Designing a map for measuring and managing safety performance

Figures & data

Figure 1 Interaction between OHS management and leadership and the organization’s structure, culture and processes to generate the desired level of OHS and organizational performance. Note: Modified from [1,6,34,38]. OHS = occupational health and safety.

Figure illustrates the interaction and causal chain between OHS management and leadership and the organization’s structure, culture and processes to generate the desired level of OHS and organizational performance.

Table 1 Main perspectives affecting safety performance identified in the literature.

Perspective affecting safety performance	Supporting literature
OHS management and leadership	[2,8,24,25,27,29–31,51,52]
Structure	[53]
Processes	[40,54]
Culture	[37,42,43,55]
Individual behavior	[56,57]
Performance	[2,3,5,47–50]

Note: OHS = occupational health and safety.

Table 2 Background information about the case organizations involved in the design and iteration stages of the study and the companies involved in the validation of the safety performance map.

Stage	Industry	Number of employees	Turnover (EUR million)
Design and iteration	Manufacturing	18,000	3300
	Food processing	2000	920
	Infrastructure	1400	290
	Support services	8000	780
Testing	Forestry	>20,000	10,055
	Chemicals	800	70
	Construction	600	355

Table 3. Interviewee profile of the design stage of the map.

Industry	Work title of interviewee	Number of interviewees
Manufacturing	Global Director of H&S, Global HSE Specialist, HSEQ Manager, SE Manager, HSE Engineer, H&S Manager, Safety, Supplier and Quality Manager	7
Food processing	Group EHS and Sustainability Manager, Head of Quality and EHS, EHS specialist	3
Infrastructure	HSEQ Manager, Safety Manager, Communications Specialist, H&S Specialist, Training Manager, HSEQ Specialist	6
Support services	Vice President of Facilities, Risk Management and EHSQ, OSH manager	2

Note: EHS = environment, health and safety; EHSQ = environment, health, safety and quality; H&S = health and safety; HSE = health, safety and environment; HSEQ = health, safety, environment and quality; OSH = occupational safety and health; SE = safety and environment.

Table 4 Summary of the design stage.

Stage	Interview event	Event structure	Question result
Design	First-round group interviews in four companies	Examination of the overall framework Open discussion on the perspectives of the framework Detailed examination of individual perspectives supported by more detailed definitions	How do the perspectives occur in your company? What sub-dimensions do you identify? What are the roles of these perspectives in the safety performance of your organization? Do you identify still some other relevant aspects for safety performance in your workplace?
	Second-round group interviews in four companies	Evaluation of the order of importance of the factors mentioned in the first group interview giving a maximum of three to five points per factor Discussion on the possible relationships between the prioritized factors	–
			First version of the safety performance map

Table 5 Summary of the iteration stage.

Stage	Interview event	Event structure	Question Result
Iteration	Group interview of industry representatives	Evaluation of the first version of the safety performance map Detailed examination of individual perspectives	Do you recognize the factors presented in the map in your organization? Can you identify any missing elements? Are the titles of the presented perspectives and factors descriptive enough, or is there a need to specify them? What do you think about the represented causal relations on the map?
	Group interview of external safety experts	Evaluation of the first version of the safety performance map Detailed examination of individual perspectives	How industry-specific is the presented model? Is the map suitable for industries other than the ones involved in the creation process? How generalizable is the model? What kind of context might possibly be missing from these findings? Is the model in relation to theory? Does it correspond to theoretical concepts?
	–	–	Iterated version of the safety performance map

Table 6 Summary of the testing stage.

Stage	Interview event	Event structure	Question Result
Testing	Company-specific interviews in three companies	Testing the presented relationships between the factors Assessing the significance of the factors involved Identifying any missing elements Gaining an understanding of the industry-specific nature of the characteristics	Identify the five most important factors for safety in your company Name five safety-related issues that are the focus of attention in your company in the future Do you recognize the themes presented in the map in your organization? Describe with examples how these factors occur in your workplace or company Are some themes more conventional, i.e., ones that have been on the agenda for a long time? Are there themes that are topical or interesting in the future? Do you find something less important or relevant to you? Can you identify any missing elements, i.e., elements that are not in the map but should be? Are the titles of the perspectives and factors illustrative, or is there a need to specify them? What do you think about the represented causal relations on the map? Is there something else you would like to add?
			Final version of the safety performance map

Table 7. Codes used for group interview data classification.

Perspective	Factor^a	Food industry	Manufacturing	Facility service	Infrastructure construction
OHS management	Objectives aligned with strategy	–	*	*	*
	Sufficient resource allocation	*	*	*	–
	Monitoring	–	–	–	–
	Rewarding and sanctions	*	–	*	*
	Certified management system	–	*	–	–
	Supplier management	–	*	–	–
	Lean management philosophy	–	*	–	–
OHS leadership	Management’s example	*	*	*	*
	Communication	*	*	*	*
	Transparency	–	*	–	*
	Developing awareness and knowledge	*	*	*	*
	Coaching	–	–	*	–
	Empowerment	–	*	–	–
	Safety participation	*	–	–	–
Structure	Flexible structures	–	*	–	*
	Clear roles and responsibilities	*	*	*	*
	Line organization responsible	*	*	*	*
	H&S organization supporting line	*	*	*	*
	Change management	–	–	–	*
	Network of experts	–	*	–	–
Safety culture	Safety as a core business value	*	*	*	*
	Commitment and safety in thinking	*	*	–	*
	Safety as a part of everyday work	*	–	*	*
	Culture of learning	–	*	–	–
	Fairness	–	*	–	–
	Prioritization of safety	–	–	–	*
	Harmonization of culture	–	–	–	*
	The impact of safety culture on reputation	–	–	–	*
Processes	Induction and training	–	*	*	*
	Information systems in reporting	–	*	–	*
	Documentation	–	*	*	–
Employees’ attitudes and behavior	Employees’ attitudes and self-management	*	*	*	*
	Compliance	*	*	–	*
	Safety awareness and understanding safety reasoning	*	–	*	*
	Deciding to act safely under pressure and in haste	*	–	*	*
	Caring	*	*	–	*
OHS performance	Leading indicators	*	*	*	*
	Lagging indicators	–	–	*	*
	Development of measurement system	*	*	–	*
	Performance transparent at all levels	*	*	–	–
	Positivity	–	*	–	*
Organizational performance	Quality	*	*	*	*
	Productivity	*	*	–	–
	Reputation	*	*	*	*
	Cost reduction	–	–	*	*
	Customer satisfaction	*	–	*	–
	Business continuity	–	–	–	*
	Wellbeing as a value	–	*	–	–
	Less severe incidents	–	–	–	*
	Work overload	–	–	*	–

^a Crossed out factors occurred only once and were thus not included in the map.

Note: H&S = health and safety; OHS = occupational health and safety.

Table 8. Summary of the discussion.

Group interview	Points raised in the discussion
Company representatives	It was felt that a detailed plan of action on different time scales plays a significant role in management, but the factor is not yet part of the map. There was a consensus in the discussion that, logically, the setting of goals should be followed by a company’s action planning, which should then be followed by the allocation of adequate resources Standards and regulations were seen as necessary and as a starting point for processes Supplier management was first mentioned in the map creation stage’s group interviews, but it was mentioned by only one company at the time. This time, all of the case companies were unanimous that the factor should be included in the map. The factor was deemed necessary and universal because most companies have contractors, subcontractors or suppliers. More broadly, this was seen to be able to refer to all external actors and the handling of their contracts
External safety experts	The experts pointed out that among the listed factors, two common aspects in safety management are missing –empowerment and accountability, referring to managers’ responsibility for OHS results and their reporting. Empowerment means involving employees in decision making and giving them independence so that they can use their awareness and knowledge for the benefit of the organization The research team considered whether the factors could be embedded within some other factor in the OHS management and leadership perspective, such as monitoring or transparency, to which it can sometimes be associated. Nevertheless, it was decided not to add accountability to the map at this stage without further investigation

Note: OHS = occupational health and safety.

Table 9 Factors mentioned in the testing stage.

Perspective	Basic safety factor	Factor of interest in the future
OHS management and leadership	Management commitment and example Management work Empowerment Positive communication Top management commitment	Information sharing Human factors Management’s awareness Empowerment
Structure	Common operations models for key issues	–
Processes	Supplier involvement Learning about events and high-quality investigation of events OHS plan and planning Safety training Risk assessment Comprehensive risk assessment	Supplier management and involvement Accident and near-miss investigations and learning from them Workplace survey Targeting training Training (e-learning) Broader risk-assessment perspective Harmonization of practices Audits and their harmonization Consideration of process and machine safety Deployment and testing of new technologies
Culture	Safety must be a value	Developing leadership and culture
Individual behavior	Making safety observations	Driving forward and increasing the number of safety actions

Note: Bold indicates factors that were not included in the previous version of the map. OHS = occupational health and safety.

Figure 2 Safety performance map. Note: H&S = health and safety; OHS = occupational health and safety.

Illustration of the safety performance map and related individual factors.

Table

Factor	Description
OHS management
Objectives aligned with strategy	Setting visible, fair and achievable objectives in line with the organization’s strategy
Action plan	Creating an annual or monthly plan of action designed to prevent safety issues and to address them
Sufficient resource allocation	Ensuring there are resources available to perform the required safety actions, such as inspections and development work
Monitoring	Monitoring the achievement of objectives. Monitoring allows management to demonstrate accountability and commitment to improving safety
Performance discussion	A discussion that can be used to encourage positive, proactive performance or find out whether an incident was due to the lack of adequate instructions or the right kind of work equipment or the employee's negligent actions
Rewarding and sanctions	Rewarding and sanctions according to results but also rewarding based on active participation in safety actions
OHS leadership
Management’s example	Leading by example through discussions and actions. Management’s example motivates employees’ commitment to safety
Communication	Informing and two-way communication. Safety issues are addressed in everyday life, and everyone receives the necessary information regarding safety
Transparency	Transparency in safety-related issues. For instance, accidents are reported openly
Developing awareness and knowledge	There is an overall picture and a basic understanding of OHS, how it affects the company and its legal requirements. High competence in OHS is not needed, but awareness of it is required
Empowerment	Involving employees in decision making and giving them independence so that individuals can use their awareness and knowledge to benefit the community
Structure
Clear roles and responsibilities	Understanding one’s role and responsibilities – what can be done for safety. Clear job descriptions and specifications
Line organization responsible	The line organization is responsible for implementing safety actions
H&S organization supporting line	The H&S organization is responsible for developing and planning safety actions as well as supporting supervisors in their safety activities
Practical structures	OHS structures are practical and suitable for the company’s needs. Either harmonization or flexibility could be required
Processes
Internal rules	An organization’s set of rules specific to operations and industry. Rules reflect legislative requirements
Risk assessment	The process of evaluating risks to individuals’ safety and health in the workplace
Induction and training	Job induction and training in safety and health, such as occupational safety card training
Reporting	Reporting observations, near-misses and accidents
Information systems	Information system as a tool for reporting and document storage
Documentation	Documentation is available and accessible
Development	The planning and development of safety-related actions at the workplace. Continual improvement process
Supplier management	Ensuring the contractor has the ability to work safely
Culture
Safety as a core business value	Safety is one of the core business values
Fairness	The culture reflects fairness and justice. Everyone is treated the same
Commitment	Safety is dedicated – everyone takes responsibility for their own and their colleagues’ safety
Safety as a part of everyday work	Understanding that safety is not a separate issue but part of a job well done
Safety in thinking	Individuals always want to make a safe choice in all situations
Individual behavior
Safety awareness	Awareness of dangers in the workplace. Awareness of the existence of safety procedures
Compliance	Individuals follow the rules even if they do not entirely understand why
Self-management	The safety instructions are followed to the end, even when no one is monitoring compliance
Understanding safety reasoning	Understanding why safety is important and why certain activities are done to improve occupational safety
Deciding to act safely under pressure and in haste	Employees work in accordance with safety instructions, even when the work schedule is tight
Participating	Individuals are involved, and they actively participate in improving safety in the workplace. Caring for safety matters
Caring	Caring for each other and taking responsibility for the safety of oneself and others. Caring can be expressed, e.g., by intervening when seeing an unsafe act and by giving feedback
Performance
Safety	The quality of an organization’s safety-related work, thus the ability to lower the risk of accidents
Quality	Safety is a component of quality
Productivity	Safety is seen to relate to improved productivity, e.g., through less sick leave
Reputation	Accidents could have harmful impacts on reputation. Reputation has an impact on how attractive employees see the company
Social sustainability	The promotion of well-being, equity and human rights in the organization and the society around it
Cost management	Successful OHS management can lead to cost management through both direct and indirect costs
Stakeholder satisfaction	Safety is seen to have an impact on stakeholder satisfaction, e.g., through sustainability issues

Note: H&S = health and safety; OHS = occupational health and safety.

Yukl G. Leadership in organizations. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson Prentice Hall; 2010.

 Google Scholar

Wu TC, Chen CH, Li CC. A correlation among safety leadership, safety climate and safety performance. J Loss Prev Process Ind. 2008;21(3):307–318.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tappura S, Hyytinen T, Kivistö-Rahnasto J, et al. Turvallisuuden johtajat – Esimiesten johtajuus, osaaminen ja sitoutuminen [Management of occupational health and safety – leadership, competence and commitment of the managers]. Tampere (FL): Tampere University of Technology; 2015. Finnish.

 Google Scholar

Guldenmund FW. (Mis)Understanding safety culture and its relationship to safety management. Risk Anal. 2010;30(10):1466–1480.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fernández-Muñiz B, Montes-Peón JM, Vázquez-Ordás CJ. Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance. Saf Sci. 2009;47(7):980–991.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Hale A, Guldenmund F, van Loenhout P, et al. Evaluating safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: effective intervention strategies. Saf Sci. 2010;48(8):1026–1035.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tappura S, Teperi AM, Kivistö-Rahnasto J, et al. Safety management tasks at different management levels. In: Kantola JI, Barath T, Nazir S, editors. Advances in human factors, business management, training and education. Proceedings of the AHFE 2016 International Conference on Human Factors, Business Management and Society, July 27-31, 2016, Florida; [place unknown]: Springer; 2016. p. 1147–1157.

 Google Scholar

Lutchman C, Maharaj R, Ghanem W. Safety management: a comprehensive approach to developing a sustainable system. Boca Raton (FL): CRC Press; 2016.

 Google Scholar

Lu CS, Yang CS. Safety leadership and safety behavior in container terminal operations. Saf Sci. 2010;48(2):123–134.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sheehan C, Donohue R, Shea T, et al. Leading and lagging indicators of occupational health and safety: the moderating role of safety leadership. Accid Anal Prev. 2016;92:130–138.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sileyew KJ. Systematic industrial OSH advancement factors identification for manufacturing industries: a case of Ethiopia. Saf Sci. 2020;132:104989.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Pryor P, Hale A, Hudson D. Development of a global framework for OHS professional practice. Saf Sci. 2019;117:404–416.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Occupational health and safety culture assessment – a review of main approaches and selected tools. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2011.

 Google Scholar

Kaynak T T, Elci M AT, et al. Effects of occupational health and safety practices on organizational commitment, work alienation, and job performance: using the PLS-SEM approach. Int J Bus Manag. 2019;11(5):146–166.

 Google Scholar

Taylor J. Safety culture assessing and changing the behavior of organisations. Farnham: Gower; 2010.

 Google Scholar

Gordon R, Kirwan B, Perrin E. Measuring safety culture in a research and development centre: a comparison of two methods in the air traffic management domain. Saf Sci. 2007;45(6):669–695.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Tappin D, Bentley T, Ashby L. An implementation evaluation of a qualitative culture assessment tool. Appl Ergon. 2015;47:84–92.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Parker D, Lawrie M, Hudson P. A framework for understanding the development of organisational safety culture. Saf Sci. 2006;44(6):551–562.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zin SM, Ismail F. Employers‘ behavioural safety compliance factors toward occupational, safety and health improvement in the construction industry. Procedia Soc Behav Sci. 2012;36:742–751.

 Google Scholar

Brown KA, Willis PG, Prussia GE. Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel industry: development and test of a sociotechnical model. J Oper Manag. 2000;18(4):445–465.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Köper B, Möller K, Zwetsloot G. The occupational safety and health scorecard – a business case example for strategic management. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2009;35(6):413–420.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Veltri A, Pagell M, Behm M, et al. A data-based evaluation of the relationship between occupational safety and operating performance. J Saf Health Environ Res. 2007;4(1):1–22.

 Google Scholar