2. 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
3. 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.
4. 4 Safety at work Index 2015
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)
5. 5Safety at work Index 2015
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%
Fully
disagree
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
otiveHigh
Tech
O
il&
Gas
Energy
FoodAgriculture
M
anagem
ent
Staff
m
em
bers
M
anager/supervisor
O
perationalem
ployee
6. 6 Safety at work Index 2015
Processes
The 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 scores
NB. Guide: 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree
Figure 6: The Systems & Infrastructure statements scores
NB. 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
otiveHigh
Tech
O
il&
Gas
Energy
FoodAgriculture
M
anagem
ent
Staff
m
em
bers
M
anager/supervisor
O
perationalem
ployee
Systems & Infrastructure
The 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
otiveHigh
Tech
O
il&
Gas
Energy
FoodAgriculture
M
anagem
ent
Staff
m
em
bers
M
anager/supervisor
O
perationalem
ployee
7. 7Safety at work Index 2015
Figure 8: The Management & Organization statements scores
NB. Guide: 1= strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = neutral; 4 = agree; 5 = strongly agree
People & Culture
The 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 &
Organization
The 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
otiveHigh
Tech
O
il&
Gas
Energy
FoodAgriculture
M
anagem
ent
Staff
m
em
bers
M
anager/supervisor
O
perationalem
ployee
Figure 7: The People & Culture statements scores
NB. 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
otiveHigh
Tech
O
il&
Gas
Energy
FoodAgriculture
M
anagem
ent
Staff
m
em
bers
M
anager/supervisor
O
perationalem
ployee
8. 8 Safety at work Index 2015
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
9. 9Safety at work Index 2015
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
10. 10 Safety at work Index 2015
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
11. 11Safety at work Index 2015
The statements used in the questionnaire
based on the cloverleaf are:
Management &
Organization
1. 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 & Infrastructure
1. 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 & Culture
1. 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.
Processes
1. 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
