Are Work Organization's Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Work Associated With a Better Working Environment?

Background:
Systematic occupational health and safety (OHS) work has been presented as an antecedent of a safe and healthy work environment. Thus, workplaces having a high level of systematic occupational health and safety (OHS) work are hypothesized to have a better working environment compared to other workplaces. Important components of systematic OHS work include, but are not limited to: (a) motivation for OHS work, (b) openness at the workplace about OHS issues, (c) continuous monitoring of OHS risks and focus on improving the work environment, (d) follow-up and learning from interventions to improve the work environment, and (e) collaboration between management and employees on OHS issues. However, due to the limited number of studies there is little empirical evidence to support an association between systematic OHS work and the work environment. The present study investigates the association between systematic OHS work and two factors related to the quality of the work environment. First, the association with enforcement notices from a national workplace inspection authority (fewer notices = better work environment), and second, the association with the quality of the workplaces’ solution(s) to the work environment problem that lead to the enforcement notice. The hypotheses are that systematic OHS work is associated with fewer enforcement notices (i.e., a better working environment), and a higher quality of the solution applied to the work environment problem.

Method:
The participants in this study comprise 4112 enterprises that participated in the evaluation of a national inspection authority initiative “Dialogue and Guidance” in Denmark. In brief, enterprises inspected by the authority and receiving an enforcement notice were offered supplementary dialogue and guidance. The dialogue and guidance were given after the inspection at a later date, either by telephone or in a meeting. Questionnaires were sent to the enterprises before (baseline) and after (follow-up) the dialogue and guidance meeting. Two identical questionnaires were sent to the enterprises, to a management and employee representative, respectively. The aggregated (management and employee responses combined) response rate was 28.6% (baseline) and 35.8% (follow-up). The baseline questionnaire supplied data to this study. The scale to measure systematic OHS consisted of eight items, and a six-item scale was used to measure the solution of the work environment problem (Chronbachs’ alpha = 0.88 and 0.72 respectively). The number of enforcement notices received on the inspection was used as a proxy for the quality of the work environment, and was retrieved from the authority’s registers. Potential confounders and mediators (OHS certification status, enterprise size, business sector, etc.) were likewise collected from the registers and the baseline questionnaire.

Results:
The enterprises’ systematic OHS work will be characterized with respect to business sector, enterprise size, and geographical location. Next, the association between systematic OHS work and the number of enforcement notices and the quality of the work environment problem solution will be analysed. The results will be presented at the conference.

Conclusion:
The study will contribute much needed data on the role of systematic OHS work in
achieving and maintaining a good work environment.