hazard is an agent, condition or activity with potential to cause harm that, if left uncontrolled, may adversely affect the well-being or health of exposed persons. For example, hazards can include substances such as a toxic chemical, energy forms such as a high voltage power supply, machines, or the way work is carried out.

There are an unlimited number of hazards that can be found in almost any workplace, including:

• chemical hazards, arising from liquids, solids, dusts, fumes, vapours and gases;
• physical hazards, such as noise, vibration, unsatisfactory lighting, radiation and extreme temperatures;
• biological hazards, such as bacteria, viruses, infectious waste and infestations;
• safety hazards associated with gravity (falls of people and objects); manual handling; hand tools;
• moving parts of plant/machinery and/or their loads, vehicles; electricity, pressure (steam);
• psychological hazards resulting from stress and strain; and,
• hazards associated with the non-application of ergonomic principles, for example badly-designed machinery, mechanical devices and tools used by workers, improper seating and workstation design, or poorly designed work practices.

In the context of Occupational safety and health, the term “conditions of work” or “working conditions” is also widely used and is also linked with the term “hazard”. “Condition of work” is any characteristic of work that can have a significant influence in the generation of risks for the safety and the health of the workers. They are specifically included in this definition:

• The general characteristics of the premises, existing facilities, equipment, products and other equipment in the workplace.
• The nature of the physical, chemical and biological agents present in the work environment.
• The procedures for the use of the mentioned agents influencing the generation of the mentioned risks.
• Any other characteristic of the work, including those relative to its organization influencing in the magnitude of the risks to which the workers are exposed.

Risk is a combination of the likely severity and probability that somebody will actually be harmed by a specific hazard. A risk will be higher when the severity of the consequences is more important and when the probability of occurrence is more frequent. The two factors (severity and probability) used to estimate the risk are independent in the sense that a severity of a hazard could be high andthe probability instead could be very low (or the opposite) and should be estimated independently.

The probability of the occurrence is related with the frequency in which the worker is in contact with the hazard (the more frequent contacts, the more probability) and the frequency in which the hazard can realize its potential harmful effects (continuously present hazards and active hazards have higher probability to harm that those present and active for short periods). The severity of the consequences will depend upon factors such as:

• the nature of the hazard;
• the quantity of hazards involved (the higher quantity, the higher severity);
• the duration of contact or exposure (the higher duration, the higher severity);
• part of body affected (strikes in the head often result in more severe injuries than strikes in the leg, for example); and,
• important factors unrelated to the hazard itself, e.g., luck and individual factors.

There is a term quite common in OSH legislation associated to “risk”. It is the term “serious and imminent labor risk”. It means the risk that is rationally probable to be materialized in the immediate future and can cause serious damage for the health of the workers.

Acceptable risk
Acceptable risk is used to characterize the degree to which an individual, an organization or a society is willing to tolerate the existence of a factor that poses a danger of physical or psychological illness or injury. However, there are important differences in the tolerance of risks from individuals and societies.

Risk acceptance is generally a complicated and multifaceted issue. It involves not only technical issues regarding the estimation of its magnitude, but also ethical, political and economical considerations (what is the value of life or health?) and even psychosocial dimensions linked to the perception of risks of individuals or societies.

Factors Affecting Risk Perception
The following factors may have more effect on the acceptability of risk than the estimated magnitude of either the individual or population risk.

• Risks perceived to be voluntary are more acceptable than risks perceived to be imposed.
• Risks perceived to be under an individual’s control are more accepted than risks perceived to be controlled by others.
• Risks perceived to have clear benefits are more accepted than risks perceived to have little or no benefit.
• Risks perceived to be fairly distributed are more accepted than risks perceived to be unfairly distributed.
• Risks perceived to be natural are more accepted than risks perceived to be man-made.
• Risks perceived to be statistical are more accepted than risks perceived to be catastrophic.
• Risks perceived to be generated by a trusted source are more accepted than risks perceived to be generated by an entrusted source.
• Risks perceived to be familiar are more accepted than risks perceived to exotic.
• Risks perceived to affect adults are more accepted than risks perceived to affect children.

In general terms, several principles are used to determine the acceptable risk:

The precautionary principle, is the idea that if the consequences of an action are unknown, but are judged to have some potential for major or irreversible negative consequences, it is better to avoid that action. For example, if there is the possibility that a new technology may cause serious harm and the relevant science is incomplete on this question, then a precautionary approach would require that the new technology not be used. The principle of precautionary action has four parts:

1. People have a duty to take anticipatory action to prevent harm.
2. The burden of proof of harmlessness of a new technology, process, activity, or chemical lies within the proponents, not within the general public.
3. Before using a new technology, process, or chemical, or starting a new activity, people have an obligation to examine “a full range of alternatives” including the alternative of doing nothing.
4. Decisions applying the precautionary principle must be “open, informed, and democratic” and “must include affected parties.”

The GAMAB principle (Globalement au moins aussi bon) is the idea that all new systems must offer a level of risk globally at least as good as the one offered by any equivalent existing system.

The MEM principle (minimum endogenous mortality) – requires that the total risk from all technical systems affecting an individual must not exceed minimum human mortality.

The ALARP principle (“As low as reasonably practicable”). The ALARP principle is founded on the legal obligation to reduce risks to the point that additional risk reduction would cost disproportionately ”more than the risk reduction (benefit) achieved”. Measures to reduce risk must be taken until the risk is broadly acceptable (BA) or until the cost of further risk reduction would be grossly disproportionate (GD) to the reduction in risk that would be achieved. It associates the risk with cost.
 

unacceptable region                                                                  Risk cannot be justified except in extraordinary circumstances

The ALARP or Tolerability                                                        Tolerable only if risk reduction is
region (Risk is undertaken only                                      impracticable if its cost is grossly
if a benefit is desired)                                                    disproportionate to the improvement gained

                                                                                   Tolerable if cost of reduction would
Broadly acceptable region (No need                              exceed the improvement gained
for detailed work to demonstrate ALARP)                        Necessary to maintain assuarance that risk remains at this level

                                                          

Negligible risk

 

But why is this concept of “acceptability of risk” in Occupational Safety and Health so important?

Since different organizations (and different individuals, too) have different perspectives on what level of risk is tolerable or not, it is necessary to establish a standard on what level of risk can be tolerated in the workplace, which level of risks are not accepted, and what interventions to remove hazards and to reduce and control risks should be undertaken.

Although the concept and the limits of “acceptability of risk” frequently do not appear explicitly formulated in the national OSH regulations, they express (among other things) which ones are accepted and which are not accepted in terms of risks and hazards. After the revision of the OSH legislation of a country, we can have a firsthand view of the tolerance of occupational risks in that country. Some hazards and levels of risks are tolerated in some countries and not in others. For example, in the case of the asbestos, a well-known carcinogenic that kills 100,000 workers per year in the world, so many countries have banned its utilization because its control is very difficult. However, other countries still accept a “controlled use of asbestos”.

In general terms, the acceptance of risk also changes over time. There is a process continuously restricting risk acceptance, once research demonstrates the cause-effect relationships among occupational hazards and occupational accidents and diseases and society determines the need to act against these risks. For example, only 30 years ago psychosocial hazards and problems (stress, mobbing, burn-out) were not commonly accepted as occupational. In another example where an important revolution has also taken place, passive cigarette smoke is not tolerated anymore as an acceptable hazard and in the last 10 years many countries have passed laws to prevent this risk.

Although OSH regulations are intended to establish national standards on the acceptability of occupational risks at the national level and OSH inspection tries to enforce these standards, frequently in each country, a wide inconsistency on the level of acceptance of occupational risks persists among enterprises and organizations (and among individuals).

MANAGEMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL ACCIDENTS AND DISEASES
It was already mentioned that occupational accidents and diseases can be managed. Increasingly, the applications of the principles of management to OSH are playing a major role. OSH is made up of a whole of analytical disciplines and operational techniques and “management” can be seen as just one more of these operational disciplines. “Management” can also be seen as the way in which all other disciplines are applied in practice within an enterprise to reach their concrete and overall purpose: the prevention of the occupational accidents and diseases.

Management (from Old French management, “the art of conducting, directing”, from Latin manu agere “to lead by the hand”) could be defined as the process of leading and directing all or part of an organisation, often a business, from an initial plan to reach the intended goals, through the deployment and manipulation of resources (human, financial, material, intellectual or intangible). There are five management functions: Planning, Organising, Leading, Co-ordinating and Controlling.

An important principle of OSH management is that the main responsibility for occupational accidents and diseases rests with management (the managers)15. Although the immediate causes for occupational accidents and diseases may be a human or/and technical failure, the underlying causes arise from organizational failings which are the responsibility of the managers. Additionally, successful OSH management should:

• start as a visible and active support of strong leadership and commitment of senior managers and directors who should also demonstrate this commitment through their individual behaviour and management practice;
• share the management’s perception and beliefs of the whole organization on the importance of OSH and the need to achieve the OSH objectives.
• regard OSH objectives in the same way as other business objectives.
• assign clear lines of authority and well-defined responsibilities.
• spread the safety culture among all organizations by making OSH a line management responsibility (instead of exclusively assigning this responsibility to the OSH department or unit).

 

Examples of a health and safety philosophy:

“A good safety record goes hand in hand with high productivity and quality standards”.

“We believe that an excellent company is by definition a safe company. Since we are committed to excellence, it follows that minimizing risks to people, plants and products is inseparable from all other company objectives”.

“Prevention is not only better but cheaper than cure. There is no necessary conflict between humanitarianism and commercial consideration. Profits and safety are not in competition. On the contrary, safety is a good business”.

“Health and safety is a management responsibility of equal importance to production and quality”.

 

“Experience shows that a successful safety organization also produces the right quality goods at minimum costs”

“Competence in managing health and safety is an essential part of professional management”

“In the field of health and safety (we) seek to achive the highest standards. We do not pursue this aim simply to achieve compliance with current legislation, but because it is in our best interests.

“The effective management of health and safety, leading to fewer accidents involving injury and time taken off work, is an investment which helps us to achieve our purposes”.

“People are our most important asset”.

“Total safety is the ongoing integration of safety into all activities with the objective of attaining industrial leadership in safety performance. We believe nothing is more important than safety… not production, not sales, not profits”.

“Effective control of health and safety is achieved through co-operative effort at all levels in the organization”.

“The company believes that excellence in the management of health and safety is an essential element within its overall business plan”.

“All accidents and ill health are preventable”.

“The identification, assessment and control of health and safety and other risks is a managerial responsibility and of equal importance to production and quality”.

“The preservation of human and physical resources is an important mean of minimizing costs”.

Management is a discipline in evolution and many changes of perspective have taken place in recent history. It also has influenced the focus and the perspective of OSH. The table below shows an interesting study of the National Safety Council (United States of America) showing the links of the evolution of the business management perspective and focus through the recent history of the last century and its influence on OSH management.

 

It is necessary to clarify and distinguish some concepts that include the word “management” in OSH terminology such as management of OSH, systematic management, OSH management systems, and risk management.

 

Management of OSH. It is the generic term to denominate any structured business practices and organizational measures to ensure that an acceptable level of safety and health is maintained in the enterprise. As shown in the previous table of the historical evolution of the management, there are different ways to manage OSH.

Systematic management is one of the approaches used for OSH management. It is a requirement included in the OSH regulations of some countries. Although the definition and the contents of systematic management can vary, the central idea of this approach is that some interacting management practices and measures should be regularly and methodically planned, adopted and integrated in a consistent order (using step-by-step procedures).

OSH management systems. It is one of the approaches for OSH management, consisting of the application of the systems modeled. This “systems” approach to OSH management applies similar principles and processes contained in the Quality Management (ISO 9000 series) and Environmental Management (14000 series) developed by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) in the early 1990s. The OSH management systems are also a (more elaborated and complex) way of systematic management. They are promoted through technical standards or guidelines such as the ILO Guidelines on OSH Management Systems (ILO-OSH 2001) or the OSHAS 18001 (1999)19.

Risk management is a process involving the systematic identification and analysis of hazards inherent in an activity, as well as the estimation and evaluation of the associated health risks to the workers in order to select and implement the effective measures to control the workplace risks.
Both the “systematic management” and “OSH management systems” include the process of risk management as one of their most important parts.