A ASSe’S NterNAtioNAl S WORLD Focus - isha.org.t Focus Vol 13 No 2.pdf · SAFETY REVIEW Targeting Zero Incidents 1 World Focus 2014 R isk assessment ensures that accidents do not

Focus Focus

D

PAGE 20SH&E CHALLENGESA Global Perspective

D

PAGE 10INTERVIEWFu-Liang Lan on SH&E Collaboration

D

PAGE 12BEHAVIOR CHANGEInjury Prevention

D

PAGE 14SAFETY REVIEWTargeting Zero Incidents

1World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Risk assessment ensures that accidents do not result in painful injuries. Disasters worldwide have shown that a professional safety

management system can lead to improved loss control. Therefore, employers must commit to prevent-ing accidents to minimize injury to employees and damage to physical assets. Responsibility for loss pre-vention begins with the highest level of management and continues down through every level of supervision

Disasters worldwide have

shown that a professional

safety management

system can lead to improved loss

control.

For a complete Table of Contents,

see page 3

and eventually to each and every employee. Identifying and rectify-ing all associated potential hazards could minimize risks to personnel and property. Certain remedies can help prevent accidents from occur-ring. Regular feedback, employee involvement, recognition and appre-ciation change employee behavior. A proactive approach produces an environment with a higher awareness of safety and reducing injuries.

continued on page 6

Revolutionizing the Safety Management System

By Jitu C. Patel, CPEA

Volume 13 • Number 2

A techNicAl publicAtioN of ASSe’S iNterNAtioNAl

prActice SpeciAlty

WORLD

Safety Culture & Behavior:

A Global Challenge

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/a

lex

Sl

I would like to congratulate the International Practice Specialty (IPS) on the recent launch of ASSE’s Ambassador Program. The program’s objec-tive is to further reach out to global SH&E professionals. It is envisioned as an informal way of engaging and leveraging ASSE global champi-

ons—volunteers with significant membership experience and profes-sional expertise both in their local communities and globally.

ASSE ambassadors will help identify and explore business and membership growth opportunities in markets outside of the U.S. Among five ambassadors appointed by ASSE, IPS Membership Chair Jitu Patel and I are part of this program and represent the Middle East, India and Southeast Asia.

IPS hosted an open call on Asia-Pacific SH&E regulations with the involvement of IPS Asia-Pacific subliaisons Michael Tooma, Edwin Yap and Nirupam Mukherjee.

In October 2013, ASSE’s board of directors approved a new gover-nance model, which is designed to help ASSE accurately forecast and meet members’ needs as they arise, be flexible and effective, respond quickly to changing cirucmstances, make a difference for members

and the profession and make the most of the Society resources. Click here for more information on the restructure.

Also, ASSE has established a Risk Assessment Institute to help members develop new risk assessment core competencies, share best practic-es and access the latest risk-based metrics, tools and research for both career advancement and the improvement of organizational effectiveness.

Use these new ASSE programs and initiatives to make a positive differ-ence in your workplaces worldwide and to move forward in our mission. •

InternatIonal PractIce SPecIalty

OFFICErSAdministratorAshok GArlAPAti [email protected]

Assistant AdministratorriCh [email protected]

SecretaryAdivi BAlA [email protected]

Publication CoordinatorAdAM [email protected]

rESOurCE SnAPSHOTInternational Information

Body of Knowledge

Journal of SH&E Research

International Resource Guide

Networking Opportunities

Publication Opportunities

Volunteer Opportunities

ASSE STAFFManager, Practice SpecialtiesChArlyn [email protected]

Manager, CommunicationssuE [email protected]

EditorJolindA [email protected]

Publication Design sioBhAn lAlly [email protected]

World Focus is a publication of ASSE’s Inter-national Practice Specialty, 1800 East Oakton St., Des Plaines, IL 60018, and is distributed free of charge to members of the Interna tion-al Practice Specialty. The opinions expressed in articles herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of ASSE. Technical accuracy is the responsibility of the author(s). Send address changes to he address above; fax to (847) 768-3434; or send via e-mail to [email protected].

adminiStrator’S meSSaGe

2World Focus www.asse.org 2014

FocusWORLD

Focus

Ashok GArlAPAti

IPS Supports ASSE Ambassador Program

C O N T E N T S

PAGE 1 Safety culture & BehavIor: a GloBal challenGe

By Jitu C. PatelAn employer that institutes a cultural change toward the zero-incident concept is bound to see safety improvement of which the entire workforce can be proud.

PAGE 4 aSSe launcheS amBaSSador ProGram to extend GloBal reach

ASSE’s new Ambassador Program seeks to engage and leverage ASSE global champions—volunteers with significant member-ship experience and professional expertise both in their local communities and globally.

PAGE 10 ImProvInG occuPatIonal Safety & health throuGh collaBoratIon

An interview with Fu-Liang Lan, president of the Industrial Safety and Health Association in Taiwan.

PAGE 12 Zero InjurIeS IS not your Goal

By Bill Sims Jr.If you chase zero unsafe behaviors, you will finally achieve zero injuries or come close to it.

PAGE 14 IS InduStry really PoISed for Zero accIdentS? a revIew

By Harbans Lal Kaila

Management must aim to achieve a busi-ness/safety balance for human safety while emphasizing the behavior/safety connection in the broader organizational perspective.

InSIGhtS Into SIGnIfIcant challenGeS In the Sh&e ProfeSSIon: an InternatIonal PerSPectIve

By Neil Dine, Richard Cooper, Hamad Al-Kandari, Ashok Garlapati & Edwin Yap

An overview of challenges facing SH&E professionals in Australia, Europe, the Gulf and Singapore.

3rd natIonal conference on confIned SPace actIvItIeSBy Adriano Paolo Bacchetta

A recap of the third National Conference on Confined Space Activities held in Italy in October 2013.

PAGE 20

PAGE 30

Volume 13 • Number 2

V W p L AD D

D

D

Video Website PDF Hot Link Ad Link Direct Link

Click on these icons for immediate access or bonus information

3World Focus www.asse.org 2014

QueSt for emPloyee enGaGement: chocolate, vanIlla or StrawBerry? Part oneBy Bill Sims Jr.

When it comes to engagement, every company has three kinds of workers: noncompliant, compliant and committed.

PAGE 32D

coNNectioN Key

During Safety 2013, ASSE launched an Ambassador Program to further reach out to global SH&E professionals. The program is envisioned as an informal way of engaging and

leveraging ASSE global champions—volunteers with significant membership experience and professional expertise both in their local communities and globally.

ASSE ambassadors will help identify and further explore business and membership growth opportunities in markets outside of the U.S. They will also represent ASSE globally as needed.

ASSE members who are already engaged in promot-ing the Society worldwide and who have proven records as successful and influential volunteer leaders within

4World Focus www.asse.org 2014

the global SH&E community had been chosen initially. These members have also demonstrated strong inter-est and involvement through the years in ASSE global programs, member outreach, chapter/section creation, partnership creation and generating business opportuni-ties and leads.

Yassie Dunn, ASSE’s manager of global growth and development, will liaise with ambassadors and will update the Council on Member Region Affairs on poten-tial global opportunities and related activities. ASSE is also continually adding to its list of global subject-matter experts, who are available in various markets to serve as local resources and/or speakers as needed. •

Global activitieS

ASSE Launches Ambassador Program to Extend Global Reach

ASSE Ambassadors with ASSE staff

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/a

lex

Slo

bod

kin

According to a new OECD report, Switzerland needs to do more to help people with mental ill-nesses find a job or stay employed.

In Switzerland, about one in three people on unemployment, disability or social assistance benefit has a mental illness. The unemployment rate of people with mental illnesses is more than double the overall rate.

A more effective approach would help workers and firms alike: mental health issues are esti-mated to cost the Swiss economy billions, equivalent to 3.2% of gross domestic product per year, in lost productivity, healthcare and social spending.

Click here to read more.

OECD Says Switzerland Needs to Improve Its Approach to Mental Health Issues in the Workforce

5World Focus www.asse.org 2014

name reGIon

Rixio Medina, CSP, CPP, CMIOSH • ASSE Fellow • Recipient of Safety Professionals & the Latino Workforce’s (SPALW) 2012 Significant

Contributor Award and the ASSE Foundation’s (ASSEF) 2012 Distinguished Service Award• Representative on the National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and

Health • Founder and donor, Medina Scholarship for Hispanics in Safety through ASSEF• Member Spotlight: rixio Medina• Interview with rixio Medina• 2010 Press Release on rixio Medina

Latin America

Anibal Franco, MCE, LEED AP• SPALW Chair, 2011-12

Latin America

Jitu Patel, CPEA, Professional Member Emeritus• ASSE Fellow • Recipient of 2012 Diversity in the SH&E Profession Award

India/Middle East/Southeast Asia

Ashok Garlapati, CSP• Recipient of 2011 Edgar Monsanto Queeny Safety Professional of the Year

Award • Past member of Global Task Force• Past president of Kuwait Chapter• International Practice Specialty Administrator• Recipient of Charles V. Culbertson Outstanding Volunteer Service Award

India/Middle East/Southeast Asia

Nick D. Yin, CSP, CIH• ASSE member • Certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene in Comprehensive Practice• Certified by the International Board for Certification of Safety Managers as a

Certified Product Safety Manager• Certified by the Board of Certified Safety Professionals in Management Aspects• Senior Nutritionist, National Personnel Department, the People’s Republic of China• AIHA Fellow

Greater China (mainland China, Taiwan & Hong Kong)

ASSE Ambassadors

Z359 Fall Protection Code Version 3.0 Now Available

new data indicate that falls from heights are still a concern within the u.S. workforce. The fatality rate for falls from heights is even higher globally.

To counteract these statistics, SH&E professionals in the u.S., as well as in Central and South America, Canada and the Middle East, have used the AnSI/ASSE Z359 Fall Protection Code to implement and manage fall protection/restraint systems. Initially released in 2007, the code is a series of coordinated standards and reference documents that establish the requirements for an effective and comprehensive fall protection management system.

Version 3.0 of the code includes these additional standards:•Safety requirements for Assisted-rescue & Self-rescue Systems, Subsystems & Components (AnSI/ASSE Z359.4-2013)•Personal Energy Absorbers & Energy-Absorbing Lanyards (AnSI/ASSE Z359.13-2013)•Fall Protection Systems for Construction & Demolition Operations (AnSI/ASSE A10.32-2012)•Criteria for Accepted Practices in Safety, Health & Environmental Training (AnSI/ASSE Z490.1-2009)Click here for more information on the new Z359 Fall Protection Code Version 3.0 or click here to purchase it. •

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/o

leG

pri

kh

od

ko

IntroductIon

Lessons learned repeatedly suggest the necessity for a strong safety commitment from senior management. We must reconsider our traditional way of thinking and behaving. We may need to make some sacrifice for the safety of our people and facility. Our upbringing and beliefs must not come in the way of running our busi-ness. This could result in an unsafe situation and could lead to accidents. Managers must set good leadership examples by giving safety prime importance. Success could be achieved through a sound safety culture that is employee-owned, management-driven and operationally consistent, which maximizes creativity and innovation. Adopt the cultural belief that all incidents are prevent-able. An employer that institutes a cultural change toward the zero-incident concept is bound to see safety improve-ment of which the entire workforce can be proud.

Safety manaGement ProGram

Disasters worldwide have shown that a professional safety management system can lead to improved loss control.

corPorate PolIcy

The company must commit to preventing accidents to minimize bodily injury to its employees and damage to its physical assets. The company takes every reasonable measure to provide and maintain a safe and healthy work environment for its employees and to protect the public against foreseeable hazards resulting from operations. Policy declaration is the first and most important program element. The highest authority and corporation manage-ment must consider no phase of operation as being of greater importance than that of accident prevention.

reSPonSIBIlItIeS

It is corporate management’s responsibility to ensure that operating and business plans reflect and are in line with company loss prevention policy. Executive man-agement directs managers and superintendents to devel-op and administer an effective loss prevention program. All employees learn and follow safe work practices for their willing participation in the program. They report all accidents and near misses, which have lesson-learning potential. The responsibility for loss prevention begins with the highest level of management and continues down through every level of supervision and eventually to each and every employee.

rISk aSSeSSment ProGram

Identifying and rectifying all associated potential haz-ards could minimize risks to personnel and property. This important program element is the mother of all other pro-grams. A safety task action report identifies unsafe acts. A job safety analysis identifies hazards when employees are exposed to them. Both of these instructions recom-mend actions to reduce injuries and property damage.

loSS SourceS & fIve-SteP rISk aSSeSSment

People are the first source of losses. These could be managers, engineers or workers. Second is equipment, whether fixed plant, machines, tools or vehicles. Third are process materials, supplies and products that have physical and chemical hazards. Fourth are surroundings, including buildings, surfaces, lighting, noise, radiation, weather and social or economic conditions, which can affect safe performance of people, equipment and mate-rials. Those who initiate five-step risk assessment to identify hazards evaluate the risk of each exposure, plan how to handle each risk and manage according to plan.

unSafe actS & condItIonS

Unsafe acts and conditions cause incidents. These could be due to operating equipment without authority, failure to warn, failure to secure, operating at an improper speed or removing a safety device, which happened in the Bhopal gas tragedy in India. Common unsafe condi-tions include inadequate guards, inadequate or improper PPE, defective tools, equipment or materials, restricted movement, inadequate warning system, fire hazards, poor housekeeping, hazardous gases, vapors, dusts, fumes or an oxygen-deficient environment, noise, vibration, radia-tion, extreme temperatures or inadequate ventilation.

accIdent cauSeS

Root causes of accidents in the process industry are design failure, operational error, equipment failure and maintenance and inspection deficiencies, as was found in the case of a gasoline line failure that resulted in severe business disruption for more than 5 weeks in Arizona, inadequate supervision and training, and natural phe-nomena and external influences, such as those caused by Hurricane Katrina.

6World Focus www.asse.org 2014

cover Story

Safety Culture & Behavior: A Global Challengecontinued from page 1

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/k

zen

on

7World Focus www.asse.org 2014

what IS a near mISS?A near miss is an event that “could have been an acci-

dent.” One or more “unsafe conditions” or “unsafe acts” can turn it into an “accident.” An “accident” results in harm, whereas a “near miss” does not.

many near mISSeS are not rePorted

Although we are aware that so many unsafe acts and unsafe conditions lead to minor to major injury and/or property damage, industry experience suggests that the number of accidents reported is much higher than the number of near misses reported.

why Be concerned?This is of major concern because not investigating a

near miss is a lost opportunity to prevent an accident. Unsafe situations cause more near misses, and uncor-rected unsafe situations cause accidents.

Promote near-mISS rePortInG

People do not report or investigate near misses because employees have a negative mindset. They think that since nothing has happened, why should they bother reporting? They think it is not worth reporting because it is too much of a hassle and the boss might not like it. This negative mindset needs to change to promote report-ing of near misses. This could be achieved by ensuring that observation cards do not identify individuals and do not incur penalties. Furthermore, the report should not adversely affect their safety record. This demonstrates employee and management commitment to safety.

near-mISS InveStIGatIon BenefItS

Near-miss reporting and investigating heightens the awareness of the individual. The major benefit of this is that it uncovers underlying unsafe conditions and acts and allows facilities to eliminate unsafe situations.

rePortInG near mISSeS

Have an observation checklist, which provides guide-lines for the investigation of near misses as part of the program. However, is use of this checklist really active? Is it implemented with honesty? If not, it could give a false sense of security.

near-mISS rePortInG tIPS

To increase the integrity of the company observation card and the strength of near-miss reporting, it is recom-mended that the company issue a “no blame” policy statement that would help gain employee confidence and would support the program fairly. Also, initiate an employee awareness campaign to encourage and increase active participation. Reward those who report near misses to motivate them. Share experiences by dis-playing the findings on a “near-miss” bulletin board and the departmental website. Continued training for near-miss understanding, reporting and investigation should be an ongoing process.

why accIdent InveStIGatIon?Accidents occur where humans are involved. To pre-

vent their recurrence, we need to evaluate potential risks and to take remedial actions before it is too late by com-municating and implementing improved work methods.

accIdent cauSeS

Investigation should consider determining employee lack of knowledge or skill, mental or physical defects, attitude and extent of motivation. Additionally, the investigating team would include inadequate engineer-ing, inadequate specifications, inadequate maintenance and inspection, inadequate tools, unsafe conditions, unsafe acts and any poor work standards.

BaSIc remedIeS

Certain remedies can help prevent an accident from occurring. Train and motivate employees, conduct spe-cial engineering revisions and a job safety analysis, iden-tify personal and job factors, identify deviations and take corrective actions as needed.

recoGnItIon ProGram

The recognition program includes group recognition, individual recognition, safety awareness, safety bulletin boards, special loss prevention displays, bulletins, publi-cations, use of program statistics and facts in safety edu-cation and awareness activities, critical safety campaigns and employee safety suggestion programs.

what chanGed emPloyee BehavIor?Harvard professors conducted a study to survey the

effects of different lighting levels on worker productiv-ity. A group of plant employees who knew they were part of the study was placed in a special room to perform their normal jobs. Output was measured each day as lights were dimmed and brightened. As the lighting was changed, productivity went up, ultimately increasing by nearly 30%. This concluded that no correlation existed between productivity levels and a particular light set-ting. However, the sense of recognition and achievement workers experienced by being part of the study trans-lated into better job performance. This Hawthorne Effect explains why new initiatives that solicit input from employees often improve performance. Regular feed-back, employee involvement, recognition and apprecia-tion can help employees do what you want them to do.

what motIvateS emPloyeeS?Research suggests that the top satisfier for workers

is a sense of accomplishment. Second is recognition for doing a good job. These are the most powerful motiva-tors for people, and that is why we should recognize and celebrate trailing indicators. If you do not, you are missing a major opportunity to motivate people to per-manently change their behavior.

What about dissatisfiers? You have probably heard many times, “I do twice the amount of work he does, but

STANDARDAnSI/AIHA/ASSE Z10-2012D

he makes more money than I do. However, when I screw up one time, I get nailed. When I make a mistake, it is recognized 100% of the time, but when I excel, nothing is mentioned 99% of the time.” Abuse and favoritism can also be a deadly problem.

SmartcardS

Many industries use Smartcards to motivate employ-ees and supervisors. Every month, managers give a customized Smartcard to employees. Employees and managers who participate have the chance to win prizes during monthly or weekly training meetings. Each supervisor reads the poster of the month, discusses it with employees and then hands them a Smartcard with two true/false questions. The Smartcard will match the poster displayed that month and will pinpoint the correct behaviors employees are to show. All employees answer the true/false questions, and the supervisors encourage them to call a customized telephone number with their answers. Every call is tracked to reward supervisors with trips and prizes based on their employees showing good participation rates in the program. Can you see how middle managers are involved?

how to achIeve BehavIoral chanGe

How do we change employee behavior? We do it much the way that any mother does. At age 3, most of us hated green beans and refused all efforts to get us to eat them. Finally, one day, mom got smart and put a bowl of ice cream on the table: “If you eat your green beans, you can have some ice cream.” It worked!

So what did mom do? She first communicated the behavior she wanted (eat green beans) and then posi-tively reinforced you immediately for the behavioral change. You got ice cream on the spot, not a million kid hours later. One hundred years of research in the field of behavioral analysis says that we use a two-step process to change behavior. First, we teach and train employees what we need them to do, and second, we positively reinforce them the instant they demonstrate the behavior we want.

reduce InjurIeS wIthout hIdInG

Many companies on the market today offer behavioral change solutions. Broadly, these are split into two camps. The first is a consultancy-led approach. This often has

sound theory but is not equipped with the tools to implement the effec-tive positive reinforcement, which is the oxygen of behavioral change.

The other camp centers on an incentive-led approach. While this approach has some merit, many solu-tions are “off the shelf” and can lead to haphazard application to reward the “right” behavior, or even worse, they can lead to rewards being issued for trailing results-based measures.

The recognition concept combines an experienced consulting service with a proven methodology for rec-ognizing and rewarding employees and managers. This is delivered using a Smartcard—you did it right, which is customized to the industry situation, preferences and budget. This improves the ability of supervisors and managers to deliver positive reinforcement effectively, thereby guaranteeing a better chance of improvement.

uSe the ProactIve aPProach

The proactive approach gives you an environment with a higher awareness of safety and fewer or no inju-ries. Before an injury, nearly 300 near misses occur, escaping injury. These near misses reinforce that it is okay to take chances. However, one more time, lightning strikes and an injury occurs. The proactive approach rewards employees to do it right and alerts to wrongdo-ing. With the old school approach of counting safe work hours and handing out t-shirts, employees hide injuries or somehow escape them. With the new approach, man-agers decide what behaviors to reward and do so on a daily basis without abuse or favoritism. Employees must display a particular behavior. Remember, you want last-ing behavioral change.

why mIddle manaGerS Should Be rewarded

Once you switch from an “entitlement” program to one that requires action, expect grumbling. Middle man-agers will complain they have too much to do to reward employees for safe behavior. Overcome these by reward-ing middle managers and safety for driving the behavior-based process. Employees who are willing to put extra effort into safety pick up a greater percentage of the rewards available. That is what behavior-based safety is about: being rewarded for doing something.

why recoGnItIon ProGramS work In a 3-year study published in ASSE’s Professional

Safety in 2004, 300 construction firms were tracked. Half of the companies refused to implement a safety reward recognition program. The other 150 companies felt they needed a safety recognition strategy. At the end of the study, the firms that chose to implement safety recogni-tion programs had injury rates that were 50% lower than the firms that refused to try safety recognition programs. Numerous case studies support the same findings with success stories.

culture-BaSed aPProach

We must reconsider our traditional way of thinking and behaving since we may be influenced by our own customs and culture. We must make some sacrifices by compromising them for the safety of our people and facility. Our upbringing and beliefs must not come in the way of running our business—this could result in an unsafe situation and accidents. Generally, as operation’s priority is profitability. However, paying attention to safety as number one pays dividends in all respects. The

8World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Consider launching positive

reinforcement with a tangible and

instant recognition program to

achieve employee behavioral change.

9World Focus www.asse.org 2014

company must consider having a world-class safety pro-gram with an excellent safety management system that is implemented with full dedication and commitment.

manaGerS In the new Safety culture

Managers must be active in planning for the safe operations of hazardous tasks. They must ensure the safe execution of tasks as planned. Management ensures that the workforce is well trained to perform hazardous jobs and that they are well supervised to ensure full compli-ance in required procedures. Managers are good com-municators with clear instructions provided, and more importantly, they set a good leadership example by giv-ing safety a prime importance. Although safety is every-one’s business, safety is management’s responsibility.

contractorS In a Safety culture

Contractor safety is also the proponent organization’s responsibility. Therefore, contractors must be screened, selected and viewed as partners. Their performance is measured to establish their accountabilities. Contractors must accept safety culture requirements.

SIGnS of culture chanGe

Management commitment to safety to reduce injury rates must be of highest importance. They would spare time and money to change employees’ attitude toward safety. Do whatever is necessary to heighten employee participation in near-miss reporting freely, seriously and honestly, which could be attained by employing positive reinforcement instantly with a tangible recognition reward.

Safety culture chanGe In summary, the key to success is through a sound

safety culture, which is employee-owned, management-driven and operationally consistent and maximizes creativity and innovation. Its most essential components are management commitment, employee recognition, employee training and hazard analysis with follow-ups for corrections. Adopt the cultural belief that all incidents are preventable. Any management system will work if top management and employees pull together toward the common vision of zero incidents. We must always strive for the best, always look for proven methods and avoid reinventing the wheel. The management system must always be adaptable to enable continuous improvement. Any company that institutes a cultural change toward the zero-incident concept is bound to see safety improve-ments of which the entire workforce can be proud.

concluSIon

Accident potential exists where humans are involved. Accidents result in losses. Company procedures and practices lower accidents if implemented fully and cor-rectly. Consider launching positive reinforcement with a tangible and instant recognition program to achieve employee behavioral change. This is an excellent moti-vational tool for reducing injuries. This system applies to

the construction or hotel industry, hospitals or any con-tracting companies that should be encouraged to adopt the same philosophy and implementation policy.

If you have a good, workable loss prevention program combined with a recognition program in place, consider this article as a refresher. However, for those who have bits and pieces of the program in place, consider includ-ing other applicable missing elements to avoid devastat-ing losses. •Jitu C. Patel, CPEA, is an international health, safety and envi-ronmental (HSE) consultant with 45+ years of SH&E experience in the chemical, oil and gas industries. For 21 years, he provided professional services to Aramco, an oil and gas producing and processing corporation in Saudi Arabia.

For 15 years, he provided technical training and conducted research in fire/explosions and HSE issues at a heavy chemicals manufacturing company in the U.K.

He has developed and conducted fire and safety seminars for safety and fire prevention engineers and for line management of industry operations. In addition, his work has been featured in several international publications, and he has presented at inter-national conferences.

Patel, an ASSE Fellow, is the International Practice Specialty’s membership chair, a member of the ASSE Council on Member & Region Affairs Global Committee and a senior board advisor to ASSE’s Arizona Chapter. He is also a founding member of ASSE’s Middle East and Philippines chapters and of five ASSE chapters in India.

He is a recipient of the ASSE Arizona Chapter’s Howard Heideman Safety Professional of the Year Award and a recipient of ASSE’s Diversity and Practice Specialty Safety Professional of the Year awards.

Patel holds a B.S. in Chemistry and Physics and an M.Phil in fuel science from Leeds University, U.K. He may be contacted at [email protected].

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/ c

arl

oSc

aSt

illa

IPS: Please provide a brief over-view of ISHA and of your responsi-bilities as president.

FLL: In compliance with govern-ment policy to improve working envi-ronments and to reduce occupational accidents, ISHA was established in 1960 as a nonprofit OSH organiza-tion. In 2012, ISHA celebrated its 53rd anniversary and is the oldest and largest OSH organization in Taiwan

Services pro-vided in the early stages of the organization included training OSH personnel and developing training materi-als, educational and training ses-sions, seminars and workshops. In compliance with govern-ment policy to strengthen OSH and in response to subject matter experts’ (SMEs) requests that ISHA provide guidance on OSH manage-ment system establishment, ISHA recently hired numerous senior safety engineers, pub-lished more OSH

teaching materials and strengthened internal IT management systems and services. As president, I direct our professional services to assist clients in the areas of compliance and prac-tice so as to ensure a safe environ-ment and society.

IPS: What are ISHA’s efforts to promote OSH as well as ISHA’s accomplishments and latest initia-tives?

FLL: 1) OSH Education and Training. ISHA provides train-ing sessions for OSH management personnel, specific machinery and equipment operators, management personnel for hazardous materials, managers in various industries, on-the-job OSH training for laborers in various industries, first-aid personnel training, training of zero-accident campaigners and assorted OSH train-ing for specific industries. In 2012, ISHA offered a total of 2,028 training courses to 65,516 trainees in 2012. 2) Authorized Inspection on Specific Equipment and Machinery. With inspection juris-diction in Taiwan, ISHA provides inspection services on boilers, high-pressure vessels, cranes, gondolas, and elevators. In 2012, 43,281 inspection services were conducted. This included welding, inspection, structural inspection, completion inspection, alteration inspection, renewal inspection, inspection of preexisting dangerous machinery or equipment and periodic inspection. 3) Working Environment

Management and Improvement Guidance. ISHA accepts commis-sioned projects from government agencies and businesses to conduct occupational health management on chemical, physical, biological, ergo-nomic and mental hazards, recom-mendations to improve poor working environments and implementation guidance on improvement measures. 4) Promotion of OSH Management Systems. In light of ILO-OSH 2001, the Taiwan Occupational Safety and Health Management System (TOSHMS) was promulgated in 2007. ISHA has since been commissioned to assist indus-tries with establishment and imple-mentation of TOSHMS. Currently, some 300 factories have been certi-fied by the TOSHMS system. 5) OSH Technical Services. Commissioned by the government, ISHA provides selected SMEs with improved and customized OSH measures, voluntary management and improvement guidance on OSH issues, guidance on energy-saving and carbon reduction programs for some businesses, improvement guidance on ergonomic factors, health promo-tion and fitness for physical laborers and technical guidance for the pet-rochemical industry. ISHA has also helped government agencies promote workplace health programs in Taiwan. In total, 73 technical guidance docu-ments have been published, and about 1,300 factories have received ISHA’s technical services. 6) International Cooperation.

With more than 35 years’ experience as an occupational safety and health (OSH) profes-sional in the Ministry of Labor Affairs and Manpower, Fu-Liang Lan, president of the Industrial Safety and Health Association (ISHA), has made lasting contributions to OSH practices in Taiwan. In this interview, Lan explains ISHA’s efforts to promote OSH as well as ISHA’s accomplishments, latest initiatives and future objectives.

Improving Occupational Safety & Health Through Collaboration

Q&a wIth fu-lIanG lan, PreSIdent, InduStrIal Safety & health aSSocIatIon

intervieW

10World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Fu-Liang Lan is president of the Industrial Safety and Health Association in Taiwan. Previously, he was the director of labor inspection, labor conditions and labor welfare for the Ministry of Labor Affairs and Manpower. He also worked as a researcher in the Ministry of Interior’s occupational safety and health depart-ment and was a lecturer at Chinese Culture University and Chia-Yao University.

11World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Besides participating in annual Asia-Pacific Occupational Safety & Health Organization meetings as a full member, ISHA seeks oppor-tunities to exchange views and techniques with international OSH counterparts and maintains a close relationship with OSH organiza-tions in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Macau and the U.S. 7) Promotional Campaign and Related OSH Activities. ISHA frequently holds seminars on a variety of issues (e.g., zero-accident campaign, home safety, health promotion, safety culture, subcon-tractor management, prevention of occupational diseases); publishes a monthly journal; has published 59 textbooks and regulations, 7 hand-books and other educational tools; strengthens OSH information and services; and updates its website with the latest OSH information. Due to concerted efforts among government agencies, academ-ics, labor and employers, the per-thousand fatality rate of occupational accidents in Taiwan had declined during the last few years (i.e., from 0.045 in 2005 to 0.032 in 2012).

IPS: Please give some examples of successful programs ISHA has implemented.

FLL: 1) Consultation Program on Occupational Health. In 2006, ISHA initiated an integral guidance plan for OSH. This plan combined counseling agencies, the labor inspection institute and the industrial association. The results show that such a guidance model is feasible. Generally, in summing up improve-ment results from 2007-12, the over-all mean exposure concentration at operation sites of the guided factories decreased by 96.5% on average. For industrial safety, after counseling 5,049 companies, the death, disability and injury rate has declined by an average of more than 50%. 2) Health Promotion Program. Since 1999, ISHA has helped the Bureau of Health Promotion, Department of Health of Executive

Yuan, focus on health promotion in the workplace. The goal is to provide counseling services to pro-mote worksite health and to control occupational diseases. Major mis-sions include offering services and consultation for companies, holding meetings, trainings and activities and developing strategies for continuous improvement of the national work-place health promotion system.

IPS: What are newly emerging OSH issues in Taiwan?

FLL: ISHA will collaborate with cross-ministry agencies to devote more efforts to emerging OSH issues, such as health hazard evalu-ation and control of nanoparticles, ergonomic hazards (low-back pain), biological hazards (H1N1, SARS), indoor air quality, mental hazards, sleep disorders among professional drivers. Economic incentives to improve OSH status among SMEs are also a concern.

IPS: What kinds of strategic plans will ISHA adopt for future chal-lenges?

FLL: On July 3, 2013, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was announced. This act is intended to prevent occupa-tional accidents and to protect laborer safety and health. New mech-anisms are as follows: 1) implement source manage-ment of machin-ery, equipment and chemicals; 2) improve the occupational dis-ease prevention system; 3) strengthen the maternal protection of female workers; and 4) strengthen supervision and inspection of high-risk workplaces. ISHA will focus on these tasks in the coming years to attain continual improvement in the field of OSH. •

ISHA seeks opportunities to exchange views and techniques with international OSH counterparts and maintains a close relationship with OSH organizations in China, Hong Kong, Japan, Macau and the U.S.

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/S

tud

iov

iSio

n

It was 1981, and I was in Danville, VA. I followed Tom, the safety direc-tor, through the dark old textile mill, walking on heart of pine floors that had

probably seen more than a hundred years of workers come and go. The smell of machine oil mixed with the warm smell of cotton. The textile machines hummed away, spinning out yard after yard of fabric.

I watched the workers busily monitor the machines to keep them running at peak efficiency, and I noted that many of the workers wore t-shirts emblazoned with the slogan, “Zero Injuries: Our Goal.”

On the walls in every breakroom, the same zero inju-ries slogan was repeated on posters, coffee mugs and other items.

I was impressed with the passion in this culture to reach zero injuries, so I asked Tom about his plant’s safety record.

“Well, Bill, I will be honest—we have made huge gains in safety over the last 5 years, but now it seems that reaching zero is impossible. The closer we get to zero, the harder it becomes to show improvement. We have started to plateau or flatline, and my concern is that we will do a ‘hockey stick’ and trend back up,” Tom admitted.

With more than 1,500 employees, Tom’s plant rou-tinely celebrated million-hour milestones, fed people steak dinners and the like. However, the plant still had a steady stream of injuries that would not go away.

Tom’s problem is like that of many other cultures. They have chased the goal of zero injuries year after year, only to find it to be more elusive than the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

At that moment, I looked Tom in the eye and told him that part of his problem was that he was chasing the wrong goal. I told Tom what I have told thousands of safety leaders around the world for more than 30 years: “Zero injuries is not your goal.”

Until leaders understand that a level of safety exists beyond zero, they will be stuck on the dreaded “hockey stick plateau” in their safety performance. Why does chasing zero injuries eventually produce this plateau?

To answer this question, we need to look into the world of quality improvement, and in particular, I want to consider the work of W. Edwards Deming, Ph.D.

After World War II, Deming approached U.S. auto-makers and said that if they would listen to his some-what radical theories on quality improvement, they could

12World Focus www.asse.org 2014

revolutionize quality and make vehicles that would last longer and build more loyal customers.

However, the big three U.S. automakers were actually delighted when something went wrong with a car (so long as it was out of warranty). If enough things failed on a car, then the customer would bring it to the dealer-ship and trade it in for a new one. This strategy was called “planned obsolescence.”

Planned obsolescence is why, when I was just 6 years old, I admired the beautiful chrome Cadillac emblem inside my father’s 1969 Cadillac Sedan DeVille. About 2 years after my father bought his new Caddy, right on schedule, those emblems would fall off. This “defect” provided a negative, immediate and certain consequence for my father.

I am not sure what else went wrong with my father’s car, but soon enough, he headed for the dealership to swap it for a new car.

Planned obsolescence had sold another car again. Strange as it may seem, this strategy of building poor qual-ity into a product was a positive, future and certain conse-quence for major U.S. automakers in the 1950s and 1960s.

As you might imagine, Deming’s words of wisdom fell on deaf ears at the big three. That is why he went to Japan.

The Japanese (who were looking for ways to gain U.S. market share) listened to Deming and designed quality into their products, making them better, cheaper and more fuel-efficient than their U.S. competition.

The Japanese taught U.S. manufacturers a vital lesson in quality versus planned obsolescence.

Here is how Deming gave the Japanese the winning hand in quality. When a factory produces a part that is defective and fails to meet specifications, then the part must be scrapped or reworked, or worse yet, it ships to the customer, creating an unhappy customer who eventu-ally stops buying the product. Any of these options is expensive and wasteful.

Deming taught that quality should be measured at every step in the process. Rather than fully assemble the car and count defects at the tail end, every step in the assembly process needed to have statistical analysis to see if the process was in control or out of control. Hence the name statistical process control.

Deming and other quality leaders have revolutionized manufacturing methods today. Measuring quality now involves hundreds and sometimes thousands of interim checks to be sure quality standards are met at each and every part of the product’s birth cycle.

How does this relate to safety? I once told a talented group of leaders at Boeing that instead of spending so

behavior chanGe By Bill SimS Jr.

Zero Injuries Is Not Your Goal

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/3

dSG

uru

13World Focus www.asse.org 2014

much money on quality assurance personnel and qual-ity testing for their aircraft, they might want to fire their whole quality department and save money.

In the department’s place, put up posters and hand out t-shirts that say, “Zero Defects: Our Goal.” Tell employ-ees to “build a good quality plane.” And lastly, measure quality by the number of customer complaints they receive for each aircraft.

Can Boeing run its company this way? What do you think? Can you run your company this way? Not a chance.

Everyone agrees that it would be impossible to run a company this way. Quality must be integrated with production every step of the way. But that is exactly how we run safety today in most companies. We put up posters that say “Zero Injuries Is Our Goal” and we tell employees, “Be safe now!”

Next, we count the “safety defects” after they have occurred (e.g., how many recordable injuries occurred last month? What is our incident rate? Did we have any fatalities? Did we receive our safety award bonus?).

Accidents are simply another kind of defect—a devia-tion from the standard of perfection. And, like quality, these defects must be detected and eliminated at the moment they first appear.

My friend Kenny Sawyer says that companies with injuries “rehearse those injuries thousands of time until they get them right.” He means that many “early warn-ing” behavioral indicators often tell us an injury is about to happen. These at-risk behaviors are often ignored due to the perceived importance of production and profits.

In light of this, I would like to suggest a better slogan for your next company t-shirt and poster campaign: “Our New Goal: Zero Unsafe Behaviors and Conditions.” Will you ever fully achieve this goal? Maybe, maybe not.

However, if you chase zero unsafe behaviors, you will finally achieve zero injuries or come close to it. You will instill in your culture the idea that it is not accept-able to rehearse for a fatality.

So tear down those old zero-injury signs and post-ers you have displayed. Put up new ones with my slogan, “Our New Goal: Zero Unsafe Behaviors and Conditions.” You do not owe me any money for using it. If it saves just one life, that will be more than payment enough for me. •Bill Sims Jr. is president of Bill Sims Behavior Change. For more than 30 years, he has helped companies improve human perfor-mance and profitability through positive reinforcement. He is also the author of Green Beans & Ice Cream: The Remarkable Power of Positive Reinforcement.

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/a

ma

na

lan

G

The Manufacturing Practice Specialty (MPS)) began as a branch of the Management Practice Specialty in 2006

and was approved to become a practice specialty in 2008. MPS’s goal is to provide a forum for industry-specific issues in manufacturing facilities, such as metalworking, timber and lumber working, food processing, chemical, rubber, plastics and printing/publishing locations.

In addition to publishing its triannual technical publica-tion Safely Made, MPS helps develop technical sessions for ASSE’s annual Professional Development Conference, regu-larly sponsors webinars on timely manufacturing-related topics, holds conference calls and much more. 

Click here to join MPS today or click here to follow MPS on LinkedIn.

ple. An injury hurts the organization because a factory inspector investigates and asks many questions.

The concept of zero accidents refers to a total partici-pation campaign in an organization, which sounds attrac-tive in a theoretical sense (Japan International Center for Occupational Safety and Health, 2013). But practically, zero accidents seem a far-fetched promise of business management as human safety would not receive an absolute preference over profits from production. There is a safety perspective, but implementation remains an unlikely endeavor in view of the accident statistics of almost every organization. Workplaces have continued killing and disabling people regardless of existing safety systems, standards or international certifications. A safe workplace is a myth or a reality. This article explores the issues shown in Table 1.

A zero accidents/injuries perspective requires change management strategies and initiatives for shifting the existing safety situation to a new level, which would need a stringent review of the prevalent safety systems and implementation of the latest behavioral safety approach (Matthews, 2013). Further, it is necessary to appraise organizational safety values, especially the core considerations of human life. Above all, safety leader-ship at all levels across organizations and linking safety to employee performance objectives are vital.

Thousands of workplace fatalities occur every year worldwide. One wonders if achieving zero acci-dents is a mere documentation exercise or if it is really achievable for industry. Unsafe or at-risk

behaviors are considered to be the ultimate cause of most workplace accidents. The occupational safety perspective of zero accidents or zero unsafe behaviors needs clar-ity for organizational emphasis. This article challenges management’s perspective and action of using existing organizational safety systems and programs that continue to disable and kill people at work, thereby making zero accident/injury situations far from achieving a safe work-place for people. The author shares reflections of his research conducted in Indian multinational companies extended over 15 years (1997-2013) for the benefit of safety management practice in organizations.

IntroductIon Globally, achieving zero accidents in the workplace

remains one major social and economic area of concern. Every day, 6,300 people die as a result of occupational accidents or work-related diseases, more than 2.3 million deaths per year (International Labor Organization, 2013). The struggle to manage safety situations at workplaces continues. Although safety audits are completed, awards are received and documents are in place, organizations still wonder what to do to ensure adequate safety of peo-

14World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Safety revieW By HarBanS lal Kaila, Ph.d.

Is Industry Really Poised for Zero Accidents?A Review

1) Zero accidents/injuries in the workplace requires: ↓

2) Safety (change) management initiatives ↓

3) Review of safety systems and behavioral safety implementation ↓

4) Appraisal of organizational safety values (human life considerations) ↓

5) Safety leadership (at all levels) ↓

6) Linking safety to employee performance objectives

Table 1 Theoretical Framework for Zero Accidents

Source: Kaila, 2012

Although this framework provides a strong theoretical base, implementation is lacking, especially in view of orga-nizational executive leadership. According to Health and Safety Executive (2013), effective health and safety perfor-mance comes from the top; board members have both col-lective and individual responsibility for health and safety.

Directors and boards need to examine their own behaviors, both individually and collectively. The head of environmental health safety at Larsen & Toubro, Infra, says, “The rules, code of practices, standards and safety manual—these are well defined and readily available as mandatory requirements, but the roadblock is implementation during job execution.” Only 50% is achieved in implementation, which is in limited con-struction activities. There is a cascade effect. “No cost for safety” is a paradox. There must be a proper bud-geted cost for safety at the conception stage of any proj-ect. We have a long way to go before we can say, “The Indian construction industry is poised for incident- and injury-free” (Personal Communication, 2013).

According to the Japan International Center for Occupational Safety and Health, the three pillars of the zero-accident campaign are 1) top management’s positive attitude; 2) line managers’ and supervisors’ complete management of the safety and health sys-tem; 3) and the promotion of voluntary activities in the workplace (Japan International Center for Occupational Safety and Health, 2013).

This article is extracted from qualitative/narrative data of a longitudinal national action research survey on behavior-based safety (BBS) in India. In this ongoing study, almost 500 BBS training workshops were con-ducted for nearly 9,300 workers (operators, technicians, contractors) and union representatives and about 1,800 managers at all levels from 1997-2013 in diverse multi-national organizations across industrial sectors.

Indian companies that participated in such BBS pro-grams were Maharatna/Navratna companies, Energy Giant, chemical, automobile, pharmaceutical, electrical, nuclear, steel, construction, shipping, coal, heavy engineer-ing and so on. They were exposed to 1) BBS concepts; 2) observation and feedback processes; and 3) BBS imple-mentation in an organization. Each workshop was held in English/Hindi for about 30 to 50 training participants. It is predicted that India will become the world’s third largest economy through work systems, such as BBS.

reaSonS for not achIevInG Zero accIdentS In the workPlace

A senior health, safety and environmental (HSE) professional with Indian Oil Corp. indicates, “It is only a desire, or target, to have zero accidents. But, when we work practically in the field, our concentration is always directed toward more production to meet market demand. One important issue is infrastructure develop-ment, which occurs along with growth of demand. This puts pressure on production, and the safety system is

bypassed. However, management, as well as workers, has become cautious while working in the field.”

The best safety plans and programs do not continue and/or show a failure as a result of inactive leadership behaviors across departments in an organization. Hence, the zero-accident target remains a myth and does not convert into reality. The application of a BBS approach faces a severe challenge in that safety performance may decline when BBS intervention is removed (Zhang & Fang, 2013). Zero-accident targets appear to be a dif-ficult proposition for organizations for many reasons (Kaila, 2012):

a) Organizations lack in strong implementation of safety systems;

b) Organizational leadership varies in emphasis over human life safety;

c) Business is a clear priority over the safety function;d) Safety is mostly not a performance objective;e) Every industrial project has killed one or more

persons (mostly contract labor), which is a reality;

15World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Zero accidents seem a far-fetched promise of business management

as human safety would not receive an absolute preference over profits from production.

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/a

ma

na

lan

G

then what would make us think that zero accidents are achievable?;

f) Zero accidents look perfect in documentation but do not work in real life;

g) For most organizations, safety is a staff function; employees are not involved as per OHSAS 18001: 2007 clauses on behavioral safety;

h) Hundreds of unsafe behaviors are noticeable at any workplace on a daily basis depending on the organiza-tion’s size. Hence, the potential for accidents exist in every organization unless unsafe behaviors are controlled daily. So it would not be a surprise if a minor or major accident occurs at any time due to these unsafe behaviors.

i) Showing a zero-accidents record and international certifications does not really ensure a safe organization unless we target zero unsafe behaviors at workplaces.

j) Organizational case studies reveal that a single unsafe behavior can prove to be fatal.

k) Lack of or partial safety enforcement reinforces unsafe behaviors in the workplace.

To reduce accidents, management has executed safety interventions, such as risk assessment, a suggestion scheme, training, safety committees, auditing, motiva-tional programs, standard operating procedures (SOPs), plant inspections, and work permit systems. Most of these safety management systems have aimed at control-ling unsafe conditions, whereas most accidents are trig-gered by unsafe acts or behaviors. Even unsafe condi-tions are the result of unsafe behaviors.

Zero accidents would mean a total safety culture, which can be created if we have active safety systems

combined with BBS implementation in plants. Safety systems (such as SOPs, work permits, training, incen-tives, lockout/tagout procedures, inspections, audits, incident analysis, mock drills, celebrations, certifications, compliance) are necessary and prepare the workforce with safe attitudes, but it does not reflect in their safe behavior. The attitude-behavior gap exposes an orga-nization to employees’ at-risk behaviors, which can be addressed by implementing behavioral safety.

tarGetInG Zero unSafe BehavIorS to achIeve Zero accIdentS

Behavioral safety postulates that unsafe behaviors are the basis of any near misses, injuries, fatalities (Figure 1). If unsafe behaviors are controlled, near miss-es can be avoided.

Three clauses of the OHSAS 18001:2007 docu-ment emphasize behavioral aspects of safety in occu-pational safety and health (OSH) management systems. Organizations shall establish, implement and maintain a procedure(s) for workers’ appropriate involvement in hazard identification, risk assessments and determination of controls; for hazard identification and risk assessment, which shall take into account human behavior, capabilities and other human factors; and to make persons working under its control aware of OSH consequences, actual or potential, their work activities, their behavior and the OSH benefits of improved personal performance. BBS encourag-es safety contributions from everyone in the organization.

One manager says, “Due to BBS implementation, the accident frequency rate from April 2012 to May 2013 indicates a reducing trend in general. However, we are trying to further improve performance with the challeng-es of high manpower turnover. BBS is the best policy to run my plant safely, and our target is to achieve zero unsafe behaviors rather than zero accidents.”

Behavioral trends reveal that at-risk behaviors exist in every workplace, which can trigger an accident at any-time. Poor knowledge, short of supervision and mainte-nance, is the obvious reason for accidents, but these fac-tors are actually nothing but unsafe behaviors of people not performing their jobs responsibly. Employees’ socio-cultural backdrop may also impact the practice of unsafe behavior (Kaila, 2013).

Unsafe/at-risk behavior is also caused by some who emphasize/force completing the work by avoiding basic safety rules or regulations, e.g., allowing undercapacity cranes to lift/shift heavy jobs. The project manager asks the site engineer to complete certain jobs today. The site engineer bypasses safety to perform the job. He cannot negate the project manager and make him unhappy. This is a common scenario at construction sites. One second of unsafe behavior can turn into an accident or a fire and can delay production.

Unsafe behavior can happen to anyone regardless of position, education, experience and age. A vice president went up to the fourth floor of a building to inspect a

16World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Unsafe BehaviorsBehaviors

Near MissesNear Misses

Injuries Injuries

Fatalities Fatalities

Source: Kaila, 2008

Figure 1 BBS Triangle

17World Focus www.asse.org 2014

construction project. He received a call on his cell phone and started talking. He became so engrossed that he stepped forward without looking and fell from the fourth floor to his death. An engineer on the shop floor crossed a conveyor belt while it was stopped. The belt started up without warning, and he was crushed to death. A deputy general manager, who was not wearing safety goggles, suffered a serious eye injury when he was observing a worker and an object flew from a machine and hit him. Accident/injury spares no one, not even managers.

According to a manager, “Punishment is also a strong sense of caring, like when a mother giraffe kicks her baby’s legs at birth to make her move. Otherwise, the baby giraffe becomes prey to others in the jungle.” Punishment in terms of fines or loss of pay will set a sense of fear and will not let an employee perform unsafe behaviors; it seems contrary to the positive BBS approach. That fear also reduces unsafe behavior for some employees to an extent, which is indirectly positive for people’s safety at work.

manaGerS’ concePt of BehavIoral Safety According to the deputy general manager of Indo Gulf

Fertilizers, the company has given top priority to SH&E from the design stage. To minimize the possibility of accidents, the company has developed people to know their equipment intimately and to be consistently SH&E conscious. Line managers are committed to safety and health. Unsafe conditions and acts observed are brought to the attention of the concerned departmental head for quick remedial action. Employees’ safety consciousness receives due importance in annual performance appraisals.

A BBS coordinator says, “We implemented BBS at Qatar Chemicals Ltd. in 2008. It has produced results, and we reached the maturity ladder of the BBS process. As time passes, people are losing interest now, observations are not done consistently, clean sheet observations are increasing, steering committee members are not motivated and hazards are not identified properly. Sustainability is the main issue right now in our process. I need to revamp the process and bring energy back into it.”

A general manager says, “Safety in the Indian sce-nario is considered a firefighting approach for emergency situations. Normally, people complete the jobs fast toward meeting a deadline following a series of unsafe behaviors. An unsafe behavior practiced by coworkers would certainly turn into an accident someday. In India, safety departments are understaffed and overworked. It is not possible for them to perform their jobs effectively for the safety of employees and contract staff.”

BBS provides more eyes for safety in the organiza-tion. It has three basic principles: 1) interaction between observers and observees, 2) inclusion of every worker/employee in safety efforts and 3) intention to provide an injury-free environment.

Top management’s role is significant in terms of monitoring, motivating and mentoring those involved in

a BBS project. In the Indian safety scenario, top manage-ment emphasizes and communicates their safety concerns down the level. What they say is that merely provid-ing safety infrastructure in the organization or location/sites is not enough or adequate for the safety of people. Supervisors need to involve all employees at all levels up to the last person who may be the least aware of safety (such as contract workers or housekeeping staff).

Section heads have opined that they are ready to implement a BBS approach but are apprehensive of top management’s leadership of this project. Many systems have come and gone, and long-term commitment is lack-ing. If BBS is top-driven, then we must do it. On the other hand, top management showed a deep concern for the section heads’ varied level of involvement, credibil-ity, acceptability and safety-mindedness for implementa-tion of BBS in their respective units.

“Safety is not a priority; it is a core value that must emanate from the highest level of leadership in the orga-nization and combine safety systems with BBS,” says a Larsen & Toubro director.

reSearch ImPlIcatIonS “Whether we are in business or not, we need safety.

One accident can change our life. We have created little vibration for safety in industry. Is it enough? We need to work more on safety and to develop a culture in which every employee understands safety. We need to train them so they have the mindset for safety. Safety is strongly linked to human thought and behavior. It is a culture that we would not get in a day. It needs persis-tence,” Vedanta plant head.

According to a company HSE vice president, “All HSE failures are around behaviors.” The BBS approach is a planned effort and an organizational intervention/procedure for making safety a true line function. Although OHSAS 18001:2007 has included three clauses that emphasize behavioral aspects of safety, organizations have not followed it because OHSAS 18001:2007 does not pro-vide any guidelines on how to implement these clauses.

According to an HSE head, “We are expanding our business and growing revenues, but every year, 40 to 42 fatalities occur in all independent companies. We are not factories to kill people or to create permanent disabilities due to accidents on our work premises. We have hard-ware but not the software, which is the ‘feeling.’ This is the ‘disconnect.’ We have not valued human life. And now as per new guidelines, if more than three fatalities occur at our workplace, we are not qualified for tender registration for any new business. So safety of people is related to business.”

Management has started to believe that engineering controls alone do not provide an adequately safe work-place, and unsafe behaviors need to be controlled to ensure total safety at workplaces. Indian multinational organizations have begun to consider the human behav-ior aspects of workplace safety more. Figure 2 depicts BBS programs the author conducted as part of this study.

According to a general manager for safety, “BBS is about changing the basic organizational culture to inculcate positive safety at the workplace.” The body of research literature created through behavioral safety interventions has made us realize the value of macroer-gonomics aspects. It is important to underline that people behave unsafely or take risks even in well-designed workstations. People tend to take risks in safe environ-ments and to be alert in unsafe environments. People

speed up their vehicles on highways and tend to be alert on crowded streets.

The engineering systems, process or task design pro-vided at workplaces is the hardware; the software is the behaviors of people who tend to behave safely or unsafely at times. Even with well-designed workstations, workers/operators tend to engage in at-risk behaviors (such as not using PPE, not maintaining the work area appropriately, not using correct tools for the job or tools not in good con-

dition, inappropriate body mechanics while lifting, pushing and pulling material, not complying with work permits or following SOPs and using a cell phone while working) that may trigger an injury or accident. Also, several case studies of organi-zations have revealed that each of these at-risk behaviors has been fatal to workers, engineers and managers (Kaila, 2010).

According to the HSE head at Oil and National Gas Corp. Ltd., “Industries are nurtur-ing safety culture these days and focusing on people’s behavior as one index for avoiding accidents.” Behavioral safety is gaining accep-tance in India and is showing good results in terms of improved safety records, building a positive SH&E culture and reducing at-risk behaviors in workplaces and is also being applied successfully worldwide instead of as a command-and-control approach to occupational safety (Geller, 2004).

Despite best safety programs being available and exercised, thousands are killed in work-places each year. Attempting new safety pro-grams from time to time has not helped industry achieve zero accidents. Does it indicate a lack of willpower on management’s part to lead and implement these safety plans effectively on a regular basis? The vice president of Larsen & Toubro says, “If you look at Indian industry as a whole, we are not poised for a zero-accident scenario. This is because while all safety mea-sures are taken, we still have not mastered the art of ‘safe behavior.’ There is not enough vis-ible commitment from senior management” (Personal Communication, 2013).

In the wake of many fatalities taking place each year due to workplace accidents, the zero-accident targets appear far from reality for indus-try, and we cannot yet claim our workplaces to be safe. The journey toward zero accidents/injuries continues. The human life value consid-eration for organizations falls short of the busi-ness targets. Human safety is clearly not a core value for the industrial world. “In Indian culture, we are more concerned with life after death than the ‘present life.’ The ‘value for life’ is not prominent in the industrial culture due to work pressures,” says a project manager.

18World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Source: Kaila, 2012

Figure 2 BBS Programs the Author Conducted

19World Focus www.asse.org 2014

concluSIon

Any industry is related to physical, chemical and bio-logical hazards. It may not be advisable to say that zero accident means indicating toward injury only. It can also be zero harm. Any industry’s safety aspects lie with the HSE policy, adaptation of standard safe practices in an organization, commitment, involvement and implemen-tation by top management, empowering safety personnel to develop innovative ideas/techniques per international safety standards and monitoring deviations using the lat-est techniques/software. Again, zero accidents indicate the company size, the work methodology implemented, deployment of skilled personnel, strict guidelines for adherence to safety norms. Finally, in India, many industries are prone to accidents because there are no stringent statutory obligations, law-abiding factors, threat for management.

According to a safety practitioner at Bosch, “We face few hazards in any activity we do in industry, and improvise on process safety every day. As long as our standards or expectations increase, so does our knowl-edge of hazards. We will plan to work without those hazards and try to look for new ones. However, we still are unsure, even with all systems in place, if we can be accident-free. It is hypothetical until a foolproof system is created” (Personal Communication, 2013). What matters is an undeterred active commitment of senior management to implement safety systems along with their employees and workers. Management must aim to achieve a business/safety balance for human safety while emphasizing the behavior/safety connection in the broad-er organizational perspective. Capacity-building pro-grams on “change management interventions” for senior managers in organizations would help improve the safety situation. Safety survives, and business thrives. •

referenceS

Geller, E.S. (2004). Behavior-based safety: A solution to injury prevention. Behavior-based safety empowers employees and addresses the dynamics of injury preven-tion. Risk & Insurance, 15(12, 01 Oct), 66.

Health and Safety Executive. (2013). Why leadership is important. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://www .hse.gov.uk/leadership/whyleadership.htm

International Labor Organization. (2013). Safety and health at work. Retrieved June 30, 2013, from http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang--en/index.htm

Japan International Center for Occupational Safety and Health. (2013). Concept of zero-accident total partic-ipation campaign. Retrieved June 29, 2013, from http://www.jniosh.go.jp/icpro/jicosh-old/english/index.html

Kaila, H.L. (2010, Fall). Behavior-based safety pro-grams improve worker safety in India. Ergonomics in Design, 18(4), 17-22.

Kaila, H.L. (2008, Dec.). BBS winning over employ-ees in India. Retrieved from http://www.ohsonline.com/Articles/2008/12/BBS-Winning-Over-Employees-in -India.aspx

Kaila, H.L. (2011, June-July). Organizational cases on behavior-based safety in India.” International Journal of Human Resource Management, 22, 10-12, 2135-46.

Kaila, H.L. (2012, Oct.-Dec.). 100 reflections on behavioral safety: Developing injury-free organizations. Industrial Safety Chronicle, 43(3), 21-26.

Kaila, H.L. (2013). Review of BBS Implementation in Indian Organizations. World Focus, 13(1), 1, 10-16.

Matthews, G.A. (2013). Behavioral safety from the consumer’s perspective: Determining who really pro-vides behavior safety.

OHSAS 18001. (2007). Occupational health and safe-ty assessment series. Retrieved Feb. 2, 2010, from http://www.scribd.com/doc/10081792/OHSAS-18001-2007 -Occupational-Health-and-Safety-Management-Systems -Requirements1

Personal Communication. (2013, July). Author’s e-mail discussion with safety professionals.

Zhang, M. & Fang, D. (2013). A continuous behavior-based safety strategy for persistent safety improvement in the construction industry. Automation in Construction, 34, 101-107.

Harbans Lal Kaila, Ph.D., is a psychology professor in Mumbai, India. He has more than 30 years’ professional experience and has worked on projects for Indian Council of Social Science Research, University Grants Commission, National Safety Council and World Health Organization. He has authored books, as well as journal and newspaper articles, and has also made televi-sion appearances. Kaila has represented India at international conferences in New York, Berlin, Rome and Sydney. He is editor of the Journal of Psychosocial Research and vice president of Counselors Association of India. He has conducted more than 500 behavior-based safety workshops and has coconducted 25 safety awareness surveys for various locations in India. Kaila may be contacted at [email protected].

acknowledGment

The author thanks the following safety professionals for contribut-ing to this article:

M.K. Rao, India Glycolsranjeet Maity, Qatar Chemicals Ltd.R. Kapoor, Indo Gulf FertilizersSuresh K. Singh, Indian Oil Corp. A.K. Sapre, Oil and National Gas Corp. Ltd. K. Ramakrishnan, Larsen & Toubro Ltd. Manoranjan Dash, Jindal Power Ltd. Subhamoy Maitra, Larsen & Toubro Infra Smruti Guttal, Bosch Ltd.

The challenges facing SH&E professionals in Australia differ from state to state, and safety professionals in

Australia face issues that differ from other global juris-dictions.

In Australia, the foundation of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws and regulations were based on the U.K. structure, and for 50 to 60 years from the early 1900s, each state in Australia introduced OHS laws similar to those enacted in the U.K. In the 1970s, most states followed the U.K.’s Robens model; however, in Australia recently, the application of safety based on this model has some fundamental problems.

Chief among these is the lack of standard definitions, lack of basic models that are agreed as suited for purpose and the failure of the tripartite system of controlling safe-ty at a governmental level, along the lines of the U.K.’s Robens. Lord Robens, in his report on health and safety in the U.K. in the 1970s, espoused the notion that, if you get people to talk to one another, they can understand each other.

No problem with that, but the application of his think-ing in safety in the U.K. and Australia led to the tripartite system of OHS legislation based on the idea that if you put someone from government, someone from trade unions and someone from management in a room, they will be able to solve the problems of safety. I formed the view that the Robens model has disenfranchised the sci-ence of safety, and for progressive safety professionals in Australia, as in other parts of the world, we have been

swamped by mandated meetings and consultations. Safety to some degree has been left to flounder in its wake.

I believe that the pressures on employers and man-agers to reduce costs and increase productivity due to international competition have had a significant effect on safety in the Australian environment. Safety profes-sionals must be on top of such pressures, and too often we know that a shortcut on the production floor can lead to an accident. State governments of all political persua-sions are aware of this and have worked hard to support safety professionals with new laws and regulations.

In April 2008, the Australian federal government announced a national review into OHS laws in Australia. One key element of this task was the move toward one set of national model laws known as harmonization, and this review was to be overseen by the Workplace Relations Ministers Council, which is a group of state and territory government ministers responsible for OHS.

Safe Work Australia (a federal government body) undertook the development of national OHS laws, and the implementation date of these national laws was Jan. 1, 2012. The purpose of these laws was to ensure that they are relevant and applicable to all Australian workplaces; however, following a change of state gov-ernments, many states have not accepted the content of these new laws and two states are still operating with differing OHS acts, regulations and codes of practice.

This is a major source of frustration for safety profes-sionals who operate across Australian state boarders, and this is an ongoing concern of the Safety Institute of

compariSonGlobal iSSueS

Insights Into Significant Challenges in the SH&E ProfessionAn International Perspective

Every country has introduced SH&E practices and regulations to keep pace with industrialization. SH&E professionals play a vital role in developing, implementing and monitoring these programs. During this process, SH&E professionals face various challenges. In fact, these challenges vary from country to country as the development and implementation of SH&E regula-

tions consider local prevailing political, economic and other conditions. This is because SH&E regulations/practices are not intro-duced around the world at the same time and the ground realities are different. As industry grows, challenges grow and solutions become more complex, different and difficult worldwide. This collection of articles provide insight into these challenges faced by the SH&E profession and provides an opportunity to create solutions in Australia, Europe, the Gulf and Singapore.

By neil Dine, riCHarD CooPer, HamaD al-KanDari, aSHoK GarlaPati & eDwin YaP

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/r

obe

rt c

hu

rch

ill

Australian PerspectiveBy neil Dine, CstJ, MAssE, FsiA, rsP (Aust), JP

20World Focus www.asse.org 2014

These articles were presented as part of a panel during Safety 2013 in Las Vegas, NV.

Australia (SIA). When the move to harmonization was introduced, the federal government stated that this was an opportunity for Australian businesses and individuals to actively participate and to voice their opinion on the new laws. SIA made many submissions to Safe Work Australia.

In its submission, SIA commended the principle of harmonized legislation across Australia and believed the Model OHS Act is a positive move in that direc-tion. After this public comment was received, SIA was pleased to see that nearly all of its recommendations were included in the new laws. However, state politics have prevented the full integration of these laws within all states of Australia.

Some aspects of these new laws have a real benefit to safety professionals by including specific definitions that are lacking in current laws. Under the new model laws, the definition of an officer includes a person “who makes or participates in making decisions that affect the whole, or a substantial part, of the business or undertaking of the body [organization].” The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry wanted guidance material made available to employers to allay the fears that midlevel managers and other staff may be caught in the definition and as a result are prosecuted. Irrespective of this, it now gives safety professionals much support in their work.

Australia has six states and two territories, but it is a multicultural country and apart from its indigenous population of around 300,000, the population represents many countries. While the predominant language is English, many people come into Australia unable to read or write the English language, and this can be in some industries an area of frustration for safety professionals in communicating the safety message. Most Australian states have a legislative requirement to have the “safety message” provided in the language of all employees in the workplace, but I have found that this is a problem when employees working in an unskilled environment come from a refugee background with a limited ability to read and write. Their desire is to earn an income for their families rather than to attend classes to learn to speak and read the English language.

As a result of earlier Robens-style OHS legislation, the trade union movements in Australia have made significant inroads toward establishing a “union per-spective” of OHS. In many cases, this involvement has been positive, and some union OHS officers have taken the opportunity to gain tertiary qualifications and have had a respected role in this arena. However, on numer-ous occasions, the self-styled union-supported OHS representatives, as they are known, have assumed the role of safety officer, and after a 5-day OHS training course, they become experts on the “duty of care” with regard to OHS. In some cases, this can frustrate the efforts of the site safety professional who approaches OHS problems from a far more practical and informed perspective. Safety professionals in Australia who must

address these problems in their work environment soon become politically aware when dealing with unions.

Workers’ compensation laws in each state in Australia are not covered by the new harmonization procedures and are in many cases overseen by safety profession-als. In my opinion, these are also a minefield and can be another challenge. People who make workers’ compensa-tion claims for a work-related injury have seen the some-what lax application of reporting and policing of the rules applicable to claims by their employers and the state workers’ compensation statutory bodies, and these can be used to their advantage. There are mandatory report-ing requirements for injuries, and claimants have used a variety of ways to gain a maximum and excessive ben-efit from the system. I can recall wasting many hours in unnecessary investigations, reports and court attendances, which in turn leads to excessive litigation costs in defend-ing unsubstantiated and, in some cases, fraudulent claims, which are then reflected in increased cost of insurance premiums to an organization. This leads to another chal-lenge—the aging workforce. Population aging has given rise to a host of issues, including the pressures placed on employee management to address those who chose to continue to work and those who are forced to continue to work because of inadequate pensions or who lost their savings in the 2008 financial crisis.

We must also consider the dilemmas facing employ-ers as they strive to resolve competing demands from government to keep people working along with govern-

21World Focus www.asse.org 2014

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/G

erm

an

ments who urge older workers to delay retirement by increasing the age when a pension can be accessed.

Enos (2009) shows a clear correlation of injury and illness between people age 55 to 64 and those more than 65 years of age. Those over 65 had 25% more days off work for nonfatal injuries and illnesses than the younger group; however, it was noted that the 65+ age group had the lowest rates of injuries per 1,000 full-time employees than other age groups.

In my view as an older worker, both employers and employees need to work together to make sure older workers can do the job safely within their physical abili-ties. Employers should always try to fit the job task and tools to the individual for maximum safety, and this is especially important for older workers. Likewise, older employees need to know their limits. If they cannot do certain job tasks safely anymore, they need to and must communicate with their supervisor and consider job accommodations to protect themselves and their colleagues. They should also be protected from being forced to retire as a consequence.

Does the workplace need a complete overhaul to suit older workers? In my view, no, but it is always best to adjust the job tasks and tools to the individual, regard-less of age. Good risk management, such as job hazard analyses, ergonomics and wellness programs, can maxi-mize safety for older workers as well as their younger counterparts.

Older workers bring many benefits to the workplace. Their skills and experience gained from many years of employment can:

•help reduce the impact of labour and skills shortages;•be valuable in mentoring and training roles; and•assist with safety and health management because of

their substantial knowledge and experience.In all states in Australia, employers have a general

duty of care to address potential age-related factors and to provide and maintain, as far as practical, a working environment where workers are not exposed to hazards and to reduce the risks of injury or harm.

While certain risks are associated with aging, these should be considered in the context of safety and health management for all workers. Reducing workplace haz-ards and improving work and job design, particularly those associated with a physically demanding work envi-ronment, will bring benefits to all at the workplace.

Definitions of older workers vary, and in turn, the aging process varies greatly according to the individual person and his/her past work experience and general level of health. These types of factors combined with both the work environment in which an individual is engaged and the task demands involved in the posi-tion play a critical role in determining whether an older worker has an increased risk of injury or harm.

Occupational safety and health should not be used as a reason for excluding older workers from the work-place. Older workers are often unfairly stereotyped, and

ill health and increased injuries are not inevitable with age. As everybody ages differently, we cannot generalize about older workers and assume they will have certain characteristics in relation to potential safety and health risks at work.

Treating people unfairly because of their age is also unlawful under many state and federal government acts and associate laws. In Australia, the Australian Equal Opportunity Act 1984 and the Commonwealth’s Age Discrimination Act 2004 are just two laws that apply to older workers.

concluSIon

Hopefully, politics between the federal government and some states will be settled and the new model Health & Safety Act will be used to the benefit of workers, their employers and safety professionals. The act removes legal labels and pigeonholes for duties of care and obli-gations of employers and employees, and there is now a positive duty of care for officers (those who have a responsibility) to exercise due diligence with enforce-ment of the act and regulations aimed at OHS outcomes, not just punishment. When fully implemented by all states, the new Work Health & Safety Act, regulations and codes of practice will end many years of frustration for Australian safety professionals.

Much more global research needs to be conducted into the safety of aging employees because it has become and will continue to be a major issue for safety professionals. •

referenceS

Enos, L. (2009). Managing an aging workforce. Oregon Nurses Association.

Patrickson, M. & Ranzijin, R. (n.d.). Workforce aging: Challenges for the 21st century management. International Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(4), 729-739.Neil Dine, CStJ, MASSE, FSIA, RSP (Aust), JP, Neil Dine has been a health and safety professional in Australia for more than 40 years and is an ASSE member. He has served as the International Practice Specialty’s (IPS) membership liaison for the Asia-Pacific region since 2001. He was also IPS’s 2005 Safety Professional of the Year.

He is a Fellow of SIA’s Victorian State Committee of Management and has been a member of the Safety In Action Conference committee for many years.

Until his retirement in 2008, Dine was director, corporate health, safety, environment and security, for CSL Ltd. and CSL Behring, an international pharmaceutical company based in Melbourne, Australia.

He was a member of the Operations Branch of St. John Ambulance Australia for 40 years, and when he retired, he was the honorary director of training in Victoria. In 2002, he was made a commander in the Order of St. John of Jerusalem.

Dine works part-time as an occupational safety and health consultant in Melbourne. He is currently involved in managing occupational safety and health for the annual Australian Formula 1 Grand Prix track infrastructure build and dismantle.

He holds a graduate diploma in Occupational Hazard Management from Ballarat University in Victoria, Australia.

22World Focus www.asse.org 2014

SAFETY 2014 PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE & EXPOSITION

June 8-11, 2014 | Orange County Convention Center West Building | Orlando, FL www.safety2014.org | 847.699.2929

Natalie Skeepers, South Africa

“Why would I travel so far to attend the conference? There are so many reasons . . . education, networking, social gatherings, international perspective, specialty discussions, exhibits, etc.”

Join your fellow safety professionals at the much-

anticipated Safety 2014 Conference. Experience

best practices, emerging trends, develop new

skills, build a powerful community of colleagues

and revitalize your passion for the profession.

You’ll come back refocused, revitalized, reconnected, READY.

From a safety perspective, Europe requires much thought and examination. The European Union

(EU) is a unification of 27 member states to create a political and economic community throughout Europe.

The EU’s nearly 495 million inhabitants speak at least 22 different languages. Therefore, on a superficial level, SH&E professionals face significant challenges and must be specific in the art of communication. Translation from a native tongue to a format the individual worker can understand is vital to ensure that messages are understood.

The EU’s history is as complex as are its nation states. In 1951, six countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) decided to establish the European Coal and Steel Community, the first instance of European integration. In 1957, the six founding member states signed the Treaty of Rome that established the European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom).

In 1992, the 12 EEC members became founding members of the EU at its launch (see the Maastricht Treaty), the purpose of which was to form the EU, pre-pare for the European Monetary Union (the Euro) and introduce elements of a political union (citizenship, com-mon foreign and internal affairs policy). With the estab-lishment of the EU and introduction of the codecision procedure, parliament had more say in decision-making. New forms of cooperation existed between EU govern-ments, for example, defense, justice and home affairs.

how eu decISIonS are made The EU’s standard decision-making procedure is

known as ordinary legislative procedure, which means the directly elected European parliament must approve EU legislation together with the council (the govern-ments of the 27 EU countries). The commission drafts and implements EU legislation.

reGulatIonS, dIrectIveS & other actS Several types of legal acts achieve the aims outlined

in EU treaties. These legislative acts include regula-tions, directives, recommendations and opinions. Some are binding, while others are not. Some apply to all EU countries, others to just a few.

aPPlIcatIon of eu law

EU law, which has equal force with national law, confers rights and obligations on the authorities in each member state, as well as individuals and businesses. The authorities in each member state are responsible for implementing EU legislation in national law and for enforcing it cor-rectly, and they must guarantee citi-zens’ rights under these laws.

This is an important element for safety professionals. While many legal requirements in the EU are estab-lished on principles developed within the European Commission, enactment and amendment of directive requirements by local ordinance or regulation can prove a significant challenge with respect to implementation.

In February 2013, the European Commission pro-posed to better protect workers from risks linked to exposure to chemicals in the workplace. In particular, the commission proposed to amend five existing EU health and safety directives on the protection of workers from exposure to harmful chemicals to align them with the latest rules on classification, labeling and packaging of chemicals [Regulation (EC) 1272/2008].

The proposal went to the European parliament and to the EU’s Council of Ministers for adoption. The proposal ensured that manufacturers and suppliers of chemical substances and mixtures would need to provide harmonized labeling information on hazard classification to alert the user to the presence of hazardous chemicals and the need to avoid exposure and associated risks. Employers use this information when conducting work-place risk assessments. This allows employers to put in place appropriate risk management measures to protect workers’ health and safety, such as process enclosure, ventilation systems and the use of PPE.

Every day, millions of EU workers are potentially exposed to hazardous chemicals in a wide range of employment sectors, including manufacturing, service industries, agriculture, healthcare and education. The proposal has been the subject of two rounds of con-sultation of employer and trade union representatives at the EU level as well as discussions of the Advisory Committee on Safety and Health at Work.

BackGround The classification, labeling and packaging of sub-

stances and mixtures regulation, Regulation (EC) 1272/2008, implements the United Nations Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals. It provides information to users about related health hazards by means of harmonized communication elements, such as pictograms and hazard and precau-tionary statements on packaging labels and safety data sheets. It entered into force in January 2009.

The five occupational safety and health directives that would be amended by this proposal (92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and 2004/37/EC) all refer to existing EU chemical classification and labeling legisla-tion that will be repealed on June 1, 2015 in accordance with Regulation (EC) 1272/2008.

Before the due date, each EU member state will be required to enact country-specific legislation regulations or laws that will enable this directive.

24World Focus www.asse.org 2014

European PerspectiveBy riCHarD CooPer, M.sC., CMiosh, MAssE

The top three challenges SH&E

professionals must overcome are:

1) language;2) local legislation;

and 3) culture.

One significant challenge fac-ing international SH&E profes-sionals is ensuring that the body of knowledge available to enable compliance with local legislation is accurate.

The U.K. changed the report-ing requirement for absence due to workplace injury from 3 to 7 days. As of April 6, 2012, RIDDOR’s over-3-days injury reporting requirement changed. The trigger point has increased from more than 3 days’ to more than 7 days’ incapacitation (not counting the day on which the accident happened).

Incapacitation means that the worker is absent or is unable to do work that s/he would reason-ably be expected to do as part of normal work.

The Republic of Ireland, while having state involvement in both accident reporting for regulatory purposes and compen-sation, also maintains a division between the agencies. The Injuries Board (Ireland), established in 2004, is a statutory body that provides independent assessment of personal injury compensa-tion for victims of workplace, motor and public liability accidents. This assessment is provided without the need for most litigation costs, such as solicitors’ fees, lawyers’ fees and experts’ fees, associated with such claims. The process for the claimant is straightforward:

1) A claim is submitted to the Injuries Board either online or by mail.

2) The Injuries Board sends a formal notice of the claim to the respondent (respondent is used to describe the person or entity against whom a claim is made).

3) The respondent consents to an Injuries Board assessment.

4) The Injuries Board arranges an independent medi-cal examination and requests details of out-of-pocket expenses. Without full details of the injuries and out-of-pocket expenses, the assessment will not reflect fully the pain, suffering and expense incurred by the injured party.

5) An assessment is made, and the claimant and respondent are notified of it, i.e., level of compensation being awarded.

6) Both parties accept the assessment, and the Injuries Board issues an order to pay.

However, in practice, this process can lead to claims made to the Injuries Board without notification to employers or other respondent. Notification is mailed to the respondent. One section of the act allows the board to assume:

“If we do not receive a reply in writing within 90 days, you will be deemed by default to have consented to the assessment of the claim and will become liable for payment of the statutory fee for dealing with the claim-ant’s application.”

In the majority of cases, insurance companies will meet the statutory fee, but reporting criteria will need to be implemented.

In large organizations, internal communication is such that 90-day timeframe is not excessive to allow for departments to conduct investigations.

In the author’s experience, internal reporting systems and communications must be robust to ensure that a default scenario is not established.

concluSIon

This article provides an overview of some practical situations that SH&E professionals in the international arena face almost daily. An unlimited budget would solve many issues, but that is not the case for many if not all.

In the author’s opinion, the top three challenges SH&E professionals must overcome are:

1) language;2) local legislation;3) culture. •

Richard Cooper, M.Sc., CMIOSH, MASSE, is senior man-ager, SH&E and quality assurance, for Level 3 Communications (Global Crossing) in Basingstoke, Hampshire, U.K.

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/a

lex

Sl

25World Focus www.asse.org 2014

According to the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook, in 2009, more than 38% of

petroleum resources were available in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Qatar). As the demand for petroleum products increases across the world, exploration and production development activi-ties have increased at the same pace over the years. The oil and gas industry is an essential element of the Gulf Region and is vital to the region’s health and welfare. The industry’s growth must also be managed and sus-tained in a safe manner. The magnitude of oil and gas operations and the high risk involved present challenges for SH&E professionals. Following are the top five chal-lenges in the Gulf region.

1) Diverse Workforce The Gulf region’s migrant workforce comes from

more than 65 countries in various core and support sec-tors. These workers have diverse cultures, skillsets and backgrounds. Engagement of a diverse workforce in enhancing SH&E performance is a recurring problem for operating companies in the Gulf region. In addition, high turnaround in the workforce is common because of local government regulations.

2) SH&E Regulations & Enforcement

The Gulf Cooperation Council has enacted several regulations over time. In regard to SH&E regulations, indus-try-specific regulations are lacking. Also, enforcement of SH&E regula-tions among all industries requires much effort.

3) Multinational Companies Engage Regional & Local Contractors

Several multinational companies (MNCs) are executing projects. In turn, these MNCs engage available regional and local contracting compa-nies. Often, these local companies do not keep up with required standards in regard to compliance with SH&E regulations. This is because of a lack of enforcement and monitoring aspects. In addition, many MNCs often dilute their systems when they work in these countries because the SH&E regulations in these countries are more relaxed than their own company standards.

4) Complacency FactorsAccording to Oil & Gas

Producers Association safety performance reports, SH&E per-formance in the Gulf region has

improved substantially. However, complacency among the workforce and management is often a threat and challenge for SH&E professionals in the Gulf region.

5) Green HandsDue to increased demand for petroleum products

around the world, the oil and gas industry in the Gulf region has grown exponentially over the last decade. This increase has led to an influx of Green Hands, or workers with low competency levels and inadequate knowledge, in the highly hazardous oil and gas industry. Industry SH&E performance indicators show that the injury rate among new Green Hands is higher compared to other experienced personnel. This is a challenge for SH&E professionals in the region. •Hamad Al-Kandari is a mechanical engineer with more than 23 years’ experience in the upstream petroleum industry. He has performed petroleum engineering duties for the purpose of routine, short-, medium- and long-term planning related to well completions, workovers, artificial lift methods, pilots and full-scale projects.

He heads the health, safety and environmental (HSE) team of Kuwait Oil Co.’s Exploration and Production Development (E&PD) Directorate. He monitors the HSE of performance of the directorate and more than 50 contractors working for the direc-torate, handles HSE audits and advises E&PD management of HSE initiatives and programs for HSE performance improvement. He has established an HSE performance reporting database for the directorate and represents the company in the Global Drilling Safety Leadership Initiative and in Society of Petroleum Engineers, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers and International Association for Drilling Contractors HSE programs. He has presented at both regional and international conferences. He may be contacted at [email protected].

Ashok Garlapati, CSP, QEP, CMIOSH, works as a senior health, safety and environmental (HSE) specialist in the Exploration and Production Development Directorate of Kuwait Oil Co., State of Kuwait. He has 23 years’ experience in HSE consultancy and HSE management in the oil and gas industries. He is also the lead auditor of the ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 standards and is approved as an OSHA outreach trainer. He has extensive experience in implementation of HSE management sys-tems for process industries in line with international standards.

Garlapati is a professional member of ASSE and a past presi-dent of ASSE’s Kuwait Chapter. He played an important role in the Kuwait Chapter’s establishment, which is ASSE’s largest international chapter. He served as a member of ASSE’s Global Taskforce and received the Charles V. Culbertson Award in 2007, the Region VI Safety Professional of the Year Award in 2010 and the Edgar Monsanto Queeny Safety Professional of the Year Award in 2011. He also served as chair of ASSE’s Diversity Committee from 2010-11 and received the ASSE President’s Award in 2009 and in 2012 for his support in establishing ASSE’s India and United Arab Emirates Chapters. He is the first inter-national member to enter the President’s Court of Membership Honor Roll Club by sponsoring more than 170 members.

Garlapati is a member of the International Association for Drilling Contractors’ HSE Committee, a taskforce member of the International Association of Oil & Gas Producers’ Waste Management Committee, a member of the International Petroleum Industries Environmental Conservation Association’s Climate Change Group and a General Safety Subcommittee member of Kuwait Petroleum Corp. He may be contacted at +965-23871487, [email protected] or [email protected].

26World Focus www.asse.org 2014

The magnitude of oil and gas

operations and the high risk

involved present challenges for SH&E

professionals.

Gulf Region PerspectiveBy HamaD al-KanDari & aSHoK GarlaPati, CsP, QEP, CMiosh

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/d

av

id J

on

eS

It will be okay with the ASSE

Body Of Knowledge

CAN’T THINK OF A SOLUTION TO THAT REALLY BIG EHS CHALLENGE?

Sponsored by

Your source for SH&E Answers and Solutions

Get started at

www.safetybok.org

What workplace safety and health (WSH) challenges is your organization facing this year, and what

are you doing, as an individual or organization, to meet those challenges? These are the ongoing issues that WSH professionals face every day, and how will these issues affect WSH practices in the next 5 years?

This article describes common WSH challenges in Singapore and how the Singapore government put in place a national WSH strategy to raise safety and health standards in workplaces, in collaboration with tripartite partners.

Singapore is always determined to safeguard workers’ well being and to enhance their productive capacity. The International Labor Organization estimates that occu-pational accidents and diseases cost 4% of the world’s gross domestic product and take 6,400 lives daily.

This is a collective effort. Governments enact the right regulations and enforce WSH standards that meet their people’s expectations. Employers provide safe and healthy work environments and foster a safety culture among their staff. Employees look out for themselves and for one another and take the initiative to improve WSH standards.

Singapore treats WSH seriously. A national WSH strategy is in place to raise safety and health standards in workplaces in collaboration with tripartite partners. Sharing is encouraged among WSH professionals, non-governmental organizations, industry leaders and unions to raise WSH standards throughout the economy.

toP 5 wSh challenGeS

1) WSH Specialists vs. WSH GeneralistsThe major challenge for an organization is showing

value given the current economic pressure for lean man-ufacturing. The highly specialized WSH profession will have an increasingly difficult time as organizations move toward WSH generalists.

2) Competency of Early Career ProfessionalsEarly career professionals rely on ready tools and

resources in practice, as they lack practical experience. They are often trained in an “open book” concept and basic safety practices are often forgotten, which lead to efficiency in ensuring that correct WSH practices are used to protect the public’s safety and health.

3) Financial PressureThis financial pressure challenge is across the board.

Regardless of the organization’s size, continuing finan-cial pressure forces WSH professionals to find faster and cheaper ways to address hazards. This might affect the selection and use of PPE as well as administrative and engineering controls for these potential hazards.

4) WSH CultureMost WSH professionals seek a prudent WSH cul-

ture. However, given the financial pressure, WSH is

always in the front line to be cut due to the soon-certain-significant behavioral principle. Hence, building an exemplary WSH culture is always an uphill task.

5) International OutreachOrganizations are more globalized. An international

outreach approach poses great challenges to WSH pro-fessionals, who continue investing time and effort to know more WSH aspects of their resident country, in addition to the regional aspect of WSH movements.

SInGaPore natIonal wSh StrateGy

On April 1, 2008, the Singapore WSH Council was established to assist the WSH profession to meet these challenges. It comprises 18 leaders from major industry sectors (including construction, manufacturing, marine industries, petrochemicals and logistics), the govern-ment, unions and professionals from the legal, insurance and academic fields.

The Council works closely with the Ministry of Manpower and other government agencies, industry, unions and professional associations to develop strate-gies to raise WSH standards in Singapore and to realize the national WSH 2018 strategy.

The council’s main functions are to:•build industry capabilities to better manage WSH;•promote safety and health at work and recognize

companies with good WSH records;•set acceptable WSH practices.Under the Council, seven industry committees, three

functional committees, two taskforces and two work-groups have been formed to address specific WSH chal-lenges in sectors and priority areas.

concluSIon

Let us maintain our focus on improving workplace safety and face the challenges positively. The WSH pro-fession is our only resource—every life counts and every worker matters. •

referenceS

NIOSH. (2012, Jan.). Looking ahead with 20/20 vision. NIOSH eNews, 9(9).

Workplace Safety and Health Council. iWSH portal. Retrieved from https://www.wshc.sg/wps/portal/aboutUs Edwin Yap has been a registered safety professional in Singapore for more than 20 years. Yap is the ASSE International Practice Specialty’s China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Indonesia and Philippines liaison. He is vice president of ESIS Inc.’s (A Division of ACE Insurance) Asia-Pacific region and has presented at ASSE’s annual Professional Development Conferences. Yap, a graduate of National University of Singapore, holds master’s degrees in Industrial Systems Engineering and SH&E Technology. He may be contacted at [email protected].

28World Focus www.asse.org 2014

28World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Singaporean PerspectiveBy eDwin YaP

• Network with industry professionals via LinkedIn

• Engage in conference calls and meetings

• Receive triannual electronic technical publications

• Access interviews with top industry professionals

• Earn COCs through multiple publication opportunities

• Tap into advisory committee guidance and advice

• Explore volunteer and leadership opportunities

• Receive discounts on group-sponsored webinars

• Request group sponsorship on conference speaking proposals

• Participate in mentoring services

• Free membership in the Military Branch

1800 E. OAKTON ST, DES PLAINES, IL 60018 | p: +1.847.699.2929 | email: [email protected]

WWW.ASSE.ORG

ASSE Practice SpecialtiesGET THE MOST FROM YOUR MEMBERSHIP

N e t w o r k i n g M e n t o r i n g I n d u s t r y G u i d a n c e P u b l i c a t i o n s L e a d e r s h i p

ES

SA

®

AMERICAN SOCIETY OF SAFETY ENGINEERS

PRACTICE SPECIALTIES

Academics

Construction

Consultants

Engineering

Environmental

Ergonomics

Fire Protection

Healthcare

Industrial Hygiene

International

Management

Manufacturing

Mining

Oil & Gas

Public Sector

Risk Management/

Insurance

Training &

Communications

Transportation

Utilities

BRANCHES

Agricultural

Health & Wellness

Human Resources

Military

COMMON INTEREST GROUPS

Blacks in Safety

Engineering

Safety Professionals

& the Latino

Workforce

Women in Safety

Engineering

Young Professionals

in SH&E

Learn more about the benefits you receive as an International Practice Specialtymember at www.asse.org/ps. Similar benefits are available through

ASSE’s other industry and interest groups as well.

For the third year, the National Conference on Confined Space Activities, “Safe Work in Confined Spaces: Guidelines and Best Practices,” confirmed itself as a point of reference and author-

itative event for those who wish to contribute at various levels to the development of safe practices for working in confined spaces.

Under the high patronage of the president of the Italian Republic and the endorsement of the Emilia Romagna Region, Adriano Paolo Bacchetta held the conference in Bologna, Italy, from Oct. 17-18, 2013 during the Ambiente Lavoro Exhibition, where companies exhibit the latest innovations in products, technologies and services.

Organized by www.spazioconfinato.it, the Interdepartmental Research Center on Security and Risk Prevention and GTechnology, the conference analyzed and compared experiences with confined space safety systems.

On the first day, major corporate national and interna-tional groups (ENEL SpA, Dow Italy Srl, Telecom Italia SpA, HERA Group SpA, Italcementi SpA, the Italian Institute of Welding, IPLOM SpA, Lusochimica SpA—Menarini Pharmaceutical Group, Steel AFV Beltrame SpA, Italy BASF SpA, GlaxoSmithKline Manufacturing) presented their practical experiences in different indus-trial contexts, such as network services, fine chemicals, refineries, cement, pharmaceutical, and foundries.

They discussed identification, evaluation and risk man-agement in regard to confined space, modes of operation for risk removal and reduction, the importance of shared communication between clients and contractors, confined space management, confined space entry in the bulk chemical pharmaceutical industry and personnel training.

Two international web conferences were also held with Neil McManus, CIH, ROH, CSP, from NorthWest Occupational Health & Safety (North Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada) and Terry W. Krug, M.S., CIH, CSP, president of Exceptional Occupational Safety & Health Advisors (EXOSHA) (U.S.) and chair of the Z117 Accredited Standards Committee for Confined Spaces.

Supervisory body representatives and a firefighter spoke about planning and emergency management in confined

30World Focus www.asse.org 2014

spaces, the application of operating instructions used by the regional confined spaces working group of the Emilia Romagna region as well as contracts and subcontracts. They also discussed the main problems encountered in the application of Italian law Presidential Decree 177/2011.

The extreme variety of operational situations related to confined spaces requires much research and sharing of experience, including at an international level, so as to take stock of different methodological approaches and measures engineers can translate into operation and can make available at the national level to industry.

To avoid the recurrence of accidents in these activi-ties, it is essential to establish conceptual and opera-tional tools that ensure operators’ health and safety. While it is clear that verification of indoor air quality and ensuring adequate ventilation are basics, the struc-tural conformation of many work environments and the presence of other specific risks associated with these activities require the application of specific methods of analysis and evaluation of all operating phases. It is also important to establish an information exchange between employees and contractors and to verify that the chain of contracts and subcontracts does not lead companies or the self-employed to perform tasks for which they are neither trained nor equipped

The conference stressed that incidents highlight a shortage of education and training, including inad-equate assistance intervention programming, which often leads to concatenate the initial accident through improvised action conducted by coworkers who are not adequately equipped and lack the most basic knowledge. Requirements and obligations of health and safety pro-tection in the elimination or reduction of risks associated with activities (direct or outsourced) involving work in confined areas are mostly neglected. It is necessary to provide operational guidance application immediately to allow uniform application rules, and at the same time, have operators pay greater attention to these obligations.

National standardization bodies will establish a specific working group that will develop a technical standard (similar to “Safety Requirements for Confined

confined Space By aDriano Paolo BaCCHetta

3rd National Conference on Confined Space Activities

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/d

an

mo

ore

31World Focus www.asse.org 2014

top:

[©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/G

rafi

SSim

o];

bott

om

: [©

poly

Gra

phu

S/iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/t

hin

kSt

oc

k]

Upcoming Live Webinars

Feb. 12, 2014— Prevention Through Design: Slips, Trips & Falls

Feb. 26, 2014— Safety Culture & Behavioral Safety: Two Approaches & One Result—Safety Excellence

Mar. 5, 2014— There Is No Glory in Fighting a Fire That Could Have Been Prevented

Mar. 12, 2014— Temporary Workers Safety

Apr. 23, 2014— Real Programs & Strategies That Ignite Employee Engagement

All webinars are 11:00 am to 12:30 pm CST unless otherwise noted.

On-Demand Offerings ANSI/AIHA/ASSE Z10-2012: Standard for Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems

Best Practices in Industrial Hygiene

Changing Behaviors: Balancing the Elements for Effective Safety Management Systems

Fire Safety Virtual Event

GHS & HCS Crash Course in Compliance: What You Need to Know Now

Global Safety Experience

Improving Safety Through Mobile Technology

Law for the Safety Professional

Loss Control Virtual Event

Making Metrics Matter

Prevention Through Design Virtual Symposium

Classroom@ASSE

•Practice Specialty Recognition •Best Technical Article •COPS Safety Professional of the Year •Practice Specialty Safety Professional of the Year•Branch Significant Contributor•Common Interest Group Significant Contributor•Thomas F. Bresnahan Standards Medal

COPS Awards

It’s Award Season!

Classroom@ASSE

It is time to submit COPS award nominations. nominations are due March 15, 2014. Please see the COPS Awards and Honors page for details

and nomination forms.

Spaces” (ANSI/ASSE Z117.1-2009)) or Regulations 1997 Approved Code of Practice, Regulations and Guidance). This will come in conjunction with a precise and unambiguous definition of confined spaces and their warning signs as well as criteria for the minimum train-ing required to qualify companies and employees work-ing in these contexts.

To solve the problem, perform a thorough and accurate assessment of risk, provide effective training, provide for the use of appropriate equipment and plan for both ordinary activities and emergency scenarios. This is desirable in light of a specific technical standard of reference to be developed on the basis of guidelines, standards and/or best practices at the national and inter-national level.

The next conference will be held in October 2014. • Adriano Paolo Bacchetta is a chemical engineer and vice presi-dent of the Health and Safety at Work Commission of the Milan Order of Engineers. He is also the health and safety area direc-tor of the Association for the Advancement of Radical Behavior Analysis. He teaches as an adjunct professor in industrial process engineering/safety engineering at Milan Polytechnic. He has more than 20 years’ safety-related experience working for major multinational companies where, in addition to the study and implementation of a new production plant, he was responsible for the management of security issues related to the construction and operation of industrial plants. He also works as a consultant.

“Bill, we have some serious cultural prob-lems. When I walk through the manufac-turing plant with our health, safety and environmental (HSE) manager, people

scurry to put on their safety glasses and PPE as they see us approach, only to remove it once we are safely out of range,” Ann, a safety professional, lamented to me. “I feel like a safety cop,” she concluded.

This scenario likely sounds familiar to you. It plays out exactly the same way, billions of times a day, as peo-

ple modify their behavior when the boss, safety manager or local police officer comes into view.

After pondering her problem for a few moments, I told Ann that the behavior she was reporting to me was perfectly logical and completely predictable.

“How can that be?” she asked. “If you tell me how your incen-

tive system works, I bet we can fig-ure it out together,” I replied.

Ann explained that the incentive program she inherited was a classic

32World Focus www.asse.org 2014

lagging indicator incentive system. It rewarded $50 cash every month if no OSHA-recordable injury occurred and another $50 cash every month if Ann’s HSE manager did not observe any safety rule violation during plant safety audits.

Even more interesting was that the goal was obtained less than 50% of the time, so on average, every month, one of the two goals would not be met (that means that every month, their management system punished every employee at least one time). How is that for a morale booster?

“Our goal was to get employees to look out for each other and to correct unsafe behavior in the moment of choice when nobody else was looking.”

But sadly, their program failed, as punishment-based safety programs always do. Why?

First, the reward for having no recordable injury pro-duced what we all know it produces: injury hiding.

Next, the incentive to get workers to look out for each other and to correct unsafe behaviors totally backfired as employees learned to alert each other that the “Safety Cop” was coming so they could quickly put on PPE until the Safety Cop was gone and not lose their $50 bonus. Apparently, employees became more interested in “spot-ting the safety cop” than in improving safety. In the world of human behavior, you get what you reward people.

As W. Edwards Deming says, Ann’s plant had a “per-fect design to produce the results” they got—injury hid-ing and a safety cop culture. They made every mistake possible in their misguided attempts at behavior change.

To help understand how to solve Ann’s problem, I would like to discuss today’s workforce and what I call the “three flavors of employee engagement.” Gallup and Towers Perrin has identified employee engagement as a key driver of a company’s profitability and human per-formance. Only 15% of workers score as being “actively engaged.”

When it comes to engagement, every company has three kinds of workers: noncompliant, compliant and committed.

enGaGement By Bill SimS Jr.

Quest for Employee Engagement Chocolate, Vanilla or Strawberry?Part 1

To truly get commitment

requires something that today’s

managers and leaders rarely

deliver: positive reinforcement.

topt

: [©

iSto

ck

pho

to.c

om

/ok

ea];

bott

om

: [©

iSto

ck

pho

to.c

om

/Sq

ua

red

pix

elS]

Noncompliant: “I will not follow your safety and quality rules because I am convinced the only way to achieve high production is to take risks and shortcuts.”

Compliant: “I will follow your safety and quality procedures, as long as someone (a manager, a supervi-sor or a peer observer) is standing there watching me. But when that person leaves, I will take more risks and shortcuts.”

Committed: “I will follow the safety and quality procedures in the moment of choice when nobody is watching. This is who I am.”

Where do you want your culture to be? The answer is obvious. We want every single employee to be committed.

Realistically, with turnover, downsizing and the stress-ful demands of doing more with less, we will always have a segment of our workforce that is not committed to safe-ty. The message they have received from the leadership team is that production is more important than safety.

So, how do you get noncompliant and compliant employees to be committed to safety in the moment of choice when nobody is watching?

The method of choice for more than 95% of compa-nies today is the same one that Ann’s plant uses. I call it “Leave Alone/Zap.” It is the default method of manage-ment around the world, and almost every safety manager or supervisor has used it, usually without being aware of it.

Have you ever walked past a group of employees doing everything safely (and said nothing to them), but you went immediately to the first employee doing some-thing wrong and said something? If you answered yes, then you have engaged in Leave Alone/Zap.

This management method works only for a short time. You can watch it work today as you drive home, as you will probably be driving about 10 miles an hour over the speed limit, along with everyone else in the pack of cars. At this point, you are all noncompliant, until you see a police officer pointing the radar gun at you.

What do you do to avoid being “zapped” with a speed-ing ticket? You hit the brakes. You (and the entire pack of cars) have just graduated to being compliant with the rules that the police want you to follow, at least for a while.

How long does this shift in behavior last? About 30 seconds, when you breathe a sigh of relief as the police officer disappears from your rearview mirror.

Now what do you do? For most of us, we hit the gas pedal and speed back up, and once again, we become noncompliant.

From this short example, it is clear that punishment, negative reinforcement and Leave Alone/Zap manage-ment systems fail to produce commitment, and they fail to change worker behavior in the moment of choice when nobody is watching.

Ann’s poorly developed incentive system has many problems, but biggest is that it relies on Leave Alone/Zap. This is why she is getting the safety cop behavior shift outlined in her quote at the beginning of this article.

So how do you get people to commit to safety and to do the right thing in the moment of choice? Is it by increasing the number of safety cops and having more frequent zaps? Many managers think so, but they are misguided. More punishment and negative reinforcement will get you more compliance, but it will not get you commitment.

You cannot punish a team into winning the Super Bowl. Getting your workforce to be committed to safety is winning the Super Bowl.

To truly get commitment requires something that today’s managers and leaders rarely deliver: positive reinforcement. I am not talking about steak dinners and handing out giftcards and t-shirts for lagging indicators. That is not positive reinforcement. In fact, those types of reinforcement actually erode commitment and encourage noncompliance. In short, they breed mediocrity.

How well are our best behavior-based safety cultures doing at delivering the positive reinforcement that people crave and need? •Bill Sims Jr. is president of Bill Sims Behavior Change. For more than 30 years, he has helped companies improve human perfor-mance and profitability through positive reinforcement. He is also the author of Green Beans & Ice Cream: The Remarkable Power of Positive Reinforcement.

33World Focus www.asse.org 2014

Welcome New Members

Jackie AryFerdinand Awumee Penny Benton, International Safety Services Inc.Kevin Caras Kenneth Carroll, Kenneth C. Carroll & Associates LLCRandy Creek Peter Engelbert Shaw Fregene, Tse-Shaw Nigeria Ltd.Loyd Hall, Employee-Owned HoldingsLamar Hutchinson, Bulldog Safety Services LLCLawrence Jacobs David Kolson

Alton Limbaugh, Raytheon Technical ServicesKyle McKinnis, Floatec LLCWallton McMillan Jillian Morgan Selena Osbourne Mi-So Park, SK Energy Ulsan CLXDestry Pinnockk, URSRyan Ricci, Alliance PipelineGerald Santos Paul Stover, Swanson Industries Inc.Audrey Terry William Vela Anita Worden Francisco Ybarra Navarro, Grupo Bocar •

Thanks to all International Practice Specialty (IPS) mem-bers and welcome to these new members. IPS now

has nearly 600 members. If you have any colleagues who might be interested in joining IPS, please direct them to www.asse.org/JoinGroups for more information.

©iS

toc

kph

oto

.co

m/r

obe

rt c

hu

rch

ill

Improve Your Safety Management System With Z10

4Casselogo-1200dpi_vector-1c-outline.pdf 1 1/20/2012 1:31:55 PM

ANSI/AIHA/ASSE Z10 Occupational Health & Safety Management SystemsUtilizing national and international standards, guidelines and practices, Z10 provides requirements for an occupational safety and health management system. The blueprint offers the widespread benefits in a health and safety, as well as in productivity, financial, performance, quality and other organizational and business objectives. Sections include:• Management Leadership• Employee Participation• Planning• Implementation• Operation• Evaluation• Corrective Action• Management Review

Visit www.asse.org/standards #E Z10 2012 CODE3 Member Price: $77.00