Sustainability 10 03663 PDF

sustainability
Review
International Occupational Health and Safety
Management-Systems Standards as a Frame for the
Sustainability: Mapping the Territory
Panagiotis Marhavilas 1, * , Dimitrios Koulouriotis 1 , Ioannis Nikolaou 2
and Sotiria Tsotoulidou 3
1 Department of Production & Management Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12 St.,
67132 Xanthi, Greece; [email protected]
2 Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Vas. Sofias 12 St.,
67132 Xanthi, Greece; [email protected]
3 Department of Engineering Project Management, Faculty of Science & Technology, Hellenic Open University,
Parodos Aristotelous 18 St., 26335 Patra, Greece; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +30-2541-079-410

Received: 29 August 2018; Accepted: 10 October 2018; Published: 12 October 2018
Abstract: A significant part of literature has shown that the adoption of Sustainability and
Health-Safety management systems from organizations bears some substantial benefits since such
systems (i) create a suitable frame for the sustainable development, implementation and review of the
plans and/or processes, necessary to manage occupational health-safety (OHS) in their workplaces
and (ii) imply innovative thinking and practices in fields of economics, policy-making, legislation,
health and education. To this context, the paper targets at analysing current sustainability and
OHSMSs in order to make these issues more comprehend, clear and functional for scholars and
practitioners. Therefore, a literature survey has been conducted to map the territory by focusing on
two interrelated tasks. The first one includes the presentation of the main International Management
Systems (IMS) with focus on Sustainability and OHS (S_OHSMS) topics and the second task depicts
a statistical analysis of the literature-review findings (for the years 2006–2017). In particular, the main
purposes of the literature research were: (i) the description of key points of OHSMS and sustainability
standards, (ii) the comparative analysis of their characteristics, taking into account several settled
evaluation-criteria and (iii) the statistical analysis of the survey’s findings, while our study’s primary
aim is the reinforcement of OHMSs’ application in any organization. The results evince, that the field
of industry (with 28%) and also of the constructions (with 16%), concentrate the highest percentage
of OHSMS use. In general, there were only few publications including OHSMSs (referred to various
occupational fields) available in the scientific literature (during 2006–2017) but on the other hand,
there was a gradually increasing scientific interest for these standards (especially during 2009–2012).
Keywords: Occupational Health and Safety (OHS); sustainability; Management Standards
1. Introduction
Occupational accidents have a key impact upon human probity, create high expenses for
the social health/insurance system of any country and deteriorate the sustainability of societies.
Moreover, occupational “health and safety” is one of the most vital issues in any organization (or part
thereof) because it assures its continual operation, productivity and efficiency. It is known that
any occupational accident or illness can affect both the employee, business operation and overall
sustainability performance of firms. These disturbances, which can be valued mainly through the lost
Sustainability 2018, 10, 3663; doi:10.3390/su10103663 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2018, 10, 3663 2 of 26
working-hours and the production-delays, can affect the quality of the enterprise’s product [1] and the
reputation of firms.
To overcome such problems, many organizations have adopted health/safety and sustainability
management systems (with sufficient documentation/certification). Any organization is gradually
more concerned with improving sustainability and occupational health and safety (OHS) performance
and this is achieved by controlling sustainability and OHS risks, in accordance with their sustainability
and OHS policy and in the context of strict legislation. There are plenty of organizations that apply
sustainability and OHS reviews (or audits) to assess their sustainability and OHS performance.
Nevertheless, these reviews and/or audits may not be sufficient to afford an organization with
the assurance that its performance will maintain to fulfill the specific legal and policy requirements of
this organization. To be efficient, they must be carried out within a structured management system
that is embedded in the organization [2].
Moreover, Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems were created after a lot
of well-documented and severe industrial-accidents, during the decades of 1970 and 1980 (e.g.,
the Flixborough Accident in 1974, the Seveso incident in 1976 and the Piper Alpha disaster in 1987).
Studies and research applied on these incidents, unveiled deficiencies in main approaches concerning
S_OHMS and regulation and revealed the need to approve approaches which thoroughly addressed
both education and engineering responses. The propagation of OHS management systems that have
been observed globally since the decade of 1990 [3], has noticeably increased the focus on techniques
(and/or tools) concerning performance measurement [4].
A Health and Safety Management System provides a framework for managing health and safety
risk. Generally speaking, we can consider the term “risk” as the likelihood that someone (or something)
will be harmfully affected by the hazard, while “hazard” is any insecure condition (or source of
undesirable/adverse events) with strong potential for creating harm or damage. Alternatively, “risk”
would be defined as a measure (under ambiguity) of the hazard severity or a measure of the likelihood
and consequence of injurious/adverse effects [5–8].
Public interest in the field of risk analysis and assessment (RAA) has been expanded during
the last four decades, so that risk analysis constitutes an efficient and widespread procedure that
completes the whole management of nearly all aspects of our life. Thus, almost all managers (e.g.,
of health care, environment, physical infrastructure systems, etc.) incorporate RAA techniques in their
decision-making process. In addition, the universal adjustments of risk analysis by many disciplines
(like industry, government agencies) in decision-making, have led to a unique development of theory
and methodology and also of practical tools [8].
According to P. Marhavilas [9], risk analysis is a vital process for the safety strategy of any
firm, having as main objective the elimination of any potential of damage or harm in its production,
while the quantified risk evaluation apparently is the most critical part of the entire procedure of
assessing occupational hazards and/or unsafe situations in the workplaces. Furthermore, a complex
human-machine system that is composed of humans, machines and their interaction, could suitably
be expressed by a system model. Therefore, RAA constitutes a substantial tool for the safety strategy
of an organization and also for the assessment process of the occurrence, the consequences and the
impact of human activities on systems with hazardous features.
The introduction of a management system in any organization provides a frame for the sustainable
development, implementation, sustainability and review of the plans and/or processes which are
essential for the occupational health-safety (OHS) management in the workplaces. Since the appearance
of such systems during the decade of 1970, significant growth of the approach has occurred, driven by
the following factors: (i) OHS is affected by all aspects of the design and functioning of an organization,
(ii) the design and management of health and safety systems must associate people, environment and
also technical systems in extent that reveal an organization’s unique features, (iii) health and safety
is a management function and requires broad management involvement, (iv) accidents, injuries and
diseases are an indication of a problem in the system and are not coming from a human error and (vi)
performance goals must illustrate management objectives [10].
The international management systems (IMS) standards, covering the field of occupational
health and safety (OHS) in worksites, are intended to provide organizations and enterprises with
elements of an effective occupational health and safety management system (OHSMS) that can be
associated (or integrated) with other management requirements and help organizations achieve OHS
and economic objectives.
The S_OHSMS standards specify requirements for an OHS management system, in order to allow
an organization to develop and implement a strategy which take into account legal requirements
about OHS risks. These are intended to apply to all types of corporations and to establish various
geographical, cultural and social conditions. Such a system enables a corporation to create an OHS
strategy, develop objectives, scopes and processes to achieve the policy obligations, take action as
needed to improve its performance and demonstrate the compliance of the system to the requirements
of this OHSMS standard. Moreover, the general aim of OHSMS standards is to support capable OHS
practices, in the framework of socio-economic needs [2].
The British Safety Council (BSC) and the International Labour Organisation (ILO) made a research
in which valued the rewards of the prevention of accidents and/or diseases in enterprises within a
period of 2 years. This study shows that the corporation which had adopted such a safety management
system had the following results [11]: (i) productivity improvement, (ii) significant reduction of the
frequency of cases of absence, (iii) significant reduction of compensation claims and insurance costs,
(iv) improvement of the psychology of labor in addition with the increase of morale and concentration
at work and (v) improving the company image to customers and suppliers.
In this work, the foremost IMS standards of promoting sustainability and OHS are presented, on
the one hand and on the other side, the statistical results of a research (literature survey), reviewing
vicarious scientific journals (for years 2006–2017). Thus, the main aim of our study is the strengthening
of OHSM standards’ application, in any organization (i.e., of any type and size).
The rest of the paper consists of five sections including (i) an overview of the OHSMS standards,
(ii) a methodology (iii) the results of a statistical analysis, (v) the discussion and (vi) the conclusions.
2. Theoretical Background
A significant part of literature focuses on RAA of sustainability and health/safety accidents.
The growing complexity of services, processes and products, entering the market, requires that the
safety aspects must be considered with high priority. Undoubtedly, there is no absolute safety, so that
some risk always remains in a specific worksite, constituting the “residual risk.” Thus, any service,
process and/or product can only be relatively safe. To continue, relative safety is achieved by risk
degradation to a tolerable level, which is called as “tolerable risk,” which is defined by the exploration
of the finest balance between the ideal safety and the demands to be met by a service/process/product
and factors such as profit for the user and cost effectiveness. Tolerable risk is succeeded by the
procedure of risk assessment (risk analysis and risk evaluation) and risk reduction [12], while “risk
management” can be considered as the entire methodology that includes both “qualitative” and
“quantitative analysis techniques” [13–15].
In the scientific literature, four phases are prominent, as far as quantitative risk assessment is
concerned (see for example the works [9,16–18]) depicted as follows: (a) Qualitative analysis, that
incorporates the system definition and its scope, the hazards identification/description and the failure
scenarios as well. (ii) Quantitative analysis, which incorporates the probabilities determination and the
consequences of the defined undesirable events and also the risk quantification by a number (i.e., the
risk quantity) or by a graph as a function of probabilities and consequences. (iii) Risk evaluation,
which incorporates the evaluation process, on the base of the results of the former analysis. (iv) Risk
control and reduction phase, which includes the step of taking measures (in order to be reduced the
risk) and taking into account how the risks can be controlled (for example by inspection, maintenance
or warning systems).
According to the IEC [15] the concept of risk presents two components that is, the frequency
(or probability) that a harmful event (or an unsafe situation) is expected to occur and the consequences
of this event. Moreover, CCPS [19] determines the risk as a measure of economic loss or human hurt in
the frame of the likelihood and the magnitude of the loss (or damage).
To eliminate risks from sustainability and Health and Safety problems, a number of management
systems has been proposed. In general, a management system is the methodology or the way by
which an organization manages its internal procedures (or subjects) in order to achieve its objectives,
which are associated with a number of different topics (including service quality or product quality,
operational capability, environmental accomplishment, health and safety in the workplaces, et cetera).
The level of the system’s intricacy will depend on each organization’s specific context. In small
organisations, there is no (or less) need for extensive documentation because it is transparent how
the employees contribute to the organization’s overall aims. On the other side, more complicated
corporations operating, may need extensive documentation in order to accomplish their organizational
goals. Moreover, international management system (IMS) standards help organizations improve their
performance by specifying repeatable steps that organizations consciously implement to accomplish
their aims and to develop an organizational culture [20].
According to Gallagher [21], OHSM systems have been defined as “a combination of the planning
and review, the management organizational arrangements, the consultative arrangements and the specific
program elements that work together in an integrated way to improve health and safety performance.”
Table 1 presents an overview of the most important worldwide OHSMS standards, based on
selected information that has been collected from various sources and from the review of scientific
literature as well.
Table 1. An overview of OHSMS standards.
Codes Edition Year Institutions Description Focus Reference

1996 (as BS “It gives guidance on OHS
8800:1996) and management systems for assisting
revised in 2004 (as BS compliance with stated OHS policies Social
BS 8800 BSI [22–24]
8800:2004) and in and objectives and on how OHS should dimension
2008 (as BS be integrated within the organization’s
18004:2008). overall management system”
“A useful guide for directors, managers,
1991 and revised in health/safety professionals and
Social
HSG 65 the years 1997 and HSE employee representatives who wanted [25,26]
dimension
2013. to improve health and safety in their
organizations”
“It is based on (i) “Plan”: establish the
aims and processes which are essential
The first edition
for the achievement in accordance with
(OHSAS 18001:1999) 44 cooperating
the organization’s OHS policy, (ii) “Do”:
has been technically organizations
OHSAS implement the processes, (iii) “Check”: Social
revised and replaced (constituting [2]
18001 monitor and measure processes against dimension
by the OHSAS OHSAS Project
OHS policy, objectives, legal and other
18001:2007 edition Group)
requirements and report the results, (iii)
(second one).
“Act”: take actions to continually
improve OHS performance”
“It provides a unique and powerful
instrument for the development of a
sustainable safety culture within
ILO-OSH 2001 and revised in organizations. The practical Social
ILO [27]
2001 2009. recommendations of these guidelines dimension
are intended for use by all those who
have responsibility for occupational
safety and health management”
Table 1. Cont.

“The scope of this standard is to set
auditable criteria for an OHSMS. It is a
specification that aims to cover the best
AS/NZS elements of such systems already Social
2001 AS/NZS [28]
4801:2001 widely used in New Zealand and dimension
Australia. It incorporates guidance on
how those criteria may be
accomplished”
“Significant features that define Z10
include focus on management
ANSI/ leadership roles, efficient employee
2005 and revised in Social
AIHA ANSI participation, design review and [29,30]
2012 dimension
Z10-2005 change. It provides a tool to help
organizations create and develop OHS
performance”
“It is consisted of three parts: (i)
Requirements, (ii) Guidelines for the
implementation of SS 506, (iii)
Requirements for the chemical industry.
2004 (as SS 506:2004)
It designates requirements for an OSH Social
SS 506 and revised in 2009 SSC [31,32]
management system to activate a dimension
(as SS 506:2009).
company to develop and implement a
strategy and scopes which take into
account legal requirements and
information about OSH risks”
“- UNE 81900:1996 EX: Prevention of
Occupational Hazards. Rules for the
implementation of a SGPRL.
- UNE 81901:1996 EX: Prevention of
Occupational Hazards. General Rules
for the Evaluation of SGPRLs.
Occupational Hazards. Vocabulary.
- BUNE 81903:1997 EX: Prevention of
Une
Occupational Hazards. General Rules Social
81900:1996 1996 AENOR [33]
for the Evaluation of a SGPRL. Criteria dimension
EX
for the qualification of the Auditors of
Prevention.
Occupational Hazards. General Rules
for the Evaluation of SGPRLs.
Management of audit programs.
Occupational Hazards. Guide for the
implementation of a SGPRL”
“Some of the major qualifying points
are: (i) Espousal of inherent safety
principles. (ii) Espousal of matrices or
risk charts for assessing the
acceptability/tolerability of risks. (iii)
Definition of inspection activities and
periodic checks of critical lines and
equipment. (iv) The assessment of the
1997 (and withdrawn Social
Uni 10616 UNI external domino effect between [34]
in 2012 dimension
neighbouring plants, (v) The adoption
of a work-permission system, (vi)
Selection of suppliers of goods and
services such as companies, companies,
builders, consortia, (vii) Adopting
procedures for periodic internal
auditing with internal or external
auditors”
Table 1. Cont.

“The ISO 14000 family of standards
emphasize on manage their
environmental responsibilities. In
Environmental
ISO 14000 ISO 14001:2004 ISO particular, ISO 14001:2015 and its [35]
dimension
accompanying standards such as ISO
14006:2011 concentrate on
environmental systems to achieve this”
“ISO 45001 is intended for use by any
organization, regardless of its size or
the nature of its work and can be
integrated into other health and safety Social
ISO 45001 2018 ISO [36,37]
programmes such as worker wellness dimension
and wellbeing. It can assist an
organization to conform its legal
requirements”
Over the past three decades, the use of OHSMS has become common in worksites in the
developed economies, noting the fundamental elements of a OHSMS [38]. It is worth noting that
many international management system standards have contiguous structure, containing a large
number of the same terms and definitions. These characteristics are helpful for those organizations
that operate an “integrated” management system [20] which can merge the requirements of two or
more management system standards simultaneously (for example OHS with Environmental, or OHS
with Quality management systems).
In Table 2 we depict the evolution of the OHSMS standards throughout the years 1990–2018. More
specifically, the symbols “−” denote (in association with the year) the nonexistence of a standard,
while the symbols “+” the appearance of the standard. In addition, the symbols “++,” “+++,” “++++”
and “+++++,” denote the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th update of it, correspondingly.
Table 2. The evolution of the OHSMS standards throughout the years 1990–2018.
ISO ILOOSH BS OHSAS ANSI/AIHA AS/NZS SS Une Uni ISO

Year HSG65
14001 2001 8800 18001 Z10 4801 506 81900 10616 45001
1990 − − − − − − − − − − −
1991 − − − − + − − − − − −
1992 + − − − + − − − − − −
1993 + − − − + − − − − − −
1994 + − − − + − − − − − −
1995 ++ − − − + − − − − − −
1996 +++ − + − + − − − + − −
1997 +++ − + − ++ − − − + + −
1998 +++ − + − ++ − − − + + −
1999 +++ − + + ++ − + − + + −
2000 +++ − + + ++ − ++ − + + −
2001 +++ + + + ++ − +++ − + + −
2002 +++ + + + ++ − +++ − − + −
2003 +++ + + + ++ − +++ − − + −
2004 ++++ + ++ + ++ − +++ + − + −
2005 ++++ + ++ + ++ + +++ + − + −
2006 ++++ + ++ + ++ + +++ + − + −
2007 ++++ + ++ ++ ++ + +++ + − + −
2008 ++++ + +++ ++ ++ + +++ + − + −
2009 ++++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + +++ ++ − + −
2010 ++++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + +++ ++ − + −
2011 ++++ ++ +++ ++ ++ + +++ ++ − + −
2012 ++++ ++ +++ ++ ++ ++ +++ ++ − − −
2013 ++++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ − − −
2014 ++++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ − − −
2015 +++++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ − − −
2016 +++++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ − − −
2017 +++++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ − − −
2018 +++++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ +++ ++ − − +
Annotations: the symbols “−,” “+,” “++,” “+++,” “++++” and “+++++,” denote the nonexistence, the appearance,
the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd and the 4th update of a standard, respectively.
3. Methodology
Today, OHS issues are considered very important for organizations for economic (e.g., decrease
lost working days), environmental (e.g., environmental hazards for employees) and social issues
(e.g., ethical working conditions). It is well known that the major body of relevant literature focuses on
the regulatory requirements of organizations regarding OHS issues, while a smaller part of the literature
emphasizes on voluntary initiatives of organization on OHS issues. However, the voluntary trend of
organizations has lately gained ground under the context of social responsibility of organizations to
contribute to sustainable development [39]. This is integrated into the context of organizations
as a commitment to OHS issues beyond the law which should be achieved through voluntary
implementation of OHS standards (e.g., OSHAS 18001, ISO 45001). To this end, the suggested research
methodology recommends sustainability concept as a frame to examine a set of current OHS standards
(Table 1) through: (a) environmental dimension of sustainability (ISO 14001) and (b) social dimension
of sustainability (BS 8800; HSG 65; OHSAS 18001; ILO-OSH 2001; ASINZS 4801; SS506; Une 81900:
1996 EX; Uni10616 and ISO 45001). It is necessary to clarify that the sustainability concept is only
utilized as a frame of analysis and classification of OHS standards and none effort has been made to
explain how the OHS examined standards contribute to aspects of sustainable development.
Additionally, the suggested research methodology is based on three sequential steps. The first
step pertains the selection of journals, the second includes the appropriate keywords for addressing
research questions and the third shows the coding method. In particular, the review of the scientific
literature was accomplished by the research of ten representative scientific journals which focus on
sustainability and health and safety issues (Table 3). The selection of these papers was based on
the following two criteria: (a) the focusing on health and safety issues and sustainability and (b)
the existence of high impact among scholars (Q1 and high impact factor). More specifically, taking
into account that few other systematic (e.g., [3]) or narrative (e.g., [40–43]) literature reviews exist,
on the topic of OHSMS standards, the time period before the year 2006, we investigated and studied
published articles of the previous referred journals, collecting a large number of around N = 9822
papers, throughout the years 2006–2017.
Table 3. The ten investigated journals/sources (throughout the years 2006–2017).
Nr Source Publisher
1 “Applied Ergonomics”
2 “Accident Analysis and Prevention”
3 “Journal of Cleaner Production”
4 “Journal of Operations Management”
“Elsevier B.V.”
5 “Safety Science”
“Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
6
Industries”
7 “International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics”
8 “Journal of Safety Research”
9 “Architectural Science Review” “Taylor & Francis”
10 “Professional Safety” “American Society of Safety Engineers”
In particular, the methodological steps of the survey included: (i) investigation of the literature
(e.g., through SCOPUS); (ii) screening the journals with the highest number of articles and the most
important studies on S_OHSMS standards; (iii) selection of relevant studies; (iv) appraisal of the
quality of the research evidence in the studies. The appropriate keywords we used in the survey were
“Occupational Health and Safety”, ”Sustainability”, ”Management Standards”.
4. Results
The procedure of reviewing the scientific literature, unveiled only a few published papers
on OHSMS standards referred to many different fields (like construction, industry, engineering,
transportation, chemistry, oil and refinery, food sector, et cetera). These papers address concepts,
tools and methodologies that have been created and practiced in such areas as design, development,
quality-control and maintenance, in association with occupational risk assessment.
The different OHSMS standards follow, in general, similar paths between “start” and “finish.”
Taking into account the results of our literature review, we present in the following Table 4,
the comparison between the above referred OHSMS standards. This table depicts an overview
of their features, comparatively with several settled evaluation-criteria.
Table 4. Comparison of OHSMS Standards.
OHSMS Standards
Characteristics ANSI/ AS/NZS
ISO 14001 ILOOSH 2001 BS 8800 OHSAS 18001 HSG65 SS 506
AIHA Z10 4801
General
YES NO NO YES NO NO NO NO
requirements
Initial or periodic
NO NO YES NO YES NO NO NO
status review
Management
leadership and
NO NO NO NO NO YES NO NO
Labour
participation
Policy YES YES YES YES YES NO YES YES
Organising NO YES YES NO YES NO NO NO
Planning YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Implemention/
YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Operation
Inspection and
YES YES NO YES NO YES YES YES
Evaluation
Performance
NO NO YES NO YES NO YES NO
measurement
Improvement
NO YES NO NO NO NO NO NO
actions
Corrective actions YES NO NO YES NO YES NO YES
Management
YES NO NO YES YES YES YES YES
Review
Audit NO NO YES NO YES NO NO NO
Continuous
YES NO NO YES NO YES YES YES
Improvement
Performance
inspection
Australia/
Origin International International UK International UK USA New Singapore
Zealand
Year of
1992 2001 1996 1999 1991 2005 1999 2004
establishment
Update YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Good embedded
NO YES YES YES NO YES NO YES
OHS practices
Weak issues YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Glossary Terms
YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO
and definitions
Workers
participation
Documentation YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Free of Charge
Manual
Risk assessment
NO NO YES YES NO YES NO NO
technique
Application on
Organisations of NO YES YES YES NO YES NO YES
any type and size
Table 4. Cont.
OHSMS Standards
Characteristics ANSI/ AS/NZS
ISO 14001 ILOOSH 2001 BS 8800 OHSAS 18001 HSG65 SS 506
AIHA Z10 4801
Accompanied
with extra NO NO YES YES NO NO YES YES
guidelines series
Incorporated
NO NO YES NO NO YES NO NO
examples
Annexes YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES
Embedded
comparisons with
other OHSMS
standards
Possible
combination with
other OHSMS
standards
Compatibility
with other YES YES YES YES NO YES NO NO
OHSMS standards
Compatibility
with Quality
and/or YES NO YES YES YES YES YES YES
Environmental
IMS standards
Future
improvement
Taking into
account recent NO NO YES NO NO NO NO NO
legislative changes
The investigation of the scientific literature revealed S = 75 published technical articles which
were associated with OHSMS Standards in the worksites and concerned many different fields (like
construction, chemistry, engineering, transportation, medicine, etc.).
In Appendix A (Table A1) we show the classification results of the 75 articles incorporating
OHSMS standards which were defined by the investigation of N = 9822 papers of ten sources covering
the time period 2006–2017. Table A1 uses eight columns for example, the number (or numerical code)
of the paper (A), the paper’s citation information (columns B, C, D), the OHSMS standard’s name (E),
the kind of the paper’s data or material (F), the field of application (G) and the source (journal’s name)
[column H].
In Appendix B (Table A2) we illustrate the statistical results of the survey including the following:
(i) the absolute frequency Ni that is, the number of investigated papers per journal (col. C, that is,
JAE: 886; AAP: 1522; JCP: 1005; JOM: 995; ASR: 1007; JSS: 945; JPS: 998; JLPPI: 881; IJIE: 955;
JSR: 628),
(ii) the relative frequency Fi = Ni /N of the ten journals, concerning the total amount of the published
papers during 2006–2017 (column D, that is, JAE: 9.02%; AAP: 15.50%; JCP: 10.23%; JOM: 10.13%;
ASR: 10.25%; JSS: 9.62%; JPS: 10.16%; JLPPI: 8.97%; IJIE: 9.72%; JSR: 6.39%),
(iii) the number of papers nST(i) concerning OHS which include or use or refer to OHSMS standards
(column E, that is, JAE: 3; AAP: 8; JCP: 3; JOM: 1; ASR: 1; JSS: 40; JPS: 4; JLPPI: 8; IJIE: 1; JSR: 6),
(iv) the relative occurrence frequency of papers (referred to N) which include (or use or refer to)
OHSMS-standards fST(i) = nSTS(i) /N (column F, that is, JAE: 0.03%; AAP: 0.08%; JCP: 0.03%; JOM:
0.01%; ASR: 0.01%; JSS: 0.41%; JPS: 0.04%; JLPPI: 0.08%; IJIE: 0.01%; JSR: 0.06%),
(v) the normalized (per journal) occurrence frequency of papers which include OHSMS standards
fi * = nST(i) /Ni (column F, that is, JAE: 0.34%; AAP: 0.53%; JCP: 0.30%; JOM: 0.10%; ASR: 0.10%;
JSS: 4.23%; JPS: 0.40%; JLPPI: 0.91%; IJIE: 0.10%; JSR: 0.96%),
(vi) the relative occurrence frequency of papers (referred to S) which include OHSMS standards
f**ST(i) = nST(i) /S (column F, that is, JAE: 4.00%; AAP: 10.67%; JCP: 4.00%; JOM: 1.33%; ASR:
1.33%; JSS: 53.33%; JPS: 5.33%; JLPPI: 10.67%; IJIE: 1.33%; JSR: 8.00%).
Moreover, Figure 1 illustrates for the time period of 2006–2017 the following: (a) the relative
frequency Fi = Ni /N of the ten journals, concerning the total amount of their published articles, (b) the
relative occurrence frequency of papers (referred to N) with OHSMS-standards fST(i) = nST(i) /N, (c) the
normalized (per journal) occurrence frequency of papers concerning OHS which include OHSMS
standards fi * = nST(i) /Ni (d) the relative occurrence frequency of papers (referred to S) which include
OHSMS standards f**ST(i) = nST(i) /S, (e) the relative occurrence-frequency of the various OHSMS
standards (which are included in the above referred S = 75 papers) and (f) the percentage distribution
of the papers with OHSMS standards in association with different types of data.
Figure 1. Cont.
Figure 1. Cont.
Figure 1. It depicts for the period of 2006–2017 the various relative occurrence frequencies of papers
with OHSMS-standards.
The survey relating to the above 10 journals revealed (according to Appendix B, Table A2) that the
papers concerning OHS and including OHSMS standards were very few (i.e., for JAE the maximum
percentage is only 0.34% taking into account the total number N of the investigated papers and only
~4% as far as the normalized per journal percentage is concerned), while the majority (i.e., 99.24%) is
represented by papers without OHSMS standards. Taking into account the graphs of Figure 1, we note
that although AAP is the journal with the most publications for 2006–2017 (Figure 1a), JSS is the journal
with the greatest number of publications, concerning OHSMS standards (Figure 1b–d).
Besides, the pie-chart of Figure 1e reveals that the OHSAS 18001 standard, presents the higher
relative occurrence-frequency (47.06%) in comparison with the other OHSMS standards (of Table A2
in Appendix B), that is, OHSAS 18001 is the most frequent OHSMS standard according to scientific
literature review. This can be related with the fact that this international standard was the result of the
co-operation of 13 different international organizations which represent 80% of the certification bodies.
In addition, the graph 1f which depicts the percentage distribution of the articles (with OHSMS
standards) shows that “Empirical/Qualititative” is the most frequent type compared with various
types of data.
In Figure 2 we illustrate the yearly variation of the number (nST) of papers with OHSMS standards,
published by the previous referred 10 journals, during 2006–2017 (panel a) and the corresponding
percentage distribution of papers in association with the year of publication (panel b). The inserted
bar-graph in panel a, depicts the relative occurrence frequency of papers concerning OHS which
include OHSMS standards in association with the title of the 10 journals (horizontal axis).
The curve of the graph of Figure 2a shows the existence of a long-term trend factor with positive
inclination (throughout the period 2007–2012), with negative inclination (for the period 2013–2015) and
also with a positive inclination (throughout the 2016–2017). In particular, there is a gradual increasing
for the period 2006–2012 (with a maximum in years 2011 and 2012), while for the years 2013–2015,
an abrupt decreasing with an intensive negative slope. The second graph (pie-chart) shows that 2011
and 2012 are the years with the greatest percentage of papers referring to OHSMS systems.
To continue, the pie-chart of Figure 3 displays the distribution of papers with OHSMS standards
(published by the 10 journals during 2006–2017) in association with various fields of application
(Industrial Sector: 28%; Construction Sector: 16%; Chemical Sector: 6.67%; Oil and Refinery: 4%;
Mining: 4%; Shipbuilding Sector: 4%; Food Sector: 4%; Railways Sector: 2.67%; Transportations Sector:
1.33%; Telecommuncations: 1.33%; Other: 28%). The major evident feature of this pie-chart is that
the field of “Industry” concentrates the maximum number of the papers with OHSMS standards.
Apparently, one reason is that the industrial organizations present more dangerous working conditions
in comparison with other corporations (for example due to the existence of heavy machines in the
production procedure) [9,44]. Moreover, it is apparent that the construction sector is following, due to
the greatest number of occurring incidents.
Figure 2. (a) The curve illustrates the variation of the number of papers with OHSMS standards
published by the 10 journals during 2006–2017. (b) Distribution of papers with OHSMS standards in
association with the year of publication.
Figure 3. The pie-chart displays the distribution of papers with OHSMS standards (published by the
10 journals during 2006–2017) in association with the various fields of application.
5. Discussion
Taking into account that nearly 2.3 million of people die per year due to work-related accidents
and/or diseases, occupational injuries and/or illnesses are significantly adverse for the employers
and also for the state’s economy, resulting in losses from early retirements, the staff absences and the
high insurance costs [45,46]. Thus, occupational health/safety aspects represent some of the most
crucial subjects of the social policy in the EU and as a consequence the Lisbon strategy was adopted for
growth and employment, which aims to create jobs with care in health and safety for the employees.
Over the past three decades the use of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems
(OHSMS) has expanded in the workplaces of developed economies and their growing usage could be
attributed to many reasons and factors. In particular, OHSMSs embody the principles of “continuous
improvement” or “quality management” which have been used and applied by enterprises for
improved business competitiveness. Taking into account that the principles of OHSMS are similar to
methods such as Total Quality Management, it is presumable that experience with TQM has formed a
basis for new applications of removing occupational hazards and improving safety awareness [47].
OHSMS differ as far as the miscellaneous techniques of implementation are concerned. According
to Frick and Wren [40] there are three types of implementation, that is, voluntary, mandatory and
hybrid. The first one exists when companies affiliate OHSMS on their own volition. On the other
hand, mandatory systems have been enforced in many European countries (for example in Denmark
and Norway) where the state’s legislation requires establishment of a RAA system. Quasimandatory
methodologies may also exist in case of external commercial requirements which take the form
of legislative demands. Thus, many organizations settle OHSMS to comply with the demands of
customers and suppliers, principal contractors and other commercial bodies. Hybrid methods require
an admixture of voluntary motives and legislative requirements [47]. It is worth noting that, only a
fraction of all employers and/or organisations have introduced what it is called as OHS management
systems (such as OHSAS 18001) [2]. Yet, within the EU, California (USA) and in many other countries,
employers are required by regulation mandated to organise a systematic OHS management (in the EU
according to the Framework Directive of 89/391/EEC).
Compliance with these regulations will result in an effective prevention of OHS risks, even without
introducing OHSAS or any other voluntary OHS management system. Some other distinctions that
should be underlined are the following:
(i) The term “systematic” in mandatory systematic OHSM is not at all the same as the term “system”
in voluntary OHSM systems. This means that the UK’s HSG 65 is quite different from the
other described “systems.” HSG 65 constitutes guidelines (best practice) for how to comply with
the mandatory regulation of systematic OHSM (transposing of EU directive 89/391/EEC into
UK legislation) while all the other listed “systems” are voluntary and more or less commercial
products (which still can be very useful).
(ii) Regulated mandatory systematic OHSM is not at all identical to voluntary OHSM standards.
This article aims to cover both of them. In any case both mandatory OHSM (such as in all of the
EU, since 1989, through 89/391/EEC but also in many other states, for example, in California
since 1991) and the much more complex commercial products of voluntary OHSM systems (such
as OHSAS 18001) are critically discussed and distinguished.
(iii) The term “Standard” is also a term with importantly different meanings. In Anglo-saxon countries
this is often the same as a regulation but a voluntary standard (such as ISO) is (by definition) not
a regulation.
The implementation and application of a range of efficient OHS management actions

systematically, can contribute to optimal results for all interested parties. Organizations of all types
establish a systematic process to manage OHS and develop OHSMS systems within the context of
(i) the general growth of concern from all interested parties about OHS, (ii) changes to legislation and
(iii) other measures to foster sustained OHS improvement. There are many reasons for organizations to
develop OHSMSs (for example legal imperatives, ethical concerns, industrial considerations, financial
performance improvement, etc.). Implementation of an efficient OHSMS will create a reduction of
workplace illnesses and injuries, minimizing the expenses associated with accidents [28]. Consequently,
the application of OHSMS standards provides a unique instrument for the development of a sustainable
safety culture within enterprises. Besides, human factors (including the culture, politics, etc.) within
organizations can make or break the effectiveness of any management system and needs to be
considered very carefully when implementing a management system [22]. An OHSMS standard
specifies requirements in order to help any enterprise to formulate a strategy taking into account
legislation and information about risks and/or harm. It applies to those hazards over which the
organization may exert control and over which it can be expected to have an influence [28].
Other standards (like ISO 31000, IEC31010) constitute an introduction to selected techniques and
compare their possible applications, benefits and limitations. They also provide references to sources
of more detailed information.
With the globalization of the economy and the success of Quality Management Systems (QMS)
and of Environmental Management Systems (EMS), organizations require a simple, integrated and
also a global management system. For this reason, and due to the lack of a model for an OHS
management system that has been accepted worldwide, systems or models, guides or norms of the
OHS management, have been propagated throughout the world.
Previous investigations have recognized a research gap, as far as the studies of the reliability
and validity of OHSMS standards, are concerned [48]. In this study, the most considerable OHSMS
standards created at the international level, are presented and analysed at their updated version.
In other words, our article introduces different standardized occupational and safety management
systems (guidelines), which are commonly used internationally. In particular, the purpose of this work
is to collect important information regarding the use of OHSMS standards by achieving a scientific
literature investigation of vicarious journals (published by Elsevier B.V., Taylor & Francis and the
American Society of Safety Engineers) covering the time period of 2006–2017. This is an interesting
topic which combines academic papers and practically used standards. Subsequently, the main aims of
this exploratory study are: (i) the depiction of commercial and industrial trends, as far as the OHSMS
standards are concerned, (ii) the implementation of these standards and (iii) the reinforcement of their
application in the worksites of organizations.
It is worth mentioning that, few other systematic literature reviews (like the one of Robson et
al. [3]) or narrative reviews (e.g., [40–43]) exist, concentrating on the topic of OHSMS standards and
concerning the years before 2006. So this is the reason for conducting our review throughout the
years 2006–2017. In addition, the literature overview of Li and Guldenmund [49] has a different aim
and describes safety management systems (SMSs) as far as the SMSs models are concerned, that is,
accident-related models and organizational models.
The methodological steps of the survey included: (i) research of the literature; (ii) screening the
journals with the most important studies on S_OHSMS standards; (iii) selection of relevant studies;
(iv) appraisal of the quality of the research evidence in the studies.
The review unveils the following:
• There are only a few publications including OHSMS standards (during 2006–2017), which are
referred to a variety of occupational fields (like construction, industry, engineering, transportation,
chemistry, oil and refinery, et cetera).
• These papers address techniques that have been emerged in areas such as design/development,
quality-control and maintenance, as far as occupational risk assessment is concerned.
• “Safety Science” (SS) and “Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries” (JLPPI)
are the scientific journals which published (during 2006–2017) the most scientific papers
concerning OHSMS.
• The sector of “Industry” (with 28%) and also the “Construction” (with 16%), accounted for the
highest percentage, as far as the usage of OHSMS standards is concerned, presumably because
their work conditions are more unstable and dangerous in comparison with other occupational
sectors (e.g., telecomunications). In addition, these sectors are very hazardous worldwide, owing
to their unique dynamic nature, poor conditions and tough environment [44,50].
• The comparison between the previous presented OHSMS standards (in Table 4), depicts an
overview of their features, comparatively with various developed evaluation-criteria.
• The OHSAS 18001 standard, presents the higher relative occurrence-frequency (48%) in
comparison with the other OHSMS standards, due to the fact that this international standard was
produced by the co-operation of 13 different international organizations which represent 80% of
the certification bodies.
• The percentage distribution of the papers (with OHSMS standards) reveals that
“Empirical/Qualititative” is the most frequent type compared with other types of data.
• Our selected graphs, show (for the distribution of the publications with OHSMS standards) the
existence of a long-term trend factor with positive inclination (during 2007–2012), with negative
inclination (during 2013–2015) and also with a positive inclination (throughout the 2016–2017).
• In general, there is an increasing scientific interest for OHSMS standards, especially in
period 2009–2012.
• The entire objective of the usage of OHSMS standards is to support and promote efficient OHS
practices, in balance with socio-economic requirements [2].
• The OHSMS standards are not legally binding and have not got the intention to replace national
laws or regulations and/or accepted standards.
• OHSMS have been proposed as a way to reduce injuries and illnesses for businesses of all types
and sizes [51,52].
• The various OHSMS standards have common basic requirements and features but they are
implemented in different processes. Besides, the different OHSMS standards follow, in general,
similar paths between “start” and “finish.”
• Many organizations apply an “integrated” management system which combines the requirements
of two or more management system standards simultaneously (for example OHSMS with
Environmental, or OHSMS with Quality management systems standards).
6. Conclusions
Governments, employers and workers recognize, day after day, the posistive impact of introducing
S_OSHMS standards at the organization level, both on the reduction of hazards/risks and also on
productivity. In particular the benefits of effective S_OSHMS standards to any commercial body
or enterprise include: (i) more effective usage of resources, (ii) improved financial performance,
(iii) improved risk management and (iv) increased capability to deliver consistent and improved
services and products. OHSMS standards are not intended to replace national laws, regulations or
accepted standards but on the other side, their main aim is to support and promote efficient OHS
practices, in balance with socio-economic requirements.
Using the previous analysis and its main outcomes, the next dominant conclusions can
be extracted:
• The application of OHSMS standards is not significantly extended in organizations and the
knowledge about them has not been fully shared and expanded among the miscellaneous scientific
fields, so we have the opinion, that the scientific community, have to transfer the similarities from
one field to another.
• The implementation of a “integrated” management systems which combine the requirements
of two or more management system standards simultaneously (for example OHSMS with
Environmental, or OHSMS with Quality management systems standards) would enable
organizations to achieve efficient results on the reduction of risks and also on productivity.
• OHSMS standards can be developed and implemented by organizations of any type and any size
(large or small).
• As this study is not an empirical research but a review, the value of the article rests on clear
distinctions, definitions and analysis. Moreover this exploratory study, provides a rich description
for the usage of OHSMS standards in workplaces and lays the background for further research
into the reliability and reinforcement of their application in any organization.
As a general conclusion, our literature survey shows that: (i) only a small number of published
articles focusing on OHSMS standards (and concerning miscellaneous occupational fields) are available
for the period of years 2006–2017 and (ii) the scientific community expanded its interest for the usage
of OHSMS standards, during the years of 2009–2012.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, P.M., D.K., I.N.; Data curation, P.M., S.T.; Formal analysis, P.M., D.K.;
Funding acquisition, I.N.; Investigation, P.M., D.K.; Methodology, P.M., D.K., I.N.; Writing—original draft, P.M.;
Writing—review & editing, P.M., D.K., I.N.
Conflicts of Interest: We declare no conflict of interest.
Abbreviations and Acronyms

ANSI American National Standarization Institute
JAE Applied Ergonomics
ASR Architectural Science Review
AENOR Asociación Española de Normalización/Certificación (Spanish Assoc. for Standards)
AS/NZS Australian/New Zealand Standard
BSI British Standards Institution
BSC British Safety Council
CPQRA Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis
CCPS left for Chemical Process Safety
UNI Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione (Italian National Unification)
EMS Environmental Management Systems
HSE Health and Safety Executive
IEC International Electrotechnical Commission
IJIE International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics
ILO International Labour Organization
IMS International Management Systems
ISO International Organization for Standardization
JCP Journal of Cleaner Production
JLPPI Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries
JOM Journal of Operations Management
JSR Journal of Safety Research
OHSAS Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series
OHSMS Occupational health and safety management system
OHS Occupational health-safety
JPS Professional Safety
QMS Quality Management Systems
RAA Risk analysis and assessment
JSS Safety Science
SSC Singapore Standards Council
S_OHSMS Sustainability and Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems
TQM Total Quality Management
Appendix A
Table A1 presents the classification results of 75 papers [3,51,53–125] which are associated with OHSMS standards, covering the period of 2006–2017.
Table A1. The classification results of the 75 papers.
Year of Type of Paper Data or

A/A Paper Citation Authors OHSMS Standard Field of Application Source
Publication Material
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)
Jørgensen T.H. Arne Remmen M.
1 [53] 2006 ISO 14001; OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JCP
Dolores Mellado
2 [54] J.R. Santos-Reyes and & Beard, A. N. 2006 BS8800 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JPS
3 [55] Adele Abrahms 2006 ANZI Z10-2005 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JPS
4 [56] Manuele, Fred 2006 ANZI Z10-2005 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JPS
5 [57] Wrona 2006 ANSI Z16.2 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JSR
6 [58] Nielsen et al. 2006 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JSR
7 [59] Cadieux et al. 2006 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JSR
8 [60] Paivinen 2006 BS 8800 Empirical/Qualitative Telecommunications IJIE
9 [61] S.X. Zeng, Jonathan J., Shi G.X. Lou 2007 OHSAS 18001 Questionnaires All Sectors JCP
10 [62] Fernandez-Muniz et al. 2007 BS 8800, OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JLPPI
11 [63] Coleman and Kerkering 2007 ANSI Z16.1-1967 Accidents Data Mining JSR
12 [3] Robson et al. 2007 ANSI Z10, OHSAS 18001, BS8800, HSG 65 Quantitative All Sectors JSS
13 [64] Bevilacqua et al. 2008 OHSAS 18001 Quantitative Oil & Refinery AAP
14 [65] Brooks 2008 ANSI Z10 Quantitative All Sectors JSS
15 [66] Duijm et al. 2008 BS 8800, OHSAS 18000, ILO-OSH 2001, HSG 65 Questionnaires Industrial sector JSS
16 [67] Lind, Kivisto-Rahnasto 2008 BS 8800, ILO-OSH:2001, OHSAS 18001 Case Study Transportations Sector JSS
17 [68] Nielsen et al. 2008 OHSAS 18001 Quantitative Industrial sector JSS
18 [69] Schrover 2008 ISO-9001, ISO-14001, OHSAS-18001 Theoretical Foundations Chemical Sector JSS
19 [70] Zeng et al. 2008 OHSAS 18001, ISO 9001 Accidents Data Construction Sector JSS
AS/NZS: 1999, CAN/CSA Q850-97: 2002. ISO,
20 [71] Komljenovic et al. 2008 Accidents Data Mining JSS
1999, 2000, ANSI: 2000, ASTME2205-02, 2002
21 [72] Caroly et al. 2009 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Chemical Sector JAE
22 [73] Chang and Liang, 2009 OHSAS 18001, ILO-OSH-2001, BS 8800, HSG 65 Empirical/Qualitative Chemical Sector JLPPI
23 [74] Santos-Reyes, Beard 2009 BS 8800, ILO-OSH: 2001, HSG 65 Empirical/Qualitative Oil & Refinery JLPPI
24 [75] Crippa et al. 2009 OHSAS 18001 Quantitative Oil & Refinery JLPPI
25 [76] Knegtering, Pasman, 2009 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JLPPI
26 [77] Pasman et al. 2009 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JLPPI
27 [78] Moriyama, Ohtani 2009 ILO-OSH 2001, BS 8800 Empirical/Qualitative Food Sector JSS
28 [79] Fernandez-Muniz et al. 2009 BS 8800,OHSAS 18001 Questionnaires All Sectors JSS
29 [80] Celik M. 2009 OHSAS 18001:2007 Quantitative Shipbuilding Sector JSS
30 [81] Reniers et al. 2009 OHSAS 18000 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JSS
31 [82] Baram 2009 ILO-OSH 2001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JSS
32 [83] Shengli Niu, 2010 ILO-OSH 2001 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors JAE
33 [84] Gangolells et al. 2010 OHSAS 18001 Quantitative Construction Sector JSR
34 [85] Cheng et al. 2010 ANSI Z10 Quantitative Construction Sector JSS
35 [86] Jacinto, Silva 2010 BS 8800 Case Study Shipbuilding Sector JSS
36 [87] Sgourou et al. 2010 BS 8800 Quantitative All Sectors JSS
Table A1. Cont.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)
37 [88] Fera, Macchiaroli 2010 OSHAS 18001 Case Study All Sectors JSS
38 [89] Lindhout et al. 2010 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Chemical Sector JSS
39 [90] Celik M. 2010 ISO 9001:2000, ISO 14001:2004, OHSAS 18001:2007 Case Study Shipbuilding sector JSS
40 [91] Dawson et al. 2011 AS/NZ 4360 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors AAP
41 [92] Low Sui Phen & Goh Kim Kwang 2011 ISO 14001; OHSAS 18001 Questionnaires Construction Sector ASR
42 [93] Jallon et al. 2011 OHSAS 18001 Quantitative Industrial sector JSR
43 [94] Leka et al. 2011 ILO-OSH 2001, BS OHSAS and ANSI Z-10 Empirical/Qualitative Construction Sector JSS
44 [95] Blewett, O’Keeffe 2011 ANSI Z10, OHSAS 18001 Quantitative Food Sector JSS
45 [96] Vinodkumar, Bhasi 2011 OHSAS 18001, BS 8800 Questionnaires Chemical Sector JSS
46 [97] Hohnen, Hasle 2011 OHSAS 18001 Case Study All Sectors JSS
47 [98] Lu, Li 2011 OHSAS 18001 Case Study Mining JSS
48 [99] Zwetsloot et al. 2011 OHSAS 18001 Case Study Industrial sector JSS
ANSI Z-10, (2005), Australia and New Zealand
(AS/NZS 4804), The Netherlands (NPR 5001),
49 [100] Frick 2011 Theoretical Foundations Industrial sector JSS
Spain (UNE 81900), UK (BS 8800), ISO 9000, ISO
14000, OHSAS:18001, ILO-OSH 2001
50 [101] Granerud, Rocha 2011 OHSAS 18001, ISO 14000, ISO 9000 Case Study Industrial sector JSS
51 [102] Kristensen 2011 ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001 Case Study Industrial sector JSS
52 [103] Zwetsloot et al. 2011 ISO 9000, ISO 14000, OHSAS 18000 series Case Study Industrial sector JSS
Quantitative,
53 [104] Hasle Peter, Gerard Zwetsloot 2011 OHSAS 18001 Industrial Sector JSS
Empirical/Qualitative
Beatriz Fernández-Muñiz, José
54 [105] Manuel Montes-Peón„ Camilo José 2012 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors AAP
Vázquez-Ordás
55 [106] Goh, Y.M. et al. 2012 AS/NZS 4801 Empirical/Qualitative Construction Sector AAP
56 [107] Cheng et al. 2012 ANSI Z.16.2-1995, ILO Guidelines Quantitative Construction Sector AAP
57 [108] Pinto et al. 2012 BS 8800:2004 Quantitative Construction Sector AAP
58 [109] Badri et al. 2012 OHSAS 18000 Case Study Industrial sector AAP
59 [110] Luria Gil, Ido Morag 2012 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative All Sectors AAP
Beatriz Fernández Muñiz José
60 [111] Manuel Montes-Peón Camilo José 2012 OHSAS 18001 Questionnaires All Sectors JCP
Vázquez-Ordás
61 [112] Jeremy Mawhood & Claire Dickinson 2012 HSG 65 Empirical/Qualitative Railways Sector JPS
62 [113] Lee et al. 2012 BS 8800, OHSAS 18001, ILO-OSH 2001 Accidents data All Sectors JLPPI
63 [114] Gnoni, Lettera 2012 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JLPPI
64 [115] Badri et al. 2012 ANSI Z10 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial sector JSS
65 [116] Hamidi et al. 2012 OHSAS-18001, ANSI z10 Case Study Construction Sector JSS
66 [117] Hsu et al. 2012 OHSAS: 18001, BS 8800,ILOOSH 2001 Quantitative Food Sector JSS
67 [118] Wang, Liu 2012 OHSAS 18001, ILO-OSH 2001, HSG 65 Questionnaires Railways Sector JSS
68 [119] Ismail et al. 2012 OHSAS 18001 Empirical/Qualitative Construction Sector JSS
Jesús Abad, Esteban Lafuente, Jordi
69 [120] 2013 OHSAS 18001 Accidents data All Sectors JSS
Vilajosana
70 [121] Santos G. et al. 2013 OHSAS 18001 Questionnaires Industrial Sector JSS
Table A1. Cont.

(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)
Chris K.Y. Lo, Mark Pagell, Di Fan,
71 [122] 2014 OHSAS 18001 Case Study Construction Sector JOM
Frank Wiengarten, Andy C.L. Yeung
72 [123] Yazdani A. et al. 2015 OHSAS18001, BS 8800:2004 Empirical/Qualitative Industrial Sector JAE
73 [51] Autenrieth D.A. et al. 2016 OHSAS 18001, ANZI 10 Case Study Industrial Sector JSS
74 [124] Miskeen Ali Gopang, et al. 2017 ILO-OSH 2001 Empirical/Qualitative Other Sectors JSS
75 [125] Segarra Cañamares M. et al. 2017 OHSAS 18001 Case Study Construction Sector JSS
Appendix B
Table A2 presents statistical results of ten (10) journals investigation, concerning articles with OHSMS standards (during 2006–2017).
Table A2. Statistical results of ten (10) journals investigation, concerning articles with OHSMS.
Number of Number of Papers Relative Occurrence Normalized (Per Journal) Relative Occurrence
Investigated Relative Concerning OHS Frequency of Papers Occurrence Frequency of Frequency of Papers
Nr Journal Acronym Papers Frequency Which Include or (Referred to N) Which Papers Which Include (Referred to S) Which
(Absolute (Fi = Ni/N) (%) Use OHSMS Include OHSMS-Standards OHSMS Standards Include OHSMS Standards
Frequency Ni) Standards (nST(i) ) (fST(i) = nST(i) /N) (%) (fi * = nST(i) /Ni ) (%) (f*ST(i) = nST(i) /S) (%)
(A) (B) (C) (D) = (C)/N (E) (F) = (E)/N (G) = (E)/(C) (H) = (E)/S
1 Applied Ergonomics JAE 886 9.02% 3 0.03% 0.34% 4.00%
Accident Analysis and
2 AAP 1522 15.50% 8 0.08% 0.53% 10.67%
Prevention
3 Journal of Cleaner Production JCP 1005 10.23% 3 0.03% 0.30% 4.00%
Journal of Operations
4 JOM 995 10.13% 1 0.01% 0.10% 1.33%
Management
5 Architectural Science Review ASR 1007 10.25% 1 0.01% 0.10% 1.33%
6 Safety Science JSS 945 9.62% 40 0.41% 4.23% 53.33%
7 Professional Safety JPS 998 10.16% 4 0.04% 0.40% 5.33%
Journal of Loss Prevention in
8 JLPPI 881 8.97% 8 0.08% 0.91% 10.67%
the Process Industries
International Journal of
9 IJIE 955 9.72% 1 0.01% 0.10% 1.33%
Industrial Ergonomics
10 Journal of Safety Research JSR 628 6.39% 6 0.06% 0.96% 8.00%
Totals: 9822 100.00% 75 0.76% 7.96% 100.00%
Annotations: The entire (total) absolute frequency (i.e., the total number of investigated articles) is: N = 9822; The number of articles that concern OHSS and include (or use or refer to)
OHSMS standards is: S = 75.
References
1. Loke, Y.; Tan Wee, J.; Pegy, H. Economic Cost of Work-Related Injuries and Health in Singapore; WSH Institute
Report; WSH: Singapore, 2013; pp. 1–29. Available online: https://www.wsh-institute.sg/~/media/wshi/
past%20publications/2013/economic%20cost%20of%20work-related%20injuries%20and%20ill-health%
20in%20singapore.pdf?la=en (accessed on 8 October 2018).
2. Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series (OHSAS) Project Group. OHSAS 18001:2007—
Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems—Requirements; OHSAS: Sydney, Australia, 2007; ISBN 978
0 580 50802 8.
3. Robson, L.S.; Clarke, J.A.; Cullen, K.L.; Amber, B.; Colette, S.; Bigelow, P.L.; Irvin, E.; Culyer, A.; Quenby, M.
The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: A systematic review.
Saf. Sci. 2007, 45, 329–353. [CrossRef]
4. Sinelnikov, S.; Inouye, J.; Kerper, S. Using leading indicators to measure occupational health and safety
performance. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 240–248. [CrossRef]
5. Høj, N.P.; Kröger, W. Risk analyses of transportation on road and railway from a European Perspective.
Saf. Sci. 2002, 40, 337–357.
6. Woodruff, J.M. Consequence and likelihood in risk estimation: A matter of balance in UK health and safety
risk assessment practice. Saf. Sci. 2005, 43, 345–353. [CrossRef]
7. Reniers, G.L.L.; Dullaert, W.; Ale, B.J.M.; Soudan, K. Developing an external domino accident prevention
framework: Hazwim. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2005, 18, 127–138. [CrossRef]
8. Haimes, Y.Y. Risk Modeling, Assessment, and Management, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons Inc.: New York, NY,
USA, 2009; pp. 154–196.
9. Marhavilas, P.K. Risk Assessment Techniques in the Worksites of Occupational Health-Safety Systems with
Emphasis on Industries and Constructions. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Production and Management
Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece, March 2015.
10. Cliff, D. The Management of Occupational Health and Safety in the Australian Mining Industry; International
Mining for Development Centre, Mining for Development, Guide to Australian Practice: Melbourne,
Australia, 2012; pp. 100–200.
11. International Labour Organization (ILO). Occupational Safety and Health: Synergies between Security and
Productivity; ILO’s Governing Body Paper GB.295/ESP/3, GB; ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
12. ISO/IEC. Guide 51: Safety Aspects—Guidelines for Their Inclusion in Standards, 2nd ed.; ISO/IEC: Geneva,
Switzerland, 1999.
13. Lee, M. How Does Climate Change Affect the Assessment of Landslide Risk? 2006. Available online:
http://cliffs.lboro.ac.uk/downloads/ML2006.pdf (accessed on 15 July 2017).
14. Olsson, F. Tolerable Fire Risk Criteria for Hospitals; Report 3101; Department of Fire Safety Engineering, Lund
University: Lund, Sweden, 1999; ISSN 1402-3504.
15. IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission). Risk Analysis of Technological Systems; International
Standard 60300-3-9, Dependability Management—Part 3: Application Guide—Section 9; IEC: Geneva,
Switzerland, 1995.
16. Marhavilas, P.K.; Koulouriotis, D.E.; Gemeni, V. Risk Analysis and Assessment Methodologies in the Work
Sites: On a Review, Classification and Comparative Study of the Scientific Literature of the Period 2000–2009.
J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2011, 24, 477–523. [CrossRef]
17. Jonkman, S.N.; van Gelder, P.H.A.J.M.; Vrijling, J.K. An overview of quantitative risk measures for loss of life
and economic damage. J. Hazard. Mater. 2003, 99, 1–30.
18. Vrouwenvelder, A.C.W.M.; Lovegrove, R.; Holicky, M.; Tanner, P.; Canisius, G. Risk Assessment and Risk
Communication in Civil Engineering, 1st ed.; CIB General Secretariat: Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 2001;
pp. 1–62. ISBN 90-6363-026-3.
19. CCPS. Guidelines for Chemical Process Quantitative Risk Analysis, 2nd ed.; Center for Chemical Process
Safety (CCPS) of American Institute of Chemical Engineers: New York, NY, USA, 1989; pp. 1–748.
ISBN 978-0-8169-0720-5.
20. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Standards in Action. 2017. Available online: https:
//www.iso.org/standards-in-action.html (accessed on 15 July 2017).
21. Gallagher, C. Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: System Types and Effectiveness. Ph.D.
Thesis, Deakin University, Melbourne, Australia, 2000.
22. British Standards Institution (BSI). BS 8800:1996—Guide to Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems;
BSI: London, UK, 1996; pp. 1–70. ISBN 0-580-25859-9.
23. British Standards Institution (BSI). BS 18004:2008—Guide to Achieving Effective Occupational Health and Safety
Performance; BSI: London, UK, 2008; pp. 1–78. ISBN 978 0 580 52910 8.
24. British Standards Institution (BSI). BS 8800:2004—Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems-Guide;
BSI: London, UK, 2004; pp. 1–87. ISBN 0 580 43987 9.
25. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Successful Health and Safety Management; HSE: London, UK, 1997; pp. 1–80.
ISBN 978-0-7176-1276-5.
26. Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Managing for Health and Safety; HSE: London, UK, 2013; pp. 1–66.
ISBN 978-0-7176-6456-6.
27. International Labour Organization (ILO). Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management
Systems—ILO-OSH 2001; ILO: London, UK, 2009; ISBN 92-2-111634-4.
28. Australian/New Zealand Standard (AS/NZS). AS/NZS 4801:2001-Occupational Health and Safety Management
Systems-Specification with Guidance for Use; AS/NZS: Melbourne, Australia, 2001; ISBN 0-7337-4092-8.
29. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005 Occupational Health and Safety
Management Systems; AIHA: New York, NY, USA, 2005; ISBN1 10:1931504644. ISBN2 13:978-1931504645.
30. SAI Global. ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005. Available online: https://www.saiglobal.com/assurance/ohs/Z10.htm
(accessed on 15 July 2017).
31. Singapore Standards Council (SSC). SS 506—Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Management Systems—Part
1: Requirements; SSC: Singapore, 2009; ISBN 978-981-4278-15-7.
32. Singapore Standards Council (SSC). SS 506—Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Management Systems—Part
2: Guidelines for the Implementation of SS 506: Part 1; SSC: Singapore, 2009; ISBN 978-981-4278-16-4.
33. Romero, J.C.R. Security Management Systems and Health at Work—Certified Or UNS Certified? ILO GuIdelines
OHSAS 18001 Standard; Industrial Security of the E.T.S.I.I. Malaga University: Malaga, Spain, 2001; pp. 4–13.
34. Barone, D.; Milano, Italy. Le nuove norme UNI 10617-2012 e UNI 10616-2012 relative ai Sistemi di Gestione
della Sicurezza negli impianti a rischio di incidente rilevante. Personal communication, 2012.
35. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO Survey. Available online: https://www.iso.org/
the-iso-survey.html (accessed on 19 September 2018).
36. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 45001 Occupational Health and Safety—Briefing
Notes. 2015. Available online: https://www.iso.org/iso-45001-occupational-health-and-safety.html
(accessed on 19 September 2018).
37. International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 45001—Occupational Health and Safety.
Available online: https://www.iso.org/iso-45001-occupational-health-and-safety.html (accessed on
19 September 2018).
38. Gallagher, C. Health and Safety Management Systems: An Analysis of System Types and Effectiveness; National
Key Centre in Industrial Relations, Monash University: Melbourne, Austrialia, 1997.
39. European Commission. Communication from the Commission Concerning Corporate Social Responsibility:
A Business Contribution to Sustainable Development. 2002. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/
LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2002:0347:FIN:EN:PDF (accessed on 26 September 2018).
40. Frick, K.; Wren, J. Reviewing occupational health and safety management: Multiple roots, diverse
perspectives and ambiguous outcomes. In Systematic Occupational Health and Safety Management: Perspectives
on an International Development; Frick, K., Jensen, P.L., Quinlan, M., Wilthagen, T., Eds.; Pergamon:
Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000; pp. 17–42. ISBN 9780080434131.
41. Walters, D. (Ed.) Regulating Health and Safety Management in the European Union: A Study of the Dynamics of
Change; Presses Interuniversitaires Europeenes: Brussels, Belgium, 2002; ISBN 90-5201-998-3. [CrossRef]
42. Gallagher, C.; Underhill, E.; Rimmer, M. Occupational safety and health management systems in Australia:
Barriers to success. Policy Pract. Health Saf. 2003, 1, 67–81. [CrossRef]
43. Saksvik, P.O.; Quinlan, M. Regulating systematic occupational health and safety management: Comparing
the Norwegian and Australian experience. Relat. Ind./Ind. Relat. 2003, 58, 33–59. [CrossRef]
44. Marhavilas, P.K.; Koulouriotis, D.E.; Spartalis, S.H. Harmonic Analysis of Occupational-Accident Time-Series
as a Part of the Quantified Risk Evaluation in Worksites: Application on Electric Power Industry and
Construction Sector. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2013, 112, 8–25. [CrossRef]
45. International Labour Organization (ILO). Emerging Risks and New Patterns of Prevention in Changing
World of Work, 1st ed.; ILO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2010; pp. 1–22, ISBN 978-92-2-123342-8 (print), ISBN
978-92-2-123343-5 (web pdf).
46. Jordan, J.R.; Letti, G.; Pinto, T.L. A proposal for the use of serious games in occupational safety. In Occupational
Safety and Hygiene II; Arezes, P., Baptista, J.S., Barroso, M.P., Carneiro, P., Cordeiro, P., Costa, N., Melo, R.B.,
Miguel, S.A., Perestrelo, G., Eds.; Taylor and Francis Group: London, UK, 2014; ISBN 978-1-138-00144-2.
47. Gallagher, C.; Underhill, E.; Rimmer, M. Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: A Review of their
Effectiveness in Securing Healthy and Safe Workplaces; National Occupational Health and Safety Commission:
Sydney, Australia, 2001; ISBN 0 642 70981 5.
48. Robson, L.S.; Macdonald, S.; Gray, G.C.; Van Eerd, D.L.; Bigelow, P.L. A descriptive study of the OHS
management auditing methods used by public sector organizations conducting audits of workplaces:
Implications for audit reliability and validity. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 181–189. [CrossRef]
49. Li, Y.; Guldenmund, F.W. Safety management systems: A broad overview of the literature. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103,
94–123. [CrossRef]
50. Aneziris, O.N.; Topali, E.; Papazoglou, I.A. Occupational risk of building construction. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.
2012, 105, 36–46. [CrossRef]
51. Autenrieth, D.A.; Brazile, W.J.; Sandfort, D.R.; Douphrate, D.I.; Román-Muñiz, I.N.; Reynolds, S.J. The
associations between occupational health and safety management system programming level and prior
injury and illness rates in the U.S. dairy industry. Saf. Sci. 2016, 84, 108–116. [CrossRef]
52. Tsalis, T.A.; Stylianou, M.S.; Nikolaou, I.E. Evaluating the quality of corporate social responsibility reports:
The case of occupational health and safety disclosures. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 313–323. [CrossRef]
53. Jørgensen, T.H.; Remmen, A.; Mellado, M.D. Integrated management systems—Three different levels of
integration. J. Clean. Prod. 2006, 14, 713–722. [CrossRef]
54. Santos-Reyes, J.; Beard, A.N. Viability of a systemic safety management system. In Proceedings of the Safety
and Reliability Conference, ESREL-2006, Estoril, Portugal, 18–22 September 2006.
55. Adele, A.L. Legal Perpspectives of ANZI Z10-2005. Prof. Saf. 2006, 41–43. Available online: www.xprolegal.
com/expertarticles/359-1312558749_ASSE%20Z10%20Article.pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
56. Fred, M. ANSI/AIHA Z10-2005: The new benchmark for safety management systems. Prof. Saf. 2006, 51,
25–33. Available online: https://aeasseincludes.assp.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/051/02/020206as.
pdf (accessed on 26 September 2018).
57. Wrona, R.M. The use of state workers’ compensation administrative data to identify injury scenarios and
quantify costs of work-related traumatic brain injuries. J. Saf. Res. 2006, 37, 75–81. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Nielsen, K.J.; Carstensen, O.; Rasmussen, K. The prevention of occupational injuries in two industrial plants
using an incident reporting scheme. J. Saf. Res. 2006, 37, 479–486. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
59. Cadieux, J.; Roy, M.; Desmarais, L. A preliminary validation of a new measure of occupational health and
safety. J. Saf. Res. 2006, 37, 413–419. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
60. Päivinen, M. Electricians’ perception of work-related risks in cold climate when working on high places.
Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2006, 36, 661–670. [CrossRef]
61. Zeng, S.X.; Shi, J.J.; Lou, G.X. A synergetic model for implementing an integrated management system: An
empirical study in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2007, 15, 1760–1767. [CrossRef]
62. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Safety management system: Development
and validation of a multidimensional scale. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2007, 20, 52–68. [CrossRef]
63. Coleman, P.J.; Kerkering, J.C. Measuring mining safety with injury statistics: Lost workdays as indicators of
risk. J. Saf. Res. 2007, 38, 523–533. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
64. Bevilacqua, M.; Ciarapica, F.E.; Giacchetta, G. Industrial and occupational ergonomics in the petrochemical
process industry: A regression trees approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2008, 40, 1468–1479. [CrossRef]
65. Brooks, B. Shifting the focus of strategic occupational injury prevention: Mining free-text, workers
compensation claims data. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1–21. [CrossRef]
66. Duijm, N.J.; Fiévez, C.; Gerbec, M.; Hauptmanns, U.; Konstandinidou, M. Management of health, safety and
environment in process industry. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 908–920. [CrossRef]
67. Salla, L.; Kivistö-Rahnasto, J. Utilization of external accident information in companies’ safety
promotion—Case: Finnish metal and transportation industry. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 802–814. [CrossRef]
68. Nielsen, K.J.; Rasmussen, K.; Glasscock, D.; Spangenberg, S. Changes in safety climate and accidents at two
identical manufacturing plants. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 440–449. [CrossRef]
69. Schrover, A.J.M. Ten years SHE-improvements on a chemical and nuclear research-site—Learning drivers.
Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 551–563. [CrossRef]
70. Zeng, S.X.; Vivian, W.Y.; Tam, C.M. Towards occupational health and safety systems in the construction
industry of China. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1155–1168. [CrossRef]
71. Komljenovic, D.; Groves, W.A.; Kecojevic, V.J. Injuries in U.S. mining operations—A preliminary risk analysis.
Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 792–801. [CrossRef]
72. Caroly, S.; Coutarel, F.; Landry, A.; Mary-Cheray, I. Sustainable MSD prevention: Management for continuous
improvement between prevention and production-Ergonomic intervention in two assembly line companies.
Appl. Ergon. 2009, 41, 591–599. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
73. Chang, J.I.; Liang, C.-L. Performance evaluation of process safety management systems of paint
manufacturing facilities. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2009, 22, 398–402. [CrossRef]
74. Santos-Reyes, J.; Beard, A.N. A SSMS model with application to the oil and gas industry. J. Loss Prev.
Process Ind. 2009, 22, 958–970. [CrossRef]
75. Crippa, C.; Fiorentini, L.; Rossini, V.; Stefanelli, R.; Tafaro, S.; Marchi, M. Fire risk management system for
safe operation of large atmospheric storage tanks. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2009, 22, 574–581. [CrossRef]
76. Knegtering, B.; Pasman, H.J. Safety of the process industries in the 21st century: A changing need of process
safety management for a changing industry. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2009, 22, 162–168. [CrossRef]
77. Pasman, H.J.; Jung, S.; Prem, K.; Rogers, W.J.; Yang, X. Is risk analysis a useful tool for improving process
safety? J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2009, 22, 769–777. [CrossRef]
78. Moriyama, T.; Ohtani, H. Risk assessment tools incorporating human error probabilities in the Japanese
small-sized establishment. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 1379–1397. [CrossRef]
79. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Relation between occupational safety
management and firm performance. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 980–991. [CrossRef]
80. Celik, M. Designing of integrated quality and safety management system (IQSMS) for shipping operations.
Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 569–577. [CrossRef]
81. Reniers, G.L.L.; Ale, B.J.M.; Dullaert, W.; Soudan, K. Designing continuous safety improvement within
chemical industrial areas. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 578–590. [CrossRef]
82. Baram, M. Globalization and workplace hazards in developing nations. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 756–766. [CrossRef]
83. Shengli, N. Ergonomics and occupational safety and health: An ILO perspective. Appl. Ergon. 2010, 41,
744–753. [CrossRef]
84. Gangolells, M.; Casals, M.; Forcada, N.; Roca, X.; Fuertes, A. Mitigating construction safety risks using
prevention through design. J. Saf. Res. 2010, 41, 107–122. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
85. Cheng, C.-W.; Leu, S.-S.; Lin, C.-C.; Fan, C. Characteristic analysis of occupational accidents at small
construction enterprises. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 698–707. [CrossRef]
86. Celeste, J.; Silva, C. A semi-quantitative assessment of occupational risks using bow-tie representation.
Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 973–979. [CrossRef]
87. Sgourou, E.; Katsakiori, P.; Goutsos, S.; Manatakis, E. Assessment of selected safety performance evaluation
methods in regards to their conceptual, methodological and practical characteristics. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48,
1019–1025. [CrossRef]
88. Fera, M.; Macchiaroli, R. Appraisal of a new risk assessment model for SME. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 1361–1368.
[CrossRef]
89. Lindhout, P.; Kingston-Howlett, J.C.; Ale, B.J.M. Controlled readability of Seveso II company safety
documents, the design of a new KPI. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 734–746. [CrossRef]
90. Celik, M. Enhancement of occupational health and safety requirements in chemical tanker operations:
The case of cargo explosion. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 195–203. [CrossRef]
91. Dawson, D.; Ian Noy, Y.; Härmä, M.; Åkerstedt, T.; Belenky, G. Modelling fatigue and the use of fatigue
models in work settings. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2011, 43, 549–564. [CrossRef]
92. Pheng, L.S.; Kwang, G.K. ISO 9001, ISO 14001 and OHSAS 18001 Management Systems: Integration,
Costs and Benefits for Construction Companies. Arch. Sci. Rev. 2005, 48, 145–152. [CrossRef]
93. Romain, J.; Imbeau, D.; de Marcellis-Warin, N. Development of an indirect-cost calculation model suitable
for workplace use. J. Saf. Res. 2011, 42, 149–164. [CrossRef]
94. Leka, S.; Aditya, J.; Widerszal-Bazyl, M.; Żołnierczyk-Zreda, D.; Zwetsloot, G. Developing a standard for
psychosocial risk management: PAS 1010. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 1047–1057. [CrossRef]
95. Verna, B.; O’Keeffe, V. Weighing the pig never made it heavier: Auditing OHS, social auditing as verification
of process in Australia. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 1014–1021. [CrossRef]
96. Vinodkumar, M.N.; Bhasi, M. A study on the impact of management system certification on safety
management. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 498–507. [CrossRef]
97. Pernille, H.; Hasle, P. Making work environment auditable—A ‘critical case’ study of certified occupational
health and safety management systems in Denmark. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 1022–1029. [CrossRef]
98. Ying, L.; Xingdong, L. A study on a new hazard detecting and controlling method: The case of coal mining
companies in China. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 279–285. [CrossRef]
99. Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M.; Zwanikken, S.; Hale, A. Policy expectations and the use of market mechanisms for
regulatory OSH certification and testing regimes. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 1007–1013. [CrossRef]
100. Frick, K. Worker influence on voluntary OHS management systems—A review of its ends and means. Saf. Sci.
2011, 49, 974–987. [CrossRef]
101. Granerud, R.L.; Sø Rocha, R. Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health and safety in
certified manufacturers. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 1030–1039. [CrossRef]
102. Kristensen, P.H. Managing OHS: A route to a new negotiating order in high-performance work organizations?
Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 964–973. [CrossRef]
103. Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M.; Hale, A.; Zwanikken, S. Regulatory risk control through mandatory occupational safety
and health (OSH) certification and testing regimes (CTRs). Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 995–1006. [CrossRef]
104. Hasle, P.; Zwetsloot, G. Editorial: Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: Issues and
challenges. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 961–963. [CrossRef]
105. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified
organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety behavior. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 745–758.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
106. Goh, Y.M.; Love, P.E.D.; Stagbouer, G.; Annesley, C. Dynamics of safety performance and culture: A group
model building approach. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 118–125. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
107. Cheng, C.-W.; Leu, S.-S.; Cheng, Y.M.; Wu, T.C.; Lin, C.C. Applying data mining techniques to explore factors
contributing to occupational injuries in Taiwan’s construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 214–222.
[CrossRef]
108. Pinto, A.; Ribeiro, R.A.; Nunes, I.L. Fuzzy approach for reducing subjectivity in estimating occupational
accident severity. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 281–290. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
109. Badri, A.; Nadeau, S.; Gbodossou, A. Proposal of a risk-factor-based analytical approach for integrating
occupational health and safety into project risk evaluation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 48, 223–234. [CrossRef]
110. Luria, G.; Morag, I. Safety management by walking around (SMBWA): A safety intervention program based
on both peer and manager participation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 248–257. [CrossRef]
111. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Occupational risk management under the
OHSAS 18001 standard: Analysis of perceptions and attitudes of certified firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 24,
36–47. [CrossRef]
112. Mawhood, J.; Dickinson, C. Rail Staff Fatigue—The GB Regulators Perspective on Managing the Risks; Dadashi, N.,
Scott, A., Wilson, J.R., Mills, A., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 337–346, Print ISBN
978-1-138-00037-7, eBook ISBN 978-0-203-75972-1.
113. Lee, S.-W.; Kim, K.-H.; Kim, T.-G. Current situation of certification system and future improvements of
the occupational health and safety management system for loss prevention in Korea—Focused on KOSHA
18001. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 2012, 25, 1085–1089. [CrossRef]
114. Gnoni, M.G.; Lettera, G. Near-miss management systems: A methodological comparison. J. Loss Prev.
Process Ind. 2012, 25, 609–616. [CrossRef]
115. Badri, A.; Gbodossou, A.; Nadeau, S. Occupational health and safety risks: Towards the integration into
project management. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 190–198. [CrossRef]
116. Hamidi, N.; Omidvari, M.; Meftahi, M. The effect of integrated management system on safety and
productivity indices: Case study; Iranian cement industries. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1180–1189. [CrossRef]
117. Hsu, I.-Y.; Su, T.-S.; Kao, C.-S.; Shu, Y.-L.; Lin, P.-R.; Tseng, J.-M. Analysis of business safety performance by
structural equation models. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1–11. [CrossRef]
118. Wang, C.-H.; Liu, Y.-J. Omnidirectional safety culture analysis and discussion for railway industry. Saf. Sci.
2012, 50, 1196–1204. [CrossRef]
119. Zubaidah, I.; Doostdar, S.; Harun, Z. Factors influencing the implementation of a safety management system
for construction sites. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 418–423. [CrossRef]
120. Abad, J.; Esteban, L.; Jordi, V. An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 certification process: Objective drivers
and consequences on safety performance and labour productivity. Saf. Sci. 2013, 60, 47–56. [CrossRef]
121. Santos, G.; Barros, S.; Mendes, F.; Lopes, N. The main benefits associated with health and safety management
systems certification in Portuguese small and medium enterprises post quality management system
certification. Saf. Sci. 2013, 51, 29–36. [CrossRef]
122. Lo, C.K.Y.; Pagell, M.; Fan, D.; Wiengarten, F.; Yeung, A.C.L. OHSAS 18001 certification and operating
performance: The role of complexity and coupling. J. Oper. Manag. 2014, 32, 268–280. [CrossRef]
123. Yazdani, A.; Neumann, W.P.; Imbeau, D.; Bigelow, P.; Pagell, M.; Wells, R. Prevention of musculoskeletal
disorders within management systems: A scoping review of practices, approaches, and techniques.
Appl. Ergon. 2015, 51, 255–262. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
124. Gopang, M.A.; Nebhwani, M.; Khatri, A.; Marri, H.B. An assessment of occupational health and safety
measures and performance of SMEs: An empirical investigation. Saf. Sci. 2017, 93, 127–133. [CrossRef]
125. Cañamares, S.M.; Escribano, B.M.V.; González-García, M.N.; Barriuso, A.R.; Rodríguez-Sáiz, A. Occupational
risk-prevention diagnosis: A study of construction SMEs in Spain. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 104–115. [CrossRef]
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Sustainability 10 03663 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sustainability 10 03663 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

sustainability

Keywords: Occupational Health and Safety (OHS); sustainability; Management Standards

Sustainability 2018, 10, 3663; doi:10.3390/su10103663 www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Table 1. An overview of OHSMS standards.

Codes Edition Year Institutions Description Focus Reference

Codes Edition Year Institutions Description Focus Reference

Codes Edition Year Institutions Description Focus Reference

ISO ILOOSH BS OHSAS ANSI/AIHA AS/NZS SS Une Uni ISO

Table 3. The ten investigated journals/sources (throughout the years 2006–2017).

Table 4. Comparison of OHSMS Standards.

The implementation and application of a range of efficient OHS management actions

Abbreviations and Acronyms

Table A1. The classification results of the 75 papers.

Year of Type of Paper Data or

Table A1. Cont.

Year of Type of Paper Data or

Table A1. Cont.

Year of Type of Paper Data or

You might also like