j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r .com/ locate / js r
A comparative analysis of occupational health and safety risk preventionpractices in Sweden and Spain
OFRosa María Morillas a, Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero a,⁎, Alba Fuertes b
a School of Industrial Engineering, Universidad de Málaga, C/Dr. Ortiz Ramos s/n, 29071 Málaga, Spainb School of Architecture, Design and Environment, Plymouth University, Drake Circus, Plymouth, Devon PL4 8AA, UK
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et alSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http
Oa b s t r a c t
a r t i c l e i n f o
23
Article history:
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
ED P
RReceived 28 October 2012Received in revised form 28 May 2013Accepted 14 August 2013Available online xxxx
Keywords:Occupational health and safetyWork accidentsWork organizationOrganization managementSwedenSpain
Introduction: Scandinavian countries such as Sweden implemented the occupational health and safety (OHS)measures in the European Directive 89/391/EEC earlier than other European counties, including Spain. In fact,statistics on workplace accident rates reveal that between 2004 and 2009, there were considerably feweraccidents in Sweden than in Spain.Method: The objective of the research described in this paper was to reduceworkplace accidents and to improve OHS management in Spain by exploring the OHS practices in Sweden. Forthis purpose, an exploratory comparative study was conducted, which focused on the effectiveness of the EUdirective in both countries. The study included a cross-sectional analysis of workplace accident rates and othercontextual indicators in both national contexts. A case study of 14 Swedish and Spanish companies identified14 differences in the preventive practices implemented. These differences were then assessed with a Delphistudy to evaluate their contribution to the reduction of workplace accidents and their potential for improvinghealth and safety management in Spain. Results: The results showed that there was agreement concerning 12of the 14 practices. Finally, we discuss opportunities of improvement in Spanish companies so that they can
The Scandinavian countries, Netherlands, Greece, and the UnitedKingdom legislated the framework of their national health and safetydirectives prior to 1989. In contrast, other European countries, includingSpain, did not immediately adapt their national laws to the Europeaneconomic and social contexts. In 1989, however, the European Union(EU) approved the Council Directive 89/391/EEC, which containedmea-sures to improve occupational health and safety (OHS) in all Europeanmember states. Since the enactment of this directive in 1992, significantefforts have been made by all EU countries to adopt and implementthese regulations forwork accident prevention in order to better protectworker safety and health (Directive 89/391/EEC, 1989).
The transposition of the EU directive into Spanish legislation tookplace in 1995 as the Occupational Health and Safety Act 31/1995,which became a law in February 1996. Previous Spanish OHS lawsdated from the authoritarian dictatorship of Francisco Franco (1936–1975), when European agreements were violated and there was a gen-eral lack of integration of OHS into business mentality. Not surprisingly,its implementation involved the specification of new rights andobligations for all those involved in occupational health and safety
., A comparative analysis of oc://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
management (e.g., companies, labor unions, government agencies,workers). However, these new responsibilities and practices did not gointo effect immediately (Hale, Heming, Catfhey, & Kirwan, 1997) sincethe new law signified sweeping changes that affected Spanish industryat all levels (Walters, 1996).
In contrast, Scandinavian countries, such as Sweden, were onlyobliged to slightly amend their national legislation (Johansson, Denk,& Svedung, 2009), as they already had similar preventive rules inplace. Therefore, the transposition of the EU directive into the Swedishlegislation took place earlier and in a more progressive way. For exam-ple, the Safety Deputy (i.e., the worker's representative with specificresponsibility for the safety and health of workers, elected, chosen ordesignated by workers to represent them) and the Health and SafetyCommittee appeared in 1912 and 1928, respectively, in the Swedishpreventive legislation. Moreover, the Swedish social and labor modelhas always been particularly concerned about the welfare of its citizens,in line to the Scandinavian model.
This research study provides further insights into occupationalhealth and safety management by exploring OHS practices in Swedenand Spain, two countries that implemented the European Directive89/391/EEC almost a decade apart. Based on a set of occupational healthand safety indicators (e.g., standardized incidence rate of accidents atwork or standardized incidence rate of fatal accidents at work, fromEuropean Statistics on Accidents at Work, Eurostat Statistics, 2009),and other socio-demographic, economic, and employment factors, we
rved.
cupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
2 R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
UNCO
RREC
performed a case study that compared risk preventionmeasures in bothcountries. Thesemeasureswere subsequently assessed by a panel of ex-perts in a Delphi study to identify those that were most effective. Thepaper concludes by discussing lessons to be learned not only by privatecompanies but also by government agencies. The results of this studywill further the implementation of more effective health and safety pol-icies, which in turn will reduce workplace accident rates.
2. Method
2.1. Research design
This research used a combined quantitative and qualitative approach(Ivankova, Creswell, & Stick, 2006) to compare workplace accident ratesin Sweden and Spain starting from a cross-sectional analysis (Smith &DeJoy, 2012) of occupational health and safety (OHS) indicators(Eurostat Statistics, 2009) and other socio-demographic, economic, andemployment factors in both countries.
It was followed by a case study, which is a qualitative researchmethod widely used in social research, contemporary, complex ,andchanging realities. In general terms, the case studymethod helps to un-derstand a phenomenon, not to measure it. Within this research study,it was used to have a better understanding of the quantitative results ofthe analysis of indicators. An initial hypothesis was defined whichstated that differences in practices could bedirectly related to the higheror lower workplace accident rates in both countries. The case study wasthen used to identify, explore, and compare differences in OHSorganizational and management practices in 14 Swedish and Spanishcompanies. A case study protocol (Yin, 2009) was specifically designedto ensure representativeness of the obtained results and support thegeneralization.
Afterwards, the OHS practices selected for being different in bothcountries were assessed by means of a Delphi study (Hsu & Sandford,2007) with the participation of a panel of Swedish and Spanish experts.The Delphi study is a sequential and iterative method developed byNorman Dalkey and Helmer in 1963. It has been widely used to obtainconsensus of opinions from experts in particular areas of expertise andit provides high quality and rich information about real life practical as-pects. During the study, experts are interrogated bymeans of successivequestionnaires to finally reveal convergences of views and consensus.The purpose of the Delphi study was to discover in what way differentOHS practices in both countries might have influenced their respectiveworkplace accident rates and whether the implementation of moreeffective practices by Spanish companies might reduce accidents.Finally, the results obtained in each phase were discussed.
2.2. Cross-sectional analysis of the workplace accident rates in Sweden andSpain (2004–2009)
A comparative cross-sectional investigation (Smith & DeJoy, 2012)provided a comprehensive overview of workplace accident rates inSweden and Spain from 2004 to 2007. This study particularly focusedon OHS practices and other contextual factors (i.e., socio-demographic,economic, and employment factors), which could have indirectlyaffected accident rates.
The data for the studyweremainly obtained from the Eurostat data-base (Eurostat Statistics, 2009), which provided reliable statistics andstandardized comparable results for European member states from2004 to 2007 (Economic and Social Research Council [ESRC], 2007).To better contextualize the results, we also reviewed a wide range ofEuropean studies on occupational health and safety (European Agencyfor Safety, Health at Work, & Managing safety, health at work, 2010;European Foundation for the improvement of living and workingconditions [EUROFOUND], 2007, 2009a,b, 2010; Eurostat Statistics &European Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), 2007; The European Networkfor Workplace Health Promotion (ENWHP) [ENWHP], 2009),
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of oSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
ED P
RO
OF
Swedish and Spanish national reports (Arbetsmiljö i SamverkanSvenskt Näringsliv, 2009; Confederación Española de OrganizacionesEmpresariales (CEOE) [CEOE], 2010; Inspección de Trabajo ySeguridad Social [ITSS], 2010; Instituto Nacional de Estadística [INE],2010; Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo [INSHT],2007; Observatorio Estatal de Condiciones de Trabajo [OECT], 2010;Official Statistics of Sweden [SCB], 2009; PREVIA, 2009; SwedishNation-al Institute of Public Health [SNIPH], 2009; SwedishWork EnvironmentAgency, 2009; The Swedish Council for Working Life and SocialResearch, 2009; Universal Prevención y Salud SPA [UNIPRESALUD],2010), and other research publications relevant to the topic (Aires,Rubio, & Gibb, 2010; Johansson, Svedung, & Anderson, 2006;Johansson et al., 2009; Spangenberg et al., 2003).
The comparative analysis primarily focused on those indications anddata that reflected significant differences in both countries. Indicatorsthat were the same or which only slightly differed were not includedin the study. Also excluded were indicators for which no informationwas available in one of the countries and indicators that were not com-parable because of the absence of a standardizedmethod of assessment.The comparative study was based on the following premises (EurostatStatistics, 2009): (i) although fatal accident is defined as an accidentthat causes the death of a victim within a period of time from the dateof the accident, the duration of this time period is not specified inSwedish law, whereas in Spain, it is 1.5 years; (ii) accident indicatorsdo not include self-employed workers; (iii) Swedish informationsources were public organisms (e.g., the Social Security and Labour In-spectorate). Spanish information sources were the agencies involvedin the management of Social Security (e.g., liability insurance for workaccidents); and (iv) in-itinere accidents or accidents with no directcause–effect relationship were not considered (Aires et al., 2010).
2.3. Case study
The case study approach facilitates in-depth investigation of particu-lar instances of a phenomenon (Fellows & Liu, 2008) and is regarded asa suitable research methodology for explanatory questions focusing oncontemporary events (Yin, 2009). Following Yin (2009), this researchinvolved a multiple explanatory case study (i.e., a single design withmultiple units of analysis). The protocol thus included the proceduresand evidence sources that were to be used in the selection of the casestudies and their subsequent analysis. It was aimed at facilitating thecomparison of the results, and providing the study with traceabilityand validity.
Companies from Sweden and Spain of different characteristics andfrom different industry sectors were selected for participation. Inorder to better understand the implementation of Directive 89/391/EEC, the selection process was based on the following three sources ofevidence (Yin, 2009): (1) findings from the cross-sectional analysis ofthe workplace accident rates in Sweden and Spain; (2) OHS regulationsin each country; and (3) findings from meetings with stakeholders inOHS management in Swedish and Spanish companies. These meetingsprovided valuable practical insights into the implementation of theDirective 89/391/EEC.
These evidence sources allowed us to pay particular attention toconstruction companies, micro-enterprises as well as to small andmedium enterprises, which appeared to have the highest workplaceaccident rate in both countries. A few more Swedish cases were thenadded so as to enrich the range of company profiles and thus providean even wider variety of perspectives on the research hypothesis.Spanish companies were subsequently selected, which correspondedto the Swedish companies in size and activity sector.
A total of 14 Swedish and Spanish companies were finally includedin the study, seven from each country. In case studies, more than fourcases are needed to generate theory (Eisenhardt, 1989) and to be ableto make generalizations (Gibbert, Ruigrok, & Wicki, 2008). A compari-son between the 14 companies is shown in Table 1. For confidentiality
ccupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
t1:3 Company Location Activity sector Employees OHS policy
t1:4 Company 1 Spain Construction 1–24 Yest1:5 Company 2 Sweden Construction 50–99 Not1:6 Company 3 Sweden Construction 50–99 Yest1:7 Company 4 Sweden Construction N1000 Yest1:8 Company 5 Spain Construction N1000 Yest1:9 Company 6 Spain Construction 250–499 Yest1:10 Company 7 Sweden Construction-related services (concrete production) 50–99 Yest1:11 Company 8 Spain Construction-related services (concrete production) 100–249 Yest1:12 Company 9 Sweden Food 50–99 Yest1:13 Company 10 Spain Food 500–1000 Yest1:14 Company 11 Sweden Manufacturing of motorized equipment 250–499 Yest1:15 Company 12 Spain Manufacturing of electronic equipment 25–49 Not1:16 Company 13 Sweden Public administration 500–1000 Yest1:17 Company 14 Spain Public administration N1000 Yes
Table 2 t2:1
t2:2Professional activity and experience of the expert group.
t2:3Experts' job positions during the Delphi study Seniority
t2:4Labour Inspector N10 yearst2:5Safety Deputy N20 yearst2:6External Prevention Service Doctor N3 yearst2:7External Prevention Service Manager N15 yearst2:8External Prevention Service Engineer N15 yearst2:9Prevention Service Manager N15 yearst2:10Workplace Safety and Health Coordinator N10 years
3R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
UNCO
RREC
reasons, the companies have been kept anonymous and their nameshave not been used. They are thus referred to as Company 1 to Company14.
A series of face-to-face structured interviews, supported by a ques-tionnaire aswell as other primary sources of information (e.g., companywebsites, publicly available reports, company databases) were used inthe case study as part of the initial research protocol. The intervieweeswere all health and safety managers in the companies in the study.Each had more than 10 years' experience in OHS management and abroad knowledge of how safety was managed in his/her own company.The structured interview and questionnaire had been designed toidentify the organizational procedures implemented in the companiesto fulfill the requirements defined by the Directive 89/391/EEC in occu-pational health and safety. For validation purposes, the interview andquestionnaire were first piloted in one of the companies. Transcriptswere made of the interviews, and narrative reports were subsequentlyelaborated for each company. They were compared and analyzed asfollows:
1. Information was extracted from the reports and classified in variouscategories corresponding to the OHS requirements in the Directive89/391/EEC (see Table 7).
2. The information that could not be classified in the categories wastagged as “key ideas”, where “key idea” is defined as a phrase, com-ment, or word of the interviewee that develops or captures a mainidea or concept relating to the case study (Eaves, 2001). For example,data related to the prevention costs.
3. Categories were systematically analyzed and compared to identifyinformation that could be considered equivalent in all cases andwhich would provide the basis for generalizations (Yin, 2009).
4. Iterations were performed so as to classify information moreaccurately. The iterative process ended when all the categories de-fined had been related to an indicator identified in the case studies.
2.4. Delphi study
The Delphimethod is generally used to obtain consensus of opinionsfrom experts in particular areas of expertise as it provides high qualityand rich information about real life practical aspects (Hsu & Sandford,2007). The process involves various rounds of surveys in which agroup of experts respond to a questionnaire with the aim of reachingconsensus in the final round. To do so, each panel member has anopportunity to amend his/her responses in light of the group data ineach round (Linstone & Turoff, 1975). According to Biggs, Banks,Davey, and Freeman (in press), the Delphi method is characterized bythe following: (i) the anonymity of participants; (ii) a reduction in thepotential for influence or bias throughout the rounds; (iii) its suitabilityfor groups that are geographically distant; (iv) the collection of informa-tion and opinions from a wide range of experts, which provide a
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of ocSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
ED P
RO
Ostatistical group response (Dakey, Brown, & Cochran, 1970); and (v)the guarantee that key stakeholders are involved from the beginning.
In the context of this research, the Delphi study was conducted by apanel of seven experts in OHS, who required two rounds of surveys tofinally reach consensus. Four Spanish experts and three Swedish expertsparticipated in the study. They were directly and professionally relatedto OHS issues in industry. The interviewees were selected, based ontheir current job position and experience. They represented a range ofdifferent organizational positions and responsibilities. The multidisci-plinary and heterogeneous preventive duties of the participants en-sured sufficient opinions and information to produce valid results. Theroles and experience of the panel members are listed in Table 2.
During the study, participants were contacted via e-mail and wereasked to respond to a questionnaire. It was sent twice to the partici-pants, who had 15 days to complete it. The questionnaire focused on14 OHS management practices that were different in the Spanish andSwedish companies participating in the case study. The objective wasfor the experts to arrive at a consensus on the importance of these prac-tices in the reduction of workplace accident rates. The practices in thequestionnaire were formulated as maximally simplified propositionsso as to make them as precise, quantifiable, and independent as possi-ble. It was thought that in this way the experts would be able to answermore quickly, and that this would expedite the analysis of theresponses. For example, the case study suggested that Swedish LabourInspectorates tend to advice companies during the resolution ofdeficiencies more often than Spanish Inspectorates, who have a moresupervisory role. In relation to this evidence, experts were asked theiropinion whether the principal activity of a Labour Inspectorate shouldbe based on advice and recommendations most of times. Participantswere asked to assess the significance of each OHSmanagement practiceon a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘Total and absolute disagree-ment’ (Score 1) to ‘Total and absolute agreement’ (Score 5). Scoresbetween 4 and 5 were considered favorable, whereas scores between1 and 2 were unfavorable. Based on the scores, the level of agreementbetween the participants' answers was calculated for each practiceand classified in four levels (Boix, Gil, & Rodrigo, 2008) (see the numberof experts of the study corresponding in each level): (1) unanimity,with100% agreement (seven experts); (2) broad consensus, with over 80%
cupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
t4:2Standardized incidence rate of fatal accidents at work (Eurostat Statistics, 2009).
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
E-15 2.40 2.30 2.40 2.10
2004 2005 2006 2007
4 R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
agreement (six experts); (3) sufficient agreementwhen 66%–80% of theresponses coincided (five experts); and (4) insufficient agreementwhen less than 66% of the responses coincided (less than 5 experts).
The results obtained at the end of thefirst roundwere verified by theexperts and a statistical analysis was performed to assign most of therespondents to a certain level. Only those propositions that had notachieved sufficient agreement at the end of the first round wereassessed again by the experts in the second round. The iterative processfinished once the variations from the initial results were minimal andwhen they yielded a broad consensus or majority, reflected in 86% ofthe proposals submitted. In this way, it was possible to obtain sufficientgroup consensus and information exchange (Skulmoski, Hartman, &Krahn, 2007).
T
F
338
339
340
341
342
343
344Q12
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
Spain 3.20 3.50 3.50 2.30
Sweden 1.10 1.70 1.50 1.40
ORREC
3. Results and discussion
3.1. Cross-sectional analysis of workplace accident rates in Sweden andSpain
3.1.1. Comparison of workplace accident ratesAs part of our study, the number of workplace accidents in Spain and
Sweden was compared using the standardized incidence rate of acci-dents at work and the standardized incidence rate of fatal accidents atwork indicators (see Tables 3 and 4). The standardized incidence ratesare relative indicators of the number of accidents (non-fatal or fatal)to the corresponding working population (Eurostat, ESAW) and theyensure comparability across countries and industries. The incidencerates are standardized by economic activity in EU15. For each country,the incidence rate isfirst calculated for each sector (number of accidentsin the sector per working population in that sector; scaled per 100,000).Then, the standardized incidence rate for the country is obtained fromthe weighted sum of the incidence rates per sector. Moreover, the pro-file of the employee most frequently involved in the accidents was alsostudied in both countries.
Table 3 shows the standardized incidence rate of workplace acci-dents involving more than three calendar days of absence from workin Sweden and Spain from 2005 to 2007 (Eurostat Statistics, 2009). Ascan be observed, Spain had higher rates than Sweden during thatthree-year time period. Whereas Sweden's incidence rates are lowerthan those in EU-15, Spain's rates are nearly 2.5 points higher. However,on the positive side, Spain managed to reduce workplace accidents by1.03 points. This reduction was more pronounced than in Sweden,where accidents were reduced only by 0.13 points. The same tendencycan be observed in Table 4, which illustrates the standardized incidencerate of fatal accidents at work in Sweden and Spain from 2004 to 2007(Eurostat Statistics, 2009). In this case, the number of fatal accidents
UNC 365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
Table 3Standardized incidence rate of accidents at work (Eurostat Statistics, 2009). Note: the EU-15 includes Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, UK, Ireland,Denmark, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland, and Sweden.
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
EU-15 3.10 3.09 2.86
Spain 5.72 5.53 4.69
Sweden 1.13 1.09 1.00
2005 2006 2007
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of oSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
ED P
RO
O
in Spain dropped from 2005 to 2007. Nevertheless, it should also bepointed out that although the rates in Sweden remainmore or less con-stant during that period of time, they are still one point lower than thosein Spain.
The data collected in Sweden and Spain between 2004 and 2007(Instituto Nacional de Estadística [INE], 2010; Instituto Nacional deSeguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo [INSHT], 2008; Swedish WorkEnvirornment Agency (Arbetsmiljöverket), 2009) show the similaritiesand differences in relation to the profile of the employee involved inaccidents. The same worker profile was identified in both countries inaccidents involving more than three calendar days of absence fromwork. This employee was typically 18–24 years old and belonged tothe industrial sector. Regarding fatal accidents, the worker profileswere different. In Spain, the employee typically involved in a fatal acci-dent was 25–34 years old, whereas in Sweden, this employee wasslightly older (45–54 years old). In terms of sector, the constructionsector has the highest number of fatal accidents in both countries.
3.1.2. Comparison of occupational health and safety management practicesTable 5 shows the indicators in the literature review that are related
to OHS management practices in Sweden and Spain. They can provideinsights into the variation in workplace accident rates.
Moreover, according to the National Survey of Safety and HealthManagement in Companies (ENGE, 2009), 4 out of 10 Spanish work-places with 15 or more employees implemented a Health and Safetymanagement system based on the OHSAS 18001 standard. This was es-pecially noticeable in the construction sector. Apart from OHSAS 18001,the Swedish Labour Inspectorate also developed a management systemknown as Systematiskt Arbetsmiljöarbete (SAM), which companies arerequired to implement.
3.2. Case study
The case study, face-to-face interviews, and theprimary data sourcesaccording to the structured protocol provided a wealth of informationon theOHSmanagerial procedures used by the 14 companies to complywith the Directive 89/391/EEC. Table 6 shows the results of the casestudy.
Based on the information in Table 6, fourteen differences in theimplementation of Directive 89/391 EEC in the Swedish and Spanishcompanies were identified. More specifically, 66% of the work inspec-tions made by the Swedish Labour Inspectorate had been scheduled,and thus the companies knew about them. In contrast, 63% of theinspections of Spanish companies were made by surprise without anyprevious notification.
Another perceived difference resided in the risk assessment ofcompany activities. All of the Swedish companies claimed that all of
ccupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
t5:2 Comparison of indicators related to OHSmanagement practices (Q20 AV, 2008;Q2 European Foundation for the improvement of living andworking conditions, 2007; Johansson et al., 2006, 2009;Q3t5:3 Organización Internacional del Trabajo, 2000a,b;Q4 OSHA, 2010;Q5 OSHA, 2009).
t5:4 Indicators related to OHS management Spain Sweden
t5:5 Year in which the first OHS legislation was enacted 1900 1889t5:6 Directive 89/391/CEE transposition year 1996 1992a
t5:7 Year in which OHS training was included in compulsory education curriculum 2000 1970t5:8 Year in which the Safety Deputy and company Safety and Health Committee figures are formalized 1971/1971 1912/1938t5:9 Percentage of companies that outsource risk evaluation (2007–2009) 67% 11%t5:10 Percentage of companies where OHS issues are discussed in high-level meetings 37% 66%t5:11 Percentage of companies with a documented OHS policy (2007–2009) 97% 93%t5:12 Main reason for the implementation of an OHS management system in the company (2007–2009) Enforcement of law At employees' request and to retain themt5:13 OHS documentation main user (2007–2009) OHS external service Labour Inspectoratet5:14 Main difficulty in implementing the OHS management system (2007–2009) Lack of awareness Lack of resourcest5:15 Lifelong learning of employees (2005) b5 years N30 yearst5:16 Number of Labour Inspectorate visits to companies in 2009 and number of inspection reports during the period 88,368/112,847 30,000/13,000
a It also affected students.t5:17
5R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
UNCO
RREC
their activities were assessed for risk by a safety deputy as well as bytheir own personnel. The situation was found to be quite different inSpain where 74.4% of the companies stated that risk assessment wasperformed by an external prevention service.
Whereas 57.1% of the Swedish companies had created a second pre-ventive organizational chart solely for preventive activities and advisorywork, only 42.9% of the Spanish companies had opted for this manage-rial approach. In contrast, the other companies had established a secondpreventive organizational chart focused on defining workers' responsi-bilities and preventive activities.
The two countries also differed in the number of safety deputies. TheSwedish companies had an average of one deputy per 18.2 workers. Incontrast, the Spanish companies had few safety deputies with an aver-age of one deputy per 115.8 workers.
Differences were also observed regarding the active participation ofworkers and their representatives in aspects related to occupationalhealth and safetywithin the company. In particular, all the Swedish com-panies affirmed that their safety deputy also participated in the internalaudits. However, this did not occur in any of the Spanish companies.
Furthermore, the results of our study revealed differences in thehealth surveillance ofworkers. In this regard, all the Swedish companiesdeclared that they monitored not only workers' accident rates but alsotheir health and welfare. In contrast, this was not true for any of theSpanish companies.
Finally, the results showed that 57.1% of the Swedish companiesmonitored prevention costs, whereas only 28.5% of the Spanish compa-nies did the same. In fact, 42.9% of the Swedish companies also moni-tored the costs generated by accidents. This was not done by any ofthe Spanish companies.
3.3. Delphi study
This section presents the findings of the two-round Delphi study.Table 7 shows the statistical results of the first and second rounds ofthe study.
After thefirst round, therewas general agreement that those compa-nies that performed their own risk assessment were more involved inthe implementation of corrective actions (SP: 75% agreement; SW:100% agreement; both: 85% agreement). The experts gave this item anaverage value of 4 (SD = 0.90). Accordingly, all of the Spanish andSwedish experts agreed that in order to make decisions, reliable toolswere necessary for the accurate calculation of prevention costs andaccident-related costs (SP, SW, both: 100% agreement). This item wasrankedwith an average value of 4 (SD = 0.50). Therewas also unanim-ity regarding the supervisor's responsibility to implement preventivemeasures resulting from an accident investigation. This item had an av-erage value of 5 (SD = 0.50). The experts thought that it was also im-portant for safety deputies to ensure the implementation ofpreventive or corrective measures resulting from the work accident
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of ocSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
ED P
RO
Oinvestigation (SP: 100% agreement; SW: 66% agreement; both: 85%agreement). With an average importance of 4 (SD = 0.80), expertsagreed that the safety deputy and employer were equally responsiblefor worker health and safety at the workplace (SP: 50% agreement;SW: 100% agreement; both: 71% agreement). There was also sufficientagreement that worker responsibility for safety and health issues wasin direct correlation with the importance of the worker's position inthe company (SP: 100% agreement; SW: 33% agreement; both: 71%agreement). Experts assessed this practice with an average importanceof 5 (SD = 1.00).
Although on the first round of their respective Delphi surveys, Span-ish and Swedish experts tended to agree, there was widespread dis-agreement as to whether the Labour Inspectorate should carry outadvisory work and resolve deficiencies. This difference might be dueto the fact that the Labour Inspectorate in Sweden is more focused onadvisory and monitoring tasks, whereas in Spain, this is not the case.Nevertheless, consensus was achieved at the end of a second round inwhich only the Spanish experts took part (SP, SW, both: 100% agree-ment). An average value of 5 (SD = 0.40) was obtained. Similarly,after a second round with only the participation of the Spaniards,there was sufficient agreement as to whether the Labour Inspectorateshould rely on safety deputies to verify the elimination of deficienciesat the workplace.
Both countries agreed that OHSAS18000 certified companies hadfewer workplace accidents than non-certified companies (SP: 75%agreement; SW: 66% agreement; both: 71% agreement). The impor-tance of the implementation of standards was given an average valueof 5 (SD = 1.90). In line with this, in the second round, experts agreedthat toomuch documentationwas required for legal compliance aswellas for H&S activities (SP: 75% agreement; SW: 66% agreement; both:71% agreement). The importance of this item was rated 5 (SD =1.90). Sufficient agreement on the role of the safety deputy alsoemerged in the second round. Experts generally agreed on the impor-tance of this figure and the need for him/her to take part in internal au-dits at the workplace (SP: 50% agreement; SW: 100% agreement; both:71% agreement). This itemwas given an average value of 5 (SD = 1.90).The same level of agreement was achieved regarding the non-existentrelationship between the number of safety deputies and the level ofsafety performance (SP: 100% agreement; SW: 66% agreement; both:71% agreement). In this case, the importance of this item was given anaverage value of 1 (SD = 1.90). Finally, the group of experts failed toreach sufficient agreement regarding the need of a parallel preventiveorganizational chart. They also disagreed as to whether the externalprevention services should only focus on healthy workers.
4. Discussion
As previously mentioned, the objective of this study was to contrib-ute to the reduction of workplace accidents and to improve OHS
cupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
t6:3 Directive 89/391/EEC requirements Case study resultsa
t6:4 Spain Sweden
t6:5 1. Member States shall plan adequate controls andsupervision to ensure that employers, workers, andworkers' representatives are subject to the legalprovisions necessary for the implementation of theDirective.
63% of all work inspections made by the LabourInspectorate were carried out without previousnotification.
66% of allwork inspectionsmade by the Labour Inspectoratewere previously scheduled and the companies notifiedbeforehand.
t6:6 2. The employer is responsible for worker safety and health. In all companies, the person ultimately responsible for risk prevention was the head of the company, regardless of theorganizational model of the enterprise.
t6:7 3. It is the employer's duty to ensure the safety and health ofworkers in every aspect related to thework and develop acoherent overall prevention policy.
93% of the companies had a risk prevention policy.
t6:8 4. The employer shall take appropriate measures to assurethat employees receive all the necessary informationconcerning worksite health and safety risks.
In all companies, the OHS preventive procedures were duly documentedt6:9 More documents were available regarding the companies' compliance with the requirements.
t6:10 5. The employer shall ensure that each worker receivesadequate safety and health training in recruitment and inthe event of transfer, change, or introduction of a newequipment or technology.
Initial training was provided in 86% of the companies andcontinued every 1.3 years approximately. Training wassubcontracted in 57% of the companies.
Initial trainingwas provided in all companies and continuedevery 2.7 years approximately. Training was provided bythe company in 71% of the cases.
t6:11 6. The employer shall provide thenecessaryorganization forthe safety and health protection of workers.
All companies had had their current preventiveorganization for an average of 6.2 years.
All companies had had their current preventiveorganization for an average of 9.3 years.
t6:12 All companies had contracted an external prevention service.t6:13 7. The employer shall provide the necessary means for the
safety and health protection of workers.71.4% of the companies had had external audits. 14.3% of the companies had had external audits.
t6:14 74.4% of the companies had had internal audits. 100% of the companies had had internal audits.t6:15 All companies in the construction sector had
implemented amanagement system based on the OHSASstandard
14.3% of the companies in the construction sector hadimplemented a management system based on the OHSASstandard
t6:16 8. The employer shall avoid risks and evaluate those whichcannot be avoided.
Risk assessment was performed by an externalprevention service in 74.4% of the companies.
Risk assessment was performed by company personnel anda safety deputy in 100% of the companies.
t6:17 9. The employer must plan prevention activity. All companies had planned preventive activity and used it.t6:18 10. The preventivemeasures implemented by the employer
must be integrated into all the activities of the enterpriseand/or establishment and at all hierarchical levels.
57.1% of the companies had defined a second preventiveorganizational chart focused only on preventive activitiesand worker responsibility. The other companies haddefined a preventive chart parallel to the functionalorganizational chart only with advisory functions,without worker responsibility, and integrated into thechain of command
57.1% of the companies (all in the construction sector) haddefined a second preventive organizational chart, focusedon preventive activities without any worker responsibilityand with only advisory functions. Responsibility wasintegrated into the chain of command
t6:19 11. When several enterprises share a workplace, theemployers shall cooperate in the implementation of thesafety, health, and occupational hygiene provisions.
All companies produced OHS related documents and had meetings with suppliers, subcontractors, etc.
t6:20 12. The employer shall inform accordingly the workers'representatives so that they can exercise participationrights under this Directive.
All companies had a Safety Deputy for every 115.8workers on average. One company had no Safety Deputy.
All companies had a Safety Deputy for every 18.2 workerson average.
t6:21 13. The employer shall inform external preventive servicesof the factors known to affect, or suspected of affecting,the safety and health of the workers, and they must haveaccess to this information.
All cases had contracted an external prevention service
t6:22 14. The employer shall arrange any necessary contacts withexternal services, particularly as regards first aid,emergency medical care, rescue work, and fire-fighting.
All companies had established emergency measures at workplace.
t6:23 15. The employer shall keep a list of occupational accidentsresulting in a worker being unfit for work for more thanthree working days
All companies recorded workplace accidents, and overall,the accident indicators were lower (2009–2010).
85.7% of the companies recorded work accidents. In 29%,accident indicators were higher (2009–2010).
t6:24All companies gave high priority to incidentst6:25 16. The employer shall report on workplace accidents
suffered.All companies except one investigated accidents and monitored preventive measures
t6:26 17. The employer shall take appropriate measures so thatwork representatives have access to necessaryinformation.
In all companies, safety deputies had access to safety and health documents and sufficient time to check them.
t6:27 18. Employers shall consult workers and/or theirrepresentatives and allow them to takepart in discussionson all questions relating to OHS at work.
All companies had regular meetings as well as Safety and Health Committee meetingst6:28 None of the companies in the study did this. In all companies, the safety deputy participated in internal
auditst6:29 19. Worker' representatives with a specific role in
protecting the safety and health of workers shall beentitled to appropriate training.
The companies did not provide sufficient information toassess this item.
The labor union usually provided safety deputies withtraining.
t6:30 20. Each worker will take care of his own safety and healthand that of other persons affected by his acts orcommissions at work in accordance with his training andthe instructions given by his employer.
In 85.7% of the companies, responsibility was integratedinto the chain of command.
In 100% of the companies, responsibilitywas integrated intothe chain of command.
t6:31 21. The employees will inform the employer of any worksituation considered dangerous to safety and health.
All companies used tools such as risk statements, suggestion boxes, etc. to comply with this requirement.
t6:32 22. Workers will receive health surveillance appropriate tothe health and safety risks they incur atwork, provided aspart of a national health system.
All companies contracted an external prevention services for health surveillance.
t6:33 23. If a worker desires, hemay receive health surveillance atregular intervals.
None of the companies in the study provided periodichealth surveillance.
All companies controlled not onlyworker accident rates butalso monitored employee health and welfare.
t6:34
6 R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of occupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden andSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2013.08.005
t6:36 Directive 89/391/EEC requirements Case study resultsa
t6:37 Spain Sweden
t6:38 Key ideast6:39 Accident cost control and preventive costs None of the companies monitored accident costs,
whereas 28.5% of them monitored prevention costs.42.9% of the companies (all in the construction sector)monitored accident costs, whereas 57.1% of themmonitored prevention costs.
a Some results are shown as percentages to make them easier to understand. However, they cannot be statistically generalized to a population.t6:40
t7:1
t7:2Q6
t7:3
t7:6
t7:7
t7:8
t7:9
t7:10
t7:11
t7:12
t7:13
t7:14
t7:15
t7:16
t7:17
t7:18
t7:19
t7:20
t7:21
7R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
management in Spanish industry by exploring occupational health andsafety practices in Sweden. Sweden was chosen for our study since ithad implemented the European Directive 89/391/EEC 10 years beforeSpain and had a much lower workplace accident rate. Accordingly, weconducted an exploratory, comparative study of the implementationof the measures in the Directive 89/391/EEC in Sweden and Spain be-tween 2004 and 2009. In this way, it was possible to identify differencesin the risk prevention practices in both countries. Since Sweden hadlower accident rates than Spain, opportunities of improvement inSpanish companies were explored so that they can make their riskmanagement practices more effective.
UNCO
RRECT
Table 7Results of the Delphi study.
Proposals included in the Delphi study
1. The Labour Inspectorate shall perform advisory work and resolve deficiencies.
2. The Labour Inspectorate shall rely on safety deputies to verify whether these deficiehave been eliminated at the workplace.
3. A parallel preventive organizational chart is more adequate for workplace health anactivities. It ensures compliance at all levels with preventive legislation.
4. The implementation of standards such as OHSAS 18000 ensures compliance with hsafety requirements. Certified companies have lower accident rates than non-certificompanies in similar conditions.
5. There is an overload of documentation required for compliance with regulations asfor health and safety activities. OHS is thus reduced to a mere formal transfer of doc
6. The companies that perform their own risk assessment are more involved in theimplementation of corrective actions.
7. In order to make decisions, the employer shall have reliable tools to calculate prevecosts and accident-related costs.
8. The supervisor of a victim has the responsibility to implement the preventive measresulting from the accident investigation.
9. One of the most important tasks of the safety deputy is to ensure the correct implemof preventive/corrective measures resulting from the investigation of work accident
10. The safety deputy is the most suitable stakeholder to take part in the internal audits a
11. A high percentage (per number of workers) of safety deputies in a company is notof better safety conditions or lower accidents rates at the workplace.
12. Both the safety deputy and the employer together shall assume their responsibilityworker health and safety at the workplace.
13. The external prevention services shall focus their activities on the healthy workersmaintain and/or increase their percentage.
14. Each worker is responsible for safety and health issues. The degree of this responsibdirect correlation with the importance of his position. This responsibility increases wworker's capability to influence and determine the working conditions of other wor
Note 1: SP stands for Spain; SW stands for Sweden.Note 2: Unanimity (=100%); consensus (N80%); sufficient majority (66%–80%); disagreement
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of ocSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
OO
F
The results of the cross-sectional analysis of workplace accidentrates in Sweden and Spain were the basis for this study. They revealedthat even though work accidents (fatal accidents as well as those witha three-day absence) are gradually decreasing in Spain, they were stillquite a bit higher than in Sweden in 2005–2007. Regarding the profileof the worker most prone to accidents, it was found that in both coun-tries, the profile was similar though the worker age for fatal accidentstended to be older in Sweden than in Spain. This difference is possiblydue to the fact that in Sweden, safety and health training became partof the primary school curriculum in the seventies, whereas in Spain,preventive education is only included in university degree programs.
ED P
R
Agreement with stakeholders' input (%)
t7:4First round Second round
t7:5SP SW Both SP SW Both
75 100 42M = 3SD = 1.38
100 – 100M = 5SD = 0.40
ncies 75 66 42M = 3SD = 1.10
75 – 71M = 4SD = 1.50
d safety 75 66 57M = 2SD = 1.38
50 66 57M = 5SD = 2.10
ealth anded
50 33 42M = 3SD = 0.50
75 66 71M = 5SD = 1.90
well asuments.
75 66 57M = 4SD = 1.30
75 66 71M = 5SD = 1.90
75 100 85M = 4SD = 0.90
ntion 100 100 100M = 4SD = 0.50
ures 100 100 100M = 5SD = 0.50
entations.
100 66 85M = 4SD = 1.10
t the workplace. 100 66 57M = 2SD = 1.10
50 100 71M = 5SD = 1.90
a guarantee 100 33 57M = 2SD = 0.80
100 66 71M = 1SD = 1.90
to ensure 50 100 71M = 4SD = 0.80
to thus 50 33 42M = 3SD = 1.30
50 66 57M = 5SD = 2.10
ility is inith thekers.
100 33 71M = 5SD = 1.00
(b66%).
cupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
8 R.M. Morillas et al. / Journal of Safety Research xxx (2013) xxx–xxx
UNCO
RREC
The case study revealed noteworthy differences between the occu-pational health and safety practices in both countrieswithin the contextof the Directive 89/391/EEC. More specifically, there were 14 organiza-tional preventive practices that were common in Swedish companies,but not in the Spanish ones. Greater importance was given to the prac-tices that could be used to improve the health and safety performance ofSpanish companies and reduce their workplace accident rates. The re-sults suggested that the Swedish Labour Office gives greater importanceto providing advice and guidance in OHS to companies in addition totheir supervision activities. For example, in Sweden, most of work in-spections conducted by the Labour Office had been previously sched-uled. This was not the case in Spain, where inspections were generallyperformed without any previous notification. Swedish companies alsocarried out advisorywork, and for this purpose, had a secondpreventiveorganizational chart solely for preventive activities and recommendedwork.
Our findings also revealed differences in the risk assessment ofcompany activities. In Sweden, companies perform their own internalrisk assessment, whereas most of the Spanish companies have theirrisk assessment done by an external prevention service. A probablereason for this is that by employing an external prevention service toundertake all OHS procedures, Spanish companies reduce the costs de-rived from the internal development of the preventive audits, which aremandatory every two or four years (European Commission [EC], 2004;Leigh, Waehrer, Miller, & Keenan, 2004).
The number and responsibilities of safety deputies were also foundto be different in both countries. For example, Swedish companies hadmore deputies than Spanish companies for the same number ofworkers. It was thus possible that the number of safety deputieswas re-lated to a lowerwork accident rate. However, the Delphi study revealedthat the panel members were unable to agree on this question.Regarding the responsibilities of safety deputies, deputies in Swedishcompanies actively participated in internal audits. Conversely, theparticipation of workers and their representatives in aspects related tooccupational health and safety in Spanish companies was minimal.Finally, amore detailed cost analysis was performed in Swedish compa-nies, whomonitored not only prevention costs but also accident-relatedcosts.
The Delphi study also reflected a lack of agreement among the ex-perts regarding the designation of a parallel preventive organizationalchart for workplace health and safety activities. This could be explainedby the fact that the preventive responsibility associated with the chainof command seemed to be less defined in Spanish companies than inSwedish ones. Moreover, there was also disagreement as to whetherthe external prevention services should focus their activities on thehealthy workers in order to increase their percentage in the company.This practice seemed to be considered acceptable by Swedish expertsbut not by the Spanish panel members.
5. Conclusions
Comparative studies of different countries can be an effective way ofimproving company performance by learning from better managementpractices. The results obtained in this research suggest that Spanishcompanies could improve their health and safety performance byadopting some of the management practices commonly employed inSweden. Consulted experts are of the opinion that practices identifiedin this study would benefit not only Spanish company owners and em-ployers, but also external prevention services and government agencies.Furthermore, results suggest that countries with performance patternsand risk prevention practices similar to those in Spain could also benefitfrom these research findings.
This study advocates that Swedish Labour Inspectorates do not onlyrestrict their activities to monitoring and supervision, but also provideemployers with more advice and support. This was not identified inthe study of Spanish Labour Inspectorate, which suggested that they
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of oSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
ED P
RO
OF
tend to focus on supervisory practices. It is believed that this advisorywork would make employers, workers, and worker representativesmore aware that theymust comply with the requirements in the EU Di-rective. On the other hand, results also imply that employers shouldperform risk assessment with internal resources in order to heightenawareness of the potential workplace risks inherent in company activi-ties and thus increase worker involvement in the implementation ofcorrective measures.
Moreover, tools that accurately quantify prevention costs andaccident-related costs were perceived as possible effective tools fordecision-making on safety and health issues. However, the analysis ofOHS-related costs was not identified as a common practice in the Span-ish companies participating in the study. In contrast, some Swedish en-terprises under study claimed to be able to quantify not only preventioncosts, but also all costs associated with accidents. Considering this as agood practice, it is believed that Spanish employers should give greaterimportance to both prevention and accident cost analysis. Furthermore,government agencies should consider encouraging the implementationof safety and health management systems based on standards such asSAM or OHSAS 18001 since the experts agreed in the opinion that certi-fied companies should have a better health and safety performance andlower workplace accidents rates than non-certified organizations. Incompanies, safety deputies could actively support the work carriedout by Labour Inspectorates by verifying that the deficiencies found dur-ing the inspections have been eliminated. Deputies should also partici-pate in internal audits with the employer and take responsibility toensure worker health and safety at the workplace. Moreover, alongwith the supervisors, safety deputies should guarantee the correct im-plementation of the preventive and corrective measures resultingfrom workplace accident investigations. Finally, it is agreed that thetrue purpose of health and safety management be correctly transmittedto the stakeholders involved in the OHS of the company. Finally, re-search findings revealed that in some cases preventive managementcould be perceived as a mere formal exchange of documents becauseof the excessive paperwork required for legal compliance.
Although the present study presents a detailed and comprehensivequalitative research that suggests organizational measures that arelikely efficient with respect to occupational health and safety, a moredetailed investigation could be undertaken with more time and re-sources to verify and extend the conclusions presented. Future researchof this study could include:
• An in depth comparative analysis of occupational health and safetypractices between countries, which involves a bigger sample ofcompanies in all activity sectors and company size groups.
• A detailed statistical analysis of the health and safety practices under-taken by the Safety Deputy in awide range of companies of both coun-tries.
• A study of the real level of implementation of the OHS documentationavailable to the companies of both countries.
6. Uncited references
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, 2009Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo, 2009Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo, 2010Johansson and Abrahamsson, 2009
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the professors, companies, and in-terviewees both in Sweden and Spain who participated in this study.We are grateful for the information that they provided as well fortheir time. Special thanks go to Håkan C. Nilsson, Karin Kronberg andMatias Urenda from Skövde University; Dr. Lotta Dellve from GöteborgUniversity; interviewees from Skövde and Göteborg; and interviewees
ccupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
Aires, M.D.M., Rubio, M. C., & Gibb, A. (2010). Prevention through design: The effect ofEuropean Directives on construction workplaces accidents. Safety Science, 48,248–258.
Arbetsmiljö i Samverkan Svenskt Näringsliv (2009). LO & PTK. http://www.prevent.se(Accessed on 4 November 2009).
Biggs, S. E., Banks, T. D., Davey, J.D., & Freeman, J. E. (in press). Safety leaders' perceptionsof safety culture in a large Australasian construction organisation. Safety Science.
Boix, P., Gil, J. M., & Rodrigo, F. (2008). Prioridades estratégicas para la mejora del sistemade prevención de riesgos laborales en España: un estudio Delphi entre profesionalesde la salud y seguridad en el trabajo. Archivos de Prevención de Riesgos Laborales,11(1), 20–26.
Confederación Española de Organizaciones Empresariales (CEOE) (2010). http://www.ceoe.es (Accessed on 10 January 2010).
Dakey, N., Brown, B., & Cochran, S. (1970). Use of self-ratings to improve group estimates.Technological Forecasting, 1, 283–291.
Eaves, Y. D. (2001). A synthesis technique for grounded theory data analysis. Journal ofAdvanced Nursing, 35, 654–663.
Economic and Social Research Council (2007). ESRC. (Data Archive 2007:13).Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14(4), 532–550.European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (2009). The Scholl curriculum: Requirements
and activities in the EU Member States.European Agency for Safety, Health at Work, & Managing safety, health at work (2010).
European survey of enterprises on new and emerging risks. http://osha.europa.eu/OSHA (Accessed on 20 August 2010).
European Commission (2004). Statistical analysis of socio-economic costs of accidents atwork in the European Union.
European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (2007).European Labour Force and Fourth Working Conditions Survey 2007. http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/ (Accessed on 20 January 2010).
European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (2009a).Sweden — A country profile.
European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (2009b).Working conditions in the European Union: Work organisation.
European Foundation for the improvement of living and working conditions (2010).Health and safety at work in SMEs: Strategies for employee information and consul-tation. http://eurofound.europa.eu/index.htm (Accessed on 10 February 2010).
Eurostat Statistics, & European Labour Force Survey (EU LFS) (2007). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu (Accessed on 30 October 2009).
Eurostat Statistics (2009). http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home (Accessed on 20 October 2009).
Fellows, R., & Liu, A. (2008). Research methods for construction. UK: Blackwell PublishingLTD.
Gibbert, M., Ruigrok, W., & Wicki, B. (2008). What passes as a rigorous case study.Strategic Management Journal, 29, 1465–1474.
Hale, A.R., Heming, H. J., Catfhey, J., & Kirwan, B. (1997). Modelling of safety managementsystems. Safety Science, 26(1–2), 121–140.
Hsu, C. C., & Sandford, B.A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus.Practical assessment. Research & Evaluation, 12(10), 1–8.
Inspección de Trabajo y Seguridad Social (2010). http://www.mtin.es/itss (Accessed on20 June 2010).
Instituto Nacional de Estadística (2010). http://www.ine.es (Accessed on 10 May 2010).Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (2008). Informe sobre el estado de
Seguridad y Salud Laboral en España 2007.Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (2009). Encuesta Nacional de
Gestión de la Seguridad y Salud en las empresas (ENGE 2009).Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo (2010). http://www.insht.es
(Accessed on 15 May 2010).Ivankova, N. V., Creswell, J. W., & Stick, S. L. (2006). Used mixed-methods sequential
explanatory design: From theory to practice. Field Methods, 18(1), 3–20.Johansson, J., & Abrahamsson, L. (2009). The goodwork— A Swedish trade union vision in
the shadow of lean production. Applied Ergonomics, 40, 775–780.
U 757
758
Please cite this article as: Morillas, R.M., et al., A comparative analysis of ocSpain, Journal of Safety Research (2013), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.201
ED P
RO
OF
Johansson, A., Denk, T., & Svedung, I. (2009). The typology for allocations of societal riskand safety management tasks at the local governmental level. Framing the currentdirections in Sweden. Safety Science, 47, 680–685.
Johansson, A.C. H., Svedung, I., & Anderson, R. (2006). Management of risks in societalplanning — An analysis of scope and variety of health, safety and security issues inmunicipality plan documents. Safety Science, 44, 675–688.
Leigh, J. P., Waehrer, G., Miller, T. R., & Keenan, C. (2004). Costs of occupational injury andillness across industries. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, 30(3),199–205.
Linstone, H. A., & Turoff, M. (1975). The Delphi method: Techniques and applications. Read-ing, MA: Addison Wesley Publishing.
Observatorio Estatal de Condiciones de Trabajo (2010). http://www.oect.es (Accessed on20 January 2010).
Official Statistics of Sweden (2009). http://www.scb.se (Accessed on 20 November 2009).Organización Internacional del Trabajo (2000a). Indemnización a los trabajadores.
Enciclopedia de Salud y Seguridad en el Trabajo.Organización Internacional del Trabajo (2000b). Relaciones Laborales y Gestión de Recursos
Humanos. Enciclopedia de Salud y Seguridad en el Trabajo.PREVIA (2009). hptt//www.previa.se (Accessed on 20 November 2009).Skulmoski, G. J., Hartman, F. T., & Krahn, J. (2007). The Delphi method for graduate
research. Journal of Information Technology Education, 6, 1–21.Smith, T. D., & DeJoy, D.M. (2012). Occupational injury in America: An analysis of risk factors
using data from the General Social Survey (GSS). Journal of Safety Research, 43, 67–74.Spangenberg, S., Baarts, C., Dyreborg, J., Jensen, L., Kines, P., & Mikkelsen, K. L. (2003). Fac-
tors contributing to the differences in work related injury rates between Danish andSwedish construction workers. Safety Science, 41, 517–530.
Swedish National Institute of Public Health (SNIPH) (2009). http://www.fhi.se/en/(Accessed on 15 November 2009).
Swedish Work Environment Agency (2009). http://www.av.se (Accessed on 20 Septem-ber 2009).
Swedish Work Envirornment Agency (Arbetsmiljöverket) (2009). Arbetsskador 2008.http://www.av.se (Accessed on 4 October 2009).
The European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (ENWHP) (2009). http://www.enwhp.org (Accessed on 20 September 2009).
The Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Research (2009). http://www.fas.forskning.se (Accessed on 20 September 2009).
Universal Prevención y Salud SPA (). http://www.unipresalud.com (Accessed on 20February 2010).
Walters, D. R. (1996). Health and safety strategies in Europe. Process Industrials, 9(5),297–308.
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research. Design and methods (3rd ed.)California: SagePublications.
Rosa María Morillas (MSc, MEng), has a MSc in Industrial Engineering from theUniversidad deMálaga (Spain) and aMSc in Occupational Health and Safety at theWork-place from the University of San Pablo Ceus (Spain). She completed her masters thesis atSkövde University (Sweden). For the last ten years, she has been working as a health andsafety engineer in an OHS Service in Spain. She has been actively involved in research asmember of Chair of Prevention and Social Corporate Responsibility. She is currently theHealth and Safety Coordinator for the Ministry of Public Works in Málaga in Spain.
Dr. Juan Carlos Rubio-Romero (PhD, MSc, MEng), is an Industrial Engineer and anAssociate Professor in “Safety at Work” in the School of Industrial Engineering(Universidad de Málaga). He obtained his PhD in 2000 in workplace health and safety inindustry, and is currently the Chair of Prevention and Social Corporate Responsibility inthe University of Malaga as well as the director of the research group, “Operations andSustainability: Quality, CIT and Risk Prevention atWork”. Dr Rubio has spent over 17 yearsdoing research into workplace health and safety and has published a wide range of text-books, reports, and papers, especially on management of workplace health and safety inindustry and at construction sites.
Dr. Alba Fuertes (PhD, MSc, MEng) is an Industrial Engineer and an Associate Professorin Construction Management at the School of Architecture, Design and Environment atPlymouth University (UK). Previously, she was a lecturer at the Universitat Politecnica deCatalunya (Spain) formore thanfive years. She completed a PhD inConstructionEngineeringin 2012 at the Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya. Dr. Fuertes has experience in conductingand publishing national and international research in the field of construction management,especially related to health and safety and environment management.
cupational health and safety risk prevention practices in Sweden and3.08.005
