Environmental conditions for safety work - Theoretical foundations

Abstract This paper reviews literature on environmental conditions for safety work. By “environmental conditions for safety work”, we refer to conditions that influence the opportunities an organisation, organisational unit, group, or individual has to control the risk of major accidents and working environment risk. The purpose of the review was to document how international safety science literature uses “environmental conditions” or synonymous concepts, to help build a common conceptualisation of environmental conditions for safety work, and to link environmental conditions to safety work and risks. We did not find a uniform and systematic approach to environmental conditions for safety work in the literature. We therefore turned to a broader range of organisational research literature, where we found a diversity of complementary answers to our research question aimed at investigating the ways in which environmental conditions may constrain or facilitate safety work and thus influence risks. Due to the diversity of these theoretical resources, we have refrained from trying to reduce them to a single model. Our conceptualisation of environmental conditions includes definitions, the “sender–receiver” metaphor, and a selection of theoretical resources. The “sender–receiver” metaphor may be used as a starting point for exploring the ways in which some actors influence the environmental conditions of other actors, and how actors may resist, co-create or re-create the environmental conditions for their own safety work.

[1]  B. Turner.  Man Made Disasters , 1995 .

[2]  K. Weick.  FROM SENSEMAKING IN ORGANIZATIONS , 2021, The New Economic Sociology.

[3]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  What context features might be important determinants of the effectiveness of patient safety practice interventions? , 2011, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[4]  Clive Smallman,et al.  The contemporary British workplace: a safer and healthier place? , 2006 .

[5]  Andrew Hopkins,et al.  Lessons from Longford: The ESSO Gas Plant Explosion , 2000 .

[6]  Trevor Kletz,et al.  Learning from Accidents , 2001 .

[7]  Richard Johnstone,et al.  OHS Regulation for a Changing World of Work , 2004 .

[8]  Stewart Clegg,et al.  Frameworks of power , 1989 .

[9]  Andrew Hopkins,et al.  Failure to Learn: The BP Texas City Refinery Disaster , 2008 .

[10]  G. Johns.  In praise of context , 2001 .

[11]  S. Clegg,et al.  Power and Organizations , 2006 .

[12]  Jan Erik Vinnem,et al.  Safety, economic incentives and insurance in the Norwegian petroleum industry , 2008, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf..

[13]  James T. Reason,et al.  Managing the risks of organizational accidents , 1997 .

[14]  Robert N. Stern,et al.  The External Control of Organizations: A Resource Dependence Perspective. , 1979 .

[15]  W. Haddon,et al.  On the escape of tigers: an ecologic note. , 1970, American journal of public health and the nation's health.

[16]  J. Alexander,et al.  Images of Organization , 1988 .

[17]  Marie-Laure Djelic,et al.  Transnational Governance: Institutional Dynamics of Regulation , 2008 .

[18]  Y. Fried,et al.  Location, location, location: contextualizing organizational research* , 2001 .

[19]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Barriers And Accident Prevention , 2004 .

[20]  E. Hollnagel.  The Etto Principle: Efficiency-Thoroughness Trade-Off: Why Things That Go Right Sometimes Go Wrong , 2009 .

[21]  J. Pfeffer,et al.  The External Control of Organizations. , 1978 .

[22]  K. Eisenhardt.  Agency Theory: An Assessment and Review , 1989 .

[23]  Petter Osmundsen,et al.  Design of drilling contracts—Economic incentives and safety issues , 2006 .

[24]  Karl E. Weick,et al.  Managing the unexpected: resilient performance in an age of uncertainty, second edition , 2007 .

[25]  Gordon D. Cumming.  A Resource Dependence Perspective , 2009 .

[26]  E. N. Corlett,et al.  Handbook of human reliability analysis with emphasis on nuclear power plant applications: A.D. Swain and H.E. Guttmann Draft report for interim use and comment. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, US Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555, pp 440 , 1981 .

[27]  W. Starbuck,et al.  Organization at the Limit , 2005 .

[28]  Terrence E. Deal,et al.  Modern Approaches to Understanding and Managing Organizations , 1984 .

[29]  M. Quinlan,et al.  Statutory Occupational Health and Safety Workplace Arrangements for the Modern Labour Market , 2005 .

[30]  Jens Rasmussen,et al.  Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem , 1997 .

[31]  Ragnar Rosness,et al.  A contingency model of decision-making involving risk of accidental loss. , 2009 .

[32]  Jacques Leplat,et al.  Hollnagel, E. (2009). The ETTO Principle: Efficiency - Thoroughness Trade - Off. Why things that go right sometimes go wrong? . Farnham (U.K.): Ashgate , 2009 .

[33]  R. Kaplan,et al.  The balanced scorecard--measures that drive performance. , 2015, Harvard business review.

[34]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[35]  T. Laporte,et al.  Working in Practice But Not in Theory: Theoretical Challenges of “High-Reliability Organizations” , 1991 .

[36]  Kaveh G Shojania,et al.  Tell me about the context, and more , 2011, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[37]  Peter J Pronovost,et al.  Navigating adaptive challenges in quality improvement , 2011, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[38]  S. Lemkowitz,et al.  New trends in accident prevention due to the changing world of work , 2002 .

[39]  Mark H. Lytle,et al.  Oil and Ideology: The Cultural Creation of the American Petroleum Industry , 2000 .

[40]  Trevor Kletz.  Still Going Wrong , 2009 .

[41]  Joel Cutcher-Gershenfeld,et al.  Engineering resilience into safety-critical systems , 2012 .

[42]  T. L. Porte,et al.  A Rejoinder to Perrow , 1994 .