Agronomy Research 13(5), 1260–1274, 2015

OHSAS 18001 contribution to real and formal safety elements in

safety management system in manufacturing
Õ. Paas*, K. Reinhold and P. Tint

Tallinn University of Technology, Faculty of Economics, Institute of Business

Administration, Chair of Work Environment and Safety, Ehitajate 5, EE19086 Tallinn,
Estonia; *Correspondence: [email protected]

Abstract. The current paper examines safety management systems in the Estonian manufacturing
industry. The aim of this research is to assess via safety audit, to what extent OHSAS18001
contributes to real and formal safety elements of SMS in manufacturing companies. In 2014, eight
OHSAS 18001-certified organisations and eight non-certified Estonian enterprises from different
branches of manufacturing were interviewed and assessed using MISHA method. The results
show via statistical analysis that OHSAS 18001 has a significant impact on formal safety, real
safety and combined safety elements. It can be also concluded that the OHSAS 18001
certification facilitates companies’ commitment to health and safety activities and leads to dealing
with additional topics promoting workplace health and safety. Therefore, OHSAS 18001 can be
seen as a strategic unit for improving safety performance. However, after examining three types
of companies, we can conclude that a safety management system can be effectively implemented
also without possessing the OHSAS 18001 certification, but in the Estonian economy market it
usually requires affiliation with a larger corporation or concern. Based on the analysis, a
conceptual model is created which helps the company reallocate the resources in a way that all
possible safety elements will be covered.

Key words: MISHA method, OHSAS 18001, safety audit, safety management.

INTRODUCTION

The safety management system (SMS) can be considered as a systematic and

comprehensive process for proactive managing of safety risks that integrates operations
and technical services with financial and human resource management. In order to ensure
a successful outcome, the SMS must: (1) be comprehensive and integrated into all of the
organization’s decisions and actions with respect to adopted control measures; (2) be
documented, implemented and readily accessible and used as the primary means of
ensuring safe operation; (3) comply with all the requirements stated in the occupational
health and safety (OHS) regulation and (4) be continually reviewed and revised so that
the SMS remains up-to-date and effective (Kamp & Blansch, 2000; Bottani et al., 2009;
Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2009; Möldri et al., 2012; Rebelo et al., 2014; Mežinska et al.,
2015; Yorio et al., 2015).
Frazier et al. (2013) suggest the following sub-factors in SMS: safety policy,
procedures and rules, training, communication, incident reporting and analysis, safety

1260
audits and inspections, rewards and recognitions, employee engagement, safety meetings
/ committees, suggestions / concerns and discipline.
After the SMS procedures have been developed, they need to be implemented by
people with appropriate skills and knowledge. Training packages should be developed
to explain the SMS and they should be delivered effectively to all workers. One
possibility for establishing and ensuring effective SMS is to apply for an SMS
certification (such as OHSAS 18001 (EVS, 2007)), which creates the basis for
systematic work in the area of safety management, hazard identification and prevention,
and promotes strong improvement process being put to use (Paas et al., 2015b). The
benefits of OHSAS 18001 have been studied by several authors in recent years (Nielsen,
2000; Torp et al., 2000; Hale, 2009; Rocha, 2010; Granerud and Rocha, 2011;
Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2012a; Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2012b; Koivupalo et al., 2015;).
The aforementioned studies indicate that adopting OHSAS 18001 may improve the
organisation’s image, reputation and performance. Moreover, it integrates OHS into the
company’s management system, reduces the risk of accidents, improves the company’s
compliance with legal obligations, favours a learning process and helps to create a higher
level of transparency. However, OHSAS 18001 certification has also been criticised,
especially for having a tendency to increase the bureaucratisation of health and safety
issues and therefore discourage genuine worker involvement. This may shift the focus
from health and safety issues towards paperwork control, which may diminish the
activities dealing with OHS problems (Kamp & Blansch, 2000; Nielsen, 2000; Granerud
& Rocha, 2011).
The aforethought SMS contributes to a positive safety culture (Fernandez-Muniz et
al., 2007a; Fernandez-Muniz et al., 2007b; Hale et al., 2010; Nordlöf et al., 2015; Yourio
et al., 2015). A healthy and positive safety culture actively seeks improvements, is
constantly aware of hazards and uses adequate units for continuous monitoring, analysis
and investigation. Other elements of positive safety culture include the personnel and
management being committed to safety responsibilities and the existence of a
documented set of rules and policies. Several studies prove that management’s strong
commitment to safety ensures the establishment of and adherence to sound safety
practices (Nielsen, 2014; Koivupalo et al., 2015; Nordlöf et al., 2015). It is important to
note that a safety culture cannot be effective without devolving to organizational culture
(Järvis, 2013; Yourio et al., 2015). Therefore, the SMS should not rely on a pure
paperwork system—rather it should reflect the overall safety culture and be consistent
with the mitigation of occupational hazards gained from the risk assessment.
Poor safety culture will encourage an atmosphere of non-compliance to safe
operating practices. Violations are likely to be most common in organizations where the
unspoken attitudes and beliefs are that production and commercial goals should get
priority, rather than safety. Several studies illustrate the cultural expression where there
is a constant competition between productivity and safety—e.g. taking shortcuts without
using the appropriate units or ignoring safe procedures to increase productivity (Brown
et al., 2000; Atak & Kingma, 2011; Nazaruk, 2011). Managers tend to perceive the
resources for OHS as expenditures rather than investments. Therefore, it remains
difficult to convince the management of the benefits of investing into safety activities—
implementation costs are often overestimated and potential failure costs underestimated
(Amador-Rodenzo, 2005). Effective SMS should promote the achievement of an
acceptable level of safety while balancing the distribution of resources between

1261
production and protection. In any manufacturing organization, production and safety
risks are strongly linked (Fig. 1). According to James Reason (1997), when production
increases, safety risks may also increase if the necessary resources or process
enhancements are not available. A company should determine its key objectives of
production and safety by balancing the output with acceptable safety risks. If the
resources are excessively allocated for protection or risk controls, it may result in the
product becoming unprofitable, thus jeopardizing the viability of the organization. On
the other hand, favouring the allocation of resources for production at the expense of
protection might have an impact on the safety performance and it might ultimately lead
to an accident. Perhaps the most extensive effect of a poor safety culture will be evident
in an unwillingness to be proactive with no deficiencies—safety shortcomings will be
worked around and allowed to persist.

Bankruptcy

Safety
Financial Managemen
Managemen t
Protection

Catastrophy

Production

Figure 1. Relationship between safety and financial management to ensure positive safety
practice (adopted from James Reason 1997).

Good safety culture should have favourable characteristics that contribute to a

positive, desirable and primarily stable state of safety. According to Silva & Lima
(2005), an implemented prescriptive safety culture involves not only the congruence
between Safety values exposed and Safety values in use, but a complete real and positive
safety response encompassing values, behaviours, organisation and engineering.
Naturally, manufacturing companies with relatively high level of hazards should declare
safety values and compose the safety policy as a part of formal safety. However, this
does not ensure a prescriptive safety culture. According to some researchers (Granerud
& Rocha, 2011; Meliá et al., 2012), a formal accent on safety can sometimes be used as
an internal and external marketing procedure. It may thus hide some of the real safety
weaknesses and lead to window coupling. Some of the flaws which may affect the safety
response negatively are: 1) a formal but inefficient use of safety programmes; 2) the
existence of general safety instructions not adopted to the company’s real needs; 3)
hazard analyses existing only on paper without any further action plans or activities
being created; 4) lack of real safety communication including immediate intervention
and 5) group specific descriptive safety cultures against safety procedures, which
sometimes result in developing poor behaviours and attitudes towards safety practices.
The aim of this research was to assess via safety audit in what extent OHSAS 18001
contributes to the real and formal safety elements of SMS in manufacturing companies.

1262
 The main objectives were: (1) to examine the impact of OHSAS 18001 on real and
formal safety elements, (2) to conduct a safety audit in 16 industrial companies (eight
OHSAS 18001-certified companies (OHSAS), four non-certified locally established and
owned companies (NOHSASL) and four organisations which belong to a larger
corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified (NOHSASC)) in order to
find the relationships between company type and safety activities and (3) to perform a
statistical analysis to find out the significant difference in formal, real and formal+real
(combined) safety elements based on company type.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 2014, 16 safety audits were conducted in manufacturing companies in Estonia

by means of the MISHA method (Method for Industrial Safety and Health Activity
Assessment) (Kuusisto, 2000) in the form of quantitative assessment (scale 0–3 for each
item) and qualitative interviews. OHSAS companies were selected using the database of
Estonian Association for Quality (2014). In order to compare the results with non-
certified organizations, eight companies with a similar background were selected—four
represented organisations which belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not
OHSAS 18001-certified and four that were non-certified, locally established and owned
companies representing main manufacturing areas in Estonia such as printing, textile,
metal, food, furniture, plastic, glass, heat and electronics industry.
In order to see whether there is difference in OHSAS 18001 impact for formal and
real safety performance, the authors interviewed top and line managers and also safety
specialists and workers’ representatives in enterprises by the MISHA method. As a
result, it was determined (using statistical methods) whether the safety element
contributes to formal, real or combined safety. Some of the elements indicated possessed
properties from both groups, which formed the third group—combined safety elements
(Fig. 2b).
A total of 55 questions were asked from each of the person interviewed (MISHA
method). Once data collection had ceased, the first author and the interviewer (ÕP) re-
listened to the records, checked the coding strategy used for consistency and ensured that
all questions had been answered. The second author (KR) then listened to the records
and made notes about understanding the answers. After that, the first two authors
discussed the answers of each company in order to come to a good level of agreement
on the results. The enterprises’ number of workers varied from 50 to 250 (Paas et al.,
2015b).
Statistical analyses were prepared using the programme IBM SPSS Statistics 22.0
and R 2.15.2. The following statistical methods were used: correlation, MANOVA and
Factor Analysis Principal Component method (Field, 2013).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This section presents the empirical findings of the study. For determination of the
impact of OHSAS 18001 on formal and real safety performance, a statistical analysis
was conducted. As a result, a conceptual model was created based on whether the safety
element contributes to formal, real or combined safety (Fig. 2a, 2b, 2c).

1263
 Safety elements covered in OHSAS 18001
Safety elements examined through audit but not covered with OHSAS 18001

Figure 2a. Formal safety elements.

Safety elements covered in OHSAS 18001

Safety elements examined through audit but not covered with OHSAS 18001

Figure 2b. Combined safety elements.

1264
Safety elements covered in OHSAS 18001
Safety elements examined through audit but not covered with OHSAS 18001

Figure 2c. Real safety elements.

1265
 Testing the significant impact of company type (OHSAS NOHSASL, NOHSASC)
on the abovementioned safety elements with Multivariate Analysis MANOVA, the results
demonstrate that there was a significant multivariate main effect of company type on
formal safety performance (p < 0.05). The results also showed that there was a
significant difference in real safety performance as well as in combined safety
performance between different company types (p < 0.1).
A conceptual model (Fig. 2 SUM): OHSAS 18001 and the impact of the safety
elements in the scope of formal, real or combined safety can be combined from Fig. 2a,
2b, 2c.

Figure 2 SUM. A conceptual model: OHSAS 18001 and the impact of the safety elements in
the scope of formal, real or combined safety.

a) Formal Safety Elements

MANOVA analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference in
formal safety performance based on the company type (OHSAS, NOHSASL,
NOHSASC), F (22, 6) = 10.047, p < 0.05; Wilk's Λ = 0.001, partial η2 = 0.974. The
power to detect the effect was 0.988. Fig. 2a shows three formal safety elements—safety
documents, absenteeism and design of the psychological working conditions—were not
dependent on company type since they did not show any correlation. The majority of
safety documents are required by OHS legislation and therefore OHSAS 18001 does not
play a significant role in implementing basic safety documents. Absenteeism
investigation is required by OHSAS 18001, however this is complicated to conduct in
practice due to restrictions in Estonian Personal Data Protection Act (2007), and
therefore our study showed that all types of companies have difficulties reaching
absenteeism. The active approach to dealing with psychological working conditions is
still low in all Estonian companies with no differences between three company types.
This was also supported by the qualitative interviews conducted by the authors, in
addition to the current research (Paas et al, 2015a).
All other formal safety elements were dependent on company type. The highest
impact was shown on written safety policy (0.964, p < 0.00), revising the safety policy
(0.972, p < 0.00), safety policy’s connections to the company’s other activities
(0.964 p < 0.00) and follow-up of accidents statistics (0.929, p < 0.00).
Company type also showed significant impact on contents of the policy (0.895,
p < 0.00), assignment of tasks and responsibilities (0.885, p < 0.00), selection and
placement of the personnel (0.695, p < 0.00), planning of the personnel resources (0.493,

1266
p < 0.05) and definition of the personnel responsibilities (0.488, p < 0.05). This means
that implementing OHSAS 18001 contributes to a higher formal safety performance—
safety activities are systematically planned and it guarantees higher preconditions for
formal safety performance.
Fig. 3 presents the results of each formal safety element calculated by the MISHA
method according to company type. From there we can conclude that for some elements
OHSAS 18001 does not give the expected added value. For instance, organisations
which belong to a larger corporation or concern but are not OHSAS 18001-certified
(NOSHASC) show higher results in defining personnel’s responsibilities and planning
personnel resources. This shows that these elements are more strongly related to the
company’s general personnel management and the content of job descriptions. Some of
the corporated companies have applied a strong content for safety policy which indicates
that if the top management reports full engagement to safety, the content of safety policy
may be more comprehensive and far-reaching than required by OHSAS 18001. Non-
certified, locally established and owned companies (NOHSASL) show considerably
lower results than OHSAS 18001 certified (OHSAS) and NOHSASC companies in
formal safety elements which can be explained by more random attitudes and activities
towards OHS management. Only a few of NOHSASL companies possess a written
safety policy or deal with regular personnel resources and selection. Additionally, the
follow-up of accidents statistics is very low among NOHSASL companies. Meliá et al.
(2012) conducted an in-depth analysis of a NOHSASL company dealing in process
industry in Southern Europe and identified several safety flaws such as formal use of
preventive observations, formal but not useful safety programmes, lack of safety
communication etc.
Safety audits revealed that NOHSASC companies gained slightly higher results
preparing safety documents, such as work instruction, instructions for safety training,
training of new employees, instruction for supervisors’ safety duties etc. than OHSAS
companies. The reason behind this might rather depend on the size of the company than
its type as smaller firms tend to put less effort into the bureaucracy of safety documents.

Absenteeism
Follow-up of Accidents Statistics
Definition of the Personnel's Responsibilities
Design of the Psychological Working Conditions
Selection and Placement of the Personnel
Planning of the Personnel Resources
Safety Policy's Connections to other Activities
Revising Safety Policy
Safety Documents
Assignment of Tasks and Responsibilities
Contents of the Policy
Written Safety Policy

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

NOHSASL NOHSASC OHSAS

Figure 3. Descriptive statistics of formal safety elements providing mean (calculated using the
MISHA method) for the dependent variables according to company type. Scale 0–3.

1267
 b) Real Safety Elements

Psychological Work Ability

Physical Work Ability
Psychological Stress Factors
Major Accident Hazards
Maintenance
Accident Hazards
Thermal Conditions
Illumination
Noise
Physical Loads
Chemical Hazards
Design of the Physical Work and Workplace
Work Permits
Training for Work
Campaigns
Suggestions for Improvements
Information on Changes
General Communication Pricedures
Development in Teams
Employee Participation into the workplace design
Supervisor \ Employee Communication
Promotion, Rewards and career planning
Resources
Occupational Health Services
Supervisor safety knowledge
Line Management Safety Knowledge
Top Management's Safety Knowledge
Dissemination of the Policy
Top Management Commitment to Safety policy

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

NOHSASL NOHSASC OHSAS

Figure 4. Descriptive statistics of real safety elements providing mean (calculated using the
MISHA method) for the dependent variables according to company type. Scale 0–3.

Examining real safety elements, there was a statistically significant difference in

real safety performance based on the company type (OHSAS, NOHSASL, NOHSASC),
F (26, 2) = 17.311, p < 0.1; Wilk's Λ = 0.000, partial η2 = 0.996. The power to detect
the effect was 0.854. Among real safety elements, statistical analysis showed a lot more

1268
safety factors which do not depend on company type (Fig. 2): in activity area A2 of
occupational health services, supervisor safety knowledge, line management safety
knowledge; in B1employee participation in workplace design, development in teams; in
B2 information on changes; in C1 noise, thermal conditions, illumination, physical
loads, major accident hazards and design of physical work and workplace; in C2
psychological stress factors; in D2 physical workability and psychological workability.
This indicates that OHSAS 18001 does not contribute to a great extent to many of
the real safety activities. For example, dealing with physical work environment (C1) is
a strict requirement derived from the OHS act and it is one of the main focuses of the
annual visit of the labour inspector. Employee participation in workplace design is rarely
used in all three types of companies due to the common belief that there is low OHS
knowledge among employees. Therefore, companies prefer to rely on engineers rather
than involving employees in the stage of design, with a few exceptions (Paas et al.,
2015a). Development in teams is also seldom practiced among companies as it is not
supported by Estonian OHS legislation.
Other real safety elements were dependent on company type: in activity area A1:
top management commitment to the safety policy and dissemination of the policy; A2:
resources, top management’s safety knowledge, line management’s safety knowledge
and supervisor safety knowledge; A3: promotion, rewards and career planning; B1:
supervisor\employee communication; B2: general communication procedure,
suggestions for improvement and campaigns; B3: training for work and work permits;
C1: chemical hazards, maintenance and accident hazards.
Very high influence emerged in top management’s commitment to the safety policy
(0.964, p < 0.00), dissemination of the policy (0.929, p < 0.00) and OHS resources
(0.964, p < 0.00). There are several other real safety elements that significantly depend
on company type: top management’s safety knowledge, supervisor employee
communication, promotion, rewards and career planning, training for work, work
permits, and so on. From Fig. 4, all scores for real safety element according to company
type can be seen. From these results we can conclude that implementing the OHSAS
18001 standard contributes only partly to real safety elements such as top management
commitment to the safety policy, dissemination of safety policy and resources. For many
real safety elements (Fig. 4), strong demands from corporations influence safety
activities more than requirements derived from the OHSAS 18001 standard, for example
suggestions for improvements; general communication procedures; promotion, rewards
and career planning and safety knowledge among supervisors, line managers and top
managers.
In 2011, Granerud and Rocha conducted in-depth analyses in five OHSAS
manufacturing companies. One of the companies (plastic production) used several
formal safety elements, but in practice it was difficult to find visible signs of safety
activities—formal feedback channels and written procedures were not used, employees
were not involved in suggesting or making improvements and several physical and
chemical risks were inadequately mitigated. This example shows that the OHSAS 18001
certificate is used merely as a window dressing for the company’s customers. In other
four OHSAS companies, both formal and real safety elements were handled with top
management’s commitment, as safety is seen as a high priority, and workers were
actively participating in the enhancement of health and safety.

1269
 There was a statistically significant difference in combined safety performance
based on the company type (OHSAS, NOHSASL, NOHSASC), F (26, 2) = 11.472,
p < 0.1; Wilk's Λ = 0.000, partial η2 = 0.993. The power to detect the effect was 0.730.
Fig. 5 presents the results of each real and formal safety element calculated by the
MISHA method according to company type.

c) Elements from Combined Safety

Assessment of the Work Enivironment

Accidents Investigation
Tasks of the Safety Organisation
Tasks of the Occupational Health Services…
Workplace Hazard Analysis
Preparing of the work Instructions
Safety Training Needs
Selection of line management and Supervisors
Safety Representatives and \ or othe…
Safety Manager
Safety Commitee \ and or other Cooperative…
Informing external bodies about the…
Initial Status Review
Participation in the Preparation of the Safety…

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00

NOHSASL NOHSASC

Figure 5. Descriptive statistics of real and formal safety elements providing mean (calculated
using the MISHA method) for the dependent variables according to company type. Scale 0–3.

The results indicate that all elements of the safety policy (A1) depended on the
company type while all elements from safety activities in practice (A2) had no
significance for the company type. From hazard analysis procedures (C3), two
elements—tasks of the occupational health services and tasks of the safety
organization—did not correlate with company type, while workplace hazard analysis
was dependent on company type. Additionally, elements from personnel safety training,
accident investigation and assessment of the work environment showed significant
difference. It is clear why the OHSAS 18001 standard contributes to participation in the
preparation of the safety policy as it is reasonable to engage employees in the preparation
stage in order to strengthen the relationship between employees’ safety principles and
employers’ safety standards. The assessment of work environment was strongly
dependent on the company type, although NOHSASC companies tend to carry out
comprehensive risk assessment and occupational hazards measurements even more
regularly than OHSAS companies, while NOHSASL companies hardly perform regular

1270
activities in this field. Interestingly, accident investigation is performed more actively
by NOHSASC companies. Obviously, the need to report and compare numeric results
between subunits determines it. Clearly, elements from A2 (presence of a safety
manager, safety committee and safety representatives) are required by the general OHS
law which every company, irrespective of its type, has to follow.

d) OHSAS 18001 contribution to overall safety

Our conceptual model presented in Fig. 2 highlights (in grey colour) those
important safety elements that should be covered in safety audits but fall out of the scope
of OHSAS 18001. The statistical analysis showed that four out of six mentioned
elements were dependent on company type and OHSAS 18001 certification. This
indicates that OHSAS companies tend to have higher commitment to OHS and therefore
readily solve additional OHS related topics not required by the OHSAS 18001. This
result may increase the attractiveness of OHSAS 18001 certification for managers and
companies may see it as a strategic unit for improving safety performance. Those results
are in line with other similar studies. Abad et al. (2013) proved via various statistical
assessments that the work accident rate was lower in OHSAS 18001 certified companies
and the certification had positive impact on operational performance as well as
productivity. Fernandez-Muniz et al. (2009) stated in their study among Spanish OHSAS
companies that occupational safety depends on managerial decisions related to
preventive activities, and confirm that effective safety management system is a factor of
productivity and essential ingredient for improving the firms’ position in the market.
From this we can conclude that certified safety experience may have long-term benefits
and OHSAS 18001 adds value not only to safety performance but also to overall business
performance.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, following statements can be presented:

1. Based on the research on 16 manufacturing companies in Estonia, a conceptual
model of the contribution of OHSAS 18001 to companies’ safety activities is created.
We can say that OHSAS 18001 certification contributes significantly to formal safety
elements such as the existence of safety policy, the follow-up procedures of accidents
statistics, assigning safety tasks and responsibilities for employees. OHSAS 18001
contributes to some of the real safety elements as well, but most of them do not depend
on whether the company possess the OHSAS 18001 certification or not. Concerning
combined elements, many of them—such as workplace hazard analysis, working
environment assessments, evaluation of safety training needs etc.—are dependent on the
OHSAS 18001 certification.
2. Some of the elements examined by the safety audit that do not fall into the scope
of OHSAS 18001 are still dependent on company type: selection and placement of the
personnel, planning of the personnel resources, selection of line management,
supervisors and promotion, rewards and career planning. This result shows that the
OHSAS 18001 certification facilitates a company’s commitment to health and safety
activities and leads to dealing with additional topics promoting workplace health and
safety. Therefore, OHSAS 18001 might be seen as a strategic unit for improving safety
performance.

1271
 3. Conducting safety audits and determining the company’s tendency to lean its
focus either towards formal or real safety assists the company in reallocating the
resources in a way that all possible safety elements are covered. It is essential to deal
with real safety, as this is often most visible and forms the employee’s safety attitudes
and performance, but also with formal and combined safety as those elements often add
value to the systematic health and safety work in a company.

REFERENCES

Abad, J., Lafuente, E. & Vilajosana, J. 2013. An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 process:
Objective drivers and consequences on safety performance and labour productivity. Safety
Science 60, 47–56.
Amador-Rodenzo, R. 2005. An overview to CERSSO’s self-evaluation of the cost-benefit on the
investment in occupational safety and health in the textile factories: ‘A step by step
methodology’. Journal of Safety Research 36(3), 215–229.
Atak, A. & Kingma, S. 2011. Safety culture in an aircraft maintenance organisation: A view from
the inside. Safety Science 49(2), 268–278.
Bottani, E., Monica, L. & Vignali, G. 2009. Safety management systems: performance
differences between adopters and non-adopters. Safety Science 47(2), 155–162.
Brown, K.A., Willis, P.G. & Prussia, G.E. 2000. Predicting safe employee behaviour in the steel
industry: development and test of sociotechnical Model. Journal of Operations
Management 18, 445–465.
Estonian Association for Quality. 2014. Database of Certificates. http://eaq.ee/sisu/sertifikaatide-
andmebaas. Accessed 05.01.2014 (in Estonian).
EVS 18001:2007 (OHSAS 18001). SMSs. Estonian Centre for Standardization (in Estonian).
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. 2007a. Safety culture: analysis
of the causal relationships between its key dimensions. Journal of Safety Research 38,
627–641.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. 2007b. Safety management
system: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Journal of loss
Prevention in the Process Industries 20, 52–68.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. 2009. Relation between
occupational safety management and firm performance. Safety Science 47(7), 980–991.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. 2012a. Occupational risk
management under the OHSAS 18001 standard: analysis of perceptions and attitudes of
certified firms. Journal of Cleaner Production 24, 36–47.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M. & Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. 2012b. Safety climate in
OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety behaviour.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 45, 745–758.
Field, A. 2013. Discovering Statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. Fourth Edition, SAGE
Publications Ltd, London.
Frazier, B.F., Ludwig, T.D., Whitaker, B. & Roberts, D.S. 2013. A hierarchical factor analysis of
a safety culture survey. Journal of Safety Research 45, 15–28.
Granerud, L. & Rocha, R.S. 2011.Organisational learning and continuous improvement of health
and safety in certified manufacturers. Safety Science 49, 1030–1039.
Hale, A. 2009. Why safety performance indicators? Safety Science 47, 479–480.
Hale, A.R., Guldenmund, F.W., H. van Loenhout, P.L.C. & Oh, J.I.H. 2010. Evaluating safety
management and culture interventions to improve safety: Effective intervention strategies.
Safety Science 48(8), 1026–1035.

1272
Järvis, M. 2013. Assessment of the Contribution of Safety Knowledge to Sustainable Safety
Management Systems in Estonian SME-s. [dissertation] Tallinn (Estonia): Tallinn
University of Technology.
Kamp, A. & Blansch, K.L. 2000. Integrating management of OHS and the environment:
participation, prevention and control. In: Systematic Occupational Health and Safety
Management. Perspectives on an International Development, Emerald Group Publishing
Limited, Ed. Frick, K., Jensen, P.L., Quinlan, Wilthagen, M. T., Bingley, T.
Koivupalo, M., Sulasalmi, M., Rodrigo, P. & Väyrynen, S. 2015. Health and safety management
in a changing organisation: Case study global steel company. Safety Science 74, 128–139.
Kuusisto, A. 2000. Safety management systems: Audit units and reliability of auditing.
[dissertation] Tampere (Finland): Tampere University of Technology.
Meliá, J.L., Silva, S.A. & Fugas, C.S. 2012. Formal safety versus real Safety: Quantitative and
Qualitative Approaches to Safety Culture. Conference 72 proceedings: Insights into the
sustainable growth of business. PSAM 11 / ESREL 2012, 25–29. June, Helsinki, Finland:
(6 pp.). CD-Rom
Mežinska, I., Lapiņa, I. & Mazais, J. 2015. Integrated management systems towards sustainable
and socially responsible organisation. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence,
26(5–6), 469–481.
Möldri, M., Tammepuu, A., Tint, P., Paas, Õ. & Laaniste, P. 2012. Integration of the SMS to IMS
in Estonian Seveso II establishments: selected case studies. Brebbia, C. A. (ed.). Risk
Analysis VIII. ArhurstLodge, Arhurs, Southampton: Wessex Institute of Technology Press.
227–236.
Nazaruk, M. 2011. Developing Safety Culture Interventions in the Manufacturing Sector.
[dissertation] UK, University of Bath.
Nielsen, K.J. 2000. Organizational theories implicit in various approaches to OHS management.
In: Frick, K., Jensen, P.L., Quinlan, M., Wilthagen, T. (eds.), Systematic Occupational
Health and Safety Management: Perspectives on an International Development, Emerald
Group Publishing Limited, Bingley.
Nielsen, K.J. 2014. Improving safety culture through the health and safety organization: a case
study. Journal of Safety Research 48, 7–17.
Nordlöf, H., Wiitawaara, B., Winband, U., Wijk, K. & Westerling, R. 2015. Safety culture and
reasons for risk-taking at a large steel-manufacturing company: Investigating the worker
perspective. Safety Science 73, 126–135.
Occupational Health and Safety Act. 1999. RT I 1999, 60, 616.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/108102014007. Accessed 31.01.2015 (in Estonian).
OHSAS Project Group. 2007. OHSAS 18001:2007. SMSs – requirements.
Paas, Õ., Reinhold, K. & Tint, P.2015a. Estimation of safety performance by MISHA method
and the benefits of OHSAS 18001 implementation in Estonian manufacturing industry.
Agronomy Research 13(3), 792–809.
Paas, Õ., Reinhold, K. & Tint, P. 2015b. Voluntary safety management system in manufacturing
industry – to what extent does OHSAS 18001 certification help? Scientific Journal of Riga
Technical University. Safety of Technogenic Environment, accepted.
Personal Data Protection Act. 2007. RT I 2007, 24, 127.
https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/112072014051. Accessed 02.02.2015 (in Estonian).
Reason, J. 1997. Managing the Risks of Organizational Accidents, pp. 252.
Rebelo, M.F., Santos, G., & Silva, R. 2014. A generic model for integration of Quality,
Environment and Safety Management Systems. The TQM Journal 26(2), 143–159.
Rocha, R.S. 2010. Institutional effects on occupational health and safety management systems.
Human Factors in Ergonomics and Manufacturing 20, 211–225.

1273
Silva, S. & Lima, M.L. 2005. Safety as an organizational value: improving safety practices and
learning from accident. In K. Kolowrocki (Ed). Advances in Safety and Reliability 2,
1818–1824, London: Taylor & Francis.
Torp, S., Riise, T. & Moen, B.E. 2000. Systematic health, environment and safety activities: do
they influence occupational environment, behaviour and health? Occupational Medicine
(Oxford) 50, 326–333.
Yorio, P.L., Willmer, D.R. & Moore, S.M. 2015. Health and safety management systems through
a multilevel and strategic management perspective: Theoretical and empirical
considerations. Safety Science 72(2), 221–228.

1274