This article was downloaded by: [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] On: 06 February 2014, At: 07:37 Publisher: Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nics20
The role of occupational safety and health specialist in safety promotion and implementation – case study a
Snežana Žiković a
Faculty of Occupational Safety in Niš, University of Niš, Niš, Republic of Serbia Published online: 05 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Snežana Žiković , International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion (2014): The role of occupational safety and health specialist in safety promotion and implementation – case study, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, DOI: 10.1080/17457300.2013.877938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.877938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.877938
SHORT NOTE The role of occupational safety and health specialist in safety promotion and implementation – case study Snezana Zikovi c* Faculty of Occupational Safety in Ni s, University of Ni s, Ni s, Republic of Serbia
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
(Received 3 November 2013; final version received 17 December 2013)
1. Introduction Literature analysis in the field of occupational health and safety proves poor representation on the topic of persons in charge of occupational safety and health, especially the lack of empirical research on the topic of people in charge of occupational safety and health in companies in Serbia; hence, this fact creates the need for such thematic studies. ‘Research on work issues of independent occupational safety experts in medium-sized companies in Croatia’, conducted by the research project team in 2009, should be particularly emphasised (Bozajic et al., 2010). Research results show that the vast majority (72.19%) of mediumsized companies in Croatia, which are liable to organise activities for occupational safety specialist, in accordance with the Law on Occupational Safety, has conducted their legal obligation so that the company employs at least one independent occupational safety expert. The number of employed occupational safety experts in these companies is statistically significant, positively dependent on the increase in the number of employees and increase in the level of hazard (risk) in the company. Out of the respondents’ companies that have OHSAS 18001 system, vast majority (80.95%) has significantly improved occupational safety conditions and activities of occupational safety experts. In only 7.10% of companies, which is a minority, occupational safety experts perform duties only in the field of occupational safety in their business practice, while in the majority of companies, occupational safety experts perform duties parallel to duties in other areas of protection, primarily in fire and environmental protection. Experts with qualifications in the area of safety account for about one-third (33.73%) of all occupational safety experts in medium-sized companies in Croatia, while majority of those (44.67%) are experts with qualifications in wider areas of technical professions. Average mark of all individual work evaluations of occupational safety experts (total of 44 marks) is 3.64 (on a scale 1–5), which is in the scope of a very good mark. The highest
*Email: [email protected] Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis
individual average mark (4.24) is given for evaluating cooperation with specialists in occupational medicine. The lowest individual average mark (2.87) is given for evaluating perception and evaluation of occupational safety as a social value for the public and society. Average mark of all individual evaluations of proposals for improving occupational safety expert activities (total of 21 marks) is 3.77, which is in the scope of a very good mark. The highest individual average mark (4.10) is given to evaluation of proposal for improving information exchange between occupational safety experts in the company and external participants involved in occupational safety system via the Internet. The lowest individual average mark (2.99) is given to propose increase in the number of employed occupational safety experts in a company. These valuable research results have been used as guidelines for designing research on the issue of persons in charge of occupational safety and health in companies in the Republic of Serbia (Zivkovi c, 2011). Traditional thinking about safety as a profession or science should gradually cede space for new approaches that are expected to create a new type of professional activities that will be based on the management of occupational safety, health protection and working environment protection as a general point of view for corporate governance (Anđelkovic, 2011; Markic, Kolenc, Sumanski, & Zivkovi c, 2010). The problem of this research is deficiency of current knowledge on work issues of occupational safety and health specialists in companies in Serbia in accordance with obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Law. The aim of the research is to determine current knowledge on work issues of occupational safety and health specialists in companies in Serbia
2. Methodology Given the stated aim of the research, as appropriate, the following scientific research methods were used.
S. Zikovi c
2 2.1.
Method of survey
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
As a main research method to collect and obtain current and original data and research findings, the survey method was used. With this method, subjective opinions and assessments of the respondents – safety and health specialists – were explored. As a research instrument a questionnaire that contains 93 exam questions was used. Contents of the questionnaire are as follows: (1) Basic information about the company – five questions. (2) Basic information about the organisation and safety in the company – four questions. (3) Data on safety management systems at work according to international standards – two questions. (4) Work organisation of safety and health specialists – eight questions. (5) Profile of safety and health specialists – nine questions. (6) Work of safety and health specialists – 44 questions. (7) Suggestions for improving the work of safety and health specialists – 21 questions.
2.2. Statistical methods For processing and presentation of the research, the following statistical methods have been used: frequency, per-cen-tage, summation, average, standard deviation, population variability coefficient, chi-square test, Pearson correlation coefficient, regression analysis, etc.
2.3.
Sample
The sample consisted of a total of 1623 examinees, but after eliminating the irregular examinees, further analysis included 1075 examinees, or 66.19% of the surveyed sample. There are in total 235,509 employees in 1075 companies. The number of employees ranges from 1 as the minimum to 17,800 as the largest number of employees in one company, while average number of employees is 226. Total of 11 companies have only one employee, 8 have two employees and 19 companies have three employees.
2.4.
Hypotheses
H1: In the majority of companies in Serbia, in accordance with the law, the employer is obliged to appoint a person responsible for occupational safety and health. H2: Among those responsible for occupational safety and health, the majority consists of people with expertise in the field of safety.
H3: Persons responsible for occupational safety and health in companies evaluate their own work on all aspects with at least a very good mark (at least 3.5 on a scale rating from 1 to 5). H4: Persons responsible for occupational safety and health evaluate proposals for improving their own work on all aspects with at least a very good mark (at least 3.5 on a scale rating from 1 to 5).
3. Results and discussion It is important to note that the vast majority of companies employ persons responsible for occupational safety and health, even 67.16% of respondents. It also confirms that the employers have confidence to entrust complete management of occupational safety and health in the company to their own occupational safety expert. Confirmation of this confidence is the fact that the vast majority of occupational safety and health specialists (71.07%) have an employment contract with indefinite duration. Moreover, majority of occupational safety and health specialists (62.79%) is directly responsible to the management. This is also a ground for good and direct communication, occupational safety management at all business levels and organisational independence of occupational safety and health specialists. On the other hand, it is an opportunity, and at the same time duty of the occupational safety and health specialists to prove their professional skills through practice and prove the importance and usefulness of their profession. Most people responsible for occupational safety and health (52.28%) perform only activities in the area of occupational safety and health, which do not require any special authorisation, although a significant fraction (38.87%) of the respondents perform activities which require special authorisation. It is significant that a large percentage (30.51%) of respondents perform only activities in occupational safety and health, and in all other cases, there is some form of integral safety and activities from several areas of safety, and other common business functions. This fact implies the need and duty of professional education and training in wider areas of protection (occupational safety, fire protection, environmental protection, etc.), so that these persons can lead integral safety at satisfactory level at their companies. It is encouraging that almost half of respondents (47.07%) are educated in the area of occupational safety, more than a half have a university degree (56.09%), and a certain number of respondents have even a higher degree. The point is that 60.84% of respondents have a professional qualification in the field of occupational safety, while most have some technical education, which confirms prevailing technical concept of occupational safety in business practice. The weakest average marks in evaluating occupational safety and health specialists and their cooperation with
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion external participants in the occupational safety system are given to evaluation of occupational safety as an economic factor by the entire economic system and evaluation of perception and value of occupational safety as a social value by the public and society (3.44), cooperation with professional associations (3.46), and satisfaction with individual earnings of persons responsible for occupational safety and health (3.47) and financial working conditions for persons responsible for ccupational safety and health (3.54). On the other hand, the best marks were given to cooperation with bodies responsible for labour inspection – occupational safety (4.17), the role of persons in monitoring and analysing data related to injuries and occupational diseases (4.15) and professional help to the employers and authorised persons in implementing and improving occupational safety and training employees for occupational health and safety (4.12), and cooperation with competent institutions for occupational safety (4.11). Almost all marks for proposals for improving activities of occupational safety and health specialists are in range from 3.64 to 3.95, except for the proposal to increase the number of employees in the area of occupational safety and health (3.40). Out of all specific proposals, the best marked were the proposal for increase of salary and other benefits to the person responsible for safety due to adjustment with other employer services (3.92), and stimulation of salary and other benefits to the person responsible for safety, depending on the results of improving occupational safety situation in the company (3.89), but also additional education and professional development in the area of occupational safety for occupational safety and health specialists (3.87). Out of general proposals, the best marked were obligation of continuous professional development in the area of occupational safety for persons responsible for occupational safety and health, obligation of professional development in management skills (planning, organisation, leadership, control, etc.) for persons responsible for occupational safety and health, improving information sharing between persons responsible for occupational health and safety and external participants from occupational health and safety system using the Internet (3.95), as well as legal advantage to persons responsible for occupational safety and health with professional background in the areas of safety when employing persons responsible for occupational safety and health (3.94). In general, respondents are advocating for improving their work, continuous education, and better financial conditions and compensation for their work. 4. Conclusion By this empirical research on work issues for occupational safety and health specialists, with fulfilling set tasks and confirming suitability of selected scientific research
3
methods, the set aim of the research has been achieved. Current facts on work issues for occupational safety and health specialists in companies are established, and based on the result analysis of the conducted research, they are reflected in acceptance or rejection of the set research hypotheses. H1: In majority of companies in Serbia, in accordance with the law, the employer is obliged to have a person responsible for occupational safety and health. The hypothesis is accepted.
In vast majority (58.51%), companies implement legal obligation to employ a person for occupational health and safety. Out of these, 3.91% of companies employ two, and 4.74% employ three or more of these individuals. Total number of companies that employ occupational safety and health specialists is 67.16%. Around one-fifth (21.79%) of companies, in general, do not employ persons responsible for occupational safety and health at all, but fulfil their legal obligation by establishing joint service with another employer or engage persons from other companies or the ministry has allowed them to perform occupational safety activities on their own or to make a contract with the person authorised to do occupational safety activities. In line with this, it can be concluded that the need and possibility for employing occupational safety and health specialists is reasonable and the persons will successfully perform occupational safety and health activities with their own expertise and constant engagement in their company. H2: Among persons responsible for occupational safety and health, majority are persons with professional qualification the field of safety. The hypothesis is accepted.
Experts with professional qualification in the field of safety make as much as 60.84% of all occupational safety and health specialists in the companies. This is certainly a consequence of the existence of educational institution specialising in education and scientific activity in this area – faculty of occupational safety. H3: Persons responsible for occupational safety and health in companies evaluate their own work, in all aspects with at least a very good mark (minimum of 3.5 on a scale from 1 to 5). The hypothesis is partially accepted.
The average mark (mean) of all individual evaluations by occupational safety and health specialists is 3.82 (scale 1–5), which is a very good mark. The average mark that includes only evaluation of performance of occupational safety and health specialists in a company is a very good mark 3.84, and the average mark that includes only evaluation of performance and collaboration with external
S. Zikovi c
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
4
participants from the occupational safety system is 3.76, also a very good mark. The highest average mark between all the marks evaluating performance of occupational safety and health specialists (4.15) has the mark that evaluates the role of these persons in the monitoring and analysing data related to work-related injuries and occupational diseases. The lowest individual average mark (3.47) – the only one below 3.5 (a good mark) is the one evaluating satisfaction with earnings and valuating occupational safety as a social value by the public and society. The highest average mark among the individual marks evaluating cooperation of occupational safety and health specialists (4.17) has cooperation with the bodies responsible for labour inspection – occupational safety. The lowest individual average marks (3.44) – belong to evaluation of occupational safety as an economic factor by the entire economic system and evaluation of perception and value of occupational safety as a social value by the public and society – which besides cooperation with professional associations (3.46) are the only marks in the area of good mark. Therefore, the four marks are in the area of good marks. On the basis of all stated above, we can give a very good mark to people responsible for occupational safety and health in the company, as well as to their cooperation with external participants in occupational safety system, but the existence of four grades that are below a very good mark show the need for further improvement of persons responsible for occupational safety and health. H4: People responsible for occupational safety and health assess proposals for improving their own work in all aspects with at least a very good mark (minimum 3.5 on a scale from 1 to 5). The hypothesis is partially accepted.
The average mark (mean) of all individual evaluations of proposals for performance improvement of occupational safety and health specialists is 3.81 (scale 1–5), which is a very good mark. Thereby, the average mark that includes only specific proposals for improving performance of occupational safety and health specialists in companies is 3.76, which is a very good mark, and the average mark that includes only general proposals for improving performance of these individuals is 3.86 – also a very good mark. The highest individual average mark of specific proposals (3.92) has a mark of proposal for the increase of salary and other benefits for occupational safety and health specialists, in order to adjust them with other
employer services. The lowest individual average mark (3.40) is given to the proposal for increasing the number of occupational safety and health specialists. This is the only mark that evaluates the proposal with a lower average mark than the lower limit of a very good mark (3.50). The best marked of general proposals were obligation for persons responsible for occupational safety and health of continuous professional development in the area of occupational safety, obligation of professional development in management skills, and improvement of information sharing and external participants from occupational health and safety systems using the Internet (3.95). The lowest (3.74), but also a very good mark, was given to the proposal of compulsory chamber organising of people responsible for occupational safety and health as a single class in the system of a unique chamber for occupational safety and health. Based on such results of marking proposals for performance improvement of occupational safety and health specialists, and which were given by the persons themselves, it can be concluded that they are aware that increase in the number of employed occupational safety and health specialists is not the main condition for improving their performance and safety condition in the company. They are aware that what is needed primarily is professional training, acquiring knowledge in the area of occupational safety management and increasing Information Technology (IT) support, with adequate financial compensation for their work.
References Anđelkovic, B. (2011). Razlike i potrebe usaglasavanja pojmova i izraza oblasti bezbednosti i zastite. [The differences and the need of harmonizing the concepts and terms of safety and protection]. Svet rada, 7(3). Bozajic, I. Cmrecnjak, D., Drozdek, A., Filipovic, A.M., Hunjak, D., Koren, T., . . . Zarak, M. (2010). Stru cnjak za za stitu na radu. Istra zivanje problematike rada samostalnog stru cnjaka za za stitu na radu u srednje velikim poslovnim organizacijama u Hrvatskoj. [Expert in occupational safety and health. Researching the work of independent experts for occupational safety and health in the medium-sized business organizations in Croatia]. Zagreb: Croatian Safety Engineer. Markic, M., Kolenc, I., Sumanski M., & Zivkovi c, S. (2010). Izvrsni menadzerji in preventivna varnost. [Executive managers and preventive security]. Delo in varnost, 4, 44–53. Zivkovi c, S. (2011). Uloga i zna caj lica za bezbednost i zdravlje na radu u privrednim dru stvima u Republici Srbiji. [The role and importance of occupational safety specialist in companies in Serbia]. Nis: Faculty of Occupational Safety.
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nics20
The role of occupational safety and health specialist in safety promotion and implementation – case study a
Snežana Žiković a
Faculty of Occupational Safety in Niš, University of Niš, Niš, Republic of Serbia Published online: 05 Feb 2014.
To cite this article: Snežana Žiković , International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion (2014): The role of occupational safety and health specialist in safety promotion and implementation – case study, International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, DOI: 10.1080/17457300.2013.877938 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.877938
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 2014 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17457300.2013.877938
SHORT NOTE The role of occupational safety and health specialist in safety promotion and implementation – case study Snezana Zikovi c* Faculty of Occupational Safety in Ni s, University of Ni s, Ni s, Republic of Serbia
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
(Received 3 November 2013; final version received 17 December 2013)
1. Introduction Literature analysis in the field of occupational health and safety proves poor representation on the topic of persons in charge of occupational safety and health, especially the lack of empirical research on the topic of people in charge of occupational safety and health in companies in Serbia; hence, this fact creates the need for such thematic studies. ‘Research on work issues of independent occupational safety experts in medium-sized companies in Croatia’, conducted by the research project team in 2009, should be particularly emphasised (Bozajic et al., 2010). Research results show that the vast majority (72.19%) of mediumsized companies in Croatia, which are liable to organise activities for occupational safety specialist, in accordance with the Law on Occupational Safety, has conducted their legal obligation so that the company employs at least one independent occupational safety expert. The number of employed occupational safety experts in these companies is statistically significant, positively dependent on the increase in the number of employees and increase in the level of hazard (risk) in the company. Out of the respondents’ companies that have OHSAS 18001 system, vast majority (80.95%) has significantly improved occupational safety conditions and activities of occupational safety experts. In only 7.10% of companies, which is a minority, occupational safety experts perform duties only in the field of occupational safety in their business practice, while in the majority of companies, occupational safety experts perform duties parallel to duties in other areas of protection, primarily in fire and environmental protection. Experts with qualifications in the area of safety account for about one-third (33.73%) of all occupational safety experts in medium-sized companies in Croatia, while majority of those (44.67%) are experts with qualifications in wider areas of technical professions. Average mark of all individual work evaluations of occupational safety experts (total of 44 marks) is 3.64 (on a scale 1–5), which is in the scope of a very good mark. The highest
*Email: [email protected] Ó 2014 Taylor & Francis
individual average mark (4.24) is given for evaluating cooperation with specialists in occupational medicine. The lowest individual average mark (2.87) is given for evaluating perception and evaluation of occupational safety as a social value for the public and society. Average mark of all individual evaluations of proposals for improving occupational safety expert activities (total of 21 marks) is 3.77, which is in the scope of a very good mark. The highest individual average mark (4.10) is given to evaluation of proposal for improving information exchange between occupational safety experts in the company and external participants involved in occupational safety system via the Internet. The lowest individual average mark (2.99) is given to propose increase in the number of employed occupational safety experts in a company. These valuable research results have been used as guidelines for designing research on the issue of persons in charge of occupational safety and health in companies in the Republic of Serbia (Zivkovi c, 2011). Traditional thinking about safety as a profession or science should gradually cede space for new approaches that are expected to create a new type of professional activities that will be based on the management of occupational safety, health protection and working environment protection as a general point of view for corporate governance (Anđelkovic, 2011; Markic, Kolenc, Sumanski, & Zivkovi c, 2010). The problem of this research is deficiency of current knowledge on work issues of occupational safety and health specialists in companies in Serbia in accordance with obligations under the Occupational Safety and Health Law. The aim of the research is to determine current knowledge on work issues of occupational safety and health specialists in companies in Serbia
2. Methodology Given the stated aim of the research, as appropriate, the following scientific research methods were used.
S. Zikovi c
2 2.1.
Method of survey
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
As a main research method to collect and obtain current and original data and research findings, the survey method was used. With this method, subjective opinions and assessments of the respondents – safety and health specialists – were explored. As a research instrument a questionnaire that contains 93 exam questions was used. Contents of the questionnaire are as follows: (1) Basic information about the company – five questions. (2) Basic information about the organisation and safety in the company – four questions. (3) Data on safety management systems at work according to international standards – two questions. (4) Work organisation of safety and health specialists – eight questions. (5) Profile of safety and health specialists – nine questions. (6) Work of safety and health specialists – 44 questions. (7) Suggestions for improving the work of safety and health specialists – 21 questions.
2.2. Statistical methods For processing and presentation of the research, the following statistical methods have been used: frequency, per-cen-tage, summation, average, standard deviation, population variability coefficient, chi-square test, Pearson correlation coefficient, regression analysis, etc.
2.3.
Sample
The sample consisted of a total of 1623 examinees, but after eliminating the irregular examinees, further analysis included 1075 examinees, or 66.19% of the surveyed sample. There are in total 235,509 employees in 1075 companies. The number of employees ranges from 1 as the minimum to 17,800 as the largest number of employees in one company, while average number of employees is 226. Total of 11 companies have only one employee, 8 have two employees and 19 companies have three employees.
2.4.
Hypotheses
H1: In the majority of companies in Serbia, in accordance with the law, the employer is obliged to appoint a person responsible for occupational safety and health. H2: Among those responsible for occupational safety and health, the majority consists of people with expertise in the field of safety.
H3: Persons responsible for occupational safety and health in companies evaluate their own work on all aspects with at least a very good mark (at least 3.5 on a scale rating from 1 to 5). H4: Persons responsible for occupational safety and health evaluate proposals for improving their own work on all aspects with at least a very good mark (at least 3.5 on a scale rating from 1 to 5).
3. Results and discussion It is important to note that the vast majority of companies employ persons responsible for occupational safety and health, even 67.16% of respondents. It also confirms that the employers have confidence to entrust complete management of occupational safety and health in the company to their own occupational safety expert. Confirmation of this confidence is the fact that the vast majority of occupational safety and health specialists (71.07%) have an employment contract with indefinite duration. Moreover, majority of occupational safety and health specialists (62.79%) is directly responsible to the management. This is also a ground for good and direct communication, occupational safety management at all business levels and organisational independence of occupational safety and health specialists. On the other hand, it is an opportunity, and at the same time duty of the occupational safety and health specialists to prove their professional skills through practice and prove the importance and usefulness of their profession. Most people responsible for occupational safety and health (52.28%) perform only activities in the area of occupational safety and health, which do not require any special authorisation, although a significant fraction (38.87%) of the respondents perform activities which require special authorisation. It is significant that a large percentage (30.51%) of respondents perform only activities in occupational safety and health, and in all other cases, there is some form of integral safety and activities from several areas of safety, and other common business functions. This fact implies the need and duty of professional education and training in wider areas of protection (occupational safety, fire protection, environmental protection, etc.), so that these persons can lead integral safety at satisfactory level at their companies. It is encouraging that almost half of respondents (47.07%) are educated in the area of occupational safety, more than a half have a university degree (56.09%), and a certain number of respondents have even a higher degree. The point is that 60.84% of respondents have a professional qualification in the field of occupational safety, while most have some technical education, which confirms prevailing technical concept of occupational safety in business practice. The weakest average marks in evaluating occupational safety and health specialists and their cooperation with
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion external participants in the occupational safety system are given to evaluation of occupational safety as an economic factor by the entire economic system and evaluation of perception and value of occupational safety as a social value by the public and society (3.44), cooperation with professional associations (3.46), and satisfaction with individual earnings of persons responsible for occupational safety and health (3.47) and financial working conditions for persons responsible for ccupational safety and health (3.54). On the other hand, the best marks were given to cooperation with bodies responsible for labour inspection – occupational safety (4.17), the role of persons in monitoring and analysing data related to injuries and occupational diseases (4.15) and professional help to the employers and authorised persons in implementing and improving occupational safety and training employees for occupational health and safety (4.12), and cooperation with competent institutions for occupational safety (4.11). Almost all marks for proposals for improving activities of occupational safety and health specialists are in range from 3.64 to 3.95, except for the proposal to increase the number of employees in the area of occupational safety and health (3.40). Out of all specific proposals, the best marked were the proposal for increase of salary and other benefits to the person responsible for safety due to adjustment with other employer services (3.92), and stimulation of salary and other benefits to the person responsible for safety, depending on the results of improving occupational safety situation in the company (3.89), but also additional education and professional development in the area of occupational safety for occupational safety and health specialists (3.87). Out of general proposals, the best marked were obligation of continuous professional development in the area of occupational safety for persons responsible for occupational safety and health, obligation of professional development in management skills (planning, organisation, leadership, control, etc.) for persons responsible for occupational safety and health, improving information sharing between persons responsible for occupational health and safety and external participants from occupational health and safety system using the Internet (3.95), as well as legal advantage to persons responsible for occupational safety and health with professional background in the areas of safety when employing persons responsible for occupational safety and health (3.94). In general, respondents are advocating for improving their work, continuous education, and better financial conditions and compensation for their work. 4. Conclusion By this empirical research on work issues for occupational safety and health specialists, with fulfilling set tasks and confirming suitability of selected scientific research
3
methods, the set aim of the research has been achieved. Current facts on work issues for occupational safety and health specialists in companies are established, and based on the result analysis of the conducted research, they are reflected in acceptance or rejection of the set research hypotheses. H1: In majority of companies in Serbia, in accordance with the law, the employer is obliged to have a person responsible for occupational safety and health. The hypothesis is accepted.
In vast majority (58.51%), companies implement legal obligation to employ a person for occupational health and safety. Out of these, 3.91% of companies employ two, and 4.74% employ three or more of these individuals. Total number of companies that employ occupational safety and health specialists is 67.16%. Around one-fifth (21.79%) of companies, in general, do not employ persons responsible for occupational safety and health at all, but fulfil their legal obligation by establishing joint service with another employer or engage persons from other companies or the ministry has allowed them to perform occupational safety activities on their own or to make a contract with the person authorised to do occupational safety activities. In line with this, it can be concluded that the need and possibility for employing occupational safety and health specialists is reasonable and the persons will successfully perform occupational safety and health activities with their own expertise and constant engagement in their company. H2: Among persons responsible for occupational safety and health, majority are persons with professional qualification the field of safety. The hypothesis is accepted.
Experts with professional qualification in the field of safety make as much as 60.84% of all occupational safety and health specialists in the companies. This is certainly a consequence of the existence of educational institution specialising in education and scientific activity in this area – faculty of occupational safety. H3: Persons responsible for occupational safety and health in companies evaluate their own work, in all aspects with at least a very good mark (minimum of 3.5 on a scale from 1 to 5). The hypothesis is partially accepted.
The average mark (mean) of all individual evaluations by occupational safety and health specialists is 3.82 (scale 1–5), which is a very good mark. The average mark that includes only evaluation of performance of occupational safety and health specialists in a company is a very good mark 3.84, and the average mark that includes only evaluation of performance and collaboration with external
S. Zikovi c
Downloaded by [Moskow State Univ Bibliote] at 07:37 06 February 2014
4
participants from the occupational safety system is 3.76, also a very good mark. The highest average mark between all the marks evaluating performance of occupational safety and health specialists (4.15) has the mark that evaluates the role of these persons in the monitoring and analysing data related to work-related injuries and occupational diseases. The lowest individual average mark (3.47) – the only one below 3.5 (a good mark) is the one evaluating satisfaction with earnings and valuating occupational safety as a social value by the public and society. The highest average mark among the individual marks evaluating cooperation of occupational safety and health specialists (4.17) has cooperation with the bodies responsible for labour inspection – occupational safety. The lowest individual average marks (3.44) – belong to evaluation of occupational safety as an economic factor by the entire economic system and evaluation of perception and value of occupational safety as a social value by the public and society – which besides cooperation with professional associations (3.46) are the only marks in the area of good mark. Therefore, the four marks are in the area of good marks. On the basis of all stated above, we can give a very good mark to people responsible for occupational safety and health in the company, as well as to their cooperation with external participants in occupational safety system, but the existence of four grades that are below a very good mark show the need for further improvement of persons responsible for occupational safety and health. H4: People responsible for occupational safety and health assess proposals for improving their own work in all aspects with at least a very good mark (minimum 3.5 on a scale from 1 to 5). The hypothesis is partially accepted.
The average mark (mean) of all individual evaluations of proposals for performance improvement of occupational safety and health specialists is 3.81 (scale 1–5), which is a very good mark. Thereby, the average mark that includes only specific proposals for improving performance of occupational safety and health specialists in companies is 3.76, which is a very good mark, and the average mark that includes only general proposals for improving performance of these individuals is 3.86 – also a very good mark. The highest individual average mark of specific proposals (3.92) has a mark of proposal for the increase of salary and other benefits for occupational safety and health specialists, in order to adjust them with other
employer services. The lowest individual average mark (3.40) is given to the proposal for increasing the number of occupational safety and health specialists. This is the only mark that evaluates the proposal with a lower average mark than the lower limit of a very good mark (3.50). The best marked of general proposals were obligation for persons responsible for occupational safety and health of continuous professional development in the area of occupational safety, obligation of professional development in management skills, and improvement of information sharing and external participants from occupational health and safety systems using the Internet (3.95). The lowest (3.74), but also a very good mark, was given to the proposal of compulsory chamber organising of people responsible for occupational safety and health as a single class in the system of a unique chamber for occupational safety and health. Based on such results of marking proposals for performance improvement of occupational safety and health specialists, and which were given by the persons themselves, it can be concluded that they are aware that increase in the number of employed occupational safety and health specialists is not the main condition for improving their performance and safety condition in the company. They are aware that what is needed primarily is professional training, acquiring knowledge in the area of occupational safety management and increasing Information Technology (IT) support, with adequate financial compensation for their work.
References Anđelkovic, B. (2011). Razlike i potrebe usaglasavanja pojmova i izraza oblasti bezbednosti i zastite. [The differences and the need of harmonizing the concepts and terms of safety and protection]. Svet rada, 7(3). Bozajic, I. Cmrecnjak, D., Drozdek, A., Filipovic, A.M., Hunjak, D., Koren, T., . . . Zarak, M. (2010). Stru cnjak za za stitu na radu. Istra zivanje problematike rada samostalnog stru cnjaka za za stitu na radu u srednje velikim poslovnim organizacijama u Hrvatskoj. [Expert in occupational safety and health. Researching the work of independent experts for occupational safety and health in the medium-sized business organizations in Croatia]. Zagreb: Croatian Safety Engineer. Markic, M., Kolenc, I., Sumanski M., & Zivkovi c, S. (2010). Izvrsni menadzerji in preventivna varnost. [Executive managers and preventive security]. Delo in varnost, 4, 44–53. Zivkovi c, S. (2011). Uloga i zna caj lica za bezbednost i zdravlje na radu u privrednim dru stvima u Republici Srbiji. [The role and importance of occupational safety specialist in companies in Serbia]. Nis: Faculty of Occupational Safety.
