A+A 18-21 October 2011Düsseldorf, Germany ILO ... · with ISSA. Safetyfirst HOCHTIEF Solutions AG;...

0Safety first

Promoting a Preventive Safety and Health Culture:

Differences between work cultures Internal company comparison between Germany

and the UK; Development of measures

Presentation – Dr. Oliver Polanz; Head of Occupational Safety, Health and

Environmental Protection Center; HOCHTIEF Solutions AG, Germany

A+A 18-21 October 2011Düsseldorf, Germany

ILO International OSH Conference in Cooperation

with ISSA

1Safety first HOCHTIEF Solutions AG; OSHEP Center

Starting position

� Mutual collaboration on several projects at the German and UK Branches

� Evidence emerges of differences in occupational safety cultures

� Mutual collaboration between German and UK safety experts on an occupational

safety project

� Development of a catalogue of measures to align the two cultures


Comparison of statutory norms and management systems

� European statutory norms apply equally in both countries

� Both HOCHTIEF Solutions AG Branches use the same, integrated management

system (Management Manual)

� Some of the HOCHTIEF Solutions AG Branches in Germany are SCC-certified

� Some of the HOCHTIEF Solutions AG Branches in the UK are OHSAS-certified

� Comparison of SCC and OHSAS reveals that there are few differences between the

two systems


Comparison of accident figures #1/2

� The so-called accident frequency rate (AFR) was used as the basis for an internal

comparison of accident figures

�

� The comparison shows a clear difference in AFR results

610workedhoursof Numberaccidentse)(reportablof Number

AFR ××××====


European comparison of social security systems

� Social security systems in Europe are very divergent

� In part, no continued payment of wages for first 3-5 days in event of illness or

accident

� In part, liability after occupational accident lies with employer (e.g. UK)

� In part, social security systems accept all costs for treatment and continued wage

payment (e.g. Poland, Austria, Germany)


Comparison of accident figures #2/2

� Comparison of HOCHTIEF Solutions AG accident figures with the social security

systems

� Correlation between services provided by the social security systems, the number of

reportable occupational accidents and accident-related lost time

• The more services provided by the social security system, the greater the number

of recorded accidents


Impact of different social security systems on occupational safety in

practice #1/2

Germany:

� Employer’s liability borne by statutory accident insurer (UVT)

� Financial responsibility for occupational accidents is notionally transferred

to the accident insurers

� Significantly better therapy through UVT than through health insurers

� Treatment of accident victims by doctor outside the statutory budget

� Creation of stand-alone law by the UVT since 1869

• Detailed law with rules detailed in depth in accident prevention

regulations

• Deregulation of occupational safety since 1996 with opaque depth of

regulation



practice #2/2

UK:

� Employer bears responsibility for occupational accidents

• Private liability insurers may cancel cover in case of loss

• In part, insurance after occupational accident may no longer be possible

• In part, only companies with valid liability cover for occupational

accidents can be awarded public-sector contracts

� Less detailed set of regulations

• Companies obliged to apply European statutory norms in practice-

oriented procedures following a risk assessment

• Development of process-oriented safety procedures



practice—summary #1/2

Germany:

� Predominantly “thinking by numbers”

• “Tell me what I should do”

• “Where’s that written down?”

• “Thats not my responsibility”

� Largely workplace-related thinking

� Occupational safety frequently seen as an external function, not as an integrated

process as part of work. Institutionalisation of occupational safety.

� No monetary value placed on occupational safety in area of construction



practice—summary #2/2

UK:

� Risk-oriented thinking

� Occupational safety as an executive responsibility

� Involvement in processes

� Occupational safety also has a monetary value in the construction sector and is paid

for by the client


Consequences for motivating occuaptional safety in the German

construction industry

� Occupational safety is an executive responsibility

� Occupational safety must be an integral part of all processes

� Occupational safety must be taken seriously and put into practice by all employees

� Occupational safety must be understood as a social responsiblity and an economic

factor

� All companies involved in the given construction job must be integrated into a single

culture


Development of a Safety Culture

The Safety Maturity Model - Jez Haskins

Missing executive function

Instinctive occupational

safety

Executive responsibility

Regulations & standards

Fear & blame

Personal involvement

Internalised standards

Good occupational safety

habits & experienced

practice

Involvement of everyone

Pride in the safety culture

Visible safety culture

The others

Me

Us

No. of occupational accidents

reactive dependent independent interdependent


What is a Safety Maturity Model

� A system and a measuring tool

� Assumptions and findings

� Not a diagnostic tool

� Considers current assumptions and modes of behaviour

� Enables further discussions

� Two perspectives for advancing safety development

� Greater engagement with safety issues amongst a company’s employees

� Further-reaching system with regard to attitudes, values, convictions and visible

signs of organisation


Detailed Development of the Safety Culture

Developing safety culture

Acceptance of executive

responsibility for a safety

culture

Integration of employees

Cooperation, employee

involvement

Continuous review and

further development

Development of a safety culture

Recognition of the

importance of executive

responsibility, development of

personal responsibility

The motivation of all

employees, the development

of a participatory culture and

an obligation for all to continue

to develop thinking about safety


Summary, next steps

Focus more sharply on risk assessment

� Away from thinking by numbers; move toward risk-oriented thinking

� Process-oriented tracking of implementation of measures

� From the greater whole to activity, more integration and obligation of local

employees

Project preparation/Procurement

� Greater involvement of occupational safety personnel in work preparation and

coordination with Procurement


Summary, next steps

Standardise safety and health protection coordination

� Greater involvement in planning phase

� More attention to comments by those responsible

� Strengthen competences and responsibilities of the SiGeKo (Health & Safety

Committee)

Creation of a template European occupational safety manual

� Company-wide use of manual

� Strengthen harmonised occupational safety philosophy in Europe


Summary, next steps

� Motivate workforce to greater awareness of occupational safety

• Training of managers in areas of responsibility and liability

• Ongoing brief instruction for operational employees

� Development of Best Practice examples and transfer to other construction areas, e.g.

construction sites

� Transfer of findings to other construction sites

� Ongoing development of occupational safety culture


Summary, key figures

Group of people which should be recorded

� Own employees

� Leasing (all employees from the leasing sector, who work for that company)

� Subcontractor (all employees of the subcontractor)

� Consortium/Joint Venture employees (all employees of consortium and Joint

Venture partners who work in a genuine/pseudo consortium)



Specification of Recordable Accidents

� Accidents with a limited ability to work

� Accidents with a lost time of minimum 1 calendar day and recordables

� Accidents with a lost time of more than 3 calendar days

� Fatal accidents (death within 180 days)

� First aid cases



Specification of the lost time to be recorded

� Lost time will be counted according to calendar days

� The absence from normal duties implies inactive days. If the casualty occupies a

reduced-duty job, the lost time has to be counted until normal duties are resumed

� If the lost time exceeds 180 calendar days they will be capped and set at 180 inactive

days

� Fatal accidents with 180 days lost time will be recorded



Key figures that should at least be calculated are

� Accident frequency rate (AFR)

� Accident severity rate (SR)

All key figures should be split into:

� Own employees

� Subcontractors incl. leasing employees (contract with company)

� Consortium partner/JV partner

610hoursworkedof No.

accidentsof No.AFR ×=

610hoursworkingof No.

accidenttoduedayslostof No.SR ×=



In addition to the calculated key figures some incidents should be

documented and probably be analysed and reported:

• First aid treatments

• Medical treatments

• Near misses

Definitions have to be developed


Dr. Oliver Polanz

Opernplatz 2

45128 Essen

[email protected]

A+A 18-21 October 2011Düsseldorf, Germany ILO ... · with ISSA. Safetyfirst HOCHTIEF Solutions AG;...

Documents

Transcript of A+A 18-21 October 2011Düsseldorf, Germany ILO ... · with ISSA. Safetyfirst HOCHTIEF Solutions AG;...