safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. it’s good for you. it’s good for business....
Post on 13-Dec-2015
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business.Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business.
Review findings and factors to consider when setting up a successful OSH benchmarking network
Review of Successful OSH Benchmarking Initiatives
http://osha.europa.eu2
Format of presentation
Overview of review methods
Summary of the schemes’ features that were reviewed
in depth
‘How to’ guide
1. Set-up• deciding the goals of the scheme• targeting members
2. Ongoing management• communicating with members• communicating with the outside world
3. Sustainability and forward planning
http://osha.europa.eu3
Research activities
Scoping search Short email questionnaire Multilingual online survey Interviews with EU-OSHA partners Interviews with benchmarking ‘actors’
http://osha.europa.eu4
Research outputs
Directory of schemes (<60)
In-depth case studies • 11 OSH schemes• 3 non-OSH schemes
Quantitative analysis of features of 25 schemes
Summary of common features and main findings overview
‘How to’ guide for organisations
http://osha.europa.eu5
Basic features of schemes: Location
Country of operation N (25)
Worldwide 6
Europe-wide 8
Finland 1
Germany 2
Netherlands (exclusive) 1
Netherlands and France 1
Spain 1
UK 3
Australasia (exclusively)1
Other English-speaking 1
Total 25
http://osha.europa.eu6
Basic features of schemes: Types of organisations involved
Organisation type N
Large for-profit enterprise (> 250 employees) 15
SME for-profit (<250 employees) 10
Governmental/non-departmental body 8
Social enterprise or other not-for-profit organisation
7
Consultancies 3
OSH specialist 3
Trade/employers’ association 4
Consortium of private sector organisations 3
Tripartite organisation 3
Consortium of private sector organisations 3
Employees’ association 2
Universities 1
http://osha.europa.eu7
Basic features of schemes: Sector coverage
Sector N
Manufacturing 17
Transportation & storage 9
Construction 8
Education 7
Wholesale & retail trade; repair of motor vehicles & motorcycles 7
Information & communication 6
Accommodation & food service activities 6
Professional, scientific & technical activities 6
Agriculture, forestry & fishing 5
Public administration & defence; compulsory social security 5
Financial & insurance activities 5
Mining & quarrying 5
http://osha.europa.eu8
Basic features of schemes: Data sharing & organisational input (1)
Key feature of benchmarking is the nature of information
being shared
Important distinction should be made between outcome
measures and process measures
‘Hard’ outcome data can include accident rates
and absence statistics
‘Softer’ data comprises ‘good practice’ and can include
risk management and incident reporting processes
A mix of process and outcome measures often appear
together in the same scheme
http://osha.europa.eu9
Basic features of schemes: Data sharing & organisational input (2)
Calibration of their own performance against the market is one
of the motivating factors for half of respondents to join a
scheme
Most common joining motivation for participants
is to create a zero-accident environment; and one of the most
common benefits cited is achieving improvements
in accident and incident rates
But process-orientated data-sharing appears to be more highly
valued by members, possibly because of the learning
opportunities it offers
Face-to-face learning and networking opportunities
also very highly valued
http://osha.europa.eu10
Benefits of schemes
Benefit to member organisation NGood-practice case studies 17
Accident/incident rates (e.g. DAFWCF/RIDDOR) 16
Process/policy documents 13
OSH management policies 11Implementation of OSH management policies 11Auditing processes 10
Communications regarding OSH 10
Implementation of risk management and planning tools 9Accident/incident costs 8Organisational structures 8Risk management and planning tools 7Employee behaviour 6Staff competencies regarding OSH 6Stakeholder perceptions of OSH 6
http://osha.europa.eu11
How benchmarking information is presented and shared
Method of communication N
Meetings and conferences 18
Shared e-databases and/or electronic documents
16
Web forum 9
Hard-copy documents 3
http://osha.europa.eu12
Top 12 success factors
Success factors has been attributed to NUsefulness of the information or data gained 17Exchange of good practices 15Implementation of good practices of other participants 14Ability to use data to facilitate change 13Quality of data analysis 12Easy and quick for participants to do 12Ability to implement repeatedly over time 12Synergy with other organisational schemes or activities 10Level of industry support 9Range of stakeholders involved in delivery of scheme 9Level of industry support 8Level of intra-organisational support 8
http://osha.europa.eu13
Top 12 barriers to overcome
Barriers that have been (or need to be) overcome NOnerous time or resource demands for participants 7Level of industry support 7Quality of data analysis 5Inability to implement repeatedly over time 5Lack of utility of the scheme’s data or information 5Obstructive or over-complex/demanding legislation or obligations 5
Scheme's overlap with existing schemes, groups or activities 5Usefulness of data 5Range of measurements used for analyses 4Inability to use data to facilitate change 4Level of intra-organisational support 4Level of political support 4
http://osha.europa.eu14
Learning points for others setting up schemes
1. Set-up• deciding the goals of the scheme• targeting members
2. Ongoing management• communicating with members• communicating with the outside world
3. Sustainability and forward planning
http://osha.europa.eu15
1.1 Set-up
Decide on topic area (tried and tested or new?)
Gauge interest through existing networks at low cost and relatively informally
Form a core steering group to develop and promote the project
Invite members to a kick-off meeting to plan the development of the project
Decide on a central point of contact for the scheme ideally this should be a trusted ‘neutral broker’
(lacking a commercial self-interest)
Note that lead and/or sponsoring organisations can include:• tripartite national bodies specialising in OSH• statutory (part-privatised) corporations
http://osha.europa.eu16
1.2 Explore feasibility of free membership
Free initiatives are clearly more appealing to potential
members and this should be a prime consideration
Where insurance companies are involved the scope
for offering financial incentives can be explored
• e.g. discounts can be offered to companies which implement
an appropriate number of OSH prevention measures • should be done on a fair basis, so that smaller companies are not
disadvantaged • it can be difficult to engage non-motivated companies with financial
incentives, such as reduced insurance premiums, as they may
never achieve the necessary standard
http://osha.europa.eu17
1.3 Have a ‘vision of success’
Scheme organisers need to have an idea of what success would
look like to convey to potential members. If this is clear it will
help engage companies. For example:
• those based around a ‘zero’ accident slogan, for example, provide a
clear statement of intent • a radical message has the potential to raise the profile
of the campaign, propel the dissemination strategy
and sway management
Ensure that goals are realistic:
getting this wrong could alienate potential members
Framing the potentially ambitious targets
(such as zero OSH incidents) as a process or ‘journey’
Where appropriate, emphasise learning as a goal
http://osha.europa.eu18
1.4.1 Decide on nature of membership: unit & company size
There is no good reason to exclude organisations on the basis of size or OSH performance
However, smaller organisations can lack the time/resource needed to contribute information or attend events. They can also be disproportionately affected by staff turnover
Schemes with broad (e.g. Finnish Zero Accident Forum) and narrow (e.g. PABIAC) sectoral bases can both work well
Unit of membership is an important consideration; it could be:• individual plants/sites/administrative units• whole companies
http://osha.europa.eu19
1.4.2 Decide on nature of membership: identify members
When targeting OSH professionals, their authority/seniority is a key consideration — ideally they need to be able to implement change within their organisations or influence those who can bring about change
Prior identification of members by name is desirable, and a ‘black book’ of existing contacts can be a good place to start
Be realistic: most schemes can aim to recruit only companies strongly committed to OSH prevention
Aim for a large membership. Reviewed evidence suggests a ‘critical mass’ of membership is needed for activities to be seen as valuable by potential participants
http://osha.europa.eu20
1.4.3 Decide on nature of membership: criteria for membership
Consider where ‘positive selection’ process is desirable,i.e. deliberate targeting of good OSH performers who may:• show more inclination to provide data• be more likely to provide useful data for benchmarking,
i.e. data set a high standard in practice for others to follow
Recruitment of ‘aspirational underperformers’ is seen as important if the scheme is to make a real difference
A mix of performers at different levels maximises peer learning and support opportunities
http://osha.europa.eu21
1.5 Attract a membership audience
Sell all the benefits to would-be participants, i.e.:• potential improvements to safety management processes• potential reductions in accident rates
Other advantages include: • improved company safety culture• improved OSH leadership culture • better internal communications and more learning opportunities • opportunities to network and strengthen relationships• potential empowerment of OSH professionals to lever improvements
http://osha.europa.eu22
1.6 Decide on nature of information members are required to share (1)
Focus on features likely to be of most value to members: in general they prefer processes
Practical examples of best practice are highly valued by members (avoid data requirements that require complex measurement or analytical processes)
‘Good practice’ is preferable to ‘best practice’: the latter can be seen as too prescriptive, especially if a scheme has a very varied membership
Decide on method of comparison: quantitative data may need to be weighted if small and larger employers are to be compared fairly
http://osha.europa.eu23
1.6 Decide on nature of information members are required to share (2)
Reporting accidents can be a sensitive issue: anonymous reporting could provide a means of addressing this
Collecting data at company level can obscure important differences across sites and locations for large employers it is advisable to collect data at business unit/plant level
Ensure that data collection is not too resource intensive
http://osha.europa.eu24
2.1 Create opportunities for networking & discussion (1)
Face-to-face personal contact within real-world environments can be key to a scheme’s success
Seminars and meetings provide valuable face-to-face contact for members and allow attendance of a large number of individuals in a neutral setting
Interactive and small group sessions can also work well, but ‘lecture-style’ sessions are advised against. For schemes with a large membership, annual events attended by several hundred members can be effective
http://osha.europa.eu25
2.1 Create opportunities for networking & discussion (2)
Events organised thematically can work well to raise the profile of important and emergent OSH issues for members
Getting the venue right can be key to success. Hosting events in non-competitive ‘safe’ environments allows individuals to discuss contentious and sensitive issues
On-site demonstrations of good practice are viewed as particularly helpful benchmarking activities
Events organised by members can encourage a sense of ownership and help reduce a sense of dependence on the founding organisation(s) to move the scheme forward
http://osha.europa.eu26
2.2 Be aware of members’ time/resource limitations
If there are too many bureaucratic hurdles, individuals can be
put off participating in benchmarking, e.g. questionnaires and
other paperwork and requests to compute complex analytics
Cost–benefit calculations are particularly complex. It should not
be assumed that companies posess the necessary data or the
analytics resources to make these calculations
Member organisations need to see a return on investment from
the resource requirements of participation or they will disengage
http://osha.europa.eu27
2.3 Be clear about how data will be used
When companies share health and safety data or descriptions of OSH systems, this can involve disclosure of information that is potentially sensitive for legal and/or commercial reasons. Bear in mind:• poor OSH performers may feel exposed to the scrutiny of, for example, insurers or
enforcement bodies
• better performers may not wish to share information about processes that may give them a competitive edge, but normally in the field of OSH companies are ready to share good practice information because this is not felt as an area of competition.
• clarity is needed regarding use of data, if they will be anonymised and if they will be shared with other members or made public, so testing member views may help guide decisions about this
http://osha.europa.eu28
2.4 Multiple dissemination methods
Benchmarking data only have the power to influence if they are seen, so dissemination to members and potentially outside the membership is critical
Newsletters and other online resources can provide efficient means of sharing and updating information
Production of tailored feedback reports can provide an incentive for participation. Could be undertaken at company/national level
Topic-specific resource packages can be produced, which may appeal to particular sub-groups of members
Online discussion forums, if well used, can stimulate change, as discussions about benchmarking data can be as important as the data themselves
Other potential online products include website repositories, which enable sharing good-practice guidance documents electronically
http://osha.europa.eu29
2.5 Maintain momentum
A core committee should regularly convene to discuss the development and performance of the scheme and any emerging issues that require a change in strategy
Procedures should be agreed for refreshing the core team with new members on a rolling basis to address potential fatigue and disengagement from long-time members and help ensure the sustainability of the scheme
Participant events should be planned well in advance; circulating invitations early through multiple channels helps ensure good attendance. Scheduling activities at regular intervals sets a purposeful ‘rhythm’, which helps maintain momentum
http://osha.europa.eu30
2.6 Secure commitment from the top
Company directors and CEOs should be proactively engaged in the scheme where possible
Encouraging organisations to make ‘pledges’ can be effective in securing commitment from organisational leaders, especially if this requires CEO sign-up. The pledge needs to sum up the scheme ‘vision’ and benefits clearly, and describe the actions that are required as a condition of membership
Bear in mind that pledges are not guarantees of subsequent action
http://osha.europa.eu31
2.7 Publicise achievements
Award schemes can incentivise members to continue their membership and reward and promote good practice. They create a (photo) opportunity for promoting the schemes across the business world
Because of the need to link awarding to OSH processes and outcomes, it is important to ensure that fair data collection and comparison processes are applied
Achievements (such as reductions in accident rates among members) — where determinable — should be publicised. A headline presents an opportunity for member organisations (or an entire sector) to be explicitly associated with a good news story
Where ‘hard’ quantitative data are available, league tables can be published; this has the potential to capture the attendance of CEOs and consolidate engagement from the top of organisations
http://osha.europa.eu32
3.1 Look to the future & be adaptable (1)
Maintain a flexible approach; it is important to be reactive to changing circumstances
OSH issues of concern to members should be monitored so that schemes can be re-orientated on new priorities as they emerge
There may be advantages to narrowing or widening a scheme’s scope. A change in focus can be useful when a scheme has been successful in a particular area (i.e. goals have been reached)
http://osha.europa.eu33
3.1 Look to the future and be adaptable (2)
A change to the wording of the organisational pledge may be necessary if in practice it demands too much (or too little) of those who sign up
Arrangements for running the scheme need not be permanent, e.g. there may be agreement that a particular body and/or the funding it provides be withdrawn after a certain period
Be mindful that original organisers of a scheme can find it hard to delegate and hand over their leading role; employers can also be reluctant to commit their own resources
http://osha.europa.eu34
3.2 Consider the potential for the initiative to become self-financing
Where schemes have been government led, a move to self-financing status can help ensure a sustainable forum resilient to political change
It may be possible for members to contribute a small fee, graded by company size. Discounted fees could be applied, such as where multiple units of the same company are members
Bear in mind organisations that contribute significant work ‘in kind’ may disengage if they are asked for an additional financial contribution
http://osha.europa.eu35
3.3 Be aware of the potential for spin-off & wider networking opportunities
There may be potential to link the scheme to larger campaigns or international networks
Scheme leaders should be open to the possibility of sharing experiences and lessons learned, with peers striving to achieve similar aims in different sectors and geographical locations
Some factors can limit transferability, such as the wider national and political environment:• traditional worker–manager relationships and the influence of trade unions may vary from
one national context to another and affect the effectiveness of various approaches to benchmarking
• there is a possibility that OSH information may be seen as too sensitive to share in some industrial contexts and cultures
top related