Behaviour-Based Safety: Panacea or Pariah?
Behaviour-Based Safety: Panacea or Pariah?
Student: Darren Hill
ID No: 739117-X
Course: Critical Thinking
Assessment: 1
School of Architecture and Construction
University of Greenwich
Year: 2013
Submission Date: 7th January
Tutor: Kostis Evaggelinos
Introduction
Ever since Komaki et al (1978) demonstrated improvements in safety performance of 22-26% by using behavioural modification techniques there has been a growing level of interest in behavioural-based safety (BBS) initiatives Fleming & Lardner (2002). Initiatives such as DuPont’s Safety Training Observation Programme (DuPont) and JMJ Associates Incident and Injury Free Programme (JMJ Associates) have sought to improve safety performance by implementing BBS initiatives.
The reception received by these initiatives has been varied from some Trade Unions taking the view that “Behavioural safety is based on the wrong premise” (Trades Union Congress, 2010) to a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report stating that “Promoting safe behaviour at work is a critical part of the management of health and safety” (Fleming & Lardner, p1).
The purpose of this paper is to review a sample of the literature available on the topic, evaluate if these wide-ranging views can be reconciled and to determine if BBS is the answer to the accident problem or if more work is needed in other areas. It will draw conclusions and recommend areas for improvement if necessary.
Why BBS?
The working environment, particularly in the western world, has become a much safer place to work over the last 100 years ago. However, there is an underlying level of accidents that has remained relatively constant over the last 10-20 years (HSE). This is despite increased regulation, improved working conditions and changes to the types of work undertaken.
A number of accident investigations have demonstrated a human element to these accidents (Hale, 2000). The reasoning behind BBS is that by changing
Student: Darren Hill
ID No: 739117-X
Course: Critical Thinking
Assessment: 1
School of Architecture and Construction
University of Greenwich
Year: 2013
Submission Date: 7th January
Tutor: Kostis Evaggelinos
Introduction
Ever since Komaki et al (1978) demonstrated improvements in safety performance of 22-26% by using behavioural modification techniques there has been a growing level of interest in behavioural-based safety (BBS) initiatives Fleming & Lardner (2002). Initiatives such as DuPont’s Safety Training Observation Programme (DuPont) and JMJ Associates Incident and Injury Free Programme (JMJ Associates) have sought to improve safety performance by implementing BBS initiatives.
The reception received by these initiatives has been varied from some Trade Unions taking the view that “Behavioural safety is based on the wrong premise” (Trades Union Congress, 2010) to a Health and Safety Executive (HSE) report stating that “Promoting safe behaviour at work is a critical part of the management of health and safety” (Fleming & Lardner, p1).
The purpose of this paper is to review a sample of the literature available on the topic, evaluate if these wide-ranging views can be reconciled and to determine if BBS is the answer to the accident problem or if more work is needed in other areas. It will draw conclusions and recommend areas for improvement if necessary.
Why BBS?
The working environment, particularly in the western world, has become a much safer place to work over the last 100 years ago. However, there is an underlying level of accidents that has remained relatively constant over the last 10-20 years (HSE). This is despite increased regulation, improved working conditions and changes to the types of work undertaken.
A number of accident investigations have demonstrated a human element to these accidents (Hale, 2000). The reasoning behind BBS is that by changing
References: Anderson, M. (2005). Behavioural Safety and Major Accident Hazards: Magic Bullet or Shot in the Dark? Process Safety and Environmental Protection , 83 (B2), 109-116. Cox, S., & Jones, B. (2006). Behavioural Safety and Accident Prevention. Short-term 'Fad ' or Sustainable 'Fix '? Process Safety and Environmental Protectin , 84 (B3), 164-170. Cox, S., Jones, B., & Rycraft, H. (2004). Behavioural approaches to safety management within UK reactor plants. Safety Science , 42, 825-839. DeJoy, D. M. (2005). Behaviour change versus culture change: Divergent approaches to managing workplace safety. Safety Science , 43, 105-129. DuPont. (n.d.). DuPont STOP . Retrieved January 5, 2013, from Du Pont Sustainable Solutions: www.training.dupont.co.uk/dupont-stop Fleming, M., & Lardner, R Hopkins, A. (2006). What are we to make of safe behaviour programs? Safety Science , 44, 583-597. HSE. (n.d.). Index of Data Tables. Retrieved January 3, 2013, from HSE : www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/history/histinj.xls JMJ Associates Komaki, J., Barwick, K., & Scott, L. (1978). A behavioural approach to occupational safety: Pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant. Journal of Applied Psychology , 63 (4), 434-445. Lees, H., & Austin, J. (2011). The case for behaviour-based safety in construction. Management, Procurement and Law. 164, pp. 3-8. Institute of Civil Engineers. Trades Union Congress. (2010, May 17). Behavioural Safety. Retrieved January 4, 2013, from TUC: www.tuc.org.uk/workplace/tuc-17940-f0.cfm