Case studies undertaken in The Netherlands and Denmark indicate that OHS and environmental management are linked in two ways. The first is on a technical basis stemming from the notion that hazard sources are similar and therefore these programs have synergies.1 When managing physical environment risks using an OHS management system this concurrently contributes to the prevention of environmental damage.
Likewise, environmental management strategies can have a positive impact on health and safety.
The second way in which they are linked is the effect on the organizational culture. Providing workers with the opportunities for improved participation allows the firm to achieve leverage that results in the flow-on of ideas to environmental management.1 Accordingly, productive safety management not only proposes a new perspective on
Physical environment 119 risk management which integrates safety and production as compatible goals using a multi-disciplinary approach, but also provides the systems for a supportive culture. Employee participation is fundamental to this culture because organizational achievement requires each individual to take ownership of safety. It also requires management systems that encourage and reward this ownership.
In relation to the multi-disciplinary approach, there has been some debate concerning whether OHS and environmental management should be integrated. Some authors propose that there is a threat of OHS management becoming relegated to low priority:
Much stronger than is the case for OHS management, in environmental management there is an emphasis on external control, a requirement of supply chain management, and of responsibility for product effects during their entire life cycle.
As a consequence, the material topics that are dealt with in environmental management may have stronger links to all pervasive risks – and thus to strategic company issues – than those on OHS management.1
This perspective on environmental management assumes that it is a very broad area of risk management that includes product quality control as a means of preventing injuries or damages which may be caused by the company’s goods after they have been sold. This is an attempt to merge quality and environmental management. In addition, it has been suggested that attempting to integrate all these disciplines can have serious consequences for OHS processes. When quality and OHS management systems are amalgamated, OHS auditing becomes very complex:
It is not enough for the auditor to establish that there are arrangements in place to address a particular element of the health and safety management ‘standard’ and that those arrangements are followed. The auditor needs to establish that the particular arrangements are adequate relative to the hazards and risks associated with the organisation’s activities.2
The entropy model provides a simpler explanation of how these management areas are related. If entropic and residual risks are effectively managed and system factors are shifted towards optimal performance and safety, the firm’s products should also become safer. This is because the productive safety culture involves the permeation of risk consciousness into all areas of business activity including product design and manufacturing. Employees develop an understanding of the nature of risk and the effect their competencies and attitudes have on safety, system factor quality and productivity. In manufacturing firms, therefore, they should also understand how these risk factors affect product quality, particularly at the production stage. As employees’ competencies and risk awareness improve, an enhanced appreciation of how residual risks and degradation of components can be remedied or controlled to improve the quality of company goods should also result.
OHS, environmental management and quality assurance are also linked through the relationship between companies and their suppliers.
120 Productive Safety Management
In Chapter 4 it was suggested that stronger interdependencies should be developed in the business sector between suppliers and customers.
This should involve increased information sharing better to manage risks, to reduce product residual risks and the tendency of technologies to degrade. Through linkages in the supply chain there are opportunities to improve product development by responding to customer feed-back, and thus to achieve higher standards of safety and health in workplaces with the availability of safer technologies and workplace design systems. In addition, such improvements should contribute towards the minimization of negative environmental impacts of technology use.
The relationship between the three management disciplines can be explained further using the entropy model. Each discipline aims to enhance the quality of system factors and is affected by residual and entropic risk levels. For example, the hazards associated with the physical environment have implications for both safety and environmental management with failures having the potential to create injury or damage. To manage environmental risks effectively therefore, the company’s environmental and OHS management plans must be aligned. For instance, where there is a risk of hazardous run-off from a processing plant contaminating a nearby waterway, the control of such risks needs to be considered in both plans because it has both environmental and health implications. In addition, both disciplines need to be part of a total management system in which production and safety are compatible goals. The environment cannot be managed well where the company culture allows output to take precedence over safety because this compromises both safety and environmental care. In addition, these disciplines are concerned with maintaining the quality and integrity of the physical environment, as evident in legislation requiring the rehabilitation of company sites to ensure that, as far as is practicable, such sites are returned to their natural condition and are made safe. OHS and environmental management, therefore, both focus on maintaining the quality of the physical environment system factor to varying degrees. The former is concerned with maintenance from the safety and health point of view, while the latter is concerned with safety and natural sustainability.
Productive safety management facilitates quality control because it is driven by the maintenance of these system factors at as high a standard of safety and performance as is practicable, and the minimization of consequential repercussions of business activities. For instance, the quality of technologies is assured, as explained in the previous chapter, using purchasing selection criteria and planned maintenance strategies. Process quality is sustained by standardization where possible, and by making work practices safe and efficient using techniques such as JSA. The capability of human resources, in terms of competencies and levels of safety consciousness, are considered to be critical success factors in preventing degradation and managing residual risk. In addition, retention of quality human resources is a high priority. As a holistic quality approach, productive safety management also involves the use of measurement systems to ensure that company safety and performance objectives are achieved and that systems are maintained at optimal level. In a broad
Physical environment 121 sense, the approach applies similar principles of accountability and feedback that are used in quality management systems.
Productive safety management also links OHS, environmental management and quality assurance using the channel. It explains the need for firms to be legally compliant and socially responsible. Firms that fail to meet enforceable standards in the areas of safety, environmental protection or product quality face penalties. They also risk claims of negligence through the common law system. In addition, the channel reinforces the need for employee participation. Worker involvement enhances safety consciousness, encourages environmentally responsible behaviors, and builds competencies that affect product quality and problem solving in all three of these management areas.
The entropy model and the channel help to explain the interdependence of OHS, environmental and quality management. The disciplines overlap but maintain their specialist integrity which prevents one system being relegated to the others. The purpose of conceptually proposing a set of boundaries for these disciplines is to minimize role conflicts in organizations that require a multi-disciplinary approach and to allow for high degrees of expertise together with collaborate problem solving. For example, management may elect to focus environmental management on the control of factors that do not have a direct bearing on the health and safety of employees. In this case, the risk elements within the physical environment, that potentially lead to injury or operations damage, may be addressed through the OHS management system. To ensure a balanced approach the input of environmental specialists should be sought during the development of the OHS plan in relation to any areas of overlap of risk management responsibility.
The risks associated with the firm’s saleable product may be excluded from environmental management if the company takes a holistic approach to quality that integrates product quality through the maintenance of system factors. In other words, if the firm’s strategies are driven by the maintenance of system factors at a high standard of quality, then as a consequence, its products should also improve in quality. In addition, when the company applies legal compliance and social responsibility as the benchmarks for firm behavior, then it must also ensure that its goods/services meet these standards. A conceptual relationship between these three management disciplines is illustrated in Fig. 5.1. It shows how system factors affect the total risk prevention strategy of the organization.
In the center of the diagram is the productive safety management system. It is an integrated, total management system and is used to regulate the internal environment of the company by focusing on the performance, safety and quality of the four system factors. Surrounding the firm is the immediate environment which has natural, infrastructure and social characteristics. In the event of a major incident the company’s operations can have two types of impact on the immediate environment. It can cause damage to natural or infrastructure systems and/or it can cause injury to members of the community. The characteristics of the immediate environment affect the extent of this harm, for example, in Bhopal, failures in the internal environment led to the contamination of the immediate
122 Productive Safety Management
external environment. Many members of the general public were killed or injured because of the high population density around the operation.
Figure 5.1 indicates that firms should anticipate the consequential damages to the immediate surroundings when assessing risks to the internal physical environment. In some cases, such as the mining companies operating in Romania, in which the cyanide spill from their tailings dam allegedly polluted rivers many kilometers away, damage may extend to the broader environment. This is shown by the continuation of the environmental management arrow in the diagram. The potential for consequential harm explains the link between OHS management and environmental management.
As part of its OHS management strategy, the firm also has to manage the risks associated with technology. It does this by establishing a supplier management system, as discussed earlier, to minimize residual risks and to prevent entropic risks associated with technology. Its suppliers may be in the immediate environment, for example, in the same town, or in the broader environment. The supplier management arrow shows the link between the internal environment of the firm and its suppliers.
The control of human resource hazards is part of the firm’s risk management strategy. These resources are the people the company employs,
Broader Environment Nature Infrastructure
Society
Immediate Environment Nature Infrastructure
Society Internal Environment (site)
Productive safety management system
Product quality management
• Processes
• Technology
• Physical environment
• Human resources
Insurance
Supplier management
Environmental management
Injury management
Figure 5.1 The relationship between OHS, environmental and quality management
Physical environment 123 and as shown in the figure, workers may reside locally in the immediate environment or further afield. Any fatality or injury that occurs as a result of a failure of the firm’s operations has consequences for both its workforce and for the society. For example, in small towns dependent on a few businesses where most of the employees live locally, the impact on the morale of the community following an incident can be serious. The broader community also bears part of the cost of workplace injuries through the public health system, through insurance costs and loss of national productivity. The business minimizes the consequential damages in these circumstances through its injury management system. The figure shows that injury management is related to OHS through the human resources system factor. The impact of such injuries reaches the immediate society and the broader society as shown by the injury management arrow.
Companies also take out insurance to protect themselves against damages resulting from failures in their OHS, environmental and quality management systems. This covers such circumstances as: injuries to workers, damage to internal infrastructure and technology, injuries to the general public, damage to the external environment and injury or damage caused by faulty goods produced by the company. Insurance is, therefore, a process to mitigate the financial repercussions of system failures in the areas within these three disciplines.
Finally, the figure shows that all four system factors have an influence on quality control as indicated by the product quality management arrow.
This illustrates that quality, environmental and OHS management systems can be integrated as suggested by international standards such as ISO 9000. In the diagram, product quality affects both the immediate and broader external environment wherever customers are based. As explained by the entropy model in the discussions about technologies, the firm’s products will have a residual risk and also, with time, will start to degrade.
The firm controls these hazards to an ‘acceptable’ level by managing the risks within its system factors and by shifting these factors towards optimal performance and safety. The reciprocal relationship between the firm and the external environment, explained by the channel, indicates that forces in the external environment determine the maximum ‘acceptable’
risk of such products. Government regulators define this risk using specific standards prescribed in legislation or by testing cases before the courts.
The community can also test the level of acceptable risk by pursuing common law remedies after incurring damages from product failures.
The value of illustrating these relationships between OHS and other company management strategies is that the benefits of improving and maintaining internal system factors can clearly be seen. The control of risk factors associated with the physical environment, for example, contributes to sound environmental management. The minimization of residual risk and degradation, so that system factors are shifted towards optimal performance and safety, leads to better product quality control.
The objective of returning employees to productive work following an accident through the firm’s injury management system ensures that the company fulfills its responsibilities to the worker and to society.
Given that OHS and environmental management strategies are linked through the quality of system factors, what choices are made and actions
124 Productive Safety Management
taken by responsible firms? These businesses use legal compliance as the minimum benchmark for their organizational systems. They also self-regulate to achieve industry best practice in OHS and environmental management. Self-regulation leads to socially responsible outcomes which reduce the probability that business activities will incur negative consequences for the workforce and the external environment. Figure 5.2 illustrates the quality standards applied to OHS and environmental management systems in this regard.
The responsible firm manages the impact of its operations on both the internal and external environments. It achieves legal compliance by fulfilling its duty of care to employees and the general public through its OHS management system. The firm also complies with its legal obligations in relation to the internal physical environment and the operation’s surroundings through its environmental management system. The pursuit of socially responsible outcomes causes the company to self-regulate. It implements industry codes of practice and guidelines as well as setting workplace-specific safety standards. It develops rehabilitation programs that consider the needs of families of injured workers so that affected employees receive the support they need to return to productive work.
This minimizes the negative impact of workplace accidents on employees and on the community. The responsible firm also self-regulates in the area of environmental management. This involves investing in research
fulfills duty of care to employees
takes responsibility for the rehabilitation of injured workers using injury management strategies
implements noncompulsory industry codes of practice and guidelines and self-regulates through workplace specific standards
fulfills duty of care to the general public
provides support services to the families of injured workers
fulfills legal obligations in relation to environmental management of the company’s site
conducts research and development to reduce the environmental impact of business activities
fulfills legal obligations in relation to environmental impact of business activities on the surrounding natural, infrastructural and social environment
is an active corporate member of the community pursuing sustainable industry
Figure 5.2 Achieving legal compliance and social responsibility through OHS and environmental management systems
Physical environment 125 and development to reduce the environmental impact of business activities, and acting as an active corporate member of the community to build a sustainable industry.
The figure shows, therefore, that OHS and environmental management have common underlying principles. These are, firstly, that legal compliance is the minimum benchmark that the firm must achieve, and secondly, that self-regulation leads to socially responsible outcomes. Firms have to achieve legal compliance in the short term because they are held accountable by government regulators through legislation and by the community through the legal system. The time frame for social responsibility on the other hand, may be longer term. The commitment to self-regulation, community support, organizational development and investment in research and development, are all long-range strategies for those firms that do not currently have sophisticated systems or sufficient resources.
The immediate implementation of OHS and environmental management systems, however, allows these firms to improve the quality of their system factors, attain legal compliance and establish a strategic direction that pursues socially responsible outcomes.
Legal provisions
The discussions thus far have identified that the physical environment system factor and the maintenance of its quality provide the link between the OHS and environmental management systems. In addition, the firm is required to set legal compliance as its minimum benchmark in both these disciplines. In relation to OHS management, the firm has a duty of care to provide employees with a safe work environment. These responsibilities are set out in legislation, for example:
19. (1) An employer shall, so far as is practicable, provide and maintain a working environment in which his employees are not exposed to hazards and in particular, but without limiting the generality of the foregoing, an employer shall – provide and maintain workplaces, plant, and systems of work such that, so far as practicable, his employees are not exposed to hazards.3
Firms are also required to comply with laws covering the environmental
Firms are also required to comply with laws covering the environmental