whitepaper safety at work

Your business technologists. Powering progress

White paper

Ssafetyat work Index 2015

Safety at work?

2 Safety at work Index 2015

Summary 9

Recognition 10

Questionnaire 11

Content

Each year there are approximately 220 thousand accidents that occur around the workplace in the Netherlands. These work-related accidents cause employees to be absent for at least one working day. Not only are these figures high – 600 a day! -, they have been stable for the past decade. Safety at work often seems to lose against dominant economic factors. We, at Atos, are dissatisfied with the current status of safety at work and believe there are opportunities for improvements in the area of awareness and behavior. The paper you are reading assesses the level of Safety at Work and provides recommendations that will ensure the realization of higher levels of safety.

Contents

Introduction 3

Research model 4

Results 5

Ambitions & Challenges 8

3Safety at work Index 2015

Introduction

Naturally, work should be performed in a safe environment. Employees should be able to return safely to their homes after a day of work. However, this seems to not be the day-to-day reality of life. In our modern Dutch society 600 work-related accidents occur on a daily basis (source: CBS1) resulting in victims being absent for at least one working day. This number adds up to 220,000 victims on a yearly basis. The Safety at Work Index you are reading assesses the current level of safety in the Dutch working environment. Furthermore, it provides recommendations that will ensure a drastic decline in the number of accidents.


The questionnaires were distributed through two channels: personal invitations and social media such as twitter and LinkedIn. Between the period of January 15th and February 15th a total of 48 respondents completed the questionnaire. With the overwhelming majority of respondents active within the HSE (Health Safety Environment) domain, the data is deemed to be representative and valid, despite a relatively small sample size.

Research model

Organizations display a high level of maturity in safety once they are able to structurally score a ‘very safe’ rating. On top of that, they are capable of sustainably maintaining their scores.

Practiced international safety measurements within, for example, the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries are the LTIF (Lost Time Injury Frequency: amount of accidents with at least one working day absenteeism per million hours worked) and the TRIF (Total Recorded Injury Frequency: amount of reported incidents per million hours worked).

Models dedicated to measuring the sustainability of current safety levels are virtually inexistent or unavailable within the public domain. In an effort to generate a solution, Atos Consulting has chosen to use its cloverleaf model, as it allowed for a sustainability assessment through the usage of four elements.

1. Processes – the degree in which organizations have defined and implemented clear effective processes that support the realization of safety targets.

2. Systems & infrastructure – the degree in which for instance IT systems support the realization of organizational goals regarding safety.

3. People & culture – the degree in which employees are involved and whether the organizational culture positively contributes to safety.

4. Management & Organization – the degree in which the organizational structure and management facilitate the realization of goals regarding safety.

Using a series of statements respondents were able to examine their organization on the basis of the four elements within the cloverleaf. The essence behind the model is that true maturity level can only be realized once all elements are in balance with each other. An example: clear defined safety processes do not perform well in an organizational culture in which safety is not seen as a priority.

The research further assesses the satisfaction level of the organization and questions the challenges and obstacles that prevent the realization of their goals regarding safety.

Figure 1: The Atos Consulting cloverleaf model

Systems & Infrastructure

Processes

Management & Organisation

People& Culture

Level of safety(E.g. LTIF/TRIF)


that the results might not be considered as ‘future proof’. There is a considerable amount of risk that in the near future these scores might not be as positive.

Looking at safety from the cloverleaf vantage point Atos Consulting suggests that in order to be (and remain) a successful organization it is essential to have different aspects of the business in balance with each other. This also applies to working in a safe environment.

Results

How safe do we work?Safety is for the most important part an emotional feeling. You feel safe or you do not. Simultaneously, there are, as earlier mentioned, international KPI standards that measure the hard safety facts. The tables below provide insights from respectively both dynamics.

The data indicates that half of the respondents work for an organization with, according to safety KPI’s, a high factual safety score. Nevertheless, only 30% of respondents are satisfied with the safety situation in their organization. This seems to indicate

On average all four elements show approximately an equal score – each statement scores between ‘neutral’ and ‘agree’. Interesting differences immerge in the data once respondents are segmented per industry and functional role.

increase safety standards. The figure further displays the lowest average score in the ‘Agriculture’ industry. This might be caused by the industry’s fragmentation and economic difficulties, creating a challenging environment for the realization of industry wide initiatives. The industry’s focus, in the past decade, has been placed on their survival rather than safety.

The figure above indicates several important differences between industries and functional roles of respondents. It is not surprising to see the ‘Oil & Gas’ industry flourishing with a high average score. It has been well-documented that in the past decade, with the help of the progressive firm DuPont, the industry has implemented several programs aiming to

It is striking to see that management has a more positive image of safety than their subordinate counterparts. That being said, it is important to note that the majority of casualties, due to unsafe work environments, are not active in offices, but rather in more physical workspaces. This insight can be noticed within all industries and will be discussed further with the use of the cloverleaf.

Figure 2: We are satisfied about the current safety situation in our company (percentage)

Figure 3: What is the average number of incidents per million hours worked (TRIF = Total Recorded Injury Frequency)? (percentage)

Figure 4: Average score across the 4 elements of the cloverleaf.NB. Guide: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Fullydisagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Fully agree

50%

45%

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

> 30 15 < 30 5 < 15 1 < 5 < 1 (Best in Class)

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

Average

Autom

otive

High Tech

Oil & G

as

Energy

Food

Agricultu

re

Managem

ent

Sta� m

embers

Manager/s

uperviso

r

Operatio

nal em

ployee


ProcessesThe Processes element refers to the degree in which organizations have defined and implemented clear effective processes containing clear distribution of roles and process owners.

The figure above indicates the large differences between industries and hierarchal layers within organizations. Especially the question surrounding employees being “aware of the incidents monitoring process” scores relatively low. Noteworthy is how management indicates that this is well regulated. However, staff members express that this is not the case (management 3.8 versus Operational staff 2.0)

This is a worrying situation given the fact that it might have a negative influence on the ability to report incidents in a quick and clear manner.

Figure 5: The processes statements scoresNB. Guide: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree

Figure 6: The Systems & Infrastructure statements scoresNB. Guide: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

Average

Autom

otive

High Tech

Oil & G

as

Energy

Food

Agricultu

re

Managem

ent

Sta� m

embers

Manager/s

uperviso

r

Operatio

nal em

ployee

Systems & InfrastructureThe Systems & Infrastructure element refers to the degree in which for instance IT systems support the realization of organizational goals regarding safety.There are large differences between industries and the different hierarchal layers within an organization. Especially the question surrounding “yearly mandatory training” scores relatively low. Most noteworthy is how management provides a higher score than Operational employees. (Management 3.9 versus Operational employees 2.0)The results possibly indicate the presence of various thoughts concerning the importance and necessity of safety programs. A worrying scenario as it will distract from the focus on safety.

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

Average

Autom

otive

High Tech

Oil & G

as

Energy

Food

Agricultu

re

Managem

ent

Sta� m

embers

Manager/s

uperviso

r

Operatio

nal em

ployee


Figure 8: The Management & Organization statements scoresNB. Guide: 1= strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree

People & CultureThe People & Culture element refers to the degree in which employees are involved and whether the organizational culture positively contributes to safety.There are large differences between industries. However, differences between the hierarchal layers of an organization are limited. Questions concerning “feeling empowered to shut down the production process” and “receiving a warning after not following the safety regulations” scored relatively lower. Moreover, the largest difference between the hierarchal layers of an organization similarly manifests itself through the question “feeling empowered to shut down the production process” (Management 3.6 versus Operational employees 1.8). Management is under the impression that everyone “is enabled” and can shut down the production process in order to comply with safety regulations. Operational employees, on the other hand, feel restricted.

Management & OrganizationThe element Management & Organization refers to the degree in which the organizational structure and management facilitate the realization of goals regarding safety.There are large differences between industries. However, differences between the hierarchal layers of an organization are limited. Questions concerning “the number one priority is safety” and “management leads by example” scored relatively lower.In addition, it is striking how management is under the impression that the topic of safety has been structurally part of a diverse range of meetings, whilst operational employees state the contrary (management 4.3 versus operational staff 2.5).

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

Average

Autom

otive

High Tech

Oil & G

as

Energy

Food

Agricultu

re

Managem

ent

Sta� m

embers

Manager/s

uperviso

r

Operatio

nal em

ployee

Figure 7: The People & Culture statements scoresNB. Guide: 1= strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree

5,0

4,5

4,0

3,5

3,0

2,5

2,0

1,5

1,0

Average

Autom

otive

High Tech

Oil & G

as

Energy

Food

Agricultu

re

Managem

ent

Sta� m

embers

Manager/s

uperviso

r

Operatio

nal em

ployee


Whilst the general scores for the statements show mildly positive scores the answers to the questions concerning ambition and challenges show a clear intent: organizations are not satisfied and wish to rapidly make true changes when it comes to safety.

It is worthy to mention that the majority of the expressed ambitions tackle the soft side of the business: awareness, collective responsibility, ownership, reminding one another, culture, and attitude and behavior. Additionally, specific ambitions are mentioned such as more/better safety audits, increasing the number of suggestions for improvements, realizing zero fatal casualties, and a 100% documentation of risks and incidents. The to-be-taken actions are thus clear.

The mentioned obstacles preventing the realization of the safety goals are of significant importance and, surprisingly, of a homogeneous nature. These challenges can mainly be seen in four aspects.

1. How can we increase safety as a collective responsibility?

2. How can we erode distrust and skepticism among operational staff members?

3. How can we design the procedures effective and efficient, fully “in-service of”?

4. How can we position safety so it becomes and stays top of mind?

Ambitions & Challenges


There is structurally insufficient attention for safety at work. This has resulted in an unacceptable number of accidents, and even worse, the figure has been stable for more than 10 years. An integral approach in which all facets of the cloverleaf are covered offers opportunities to break the cycle. This means effort must be placed in the processes, people & culture, infrastructure & systems, and management & organization elements.

The goals organizations envision to achieve, in order to create real progress, stem for a large part from a mindset, attitude & behavior standpoint. Obstacles preventing the realization of organizational ambitions, likewise, can be linked to these standpoints.

Atos Consulting is convinced that the proper use of technology can have a major contribution towards improvements. A few examples:

` Gaming can support the creation of awareness and behavior, in an innovative and effective manner, there where traditional training methods have been unable to.

` Data analytics can contribute towards a better understanding of cause and effect, and using signals to predict.

` Enterprise Social Networks (ESN) can contribute towards establishing and maintaining a dialog, as well as nourishing collective responsibility and providing a platform for the conception of ideas.

` Mobility solutions can contribute by providing a constant flow of information, as well as encouraging and simplifying the process of the “100% documenting” goal.

` Geofencing and incident reporting are further technical opportunities available today to drive safety at work

These, and other technological solutions, are examples of Technology Enabled Culture Change. However, where it starts is an organization-wide mentality aimed at truly addressing safety. The Life Savers Game (www.lifesaversgame.nl) created for the rail industry in The Netherlands is a successful example which showcases the mentioned required organizational change.

Summarizing & Future

www.lifesaversgame.nl


Atos Consulting would like to thank the respondents for completing the questionnaire. The research team consists out of Roel Zuidema, Ruthger Fichtinger, Jesse Thewissen, and Bas Stroeken.

Inspired by the research and complemented with his former experiences and observations, Bas Stroeken presented Safety at Work during an unofficial TEDx TALK at an internal Atos Consulting gathering last March. His presentation focused on the shared responsibility in decreasing the alarming number of casualties of work related accidents in the Netherlands. A video replay of the talk is available on www.atosconsulting.nl. Click on the ‘Veilig werken? Game on! logo to access the video image. The video is titled: “Safety at work: a wake-up call”.

Recognitions

www.atosconsulting.nl


The statements used in the questionnaire based on the cloverleaf are:

Management & Organization1. The organization has a clear and

stimulating vision about safety at work. 2. At least once a month, safety is

discussed during operational, tactical and strategic meetings.

3. Safety has a number one priority even when it has a negative impact on planning or budgeting.

4. When it comes to safety at work, the board and Management Team of our organization ‘leads by example’.

5. We expect the same safety standards from external as from internal personnel.

Systems & Infrastructure1. It is clear from our internal

communication that safety at work is a conscious topic with top priority.

2. Employees (internal and external) are required to participate in a minimum number of safety trainings.

3. Coaches/agents are active within our organization and continuously stimulate dialog about safety.

4. All necessary resources are provided in order to facilitate safety at work.

5. Our systems enable reporting safety risks and incidents.

People & Culture1. Communication concerning safety is tailored

to the needs and role of the receiving party.2. Irrespective of position, employees

feel empowered to remind their colleagues about safety hazards.

3. Not complying to our organization’s safety regulations is always penalized with a warning.

4. We are a learning organization and continuously implement improvements that have been suggested through evaluations or employees’ ideas.

5. Irrespective of position, each employee feels empowered to shut down the (production) process in the event of an unsafe situation.

Processes1. Our organization has a clear and

realistic approach towards the realization of our vision for safety.

2. Every employee of our organization is aware of his or her role in maintaining safety standards.

3. Monetary funds are instantly made available in the event of necessary safety improvements.

4. Our organization’s incident monitoring process (identify, reporting, elaborate, inform, implement, control) works well.

5. All employees are aware of the steps within the incident monitoring process.

Questionnaire

atosconsulting.nlAtos, the Atos logo, Atos Consulting, Atos Worldgrid, Worldline, BlueKiwi, Bull, Canopy the Open Cloud Company, Yunano, Zero Email, Zero Email Certified and The Zero Email Company are registered trademarks of the Atos group. May 2015 © 2015 Atos

Atos SE (Societas Europaea) is a leader in digital services with 2014 pro forma annual revenue of €9,1 billion and 86,000 employees in 66 countries. Serving a global client base, the Group provides Consulting & Systems Integra-tion services, Managed Services & BPO, Cloud operations, Big Data & Security solutions, as well as transactional services through Worldline, the European leader in the payments and transac-tional services industry. With its deep technol-ogy expertise and industry knowledge, the Group works with clients across different busi-ness sectors: Defence, Financial Services, Health, Manufacturing, Media & Utilities, Public Sector, Retail, Telecommunications and Transportation.

Atos is focused on business technology that powers progress and helps organizations to create their firm of the future. The Group is the Worldwide Information Technology Partner for the Olympic & Paralympic Games and is listed on the Euronext Paris market. Atos operates under the brands Atos, Atos Consulting, Atos Worldgrid, Bull, Canopy, and Worldline. For more information, visit: atos.net.

About Atos

For more information:Bas Stroeken - Safety at Work/Gaming [email protected]: +31 6 5115 1015

whitepaper safety at work

Documents