Occupational health and safety management systems : system types and effectiveness

The aim of this thesis is to develop a framework to evaluate the relative performance of different types of health and safety management system. This objective is an analytical one, but it stems from a policy issue of public importance. Over the past decade Australia, like other countries, has seen the emergence and growth of interest in developing health and safety management systems. But are they all the same, and if not, do they differ in their effectiveness? The thesis does not seek to give a definitive answer to these questions. Given the novelty of the phenomenon and the lack of research on this subject, the research is exploratory. An hypothesis about the effectiveness of different health and safety management systems is developed rather than tested. The thesis proceeds by first defining health and safety management systems as a combination of the planning and review, the management arrangements, the consultative arrangements and the specific program elements that work together in an integrated way to improve health and safety performance. A research procedure is described involving twenty exploratory case studies. The thesis then - develops - from the literature and the case study research - an analytical framework to evaluate the performance of different health and safety management systems. That framework has two parts. First is a typology of health and safety management systems. This is constructed from two distinctions - between \u27safe place\u27 and \u27safe person\u27 approaches to health and safety; and between \u27innovative\u27 and traditional\u27 management methods and structures. These distinctions yield four types of system. The typology was applied to the case studies which yielded a reasonable fit in most instances. The second part of the framework is a \u27process evaluation\u27 technique akin to Quality standards. Derived from the Victorian SafetyMAP audit criteria, the "e;process evaluation tool "e; is preferred to traditional outcome measures such as incident or claim rates. Using this measure, the twenty case study enterprises were classified as above average, average or below average in performance. These results correlated poorly with traditional incident trend and benchmark measures. The two elements of the framework are then combined to explore the relationship between the different types of system and their performance. Evidence from the twenty case studies showed a tendency for innovative/safe place firms to perform better than traditional/safe person firms. This finding can form the basis for a hypothesis that may be subject to statistical testing on a generalisable sample. In addition five \u27best practice\u27 cases were selected and subjected to a cross case analysis to search for common characteristics that might explain their performance. This analysis suggests the importance of a number of factors: senior managers who drive health and safety change and mobilise all possible resources in the pursuit of change; health and safety representatives who work with managers in a \u27joint regulatory relationship\u27 across system activities; the involvement of employees more generally, but not as a substitute for action by managers and health and safety representatives; a comprehensive approach to elimination of all hazards; and the introduction of innovative programs to continually improve systems and facilitate employee involvement in health and safety