Improving Occupational Safety and Health in micro and small enterprises

Safety and health at work is everyone’s concern. It’s good for you. It’s good for business.
Improving Occupational Safety and Health in
micro and small enterprises (OSH experts)

http://osha.europa.eu
2
Structure of the presentation
1. The SESAME project
2. Why look at OSH in MSE?
3. Recent policy developments
4. Understanding MSEs, their owner-managers and workers
5. What works for whom and in what circumstances
6. Policy pointers and conclusions

3
1. The SESAME project (2014-2017)
4 phases:
1. ‘State of play’: critical review of the current research, new trends and challenges,
identification of knowledge gaps; focused analysis of the ESENER-2 survey
2. ‘View of the workplace’: contextualised understanding of the diversity in OSH
practices, processes and mechanisms of MSEs in Europe: 162 case studies
3. ‘Policies, strategies, instruments and tools’: collecting 44 good practices from
12 different regulatory contexts with a high learning potential and understanding
the mechanisms of regulation and governance
4. ‘Final analysis’: key findings and policy pointers for more efficient policy
programmes and support instruments
Strong EU
comparative
dimension involving 9
EU countries (BE,
DE, DK, EE, FR, IT,
SE, RO, UK)
Objectives:
- State of the current knowledge
- View from the workplace
- Effective means for improvement
Focus on Micro
and Small
Enterprises: 5 to
49 employees

4
1. The SESAME project: specific added value
 A strong consideration of the socio-economic and
regulatory context
 A prominent attention for the workers’ perspective
 An acknowledgement of the heterogeneity of MSE;
• the diversity of their practices and needs
• the consequences of these on the design requirements of
strategies and instruments

5
But MSE also have a social value!
Table: SME and large enterprises: number of enterprises, employment,
and value added in 2016 in the EU-28 non-financial business sector
Source: European Commission, Annual
Report on SME 2016-2017

6
Persisting higher risks in
MSE in the EU
 more occupational deaths
and serious injuries in
smaller companies.
 death caused by
occupational accidents is
decreasing, but this is not the
case for mortality and
morbidity caused by work
related exposures (of which
reliable sources for MSE are
lacking).
 many studies report poorer
work environment and
working conditions in MSE
Prevalence of OSH-arrangements according to
size (EU 28, source: ESENER 2014)

7
A persistent and growing structural vulnerability
 The “fissured workplace” in a global economy (Weil):
• Activities are increasingly distributed in complex value chains
and networks of contracting, outsourcing, franchising and
ownership
• MSE are prone to be situated in dependent and less powerful
positions in these networks
• Risks and costs are shifted by larger companies to the smaller,
both upstream and downstream
• This causes pressure on working conditions and growth of
precarious work
• There is a growing blurring about who precisely determines key
dimensions of the employment relation, such as wages, working
times, work environment and OSH conditions: is it the employer
or the customer?

8
The high road
 Searching and finding
niche markets
 Developing a stable
customer base
 Maintaining a committed
and loyal staff
 Adjusting to new
conditions with agility
The low road
 Working long hours
 Keeping costs down
 Agreeing to even poorer
sales conditions
 Squeezing employee
conditions
 Accepting low personal
income
Most small
firms caught
between both
The business strategy dilemma of MSE

9
3. Recent policy developments
Growing interest
• In all countries
• among policy makers; regulators,
social partners and others
• There is more knowledge on OSH
in MSE
• Key policies at the EU-level:
• The EU Strategic Framework on
Health and Safety at Work 2014–
2020
• The European Pillar of Social
Rights
• Communication of the EC on
Modernisation of the EU
Occupational Safety and Health
Legislation and Policy
• EU-OSHA priorities (OIRA,
SESAME-project)
Concerns
• Economic orthodoxy, austerity and
retreat of public government may
limit investments in regulation
• A political context favouring lifting
the regulatory burden for
businesses in view of enhancing
competitiveness
• General decline in resources for
inspection eroding public regulation
and enforcement
• Still overall low priority for MSEs in
terms of inspection and support

10
4. Better understanding MSE and OSH
The good news
 Owner-managers want to
be decent employers and
take care of employees
 They listen to peers,
customers and employees
 They are solution and
action oriented
 They are open to
achieving an ‘acceptable
work environment’
The bad news
 OSH a minor task among
many more important ones
 They underestimate risks
and overestimate their
knowledge and control
 They don’t like interference
with their business
 Systematic risk assessment
and OSH management are
difficult to implement
Good reasons for concern:
 Higher risks and less resources for controlling them
 More accidents and diseases compared to bigger firms

11
4. Better understanding MSE and OSH: the
workers’ perspective
Shared perspectives:
 Limited personal experience of
accidents/illness
 Social and spatial proximity
 Informality – ad-hoc decisions
 Shared company perspective
 Development of ‘common
sense’, difficult to refute
Shift of responsibility to
worker:
 Strong socialisation
 Failure to identify risks and how
to manage these
 Autonomy but also to choose
unsafe solutions in view of
performance and problemsolving
 This becomes normalised
practice and undermines formal
OSH management
A vulnerable workforce
• Lower education and skills
• Poor formal voice and representation
• Precarious employment relations

12
4. Better understanding MSE and OSH: typology
 On top of differences explained by size, sector and national and
regulatory contexts, MSE and their owner-managers differ
markedly in their approach to risks and risk management
Avoiders Reactors Learners
OSH Neglect React to external
pressure
Actively look for
knowledge
Risk Unavoidable Unavoidable, but
react when made
aware
Can be controlled
Responsibility Mainly with workers Shared with
workers
With the employer

13
4. Better understanding MSE and OSH: regulation
and isomorphism
 Isomorphism: the processes or structure of MSE are similar,
as the result of imitation or independent development under
similar constraints
 MSE do not operate in a vacuum but are influenced by
pressure of their environment:
− “Coercive” pressure by state and market forces
− “Normative” pressure by professional beliefs, associations,…
− “Mimetic” pressure by peers: “we do like the others”
 MSE are looking for the acceptable level of risk control:
• “How much do we have to do in order to be accepted by
workers, customers, authorities, peers and the local
community?”

14
4. Better understanding MSE and OSH: regulation
and isomorphism

15
5. What works: findings of policy analysis
 Many examples of what works well
• In terms of regulation, enforcement and support
• Mainly voluntary programmes and tools used by the small group
of learning MSE
• Often pilot programmes are terminated due to lack of
sustainable funding
 But resources in all studied countries are too limited to reach
out and make a difference to the great majority of MSE
• Most MSE do not by themselves seek out information and take
action on OSH
 Even within the limited resources, efficiency can be improved
through development and co-ordination of strategies
• But more resources are needed to achieve a widespread impact

16
5. What works: different roles and stakeholders
The role of regulation and inspections
 The main key is the standard established in regulation,
backed by enforcement through inspections
 Owner-managers pay attention to regulation
• in spite of a traditional reservation towards authorities, they like
to know what to do
 Regulation is the foundation for the activities of other actors
• social partners, peer organisations, advisory services as well
as other actors
 Frequent and personal (although costly), tangible and
respectful inspections work best

17
Trends with respect to the role of inspection
 Great heterogeneity in approaches
 Generalist (e.g. integrated with social inspection) versus
specialist approaches (only OSH)
 Trends:
• Decline in resources
• Reduction of regulatory burden aiming to enhance competitiveness
• Risk-based approaches
• Value-chain/multi-employer approaches
• Greater emphasis to advisory role of inspection
• Regulatory mixes and more coordination

18
Peer organisations (intermediaries)
 Owner-managers look to peers to assess what is both acceptable
and do-able
 Employer associations, craft guilds and business chambers have
access to and trust from small business
 Unions have access to and trust of workers and have a strong
regulatory impact through representation
• But they are not represented in MSE in most countries!
 Advice and recommendations from peers are considered legitimate
 Network groups and training activities (co)organised by peers are
more likely to be considered relevant
 The question is whether peer organisations have the necessary
funding and interest?
• In some countries peer organisations have low membership in MSE and
give priority to larger enterprises

19
Support systems (intermediaries)
 Different countries have a wide variety of support systems
• But in most countries they only reach a small fraction of MSE
• Best reached with secure long-term funding from insurance
 Advisory service & occupational health services
• Varies from compulsory affiliation to market-based and
voluntary
• Most often encounter difficulties in reaching MSE as full
payment is often too expensive
• Often substandard quality due to limited resources
 It works when it is low cost, tangible, tailored and personal

20
5. What works: design criteria
Tailor to sector and subsector
• Strongly identify with the craft
(carpenter, cleaner, hairdresser)
• General advice on risk assessment
and control which still needs
translation to the (sub)sector does
not work
• Integrate in sector structure and
culture, e.g.:
• Supply chains in construction and
cleaning
• Safe handling of chainsaws in
professional training of forestry
workers
• Patient safety in homes for the
elderly
• Fashion and risky dyes in
hairdressing
‘how to’ - not ‘how to find out’
• Risk assessment
• Possible in small enterprises –
does not work well in micro firms
• Tangible solutions
• Demonstration of solutions such
as new technology and aids (e.g.
lifting gear)
• Recommendation of solutions
which work in practice (preferably
through visits or peers)
• Digital solutions may be more
helpful with new digital
generations
• E.g. tailored apps (demonstrating
how to carry out an actual piece of
work)

21
5. What works: design criteria
Personal
• Personal outreach and
support
• Personal inspection and
advice which is tangible
and respectful
• Sector advisory systems
e.g. regional OSH reps
in Sweden and shared
service in Denmark
• Trusted persons (peers,
networks, voluntary
organisations,
accountants)
• Personal identity
• Avoid direct criticism
• Focus on future
possibilities
Low cost
• Simple, practical and low
cost solutions
• Dissemination of
tangible low cost
solutions, e.g.
ergonomic cleaning
carts
• Also through peer
application proving it is
cost-effective
• Free or low-cost support
• MSE don’t buy services
• Compulsory funding
through insurance
Relate to business goals
• Relate to the owner-
manager’s drive to be a
decent person
• “What do I have to do in
order to secure that I
and my business get a
good reputation in the
local community?”
• What do peers say and
do about OSH
• Integration in other
management priorities
• Market requirements
• Supply chain
mechanisms

22
6. Pointers: a policy strategy for OSH
improvements in micro and small enterprises
Peer organisations Support systems
Tailor to
sector and
subsector
The societal expectations for a safe and healthy work environment
(legislation)
This is how we do business here
(quality, effective and healthy)
Relate to
business
goals
Low cost
Focus on
how to do
- not how to
find out
Personal
Inspections
(enforcement)

23
6. Pointers to take away
Orchestration in practice
• Who to initiate coordination?
• Most often authorities or sector
organisations
• Who to involve?
• Authorities, employer associations,
business organisations, labour
unions, insurance companies,
advisory bodies
• Most often in a sector approach
• Shared messages and coordinated
actions key to influence
• Trust, legitimacy and raise of
acceptable risk level
• The opposite results in paralysis of
MSE
• Need to secure long-term funding
• Move from pilot project to
sustainable policies and support
Beyond traditional OSH policy
programmes
• The economic and business
environment of MSE requires new
approaches
• Such as:
• Regulation of responsibility in order
to follow the economic power
• Regulation of the supply chain
• Basic rights for precarious workers
• Community-based advisory system

24
This presentation was made by:
Monique Ramioul, HIVA-Research Institute for Work and Society, KU Leuven-Belgium
Peter Hasle, Sustainable Production, Aalborg University Copenhagen-Denmark
David Walters, Cardiff Work Environment Research Centre, Cardiff University-UK
And is presented by: #Name Presenter#

Improving Occupational Safety and Health in micro and small enterprises

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Improving Occupational Safety and Health in micro and small enterprises

Similar to Improving Occupational Safety and Health in micro and small enterprises (20)

More from European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - EU-OSHA

More from European Agency for Safety and Health at Work - EU-OSHA (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Improving Occupational Safety and Health in micro and small enterprises