2016 workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rajs20
Download by: [197.156.71.82] Date: 30 April 2016, At: 01:22
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and
Development
ISSN: 2042-1338 (Print) 2042-1346 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rajs20
Workplace innovation influence on occupational
safety and health
Kassu Jilcha, Daniel Kitaw & Birhanu Beshah
To cite this article: Kassu Jilcha, Daniel Kitaw & Birhanu Beshah (2016) Workplace innovation
influence on occupational safety and health, African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation
and Development, 8:1, 33-42, DOI: 10.1080/20421338.2015.1128044
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2015.1128044
Published online: 29 Apr 2016.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data

African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development is co-published by Taylor & Francis and NISC (Pty) Ltd
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, 2016
Vol. 8, No. 1, 33–42, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20421338.2015.1128044
© 2016 African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development
Workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health
Kassu Jilcha*, Daniel Kitaw and Birhanu Beshah
School of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Addis Ababa Institute of Technology, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author email: jkassu@gmail.com
Innovation is an important science for the sustainable development of any country. Workplace innovation brings radical
change in the workers’ environment, thereby enhancing the profitability of companies. However, most research and
discussion of innovations are focussed on product development and/or process improvement, disregarding workplace and
service innovation. Hence, this study aims to identify gaps that exist in previous studies to recommend further research
areas related to workplace innovation influences on Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) interventions. The research was
carried out through extensive literature reviews. It is evident that the influence of workplace innovation has been neglected
in many studies despite the significance for workplace safety and health. Findings from the literature review revealed
that workplace innovation has not been properly differentiated from new product development innovation and there are
few cases of research carried out on the workplace innovation in particular. Thus, this research finding identified gaps
in workplace innovation (non-technical innovation) such as workplace organisation, workplace layout, human resource
management, top management changes, workers’ participation, policy and training. Hence, the workplace innovation
influence on OSH indicates further research that can be conducted.
Keywords: industrial relations, innovation influence, sustainable development, workplace safety and health, workplace
innovation
JEL classification: O35, J28, I19
Introduction
Occupational safety and health challenges are becoming
a global issue of industrial and service centres. One of
the methods for solving these problems is workplace
innovation. This is different from technical innovation
(scientific technologies) in which a new end product is
devised or a service development process is undertaken.
Instead, it considers non-technical innovation (supportive
technologies). Workplace innovation is defined by Pot
(2011) as the implementation of new and combined
interventions in the fields of work organisation, human
resource management and supportive technologies. It
is complementary to technological innovation. (2012)
stresses new and combined interventions, by which
new is understood as innovation and combined as a
group of measures affecting work organisation, human
resource management and supportive technologies. Thus
innovation is not a goal but a means of improving process
performance. There is a growing importance of non
technical factors for fostering economic growth implying
that technological innovation alone is not enough to
renew an organisation’s work. It requires the effort of
looking into overall process optimisation and changing the
organisational system.
The studies conducted categorised innovations into
two groups: technical and non-technical factors (Pot et
al. 2012a). For example, non-technical factors are high
performance work systems and new ways of working.
Such nontechnical innovations are considered by studies
interchangeably as organisational innovation (Hage 1999;
Lam 2004), workplace innovation (Pot 2011; Totterdill
2010), and social innovation in the workplace (Eeckelaert et
al. 2012; EU DG 2012; Pot et al. 2012b). These innovations
are neither the end products (new products or services),
nor the Research & Development expenditures. But they
deal with renewal and improvement of the deployment
of people, management, human resource, organisational
structure, primary process, marketing methods, production
methods, organisational policies, redesign, workplace
improvements and refreshment of systems.
The big problems which are not addressed in
workplace improvement are workplace innovation and
the meaning it has to the present day. Innovation was only
of new idea creation and/or new product development
process as discussed under the literature review. Hence this
literature review identifies the gaps that exist in defining
innovation and describes workplace innovation with
reference to limited researches conducted in this regard.
The general objective is, therefore, to assess the literature
and produce an integrated workplace innovation document
that helps the policymakers, decision makers on innovation
and workplace improvements as well as show the gaps
mentioned in this paper to potential researchers who can
conduct their research on these topics. In order to conduct
these research intensive literature reviews were conducted
from different secondary resources as stated under the
section of literature review.
The research paper hence reviewed and identified
the workplace innovation gap that exists in global
industries with regard to workplace safety and health.
It also examined how workplace safety is influenced by
workplace innovation, and how workplace innovation
contributes to overall workplace improvements. The
systematic review has summarised the recent scientific
evidence on the effectiveness of the innovation impact on
workplace safety and health. The review also reflected the
relationships between innovation and contributing factors
to OSH problems. The present systematic review is thus an
attempt to address the challenge and fill the gap that exists
on the relationship and impact of innovation in relation
Downloadedby[197.156.71.82]at01:2230April2016

Jilcha, Kitaw and Beshah34
to overall workplace safety and health characteristics for
limiting accidents in the work place. The central research
question that was addressed is: what effects does a
workplace innovation have on organisational workplace
safety and health performance and on overall systems?
If it has any effects, it would align with the notion from
other studies that workplace innovation might indeed be
beneficial to company performance and quality of work.
So, the research output will provide more organised
information for policy makers and for extended researches
by bringing knowledge to one point.
Research methodology
The authors carried out a desktop study using systematic
review methodology for data collection and analysis. It
is efficacious in appraising, summarising and bringing
together existing literature on OHS workplace innovation.
The review depends mainly on secondary data and
prepositional analysis of the authors. These data basically
were collected from recognised international journals
available on the website (e.g. EMERALD; Elsevier,
Science Direct, PUBMED, Omics Group open accesses
international journal materials, International Labour
Organisation (ILO), World Health Organisation (WHO)
reports and publication, etc.). These are a few international
databases of peer-reviewed and scientific journals related
to occupational health and safety. Keywords were used
in searching these relevant literature datasets sources.
The authors used words such as “occupational safety and
health in developed and developing countries, Africa
and Ethiopia”, “workplace innovation”, and “innovation
importance in manufacturing industries”. Articles related
to OSH and workplace innovation to workplace were
retrieved and downloaded several times, but almost none
were obtained on Ethiopia. More than forty (40) related
reviewed papers were found. Out of these papers, 11%
of the reviewed researches were found on OSH issues in
Ethiopia and approximately 30% of reviewed papers on
workplace innovation. The other approximately 59% of
papers were on general literature review papers related to
OSH and innovation issues in Africa and other developed
countries with global consideration. The data collected
was analysed using content analysis and the findings are
presented in this study to show the level of workplace
innovation to date. The theoretical information comes from
a large-scale survey among different websites and journal
articles produced at different times for the same purpose or
a slightly different purpose. But among the many sources
of articles reviewed, the most recent content-based findings
were considered in this literature review.
Literature review
The literature review focuses on the review of workplace
safety and health as well as workplace innovation. It has
clearly defined the workplace innovation and innovation
differences and similarities. The literature also showed the
severity of the accidents in manufacturing industries both
in developing and developed countries, highlighting the
differences they have in the attention given to accidents
and their severity.
Workplace innovation and safety
Innovation approaches
Innovation has been discussed by many researchers with
different approaches but the final conclusion brought all
ideas to a focal point as being creating new products and
services or adopting the existing technology from where
it is was developed into a new situation. Workplace
innovation, however, is being disregarded and has not
been discussed in many research findings. Innovation
can be defined as renewals, either radical (revolutionary)
or incremental (gradual), in a process (Pot et al. 2012a).
According to the literature review, workplace innovation is
the improvement of workplace systems. When we consider
workplace system improvement, it is configuring people
who work there and their work environment. These can
be categorised as people (working people, management,
human resources) and working principles (organisational
structure, processes, marketing, production, and workplace
safety).
In general, researchers define innovation as the process
of creating new ideas or adopting existing ideas from the
other sources into a new community (Ecuru, Lating, and
Trojer 2014; Trojer, Rydhagen, and Kjellqvistt 2014).
Hence, it supports the development of emerging economies
through changing the existing working environments of
the industrial sectors (OECD 2012). Thus, innovation is
indispensable for the development of any industrial sector
as it is a driver of economic growth. Since the 1960s,
studies reveal that it is known that developing countries
need to improve their innovative capacity by using
science and technology, so more effort must be put into
research & development to benefit poor countries and
people (Trojer, Rydhagen, and Kjellqvistt 2014). Trojer,
Rydhagen, and Kjellqvistt (2014) stated that serious
efforts to accomplish this have been exerted, but they
are still too few and small in relation to the size of the
problems. As Trojer, Rydhagen, and Kjellqvistt (2014) also
argued, higher education institutions have to play key roles
as knowledge providers and as intermediaries that assist
in building the ties and linkages necessary to move the
innovation system to a higher state. It is possible to say
that universities are good platforms and intermediaries for
innovation knowledge transfer. However, the education
curriculums of many developing countries have no
occupational safety and health (OSH) innovative modules
to transfer knowledge, especially in their universities.
This reduces the opportunity for workplace safety and
health concerns to bring about change in social settings.
The training of specialists other than the medical experts
for the multidisciplinary occupational health team is
much less systematically organised in most countries
(WHO 1994). This means there is no significant training
for multidisciplinary OSH management practices in
developing countries.
Developing countries need to move from
disadvantageous situations in the global economy; their
firms must identify and meet demands from global markets
but not forget about the needs of poor people (Trojer,
Rydhagen, and Kjellqvistt 2014). Morceiro, Faria, Fornari
and Gomes (2011) found in their study that stepwise
innovations are common in traditional industries with a

African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development 35
strong connection to the use of natural resources. Most
industries are use innovation as a process modification
rather than utilising it for the new product development.
The consideration of either process improvement or new
product development alone has overlooked safety of the
product and health of the employees. Manufacturing
firms ought to innovate in order to stay competitive in a
highly liberalised and open economy (Ecuru et al. 2014).
The same study finding showed that local universities
and research organisations appear not to be participating
much in formal manufacturing firms’ innovation
processes. The challenge from the perspective of firms is
fear of competition and lack of trust. If trust is exercised,
innovation can make a difference in addressing urgent
developmental challenges such as providing access to
drinking water, eradicating neglected diseases or reducing
hunger (OECD 2012). The transfer and, when necessary,
adaptation of technologies developed in developed
countries can often contribute significantly to these
goals (OECD 2012). This study indicates that although
technologies developed in developed countries can bring
significant change to developing countries, their impact on
workplace safety and health has not been studied.
Recently, companies were urged to establish research
and innovation functions to meet customer requirements
so that they can pay for products or services received with
a value added that exceeds or meets their requirements
(Gidey et al. 2014; Ralph 1997). Thus, innovative
workplace environment minimises things which detract
from the customers’ requirements. In order to obtain
quality products or services, the working environment and
ergonomic safety must be satisfactory for the employees
so that they can produce quality products/services. It is
clear that most of the companies focused on the product
(service) quality and then external customer satisfaction.
However, this could not be achieved without considering
internal customer satisfaction. These internal customers
are the company workers who produce the quality product
and /or process or deliver service. In most innovation
and production studies, the most common issues are
new product design, modification, external customer
satisfaction, waste minimisation and profit maximisation.
The issues of workplace safety and health are not well
thought-out during innovation or in consideration of
internal customer satisfaction. Therefore, during the four
innovation processes (product, process, marketing and
organisational innovations, (OECD 2005)) companies
should consider workplace safety and health as a basic
factor for the successful achievement of organisational
goals.
Workplace innovations
Workplace innovation refers to how people are deployed
in order to improve performance and also to create good
quality jobs, which might be called the mobilisation
of human resources (De Sitter 1995). The definition
of workplace innovation (WPI) is taken from Pot
(2011) as the implementation of new and combined
interventions in the fields of work organisation, human
resource management and supportive technologies. It is
complementary to technological innovation even though
it was unnoticed as being a basic workplace environment
comfort forming process. Pot et al. (2012a) and Pot (2011)
described workplace innovation as new or plain innovation
and as combined interventions or a bundle of measures
referring to work organisation, human resource
management and supportive technologies which is a
commonly used definition and widely accepted. WPI
is important because of its social, economic and labour
market impact, which is now being widely acknowledged
among many European policymakers (Totterdill 2012).
The term innovation is defined by Pot (2011) as renewal
and by Totterdill (2012) as a change leading to workplace
improvement. Renewal/change is to make alteration,
transformation or modification on the existing system to fit
the current state-of-the-art. Therefore, the concepts of both
researchers’ outcomes converge to the same concluding
central idea which carries the term improvement.
Eeckelaert et al. (2012) also conceived social
innovation as a means to combat both social and societal
challenges such as financial and economic crises,
unemployment, participation, social cohesion, and climate
change, and to increase innovation, productivity and
growth through societal innovation. Doove et al. (2014)
reported that the analysis of the European Community
Innovation Survey (CIS) indicates organisational
innovation was the only innovation type that led to
higher contemporaneous total factor productivity (TFP)
levels. But, Pot et al. (2012a) concluded that product
and process innovation only lead to higher TFP when
performed in combination with organisational innovation.
This means, as Pot et al. (2012a) remark, it is not only
WPI (social innovation) that increases TFP as Doove et
al. (2014) reported from CIS, but also a well-thought-out
product and process innovation combination is beneficial.
In Ramstad’s (2008) study, the main performance driver
is staff participation. As this study confirms, if the staff
participation is a performance driver, it is necessary to
consider workplace innovation in line with comforts
that the staff need and which motivate them to perform
productively and healthily.
Empirical findings suggest that technological
innovation accounts for 25% of the success in radical
innovation, whereas workplace innovation accounts for
75% of success (Volberda Vanden Bosch, and Jansen 2006
cited in Pot and Koningsveld 2009; Jansen et al. 2011
cited in Pot et al. 2012a). However, with such evidence
of the impact of WPI on performance results, it remains
remarkable that so few companies are investing in WPI.
Therefore, more focus on WPI practice and investing
knowledge and finance to see the impact it has on
improving productivity levels is needed. Thus, WPI results
in “active work situations” where in workplaces and jobs,
workers have sufficient autonomy to control their work
demands combined with a more discretionary capacity for
learning and problem-solving.
Pot (2011)makes a distinction as work organisation
and human resource management are related to high
performance work systems and supportive technologies
focuses on application of IT (automation) in which they
are drivers behind both quality of work and performance
of the organisation. In general, WPIs are strategy induced

and participatory adopted changes in an organisation’s
practice of managing, organising and deploying human
and non-human resources that lead to simultaneously
improved organisational performance and quality of
working life (Eeckelaert et al. 2012). As most of the
studies disclosed, it includes aspects of management
(absorption of external knowledge), flexible organisation,
working smarter, continuous development of skills and
competences, networking between organisations and
the modernisation of labour relations (including human
resource management) and industrial relations (Totterdill
2010; Totterdill et al. 2009; Pot 2012). It is not directed at
and cannot be expected to have direct effects on diseases,
injuries, absenteeism and accidents, although it might help
indirectly.
Research indicates that through WPI a simultaneous
improvement in quality of working life and productivity
is possible, in particular in projects with strong employee
participation (Eeckelaert et al. 2012; Ramstad 2009).
Ramstad (2009) concluded in his study that companies
exhibiting high levels of workplace innovation and human
performance are thought to have a better quality of working
life. Figure 1 clearly shows that how WPI measures the
influence of work organisation, labour relations and
network relations resulting in improved organisational
performance and better use and development of human
talents.
WPI is also related to the development and
implementation of coherent interventions in the areas of
work organisation, control structure and employability
of staff (De Sitter 1995). Eeckelaert et al. (2012) in their
study also showed that WPI areas dealt with the design
of the organisation, the design of management tasks, and
the design of jobs with the objective of simultaneous
improvement of organisational performance and quality
of working life. It therefore affects not only the internal
functions of an organisation (work organisation, labour
relations) but also the external functions (network
relations), and in turn WPIs will be affected by
environmental flux (Eeckelaert et al. 2012). It does not
cover the whole range of occupational safety and health
(OSH) topics and OSH performance, but it does include
low stress risks, high job autonomy, lower physical
workload, continuous development of competences
and better labour relations (Pot and Koningsveld 2009;
Ramstad 2009; Westgaard and Winkel 2011). The cost
factor is also important for improving quality of working
life in those countries where economic incentives improve
OSH (Eeckelaert et al. 2010). This WPI model lacks
the consideration of management, knowledge gaining,
physical aspects, biological factors and other external
workplace quality influencing factors.
Workplace safety and health
Workplace safety refers to the working environment
comfort for employees including, but not limited to,
applicability of working methods for the recommended
operation, reliability of machine design, controllability
of machine operation, illumination, noise reduction,
chemical control and other hazardous issues (WHO 2002).
Workplace health refers to the wellbeing of employees
that protects workers from any workplace accidents
in any circumstance (Pot 2012). Occupational safety
and health (OSH) is generally defined as the science of
the anticipation, recognition, evaluation and control of
hazards arising in or from the workplace that could impair
the health and well-being of workers, taking into account
the possible impact on the surrounding communities and
the general environment (Alli 2008). OSH problems
are not only problems of individual workers, but also
problems relating to the healthiness and safety of work
and the working environment, the organisation of work,
the management philosophy of the enterprise and the
workplace as a whole. Therefore, it requires innovative
approaches from workplaces. Many organisations in
developing countries, especially in Africa, have little
concern for an improved and conducive workplace
environment. For instance, the study conducted in Tago,
Nigeria found that the nature of the work environment
and the experience of the work environment have a great
influence on low productivity (Taiwo 2010). The same
study, from questionnaire responses, found out that factors
that improved productivity were high pay, a conducive
and better work environment, and training development.
Furthermore, the research revealed that a poor work
environment, less pay, weak conducive and weak work
environments and less experience, together with stress,
tiredness, pain, boredom, demotivation and unhappiness,
Workplace innovation
Measures
Work organisation
Improved organisational performance, better use
and development of human talentsLabour relations
Network relation
↓
↓
↓
↓
EFFECTS
Figure 1: Review model of workplace innovation at the organizational level (Eeckelaert et al. 2012)

reduce productivity. Injuries and illnesses increase
workers’ compensation and retraining costs, absenteeism,
and faulty products. Safe environments improve employee
morale, which often leads to increased productivity and
better service. On the other hand, if high employee morale
is not maintained, the problem would be extended to
families, and can cause more damage due to the increased
stress, conflict, and divorce associated with occupational
injury and illness.
Although the positive impact of healthy workplaces on
growth is well known, some companies, small enterprises
and organisations are still facing challenges in adopting
preventive measures (Euro Symposium 2015; Masi et al.
2014) regarding workplace hazards. Nowadays, among
several industrial challenges, one that clearly stands out
in emerging economies is workplace safety and health
specifically. These challenges are expected to be reduced
through innovative researches and implementation of the
research output models. Thus, workplace safety and health
consideration has had less attention in developing countries
as stated and evidenced by different researches (Nuwyahid
2004). Most of a company’s focus is on t external customer
satisfaction with their product or service disregarding
worker satisfaction and working environment comfort in
economically lagging countries. Consideration of OSH has
a great impact for the development of economic growth
and organisational productivity improvement. With
workplace safety and health improvements, there is an
increase in the health and satisfaction of employees (WHO
2007). Many researchers have found that wealth means
health (Anielski 2003; Rufino and Villasor 2015).
Industrial sectors of developing economies are
facing challenges of workplace safety and health.
The problems emanate from different angles of the
workplace environment. Alli (2008) and WHO (DATE)
listed some of the problems of occupational safety and
health as psychological stress of employees, physical
body damage, socio-economic dissatisfaction, property
damage, family disorder, and severe accidents. For
example in Ethiopia, working more than 48 hours per
week, absence of health and safety training, sleeping
disorders, alcohol consumption, job dissatisfaction and
absence of protective devices were found to be significant
factors that contributed to the prevailing occupational
injuries (Yiha and Kumie 2010). Another study made
in Ethiopia found that work-related neck and shoulder
musculoskeletal disorders were high among sewing
machine operators in selected garment industries (Ararso
et al. 2014). Moreover, personal and environmental factors
were identified as the potential risk factors related to
neck and shoulder musculoskeletal disorders. In solving
these problems, one of the most important starting points
is innovative development of the workplace safety and
health improvement systematic approach. Workplace
design and hazards interventions have been identified as
barriers (Beblavý et al. 2014) in manufacturing industries
which need innovation. In this study, the barriers to
interventions of workplace safety and health were lack of
workers’ participation and less availability of resources to
implement intervention programmes (Podgórski 2015).
In emerging economies, workplace safety and health has
been overlooked in industrial development policies and
strategies. These are mostly focused on production volume
or profit, undermining the latent effect of dissatisfactory
working environments. For instance, in Ethiopia, there was
no workplace policy standing alone for the manufacturing
industries and other sectors that enforce workplace safety
and health of the employees and working equipment.
When it is focused on the workplace safety and health
it is to mean that there should be both rules of resource
utilisation and safe workplace environment for employees
where their health is considered and insured. Fair
workplaces are profitable workplaces, whether measured
in a company’s bottom line, its market share, its broader
consumer reputation, or its ability to attract and retain
workers, managers, or investors.
Workplace innovation influence on OSH
As stated in the previous sections, innovations have
the score to optimise manufacturing processes in work
organisation and develop employees’ general experience
of work. Here employers association, employer and trade
unions have a significant part to play in promoting work
organisation innovations which can provide win–win
benefits for employees and employers. Change comes
when we are working smarter, not harder Eeckelaert et al.
2012). Higher productivity goes hand in hand with better
communication and higher employability, resulting from
both a decrease in absenteeism and an increase in social
and vocational competences (Pot and Koningsveld 2009).
Figure 2 indicates that WPI empowers performance of
work organisation, and employee relationship increasing
well-being and OSH final achievement of health
condition. The intersection of OSH and WPI is the overall
improvement of well-being.
WPI and OSH are different policies with different
objectives and instruments. It should not mix up as WPI
is not directed at fewer occupational diseases or accidents
or less absenteeism but it might help. OSH policies refer
to healthy and productive jobs. Health is a value in itself.
Additionally healthy people are expected to contribute
more to productivity and innovation. Absenteeism causes
productivity loss (Pot et al. 2012b). A healthy workforce
is a prerequisite for social and economic development and
for productivity. Protecting the health of the workforce
through access to decent jobs, universally available
health services, and social health protection contributes
both to sustainable development as well as worker
productivity (WHO 2007). Hazardous working conditions
and unemployment currently contribute to a very large
avoidable burden of disease and loss of income-earning
potential (WHO 2008). In the discussions made previously,
workplace innovation contribution is remarkable. This
results in improved working environments.
Discussion and results
Innovations in the workplace, with low-cost and locally
relevant solutions, have been initiated in several
developing countries (Kawakami et al. 1999; Kogi 1998;
Koplan 1996). However, occupational health remains
neglected in most developing countries under the pressure
of devastating social, economic, and political challenges

(Ahasan & Partanen 2001; O’Neill 2000). This is because
most developing countries are running through exclusive
strategies than having inclusive strategy. Competitiveness
is not being achieved without innovation, technology and
science aggregation in workplace safety and health problem
improvement as one of the typical business process. One
of the methods to make a business organisation globally
competitive is that an organisational innovation among the
four categories of innovation (OECD 2005). Researches
windup their results that in organisational innovation, it is
possible to see into workplace arrangement, attractiveness
and the employees satisfaction with the work they are
engaged. The convenient workplace environment cannot
be achieved unless the new creativity or adoption of new
working environment arrangement is familiarised.
The consideration of workplace safety and health
in manufacturing industries of developing countries,
are frustrating employees and resulted in productivity
reduction. In other sides, industrial development is in
its infant stage in developing countries. Even the infant
existing industries are not utilising the workplace resources
properly to be competitive in global market. For example,
from experience, in Ethiopian manufacturing industries
are more focused on the output and end benefits of the
companies than on the employees’ health and safety
concerns. In most of manufacturing industries, it is not their
concern to take care of their employees’wellbeing whatever
the challenges degree is. As a result of this negligence, they
exercise philosophies that if an employee faces an accident,
hire another new one. Of course, governmental industries
attempt to exercise workplace safety and health policies and
legislations to be available in their organisation. However,
there are no studies those show the method how to improve
working condition of their industrial environment. There
are poor research culture and innovation concerns. There
is large gaps in inter-firm collaboration for innovation
and organisational learning in developing countries (Dyer
and Singh 1998 cited in Martínez-Sánchez, Vela-Jiménez,
Pérez-Pérez, and de-Luis-Carnicer 2008). Hence, it needs
innovation of workplace through the interactions between
internal and external flexibility within the workplace
innovation process.
In general, as it has been discussed in this study, the
following workplace innovation prominences were found.
It played a role in decreasing workforce and increasing
labour productivity; global competition and knowledge
based economy (development of competences and skills);
making new technology work through innovative work
organisation. Workplace innovation explains a larger
part of innovation success than technological innovation;
high performance work systems have positive effects on
performance outcomes (including labour productivity,
and innovation levels); diversity and equality systems
have positive effects as well; reduced employee turnover
(considered to be an indicator for employee wellbeing).
As summarised in Table 1, from the available
researches and studies workplace innovation obtained a
non-technical definition which is different from technical
definition as discussed in literature (Pot 2011). Workplace
innovation helps to improve workplace performance,
quality of working life, human resource management, and
policy issues. European countries are initiating workplace
innovation programs (Totterdill, Exton, Exton, and Sherrin
2009). EU countries previously used to implement different
OSHA guidelines and models which were presented in
individual separate techniques. But these guidelines have
not brought change to workplace safety or improved
productivity. Therefore, EU countries have considered
that workplace innovation programs are indispensable
for policymakers to improve workplace safety and
health. The study indicated that most of the research was
conducted for the European policy maker, showing that
workplace innovation has been ignored in developing
countries. Therefore, this highlights the need to conduct
future research in developing countries workplace safety
and health hazard prevention, moving from traditional
workplace safety management to modernised workplace
safety and employee health improvements.
Identified Research Gap in the Literature
This study attempted to skim recent literature related to
innovation, workplace innovation, workplace safety and
innovation influence on workplace health and safety. The
work conducted by many researchers showed that different
OSH
Workplace
innovation
HEALTH WELLBEING PERFORMANCE
Work organisation Job autonomy
HRM employability
Employment relationship Involvement
Ergonomic Comfort
Working times Working life balance
Figure 2: Overlap of OSH and workplace innovation (Eeckelaert et al. 2012)

approaches to innovation discussions were used. The term
innovation is defined as creation of a new idea, or product
or process. This definition agrees with technological
(technical) innovation. Workplace innovation is
another innovation technique which considers the non-
technical innovation that focuses on workplace design,
organisational design, design of management task, and
design of jobs to meet organisational performance and
quality of working life. It is affected by environmental flux
and is complementary to technological innovation. This is
where many researchers have overlooked the definition of
innovation in line with workplaces and services.
Workplace innovation has been found to be an
overlooked research area especially in developing
countries. When researchers conducted technological
innovation, they would consider only the technological
Table 1: Summary of the findings focusing on Workplace Innovation
Authors Objectives Methodologies Findings
Acar, Wall, McNamee, Carney,
and Öney-Yazici 2008;
Cimermanová, 2009
Create an instructional design
framework for virtual classes
to deliver health and safety
training.
e-learning tools Learners were very satisfied
and a more interactive learning
environment created
Eeckelaert, Dhondt, Oeij, Pot,
Nicolescu, Trifu, and Webster
2012
Workplace innovation-based
human performance and quality
of working life improvement
State-of-the-art review
literature
Workplace innovation has not
been exercised by European
union countries
Pot 2011 To describe the need for
workplace innovation policies
and practices in Europe and
evaluate programs that have
already been developed
Describes the concept of
workplace innovation and
trends in society explaining
their emergence.
Evaluation of research showed
that simultaneous improvement
of performance and quality of
working life is possible under
certain
conditions such as the
participation of employees
Pot, Kraan, Oeij, Vergeer, and
Dhondt 2012
Explores the legacy from both
Member State and EU levels on
which European policymakers
and their wider stakeholders
need to build
Literature review and other
workplace innovation
experiences from south Korea,
Finland, France, Germany,
Ireland and Norway and
structured interviews used
Some potentially
promising prospects for new EU
policy initiatives were found
regarding workplace innovation
Franz, Hochgerner and Howaldt
2012; Howaldt and Schwarz
2010
Covers labour market
innovation on societal level
and workplace innovation on
organizsational level
Literature assed from different
sources
Workplace Innovation not yet
clearly defined in EU policy
Martínez-Sánchez,
Vela-Jiménez, Pérez-Pérez, and
de-Luis-Carnicer 2008
To analyze the moderator
effect of inter-organizational
cooperation in the relationship
between workplace flexibility
and innovation performance
Postal survey to a sample of
manufacturing and service
firms.
Hierarchical regression.
It was found that innovation
performance is positively
associated with internal
functional flexibility, and
negatively to external numerical
flexibility and outsourcing
Kalmi and Kauhanen 2008 Study of the effects of four
different work innovations
(self-managed teams,
information sharing, incentive
pay, and training) on
various employee outcomes
Literature, employee survey
and dataset of Finland and
comparative analysis with UK
Workplace innovations
are mainly associated with
beneficial outcomes for
employees
Yuan and Woodman 2010;
Ramstad, 2008
Examined how employees’
innovative behaviour is
explained by expectations for
such behaviour to affect job
performance (expected positive
performance outcomes) and
image inside their organizations
(expected image risks and
expected image gains)
Literature, statistical tools
for testing the outcome and
relationships that exist between
elements used
Significant effects of all three
outcome expectations on
innovative behaviour
Beblavý, Maselli, and
Martellucci 2012
Explores the extent to which
the illusive phenomenon of
workplace innovation has
pervaded workplaces in Europe
and whether it could be one
of the answers to Europe’s
long-term social and economic
challenges that stem from an
ageing workforce and the need
for more flexibility to stay
competitive.
Literature reviews and basic
data drawn from European
Working Conditions Survey
conducted, case studies,
statistical analysis
Different elements of workplace
innovation and workplace
innovation process well defined,
workplace innovation diffusion
success barriers identified as
people age, education level,
experiences, etc.

state, leaving the non-technological innovation behind.
This was continued to the end product, leaving gaps in
every innovation. It is known that when a single part is
overlooked the other parts are not done well; rather it
amplifies the error. The overlooked areas include negative
attitude from management, negative worker attitudes,
ineffective or excessive legal requirements, bureaucracy,
lack of time, lack of training, lack of economic resources,
lack of economic results, presence of geographical
delocalised activities, and lack of workers participation.
Hence consideration of workplace innovation is found to
be a core point of research required at all economic levels
to bring improvements in overall system and workplace
safety.
Concluding remarks
Innovation seems to have been considered only from the
point of view of the technical aspects of new product
development, or modification or adoption of processes
in the original product. Workplace innovation is now
considered for improving the working environment. WPI
became a recent objective of many researches in terms
of how it influences workplace safety and health of an
organisation and it is defined in terms of non-technical
innovation. Hence, this research paper attempted to
evaluate the studies conducted in relation to workplace
innovation and occupational safety and health. It has
been summarised that the relationship between WPI and
OSH is positive but OSH has a wider application than
WPI. WPI is the subset of OSH which solves part of the
problems. But it requires that organisations improve their
non-technical innovations. The definition of innovation
that many researchers were commonly accustomed to was
a new process or new product development. WPI impact
was found to improve the quality of working life and
productivity where there is strong employee participation.
Workplace innovation, which is non-technical, is
defined differently from technical innovation as the
implementation of new and combined interventions in the
fields of work organisation, human resource management
and supportive technologies. This definition gives thought
to safety of the product and health of the employees and
to benefits at the organisation level. WPI is vital because
of its social, economic and labour market impact, and is
now being widely acknowledged among many European
policymakers. Empirical findings found that technological
innovation accounts for only 25% of the success in
radical innovation, whereas WPI accounts for 75% of the
success. This is an indication that workplace innovations
are strategy induced [methods caused] and participatory
adopted changes [obtained through participation of
employees] in an organisation’s practice of managing,
organising and deploying human and non- human resources
that leads to simultaneously improved organisational
performance and improved quality of working life (Pot
2011). There are few models developed regarding WPI as
assessed by the authors from the literature survey carried
out to this end. Gaps were found in the literature indicating
that WPI models lack the consideration of management
aspects, knowledge transfer mechanisms, physical
issues, biological factors and external workplace quality
influencing factors. Some of the barriers to the diffusion
of workplace innovations are risk aversion, resistance and
lack of trust, costs of a transition towards WPI, production
sector and skills/age of workers, lack of trust from top
management towards employees, lack of information and
absence of leading by example.
In developing countries workplace safety and health
innovation receives less consideration than in developed
countries. This in turn results in boredom within the
working environment, and employees go to work merely
to sign in and receive a monthly salary rather than
focusing on significant overall organisational changes.
This is due to entirely missed workplace innovations
of labour organisation, inter-organisation collaboration,
interactions between internal and external collaborations,
industrial relations (building long-term relationships, joint
intelligence and collaborative action between policymakers,
researchers, social partners, consultants and enterprises),
shop floor autonomy, self-managing teams, renewal of
work process, satisfaction with employees’ commitment,
information-communication technology, employee
empowerment, alternative payment schemes and workplace
working environment design. Hence, the researchers call
for OSH and WPI to be placed firmly on the research
agenda of management scholars (with special reference to
developing economies), and advocate the need for greater
conceptual development, empirical studies, scientific
experimental researches, and theoretical reflections.
References
Acar, Emrah, John Wall, Frank McNamee, Mannix Carney, and
Ela Öney-Yazici. 2008. “Innovative Safety Management
Training through e-Learning.” Architectural Engineering
and Design Management 4 (3): 239–250. doi:10.3763/
aedm.2008.0085.
Ahasan, M. R., and T. Partanen. 2001. “Occupational health
and safety in the least developed countries: A simple
case of neglect.” Journal of Epidemiology 11 (2): 74–80.
doi:10.2188/jea.11.74.
Alli, B. O. 2008. Fundamental principles of occupational health
and safety. Geneva: International Labour Office (ILO).
Anielski, Mark. 2003. “The Meaning of Wealth.” ISSP Insight
newsletter. Ottawa.
Beblavý, Miroslav, Ilaria Maselli, and Elisa Martellucci. 2012.
Workplace Innovation and Technological Change. Working
paper No. 65. Centre for European Policy Studies, Brussels,
Belgium.
Cimermanová, Ivana. 2009. “E-Learning – An Alternative
to Traditional Learning?” Acta Didactica Napocensia 2:
115–26.
De Sitter, U. 1995. “Human resources mobilization: Setting the
stage for organizational innovation.” In Europe’s next step:
organizational innovation, competition and employment,
edited by L. E. Andreasen, B. Coriat, F. den Hertog and R.
Kaplinsky, 243–249. Ilford (Essex), Portland: Frank Cass.
Doove,S., J. Kok, K. Kraann, and P. Oeij. 2014. “Scale effects
in workplace innovations: Are the prevalence and effects
of workplace innovation related to firm size?” Research
Reports, reference number H201402, March 2014,
Zoetermeer, Netherlands. www.entrepreneurship-sme.eu.
Dyer, J., and H. Singh. 1998. “The relational view: Cooperative
strategy and sources of inter organizational competitive
advantage.” Academy of Management Review 23:660–679.
Ecuru, Julius, Peter O. Lating, and Lena Trojer. 2014. “Innovation
characteristics of formal manufacturing firms in Uganda.”
African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and
Development 6: 415–423.

Eeckelaert, L. Steven Dhondt, Peter Oeij, Frank Pot, Georgiana
Ioana Nicolescu, AlinaTrifu, and Jennifer Webster. 2012.
“Review of workplace innovation and its relation with
occupational safety and health.” Luxembourg: European
Agency for Safety and Health at Work: Publications Office
of the European Union.
EU DG Enterprise and Industry. 2012. “Short meeting report
supporting social innovation in the workplace.” Paper
presented at the European Commission meeting, Vlaanderen,
Actie.
Euro Symposium. 2015.” Occupational health and safety in
Europe: Fostering healthy workplaces for sustainable and
inclusive growth.” Presented at the Euro Symposium, 24
February 2015, Brussels, Belgium.
Franz, H.-W., Josef Hochgerner and Jurgen Howaldt, eds. 2012.
Challenge Social Innovation, Potentials for Business, Social
Entrepreneurs, Welfare and Civil Society 261–274. Berlin:
Springer Verlag.
Gidey E, K. Jilcha, B. Beshah, and D. Kitaw. 2014. “The plan-do-
check-act cycle of value addition.” Industrial Engineering
and Management 3: 124
Hage, J. T. 1999. “Organizational innovation and organizational
change.” Annual Review of Sociology 25 (1): 597–622.
doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.25.1.597.
Howaldt, J., and M. Schwarz. 2010. Social innovation: Concepts,
research fields and international trends. Dortmund:
Sozialforschungsstelle Dortmund.
Howaldt, J., and M. Schwarz. 2010 “Social Innovation: Concepts,
research fields and international trends, IMO international
monitoring.”: 7–21.
Kalmi, Panu, and Antti Kauhanen. 2008. “Workplace
innovations and employee outcomes: Evidence from
Finland.” Industrial Relations 47 (3): 430–459.
doi:10.1111/j.1468-232X.2008.00528.x.
Kawakami, T., J. M. Batino, and T. T. Khai. 1999. “Ergonomic
strategies for improving working conditions in some
developing countries in Asia.” Industrial Health 37 (2):
187–198. doi:10.2486/indhealth.37.187.
Kogi, K. 1998. “Collaborative field research and training in
occupational health and ergonomics.” International Journal
of Occupational and Environmental Health 4 (3): 189–195.
doi:10.1179/oeh.1998.4.3.189.
Koplan, J. P. 1996. “Hazards of cottage and small industries
in developing countries.” American Journal of Industrial
Medicine 30 (2): 123–124. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1097-
0274(199608)30:2<123::AID-AJIM1>3.0.CO;2-1.
Lam, A. 2004. “Organizational innovation.” In The Oxford
Handbook of Innovation, edited by J. Fagerberg, D.C.
Mowery, & R.R. Nelson, 115–147. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Martínez-Sánchez, Angel, María José Vela-Jiménez, Manuela
Pérez-Pérez, and Pilar de-Luis-Carnicer. 2008. “Workplace
flexibility and innovation: The moderator effect of
inter-organizational cooperation.” Personnel Review 37 (6):
647–665.
Masi, D., E. Cagno, and G. J. L. Micheli. 2014. “Developing,
Implementing and Evaluation OSH Interventions in SMEs:
A pilot Exploratory Study.” JOSE International Journal of
Safety and Ergonomics 20 (3): 385–405. doi:10.1080/10803
548.2014.11077059.
Morceiro, P., L. Faria, V. Fornari, and R. Gomes. 2011. “Why
not low-technology?” Conference Presentation 9th Globelics
Conference. 15–17 November, Buenos Aires.
Nuwyahid, Iman A. 2004. “Occupational health research in
developing countries: A partner for social justice.” American
Journal of Public Health 94 (11): 1916–1921. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.94.11.1916.
O’Neill, D. H. 2000. “Ergonomics in industrially developing
countries: Does its application differ from that in industrially
advanced countries?” Applied Ergonomics 31 (6): 631–640.
doi:10.1016/S0003-6870(00)00033-8.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2012. Innovation for Development: Discussion of
the Issues and an Overview of Work of the OECD Directorate
for Science, Technology and Industry.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). 2005. Oslo Manual Guidelines for Collecting and
Interpreting Innovation Data. A joint publication of OECD
and Eurostat.
Podgórski, D. 2015. “Measuring operational performance of
OSH management system: A demonstration of AHP- based
selection of leading key performance indicators.” Safety
Science 73:146–66. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.018.
Pot, F. 2012. “Workplace innovation to achieve
the EU2020 Strategy.” Paper presented at the
Wellbeing at Work conference, PEROSH/HSL,
Manchester, 21–23 May. http://www.perosh.eu/
european-workplace-innovation-network-euwin/.
Pot, F. D. 2011. “Workplace innovation for better jobs and
performance.” International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management 64 (4): 404–415.
doi:10.1108/17410401111123562.
Pot, F. D., and E. A. P. Koningsveld. 2009. “Quality of working
life and organizational performance: Two sides of the same
coin?” Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment &
Health 35 (6): 421–428. doi:10.5271/sjweh.1356.
Pot, F. Karolus Kraan, Peter R.A. Oeij, Robert Vergeer, and
Steven Dhondt. 2012a. “Workplace innovation and its
relations with organizational performance and employee
commitment.” E-journal Lifelong Learning in Europe, 4.
http://www.lline.fi/en/issue/42012/issue-42012
Pot, F., S. Dhondt, and P. Oeij. 2012b. “Social innovation of
work and employment.” In Challenge Social Innovation.
Potential for business, social entrepreneurship, welfare
and civil society, edited by H. W. Franz, J. Hochgerner,
and J. Howaldt, 261–274. Berlin: Springer Verlag.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-32879-4_16.
Ralph, K. 1997. The Human Side of Managing Technological
Innovation: A Collection of Readings. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Ramstad, E. 2008. “Innovation generating model – Simultaneous
development of work organization and knowledge
infrastructure.” PhD Thesis in Technology, Helsinki
University of Technology, Espoo, Finland.
Ramstad, E. 2009. “Promoting performance and the quality
of working life simultaneously.” International Journal of
Productivity and Performance Management 58 (5): 423–436.
doi:10.1108/17410400910965706.
Rufino, Cesar C., and Regina S. Villasor. 2015. “Health is
Wealth: Measuring the roles of income and spending on life
expectancy in the U.S.” De La Salle University, Manila.
Tafese, Ararso, Anisha Nega, Manay Kifle, and Wakjira Kebede.
2014. “Predictors of occupational exposure to neck and
shoulder musculoskeletal disorders among sewing machine
operators of garment industries in Ethiopia.” Science
Journal of Public Health 2:577–583. doi: 10.11648/j.
sjph.20140206.22
Taiwo, Akinyele Samuel. 2010. “The influence of work
environment on workers’ productivity: A case of selected
oil and gas industry in Lagos, Nigeria.” African Journal of
Business Management 4 (3): 299–307.
Totterdill, P. 2010. “Workplace innovation. Europe 2020’s
missing dimension.” Report of a workshop hosted by DG
Employment: Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities,
Nottingham, 23 June.
Totterdill, P. 2012. “Closing the gap between evidence based
practice and common practice? Workplace innovation and
public policy in Europe.” E-Journal Lifelong Learning in
Europe.
Totterdill, P., O. Exton, R. Exton, and J. Sherrin. 2009. Workplace
innovation policies in European countries. Nottingham:
UKWON.

Trojer, Lena, Birgitta Rydhagen, and Tomas Kjellqvistt. 2014.
“Inclusive innovation processes – Experiences from Uganda
and Tanzania. African Journal of Science, Technology,
Innovation and Development 6: 425–438.
Volberda, H. W., F. A. J. Van den Bosch, and J. J. P. Jansen.
2006. Slim managen & innovatief organiseren. Arnhem: Het
Financieele Dagblad/Eiffel.
Volberda, H., J. Jansen, M. Tempelaar, and K. Heij. 2011.
“Monitoren van socialeinnovatie: Slimmer werken,
dynamischmanagen en flexibelorganiseren.” Tijdschriftvoor
HRM 1:85110.
Westgaard, R. H., and J. Winkel. 2011. “Occupational
musculoskeletal and mental health: Significance of
rationalization and opportunities to create sustainable
production systems – A systematic review.” Applied
Ergonomics 42 (2): 261–296. doi:10.1016/j.
apergo.2010.07.002.
World Health Organization. 1994. “Global strategy on
occupational health for all: The way to health at work.”
Recommendation of the second meeting of the WHO
Collaborating Centres in Occupational Health, Beijing,
China, 11-14 October.
World Health Organization. 2002. Good Practice in Occupational
Health Services: A Contribution to Workplace Health. WHO
Regional Office for Europe.
World Health Organization. 2007. “Resolution 60.26. Workers’
health: global plan of action.” In: Sixtieth World Health
Assembly, Geneva 13-23 May.
World Health Organization. 2008. Commission on Social
Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation:
health equity through action on the social determinants
of health. Final Report of the Commission on Social
Determinants of Health. Geneva: WHO.
Yiha, Osman, and Abera Kumie. 2010. “Assessment of
occupational injuries in Tendaho agricultural development
SC, Afar regional state.” Ethiopian Journal of Health
Development 24 (3):167-174.
Yuan, Feirong, and Richard W. Woodman. 2010 “Innovative
behaviour in the workplace: The role of performance and
image outcome expectations.”Academy of Management
Journal 53 (2): 323–342.

2016 workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (16)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to 2016 workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health

Similar to 2016 workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

2016 workplace innovation influence on occupational safety and health