PROCESS INDUSTRIES SAFETY MANAGEMENT (PRISM) THEMATIC
NETWORK ON HUMAN FACTORS
HUMAN FACTORS IN SMALL TO MEDIUM SIZED ORGANISATIONS
DRAFT 1; DATE March 2004
Author
Edited by
Tony Fishwick,
Robin Turney
CONTENTS
Chapter
Title
1
2
3
4
5
6
6.1)
6.2)
6.3)
7)
7.1)
7.2)
7.3)
7.4)
8)
9)
10)
Summary
Introduction
Scope of Study
What is an SME?
Some views expressed by SMEs
Discussions with SMEs
SMEs taking part on discussions
Some consistent safety features of SMEs
Safety Challenges for SMEs
Needs of SMEs outside the UK
European agency for Safety & Health
CEFIC & National Organiastions
World Conference on Safety & Health at Work
Other sources of information
Some issues common to SMEs in Europe
Conclusions & Approaches which could assist SMEs
References
Appendices
1)
The SME Questionnaire
2
SMEs Contributing the study
1) Summary
2) Introduction
An important part of the PRISM project has been an assessment of the extent to
which small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs) appreciate and apply Human
Factors techniques in the improvement of safety performance.
Whilst many companies have reported on the improvements in safety which they
have derived from the application of HF techniques those reporting are primarily
large multinational companies. Whilst some SMEs have attended PRISM seminars
they are in the minority and none have reported on their own programmes, despite
the fact that they play an important role in the European economy.
There are many indications that accident rates in SMEs are higher than those in
larger companies. The website of the European Agency for Safety & Health at Work
contains the following information.

‘Every year about 5,500 people are killed in workplace accidents across the
European Union. There are over 4.5 million accidents that result in more than
three days absence from work, amounting to around 146 million working days
lost. The problem is particularly acute in small and medium-sized enterprises
(SMEs)’.

‘There are 19 million SMEs in the European Union. There contribution to
accidents is out of proportion to the number employed and SMEs account for
83% of all major accidents and 90% of all fatal accidents at work.’
The above figures are based on a community of 13 and will obviously increase with
enlargement.
Clearly any approaches which can help to SMEs to reduce the number of injuries and
deaths will have significant benefits. The major benefit will of course be the reduction
in suffering but secondary benefits will be the avoidance of the disruptions to the
work of SMEs which inevitably follow serious accidents.
This note reports the results of a number of approaches within PRISM aimed at
assessing needs in this area and measures which could be taken to improve the
situation.
3) Scope of Study
The study reported here is based on both the responses to questionnaires and a
number of in depth interviews. A number of different contact routes were established.
The organisations, and individuals, consulted during the course of this study have
included:
- UK Health and Safety Executive
- UK Chemical Industrial Association (CIA) and their Responsible Care
Networks and, through them, SORIS (Specialised Organic Chemicals
Information Service)
UK National Learning and Skills Council
- SMEs themselves (management and their workforces)
Conseil European des Federations de l’Industrie Chemique (CEFIC) and
other employer organisations in Europe.
- Verien Chemische Industrie (VDI), Germany
- Trade Unions
- Safety consultancies
- Website of European Agency for Safety & Health
- PRISM Network Focus Groups, end user advisor, members
and others
- Industrial, and commercial, partnerships, in particular the Engineering
Partnership, Lancashire.
-
As with other studies into the requirements of SMEs, it has proved difficult to obtain a
comprehensive view of their needs. The reasons for this include; SMEs focus on
immediate market needs, (responding to a survey on safety is well down on this list),
the limited resources of most SMEs, language differences (use of local language is
more important for SMEs). Due to these factors this survey is based on a small
sample with the majority of the responses coming from companies working within the
UK. To offset this much of the information has been obtained from detailed
interviews, both face to face and by telephone which means that the quality of the
information is much better than obtained from questionnaires alone. The limited
amount of information obtained from other sources (ref 1, 2) supports the views of
the authors that the factors identified are shared by SMEs in other countries.
4) What is an SME?
The first baseline to be established is what constitutes an SME. At least two
definitions, as well as a range of perceptions, exist. The two definitions are:
(i) an EU definition (Ref 31) – not greater than 250 on the payroll; not more than 40
million euro per year turnover; not more than 33% owned by a larger corporation.
(ii) a UK Health and Safety Commission definition (Ref 32) – firms with fewer than 50
employees.
Perceptions seem to range from about 200 payroll right down to the very smallest
with just two or three employees and, even, “one man firms”. For the purpose of this
study a flexible definition has been adopted with a payroll number of up to 250 being
used and the “disqualifications” regarding annual turnover and ownership have been
noted but not regarded as binding since safety cultures and behaviours are at least
as often locally based as determined centrally.
5) Some views expressed by SMEs
During the survey we received a number of consistent views from SMEs
SMEs can be found in a very wide range of industries and activities. Despite this,
their commonality in terms of size means that they share many similar needs.
Examples of this are:
o they do not have large budgets and, therefore, will be receptive to
simple, easily manageable (cost effective) solutions
o many will not have separate, dedicated personnel to advice on health
and safety. For this reason solutions that can be readily understood
and implemented by individuals, and teams, in the workforce may be
attractive
o
o
o
o
o
o
degree of commitment to safety improvement is variable
however in may organisations the concern over employee safety and
health is as high as that in most larger organisations, however
sometimes they lack the information, and motivation to put safety
solutions into effect
financial constraints often force safety lower down the priority list than
production
recognition of the importance of avoiding unsafe situations and acts, in
order to prevent escalation into accident and injury (the “accident
triangle”, ref 4 and 6) is often low
longer-term financial benefits of improving safety standards get
overtaken by shorter-term benefits of reducing costs e.g. man-power,
engineered safety improvements etc.
the general importance of “human” rather than “engineered” factors, in
safety management is not always fully appreciated
Notwithstanding all the above, it was evident from the very early stages of
discussions with SMEs, that many of them are working hard, and successfully, to put
in place effective, and continuously improving, safety management systems. Some
of the solutions encountered fell clearly into the category of “human behavioural”. A
commentary on these discussions is now presented.
6) Discussions with SMEs
6.1) SMEs taking part in the detailed discussions
Detailed discussions have been held with UK SMEs in the following areas:
North-West of England, covering Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire.
- West Yorkshire
South of England, extending from Dorset, through Hampshire to East Anglia.
- County Durham, in the North-East
Thus, a reasonable geographical cross-section of the UK has been addressed.
The method of discussion was either a face-to-face meeting, or an extended
telephone call, both initiated by a brief introductory phone call. In all cases, the
SMEs representative had been asked to fill in a specifically designed questionnaire
(Appendix 2). The questionnaire was designed by JOMC with input from The Keil
Centre and the Chemical Industries Association. It consisted of about 30 questions,
requesting information on topics grouped as follows:
- details of the company itself
- how accidents, injuries, near misses and unsafe acts are recorded and
measured, if at all
- safety challenges and attitudes to safety within the company
- safety policies and safety management structures
- knowledge and experience of behavioural modification, safety culture and
team working.
These were all underpinned by open questions inviting comments on how PRISM
might provide further help.
The response to this programme of discussions was enthusiastic and rewarding.
Every SME consulted saw human factors and the objectives of PRISM as potentially
helpful to their businesses and they were happy to participate. The rate of return of
the questionnaires from this group exceeded 70%. The justification, and need, for
this part of the PRISM Project has been amply demonstrated.
A total of 15 companies participated in detailed discussions, a summary of these
being given in Table 2. It can be seen that a wide range of processes, company
sizes and managerial/workforce ratios is incorporated.
Table 2 – Interactions with SMEs
Industry Type
Number of employees (approx numbers)
Total
Speciality chemical
50
Management/
Supervisory
10
Distribution
14
3
11
General chemical
100
35
65
Polymer/plastics
240
35
205
General chemical
235
70
165
Food freeze dry
20
8
12
Electronic-related components
214
44
170
Waste management/landfill
120
36
84
Specialised fine chemical
70
22
48
Lab-scale organic chemical
165
15
150
Waste management/recycle
40
8
32
Packaging
101-250 (1)
30%
70%
Chemical-production of gases
51-100 (1)
10%
90%
Speciality Chemical
101-250(1)
15%
85%
Note: 1. Exact numbers not specified.
Workforce
40
6.2 Some Consistent Safety Features of SMEs
Despite this variety in the types of SME, a high degree of commonality was found in
their approaches to safety management and in the systems that they already have in
place. These common factors are summarised in Table 3.
Table 2 – SME – Consistent Safety Features
Feature
Safety policy
Accidents reported
Qualitative proportion of SMEs
using
All
All
Risk assessment
Most
Team safety initiatives
Many
Positive reinforcement
Some
Interactive one-to-one discussion
Some
Near misses reported
Some
Team safety briefings
Some
In house publications on safety
Some
Training in manual handling
Some
The discussions also showed that a number of companies are already undertaking
safety related activities which incorporate good human factors practice. These are
listed in Table 4
Table 4 – SMEs – Safety Features Unique to One (or Few) Company(ies)
Feature
Comment
- Use of behavioural safety consultant
Can be expensive. Probably not for the very small SME
- Use of some behavioural modification
approach
One-to-one discussions; hazard spotting, accident
causes
- Behavioural-based hazard rating
- Joint management/workforce teams,
workshops and other groups
Potential for all SMEs
- Review of risk assessment by new
company recruits
A useful, “fresh mind” approach. Could be used by all
- Plant/area based health and safety
“cells”
Useful for the larger SMEs
These all demonstrate the potential for useful cross-fertilisation between SMEs.
In general, but not always, it was the “larger” SMEs, of say 100 employees or more,
which had the most well developed systems of safety management and were more
likely to be using some form of behavioural approach already. They would, for
example, be more likely to employ specific, dedicated safety advisory managers
and/or other personnel, record near misses and do risk assessments. However, this
was not a universal factor. The special chemical firm employing 50 people, for
example, had all of these things and others, in place and the distribution firm used a
robust system of risk assessment despite having a total complement of only 14.
6.3) Safety challenges for SMEs and help that PRISM can provide
Analysis of the questionnaires completed by the SMEs, together with points raised in
discussion, produced an interesting range of challenges faced by SMEs in the field of
safety management. Prominent amongst these was the resource factor – financial
and managerial time – in the face of competition from other areas such as production
and keeping cost of the product as low as possible. Almost all the SMEs
encountered faced this problem. Managing safety during times of company change,
lack of understanding of the role played by near misses and unsafe acts in the
“incident hierarchy”, and lone worker safety, were emphasised by several. Other
factors cited by one, or more of the SMEs included:
- in very small companies, “everyone knows everything” and this breeds
complacency
- outside pressures to improve safety from, for example, customers and
stakeholders as well as regulators
- difficult to make changes
- vague definitions of near misses and unsafe acts and fear of a “blame
culture”, make regulation, and action, difficult
- government gives out advice and publications on pensions, tax, national
insurance and many other things free, but always charge for safety
publications
- some small company managers are so “hands on” and driven by the need for
profit (to keep the company solvent and maintain jobs) that they never stand
back and view safety in perspective.
- very senior management have good intentions but not much positive input;
safety initiatives mainly plant/workforce derived
- during times of change, it is different to maintain workforce morale and
individual competency standards
-
accidents and injuries reported because the company has an “insurance
claim” culture
They all felt that initiatives on human factors such as PRISM could help them.
However, they emphasised that the solutions that they would be looking for would
have to be:
- cost effective (what they mean is as low cost as practicable)
- simple to apply
- useful for individuals (e.g. lone workers) and/or small teams
- usable by management/supervisors/workforce in a joint, integrated,
participative manner.
Some specific requirements and interests were:
- how to implement a system for recording unsafe acts and taking appropriate
action on them/removing “blame culture”
- any one-to-one discussion techniques
- use of key safe behaviour analysis
- use of mental imaging
- use of positive reinforcement
- help in formulation of a cogent rationale to present to the workforce
- improve the awareness of human factors in the management of safety
- best practice/benchmarking information in related fields
What comes out clearly from all of these discussions is that only the larger SMEs, (if
any) with the larger financial turnover will employ the services of safety consultants
and other providers on anything other than the short term. They simply cannot afford
it and this has to be recognised. If they believe that there are tools and techniques
available to help them, then they will certainly invest reasonable sums of money to
find out about them and how to use them. The discussions have amply confirmed a
view that SMEs are every bit as concerned about their employees’ health and safety
as are larger organisations and that will drive them to seek such information.
However, the oft-stated requirement for cost-effective solutions will result in a need
for techniques that can be put into practice and developed “in house” once a basic
understanding has been established. The guide produced by PRISM , ‘Behavioural
Safety Application Guide’, provides information on several such potentially helpful
tools, for example TOFS, SUSA, mental imaging, key safe behaviour analysis and
others.
The financial constraints may also result in an approach that is, or tends towards,
“behaviour modification only” without being underpinned by any co-ordinated thrust to
change safety culture. Whilst this could be detrimental, or even fatal, to safety
improvement in very large organisations, it is not necessarily so in SMEs, particularly
those with small workforces, say 100 or less. Chains of command, from senior
managers/directors/company owners to working level are often very short, and
integration and daily contact between levels is frequent. Thus, a well managed
behavioural change programme will have a much better chance of carrying a change
in culture along with the betterment in safety performance. However, this approach
will require a high degree of resource input in terms of support, monitoring and follow
up, to ensure that improved behaviours are maintained.
Having said all this, there are organisations which sometimes provide financial
support for approved training schemes. These can include safety training. One such
organisation in the UK is the National Learning and Skills Council, whose
headquarters is at Coventry (telephone, UK, 08450194156). They will, via this
number, give advice on how to proceed with any proposals, requests, and schemes
for financial aid either through them or one of their regional offices.
7) Needs of SMEs – outside the United Kingdom
7.1) European Agency for Safety & Health
Searches were made of the website of the European Agency for Safety & Health.
These resulted in the information on accidents and SMEs reproduced in the
introduction. However a search on the key words ‘human factors’ provided no further
information. This is rather surprising since, having recognised the problem with
SMEs, human factors techniques are amongst the techniques most likely to be
adopted and to lead to a reduction in injuries.
7.2) CEFIC and National Employer Organisations
Approaches were made to CEFIC and to employer organisations in both Germany
and in the Netherlands. The questionnaire was translated into German and circulated
to over 1000 organisations by the VDI. Despite such a wide circulation the response
was poor. Those returns made broadly supported the conclusions drawn from the
survey in the UK, the number of returns being too small for separate analysis.
7.3) World Conference on Safety & Health at Work
A number of presentations were made at the XVI World Conference on Safety and
Health at Work which was attended by JOMC. The presentations provided a global
perspective on some of the problems relating to SMEs. The following comments are
extracted from the presentations given at the conference (Ref 50).
The common major issues relating to SMEs from the different countries were those
relating to
 lone working,
 lack of knowledge of safety regulations
 limited added value which safety adds to the business,
 time and cost
 limited preparedness to do anything different.
In general whilst many SMEs have developed good practices there is concern
that newer entrants and most entrepreneurs have little knowledge of safety
regulations and little expectation of safety adding any value to the business.
Most wanted maximum profit for minimum outlay.
7.3.1) Slovakia
SMEs usually have poor safety processes compared to those of larger organisations.
Production facilities were frequently in old buildings not appropriate for the job,
together with obsolete machinery with little or no guarding. Chemicals were often
used with little or no protection for the environment or the worker. Many people were
employed without the necessary skills or training for the work. Employers were often
unaware of the risks or hazards within the workplace and did not think of prevention.
Improvements were needed to raise awareness of safety within the society at large
and win over the employers to recognition of the added value of safety in terms of
improved production.
SMEs form a high proportion of all companies within Slovakia. A minority, circa 10%,
agrees fully aware of duties and show a raised awareness of safety in the workforce.
Another 20% consider safety of minor importance, lacking the necessary knowledge
and funding for safety improvements. The last group, approx. 70% are entrepreneurs
who do not care, their main objectives being to maximise profits in shortest time with
little or no respect for people or safety.
Improvements were required to influence entrepreneurs, to provide a degree of
respectability for safety and to gain a personal commitment to take action and
change the culture. Insurance companies appear to bear the costs of promoting
safety in some European countries and this could be a useful model to adopt
elsewhere. SMEs needed to be coached towards good working practices (Safe
Behaviours). Although this could increase costs marginally to start with, in the longer
term it would lead to improved profits and durability for the business. Both unions
and management need to work towards a prevention policy that creates a culture
where management involve and listen to the workforce.
7.3.2) Austria
A project called ‘well@work’ has been sponsored by the Economic Chamber of
Austria. This aims at joint measures involving everyone in the improvement of safety
and health at work. It has facilitated active involvement from all to overcome
obstacles such as personal behaviours. It is expected to deal with the stresses and
strains of the workplace through the development of health circles.
SMEs suffer from severe time pressure and are often over taxed. Any implement must
work with production not against it. Most projects for SHE are in larger companies
and there is insufficient promotion among SMEs. Specific approaches for SMEs are
being investigated, it being recognized that scaled down version of large company
methods will not work due to
 lack of resources;
 lack of skilled practitioners in safety, health, human factors and ergonomics
 difficult in getting entrepreneurs to devote time to safety and
 no clear company structures.
It is a sad reflection that often entrepreneurs do not know where to gain funding for
SHE, do not realise that they can benefit from SHE and that it takes a long time to
gain workers commitment.
7.3.3) German Craft Sector
Sixty six percent of all employees are in SMEs (less than 250 employees, with most
in companies of less than 50 and 30% of them below 9 workers). In general, most
SMEs are flexible and in some cases outperform many larger companies in safety
performance. The flat hierarchies coupled with co-working enables quick, direct
decision making. Most are burdened with weak finance. However relationships
between the boss and workers are close.
Tailored solutions need to be developed to minimise disturbances to the workflows
and reduce sickness / accidents. Entrepreneurs need to be convinced that safety
makes sense and receive training in H&S. Once they learn to identify issues and
start to document issues and practical actions to reduce the potential for injury then
the reliance on external consultants will be reduced. In addition the sensitivity of
organisation to safety will improve. However, it is critical that tailored solutions are
developed for each SME and not a ready made solution or additional regulations.
Germany has to develop a framework of vocational training that contains knowledge
of SHE. Costs play a key role and organisations need to recognize the benefits of
increased safety awareness. Once preventative H&S has become established,
sharing best practice between companies and indeed countries should be
developed.
6.3.4) Portugal
Portugal has developed a project called HEDOMS — looking at human error
management. It records the potential for human error and uses collected data to
prioritise issues. It incorporates the concepts of active and latent failures
(Rasmussen) looking at both internal and external factors. There are however very
few human factors or ergonomics experts within Portuguese companies.
The project looks at disturbances to identify root causes and set priorities based on
frequency of these disturbances. Human error analysis is carried out looking at the
task characteristics. Once identify the team analyses the critical factors. Initial
results show that many accidents occur when people are called in to fix processes
and that observed behaviours are often a result of corporate demands.
7.3.5) Italy
Most SMEs in Italy do not fully meet regulatory requirements. The major focus of
SMEs being on customer satisfaction and compliance with the rules; H&S protection
is secondary. External consultants are seen as costly and some companies are
using complex and expensive systems that do not allow for the development of
personal cultures in the workplace. The country needs to develop integrated, simple
processes for the workplace to facilitate continuously improvement.
7.3.6) Switzerland
Switzerland has a prevention strategy with communication as a key element. Eighty
five percent of SMEs do not have accidents and the majority of workers are safe in
their workplace. However, it is acknowledged that they are only at the beginning of
the journey with SMEs and they cannot rely on engineering /technology to prevent
injuries. Management and people (The Human Factor) are key areas.
Improvements need to be made in the entrepreneurs understanding of the hazards
of the workplace. Interventions must be practical and above all, the workforce must
participate in safety improvement. Worker involvement is considered critical and
there is much use of checklists and examples to support the workforce. Above all,
everybody needs to understand the risk and then carry-out appropriate protective
measures. Action being critical in order to apply the lessons from experience.
7.3.7) Belgium
Two years ago Belgium focused on SMEs. It looked at Risk Management in terms of
occupational safety, medicine, industrial hygiene and ergonomics. It investigated the
psychology / psycho-social side of the workplace in terms of stress, Sexual
harassment and bullying in the workplace. The authorities provided unlimited access
to advice and have developed tailor made information for SMEs - Newsletters etc.
Each company had a "Well Being Binder" containing a summary of OSH
information, occupational accidents, accident investigations, medical surveillance
and fire safety etc.
There has been a high degree of satisfaction obtained from this approach and it has
given greater effectiveness when communication is high and management have a
close relationship with the workforce.
7.4) Other Sources of Information
In a paper reviewing European approaches top safety in SMEs, Villea (refxxx) notes
that
 SMEs very often have a patriarchal structure with most responsibility
incumbent on the owner whose time constraints force him to concentrate on
problems requiring immediate attention. Prevention is not included in such
problems, except when an accident has occurred and specific pressure is
exerted b y workers and authorities.
 The financial resources of SMEs are generally limited, so they are applied to
immediately profitable ends which do not include accident prevention.
 Contact between SMEs and authorities is infrequent. For example in Sweden
visits to SMEs by factory inspectors take place only once every 8 to 10 years
on average.
Approaches which have been shown to be effective include.
 Good Neighbour Scheme ( Eire and UK)
 Participation by workers as regional safety prevention representatives
(Sweden & Norway)
 Encouragement of small safety consultancies ( Spain)
It is clear that a range of techniques will need to be developed.
8) Summary of SME Safety Issues in Europe
1. SMEs are expected to play a key role in the future development of the
European economy.
2. For many SME customer relationships finance and production costs have a
much higher priority than safety.
3. Whilst more established organizations may have developed satisfactory
safety cultures this is often not the case with newer entrants and entrepreneurial
enterprises.
4. Whilst the costs of accidents and of safety measures are understood there is
little or no recognition of the long term benefits to the business of good safety
performance.
5. Additional regulation is likely to be of limited value and, with so many
organisations, very costly to apply.
6. External consultants are seen often seen as expensive.
8) Conclusions & Approaches which could Assist SMEs
1). The high level of interest in, and input to the PRISM project shown by the Small
and Medium Sized Enterprises (SMEs) that have taken part in the project, has amply
confirmed the validity of having a particular focus on the needs of such organisations.
2) New, more effective ways to communicate safety need to be developed .e.g. free
seminars for the entrepreneur has been suggested because most entrepreneurs have
little formal knowledge of safety and the rules.
3) The role of other stakeholders needs to be explored including those of
 Major companies ( frequently the customers of SMEs)
 Financial organizations
 Insurers, in some parts of Europe, the insurance companies play a major
role in accident reduction often funding aspects of training.
 Trade unions

4) Simple effective packages which can be used by SMEs with the minimum of
assistance need to be developed. The guides being developed by PRISM,
particularly those on behaviour Improvement, Training, Procedures… have all been
developed with the needs of SMEs in mind,
5) The message needs to be put across in a different way to the past with greater
emphasis on the broader business benefits
6) A way must be found for the less advanced (in safety terms) to learn from the
experiences of the more successful (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, Belgium and
Portugal's HEDOM system); and let's not be over-modest, UK. Seminars, as above,
newsletters, the internet and other means should all be used.2.
7) The potential for use of the Guides developed under PRISM by larger
organisations has been demonstrated by:
(i) PRISM Network member input
(ii) responses from industry, academic and regulatory sources at the first Focus
Group 1 Seminar in Edinburgh, January 2002
(iii) comment from Chemical Industries Association, and other industry co-ordinating
bodies.
(iv) the existence of many successful behavioural safety interventions in larger
organisations, both historic and on-going
8). A wide-ranging review of behavioural safety modification tools, techniques and
programmes has shown that there are sufficient of these available to meet the needs
of both SMEs and larger companies operating across a variety of industry sectors
and other areas (e.g. government, academia etc)
9). SMEs, by virtue of their smaller size and resources, often need to approach the
management of safety in an entirely different manner to larger organisations. Thus,
although all of those that took part in this project showed concern for safety that was
just as high as found in larger companies, and most (or many) had safety policies,
committees and representatives in place, there was wide diversity in the extent to
which practical solutions were in place or being put in place. Very few practised any
form of human behavioural approach.
10). Consequent upon 4, above, all SMEs taking part expressed a wish to use the
Guide, and any relevant parts of the PRISM Project, to help them with their safety
management programmes by the use of behavioural modification methods and
associated approaches, principally team-working and culture measurement/change.
11). There was a general consensus by SMEs, supported by the authors of this
Guide, that the best solutions for SMEs would have to fall into the general categories
of easy to understand and apply, cost effective and (mostly) usable without
significant external consultant input. This response is discussed in detail in Chapter
5 and suffice to say here that individual worker, one-to-one discussions, and small
team work solutions figured very highly amongst SME requirements.
12). There will be a need for some SMEs to use safety behavioural modification tools
and techniques without prior, or concurrent, examination of underlying safety culture.
This is not generally a favoured, or for some, even an acceptable approach.
However, in very small organisations, it may be a matter of “this or nothing”. If well
managed, this will stand a good chance of being successful by carrying a change in
culture along with any improvement in behaviour by virtue of its application in small,
closely integrated teams, even though it will need a high monitoring and follow-up
input. For this reason, the authors of the Guide would support such an approach by
SMEs.
13). Many large organisations have used, or are using, behavioural safety
modification methods to drive, or assist, their safety improvement programmes.
Examples illustrating the success of these interventions based on proprietary
systems, programmes evolved by the organisations themselves, and a combination
of both, are numerous and a few have been summarised in Chapter 7 (Case Studies)
and the more detailed references, and at the end of Chapter 3.
14). In direct contrast to SMEs, it is considered unwise for large organisations to
embark on a safety modification programme without first, or at least at the same time,
defining the state of the existing safety culture, establishing what needs to change,
and setting in hand a process of change – unless there are compelling reasons not to
do so. Differing departmental interests, priorities and demands and a whole myriad
of factors related simply to the logistics of managing any initiative in a large, multifunctional concern, will all tend to inhibit improvements in behaviour unless they are
underpinned by a unified desire to change the culture for reasons that are
understood and accepted.
15). A general conclusion is that behavioural safety approaches will only fully
succeed if they are underpinned by a strong, conventional safety management
system.
Note Safety cultural factors will be the subject of a separate Guide to be produced by
the Keil Centre later in the PRISM Project. Therefore, they are not discussed in
detail in this Guide.
10) REFERENCES
*****Need Editing*******
1. Process Industries Safety Management Thematic Network on Human Factors,
GIRT-CT-2001-05029, European Process Safety Centre, Rugby, England.
2. Sulzer-Azaroff, B, The Modification of Occupational Safety Behaviour, Journal of
Occupational Accidents, Vol 9, pp 177-197, 1987.
3. Behaviour Modification to Improve Safety, The Keil Centre, M Fleming and R
Lardner, Edinburgh, Scotland, 1999.
4. Stop Tomorrow’s Injuries Today, A H Fishwick and J M Ormond, I Chem E, Safety
’98, Rugby, England, 1998.
5. Behavioural-based Safety Pitfalls and Pointers, T R Krause, Industrial Safety and
Hygiene News, October 1996.
6. Health and Safety Executive, United Kingdom, Successful Health and Safety
Management, HSG65, 1997.
7. Changing Minds: A Practical Guide for Behavioural Change in the Oil and Gas
Industry. www.stepchangeinsafety.net
8. Approaches to Safety Culture Enhancement, HF/GNSR/5024, Vectra
Technologies, Warrington, England, 1998.
9. HSE (UK) Safety Climate Survey, ISBN Books number 071761462X
10. Summary Guide to Safety Climate Tools, F Davies, R Spencer and K Dooley,
OTO 1996-063, HSE Books, Suffolk, 2000.
11. Improving Safety Performance – A Question of Culture, John Ormond and Tony
Fishwick, Industrial Safety Management, Vol 4, Edition 4, December 2001.
12. Bell, R G, Balanced Approach to Health and Safety Management, Offshore
Europe Conference, Aberdeen, Scotland, 1999.
13. It’s All Gone Pear-Shaped, M Fleming and R Lardner, The Chemical Engineer,
July 6, 2001.
14. Error, Stress and Teamwork in Medicine and Aviation, J Bryan Sexton, Eric J
Thomas and Robert L Helmreich, British Medical Journal, Vol 320, March 2000.
15. On Error Management: Lessons from Aviation, Robert L Helmreich, British
Medical Journal, Vol 320, March 2000.
16. Cultural Issues in Crew Resources Management Training, Robert L Helmreich
and Ashleigh C Merritt, ICAO Global Human Factors Seminar, Auckland, New
Zealand, April 1996.
17. Safety Self-management, E Scott Geller and Steven W Clarke, American Society
of Safety Engineers Professional Safety, July 1999.
18. An Engineer’s View of Human Error, T Kletz, I Chem E, ISBN 0-85295-430-1.
19. Why Wait for a Crisis, M Moss and M Vyvyan, Industrial Safety Management, Vol
4, Edition 1, March 2001.
20. Teamworking and Safety, Improving Safety: Cultural and Organisational Factors,
R Lardner, Keil Centre, PRISM Seminar, Edinburgh, January 24-25, 2002.
21. HSE Publications, OTO 1999/025.
22. Effective Team-Based Working with “smart-teams”, J Corpe and D Grange,
OPITO.
23. Industry Case Study, Team Working and Safety, D Whiting, N Minter and B
Ruffle, Magnox Electric (BNFL).
24. A Tool to Assess Aspects of an Organisation’s Health and Safety Climate, N T
Byron, HSE, all (22, 23, 24) PRISM Seminar, Edinburgh, 24-25 January, 2002.
25. Web Site Address, www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/misc097.pdf
26. Safety Culture Maturity™, R Lardner, C Amati and S Lee, Keil Centre, PRISM
Seminar, Edinburgh, 24-25 January, 2002.
27. Benchmarking Safety Climate in Hazardous Environments: A Longitudinal
Interorganisational Approach, K Mearns, S M Whittaker and R Flin, Risk Analysis,
Vol 21, No 4, 201.
28. Benchmarking Offshore Safety Culture, K Mearns, R Flin and S M Whittaker,
University of Aberdeen, PRISM Seminar, Edinburgh, January 24-25, 2002.
29. Reducing Accident Rates – The Behavioural Approach, L Finlayson, A H
Fishwick and A Morton, I Chem E Loss Prevention Bulletin, No 130, August 1996.
30. The (United Kingdom) Control of Major Accident Hazard (COMAH), 1999,
Regulations.
31. Klumpers, J, EU Commissioner, PRISM Human Factors Network Plenary
Meeting, Brussels, June 2001.
32. HSC Small Firms Strategy, http:/www.hse.gov.uk
33. Health and Safety in Small Firms INDG 259 HSE (UK) Books, 1998.
34. Stating Your Business, Guidance on Preparing a Health and Safety Policy for
Small Firms, HSE Books, ISBN 0 7176 1799 8.
35. Behavioural Modification Programmes. Establishing Best Practice, M Fleming
and R Lardner, The Keil Centre, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2000.
APPENDIX 1
Does my SME have a problem?
It is almost certain that any organisation’s safety performance can be improved by
some form of behavioural modification programme. The difficulty is often in
recognising that fact. Amongst some useful questions that can be asked, to help
identify and prioritise problem areas are:
- do we have a
o health and safety policy?
o Identified focus persons for health and safety?
o Safety representatives?
o Do we make use of available guidance documents on these subjects?
(E.g HSE Safety Management Systyems, Ref 34)
- how many “time losing” injuries occur? Per year or other time period?
o What does this mean in terms of the likelihood of an employee having
a serious injury or getting killed?
o How does this compare with the prerformance of other similar
companies and with the leaders in safety?
- do we have a system, policy etc of reporting near misses?
o Do we encourage reporting in a “no blame, let’s learn” manner?
- do we have any occupational health problems or potential for one?
- Have we carried out risk assessments on the work undertaken and have
these assessments defined
o the potential for causing injury or ill health?
o the actions necessary to minimise the risks.
- do we ask the workforce for their views on these, and related, issues?
- what safety training do we provide for our employees?
o Is it entirely “job specific” or does it include any form of general
training in risk assessment and hazard recognition, and their
avoidance.
o Is there any human behavioural aspect to this training?
Although a survey of this type could be undertaken by the companies own staff a
safety consultant/provider may be very helpful in guiding a small organisation
towards an objective self appraisal. It will also be able to experience of from other
industries and will usually do this at a relatively small cost.
In addition it may be useful to carry-out a survey of ‘Safety Culture’. A simple way of
doing this is to use the questionnaire developed by the HSE which can be obtained
from the HSE website.
How do I solve my problem?
The documents already referenced (Refs 6, 9, 32, 33 and 34) give extensive
guidance on the legal, and general, requirements, on the background to why
good safety management is both important and cost effective, on how to prepare
health and safety policies and on subjects like publicity and awareness. Ref 9, 24
and 25 present a tool for structured consideration of the kinds of questions posed
above, and many others, in order to establish just what problems an organisation
does have in the field of safety and how to go on to solve them. Many of the
problems dealt with by this tool (safety Climate Survey) are human behavioural in
type and reflect the culture within the organisation.
The other general approach, which is the subject of this guide, is to use an
appropriate form of behavioural safety improvement intervention programme either
with, or without, the assistance of a specialist provider. Chapter 6, underpinned by
Chapter 3, provides guidance on how this might be done.
APPENDIX 2 – THE SME QUESTIONNAIRE
The
Behavioural Safety
Questionnaire
for
Small & Medium
Sized Enterprises
(SMEs)
The Behavioural Safety Questionnaire for Small & Medium Sized Enterprises
1. Name of Company
2. Number of Employees (Tick as appropriate)
10 or Less
11- 50
51-100
101- 250
3. Management or Supervisory/workforce split
/
4. What is your core business? (Tick as appropriate)
Chemical
Pharmaceutical
Packaging
Food &
Beverage
Chemical
Engineering
Component
Manufacture
Agricultural
Products
Other
(Details
below if
desired)
5. Is the workforce in a trade union?
Yes
No
6. Who has overall responsibility for safety policy?
Additional details of business
7. Do you measure safety performance? (Tick)
Yes
8. If “Yes” to question 7, is this done by Reportable Injury Rate? (RIR)
Yes
No
What is your current RIR
per 100 000 person hours?
If “Yes” but not by RIR, how do you measure it?
No
The Behavioural Safety Questionnaire for Small & Medium Sized Enterprises
9. If “No” to Question 7 would you like advice on how to measure safety
performance?
Yes
No
10. Do you believe that all accidents/injuries/incidents are reported to management
in your company?
Yes
No
11. Do you have any system of reporting “near misses” and/or unsafe acts?
Yes
No
12. If “No” to question 7, 10 or 11, do you have any views as to why this is so and/or
what might be done to bring such systems into effect? What “barriers” are there?
What help would you find useful?
13. What challenges does your company face in the area of safety management and
improvement?
14. How would you rate managerial support for safety in your company?
(Tick one answer)
Very Strong
Reasonably Strong
Slightly
None at all
The Behavioural Safety Questionnaire for Small & Medium Sized Enterprises
15. How do you think safety is valued in your company? (Tick)
Job won’t be done
unless safe
Sometimes cut corners with
safety to do
the job quickly
Always put production
ahead of
safety
16. Would you let your shopfloor/workforce independently answer
Questions 14 and 15?
Yes
No
17. How strongly do you think human behaviour influences accidents? (Tick)
Causes nearly all
(>90%)
Causes most
(>70%)
Causes some
to a lot
(>40%)
Does not cause
many
(<40%)
18. Does your company have a defined safety policy?
Yes
No
19. If “Yes” to Question 18, is the policy based on HSE advice eg “Stating Your
Business” or “Successful Health and Safety Management” or any other?
Yes
No
20. If “No” to Question 18 or 19 would you like to get this advice?
Yes
No
21. Does your company have / do.
Yes
A Safety Committee
Safety Representatives
Safety Inspections
No
In what ways do you think it may benefit your company?
The Behavioural Safety Questionnaire for Small & Medium Sized Enterprises
23. If “Yes” to Question 22 could you briefly describe your knowledge/experience
of them?
Is your company actively using them (or has it done?)
Yes
No
24. If “No” to Question 22, would you like to know more about them?
Yes
No
25. Does your company actively influence its organisational or safety culture? If
“Yes” please briefly describe your experience in this field.
26. If “No” to Question 25, would you like to know more about this subject?
Yes
No
In what ways do you think it may benefit your company?
The Behavioural Safety Questionnaire for Small & Medium Sized Enterprises
28. Does your company encourage effective teamwork? If “Yes” please briefly
describe your experience in this field.
29. If “No” to Question 28, would you like to know more about this subject?
Yes
No
30. How else in addition to the above, could this Network Project help your company
improve safety via behavioural modification, safety culture modification or
teamworking?
31. Is your company a member of a Chemical Industries Association Responsible
Care Cell or any such organisation?
Yes
No
Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.
The project organisers will keep you informed of how the information that you
provided is used and of the progress, and outcome of the project.
The Behavioural Safety Questionnaire for Small & Medium Sized Enterprises
APPENDIX 3 – SMEs THAT HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS GUIDE AND
PROJECT
Name of SME
BOC Gases
Commercial Freeze Dry Ltd
Clariant, NIPA Laboratories Ltd
Cumbria Waste Management Ltd
Exchem Organics
F2 Chemicals Ltd
Industrial Copolymers/Liquid Plastics Ltd
Laporte Performance Chemicals Ltd
ONDEO Nalco Energy Services Ltd
Oxley Developments Company Ltd
Scott Bros (Distributors) Ltd
Sigma – Aldrich Company Ltd
William Blythe Ltd
W S Group Ltd
Location
Hythe, Southampton, Hampshire
Preston, Lancashire
Oswaldwistle, Lancashire
Carlisle, Cumbria
Harwick, Suffolk
Preston, Lancashire
Preston, Lancashire
Hythe, Hampshire
Hythe, Southampton, Hampshire
Ulverston, Cumbria
Middlewich, Cheshire
Poole, Dorset
Church, Accrington, Lancashire
Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham