Citation

Njå O, Fjelltun SH. Safety Sci. 2010; 48(8): 1073-1080.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2010.02.005

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

Safety measures and related costs and benefits have been widely discussed and analysed in academic circles and by the authorities and industrial sectors. The study reported in this paper addresses these aspects from a cognitive based perspective. Risk management is about dealing with the conflict between production and safety. Enterprises which spend too much on safety will meet bankruptcy, and those not concerned with safety measures will meet with severe accidents and related damage. Inspired by James Reason's theoretical framework, managers (n = 106) of commercial transport enterprises were asked about their attitudes towards safety management, what factors have contributed and their belief that further effort and investments in health, environment and safety (HES) measures will pay off. One half of the managers perceive HES work as too expensive and approximately one quarter assess mandatory HES work as compromising their competitiveness. One third of the managers do not find further safety measures than those already implemented necessary or remunerative. They claim that there are no other alternative ways of doing their activities and that there are no technical measures available that could meet outstanding safety challenges. Managers do acknowledge HES work as important for the reputation of the enterprise. The factor analysis gave five HES attitude factors: (I) concerned with formalities, (II) HES work improves health, environment and safety, (III) HES work is ineffective, (IV) HES regulation is appropriate, and (V) HES work can be improved.