![Two main types of supply chain networks, which are considered in terms of occupational safety and health (OSH) [4,7].](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348299480/figure/fig1/AS:11431281388668345@1745188512948/Two-main-types-of-supply-chain-networks-which-are-considered-in-terms-of-occupational_Q320.jpg)
Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Sustainability
This content is subject to copyright.
sustainability
Article
Risk-Based Thinking as a Basis for Efficient Occupational
Safety Management in the Mining Industry
Marat Rudakov 1, * , Elena Gridina 1and Jürgen Kretschmann 2
Citation: Rudakov, M.; Gridina, E.;
Kretschmann, J. Risk-Based Thinking
as a Basis for Efficient Occupational
Safety Management in the Mining
Industry. Sustainability 2021,13, 470.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020470
Received: 28 November 2020
Accepted: 1 January 2021
Published: 6 January 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neu-
tral with regard to jurisdictional clai-
ms in published maps and institutio-
nal affiliations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. Li-
censee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and con-
ditions of the Creative Commons At-
tribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Department of Industrial Safety, Saint Petersburg Mining University, 199106 Saint Petersburg, Russia;
Gridina_EB@pers.spmi.ru
2
Technische Hochschule Georg Agricola University, 44787 Bochum, Germany; juergen.kretschmann@thga.de
*Correspondence: Rudakov_ML@pers.spmi.ru
Abstract:
This article deals with the role and the place of risk-based thinking in today’s occupational
safety and health (OSH) systems used by mining companies. A brief survey on modern challenges
and pressures affecting companies, as well as on the structure of supply chains, is given. It is
demonstrated that, despite all measures and actions that are being taken, occupational injuries in the
mining sector: (a) remain a matter of serious concern and (b) should be examined and investigated
through the lens of the company’s complexity. The objective of the article is two-fold: to trace the
evolution of risk-based thinking from quality management systems towards OSH management
systems and to demonstrate how this approach can be implemented by a company performing
open-pit mining operations. The matrix method along with the Fine and Kinney’s method was used
in assessing OSH risks, and the checklist method along with a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-
Threats (SWOT)analysis was used while assessing OSH opportunities. The results of the study make
it possible to conclude that risk-based thinking incorporated into an OSH management system can
be a robust and efficient instrument for OSH planning and implementation. This article contains
an example of assessing OSH risks and opportunities for a dragline operator and also discusses the
possible ways of using the data on the OSH risks and opportunities that were identified in OSH
activities. The final part also contains comments and reflections on various risks mining companies
are facing nowadays.
Keywords:
mining; supply chains; complexity; pressures; risk-based thinking; occupational safety
and health (OSH); OSH management system; occupational fatalities; OSH risks and opportunities;
open-pit
1. Introduction: Increasing Complexity of Companies and Occupational Safety and
Health Issues
Nowadays, we can observe the processes of globalization and digitalization of eco-
nomics. These processes, which are developing in line with “green economy” trends,
make the contemporary company a very complex organism. The business and operational
environment has changed considerably for the majority of organizations. One of the pecu-
liarities of this change comes from the integration of various industrial, technical, political,
economic, environmental and financial pressures, along with regulatory adjustments which
ensue from these [
1
–
3
]. As has been underlined in many studies [
4
–
6
], the sustainable
development of a company demands a continuous search for the right balance between
social, environmental and economic performances, thus forming the complexity of the
company’s structure. For example, in paper [
6
], several measures of social sustainability
were proposed to be incorporated in decision-making (labor equity, healthcare, safety and
philanthropy).
As was underlined in [
1
], the operation of sectors, which were previously relatively
autonomous and independent, became more complex as the number of stakeholders
Sustainability 2021,13, 470. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020470 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 2 of 14
increased, including the advent of new technologies and interrelations between entities
that are no longer isolated and independent.
Certainly, the companies of the mining sector do not work separately from other
sectors. The term “supply chain” has become usual for both entrepreneurs and occupational
safety and health (OSH) practitioners. In general, a supply chain is governed by one
company (“focal” company). Two main types of supply chain networks are considered in
terms of OSH (Figure 1) [4,7]:
•Companies and their suppliers (supply chain)—the primary network;
•
Companies linked together by contracting bonds (contracting chain)—the secondary
or supporting network.
Sustainability 2021, 13, x FOR PEER REVIEW 2 of 15
As was underlined in [1], the operation of sectors, which were previously relatively
autonomous and independent, became more complex as the number of stakeholders in-
creased, including the advent of new technologies and interrelations between entities that
are no longer isolated and independent.
Certainly, the companies of the mining sector do not work separately from other sec-
tors. The term “supply chain” has become usual for both entrepreneurs and occupational
safety and health (OSH) practitioners. In general, a supply chain is governed by one com-
pany (“focal” company). Two main types of supply chain networks are considered in
terms of OSH (Figure 1) [4,7]:
• Companies and their suppliers (supply chain)—the primary network;
• Companies linked together by contracting bonds (contracting chain)—the secondary
or supporting network.
Figure 1. Two main types of supply chain networks, which are considered in terms of occupa-
tional safety and health (OSH) [4,7].
Both networks (see Figure 1) are affected by stakeholders (the government, nongov-
ernmental organizations and customers), as well as with various pressures and incentives.
In many studies, the increasing complexity of supply chains has been marked (for exam-
ple, [8]).
Moreover, the ongoing implementation of automation, information technology (IT)
and artificial intelligence (AI) in the mining sector (centralized control of operators’ activ-
ities and road quality monitoring, autonomous mining equipment, high-precision posi-
tioning, drilling control, etc.) also contributes to the increasing complexity of companies.
Some authors speak of the “structural complexity” introduced through the heterogeneity
of system components across different technological domains due to the increased inte-
gration among various systems, and the “dynamic complexity” which is manifested
through the emergence of (even unexpected) system behavior in response to local changes
in environmental and operational conditions [1,3].
For example, in the study [1], we can see an example—the automation of several pro-
cesses conveys more opacity in the system, with numerous control rules and new infor-
mation technologies involved. In the study [9], we can see the discussion on the real qual-
itative effects of automation—it transforms human practice and forces people to adapt
their skills and routines. Rather than reinventing or refining substitution-based methods,
the authors of [9] propose that the more pressing question on human–automation coordi-
nation is “how do we make them get along together”.
Figure 1.
Two main types of supply chain networks, which are considered in terms of occupational
safety and health (OSH) [4,7].
Both networks (see Figure 1) are affected by stakeholders (the government, nongovern-
mental organizations and customers), as well as with various pressures and incentives.
In many studies, the increasing complexity of supply chains has been marked (for exam-
ple, [8]).
Moreover, the ongoing implementation of automation, information technology (IT)
and artificial intelligence (AI) in the mining sector (centralized control of operators’ activ-
ities and road quality monitoring, autonomous mining equipment, high-precision posi-
tioning, drilling control, etc.) also contributes to the increasing complexity of companies.
Some authors speak of the “structural complexity” introduced through the heterogene-
ity of system components across different technological domains due to the increased
integration among various systems, and the “dynamic complexity” which is manifested
through the emergence of (even unexpected) system behavior in response to local changes
in environmental and operational conditions [1,3].
For example, in the study [
1
], we can see an example—the automation of several
processes conveys more opacity in the system, with numerous control rules and new
information technologies involved. In the study [
9
], we can see the discussion on the
real qualitative effects of automation—it transforms human practice and forces people
to adapt their skills and routines. Rather than reinventing or refining substitution-based
methods, the authors of [
9
] propose that the more pressing question on human–automation
coordination is “how do we make them get along together”.
The complexity of the focal company’s structure (internal challenge) along with
various pressures (external challenge) also transforms the style of management. In today’s
practice, a top-level manager has to address various challenges almost every working day.
This “labyrinth of challenges” gives rise to the strong desire to fix the problem at all costs
and in the shortest time. Finding the fastest solution to the “labyrinth of challenges” often
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 3 of 14
leads to a directive style of management, which does not accept either workers’ opinions
nor any corrective action.
Functioning under various pressures (industrial, technical, political, economic, envi-
ronmental and financial), the contemporary company has to mobilize its internal capacities
in order to address the occurring challenges. In several studies, the term “functional
stupidity” is used, which may be characterized by an unwillingness or inability to mobilize
three aspects of cognitive capacity: reflexivity, justification and substantive reasoning [
10
].
“Functional stupidity” refers to an absence of reflexivity, a planned state of ignorance
resulting from tolerating unanswered questions and avoiding challenges to the status
quo. In terms of OSH, this may lead to workers’ not participating in activities aimed at
OSH improvements, taking OSH action that is not justified and occupational accident
investigation, which is a more formal action than focusing on detecting the root causes of
accidents.
It should be noted that even though state-of-the-art technologies and equipment
are being introduced [
11
], digital technologies and intelligent systems are becoming
widespread [
12
], and OSH training programs along with behaviour-based safety pro-
grams (safe behaviour audits) [
13
] and other measures [
14
] aimed at accident prevention
are implemented accidents that still happen in mining companies, with some of them being
fatal. Tables 1and 2show the official data on accidents in mining companies operating in
the European Union and Russia, respectively.
Table 1. Occupational fatalities in the mining sectors of the European Union (28 countries) 1.
Year The Number of Occupational
Fatalities (Coal and Lignite Mining)
The Number of Occupational
Fatalities (Other Mining Sectors) 2
2014 33 39
2015 18 55
2016 15 52
2017 14 34
2018 not available not available
1Source: Statistical Office of the European Union (Eurostat): https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/health/data/
database.2Including mining support service activities.
Table 2. Occupational accidents and fatalities in the mining sectors of Russia 1.
Year The Number of Occupational
Accidents/Fatalities (Coal and Lignite Mining)
The Number of Occupational
Accidents/Fatalities (Other Mining Sectors)
2014 8/26 2/58
2015 8/20 1/46
2016 8/56 4/39
2017 3/16 4/56
2018 5/17 4/35
1
Source: Federal Environmental, Industrial and Nuclear Supervision Service of the Russian Federation: http:
//en.gosnadzor.gov.ru/.
The in-depth analysis of occupational accidents in the mining sector of the Russian
Federation has shown that cause and effect (hazard and occupational accident) are some-
times not directly related (severe accidents and even occupational fatalities often resulted
from minor hazards—the phenomenon of so-called “accident by chance”). In the study [
1
],
a continuous drift to danger or failure is underlined which is almost impossible to capture
in traditional of chain-of event analyses.
In several studies, it is noted that modern events may find their origin in unforeseen
interactions between elements without visible links [
1
]. Additionally, in the paper [
15
], it is
noted that when accidents are seen as complex phenomena, there is no longer an obvious
relationship between the behavior of parts in the system (or their malfunctioning, e.g.,
“human errors”) and system-level outcomes.
These circumstances compel us to seek solutions to emerging problems in different
ways, and a systematic approach and risk-based thinking may constitute effective solutions.
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 4 of 14
In fact, the focal company of the supply chain can take OSH action, but would not be able
to address the OSH problems alone and separately from other companies. As a response
to pressures and incentives, the majority of focal companies in the mining sector are
implementing strategic OSH policies, starting internally (company’s OSH policy, safe
operations, risk reduction, a preventative culture, etc.) and extending it to the whole chain.
The risk (effect of uncertainty on objectives) plays the core role in the systems of
management at the company level. Well-known types of risks such as market risk, actual
inflation risk, credit risk, persistency risk, process risk, catastrophe risk, reputation risk,
environmental risk, production risk, OSH risk and others form a risk media for company’s
activities and, therefore, they should be assessed and managed on a permanent basis. Actu-
ally, these risk media are a portrait of many interacting and interdependent pressures and,
in fact, the company’s success in competitive racing strongly depends on how successfully
the company addresses existing and emerging risks.
The objective of the paper is two-fold: first, to analyze the role of the risk-based
thinking approach in today’s OSH management systems, and second, to demonstrate how
this approach can be implemented in risk and opportunity assessment in the context of
OSH management at an open-pit mine. The authors do hope that the risk-based approach
may be instrumental in addressing the OSH challenge as one of the main complexities that
modern mining companies are facing nowadays.
2. Materials and Methods: OSH Management Systems and Assessment of Risks
and Opportunities
In 2011, The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)
published updated Guidelines for Multinationals [
16
]. These recommendations provide
principles and standards for responsible business conduct in line with applicable laws
and internationally recognized standards. Changes to the guidelines include: (a) a new
human rights chapter; (b) a new and comprehensive approach to due diligence and re-
sponsible supply chain management representing significant progress relative to earlier
approaches and (c) a proactive implementation agenda to assist enterprises in meeting
their responsibilities as new challenges arise.
In our view, OSH management systems may be considered as one of the valid instru-
ments to address new challenges—i.e., new and emerging occupational risks. Occupational
safety and health are some of the most important issues for the mining industry such as
the high rates of accidents (see Tables 1and 2above) and occupational diseases remain se-
rious challenges that affects productivity, competitiveness and the social protection system
that includes treatment, rehabilitation and benefits provided to those who suffered from
accidents.
In recent years, many publications have appeared that are devoted to applying the
systems approach to OSH management in mining companies [
17
,
18
]. This approach is
based on the requirements stated in the following documents.
The Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems (ILO-OSH-
2001), developed by the International Labour Organization (ILO), provide a framework for
developing an OSH management system at both the national and organizational levels. The
guidelines are based on OSH principles that are universally recognized and were approved
by the ILO’s tripartite partners: employee, employer and state authority representatives.
This three-pronged approach aids in developing a reliable and flexible management system
and for building the foundation for a sustainable safety culture in a company. According to
the guidelines, involving employers, employees and authorities results in the continuous
improvement of a company’s OSH indicators. From a legal point of view, the guidelines
are not mandatory but they are widely used as a foundation for OSH management sys-
tems based on the plan-do-check-act Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) methodology. It is also
advisable that there should be national laws and standards governing the implementation
of OSH management systems. The methodology based on the PDCA cycle allows for
continuous improvement of the company’s OSH management system. The ILO-OSH-2001
guidelines give general recommendations for developing or improving an OSH manage-
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 5 of 14
ment system whose performance largely depends on the motivation and competence of the
company’s management. Risk assessment and management at the workplace are, in fact,
the pillars of the OSH management system as they help identify the main OSH risks for
workers and planning OSH measures in a rational way. What makes the guidelines special
is the emphasis on employee participation in OSH management as an essential element of
OSH management. In our experience, employees who work for mining companies and
are involved in OSH management (for example, in risk assessment procedures) become
strongly motivated by this process and begin to consider OSH not as a set of various rules
and instructions, but as a continuous process in the workplace that they are also responsible
for and that their health and lives depend on.
The BS OHSAS 18001:2007 standard (“Occupational health and safety management
systems—Requirements”) is, in essence, similar to the ILO-OSH-2001 guidelines. Both doc-
uments were developed based on PDCA principles and regulate risk assessment and
management procedures. A detailed comparative analysis of these two documents is be-
yond the scope of this article, we only want to note that the BS OHSAS 18001:2007 standard
does not mention the implementation of the management system being discussed at the na-
tional level as the standard developed for companies. In addition, the management model
proposed in this standard was created for integration with other management systems that
are regulated—for example, by such standards as ISO 9001:2015 [
19
] and ISO 14001:2015
(“Environmental management systems—Requirements with guidance for use”).
In March 2018, the new ISO 45001 standard (“Occupational health and safety manage-
ment systems—Requirements with guidance for use”) was issued [20]. When developing
this international standard, provisions were taken into account that are stated in such
documents as the BS OHSAS 18001:2007 standard, the ILO-OSH-2001 guidelines, various
national standards, international labor standards and ILO conventions. A three-year transi-
tion period was announced (until March 2021) to give companies the opportunity to have
their OSH management systems recertified as compliant with the requirements of the ISO
45001 international standard.
It is in the ISO 45001 international standard, in contrast to the ILO-OSH-2001 guide-
lines and the BS OHSAS 18001:2007 standard, that an approach based on risk-based
thinking manifests itself: the document regulates the definition and assessment of both
risks and opportunities (the ILO-OSH-2001 guidelines and the BS OHSAS 18001:2007
standard deal exclusively with risks).
(Generally speaking, the approach based on the PDCA cycle and on taking preventive
action is aimed at minimizing the occurrence of hazards and high levels of risks associ-
ated with them, thus helping overcome, to some extent, the “structural complexity” and
“dynamic complexity” of the company.)
The ISO 45001 standard describes two groups of risks and opportunities:
1.
OSH risks and opportunities, i.e., risks and opportunities associated with work activi-
ties that are performed by employees, and primarily those associated with hazards;
2.
other risks and opportunities for the OSH management system as a whole, such as
changes to national regulations, orders from and fines imposed by state regulatory
bodies and inspections, senior management changes, etc.
Risks and opportunities themselves, as well as processes associated with them, should
be thoroughly documented in, for example, the company’s risk assessment standard,
risk assessment registers, action plans for eliminating and minimizing risks, financing
documents connected with action plans, etc.
The concept of risk-based thinking, which was introduced by the International Orga-
nization for Standardization (ISO) in one of its quality management standards [
19
], is a
key factor when applying the process approach to management in a company, along with
the plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycle. Risk-based thinking allows a company to identify
factors that can cause the results of the company’s processes and quality management to
be different from what was planned, and to use proactive problem management controls
in order to minimize negative consequences and maximize opportunities [
19
]. In recent
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 6 of 14
years, the use of the approach based on risk-based thinking has expanded significantly,
extending to management areas that are not directly connected with product quality. What
proves that this approach is successful is the fact that a special standard (ISO 9004:2009)
was published [
21
] which regulates how this approach should be applied to management
procedures (in a broad sense) in order to ensure the sustainable development of a company.
Recent scientific papers broadly discuss the issues of risk assessment and management
and look at them from different angles. Along with previously marked studies, the
papers [
22
,
23
] cover risk issues in the context of corporate social responsibility and company
sustainability in the mining sector. The papers [
24
,
25
] demonstrate how risks can be
assessed using the checklist method applied to carbon capture and storage (CCS) projects.
The paper [
26
] touches upon the issues of environmental risks in mining waste management
and disposal, and the paper [
27
] discusses the issues of minimizing economic risks and
optimizing costs connected with OSH in the mining sector. The latest publications by the
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU OSHA) give detailed descriptions
of methods for assessing and minimizing risks associated with contracting COVID-19 at
work, a virus that is described as an occupational health hazard of biological origin [
28
,
29
].
The variety of risk assessment methods being applied, which are described in detail
in the ISO 31010 standard [
30
], enables a researcher as well as a professional working for a
company to choose the method that is most applicable to a particular economic activity,
taking into account how qualified the top management and the user of the method are. For
example, bow-tie analysis (BTA) can be successfully used in both relatively simple models
for accident risk assessment [
31
] and complex software systems. RISKGATE, a well-known
Australian interactive online system, can serve as an example. It can be used to assess risks
in the coal industry [
32
] by identifying the key events that initiate accidents (when control
over the situation is lost) and creating the lists of causes and measures to control each
initiating event. The RISKGATE system uses the BTA model, as it is the most illustrative
and makes it possible to study the development of undesirable events (both accidents
and incidents) in a system and thoroughly analyze how they are controlled in order to
prevent or minimize their consequences. When selecting a method of risk assessment, OSH
specialists have an opportunity to get acquainted with RISKGATE at the site of the very
system (http://www.riskgate.org/).
Of course, this brief literature review does not claim to be exhaustive and mainly
shows how diverse the applications of risk assessment models can be. After all, it is
the researcher or OSH manager working for a mining company who makes the final
selection of an OSH risk assessment method and develops measures aimed at eliminating
or minimizing the risks identified.
As part of preparing for certification to comply with the requirements of the ISO 45001
standard, an assessment of OSH risks and opportunities was carried out at an open-pit
mine (the first group of risks and opportunities).
2.1. OSH Risk Assessment
The introduction of new technologies has led to a significant increase in productivity
in open-pit mining. An example of this is the leading Russian coal mining company LLC
“SUEK”—over the past ten years, the average excavator bucket capacity grew by a factor
of 1.1–3, and the average dump truck capacity grew by a factor of 1.5–2.4. Consequently,
excavation productivity grew by a factor of 1.2–2.9, and transportation productivity grew
by a factor of 1.3–3.4. (One of the subsidiaries of LLC “SUEK”, that performs open-pit coal
mining, displayed the following data: the average bucket capacity of excavators increased
from 11.9 to 21 m
3
, their productivity from 2267 to 7948 thousand m
3
/year and the average
carrying capacity of dump trucks from 89.4 to 167.5 tons. The average power of drilling
equipment during this period increased from 144 to 252 kW and the average speed of
advancement of the mining front has risen from 75 to 230 m/year [33].)
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 7 of 14
In addition to the aforesaid analysis, it should be noted that an increase in productivity
without streamlining the production processes increases the likelihood of occupational
injuries, and the use of powerful and heavy equipment increases their possible severity.
At the preliminary stage of risk assessment, a register of accidents covering the past ten
years of the mine’s operation was analyzed and the checklist method was used to interview
the employees in order to identify the frequency of hazard occurrence when performing
production operations. In total, 72 employees representing key workers’ professions were
interviewed (bus driver, dump truck drivers, excavator operator, operator of drilling
installation, specialist in blasting operations, electrician). Hazard identification was carried
out for three possible situations:
•normal operating conditions;
•
abnormal operating conditions characterized by the emergence of new hazards that
are not encountered in normal operating conditions;
•
emergency operating conditions (taking into account how abnormal operation evolves
into an emergency at all stages of emergency containment and management).
Risk assessment was carried out using a combination of methods that included the
Fine and Kinney method, which grades risks by their probability of occurrence and severity
in quite simple forms understandable for all workers (Tables 3and 4, respectively), along
with matrix method.
Table 3. Probability rating.
Hazard Occurrence Frequency/Likelihood Probability Rating, P
Less than once every 10 years/very unlikely 1
From 1 time in 10 years to 1 time a year/unlikely 2
From 1 time per year to 1 time per month/possible
3
From 1 time per month to 1 time per shift/likely 4
1 time or more per shift/almost certain 5
Table 4. Severity rating.
Consequence Severity Rating, Q
Slight injury 1
Minor injury 2
Severe injury 3
Single fatality 4
Multiple fatalities 5
Risk itself (R) was assessed using Formula (1):
R=P·Q. (1)
A matrix representation of the assessment results using cell shading for better visu-
alization can be seen in Table 5. When assessing the level (degree) of risk for each of the
hazards being analyzed, a risk matrix was used, in which the levels of probability and
severity are combined. A risk was assigned to a particular company by comparing its value
with the risk tolerance grades presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Grades of the risks assessed.
Risk Grades
1–2 3–9 10–25
Low risks 1Tolerable risks 2High risks 3
1
No special safety measures are required;
2
employees are given clearance if special safety measures are taken;
3
employees are not given clearance until protective measures are taken and the level of risk decreases and becomes
tolerable (yellow zone) or low (green zone).
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 8 of 14
2.2. OSH Opportunity Assessment
Methods for assessing OSH opportunities are currently not regulated by any doc-
uments. This is why we chose a combination of methods that includes: (a) analysis of
risk assessment results, (b) interviewing the employees (workers, line managers, and top
management) and (c) SWOT analysis.
3. Results
3.1. OSH Risk Assessment Results
Based on the risk assessment results obtained in this study, risk charts were created
for a number of professions in open-pit mining (Table 6). A fragment of the risk chart for
the dragline operator, which represents the category of workers, is given as an example in
Appendix A. Table 7displays the distribution of risk grades for categories of professions.
Table 6. Categorization of professions covered with risk charts.
Category of Professions The Number of Employees %
Workers 248 91.2
Line managers, mining support
service managers, OSH specialists 21 7.7
Top management of the open pit 3 1.1
Total 272 100
Table 7. Distribution of risk grades.
Category of Professions Low Risks Tolerable Risks High Risks
Workers 8 (3%) 54 (22%) 186 (75%)
Line managers, mining support
service managers,
OSH specialists
4 (19%) 16 (76%) 1 (5%)
Top management of the open pit 3 (100%) nil nil
Analysis of the risk charts made it possible, firstly, to detect key reasons for occupa-
tional accidents, secondly, to discover “bottlenecks” in OSH management and, thirdly, to
set up priorities in OSH action focused on the improvement of OSH conditions of workers
of the open pit. For example, by analyzing the risk assessment results and the data from
the register of accidents, the following reasons were identified for occupational injuries
sustained while operating a dragline excavator:
•
personal negligence—i.e., the fact that the employee who sustained an injury did not
check the workplace for hazards before starting;
•
organizational reasons (insufficient control on the part of officials over whether or not
production operations are carried out in compliance with safety instructions);
•
impact from equipment (for example, situations in which a worker stands right under
an excavator bucket, or the excavator operator starts turning the machine without
giving a signal and checking first if anyone is standing near, or the excavator operator
decides to move the machine to a new location of their own will);
•
reasons associated with rockfalls (discrepancy between the documents regulating
mining operations and the real working conditions in the open-pit mine; failure to
comply with the requirements stated in the documents regulating mining operations);
•
reasons associated with electric shock (violations of electrical safety regulations; lack of
control over operations using high-voltage equipment; using faulty
electrical equipment).
3.2. OSH Opportunity Assessment Results
When assessing OSH opportunities, it was noted that this stage is, in fact, is an integral
part of risk management which consists of:
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 9 of 14
•hazard identification;
•risk assessment;
•planning risk management measures;
•assessing whether it is possible to eliminate risks;
•implementing measures aimed at eliminating or minimizing risks;
•residual risk assessment.
When assessing OSH opportunities in the context of risk management, a SWOT
analysis was carried out, with the root causes of occupational injuries noted above identified
as weaknesses. An example of assessing opportunities for a dragline operator is given
in Table 8.
Table 8. Weaknesses and OSH opportunities for a dragline operator.
S
Strengths
W
Weaknesses
O
Opportunities
T
Threats
1. Personal negligence
1. An existing methodology for
conducting behavior-based
safety audits
2. Using faulty electrical equipment 2. The opportunity to quickly replace
faulty equipment
3. Lack of control over operations
using high-voltage equipment
3. Employing a worker who will be
responsible for safety monitoring
4. Discrepancy between the
documents regulating mining
operations and the real
working conditions
4. Having the documents reviewed
by an expert organization
5. Negligence on the part of the
excavator operator
5. The opportunity to take
disciplinary action and conduct
behavior-based safety audits; the
opportunity to replace the operator
with another employee
It should be noted that assessment of opportunities is not an end in itself for the
company; it is inextricably linked with risk management planning and implementation.
Table 5, presented above (which in its full form covers all the jobs at the open-pit mine),
served as the foundation for the annual OSH improvement plan.
Thus, we believe that this stage is one of the most important in drawing up plans
describing measures that will prove successful in eliminating or minimizing risks.
4. Discussion
As it may be seen, the root causes of occupational injuries listed above in many cases
have an organizational origin, resulting from complexity, which is a matter of interactions
between simple interdependent components/systems, humans, IT, etc. These interactions
create both significant uncertainties and overall opaqueness in the system, which conse-
quently makes the operator dependent on indirect information reducing his capacity of
immediate analysis and ulterior action. Consequently, the safety margin is reduced, and
the system becomes more vulnerable to accidents [
1
,
15
,
34
,
35
]. In particular, in the study [
1
],
it was underlined that in the context of the complexity and the functional opaqueness of the
system, it is difficult for the workers to anticipate its global behavior based on the behavior
of its components in interactions.
OSH risks and opportunities are usually assessed, as the example given above shows,
at the level of departments in a company with the participation of the OSH department.
However, risks and opportunities for the OSH management system as a whole should be
assessed at the top management level. This assessment is in progress and is being discussed
at the open-pit mine but some examples of risks can already be given:
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 10 of 14
•
changes in the price of the mineral being mined by the company, which may lead to a
decrease in spending on OSH issues;
•
a shortage of qualified personnel, including experienced blue-collar workers, which
indirectly contributes to growth in the number of occupational injuries;
•
legal action that is taken against the company based on the results of state inspections;
•
changes to OSH regulations causing the need to make significant adjustments to the
company’s OSH management system;
•economic sanctions.
In our opinion, the risk-based thinking approach can be implemented at the level of
departments as follows: risk assessment, identifying the root causes of injuries, identifying
weaknesses, assessing opportunities to eliminate risks and planning and implementing
OSH measures.
It should also be noted that the preliminary stage of risk and opportunity assessment
did not require spending a long time training the company’s OSH professionals and senior
management, and the risks and opportunities that were revealed are currently being used
for the following purposes:
•planning measures aimed at eliminating, minimizing and managing risks;
•conducting safety training for the company’s employees;
•informing employees about hazards in the workplace;
•providing employees with personal protective equipment;
•selecting candidates for performing particularly difficult and hazardous tasks.
5. Conclusions and Final Comments
As highlighted in this article, the use of a risk and opportunity assessment allows the
researcher or OSH specialist to effectively identify “bottlenecks” in ensuring the safety
of workers, as well as to plan and implement OSH measures mainly focused on the
professional group of “workers”, which is the category of the most vulnerable employees.
The SWOT analysis method may be used as a “link” between the root causes of occupational
injuries (weaknesses) and OSH action to take (opportunities) in order to eliminate those
causes in the future. Strictly speaking, assessment of risks and opportunities should be
considered as two components of the same process within the OSH management system.
The study that was performed at the open-pit mine has demonstrated that the im-
plementation of the ISO 45001 standard at mining companies allows a more detailed
identification to be put in place and the elimination of the root causes of hazards, which
will ultimately reduce occupational traumatism.
In general, the various risks that the company is facing are affecting economic develop-
ment and productivity. In particular, OSH risks resulting in accidents and ill health are the
causes of so-called “direct” and “indirect” costs of poor working conditions. Examples of
“direct” costs are disruption to business and ongoing lost production from worker absence,
workers’ lost wages and possible costs of retraining for a different job, first aid, medical
and rehabilitation costs, insurance costs and possibly higher future premiums and costs
of compensation. Examples of “indirect” costs are costs of recruitment of replacement
worker, poorer long-term worker employability because of injury, loss of quality of life and
general welfare, lower motivation to work and workforce morale, increased absenteeism,
poorer company reputation and client and public relations and damage to the environment
(e.g., from chemical incidents) [36].
Vice versa, similar productivity benefits from good OSH conditions accrue at the
company and national levels. Moreover, several studies [
36
,
37
] show a strong correlation
between national competitiveness and the nation’s incidence rates of occupational accidents,
and the international standard on social responsibility (ISO 26000:2010) defines labor
practices as being among the seven core subjects of social responsibility. Meanwhile, the
endless competitiveness race (“do-more-and-better-with-less” paradigm [
1
]) especially in
the mining sector, along with impacting internal and external challenges and pressures
often results in work-related stress for both managers and workers. As was underlined in
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 11 of 14
the published ILO manual [
38
], stress has many negative impacts, including circulatory
and gastrointestinal diseases, other physical problems, psychosomatic and psychosocial
problems, and low productivity. In fact, a workplace stress prevention policy should be
integrated into the overall OSH policy of the company. Solving stress problems at work is
one of the challenges to ensuring a productive and healthy working life.
These days, the mining industry has become a very complex system. This circum-
stance, of course, has very profound consequences. Accidents are becoming more global
amid the emergence of new technologies and complex relationships within and amongst
organizations. Nevertheless, most of the Russian and EU mining companies are currently
faced with the problem that the so-called “easy to tackle” causes of incidents and acci-
dents have already been eliminated (outdated equipment has been replaced with modern
equipment, technologies meet world standards, etc.). That is why highly qualified erudite
employees are required who are able to think creatively and perceive a situation in three
dimensions. At the same time, certain schemes of the “cause-effect” type only help to deal
with the situation, and do not simplify approaches. Of course, the mining industry is now
subject to systemic complication. Operators need to process a large amount of information,
which sometimes reduces their ability to make immediate conclusions and correct actions,
thus reducing the safety level. However, the “risk assessment chart” (see Annex A with the
example for the dragline excavator operator) has been designed to help “see the main thing
behind the small and insignificant” and avoid dangerous situations by means of targeted
measures.
The risk-based thinking approach to OSH management is an effective tool for planning
activities within the PDCA cycle. The implementation of this approach does not require
significant investments of money and time, and the results obtained from the assessment
of risks and opportunities can be used for various purposes in OSH management.
Nowadays, big mining companies are actively preparing for certification to comply
with the ISO 45001 requirements as they realize that the health and lives of workers
are integral components of both economic development and the preservation of human
capital [39].
The pace of scientific progress in the mining industry requires companies to constantly
apply new technologies and approaches to management. Therefore, the management
of these organizations also turns out to be more challenging due to significant uncer-
tainties created through complexity. Contemporary mining companies also fall into this
category [1,40].
In this regard, it would be appropriate to quote from the famous novel Through the
Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There by Lewis Carroll: “You see, it takes all the running
you can do, to keep in the same place. If you want to get somewhere else, you must run at
least twice as fast as that!”.
Mining companies realize how true these words are almost every single day.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, M.R. and J.K.; methodology, M.R. and E.G.; validation,
E.G.; investigation, E.G.; writing—original draft preparation, M.R.; writing—review and editing, J.K.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to obligations of Saint Petersburg
Mining University not to disclose the results of joint research with companies.
Acknowledgments:
Authors acknowledge LLC “Siberian Coal Energetic Company (SUEK)” for
material provided.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 12 of 14
Appendix A
Table A1. Example of the risk chart for the dragline excavator operator.
Operating
Conditions Operation Place Where the
Operation is Performed Source of Hazard Hazard Cause of Hazard Hazardous Conditions Risk Grade
Normal
Transportation of
operators to the
workplace
Bus Oncoming traffic Sustaining bruises,
injuries, fractures
The driver lost control of
the vehicle
Poor road surface
condition High
Normal Shift turnover Excavator parking area Work at height
Fall from the mounting
step as a result of
losing balance
Insecure mounting step Lack of control over
equipment health Tolerable
Abnormal Excavator maintenance Repair and
maintenance area Dust aerosol
Eye injury due to
contact with
dust aerosol
Lack of safety glasses
Strong wind; high
concentration of dust
aerosol in the air
Tolerable
Abnormal Excavator maintenance Repair and
maintenance area Naked flame
Exposure to naked
flame during
fire fighting
Unsatisfactory condition
of the fire hose
Negligence; inadequate
monitoring High
Emergency Rock excavation Work site Rope breakdown Damage to the cabin
resulting in injuries
Imperfect inspection or
replacement of the ropes
Violation of mining safety
standards Tolerable
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 13 of 14
References
1.
Komljenovic, D.; Loiselle, G.; Kumral, M. Organization: A new focus on mine safety improvement in a complex operational and
business environment. Int. J. Min. Sci. Technol. 2017,27, 617–625. [CrossRef]
2.
Arstad, I.; Aven, T. Managing major accident risk: Concerns about complacency and complexity in practice. Saf. Sci.
2017
,91,
114–121. [CrossRef]
3.
Zio, E. Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2016
,152, 137–150.
[CrossRef]
4.
Seuring, S.; Müller, M. From a literature review to a conceptual framework for sustainable supply chain management. J. Clean.
Prod. 2008,16, 1699–1710. [CrossRef]
5.
Carter, C.R.; Easton, P.L. Sustainable supply chain management: Evolution and future directions. Int. J. Phys. Distrib. Logist.
Manag. 2011,1, 46–62. [CrossRef]
6.
Hutchins, M.; Sutherland, J.W. An exploration of measures of social sustainability and their application to supply chain deci-sions.
J. Clean. Prod. 2008,16, 1688–1698. [CrossRef]
7.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Promoting Occupational Safety and Health Through the Supply
Chain. Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/promoting-occupational-safety-and-
health-through-the-supply-chain (accessed on 21 December 2020).
8.
Walters, D.; James, P. What motivates employers to establish preventive management arrangements within supply chains? Saf.
Sci. 2011,49, 974–987. [CrossRef]
9.
Dekker, S.W.A.; Woods, D.D. MABA-MABA or Abracadabra? Progress on Human–Automation Co-ordination. Cogn. Technol.
Work 2002,4, 240–244. [CrossRef]
10. Alvesson, M.; Spicer, A. A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations. J. Manag. Stud. 2012,49, 1194–1220. [CrossRef]
11.
Kazanin, O.I.; Sidorenko, A.A.; Meshkov, A.A. Organizational and technological principles of realization of the modern high
productive longwall equipment capacity. Coal 2019,12, 4–13.
12. Litvinenko, V.S. Digital Economy as a Factor in the Technological Development of the Mineral Sector. Nat. Resour. Res. 2019,28,
1–21. [CrossRef]
13.
Kretschmann, J.; Nguyen, T.H.N. Adaptation Saves Lives! Transferring Excellence. In Occupational Safety and Health Management
from German to Southeast Asian Mining, 2nd ed.; Hong Duc Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2014.
14. Kretschmann, J. Sustainable Change of Coal-Mining Regions. Min. Metall. Explor. 2020,37, 167–178. [CrossRef]
15. Dekker, S.; Cilliers, P.; Hofmeyr, J.-H. The complexity of failure: Implications of complexity theory for safety investigations. Saf.
Sci. 2011,49, 939–945. [CrossRef]
16.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises. 2011. Available
online: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/43/29/48004323.pdf (accessed on 21 December 2020).
17. Chemezov, E.N. Industrial safety principles in coal mining. J. Min. Inst. 2019,240, 649–653. [CrossRef]
18.
Filimonov, V.A.; Gorina, L.N. Development of an occupational safety management system based on the process approach. J. Min.
Inst. 2019,235, 113–122. [CrossRef]
19.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 9001:2015. Quality Management Systems—Requirements. Available
online: https://www.iso.org/standard/62085.html (accessed on 10 August 2020).
20.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 45001:2018 Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—
Requirements with Guidance for Use. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html (accessed on 10 August 2020).
21.
International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 9004:2018. Quality Management—Quality of an Organization—Guidance
to Achieve Sustained Success. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/70397.html (accessed on 10 August 2020).
22.
Keenan, J.; Kemp, D.; Owen, J. Corporate responsibility and the social risk of new mining technologies. Corp. Soc. Responsib.
Environ. Manag. 2019,26, 752–760. [CrossRef]
23.
Litvinenko, V.S.; Tsvetkov, P.S.; Molodtsov, K.V. The social and market mechanism of sustainable development of public companies
in the mineral resource sector. Eurasian Min. 2020,1, 36–41. [CrossRef]
24.
Cherepovitsyn, A.E.; Ilyinova, A.A.; Evseeva, O.O. Stakeholders management of carbon sequestration project in the state
–business—society system. J. Min. Inst. 2019,240, 731–742. [CrossRef]
25.
Ilyinova, A.A.; Cherepovitsyn, A.E.; Evseeva, O.O. Stakeholder Management: An Approach in CCS Projects. Resources
2018
,4, 83.
[CrossRef]
26.
Nevskaya, M.A.; Seleznev, S.G.; Masloboev, V.A.; Klyuchnikova, E.M.; Makarov, D.V. Environmental and business challenges
presented by mining and mineral processing waste in the Russian Federation. Minerals 2019,9, 445. [CrossRef]
27.
Gendler, S.G.; Grishina, A.M.; Kochetkova, E.A. Optimization of expenditures for labor protection at deep mining. Eurasian Min.
2017,2, 35–39. [CrossRef]
28.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). COVID-19: Back to the Workplace. Adapting Workplaces and
Protecting Workers. 2020. Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/covid-19-back- workplace-adapting-
workplaces-and-protecting-workers/view (accessed on 7 August 2020).
Sustainability 2021,13, 470 14 of 14
29.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Biological Agents and Work-Related Diseases: Results of a Literature
Review, Expert Survey and Analysis of Monitoring Systems. 2019. Available online: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/
biological-agents-and-work-related-diseases-results-literature-review-expert-survey-and/view (accessed on 7 August 2020).
30.
ISO/IEC 31010:2009 Risk Management—Risk Assessment Techniques. Available online: https://www.iso.org/standard/51073.
html (accessed on 10 August 2020).
31.
Kovshov, S.V.; Alimhanova, T.A.; Kitsis, V.M. Ranking of the section of East Siberia Pacific Ocean main pipeline by accident
probability using Bow-tie method and CheckList support tool. J. Pipeline Syst. Eng. Pract. 2020,11, 1–11. [CrossRef]
32.
Kirsch, P.; Shi, M.; Sprott, D. Riskgate: Industry Sharing Risk Controls Across Australian Coal Operations. Aust. J. Multi-Discip.
Eng. 2014,11, 47–58. [CrossRef]
33.
Kuletsky, V.N.; Zhunda, S.V.; Dovgenok, A.S. Organization of ensuring the safety of production processes in a coal mine in the
face of an increase in the capacity of mining equipment. Ugol’ 2020,2, 35–40. [CrossRef]
34. Marais, K.; Saleh, J.H.; Leveson, N.G. Archetypes for organizational safety. Saf. Sci. 2006,44, 565–582. [CrossRef]
35.
Montibeller, G.; Winterfeldt, D. Cognitive and motivational biases in decision and risk analysis. Risk Anal.
2015
,35, 1230–1251.
[CrossRef]
36.
International Labour Organization (ILO). Occupational Safety and Health: Synergies between Security and Productivity.
Geneva, March 2006. Available online: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and- health-at- work/events-training/events-
meetings/WCMS_110380/lang--en/index.htm (accessed on 30 August 2020).
37.
Malin Shooks, M.; Johansson, B.; Andersson, E.; Lööw, J. Safety and Health in European Mining. A Report on Safety and Health,
Statistics, Tools and Laws, Produced for the I
2
Mine (Innovative Technologies and Concepts for the Intelligent Deep Mine of the
Future) project. Luleå Univ. Technol.
2014
. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319530908 (accessed on
30 August 2020).
38.
International Labour Organization (ILO). Stress prevention at work checkpoints. Geneva. 2012. Available online: https:
//www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/-- -dcomm/- --publ/documents/publication/wcms_168053.pdf (accessed
on 22 December 2020).
39.
Makhova, L.A.; Lapinskas, A.A.; Haykin, M.M. Economic challenges and problems related to natural resources management as a
consequence of human capital accumulation. Utop. Y Prax. Latinoam. 2019,5, 138–143.
40.
Komljenovic, D.; Abdul-Nour, G.; Popovic, N. An approach for strategic planning and asset management in the mining industry
in the context of business and operational complexity. Int. J. Min. Eng. 2015,4, 338–360. [CrossRef]
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
