Advertisement

“To Him Who Has, More Will Be Given…”– A Realist Review of the OHSAS18001 Standard of OHS Management

  • Christian Uhrenholdt Madsen
  • Marie Louise Kirkegaard
  • Peter Hasle
  • Johnny Dyreborg
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 821)

Abstract

The OHSAS18001 standard is now the most widely adopted management systems for occupational health and safety worldwide. The standard is intended to support companies in attaining a higher health and safety standard. However, there is limited knowledge on how this standard in fact is working in practice and thus can improve health and safety at work.

In order to investigate how the OHSAS18001 standard is working in practice, we identified the main mechanisms assumed to be actively involved in the successful implementation and management of the standard, by using a framework inspired by a realist methodology. In line with this methodology, we assessed how the context of the adopting organizations impinges on the identified mechanisms and synthesized the findings into useful knowledge for practitioners and fellow researchers alike.

The starting point for the analytical process is the program theories that we identified in the standard and supplementary materials from key stakeholders. Thus we analyze how key stakeholders and policymakers expect the standard or program theory to work when it is implemented in an organizational setting. The three program theories (PT) we identified are: An ‘operational’ PT, a ‘compliance’ PT, and an ‘institutional’ PT.

Then we compared these ‘assumed’ program theories to how the OHSAS18001 actually worked in real-life settings. We identified four so-called context-mechanism-outcome configurations by reviewing available empirical studies and by extracting knowledge from them. These CMO-configurations are: ‘Integration’, ‘learning’, ‘motivation’ and ‘translation’. This analytical approach means that our paper provides both i -depth understanding of the assumed program theories behind the OHSAS18001standard and understanding of the actual mechanisms of certified management systems in occupational health and safety management in various context presented by the included implementation studies.

Keywords

OHS OHSAS18001 Realist review 

References

  1. 1.
    Pagell M, Klassen R, Johnston D, Shevchenko A, Sharma S (2015) Are safety and operational effectiveness contradictory requirements: the roles of routines and relational coordination. J Oper Manag 36:1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2015.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lo CKY, Pagell M, Fan D, Wiengarten F, Yeung ACL (2014) OHSAS 18001 certification and operating performance: the role of complexity and coupling. J Oper Manag 32(5):268–280.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.04.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fernández-Muñiz B, Montes-Peón JM, Vázquez-Ordás CJ (2012) Occupational risk management under the OHSAS 18001 standard: analysis of perceptions and attitudes of certified firms. J Clean Prod 24:36–47.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.11.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Abad J, Lafuente E, Vilajosana J (2013) An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 certification process: objective drivers and consequences on safety performance and labour productivity. Saf Sci 60:47–56.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.06.011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hohnen P, Hasle P (2011) Making work environment auditable–a ‘critical case’ study of certified occupational health and safety management systems in Denmark. Saf Sci 49(7):1022–1029.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.12.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rocha RS, Granerud L (2011) The search for legitimacy and organizational change: the agency of subordinated actors. Scand J Manag 27(3):261–272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jespersen AH, Hohnen P, Hasle P (2016) Internal audits of psychosocial risks at workplaces with certified OHS management systems. Saf Sci 84:201–209.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.12.013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kristensen PH (2011) Managing OHS: a route to a new negotiating order in high-performance work organizations? Saf Sci 49(7):964–973.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silva SA, Carvalho H, Oliveira MJ, Fialho T, Soares CG, Jacinto C (2017) Organizational practices for learning with work accidents throughout their information cycle. Saf Sci 99(A, SI):102–114.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2016.12.016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Granerud RL, Rocha RS (2011) Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health and safety in certified manufacturers. Saf Sci 49(7):1030–1039.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R (2013) RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med 11(1):21.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pawson R (2006) Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. SAGE Publications, Thousand OaksCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dalkin SM, Greenhalgh J, Jones D, Cunningham B, Lhussier M (2015) What’s in a mechanism? Development of a key concept in realist evaluation. Implement Sci 10(1):49.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0237-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wong G, Westhorp G, Pawson R, Greenhalgh T (2013) Realist synthesis. RAMESES training materials, July 2013Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Arbejdsmiljøledelsessystemer (2010) 2nd ed. Dansk StandardGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    BSI (2017) BS OHSAS 18001 features and benefit. BSI GroupGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wiengarten F, Humphreys P, Onofrei G, Fynes B (2017) The adoption of multiple certification standards: perceived performance implications of quality, environmental and health & safety certifications. Prod Plan Control 28(2):131–141.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2016.1239847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bevilacqua M, Ciarapica FE, De Sanctis I (2016) How to successfully implement OHSAS 18001: the Italian case. J Loss Prev Process Ind 44:31–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2016.08.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen WM, Levinthal DA (1990) Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation. Adm Sci Q 35(1):128–152.  https://doi.org/10.2307/2393553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zahra SA, George G (2002) Absorptive capacity: a review, reconceptualization, and extension. Acad Manag Rev 27(2):185–203.  https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.2002.6587995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schroeder RG, Shah R, Xiaosong Peng D (2011) The cumulative capability ‘sand cone’ model revisited: a new perspective for manufacturing strategy. Int J Prod Res 49(16):4879–4901.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2010.509116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ferdows K, De Meyer A (1990) Lasting improvements in manufacturing performance: in search of a new theory. J Oper Manag 9(2):168–184.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-6963(90)90094-TCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Materials and ProductionAalborg UniversityCopenhagenDenmark
  2. 2.National Research Center for the Working EnvironmentCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations