DESIGN FOR OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY:PARTICIPATIVE APPROACHES TO RESPOND TO THE EMERGING HAZARDS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

PARTICIPATIVE APPROACHES TO RESPOND TO THE EMERGING HAZARDS OF NEW TECHNOLOGIES

Hazard control for new technologies requires a process that will be dynamic enough to be able to deal with the increasing rate of hazards caused by technological change. Research on successful safety program performance in plants with high hazard potential has shown a number of factors that contribute to success (Cohen 1977; Smith et al. 1978). These are having a formal, structured program so people know where to go for help, management commitment and involvement in the program, good communications between supervisors and workers, and worker involvement in the safety and health activities. These considerations are important because they provide a framework for cooper- ation between management and employees in identifying and controlling hazards. These factors par- allel the basic underlying principles of quality management, social democracy, hazard surveys, ergonomic committees, and other employee-involvement approaches that will be discussed below— that is, developing management and employee cooperation, participation, and honest exchange of ideas about problems in a controlled format.

Quality Improvement

The development of total quality management (TQM) approaches may produce some positive results with regard to occupational safety and health (Zink 1999). Power and Fallon (1999) have proposed TQM as a framework for integration of health and safety activities with other functions. They argue that the practice of safety management should include the following TQM principles: management commitment to occupational safety and health objectives, plans and policies; development of a health and safety culture; employee involvement in safety activities, such as risk assessment and training of new employees; measurement and monitoring of health and safety performance; and continuous improvement. Smith (1999) has proposed a model for integrating ergonomics, safety, and quality based on behavioral cybernetics. From a behavioral cybernetics perspective, participatory ergonomics and safety and quality management are effective because they enable workers to control sensory feedback from job-related decisions or working conditions that affect them and in turn to generate sensory feedback for the control and benefit of other workers. Worker involvement in decision mak- ing, worker control over the production process, and job enrichment enhance the overall level of worker self-control. Use of workers as resource specialists and emphasis on skill development can benefit the integration of ergonomics, safety management, and quality management of the organiza- tion.

International Organization for Standardization

The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) has been developing technical standards over many sectors of business, industry, and technology since 1947. With the exception of ISO 9000 and ISO 14000, the vast majority of ISO standards are highly specific. They are documented agree- ments containing technical specifications or other precise criteria to be used consistently as rules, guidelines, or definitions of characteristics. The goal of these standards is to ensure that materials, products, processes, and services are fit for their purpose. Then in 1987 came ISO 9000, followed nearly 10 years later by ISO 14000. These two standards are very different from the majority of ISO’s highly specific standards.

ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 are known as generic management system standards. Management system standards provide the organization with a model to follow in setting up and operating the management system. ISO 9000 is concerned with quality management, whereas ISO 14000 is con- cerned with environmental management. Quality management regards what the organization does to ensure that its products conform to the customer’s requirements. Environmental management regards what the organization does to minimize harmful effects on the environment caused by its activities. Both ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 concern the way an organization goes about its work, and not directly the result of this work. That is, ISO 9000 and ISO 14000 concern processes, and not products, at least directly. Both standards provide requirements for what the organization must do to manage processes influencing quality (ISO 9000) or the processes influencing the impact on the environment (ISO 14000).

The ISO 9000 family of standards currently contains over 20 standards and documents. By the end of the year 2000, a new version of the ISO 9000 quality management standards was issued. The three primary standards in the Year 2000 ISO 9000 are:

• ISO 9000: Quality management systems—Fundamentals and vocabulary

• ISO 9001: Quality management systems—Requirements

• ISO 9004: Quality management systems—Guidance for performance improvement.

The new ISO 9000 family of quality management standards is being developed to achieve a coherent terminology with the ISO 14000 family and other management standards, including possibly an OSH management standard.

In 1996, the ISO held an international conference in Geneva to test stakeholder views on devel- oping a standard on occupational health and safety. Given the limited support from the main stake- holders for the ISO to develop international standards in this field, ISO decided that no further action should be taken. Recently, the ISO has reopened the issue of whether to develop management system standards to help organizations meet their responsibilities. The British Standards Institution (BSI) has submitted a proposal to the ISO for creation of a new ISO technical committee on OHS management standards. The BSI has proposed to transform BS 8800, the British ‘‘noncertifiable’’ OHS manage- ment system guidelines, into an ISO standard. The ISO is looking into the issue of whether or not to develop an occupational health and safety management standard.

Many companies have invested considerable resources in order to obtain certification of their quality management systems according to the ISO 9000 standards. From a safety point of view, one may wonder whether the implementation of ISO 9000 management systems can encourage the de- velopment of safer and healthier work environments. In Sweden, Karltun et al. (1998) examined the influences on working conditions, following the implementation of ISO 9000 quality systems in six small and medium-sized companies. Improvements to the physical work environment triggered by the ISO implementation process were very few. There were improvements in housekeeping and production methods. Other positive aspects present in some of the companies included job enrichment and a better of understanding of employees’ role and importance to production. However, the imple- mentation of ISO 9000 was accompanied by increased physical strain, stress, and feelings of lower appreciation. According to Karltun and his colleagues (1998), improved working conditions could be triggered by the implementation of ISO quality management standards if additional goals, such as improved working conditions, are considered by top management and if a participative imple- mentation process is used. Others have argued that quality management systems and environmental management systems can be designed to address occupational health and safety (Wettberg 1999;

Martin 1999). A study by Eklund (1995) showed a relationship between ergonomics and quality in assembly work. Tasks that had ergonomic problems (e.g., physical and psychological demands) were also the tasks that had quality deficiencies. The evidence for the integration between quality man- agement and occupational safety and health is weak. However, there is reason to believe that improved health and safety can be achieved in the context of the implementation of ISO 9000 management standards.

Social Democracy

One framework for addressing the health and safety issues of new technology is the social democratic approach practiced in Norway and Sweden (Emery and Thorsrud 1969; Gardell 1977). This approach is based on the concept that workers have a right to participate in decisions about their working conditions and how their jobs are undertaken. In Sweden, there are two central federal laws that establish the background for health and safety. One, similar to U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act, established agencies to develop and enforce standards as well as to conduct research. The second is the Law of Codetermination, which legislates the right of worker representatives to participate in decision making on all aspects of work. This law is effective because over 90% of the Swedish blue- and white-collar workforce belong to a labor union and the unions take the lead in representing the interests of the employees in matters pertaining to working conditions, including health and safety. The Scandinavian approach puts more emphasis on the quality of working life in achieving worker health and well being. Thus, there is emphasis on ensuring that job design and technology imple- mentation do not produce physical and psychological stress. This produces discussion and action when safety and health problems are first reported.

Hazard Survey

Organizational and job-design experts have long proposed that employee involvement in work en- hances motivation and produces production and product quality benefits (Lawler 1986). Smith and Beringer (1986) and Zimolong (1997) have recommended that employees be involved in safety programming and hazard recognition to promote safety motivation and awareness. An effective ex- ample of using this concept in health and safety is the hazard survey program (Smith 1973; Smith and Beringer 1986). Smith et al. (1971) showed that most occupational hazards were either transient or due to improper organizational or individual behavior. Such hazards are not likely to be observed during formal inspections by safety staff or compliance inspections by state or federal inspectors. The theory proposes that the way to keep on top of these transient and behavioral hazards is to have them identified on a continuous basis by the employees as they occur through employee participation.

One approach that gets employee involvement is the hazard survey. While inspection and illness/ injury analysis systems can be expected to uncover a number of workplace hazards, they cannot define all of the hazards. Many hazards are dynamic and occur only infrequently. Thus, they may not be seen during an inspection or may not be reported as a causal factor in an illness or injury. To deal with hazards that involve dynamically changing working conditions and / or worker behaviors requires a continuously operating hazard-identification system. The hazard survey is a cooperative program between employees and managers to identify and control hazards. Since the employee is in direct contact with hazards on a daily basis, it is logical to use employees’ knowledge of hazards in their identification. The information gathered from employees can serve as the basis of a continuous hazard identification system that can be used by management to control dynamic workplace hazards.

A central concept of this approach is that hazards exist in many forms as fixed physical conditions, as changing physical conditions, as worker behaviors, and as an operational interaction that causes a mismatch between worker behavior and physical conditions (Smith 1973). This concept defines worker behavior as a critical component in the recognition and control of all of these hazards. Involving workers in hazard recognition sensitizes them to their work environment and acts as a motivator to use safe work behaviors. Such behaviors include using safe work procedures to reduce hazard potential, using compensatory behaviors when exposed to a known hazard, or using avoidance behaviors to keep away from known hazards. The hazard survey program also establishes commu- nication between supervisors and employees about hazards.

The first step in a hazard survey program is to formalize the lines of communication. A primary purpose of this communication network is to get critical hazard information to decision makers as quickly as possible so that action can be taken to avert an exposure or accident. Traditional com- munication routes in most companies do not allow for quick communication between workers and decision makers, and thus serious hazards may not be corrected before an exposure or accident occurs. Each company has an established organizational structure that can be used to set up a formalized communication network. For instance, most companies are broken into departments or work units. These can serve as the primary segments within which workers report hazards. These hazards can be dealt with at the departmental level or communicated to higher-level decision makers for action.

Once primary communication units are established, a process to communicate hazard information has to be established. This requires structure and rules. The structure of the program should be simple so that information can flow quickly and accurately. It is important to designate a company decision maker who has the responsibility and authority to respond to serious hazards through the expenditure of company resources. Sometimes the hazards can be dealt with immediately at the departmental level by the supervisor. This is often true when large expenditures are not involved. Each department may decide to select someone in that department to serve as the primary communication source between the workers in the department and the supervisor. Hazards are reported directly to this person, who then reports them to the supervisor or, in the case of a serious hazard, immediately to the company decision maker.

It is best to have a formal procedure for recording employee-identified hazards. This can be easily accomplished by a hazard form that provides a written record of the hazard, its location, and other pertinent information, such as the number of employees exposed and possible hazard-control mea- sures. These forms can be distributed to each employee and be available from the department com- mittee member. Employees may wish to express their views about the existence of potential hazards anonymously on the forms. Employees should report near-miss accidents, property damage incidents, and potential injury-producing hazards. It is essential in a program such as this that employees be given anonymity if desired and that they be assured that no action will be taken against them for their participation (even if they report silly hazards).

Once hazards have been examined, rated, and ranked by the committee, some plan of action for their control should be developed either by the committee or by company management. The results of the hazards review by the committee and the action to be taken should be fed back to employees. Experience using this type of program indicates that for every 100 hazards reported, 1 is very serious, needing immediate action, 24 require attention quickly to avert a potential accident, 50 require some minor action to improve the quality of working conditions but do not concern a serious hazard, and 25 concern gripes and hassles of employees that are not related to safety hazards.

Employees are expected to fulfill the following duties in this program:

1. Examine the workplace to determine whether there are hazards

2. Report hazards on the form and return it to the department committee member or supervisor

3. Make an effort to find out what has happened to the hazard(s) reported

4. Continue to report hazards as they are observed

This program will provide continuous monitoring of safety hazards using employee input. This par- ticipation should stimulate employee awareness of safety and motivate the employees to work more safely. The continued use of the program should encourage the employees to have a vested interest in their safety and that of their fellow employees. This sense of involvement can carry over into improvement in individual work habits.

Employee / Management Ergonomics Committee

Another employee-involvement approach that could be successful in addressing some of the emerging issues of new technology is the joint union / management ergonomic committee (Hagglund 1981). This approach starts with a joint training course for union stewards and line managers about the hazards of chronic trauma and possible ergonomic interventions to resolve these problems. The course covers how to recognize ergonomic hazards, how to measure the hazard potential, and how to develop dialogue and cooperation between labor and management. This training is led by a facilitator (typi- cally a university staff person), and is conducted at the company during work hours. Employees and supervisors are given time from their jobs to participate, which demonstrates the importance of the program. One main purpose of the training is to generate discussion between line managers / super- visors and union representatives about specific hazards and worker perceptions. This give and take develops an understanding of the other person’s perspective and concerns. It often generates good solutions, especially toward the end of the course, when an understanding of the course technical material is integrated within the specific context of the plant.

After the training, an ergonomics committee composed of top management, select line manage- ment, and select union stewards is established that meets on a regular basis to discuss ergonomic problems and potential solutions. Employees with ergonomic problems can report them to a member of this committee, which typically tends to be a union steward. Semiannual retraining is given to the ergonomics committee on emerging issues that are generated by the kinds of problems being reported at the company. This approach has been extremely successful in reducing the extent of chronic trauma in electronic assembly plants in Wisconsin.

CONCLUSIONS

Designing for successful occupational health and safety performance requires a systematic approach. This includes understanding that the workplace is a system where changes in one element lead to influences on the other system components. It also means that efforts to make improvements must be multifaceted and address all of the elements of the work system. Health and safety improvements begin with an understanding of the hazards, the evaluation of injury and illness experience, the development of interventions, the implementation of improvements, follow-up to evaluate the results of improvements, and continuous efforts of evaluation and improvement. Good programming starts at the top of the company and includes all levels of the organizational structure. Employee input and involvement are critical for success. Often there is a need for technical expertise when dealing with complex or new hazards. In the end, having everyone in the company alert to health and safety issues should lead to improved health and safety performance.