Safety Management Systems in Manufacturing Industry: Benefits of OSHAS 18001

Introduction: Different management tools can be used to fulfil legislation needs and company’s demands in order to mitigate workplace risks effectively. OHSAS 18001 is the dominant international standard for evaluating safety management systems. However, it has been also criticised having a tendency to increase the bureaucratisation of OHS issues. The aim of the current research was to estimate the safety performance in Estonian manufacturing industry and determine the benefits of OHSAS 18001 certification (OHSAS). Material and Methods: During 2014, sixteen Estonian enterprises participated in the study: 8 OHSAS firms (group I) + 4 firms which belong to a larger corporation but are not OHSAS certified (group II) + 4 non-certified, locally established and owned firms (group III). Quantitative statistical analysis and 25 qualitative interviews were conducted using MISHA audit method by Kuusisto (2000). The authors stated 11 hypotheses (benefits from OHSAS). Results: The total activity scores (0…100, by MISHA) varied 73.94…93.33 for group I, 79.80…88.08 for group II and 29.09…52.73 for group III firms. This demonstrates that normally, firms who have implemented OHSAS, benefit from it in safety performance. However, the scores also show that group II firms can function almost as safely. We can provide support for all hypothesis (Hotelling’s T-square test statistic) except H7 and H10 while comparing OHSAS firms with group III. Comparing OHSAS firms with group II, none of the hypothesis were supported. This demonstrates that level of OHS management in these firms is compatible with OHSAS firms. Safety depend strongly on consistency: it needs commitment and systematic approach. The study indicated that implementation of OHSAS automatically will not ensure high safety activities. However, holding an OHSAS certificate, creates a basis for a systematic work of safety management, hazards identification and prevention, and promotes strong improvement process put in use.
Main Author: 
Karin
Reinhold
Tallinn University of Technology
Estonia
Co-authors: 
Õnnela
Paas
Tallinn University of Technology
Estonia
Piia
Tint
Tallinn University of Technology
Estonia

Introduction

Safety management system (SMS) can be considered as a systematic and comprehensive process for the proactive management of safety risks that integrates operations, technical services with financial and human resource management. In order to ensure successful outcome, the SMS must: (1) be comprehensive and integrated into all organization’s decisions and actions with respect to adopted control measures; (2) be documented, implemented and readily accessible and used as the primary means of ensuring the safe operation; (3) comply with all of the requirements stated in occupational health and safety (OHS) regulation and (4) be continually reviewed and revised so that the SMS remains current and effective [1-7].

In literature on SMS, mandatory and voluntary types of SMS are distinguished. Mandatory SMS emerges from legislative requirements and sets core principles for the management of occupational health and safety (OHS) to be implemented by the employers. The most well-known European mandatory SMS is the Framework Directive 89/391/EEC [8], which defines employers’ responsibilities in the management of OHS and requires insurance of safety and health of workers in every aspect related to their work. This directive sets general obligations: to conduct risk assessment at workplaces, to implement safety measures and to train and inform employees in OHS hazards.

Voluntary OHSMSs are not state-regulated. These systems were first encouraged by commercial organizations, corporations and associations (e.g. industry associations). Voluntary SMSs tend to be more complex than regulatory systems, and more formalized in terms of specifications. According to Frick and Wren [9], a detailed specification of these systems helps to ensure good integration of OHS policy into the management processes of enterprises. Voluntary SMSs are generally in the form of standards or guidelines, providing requirements for certification or giving simple guidance on good management practices for OHS. These standards or guidelines are international (e.g. ILO-OSH 2001) [10], national (e.g. BS 8800:2004 or OSHAS 18001:2007) [11-13], and sectorial (e.g. MASE, DT 78) [14, 15]. One of them, OHSAS 18001 has gained considerable acceptance worldwide.

The benefits of OHSAS 18001 have been studied by several authors in recent years [3, 16-23]. Mentioned studies indicate that adopting OHSAS 18001 may improve organisation’s image, reputation and performance; integrates OHS into company’s management system, reduces risk for accidents, improves the company’s compliance with legal obligations, favours a learning process and helps to create higher level of transparency. However, OHSAS 18001 certification has also been criticized, especially having a tendency to increase the bureaucratisation of health and safety issues and therefore discourage genuine worker involvement. This may shift the focus from health and safety issues towards paperwork control which may diminish the activities dealing with of OHS problems [3, 18, 21].

The objective of the current paper is to study via safety audits how OHSAS 18001 certification influences safety activities and their improvement in Estonian manufacturing companies and to determine whether a non-certified company with a strong management support in safety is able to perform equally in OHS matters compared with OHSAS 18001-certified organizations.

Methodology

Based on the critical overview of the existing auditing methods, the MISHA method (Method for Industrial Safety and Health Activity Assessment) [24], as the most innovative, was chosen for the current study. Technical Research Centre of Finland (VTT) developed this audit tool in 2000 [24]. The MISHA method is primarily designed for use in the middle and large-sized industrial companies in the manufacturing and process industry. The MISHA method considers the following areas of industrial activities: A. organization and administration (safety policy and safety activities in practice, personnel management); B. participation, communication, and training; C. work environment (physical work environment, psychological working conditions, hazard analysis procedures); D. follow-up (occupational accidents and illnesses, work ability of the employees, psychological work ability). Benefits of using the MISHA method are the relatively small amount of resources and time needed and inclusion of occupational health aspects related to ability to work [25]. The audit process with the MISHA should have a leader who can be either internal or external to the organization subject to audit. Auditors should have prior experience in health and safety activities and should carefully examine the application of the method prior to audit [24].

To select industrial companies for our research, the database of Estonian Association for Quality (2014) [26] was scanned. By January 2014, 178 Estonian companies owned OHSAS 18001 certification. The scan showed that 32 % of the certified firms come from the manufacturing sector. The authors contacted each of these firms and explained briefly the purpose and the scope of the research. Finally, eight companies (representing main manufacturing areas in Estonia such as printing, textile, metal, food industry etc.) agreed to participate. In order to compare the results with non-certified organizations, eight companies with similar background were selected – four represented organizations which belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified and four were non-certified, locally established and owned companies. Altogether, 25 interviews with employers, middle-level safety personnel and with safety responsible persons were conducted. During the interviews, 55 questions (validated MISHA method) were asked from each person interviewed by an experienced health and safety auditor. After necessary coding and transcription, the results were discussed with four experts on OHS to come to an agreement whether the results are interpreted correctly. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the examined enterprises in brief.

The analyses were prepared using program IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0 and R 2.15.2. The following statistical methods were used: correlation, MANOVA, Factor Analysis Principal Component method, Independent T-test for hypothesis [27].

Table 1. The characterisation of enterprises investigated (N=16)*

Id. of the company

The activity area

Life-time, years

Size, employees

The overall assessment on safety** Likert scale***

OHSAS 18001 imple-mented

The persons interviewed:

position, age

K (Int 1)

Textile industry

11-25

50 - 249

3

-/L

Production manager, 38

L (Int 2-4)

Plastic industry

11-25

50 - 249

4

+

Quality manager, 41

Safety manager, 62

WER, 25

M (Int 5)

Furnitureindustry

> 50

50 - 249

4

+

Personnel manager, 64

N (Int 6)

Heat industry

> 50

50 - 249

5

+

Quality and environment manager, 58

O (Int 7)

Printing industry

1-10

< 50

2

-/L

Production manager, 36

P (Int 8-9)

Metal industry

> 50

≥ 250

5

-/C

Safety manager, 35

Trade union representative, 60

Q (Int 10-12)

Electronics industry

11-25

≥ 250

5

-/C

Quality manager, 36

Safety specialist, 42

WER, 53

R (Int 13-15)

Food industry

> 50

≥ 250

4

-/C

Safety specialist, 62

WER I, 34

WER II, 39

S (Int 16-18)

Electronics industry

11-25

≥ 250

5

+

Quality manager, 59

Safety manager, 39

WER, 66

T (Int 19)

Metal industry

> 50

≥ 250

5

+

Safety manager, 64

U (Int 20)

Food industry

> 50

≥ 250

5

+

Safety manager, 37

V (Int 21)

Metal industry

1-10

< 50

4

-/C

Production manager, 36

W (Int 22)

Wood processing industry

1-10

≥ 250

4

+

Quality manager, 47

X (Int 23)

Food industry

> 50

≥ 250

5

+

Safety chief specialist, 68

Y (Int 24)

Glass industry

11-25

< 50

3

-/L

Production manager, 41

Z (Int 25)

Textileindustry

11-25

≥ 250

2

-/L

Health and safety manager, 67

*Companies are listed and coded in chronological order; **assessed by expert-interviewer; ***Likert scale: 1 – poor, 2 – average, 3 – good, 4 – very good, 5 - excellent;

Abbreviations: Id. – identification; Int – interview, L – locally established and owned companies, C - organizations that belong to a larger corporation or concern, WER – working environment representative.

Results

OHSAS 18001 offers a number of benefits to companies as the standard should promote and increase the quality of management in OHS discussed in previous sections. Before conducting the research, OHSAS 18001 certified organizations were asked their perceived benefits from the certification. Table 2 shows the results (five point Likert scale). All the companies had functioned under OHSAS 18001 compliance from three to nine years. The most valuable aspect that the companies recognize is an improved safety documentation organization system. The second benefit is seen in improved company’s image, which usually is one of the main motivations to implement OHSAS 18001. Even if it is not one of the most important reasons to adopt the standard, OHSAS 18001 makes it easier to comply with safety legislation, which later gives a value for the companies.

Table 2. Results of the perceived benefits from OHSAS 18001

Perceived benefits from OHSAS 18001

Mean

Not at all important, %

Very important, %

Extremely important, %

Improved organization and documentation systems

4.88

0.0

12.5

87.5

Improved firm's image

4.25

0.0

25.0

50.0

Improved firm's compliance with legal obligations

4.13

0.0

25.0

50.0

Improved working conditions

3.88

0.0

25.0

37.5

Improved customer satisfaction

3.75

12.5

25.0

37.5

Improved employee satisfaction

3.63

0.0

37.5

25.0

Improved relations with suppliers and contractors

3.38

25.0

37.5

25.0

Improved relations with public authorities

3.38

25.0

25.0

37.5

Improved production times

3.25

25.0

25.0

25.0

Improved employee motivation

3.13

12.5

50.0

0.0

Improved product quality

2.88

37.5

12.5

25.0

Reduced waste

2.38

37.5

12.5

12.5

Improved firm's profitability

2.75

37.5

0.0

25.0

Increased sales

2.13

37.5

0.0

0.0

The authors stated 11 hypotheses (see Table 3) connected with OHSAS18001 certification and safety enhancement in the companies, which can be derived as benefits. It was possible to examine all of them statistically by the MISHA method. The hypotheses were tested using Hotelling’s T-square test statistics [27]. Sampling adequacy was controlled by the Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure [27]. For these data, the KMO value is 0.83, which falls into the range of being great, so we should be confident that the sample size is adequate for the factor analysis.

As the results (Table 3) reveal, we can provide support for all hypotheses except H7 (‘There is a difference in psychosocial climate for OHSAS 18001-certified and non-certified organizations’) and H10 (‘Physical workability is more appreciated in OHSAS 18001-certified organizations’) while comparing OHSAS 18001-certified (OHSAS) organizations with non-certified, locally established and owned (NOHSASL) companies. The explanation behind H7 may be the fact that OHSAS 18001 does not emphasize psychosocial climate as one of its key elements. The study showed that most of the examined companies, irrespective of owning an OHSAS 18001 certificate, have low knowledge and conception of how to deal with psychosocial hazards. Hypothesis H10 is not supported, while the study revealed that physical workability, irrespective of the company type, is not assessed because of no general policy of how to measure and deal with employees’ workability. Our comparison of OHSAS 18001-certified organizations and organizations which belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified (NOHSASC) revealed that none of the hypotheses were supported. This demonstrates that the level of OHS management in these companies is compatible with OHSAS 18001-certified companies, as their safety activities are regular, properly established, monitored, revised etc.

Table 3. Statistical analysis of the hypotheses

Hypothesis*

Hotelling's T-square test statistic

P-value

Confidence intervals

lower

upper

H1: OHSAS 18001 helps to disseminate the information on all levels of organization

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

11.128

0.008

14.825

51.152

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.280

0.608

-25.029

18.092

H2: Written safety policy plays an important role in OHS management.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

259.461

0.000

68.870

90.982

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.621

0.449

-5.997

12.565

H3: OHSAS 18001 helps more effectively to organize OHS activities in the companies

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

8.944

0.014

7.701

52.714

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.193

0.670

-18.963

12.713

H4: OHSAS 18001 promotes supervisors’ and employees’ interaction

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

5.132

0.047

0.456

55.099

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.310

0.590

-34.747

20.857

H5: Employees are better trained in OHS in OHSAS 18011-cerfitied companies.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

23.3383

0.001

19.644

53.278

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.145

0.711

-7.136

5.053

H6: OHSAS 18001 improves the development of the physical working conditions.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

15.167

0.003

9.046

33.237

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.267

0.617

-9.854

6.146

H7: There is a difference in psychosocial climate for OHSAS 18001-certified and non-certified organizations.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

2.076

0.180

-7.842

36.552

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

2.593

0.138

-33.104

5.329

H8: Occupational health service activities are better organized in OHSAS 18001-certified organizations.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

11.128

0.008

9.686

48.654

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.280

0.608

-14.473

8.918

H9: OHSAS 18001 favours registration and investigation of accidents, illnesses and near misses.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

25.783

0.000

30.919

79.271

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.207

0.659

-24.558

16.229

H10: Physical workability is more appreciated in OHSAS 18001-certified organizations.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

1.808

0.208

-29.522

7.302

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.044

0.839

-24.337

20.167

H11: Social work environment is regularly monitored in OHSAS 18001-certified organizations.

OHSAS VS NOHSASL

32.523

0.000

48.236

110.099

OHSAS VS NOHSASC

0.968

0.348

-40.813

15.813

*F critical value = 4.964603; Abbreviations: OHSAS – OHSAS 18001-certified companies, NOHSASL – Non-certified, locally established and owned companies, NOHSASC – Organizations which belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified

Using MISHA method as the audit method, the total activity scores (Table 4) varied 73.94…93.33 for OHSAS companies, 79.80…88.08 for NOHSASC companies and 29.10…52.73 for NOHSASL companies. This demonstrates that normally, companies who have implemented OHSAS 18001 benefit from it in safety performance as the activity scores are considerably higher than for non-certified, locally owned companies. It shows that the safety management systems owned and run by local businessmen may lack in several OHS activity areas. The reasons may lay behind lack of resources, knowledge and skills, time while companies belonging to corporations are able to prioritize safety more. Table 4 also demonstrates that the activity scores for OHSAS 18001-certified organisations and NOSHASC vary slightly – which means that the companies with no OHSAS 18001 certification but belonging to a concern can function as safely as the ones having the certification as the corporations have their own developed safety systems. This was also proved by the statistical analysis of the hypotheses.

Table 4. Activity rating according to framework elements calculated by MISHA method (total score=100)

Type

Industry, id. of the company

A: Organisation and administration

B: Training and motivation

C:

Work environment

D:

Follow up

Total activity score

NOHSASL

Textile industry, K

31.88

57.58

60.00

44.44

46.67

Printing industry, O

24.64

33.33

35.56

22.22

29.09

Glass industry, Y

31.88

54.55

57.78

16.67

41.82

Textile industry, Z

37.68

60.61

73.33

44.44

52.73

NOHSASC

Metal industry, P

86.96

96.97

90.00

69.44

87.88

Electronics industry, Q

88.89

97.98

81.48

83.33

88.08

Food industry, R

85.51

86.87

74.07

59.26

79.80

Metal industry, V

89.86

69.70

84.44

77.78

83.03

OHSAS

Plastic industry, L

85.02

68.69

74.07

42.59

73.94

Furniture industry, M

85.51

78.79

75.56

61.11

78.79

Heat industry, N

92.75

87.88

80.00

66.67

85.45

Electronics industry, S

91.30

90.91

79.26

75.93

86.26

Metal industry, T

89.86

87.88

75.56

83.33

84.85

Food industry, U

84.06

78.79

71.11

72.22

78.18

Wood processing industry, W

69.57

81.82

80.00

72.22

75.15

Food industry, X

97.10

100.00

88.89

77.78

93.33

Plastic industry, L

37.68

60.61

73.33

44.44

52.73

Abbreviations: OHSAS – OHSAS 18001-certified companies, NOHSASL – Non-certified, locally established and owned companies, NOHSASC – Organizations that belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified

Table 5 presents the mean scores (0-3 scale) according to the activity area by the MISHA method. Each four-category framework element consists of three activity areas, which are examined by 55 specific items in the form of various interview questions/considerations. OHSAS 18001 requires preparation and implementation of a safety policy (A1). The results of our study showed that all OHSAS companies possessed their safety policy. Similarly, slightly lower results were gained by NOHSASC companies, which shows their awareness of the importance of engaging OHS activities in general organizational procedures. However, all the investigated NOHSASL companies strongly lacked activities in the area of safety policy.

With regard to safety activities in practice (A2), our research revealed no strong dependence on the company type – NOHSASC companies had equal or even higher scores, some local companies earned equally high points as well. In all types of companies, safety personnel and their responsibilities were usually designated. In smaller companies, no full-time safety manager was hired; often a production manager or personnel manager fulfils the duties during the working hours. All the companies had elected a working environment representative according to the OHS Act [28]. Most of the companies had short-term plans about human resources; but no long-term views were generated. The reason the interviewees gave was that according to common practice, market needs are changing quickly [29]. No changes were detected between OHSAS and NOHSASC, but NOHSASL gained considerably lower scores, as they deal with personnel management ad hoc.

Table 5. The mean scores (0-3 Scale) according to the activity area by the MISHA method

Type

Industry, id. of the company

A1*

A2*

A3*

B1*

B2*

B3*

C1*

C2*

C3*

D1*

D2*

D3*

   

Organization and administration

Training and motivation

Work environment

Follow up

NOHSASL

Textile industry, K

0.36

1.63

1.50

1.67

1.50

2.00

2.22

1.33

1.00

1.33

1.50

1.00

Printing industry, O

0.73

0.75

0.75

1.00

1.00

1.00

1.44

0.67

0.33

0.67

1.00

0.00

Glass industry, Y

0.09

2.13

1.00

2.00

1.50

1.50

2.11

1.33

1.00

0.33

1.00

0.00

Textileindustry, Z

0.36

2.25

1.33

1.00

1.75

2.50

2.33

2.00

2.00

1.67

1.50

0.00

NOHSASC

Metal industry, P

2.68

2.63

2.38

2.83

2.88

3.00

2.94

2.50

2.17

2.33

1.25

3.00

Electronics industry, Q

2.71

2.67

2.42

2.78

3.00

3.00

2.70

2.11

2.00

3.00

1.50

3.00

Food industry, R

2.76

2.46

2.25

2.56

2.50

2.75

2.56

1.78

1.67

2.78

0.17

3.00

Metal industry, V

2.55

3.00

2.50

1.67

1.75

2.75

2.67

2.33

2.33

3.00

1.00

3.00

OHSAS

Plastic industry, L

2.58

2.67

2.25

1.56

1.75

2.75

2.59

1.78

1.56

1.67

0.33

2.00

 

Furnitureindustry, M

2.91

2.25

2.25

2.33

2.00

2.75

2.44

2.00

2.00

2.33

1.50

1.00

Heat industry, N

3.00

3.00

2.50

2.67

2.25

3.00

2.67

2.33

1.67

2.33

1.00

3.00

Electronics industry, S

2.97

2.58

2.42

2.78

2.67

2.75

2.70

1.67

2.11

2.89

1.00

3.00

Metal industry, T

2.82

2.88

2.00

2.67

2.25

3.00

2.67

1.33

2.00

3.00

1.50

3.00

Food industry, U

2.64

2.50

2.25

1.33

2.75

2.75

2.44

1.00

2.33

3.00

0.50

3.00

Wood processing industry, W

2.36

1.88

1.75

1.67

2.75

2.75

2.78

1.67

2.00

3.00

0.50

3.00

Food industry, X

3.00

3.00

2.50

3.00

3.00

3.00

3.00

2.33

2.00

3.00

1.00

3.00

*A1: Safety policy; A2: Safety activities in practice; A3: Personnel management; B1: Participation; B2: Communication; B3: Personnel safety training; C1 Physical work environment; C2: Psychological working conditions; C3: Hazard analysis procedures; D1: Occupational accidents and illnesses; D2: Work ability of the employees; D3: Social work environment.

Abbreviations: OHSAS – OHSAS 18001-certified companies, NOHSASL – Non-certified, locally established and owned companies, NOHSASC – Organizations that belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified

OHSAS and NOHSASC companies actively engage supervisors to communicate with employees and encourage employee participation to improve working environment conditions (B1). Both company types gained high scores while NOHSASL companies stand at considerably lower scores. The same conclusion can be drawn for communication procedures (B2). OHSAS and NOHSASC companies demonstrated exceptionally high result in personnel safety training (B3), while NOHSASL companies gained lower points mainly because their employees participated more seldom in preparing work instructions. Differences between company types while dealing with physical work environment (C1) were not very pronounced, however OHSAS organization showed a very high level of assessment of chemical hazards and risk of major hazards. These factors were explored thoroughly because of the integrated system – all interviewed OHSAS 18001-certified organizations are certified also after ISO 14001 [36], which pays special attention to chemicals used in the enterprise. One of the hypotheses that was not statistically supported was H7, which concerns psychosocial hazards. The results in Table IV show that the scores for psychological working conditions were low and none of company types were distinguished. As mentioned before, knowledge about psychosocial hazards among managers in Estonia is still low. Hazard analysis procedures (C3) showed lower points for NOHSASL companies mainly due to lack of action plans after the risk assessment procedure and weak collaboration with OHS service providers. Almost all OHSAS companies actively collected and analyzed accidents statistics and investigated accidents and near-accidents (D1). The same trend could be followed among NOHSASC companies, as it is important for the corporation to compare different subdivisions and their safety activities. The lowest scores among all company types were gained for work ability of the employees (D2). None of the companies had a systematic view for the rehabilitation for persons whose work ability has decreased. There was generally no policy how to ensure elderly personnel’s work ability. In several companies, the work satisfaction survey was conducted regularly (usually outsourced), but psychological hazards questionnaires were hardly used. Some companies stated that dealing with this issue depends strongly on the management attitudes and knowledge [29]. All NOHSASC companies were distinguished with assessments of the social working environment through climate surveys. Most of OHSAS companies gained the same results. Almost none of the NOHSASL companies conducted social climate surveys and therefore gained considerably lower scores.

Discussion

The globalization and constant competition in the world-wide market has encouraged companies to implement various standards to demonstrate engagement for quality, environment and OHS. The OHSAS 18001 standard has gained highest acceptance in managing OHS in the manufacturing industry. Several authors worldwide have studied the impact of OHSAS 18001, but in Estonia the manufacturing industry OHSAS 18001 certification has not gained too much attention yet.

In our study, the investigated OHSAS companies perceived benefits from OHSAS 18001 certification as follows: (1) improved documentation management, (2) improved company’s image and (3) better conformity of legal obligations. The same results were obtained by Fernandez-Muniz et al. [16, 17] in Spanish owned SMEs: that OHSAS 18001 helps companies to comply with their legal obligations, improve their organization and documentation system as well as enhance their corporate image. Another Spanish study [30] indicated that the adoption of OHSAS 18001 standard decreases the rate of work accident and that OHSAS 18001 can be used as a long-run strategic tool to achieve objectives that go beyond safety outcomes. They concluded that businesses who adopted OHSAS 18001 show significant improvements in safety performance and labour productivity.

The current study supports different positive hypotheses about OHSAS 18001 benefits: it favors registration of accidents, illnesses and near misses; it supports regular monitoring of social work environment; contributes to more effective safety training etc. However, two of the postulated hypotheses were not confirmed: no difference in psychosocial climate between OHSAS and NOHSASL companies and higher appreciation on physical workability was observed. Hohnen and Hasle [31] noticed the same shortcomings in their study, especially lack of concern about psychosocial work environment in an OHSAS company.

In our study, according to the results of audits, it can be concluded that in OHSAS companies OHS management functioned both on paper and in practice. However, in one or two cases doubts of window dressing and maintaining the system without practical value were perceived. A similar problem was encountered in a Danish study by Granerud and Rocha [18]. They demonstrated that five OHSAS 18001-certified manufacturing companies addressed health and safety issues in very different ways, including one manufacturer where the coupling took place and no legal requirements were compiled. The study raises the question of the impartiality of the certification agencies. In conclusion, Granerund and Rocha stated that OHSAS 18001 certification will not necessarily lead to higher levels of safety performance neither does it obstruct more advanced or innovative practices. OHSAS 18001 can strengthen structured initiatives, feedback possibilities, helps to create higher levels of transparency among companies and supports the consultation of blue-collar representatives in performance reporting and evaluation.

Conclusions

Our study also explored the differences between three company types: OHSAS, NOHSASL and NOHSASC. The results showed that companies within a larger corporation were able to operate as efficiently as OHSAS companies since their OHS management system is strongly supported by corporate policy, standards, guidelines etc. Based on this, we can say that safety management system can be effectively implemented also without possessing OHSAS 18001 certification, but in Estonian economy market, it usually requires affiliation to a larger corporation or concern.

In conclusion, based on quantitative and qualitative data, the study shows that OHSAS 18001 contributes substantially to the establishment of company’s written safety policy, development of physical work conditions, training needs of systematic training approach, better dissemination of information in all levels of organization, occupational health service activities, more effective supervisors and employees interaction, frequent accidents and illnesses registration and investigation, and regular monitoring of social work environment. Our results indicate that OHSAS 18001 provides no support for assessing psychosocial climate and physical work ability.

Acknowledgement

A preliminary version of this paper was presented in the Congress ORPconference 2015.

References

  1. Bottani, E., Monica, L. & Vignali, G. 2009. Safety management systems: performance differences between adopters and non-adopters. Safety Science 47(2), 155-162.
  2. Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás C.J.  2009. Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance. Safety Science 47 (7), 980-991.
  3. Kamp, A. & Blansch, K. L. 2000. Integrating management of OHS and the environment: participation, prevention and control. In: Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management. Perspectives on an International Development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Frick, K., Jensen, P.L.,Quinlan, M. and Wilthagen, T. (eds).
  4. Mežinska, I., Lapiņa, I. & Mazais, J. 2015. Integrated management systems towards sustainable and socially responsible organisation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, 26:5-6, 469-481.
  5. Möldri, M., Tammepuu, A., Tint, P., Paas, Õ. & Laaniste, P. 2012. Integration of the SMS to IMS  in Estonian Seveso II establishments: selected case studies. Brebbia, C. A. (ed.). Risk Analysis VIII. ArhurstLodge, Arhurs, Southampton: Wessex Institute of Technology Press. 227-236.
  6. Rebelo, M. F., Santos, G., & Silva, R. 2014. A generic model for integration of Quality, Environment and Safety Management Systems. The TQM Journal  26 (2), 143 – 159.
  7. Yorio, P. L., Willmer, D. R. & Moore, S. M. 2015. Health and safety management systems through a multilevel and strategic management perspective: Theoretical and empirical considerations. Safety Science 72 (2), 221–228.
  8. Directive 89/391/EEC. 1989. OSH Framework Directive of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Official Journal of the European Union (OJL), 183: 1-8, 29.06.1989.
  9. Frick, K. & Wren, J. 2000. Reviewing occupational health and safety management: multiple roots, diverse perspectives and ambiguous outcomes. In: Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management. Perspectives on an International Development. Emerald Group Publishing Limited. Frick, K., Jensen, P.L.,Quinlan, M. and Wilthagen, T. (eds).
  10. ILO. 2001. Guidelines of the safety and health management systems. (ILO-OSH-01), Geneva: International Labour Office.
  11. BSI (British Standard Institution). 2004.  Guide to occupational health and safety management systems. British Standard institution, BS 8800:2004 BSI, London.
  12. OHSAS Project Group. 2007. OHSAS 18001:2007. SMSs – requirements.
  13. EVS 18001:2007 (OHSAS 18001). 2007. SMSs, Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series. Estonian Centre for Standardization (in Estonian).
  14. Drais,E., Favaro, M., & Aubertin, G. 2002. Les systems de management santé-sécurité en enterprise: caractéristiques et conditions de mise en oeuvre. Institut National de la Recherche et de la Sécurité, Paris.
  15. INRS. 2004. Vers le management de la santé et de la sécurité au travail. Institut National de Recherche et de Sante, Paris.
  16. Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás C.J. 2012a. Occupational risk management under the OHSAS 18001 standard: analysis of perceptions and attitudes of certified firms. Journal of Cleaner Production 24, 36-47.
  17. Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás C.J. 2012b. Safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety behaviour. Accident Analysis and Prevention 45, 745-758.
  18. Granerud, L. & Rocha, R. S. 2011.Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health and safety in certified manufacturers. Safety Science 49, 1030–1039.
  19. Hale, A.  2009. Why safety performance indicators? Safety Science 47, 479-480.
  20. Koivupalo, M., Sulasalmi, M., Rodrigo, P. & Väyrynen, S. 2015. Health and safety management in a changing organisation: Case study global steel company. Safety Science 74, 128–139.
  21. Nielsen, K. J. 2000. Organizational theories implicit in various approaches to OHS management. In: Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: Perspectives on an International Development, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Bingley. Frick, K., Jensen, P.L., Quinlan, M., Wilthagen, T. (eds.).
  22. Rocha, R.S. 2010. Institutional effects on occupational health and safety management systems. Human Factors in Ergonomics and Manufacturing 20, 211–225.
  23. Torp, S., Riise, T. & Moen, B.E. 2000. Systematic health, environment and safety activities: do they influence occupational environment, behaviour and health? Occupational Medicine (Oxford) 50, 326-333, 2000.
  24. Kuusisto, A. 2000. Safety management systems: Audit tools and reliability of auditing [dissertation]. Tampere (Finland): Tampere University of Technology.
  25. Peltonen, J. Review of SMS Audit Techniques and Methods – Final Report. European Railway Agency, pp. 249, 2013
  26. Estonian Association for Quality. The database of certified organization, http://eaq.ee/sisu/sertifikaatide-andmebaas, 05.01.2015.  
  27. Field, A. 2013. Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. Fourth Edition, SAGE Publications Ltd, London.
  28. Occupational Health and Safety Act of Estonia. 1999. State Gazette in Estonia, RT I 1999, 60, 616.
  29. Paas, Õ., Reinhold, K. & Tint, P. 2015. Estimation of safety performance by MISHA method and the benefits of OHSAS 18001 implementation in Estonian manufacturing industry. Agronomy Research, Vol. 13, 792-809.
  30. Abad, J., Lafuente, E. & Vilajosana, J. 2013. An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 process: Objective drivers and consequences on safety performance and labour productivity. Safety Science, Vol. 60, 47-56.
  31. Hohnen, P. & Hasle, P. 2011. Making work environment auditable – A ‘critical case’ study of certified SMSs in Denmark. Safety Science, Vol.  49, 1022-1029.

Papers relacionados

ORP 2015
FRANCISCO
GARCIA REYES
INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL, CECyT 7 "CUAUHTÉMOC"
México
ORP 2015
José Luís
Tagle Vargas
INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL, CECyT 7 "CUAUHTÉMOC"
México
ORP 2015
Luciana
De Freitas Campos
Universidad Federal de los Vales del Jequitinhonha y Mucuri
Brasil
ORP 2015
Rodolfo
Vega García
INSTITUTO POLITÉCNICO NACIONAL, CECCyT 7 CUAUHTÉMOC
México
ORP 2015
Núria
Talavera Pedrol
Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya
España