Making Companies Safe - what works? (CCA ... - Unite the Union

systematic management of health, safety and environmental risks, 66 indicated that IC worked
well for the Norwegian offshore oil industry, case studies of IC in other sectors (newspaper,
sawmills, steel, and local communities) reported disappointing results. 67 Similarly, research
shows that larger firms have made more progress in implementing IC than smaller firms. 68
One reason why the adoption of SMSs tends to be confined to larger firms in
techonologically-advanced sectors may be to do with the fact that the implementation and
auditing costs of such systems may be prohibitive for smaller firms. 69 Another reason that has
been advanced is that the intrinsic motivation to control risks in high risk sectors will be
greater, due to the fact catastrophic events may have significant economic, regulatory and
public relations consequences. 70
However, while some studies report that the introduction of IC in the Norwegian offshore oil
industry was associated with a reduction in injuries 71 and while Norway’s offshore oil industry
is generally offered as evidence of the potential benefits to be gained from a systems-based
approach, 72 research on the impacts of the safety case regime 73 in the United Kingdom’s
off-shore oil industry indicates that, at best, it has been associated with no improvement. In
addition concerns have been expressed in the context of the UK’s offshore oil industry about
internal reward and punishment programs – similar to those introduced by US companies
participating in VPP-type schemes – which put pressure on workers and contracting
companies not to report lost time injuries. 74 In view of these and other cross-national
differences Frick et al. have hypothesised that:
“the contextual setting – the OHS infrastructure – may be more important in
explaining the outcomes of OHS strategy than its precise procedures and tools.” 75
In other words, differences between countries with respect to their political, economic,
regulatory and industrial relations contexts may explain these divergent findings. Exploring the
nature of these differences can help us to identify those factors that are associated with, and
seem to have influenced, positive outcomes within individual sectors and organisations.
3. The importance of cross-national differences and the wider political economy
Studies of the progress that companies had made in implementing Internal Control in Norway
showed that one year after mandatory regulations were introduced, 66 per cent of
firms has not even prepared for the introduction of IC. SMEs had proved a particular
problem. Gunningham and Johnstone claim that the results for those companies that
had implemented internal control were much more encouraging, with over 50 per cent
completing assessments, implementing measures making action plans, and reviewing and
revising their IC systems. 76 However, it should also be noted that after reviewing the available
evidence on IC in the seven years following the regulation’s introduction, Gaupset concluded
that while about half of Norwegian enterprises had adopted IC, many employers were failing
to translate formal procedures into actual action. 77
It appears therefore that IC in Norway has been a qualified success, although little research
on the impact of IC on actual health and safety outcomes has been undertaken beyond the
progress observed in Norways’s offshore oil industry (see below). However, Saksvik and
Quinlan warn that: “caution is required in extrapolating the experience of a country like
Norway to others” 78 since the political, regulatory and industrial relations contexts in Norway
are distinct from those found in other countries – and particularly the UK. A number of
commentators ascribe the country’s relative success to the fact that Norway also has one
of the most stringent labour laws in the world in the form of the Work Environment Act, and
to the fact that Norwegian industrial relations have been characterised by a tradition of
co-operation, by high trade union membership density and complete collective bargaining
rights. These, in turn, support the existence of strong and effective workplace OHS
committees and worker safety representatives. 79
90
In view of the overwhelming evidence that workforce participation has a positive and
measurable impact on OHS outcomes (see chapter 3), perhaps the most significant differences
between Norway and countries like the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States are
first, that trade union membership has been declining in the UK, Australia and the US, and
second that “the Norwegian framework is more conducive to worker involvement”. 80 For
instance, Saksvik and Quinlan note that: