Content uploaded by Õnnela Paas
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Õnnela Paas on Jan 30, 2016
Content may be subject to copyright.
ISSN 1392 – 2785 Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 2010, 21(5), 485-492
Cost-Effectiveness of Safety Measures in Enterprises
Piia Tint, Õnnela Paas, Karin Reinhold
Tallinn University of Technology
Ehitajate 5, 19086 Tallinn, Estonia
e-mail: piia.tint@tseba.ttu.ee, onnela.pass@tvesi.ee, karinhold@tseba.ttu.ee
Safety auditing is a systematic method to evaluate the
company’s safety management system. The main task of
auditing is to establish whether the correct types of safety
methods are used and whether they are effectively
implemented. The safety auditing in Estonian enterprises
(on the basis of European Union legislation, Standards
OHSAS 18001:1999 and BS 8800:1996) is only in the
beginning stage. As the prerequisite to the paper the safety
auditing in 12 medium- and small-scale enterprises in
Estonia from 5 branches of industry (metal and wood
processing, plastic, garment and printing) has been
carried out. The modified Diekemper & Spartz (D&S)
method has been used. The D&S method addresses 30
activities, divided into five activity areas: organization and
administration; industrial hazard control; fire control and
industrial hygiene; supervisory participation, motivation
and training; accident investigation, statistics and
reporting procedures. The maximum score was gained in
the plastics industry: 62.9% and the minimum score in a
printing industry: 40.9%. Economically developed
enterprises have possibilities to pay also more attention to
safety matters. The cost-effectiveness of the planned safety
measures is calculated. The method considers the cost, the
effectiveness and the uncertainty of the safety measure
(Roed method). These three variables integrate the cost-
effectiveness of a safety measure. The most cost-effective
measures by investigated industries were: provide the
workers with protective footwear in metal industry; the
analysis of the spectrum of noise in printing industry;
analysis of chemicals in the workrooms’ air (risk analysis
of chemicals) in plastic industry; the analysis of chemicals
and medical examinations of workers in wood processing
industry; advanced training of workers to prevent the
injuries with fingers in garment industry. The safety policy
and safety plan that set the framework for health and
safety activities in enterprises are usually not available in
written form in Estonian firms. In addition, there is a need
for raising the awareness of workers in the field of
occupational health and safety. Supervisory participation,
motivation and training were the activities that received
quite low scores. The recommendations to the employers
were given: to improve the information of workers,
motivation to use the personal protective equipment and to
carry out continuing training of workers as well as the
leaders in work safety and health.
Keywords: safety management, OHSAS 18001,
improvement of safety level, cost-effectiveness
of safety measures.
Introduction
The quality of life is very much depended on the work
and living environment (Akranaviciute et al, 2007;
Ruzevicius, 2009). The number of work accidents shows
the level of safety culture in the enterprise. The economic
losses due to accidents are the indicators to the employers
where and how they have to invest to decrease the number
of accidents. These data are not easily accessible from the
State Sickness Fund in Estonia and they are publicly
available only in recent years (Ministry, 2006). The outline
reveals, that the increasing trend is shown among the
people who receive compensation for damages related to
occupational accidents and diseases (in 2003 – 1646
persons, in 2004 – 1745 persons and in 2006 – 2216
persons), but the costs for those damages has remained
rather stable during 2003 and 2006 (34.5 million EEK) as
well as the occupational accident benefit costs (21 million
EEK). However, these data do not contain the indirect
costs of accidents and diseases (the costs for hiring the
substitute labour, training for the job, the lost or degraded
production quality etc.).
Theoretical background
Safety culture (the indicator of a safety level) in
enterprises is dependent on the employers’ attitude to
safety and health of workers (Arezes et al, 2003; Clarke,
2000; Järvis, 2009a, 2009b, 2009c; Paté-Cornell, 1994;
Winder, 2007). Safety culture has different levels. In the
first level, an organisation is not even interested in safety
and has to make the first step to include safety as a
necessary element into the management system of the
enterprise. A subsequent level is one in which safety issues
begin to acquire importance, often driven by both internal
and external factors as a result of having many incidents.
At this level, top management believes accidents to be
caused by the stupidity and inattention of their employees.
The next level involves the recognition that safety does
need to be taken seriously. The term calculative is used to
stress that safety is calculated; quantitative risk assessment
techniques and overt cost-benefit analyses are used to
justify safety and to measure the effectiveness of proposed
measures. The upper level of safety culture is called as
generative and involves a much more proactive approach
to safety. It could be characterised with good practice in
safety management (Cooper, 2002, 2004; Hudson, 1999;
Morris, 1974; Nienaber et al, 2008; Reid, 2000).
In the present study the results of assessment the safety
management system in 12 medium- and small-scale
enterprises (from printing, mechanical, plastic, wood and
-485-
PiiaTint,ÕnnelaPaas,KarinReinhold.Cost‐EffectivenessofSafetyMeasuresinEnterprises
garment industries) in Estonia during 2002-2008 is
presented. The methods of the analysis are described by
Kuusisto (2000): Diekemper & Spartz (1970), Chase
(Glendon, 1995) and others. Preventive safety measures
were pointed out and the cost-effectiveness of these
measures was calculated (Reinhold et al, 2009; Liu et al,
2000; Miller, 2000; Abrahamsen et al, 2009).
The occupational health and safety legislation in
Estonia is mainly based on two documents: EU Council
Directive No. 89/381/EEC and Standard No. BS
8800:1996 (BSI, 1996). According to the BS 8800:1996 a
status review should compare the company’s current
arrangements with the applicable legal requirements,
organization’s current safety guidelines, best practices in
the industry’s branch and the existing recourses directed to
safety activities. The Occupational Health and Safety
Standard OHSAS 18001 was published in Estonian in
2006 and is implemented only in some of the enterprises,
mainly with foreign origin. The implementation of the
standard OHSAS 18001 improves the safety level at
enterprises considerably and is associated with the
improvement of all the management system of the
enterprise (Zeng et al, 2010).
The research problem: the improvement of safety
culture at an enterprise.
The research objective: to show that safety measures
have to be assessed and implemented according to their
importance and cost-effectiveness.
The scientific novelty: the cost-effectiveness of safety
measures takes into account the uncertainty of the measures.
The research method: Modified Diekemper & Spartz
method (Kuusisto, 2000) was used for the assessment the
safety management system at an enterprise, and the Roed
(2009) method was used for calculating the costs of safety
measures in the present study.
Methodology
Safety auditing is a similar procedure to the auditing of
quality and environmental management systems
(Ruzevicius, 2009). Several methods have been developed
for supporting safety auditing. These methods include
questionnaires, interviews, observations and document
reviews.
The safety management system at enterprises can be
assessed through internal audits (carried out by the
employer or safety personnel of the enterprise) and
external audits (carried out by the officials of labour safety
or certification bodies).
The original safety level assessment method in
enterprises was worked out by Diekemper & Spartz (D&S)
in 1970. The method used in the present study has been
modified by Kuusisto (2000) considering the demands of
the occupational health and safety management systems
standard OHSAS 18001 (2007) and by the authors of the
present paper taking into consideration the state of work
safety and health in Estonia. The modified D&S method
addresses 30 activities ((Kuusisto, 2000; Tint, 2010).
These are divided into the following activity areas:
1. A* - organization and administration;
2. B* - industrial hazard control;
3. C* - fire control and industrial hygiene;
4. D* - supervisory participation, motivation and
training;
5. E* - accident investigation, statistics and reporting
procedures.
The assessment is carried out in four level system: level
1(poor); level 2 (fair); level 3 (good); level 4 (excellent).
The methods for calculating the costs of safety
measures are limited (Abrahamsen et al, 2009; Aven,
2003; Miller, 2000; Philips et al, 2006; Roed et al, 2009;
Skjong et al, 2004; Tam et al, 1998; Whynes, 2006). The
method proposed by Roed was used in the present study as
it takes into account the reliability of safety measures. The
cost-effectiveness of safety measures could be calculated
considering three factors: the expected cost of the measure
C; the effect of safety measure Z (using Likert scale: 0...5)
and the uncertainty of the measure N (0...1). The scale for
expected cost (EEK) of the measures is divided as follows:
very low cost- <5000; low cost- ≥5000 and <10.000;
medium cost- ≥10000 and <50.000; high cost- ≥50.000.
The problem of using these expected values is that the
expected values are conditional and could produce poor
predictions of the real outcomes. As a result, uncertainties
need to be taken into account in addition to the expected
values. High uncertainty may indicate that the expected
risk reducing effect can give a poor prediction of the real
risk reducing effect. For uncertainty dimension, three
categories are used: 1) low uncertainty: the phenomena
involved are well understood; the assumptions made are
seen very reasonable; there is broad agreement among
experts; 2) high uncertainty: the phenomena involved are
not well understood; there is lack of agreement among
experts; the assumptions made represent strong
simplifications; 3) medium uncertainty: the phenomena
involved are well understood, but the models used are too
simple.
Results
The results of the assessment of a safety management
system in printing, mechanical, textile, plastic and wood
industry are given in Table 1. Case I-1 (Table 1) was
carried out in a medium-size printing enterprise situated in
a new building in Tallinn. The factory has invested a great
deal to improve the status of premises. The company had
no safety manager; the duties were directed to the
personnel manager, who had the responsibility for
environmental risks and security system’s management as
well. The main types of accidents occurred in the company
were slips, pinching of fingers and back injuries. The other
two companies carrying out the printing activities are
small-scale and the work was carried out in old buildings
(particularly Case I-3). The safety level scores are the
lowest in Case I-3 (floor not cleaned during the workday,
the raw material and finished products standing on the
pathways for workers, the strong smell of printing
chemicals etc.). The highest scores in the Case I-1 were
given to part B - industrial hazard control (15.0: workers
were equipped with personal protective equipment, good
storage of materials, material handling- manual and
automated etc.), the lowest one (9.3) was given to the part
E (accident investigation). The E part was the lowest for all
investigated companies as the near-accident investigation
- 486 -
ISSN1392–2785InzinerineEkonomika‐EngineeringEconomics,2010,21(5),485‐492
was not performed in any of the companies. Part D
obtained the score 11.4: safety training was carried out on
a regular basis, but no written handouts or programme for
internal audits were presented. In most cases, new
employees were trained by senior workers. Case II
(mechanical processing industry) was carried out in two
medium scale factories producing two-wheeled trailers for
passenger cars and other metal parts to machines. The
welding process was the most hazardous activity in both
factories. It was carried out in the poorest conditions in
Case II-1(in the building made of silica brick, without
ventilation). The number of accidents showed a decreasing
trend in this factory. The workers were complaining on
back injuries caused by lifting tasks. These injuries were
typically caused by sharp pieces of sheet metal. The
interest from the side of management was obvious. The
highest scores in the Case II-1 (from 10.5 to 9.2) were
given to the parts A to D. The lowest score was obtained
for the part E: neither accident statistics nor near-accident
investigation took place in the company. Vast attempts
were taken by the management to improve the ventilation
in welding activities, but some re-arrangements are still
possible for cleaning the air in the breathing zone of
workers. The respirators were used during the welding
work. Case III (plastic industry) was carried out in a
medium-scale company in the countryside, where it hired a
lot of people with the lowest salary, but the people very
satisfied to have at least the job. In the Case III-1 the
factory was producing rubber products for car industry
situated abroad (Germany). The quality control of these
products (package rings included) needs very good eye-
sight from workers. Therefore, only the girls at the age 18-
25 years not wearing eye-glasses were hired to work in the
control-rooms. The plastic firm only planned to send the
workers to the medical examinations after the reviewing of
the risk assessment results. The highest score in safety for
this factory (12.5) was got in the part B (housekeeping,
machine guarding etc.) as the machines where new,
premises good as the factory itself is only 2 years old. The
lowest score (6.7) was received in the part E as there were
no accident cause analysis nor near-accident investigation
organized in the factory. The other two plastic factories are
situated in the capital of Estonia and equipped with better
workrooms and the attention from the side of employers
for the improvement of work conditions in the Case III-2
was very obvious. The risk analysis were ordered from
external firms and some rehabilitation possibilities were
offered for workers (like spa, massage). In the Case III-3
the workrooms were new, but the knowledge of workers
on used chemicals was non-existent. The workers could
not make difference between the alkalis and acids. This
caused a serious accident (a worker inhaled accidentally
vinegar acid and got an occupational disease). The Cases
in the group IV were carried out in the wood processing
industry, one of them was a medium-scale firm and two
other firms were small-scale. There are a lot of hazards in
wood processing industry: sharp tools and parts of
machines, wood dust in the air of workrooms, wood parts
on the floor, and noise from machines and ventilation
system. In the Case IV-3 very much was invested in the
ventilation system, particularly installing the local
ventilation systems. The safety training of workers was
carried out periodically (3 times a year) in all three
companies. The air muffs and plugs were used properly.
Garment industry (Cases V-1) is spread very widely in
Estonia, but it is mostly owned by foreigners and therefore
it is difficult to get into these factories. The air of the
garment industry (Case V-1) was clean (the content of
textile dust < 2mg/m3). The workers were not keen on
wearing air plugs, but all other personal protective
equipment was worn correctly. The accidents in the Case
V-1 were investigated in depth and corrective measures
were effectively implemented. Applying job hazard
analysis for the detailed work procedures in the companies
showed, that in most cases, truck driving and welding were
seen as special and potentially hazardous tasks. Training
for specialized operations was given in all companies.
None of the investigated companies had prepared a written
safety policy. Safety communication between supervisors
and employees was observed to be insufficient. In all
companies management reviewed the accident reports, but
it was unclear if the blue-collar workers received the
information about the results of the investigation. The
machine guards were in place and hazards seemed to be
under control. Usually supervisory participation, motivation
and training were the activities that received quite low
scores in Estonian companies. The recommendations to the
employers were given which included the improvement of
information arrival for the workers, motivation to use the
personal protective equipment and the consistent training
of workers and leaders in work safety and health. The
results of assessment of the assessment of safety system
are given in Table 1.
The results of calculation of cost effectiveness of the
investigated industries are given in the following form:
expected cost /effectiveness of safety measure - uncertainty
(C/Z-N). The data for the metal processing industry were
obtained as follows (Figure 1):
1) Installation of a wall around the guillotine saw
(C/Z-N): 20.000/4-0.5
2) Installation of raw materials and half-products
properly, not on the walking area: 1000/3-0.5
3) To modernize washing rooms: 150.000/5-0.1
4) Re-arrangement of the local-ventilation equipment
for welding activities: 40.000/2-0.8
5) Analysis of chemicals hazardousness by welding
activities:10.000/4-0.1
6) Provide the workers with protective footwear:
40.000/4-0.8.
The most cost-effective of previously listed safety
measures is No.6 as the uncertainty is very high (we do not
exactly know how many hazardous situations may occur in
the metal industry).
The data for the printing industry (Figure 2):
1) Analysis of the spectrum of noise: 3000/5-0.9
2) Selection of hearing protectors by the frequency
of noise: 10.000/4-0.5
3) Re-arrangement of lighting for the newspapers’
quality control: 10.000/3-0.8
4) Re-arrangement of manual lifting of loads (use
the ideas of workers): 4000/3-0.5
- 487 -
PiiaTint,ÕnnelaPaas,KarinReinhold.Cost‐EffectivenessofSafetyMeasuresinEnterprises
3) Installation of the local ventilation so that there
will not be wood dust in the inhalation zone of the worker:
100.000/4-0.7
5) Dry cleaning of the floor twice a day (instead of
one): 500/1-0.9
6) Wet cleaning of the floor: 20.000/5-0.5.
The most cost-effective safety measure in printing
industry is No. 1 as we do not know what the spectrum of
noise from the printing machines is and therefore the
selection of noise protectors is until now occasional. Noise
is the most unpleasant hazard in the printing industry.
The results in the plastic industry (Figure 3) were as
follows:
4) To modernize the washing rooms: 60.000/3-0.8.
5) Medical examinations possibility every year: 300
EEK per worker, 30.000 EEK per 100 workers/3-0.8
6) Analysis of chemicals used for wood treating
from the side of health hazardousness: 10.000/4-0.8.
The most cost-effective measures in wood processing
industry are measures No.5 and 6- analysis of chemicals
and medical examinations of workers.
In the garment industry (Figure 5) the scores were as
follows:
1) Analysis of chemicals in the workrooms’ air (risk
analysis of chemicals): 10.000/5-0.9
2) Separation of eateries from the industrial area
with the wall and installation with the exhaust ventilation:
30.000/3-0.3
1) Advanced training of workers to prevent the
injuries with fingers: 5000/5-0.8
2) To modernize the washing rooms: 30.000/3-0.5
3) Installation of the local ventilation to every press
machine: 300.000/4-0.7 3) Improvement of microclimate of workrooms in
summer (too hot): supplementary ventilation: 60.000/3-0.5
4) Regulation of the ventilation (prevention of
draught in the floor region): 500/4-0.7 4) Two times a day the wet cleaning of floor:
10.000/3-0.5
5) Medical examination every year (as the
monotonous work may cause musculoskeletal disorders):
300 per worker; 30.000 per 100 workers/3-0.7
5) Medical examination every year for prevention of
physical overload traumas (compulsory position): 300 per
worker, 30.000 per 100 workers/3-0.8
6) Information, training and knowledge management
of workers for finishing the eating at workplaces (by the
press-machines): 2.000/5-0.9.
6) Supplementary training of workers for use of
hearing protectors and proper footwear, chosen by the
workers themselves: 1.000 per worker, 50.000 per 50
workers /4-0.5.
The most cost-effective measure in plastic industry is
measure No. 1 (the analysis of chemicals in the
workroom’s air).
In the wood processing industry (Figure 4) the results
were obtained as follows:
1) Training of workers on health risks: 5.000/4-0.9
2) Wet cleaning of the room two times per day:
10.000 per year/3-0.9
The most cost-effective safety measure in garment
industry is No.1- advanced training of workers to prevent
the injuries with fingers.
The uncertainty of the measure is higher if we do not
exactly know what effect of safety measure will be. The
example: the wet cleaning of the floor in printing industry
is more effective than dry cleaning as the latter may only
circulate dust in the room.
Table 1
Results of auditing of safety system in Estonian enterprises
Category A* B* C* D* E* Total score0Likert scale, 0.....5
Printing industry, I
Case I-1, 162 workers 12.7 15.0 11.0 11.4 9.3 59.4 3.96
Case I-2, 24 workers 7.8 12.5 11.0 11.4 9.3 52.0 3.60
Case I-3, 30 workers 5.0 10.0 10.0 9.2 6.7 40.9 3.05
Mechanical industry, II
Case II -1, 136 workers 10.5 10.0 10.0 9.2 6.7 46.4 3.32
Case II-2, 360 workers 12.7 12.5 11.0 9.2 9.3 54.7 3.74
Plastics industry, III
Case III-1, 160 workers 8.9 12.5 10.0 11.4 6.7 49.5 3.48
Case III-2, 10 workers 13.2 15.0 14.0 11.4 9.3 62.9 4.15
Case III-3, 19 workers 7.8 12.5 12.0 9.2 6.7 48.2 3.41
Wood processing industry, IV
Case IV-1, 300 workers 7.8 10.0 10.0 11.4 6.7 45.9 3.30
Case IV-2, 23 workers 8.9 10.0 10.0 9.2 9.3 47.4 3.37
Case IV-3, 15 workers 10.5 12.5 12.5 11.4 9.3 55.7 3.79
Textile industry, V
Case V-1, 160 workers 13.2 15.0 14.0 9.2 9.3 60.7 4.04
0 Maximum score in each area (A, B, C, D, E) is 20. Maximum total score is 100.
2
- 488 -
ISSN1392–2785InzinerineEkonomika‐EngineeringEconomics,2010,21(5),485‐492
Figure 1. Cost-effectiveness of safety measures in metal processing industry
Figure 2. Cost-effectiveness of safety measures in printing industry
Figure 3. Cost-effectiveness of safety measures in plastics industry
≥5000-10000
1.
4.
5.
3.
6.
Risk reducing effect of safety measure
1
< 5000 ≥10000-50000 >50000
Expected cost of the measure, EEK
Uncertainty
High
Medium
Low
5
1.
2.
Cost-effectiveness
High
Medium
Low
5.
Risk reducing effect of safety measure
5
1
< 5000 ≥5000-10000 ≥10000-50000 >50000
Expected cost of the measure, EEK
Uncertainty
High
Medium
Low
Cost-effectiveness
High
Medium
6.
Low
4.
3.
2.
Risk reducing effect of safety measure
5
1
< 5000 ≥5000-10000 ≥10000-50000 >50000
Expected cost of the measure, EEK
Uncertainty
High
Medium
Low
Cost-effectiveness
High
Medium
1.
6.
4.
Low
5.
3.
2.
- 489 -
PiiaTint,ÕnnelaPaas,KarinReinhold.Cost‐EffectivenessofSafetyMeasuresinEnterprises
Figure 4. Cost-effectiveness of safety measures in wood processing industry
Figure 5. Cost-effectiveness of safety measures in garment industry
Conclusions
The investigation was carried out in 12 Estonian
enterprises (metal and wood processing, printing, plastic
and garment industries); the safety system used in these
enterprises was assessed, the risk prevention measures
were determined and the cost-effectiveness of these
safety measures was calculated. The safety culture is
very much dependent on the safety management in
enterprises, the involvement of top managers in safety
and health. The cooperation between the top
management, work environment specialist, occupational
health doctors and workers is also very important. Big
enterprises have more possibilities to invest into safety
and improve the safety level in the firm. Safety culture
has different levels. In the first level, an organisation is
not even interested in safety. A subsequent level is one
in which safety issues begin to acquire importance. At
this level, top management believes accidents to be
caused by stupidity and inattention of their employees.
The next level involves the recognition that safety does
need to be taken seriously. The upper level of safety
culture involves a much more proactive approach to
safety. It could be characterised with good practice in
safety management.
The cost-effectiveness of safety measures is
dependent on the uncertainty of safety measure. If the
measure concerns more than one worker then the
uncertainty is higher, but the measure can be more cost-
effective as it improves working conditions of more than
one person. In wood processing industry the safety
measures taken have all the uncertainties from medium
or high, but for example to raise the frequency of a
periodical medical examination from once in two years
to once every year does not give the desired effect, so
that kind of measure (No.5 in wood processing industry)
is not cost-effective. There are other not cost-effective
measures, like two times per day wet-cleaning of the
floor in garment industry (measure No. 4). There is no
dust over the exposure limit or even not dust smell in the
air of the work environment. Organizing safety measures
in enterprises, the manager is not allowed to look only
on the cost of the measure, but has to assess also the
>50000
Risk reducing effect of safety
5
1
<
5000
≥5000-10000 ≥10000-50000 of the measure, Expected cost
Cost-effectiveness
High
Medium
Low
4
.
5
.
3
.
6
.
1
.
2
.
Uncertainty
Hi
g
h
Mediu
m
Low
5
1
< 5000
≥5000-10000 ≥10000-50000 >50000
Ex
p
ected cost of the measure, EEK
Cost-effectiveness
High
Medium
Uncertainty
Risk reducing effect of safety
Hi
g
h
Mediu
3
1
m
Low
6
4.
2
5
Low
- 490 -
ISSN1392–2785InzinerineEkonomika‐EngineeringEconomics,2010,21(5),485‐492
effectiveness of the measure and the number of workers
who will benefit by the measure.
Safety policy and safety plan that set the framework
for health and safety activities in enterprises are usually
not available in a written form in Estonian firms. In
addition, the information about hazards connected with
used chemicals is often not available at workplaces and
the workers are not trained to use the chemical safety
cards. There is a need for raising the awareness of
workers in the field of occupational health and safety by
the compilation of relevant guidelines and fact sheets.
Supervisory participation, motivation and training were
the activities that received quite low scores. The
recommendations for the employers were given: to
improve the information of workers, motivation to use
personal protective equipment and to carry out
continuing training of workers as well as leaders in work
safety and health.
References
Abrahamsen, E. B., & Aven, T. (2009). Communication of cost-effectiveness of safety measures by use of a new visualizing
tool. Reliability & Risk Analysis: Theory and Applications, 2(4), 38-46.
Akranaviciute, D., & Ruzevicius, J. (2007). Quality of Life and its Components’ Measurement. Inzinerine Ekonomika-
Engineering Economics(2), 44-49.
Arezes, P., & Miguel, A. (2003). The role of safety culture in safety performance measurement. Measuring Business
Excellence, 7(4), 20-28.
Aven, T., & Korte, J. (2003).On the use of cost/benefit analysis and expected utility theory to support decision-making.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 79, 289-299.
British Standards Institution (BSI). (1996, 2004). Guide to occupational health and safety management systems (Standard No.
BS 8800:1996), London.
Clarke, S. (2000). Safety Culture: underspecified and overrated. International Journal of Management Reviews, 2(1), 185-198.
Cooper, M. D. (2002). Safety Culture. A model for understanding & quantifying a difficult concept. Professional Safety,
June, 30-36.
Cooper, M. D., & Phillips, R. A. (2004). Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behaviour relationship. Journal
of Safety Research, 35, 497-512.
Diekemper, R. F., & Spartz, D. A. (1970). A quantitative and qualitative measurement of industrial safety activities, ASSE
Journal, Dec, 12-19.
Glendon, I. (1995). Safety auditing. Journal of occupational health and safety- Australia and New Zealand 11(6), 569-575.
Hudson, P. (1999). Safety culture – theory and practice. Presented at the workshop on “The human factor in system reliability
– is human performance predictable?” Siena, Italy, 1-2 December 1999.
Järvis, M., & Tint, P. (2009a). Innovations at workplace: an evidence-based model for safety management. Business: Theory
and Practice, 10(2), 150-158.
Järvis, M., & Tint, P. (2009b). The formation of a good safety culture at enterprise. Journal of Business Economics and
Management, 10(2), 169-180.
Järvis, M., & Tint, P. (2009c). Employment, cultural differences and work safety: Estonia example. Economics and
Management, 14, 567-574.
Kuusisto, A. (2000). Safety management systems. Audit tools and reliability of auditing. Publications 428; Espoo, Finland:
VVT (Technical Research Centre of Finland).
Liu, L., Strawderman, R. L., Cowen, M. E., & Shih, Y. C. (2000). A flexible two-part random effects model for correlated
medical costs. Journal of Health Economics, 29, 110-123.
Miller, P., Whynes, D., & Reid, A. (2000). An economic evaluation of occupational health. Occupational Medicine, 50(3),
159-163.
Morris, P. A. (1974). Decision analysis expert use. Management Science, 20(9), 1233.
Ministry of Social Affairs. (2006). Social sector in numbers. Tallinn, 47-54 (in Estonian).
Nienaber, H., & Roodt, G. (2008). Management and leadership: Buccaneering or science. European Business review, 20(1), 36-50.
Paté-Cornell, M. E. (1994). Quantitative safety goals for risk management of industrial facilities. Structural Safety, 13, 145-157.
Philips, Z., Whynes, D. K., & Avis, M. (2006). Testing the construct validity of willingness to pay valuations using
objective information about risk and health benefit. Health Economics, 15(2), 195-204.
Reid, S. R. (2000). Acceptable risk criteria. Progress in Structural Engineering and Materials, 2, 254-262.
Reinhold, K., Tint, P.,Tuulik, V., & Saarik, S. (2008). Innovations at Workplace: Improvement of Ergonomics. Inzinerine
Ekonomika-Engineering Economics(5), 85-94.
Roed, W. (2009). Evaluation of safety measures in road tunnels based on cost-effectiveness analysis. Reliability,
Risk and Safety: Theory and Applications- Bris, Guedes Soares & Martorell (eds.). Taylor & Francis Group, London, 993-998.
Ruzevicius, J. (2009). Environmental Management Systems and Tools Analysis. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering
Economics(4), 49-59.
- 491 -
PiiaTint,ÕnnelaPaas,KarinReinhold.Cost‐EffectivenessofSafetyMeasuresinEnterprises
Skjong, R., & Ronald, K. O. (2004). Criteria for cost effectiveness of safety measures. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering, 1, 129-134.
Tam, C., Fung, I. 1998. Effectiveness of safety management strategies on safety performance in Hong Kong. Construction
Management and Economics 16, 49-55.
Whynes, D. K., Frew, E. J., & Wolstenholme, J. L. (2006). Willingness-to-pay and demand curves: a comparison of results
obtained using different elicitation formats. International Journal of Health Care Finance and Economics, 5(4), 369-386.
Winder, C., & Makin, A. M. (2007). Problems in organisational management: A new category of hazards. Risk, Reliability
and Safety. Aven & Vinnem (eds.). Taylor & Francis Group, London, 1293-1297.
Zeng, S. X., Tam, W. Y. T., Le, K. N. L. (2010). Towards Effectiveness of Integrated Management Systems for Enterprises.
Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 21(2), 171-179.
Piia Tint, Õnnela Paas, Karin Reinhold
Saugumo priemonių sąnaudų efektyvumas įmonėse
Santrauka
Buvo ištirta 12 Estijos įmonių (medžio ir metalo, apdirbimo, spausdinimo, plastmasių ir drabužių pramonės), įvertintos šių įmonių saugos sistemos,
nustatytos rizikos išvengimo priemonės, apskaičiuotas šių saugumo priemonių sąnaudų efektyvumas. Saugumo kultūra labai priklauso nuo to, kaip
įmonės organizuoja saugumą, ar vyriausieji vadybininkai įtraukiami į saugumo ir sveikatos apsaugos procesus. Labai svarbu bendradarbiauti
vadybininkams, darbo aplinkos specialistams, sveikatos apsaugos gydytojams ir darbuotojams. Didelės įmonės turi daugiau galimybių investuoti į
saugumą ir taip pagerinti firmos saugumo lygį. Saugumo kultūros lygiai yra įvairūs. Pirmame lygyje saugumu, nesidomima. Antrame lygyje saugumo
problemos įgyja prasmę. Šiame lygyje vadovai tiki, kad nelaimingų atsitikimų gali įvykti dėl darbuotojų kvailumo ir neatidumo. Dar kitame lygyje
suvokiama, kad saugumą reikia vertinti rimtai. Aukščiausiame saugumo kultūros lygyje reikalaujama ypač rimto požiūrio į priemones.
Tiriamose įmonėse darbuotojų buvo nuo 15 iki 360, t.y. buvo tiriamos smulkaus ir vidutinio verslo įmonės. Saugumo lygis šiose įmonėse skiriasi.
Estijos sostinėje Taline esančios įmonės turi daugiau galimybių investuoti į darbo aplinką nei priemiesčio organizacijoms. Diekemperio ir Spartzo
metodas buvo taikomas saugumo lygiui įmonėse nustatyti, o Roedo metodas padėjo nustatyti ir įvertinti saugumo priemonių sąnaudų efektyvumą.
Diekemperio ir Spartzo metodas apima 30 veiksnių, kurie suskirstyti į penkias veiklos sritis: A – organizacija ir administracija; B – pramonės rizikos
kontrolė; C – gaisrų ir pramonės higienos kontrolė; D – vadovų dalyvavimas, motyvacija ir rengimas; E – nelaimingų atsitikimų tyrimas, statistikos ir
ataskaitų procedūros. Veiksniai, kurie buvo įvertinti A srityje yra šie: politikos teiginiai, tiesioginis valdymas, saugumo instrukcijos, darbo vietų
modeliavimas, avarijų ir nelaimių kontrolės planai, įmonės saugumo taisyklės, veiksmų numatymas, saugumo organizavimo struktūra, sveikatos apsauga.
B srityje saugumo veiksniai buvo šie: žaliavų ir produktų sandėliavimas, technikos priežiūra, bendras darbo aplinkos saugumas, rankiniai įrankiai,
rankinis ir automatinis medžiagų apdorojimas, asmeniniai saugumo įrenginiai. C srityje įvertinti šie veiksniai: cheminio pavojaus kontrolės atvejai,
užsidegančių ir sprogstamųjų medžiagų sandėliavimas, pavojingų kvapų, dūmų ir dulkių kontrolė, odos pažeidimų ir ugnies kontrolės priemonės. D
srityje esantys saugumo veiksniai šie: vadovų saugumo mokymas, naujų tarnautojų švietimas, darbo pavojų analizė, specialių operacijų mokymas, vidaus
tikrinimo operacijos, saugumo užtikrinimas ir viešumas, tarnautojų / vadovų saugumo kontaktai. E srityje vertinami šie veiksniai: avarijų analizė,
priežasčių tyrimas ir statistika, nelaimingų atsitikimų numatymas.
Tyrimas buvo vykdomas pagal keturių lygių sistemą: pirmas lygis (blogas), antras lygis (patenkinamas), trečias lygis (geras), ketvirtas lygis
(puikus). Rezultatai pateikiami procentais, taip pat taikant Likerto sistemą (0...5). Rezultatai rodo, kad, jeigu įmonė valdoma pagal įstatymus ir ji rūpinasi
savo darbuotojų gerove, tai saugumo kultūros lygis yra aukštesnis mažose įmonėse, kuriose nėra išsilavinusių darbuotojų sveikatos ir saugumo srityje, o
darbo aplinkos gerinimo resursai yra mažesni. Maksimalus saugumo lygis – 100 proc., taikant Diekemperio ir Spartzo metodą. Saugumo lygis tiriamose
įmonėse – 40,9 – 62,9, o remiantis Likerto skale (0...5), įvertinimas – 3,05 – 4,15. Taigi saugumo lygį laisvai galima kelti.
Saugumo priemonių efektyvumas (Roedo metodas) gali būti apskaičiuotas atsižvelgiant į tris veiksnius: tikėtini C lygio sąnaudų matavimai, saugumo
priemonės, kurios įeina į Z lygį (taikant Likerto skalę 0...5), ir priemonės N netikrumas (0...1).
Galimų sąnaudų matavimų skalė yra ši: labai mažos sąnaudos – <5 000; mažos –≥5 000; vidutinės – ≥10 000 ir <50 000; didelės – ≥50 000.
Šių prognozuojamų reikšmių problema yra ta, kad tikėtini dydžiai yra sąlyginiai ir gali neteisingai prognozuoti tikrus rezultatus. Taigi neapibrėžtumai turi
būti įvertinti kartu su tikėtinais rezultatais. Didelis netikrumas gali rodyti, kad galima rizika prognozuojama, jog tikra rizika sumažės.
Neapibrėžtumo dimensija apibrėžiama trimis kategorijomis:
1) žemu neapibrėžtumo lygiu: su tuo susiję reiškiniai gerai suprantami; prielaidos yra labai protingos; ekspertai labai sutaria;
2) aukštu neapibrėžtumo lygiu: su tuo susiję reiškiniai nėra gerai suprantami, ekspertai nesutaria; prielaidos yra labai supaprastintos;
3) vidutiniu neapibrėžtumu lygiu: reiškiniai yra gerai suprantami, bet taikomi modeliai yra labai paprasti.
Saugumo priemonių efektyvumo priemonės (Roedo metodas) priklauso nuo saugumo priemonių neapibrėžtumo. Jeigu priemonė susijusi su daugiau
nei vienu darbuotoju, netikrumas yra didesnis, tačiau ji gali būti efektyvesnė, nes gerina daugiau nei vieno darbuotojo darbo sąlygas. Medžio apdirbimo
pramonėje saugumo priemonės yra susijusios su visais neapibrėžtumo lygiais (nuo vidutinio iki aukščiausio). Tačiau tai, kad padaugėja medicininės
apžiūros nuo vieno karto kas dveji metai iki vieno karto per metus, neteikia reikiamo efekto, todėl šios rūšies priemonė nėra efektyvi.
Yra ir kitų neefektyvių sąnaudų, pvz., drabužių pramonėje drėgnas grindų valymas du kartus per dieną. Nesijaučia net dulkių kvapo darbo aplinkoje.
Organizuojant saugumo priemones įmonėse, vadybininkas negali vertinti tik priemonių sąnaudų, jis turi įvertinti priemonės efektyvumą ir darbuotojų
skaičių, kurie gaus naudos iš tos priemonės.
Efektyviausios priemonės tiriamose įmonėse buvo šios: aprūpinti darbuotojus apsauginiu apavu metalo pramonėje, analizuoti triukšmo spektrą
spausdinimo pramonėje, tirti chemikalus, tvyrančius darbo vietos ore, plastmasės pramonėje, analizuoti chemikalus, taip pat darbuotojų sveikatos būklę
medžio apdirbimo pramonėje, mokyti darbuotojus, kaip išvengti sužeidimų drabužių pramonėje. Taikant saugumo priemonių efektyvumo įvertinimo
metodą, gerai panaudotų saugumo priemonių sąnaudos tampa efektyvios, saugumas tampa patrauklesnis tiek vadybininkams, tiek darbo aplinkos
specialistams, taip pat didėja valstybinių institucijų teisinė atsakomybė. Saugumo politika ir saugumo planai, kurie sudaro sveikatos ir saugumo veiksmų
pagrindą, Estijos įmonėse raštu nėra pateikti. Be to, informacija apie pavojus, susijusius su chemikalais, dažnai nėra pasiekiama darbo vietose, o
darbuotojai nėra informuojami, kaip pasinaudoti saugumo priemonėmis. Darbuotojams reikia gilinti žinias sveikatos ir saugumo srityse pateikiant
reikiamus nurodymus ir faktus. Vadovavimas, motyvacija ir švietimas yra tos sritys, kurios buvo vertinamos prasčiausiai. Rekomendacijose buvo
nurodoma, kaip gerinti darbuotojų informatyvumą, kelti motyvaciją naudojant asmeninius apsaugos įrenginius, taip pat šviesti darbuotojus ir kelti vadovų
kvalifikaciją darbo ir sveikatos apsaugos srityje.
Raktažodžiai: saugumo valdymas, OHSAS 18001, saugumo lygio gerinimas, saugumo priemonių sąnaudų efektyvumas.
The article has been reviewed.
Received in February, 2010; accepted in December, 2010
- 492 -
