Advertisement

Communication of Environmental Risks to Potentially Exposed Workers: An Experience in the Oil Industry, Bahia, Brazil

  • André Santana CostaEmail author
  • Lilian Monteiro Ferrari Viterbo
  • Diogo Guedes Vidal
  • Maria Alzira Pimenta Dinis
  • Hélder Simões
Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Studies in Systems, Decision and Control book series (SSDC, volume 277)

Abstract

Conflicts between workers and health experts and their multiple rationalities must always be considered in the risk communication process. Disagreements are frequent in understanding occupational exposure to environmental agents among stakeholders. The present study aimed to describe the evolution of differences between experts and oil industry workers in Bahia, Brazil. The Tool of Instructions to the Double was applied and the results followed over three annual assessment cycles (2017–2019). In the observed period, a reduction in the share of disagreements between workers and experts was identified: 25.2% (n = 183) to 3.1% (n = 22), representing a percent variation of 98.9% relating the understanding of occupational noise exposure based on normative classification. The relations of conflict between workers and experts and the multiple social and cultural dimensions must always be considered as an important challenge in workers’ health. Thus, the use of models encouraging dialogue and value knowledge from the experience of workers seem to be more appropriate in conflicting contexts, enhancing risk control, protection and health promotion.

Keywords

Occupational health Environmental risks Occupational hygiene 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was funded by FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, I.P. through project UID/MULTI/4546/2019.

References

  1. 1.
    European Agency for Safety and Health: Risk Perception and Risk Communication with Regard to Nanomaterials in the Workplace, Luxembourg (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Santos, M.: Communication on health and safety risk control in contemporary society: an interdisciplinary approach. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva saúde coletiva 12(5), 1375–1378 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Haas, E.J., Yorio, P.L.: Using sensemaking theory to improve risk management and risk communication: what can WeLearn? In: Selected Issues in Global Health Communications, pp. 11–26 (2018)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Castiel, L.D., Vasconcelos-Silba, P.R., Moraes, D.R.: Micromortevida Severina? A comunicação preemptiva dos riscos. Cad. Saúde Pública 33(8), 1–14 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rowan, F.: The high stakes of risk communication. Prev. Med. (Baltim) 25(1), 26–29 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beck, U.: Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity (Internet), London (1986)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delgado, M.G.: Curso de direito do trabalho [Work Law Course], 17th edn, p. 50. Editora LTDA, São Paulo (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sato, L.: The common-sense knowledge and its implication for the occupational health surveillance. Cad Saude Publica 12(4), 489–495 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vogel, L.: La actualidad del modelo obrero italiano para la lucha a favor de la salud en el trabajo (The current Italian worker model for the fight for health at work). Laboreal 12(2), 10–17 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brazilian National Standards Organization. NR5—Internal Commission on Accident Prevention (CIPA) (2011)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mattos, U.A., Freitas, N.B.: Brazilian risk map: limited applicability of a worker model. Cad Saude Publica 10(2), 251–258 (1994)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    British Standards Institute: BS OHSAS 18001:2007: Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—Requirements. BSI Global, London (2007)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oddone, I.: Reflexiones sobre el modelo obrero italiano: entrevista por Estela Ospina S [Reflections on the Italian worker model: interview by Estela Ospina S]. Rev. Sind. Salud Trab. y Medio Ambient. 5(2), 4–8 (2007)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clot, Y.: A função psicológica do trabalho (The psychological function of the work), p. 222. Vozes, Petrópolis (2006)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Filho, J.M.J.: Engajamento no trabalho, impedimentos organizacionais e adoecer: a contribuição da Ergonomia da Atividade no setor público brasileiro (Engagement at work, organizational impediments and illness: the contribution of activity ergonomics in the Brazilian public sector). Rev. Bras. Saúde Ocup. 7657(131), 98–108 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oddone, I.: Ambiente de trabalho: a luta dos trabalhadores pela saúde (Work Environment: Workers’ Struggle for Health). Hucitec, Sao Paulo (1986)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schwartz, Y.: A comunidade científica ampliada e o regime de produção de saberes (The enlarged scientific community and the system of knowledge production). Trab. Educ. 7, 38–46 (2000)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Teiger, C.: O trabalho, esse obscuro objeto da Ergonomia (The work, this obscure object of ergonomics). In: Castillo, J.J., Villena, J. (eds.) Ergonomia: conceitos e métodos, pp. 47–60. Dinalivros, Lisboa (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universidade CorporativaBahiaBrazil
  2. 2.UFP Energy, Environment and Health Research Unit (FP-ENAS)University Fernando PessoaPortoPortugal
  3. 3.ESTeSC—Coimbra Health SchoolInstituto Politécnico de CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations

Cite chapter

Buy options