INCREASED COMPLIANCE FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS

Marius Søberg

Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority

Lessons from effect assessments

• Inspections, guidance, regulations, validating body

• 4 year strategic planning periods• Priorities made on basis of risk assessments• Area of responsibility: Some 250,000

enterprises employing approx. 2.600,000 employees

Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority

Potentially years between inspections, crucial to have information on impact and effect

APPROACH TO EFFECT ASSESSMENTS

Learning by doing Experiments Share lessons and experiences

Use feedback«How can we do better next time

around?»

4

CONTENT

1.Effect assessments 2008-2012:Methodology and results

2.Effect assessments 2013-2016: A more comprehensive

approach

5

PLANNING PERIOD 2008 - 2012

•7 priority areas

•Approx. 67,000 inspections

•113 000 formal orders were given

What happened toOSH-compliance after

inspection?

Inspections Formal orders0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

EFFECT = COMPLIANCE

ControlReportingReputationKnowledge

Aim: Goal achievement / regularly

Main purpose of inspections is to enforce compliance

with OSH-regulations

Benefits

7

OSH-COMPLIANCE MEASUREMENTS 2008 / 2012

PRIORITY AREA MEASUREMENT YEAR

Musculoskeletal disorders2010 2012

Psychological strains20112012

Requirements regarding arrangement and follow-up of workers reported sick and employees with reduced working abilities

20082011

Chemical and biological exposure20092011

Accidents at work 2011

Total: Approximately 800 inspections

8

DESIGN

GROUP TREATMENT MEASUREMENT

Experimental group Inspection Follow up Inspection

Stratified Control group

  Inspection

Check points Yes No

General OSH-related

1… 1 0

2… 1 0

3… 1 0

4… 1 0

Priority area specific

5… 1 0

6… 1 0

7… 1 0

8… 1 0Sum 8 0

OSH-INDEX: 8 CHECK POINTS MEASURING COMPLIANCE

Enterprises assigned score between zero and eight following inspection

OSH-index a reasonable interpretation of

objectives for a given priority area

(OSH – Occupational safety and Health)

OSH-COMPLIANCE IN TWO GROUPS OF ENTERPRISES

Control group:Average score OSH-index

Check

points

Check

points

Check

points

Experimental group:

Average score OSH-index

Check

points

Check

points

Check

points

Statistically significant

differences in OSH-compliance?

No prior inspections

11

SUMMARY SO FAR…

OSH-indexA reasonable interpretation of the Labour Inspectorate’s aims for a priority area. Used as inspection checklist

Experimental groupRecently subject to inspection, chosen by random selection

Control groupSimilar enterprises, but never previously subject to inspection.

ComparisonOSH-average index scores. Tested for statistical significance.

MAIN FINDINGSIncreased compliance in enterprises as a result of prior inspection in all priority areas measured in 2008-2012

Increased compliance in all priority industries measured

OSH-compliance varies with size of enterprise, also after inspections

arbeidstilsynet.no/publikasjoner

13

OSH-INDEX BY PRIORITY AREA. AVERAGE SCORE

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

86.9 6.8 6.8 6.7

6.2

4.9

5.8 5.7

4.8 4.9

Experimental group Control group

N= 800

Significant differences but average scores well below maximum, also following

inspections

14

EXAMPLE: CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE

2009 20110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

5.3

4.4

76.4

Control group Experimental group

N= 100 N= 100

Statistically significant

Statistically significant

15

COMPLIANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL OSH-REQUIREMENTS

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

77%80%

55%49%

89% 89%

82%

76%

Control group Experimental group

N= 800

OSH-INDEX BY INDUSTRY. AVERAGE SCORE

Construction and building

Health and welfare Industry Wholesale and retail

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

6.2

7.3 7.1

6.1

4.1

6.1

4.6 4.7

Experimental group Control group

17

OSH-INDEX BY SIZE OF ENTERPRISE. AVERAGE SCORE

1 - 4

em

ploye

es

5 - 9

em

ploye

es

10 - 1

9 em

ploye

es

20 - 4

9 em

ploye

es

50 em

ploye

es012345678

5.7 6.2

6.8 6.9 7.4

4.4 4.5 5.2

6.1 6.3

Experimental group Control groupN= 800

18

STRATEGIC PLAN 2013 - 2016

National campaigns directed at selected industries:• Construction and building

• Cleaning services

• Transport

• Health and Social Welfare

• Accommodation and food services

2013–2016: A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH

-Increased focus on knowledge and future planning

-Increased collection of data and information

-Reduced focus on controller function

2013–2016: NEW TOOLS

-New IT support for inspections – increased data collection for analysis

-Inspector surveys / QuestBack

-Combined with follow-up inspections

Inspector surveys increasingly used for data collection and reporting

ONGOING EFFECT ASSESSMENTS

Campaigns: Cleaning Services Health and welfare

Inspection data analysisInspector surveysFollow-up inspections

Project reports in 2015 and 2016

Project reports are typically published following national

campaigns

Aim: Combine own data with external sources where possible

2014 QuestBack/

Inspector Survey

2015Follow-up

inspections «Cleaning services»

2016Re-

assessmentFAFO?

2012Base line

assessment FAFO

2014Follow-up

inspections «Buyers»

Effect

Member surveyNHO-

service

Survey data

Statistics Norway

Example: Data collection and effect assessments in Cleaning Services campaign 2013-2014

Multiple sourcesMultiple areas of interestMultiple measure points

EFFECT ASSESSMENTS IN 2015 AND 2016

Construction and buildingTransportationAccommodation and food services

Project reports in 2016 and 2017

COMMUNICATION

Pilot studiesInternal result assessments

Article Internal evaluation

s

2008-2012 Report

Available by request

LESSONS

PROS- Improved planning of

campaigns and activities

- Strengthened focus on effect and reporting in campaigns

CONS- No long term effects

measured- Mainly focus on

effect of inspections so far, not impact of labour inspection as such

Contact information:marius.soberg@arbeidstilsynet.no