Human and Organisational Factors in Offshore Safety. Kathryn Mearns, Rhona Flin, Rachael Gordon, and Mark Fleming, Offshore Management Centre, The Robert Gordon University, Kepplestone Mansion, Viewfield Road, Aberdeen, AB9 2PW
The term 'safety culture' has achieved notable currency
amongst safety professionals over the past decade. The term was
first introduced in INSAG's Summary Report on the
Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident published
in 1986 and has been used mostly in connection with nuclear plant
safety (for example see Lee, 1995 and Lee, MacDonald & Coote,
1993), although 'safety culture' has also been measured in the
chemical, railway and oil and gas industries (Donald &
Canter, 1994; Guest, Peccei & Thomas, 1995; Alexander, Cox
& Cheyne, 1995, respectively). But what constitutes a 'safety
culture' and how do we know a good one from a bad one?
Definitions of the term abound, from the rather lengthy one given
in the 1993 ACSNI Report to the more succinct one given by the
CBI (1991) as "the way we do things around here." Pidgeon,
Turner, Toft & Blockley (1991, p 249) define safety culture
as "...those sets of norms, rules, roles, beliefs,
attitudes and social and technical practices within an
organisation which are concerned with minimising the exposure of
individuals to conditions considered to be dangerous." As
such, the safety culture is part of the culture of the
organisation and is measured in terms of personnels' attitudes
and beliefs about the organisation, their perceptions of the
risks and the necessity, practicality and efficacy of controls
regarding safety.
The term 'safety climate' has been used more in connection
with the manufacturing and construction industries (Brown &
Holmes, 1986; Dedobbeleer and Beland, 1991; Cooper, Phillips
& Duff, 1995). Zohar (1980) was the first to measure what he
termed a 'climate for safety' in 400 Israeli subjects from four
different types of organization. He developed an eight
dimensional model which included; (1) the importance of safety
training; (2) management attitudes towards safety; (3) effects of
safe conduct on promotion; (4) level of risk at the work place;
(5) effects of required work pace on safety; (6) status of safety
officer; (7) effects of safe conduct on social status and (8)
status of the safety committee. Later studies have attempted to
replicate Zohar's factor structure, but with limited success,
usually reducing it to two or three factors. Most recently,
Phillips, Cooper, Sutherland and Makin (1993) reduced Zohar's
dimensions to two factors made up of (1) management attitudes and
actions together with perceived levels of risk and work pace and
(2) the status of the safety advisor and committee, the
importance of safety training and the effects of safe conduct on
promotion.
The question remains at to whether 'safety culture' and
'safety climate' are essentially the same or are intrinsically
different. In a recent cross-cultural study of risk perception
and safety in Norwegian and UK offshore workers (see this
symposium) it was concluded that 'safety climate' reflected
workers' perceptions of their environment, whereas 'safety
culture' reflected the prevailing social group norms. Clearly,
the two concepts are related and inter-dependent but they should
perhaps be considered as separate facets of risk and safety
management and handled accordingly.
It is suggested that the 'safety culture' may be defined in
terms of the systems of meaning by which employees understand
risk and safety within their Organisation and/or industry. These
systems of meaning can be defined in terms of values, beliefs,
norms, rules and regulations. It is also proposed that these
systems of meaning will be fairly consistent between individuals;
relatively firmly entrenched and resistant to change. 'Safety
climate', on the other hand, refers to the state of a system in
terms of perceptions of the current environment or prevailing
conditions which impact upon safety. These can be related to the
physical environment in which the system operates, the work
environment; features of the work/management system and, indeed,
aspects of the safety culture. By contrast the safety climate may
be relatively easy to manipulate by bringing about changes in the
working environment. In conclusion, the 'safety culture' may
indeed be a useful heuristic for understanding the human and
organisational elements of safety, however, it is the 'safety
climate' which must be measured and managed if changes in safety
practice are to be instigated.
This paper presents a heuristic model of the state of safety
in the oil and gas industry incorporating both cultural and
climatic aspects and reports on a current study investigating
employee evaluations of risk, safety and the human and
organisational factors which contribute to accident involvement
on oil and gas installations. This study follows on from the 1994
RGU study of risk perception by offshore employees' which showed
that safety attitudes and perceived commitment of management to
safety had the greatest effect on feelings of safety and
satisfaction with safety onboard offshore production platforms
(see Flin, Mearns, Fleming, & Gordon, 1996a,b). Building on
this earlier work, the new study has three main objectives:
The results will provide a measure of the safety climate on
19 installations and will outline factors which contribute to
establishing and maintaining a good safety culture. Furthermore,
the results will help to improve coding systems for human and
organizational causes of accidents and make recommendations as to
how these factors can best be managed.
References
ACSNI. 1993. Human Factors Study Group Third Report: Organising
for safety. London: HMSO.
Alexander, M., Cox, S. & Cheyne, A. (1995). UK
Offshore Safety Culture. Paper presented at the
"Understanding Risk Perception" Conference. Aberdeen:
Offshore Management Centre, The Robert Gordon University, 2nd
February.
Brown, R.L. & Holmes, H. (1986). The use of a
factor-analytic procedure for assessing the validity of an
employee safety climate model. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 18, 455-470.
CBI (1990). Developing a Safety Culture - Business for
Safety, London Confederation of British Industry.
Dedobbeleer, N. & Bé1and, F. (1991). A safety climate
measure for construction sites. Journal of Safety Research,
22, 97-103.
Cooper, D., Phillips, R., & Duff, A. (1995). Who
should conduct risk assessments in organisational settings? Paper
prepared for the ESRC Conference 'Risk in Organisational
Settings", London, May.
Donald, I. & Canter, D. (1 994). Employee attitudes and
safety in the chemical industry. Journal of Loss Prevention
in Process Industries, 7, 203-208.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., Fleming, M. & Gordon, R. (1996a). Risk
Perception and Safety in the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. HSE,
OSD Report OTH 94454. London: HSE Books (in press).
Flin, R., Mearns, K., Fleming, M. & Gordon, R. (1996b). Risk
Perception and Safety in Offshore Workers. Safety
Science (in press).
Guest, D., Peccei, R.. & Thomas, A. (1994). Safety
culture and safety performance: British Rail in the aftermath of
the Clapham Junction Disaster. Paper submitted to the BPS
Occupational Psychology Conference. January. Birmingham.
Lee, T.R. (1995). The role of attitudes in the safety
culture and how to change them. Paper presented at the
"Understanding Risk Perception' Conference. Aberdeen:
Offshore Management Centre, The Robert Gordon University, 2nd
February.
Lee, T.R., Macdonald, S.M. & Coote, J.A. (1993). Perception
of risk and attitudes to safety at a nuclear reprocessing plant. Paper
presented at The Fourth Conference of the European Society of
Risk Assessment, Rome.
Phillips, R. A., Cooper, M.D., Sutherland, V.J. & Makin,
P.J. (1993). A question of safety climate: Measuring perceptions
of the working environment. Journal of Health and Safety, 9.
Pidgeon, N., Turner, B., Toft, B. & Blockley, D. (1991).
Hazard management and safety culture. In, D. Parker & J.
Handmer (Eds.). Hazard Management and Emergency Planning:
Perspectives on Britain. James & James, London.
Zohar, D. (1980). Safety Climate in Industrial Organisations
- Theoretical and Applied Implications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 96-102.