The improvement of Occupational Health and Safety management in organizations is an element of great importance to achieve the levels of quality and productivity required at the present time. This process requires a systematic diagnosis for the elaboration of action plans that allow the elimination of existing problems in this field. The article shows a system of indicators for evaluating the performance of Occupational Safety and Hygiene, based on the philosophy of continuous improvement. In addition, its application in two companies is reflected, appreciating the existence of problems in the effectiveness, efficiency and efficacy of the evaluated systems. Key Words: Indicators, Evaluation, Management of Occupational Safety and Hygiene.
INTRODUCTION
Current practices in Human Resources Management consider Occupational Safety and Hygiene as an important element within the compensation systems that organizations offer their employees (Louart, 1994). Multiple companies around the world adopt strategies aimed at improving the conditions in which human resources carry out their work. The postulates of continuous improvement can be applied to Occupational Health and Safety Managementin the company allowing higher levels of working conditions and in the prevention of work accidents and occupational diseases, which leads to increased job satisfaction and work productivity (O'Brien, 1996; O'Rourke, 1999; Seabrock, 1999). This philosophy requires a diagnosis that allows determining the main problems that affect the performance of the process where it is applied. Various authors approach the subject referring to the need to establish or design indicators, patterns or meters that allow to appreciate the behavior of the process (Denton, 1985; MAPFRE, 1993; Rodríguez, 1991; Ramírez, 1996; Birkmer, 1999).
There are three criteria commonly used in evaluating the performance of a system, which are closely related to its quality and productivity (Gómez, 1991; López, 1994; Álvarez, 1993). These criteria can be applied in the field of security as follows:
· Effectiveness of safety: Extent to which the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system meets the objectives proposed in the evaluated period related to the prevention of accidents and diseases and the improvement of working conditions.
· Safety efficiency: Extent to which the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system uses the assigned resources and these are reverted to the reduction and elimination of risks and the improvement of working conditions.
· Safety effectiveness: Extent to which the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system achieves with its performance to meet the expectations of its customers (workers and organization).
According to Cavassa (1989), contemporary prevention management lacks direct value statistics due to the absence of correct data available. From the bibliographic review carried out, about the safety measurement systems currently used worldwide, it should be noted that most of them resort to the use of two fundamental parameters such as the frequency and severity of accidents (Corrons, 1979; Denton, 1985; Rodríguez, 1991 Chiavenato, 1993; Sikula, 1994; Taggart, 1999), which have drawbacks due to their marked retrospective nature. The following describes a set of indicators proposed for evaluating the performance of the occupational health and safety system based on the approaches of effectiveness, efficiency and effectiveness.
Indicator system for evaluating occupational safety and hygiene performance
Indicators of effectiveness
* Elimination of Unsafe Conditions Index (IECI)
IECI = (CIE / CIPE) * 100, where:
CIE: Unsafe Conditions Eliminated in the analyzed period.
CIPE: Unsafe Conditions Planned to Eliminate in the period.
Objective of the indicator: To show to what extent the planned tasks of elimination or reduction of unsafe conditions have been fulfilled.
* Accident rate (IA)
IA = * 100, where:
CA2: Number of accidents in the period to be evaluated.
CA1: Number of accidents in the previous period.
Objective: Indicate the percent reduction in accidents compared to the previous period.
* Improvement Index of Working Conditions (IMCT)
IMCT = (CPEB / TPE) * 100, where:
CPEB: Number of Good Job Positions in terms of working conditions.
TPE: Total of evaluated positions.
Objective: To reflect to what extent the performance of the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system favors the systematic improvement of the conditions of the jobs from the evaluation of each job selected for the study through a checklist.
Efficiency indicators
* Security Efficiency (ES)
ES = * 100, where:
TRC: Total controlled risks.
TRE: Total Existing risks.
Objective: To reflect the proportion of controlled risks of the total existing risks.
* Indicator of Benefited Workers (TB)
TB = (TTB / TT) * 100, where:
TTB: Total of Workers who benefit from the set of measures taken.
TT: Total Workers in the area.
Objective: To reflect the proportion of workers who benefit from the execution of the plan of measures.
* Index of Non-Worker Controlled Risks (IRNCT)
ITRNCT = (TRNC / TT) * k, where:
TRNC: Total Uncontrolled Risks.
TT: Total Workers.
k = 100, 10 000, 100 000… depending on the number of workers in the company or area analyzed, the closest higher immediate value will be selected.
Objective: To show the amount of risks not controlled by each k workers, which reflects the potential for the occurrence of work accidents in the organization.
Indicators of effectiveness
* Index of Satisfaction with Working Conditions (ISCT)
For direct or indirect workers:
PSCT = Se * Hi *
For office workers:
PSCT = Er * Bi * Where:
PSCT: Potential Satisfaction with Working Conditions
Er, Se, Bi, Hi, Es: Assessment by workers of the Ergonomic, Safety, Well-being, Hygienic and Aesthetic Conditions present in their workplace.
These indices constitute an intermediate step in obtaining the final indicator, which is obtained using the following expression:
ISCT = (PSCT / PSCTmax) * 100, where:
PSCTmax = 125
Objective: To show the level of satisfaction of workers with the conditions in which they carry out their work, obtained through the application of a survey.
* Outlook Coefficient (CP) (Cuesta, 1990)
CP = (A + - D -) / N, where:
A +: Positive response (Number of brands on the rise).
D-: Negative response (Number of brands in decline.
N: Total sum of positive and negative responses.
It can also be calculated the relative frequency of perspectives (FRp), which indicates for each marked step the percentage that corresponds to the total of marks, through the expression:
FRp = (Me / N) * 100, where:
Me: Number of marks on step e (e = 1,2,3,…, rising or falling).
N: Total number of brands.
Objective: To show how workers perceive the possibility of the organization developing actions aimed at improving their working conditions.
Ø Influence of subsidies paid for accidents and occupational diseases
1. Influence of Subsidies on Production Cost (ISCPi):
ISCPi = (SPPi / CTPi) * VP, where:
SPPi: Subsidies Paid in Period «i».
CTPi: Total cost of production in period «i».
VP: Default value, the objective of which is to make the indicator understandable.
2. Influence of the Subsidies on the Salary Fund (ISFSi):
ISFSi = (SPPi / FSi) * VP, where:
FSi: Real Salary Fund in period «i».
After calculating these values for each of the periods to be evaluated, the variation is determined, either in the cost of production or the wage fund, through the following expression:
IS = * 100
Objective: To show the repercussion of the costs of accidents (subsidies) on the economic results of the organization.
After calculating the indicators, they are compared with established reference levels allowing the system to be diagnosed. Subsequently, each of the three groups of indicators can be evaluated in Good (B), Regular (R) and Poor (M) and each one has been evaluated. of them, a final evaluation of the system situation is given.
If the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system is evaluated in its R or M performance, it is necessary to continue deepening the analysis to determine the factors that affect its good performance. If it is evaluated from B, applying the philosophy of continuous improvement, ways must be found to continue improving the results of the system (raising the desired state or reference level of each indicator). Based on the diagnosis made, an action plan should be established to eliminate the problems detected.
Results obtained
The system has been applied in several companies, of which two were selected, to show the results of the evaluation of the performance of Occupational Safety and Hygiene. The selected companies were: an electric motor factory and a beer factory. The calculation of the indicators showed the existence of problems in the management of this business function.
Electric motor factory
Indicators of effectiveness: The three indicators obtained unfavorable results. The IECI obtained the lowest possible value (0%), since no unsafe conditions were planned during the period, in accordance with this, there was an increase in accidents, from 19 that occurred in 1995 to 31 in 1996, for a rate of 63.75%, while all the posts in the selected areas (20) were evaluated badly, so the IMCT obtained a value of 0%, showing the existence of poor working conditions in all the jobs general form.
Efficiency indicators: These had a similar behavior to the previous ones, obtaining the ES indicator a value of 0% since in the period no risk was controlled in the areas and therefore the workers did not benefit from measures aimed at improving safety. and Occupational Hygiene. The IRNCT shows unfavorable values reaching 108.69 uncontrolled risks for every 100 workers.
Indicators of effectiveness:They behaved negatively, the surveyed workers showed a high degree of dissatisfaction with working conditions, for a satisfaction rate of 14.8%, finding all conditions critical, the most influential being those of well-being due to problems with medical services, the supply of drinking water to the posts and the absence of places of rest; aesthetics due to the poor cleaning of the equipment and the inadequate use of colors; and the hygienic ones affected by high noise levels and insufficient lighting. The outlook coefficient did not obtain a very low value (0.32), that is, the workers perceive that they have the possibility of improving their working conditions with a positive tendency with slight force, the high relative frequency (65.76%) on the rise being relevant.This may be due to the fact that this company carries out negotiations to develop products for the national foreign exchange market and for exports, hence the value of the workers that with the income obtained their conditions will improve. However, these perspectives were valued with a frequency of 34.24% in decline in the last step (-3), which shows that the situation is not entirely favorable, since part of the workers considers that the negative situation in their conditions should be maintained.. The indicator of influence of the subsidies paid experienced increases with respect to the previous year, obtaining the highest values of the two companies that amounted to 568 and 1004 pesos for each $ 100,000 of production cost and salary fund, respectively. As it could be seen,all the evaluated indicators had an unfavorable behavior, reason why the system was evaluated of bad in its performance.
Brewery
Indicators of effectiveness: Of 18 unsafe conditions planned to be eliminated in the period, only 2 were eliminated, for 11.1% of IECI, this result being totally unfavorable. The number of accidents in 1996 decreased by 5 with respect to 1995 for an of -55.5%, fulfilling this value with the desired state. In all the areas, all the evaluated jobs obtained lower grades than good, so the IMCT was 0%, evidencing the existence of poor working conditions in these areas. These results show that some accidents are not reported as there are a large number of risks without eliminating or controlling. This aspect was also obtained in the interviews carried out considering that it happens so as not to affect the stimulation of the workers, which includes as a requirement, not having accidents at work.
Efficiency indicators: SE performed unfavorably for 9.5%. With the measures taken in this factory, 55% of the workers benefited, despite only having controlled 2 risks, this behavior is unfavorable, since it must try at all times to benefit the greatest number of people with the measures taken. The IRNCT has an unfavorable value of 47.91 uncontrolled risks for every 100 workers due to the insufficient prevention work that has been carried out in the entity.
Indicators of effectiveness: The workers of all the areas showed great dissatisfaction with the existing working conditions in their jobs, finding all the conditions for an ISCT of 16.99% critical, the most problematic elements being those of safety and hygiene. The CP obtained the maximum value (1) in both areas, because at that time the company was negotiating to establish a mixed company, so that the workers strongly perceive the possibility of improving in every way, being included, for course, the improvement of working conditions. Regarding the influence of the accident subsidy, it can be seen that despite the decrease in the number of accidents, their severity was greater in 1996 compared to 1995, since the magnitude of the subsidy paid was higher.When analyzing the variation in these years of the subsidy with respect to the cost of production, it can be seen that both increase their value, increasing the proportion of the subsidy in the cost by 73.51%, this negative result. Regarding the influence of the subsidy on the salary fund, it is observed that in 1996 for every $ 1000 of salary paid, there was incurred $ 1.55 of losses due to accidents, which represents an increase of 77.42% with respect to 1995. It can be stated by So much so that the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system is not effective for the organization as its incidence on economic results is deteriorating more and more. In this company only in three indicators the behavior was favorable, so the system in its performance was evaluated badly,presenting deficiencies in the fundamental indicators for each of the groups.
As you can see the performance of the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system in the two companies, it was poorly evaluated, making it necessary to carry out an in-depth analysis to determine the causes of these problems.
CONCLUSIONS
A system of performance indicators of the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system was designed that allows its evaluation from the perspective of efficiency, effectiveness and effectiveness. The two companies analyzed presented an unfavorable behavior regarding the performance indicators of the Occupational Safety and Hygiene system, being necessary to delve into the causes of this situation. The insufficiencies that still persist should constitute the starting point for the design of the strategy and objectives of the next period, allowing continuous and systematic improvement in the management of Occupational Safety and Hygiene.
The application of the proposed system in the selected organizations shows the feasibility of its implementation since the main problems that affect the proper management of Occupational Safety and Hygiene in these organizations were detected.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alvarez López, Luis Felipe; Pacheco Espejel, Arturo. Guide for the installation of the Permanent Productivity Improvement Program in Cuban companies. IS TH. Cuba: IPN-UPIICSA. Mexico-Cuba. 15 p. 1993.
2. Birkner, Lawrence R. Measuring the value of occupational hygiene and safety. Occupational hazard, V. 61 Nr. 4. p. 23,1999.
3. Chiavenato, Idalberto. Human resources management. Mc´Graw-Hill Publishing House. Mexico. 568 p. 1993.
4. Cuesta Santos, Armando. The organization of work and social psychology. Havana. Social Sciences Editorial. 181 p. 1990.
5. Denton, Keith. Safety Management: Improving performance. Ed. Mc Graw Hill. USES. 342 p. 1985.
6. Gómez Bravo, Luis. Continuous improvement of quality and productivity: Techniques and tools. Venezuela. Editorial New Times. 112 p. 1991.
7. López Rodríguez, Vicente. The essential dimensions of motivation. UPIICSA Magazine Technology, Science and Culture. Mexico. New Era Editor. Year.2. Vol.1. Nr.3. p 24-35. 1994.
8. Louart, Pierre. Management of human resources. Ed. Gestión 2000, SA Barcelona, Spain. 254 p. 1994.
9. MAPFRE. Safety at work. Management of Prevention in the Company. Ed. MAPFRE. Spain. 123 p. 1993.
10. O'Rourke, Dennis J. Crane Safety: Back to the basics. Proffesional Safety, V 44 Nr.5. p. 16. 1999.
11. O'Brien, Dan. Security program. What stage are you in? Manufacturing Magazine. Vol.3 Nr.16. p 74-76. nineteen ninety six.
12. Paez, Tomás; Gómez, Luis; Raydan, Enrique. The new human resources management: Quality and productivity. Venezuela. New Times Editorial. 127 p.1991.
13. Ramírez Cavassa, Cesar. Industrial Security. A comprehensive approach. Ed. Limusa. Mexico. 506 p. nineteen ninety six.
14. Ramírez Cavassa, Cesar. Industrial Security. Ed. Limusa. Mexico. 506 p. 1986.
15. Rodríguez, Francisco; Gómez Bravo, Luis. Indicators of quality and productivity in the company. Venezuela. New Times Editorial. 96 p.1991.
16. Seabrook, Kathy A. 10 strategies for global safety management. Occupational Hazards, V. 61 Nr. 6. P 41. 1999.
17. Sikula, Andrew F. Administration of Human Resources in Companies. Editorial Limusa. Mexico. 503 p. 1994.
18. Taggart, Michael Dean. Assessment matrices for benchmarking EH & S programs. Professional Safety. V. 44. Nr. 5. p 34 - 37. 1999.
