INGENIEUR
Communication that is clear , consistent and constant ( 3Cs ) is essential when laying out safety expectations — it drives the basic foundation for a superior safety-centric workplace culture
INGENIEUR
Figure 3 : Frequent effective exchange of safety expectations closes the gaps between safety policies and their practical implementation .
Leadership
An overwhelming majority of injuries are due to factors which are largely influenced by the company leadership . Whilst in most cases , senior company leaders understand the expectations and the roles that they play , it appears that the layer of management closest to the employees is not as effective for companies to truly realise their safety goals and targets . In many cases , systems and procedures are either ineffective or are not followed , and equipment and communication / training are inadequate to meet expectations , contributing to a failure around the application and execution of the tools and resources that have been made available to ensure work environments are safe and that behaviours are consistently applied to eliminate the risk of incident . This should not be perceived as solely a failure of the supervisor , but on how information and expectations are communicated and reinforced .
Job Planning and Hazard Recognition
The ability to recognise hazardous conditions is essential to managing risk . Incident trend analysis suggests that workers simply do not recognise or anticipate all the potential hazards that can exist before performing their job or task . While Job Safety Analysis ( JSAs ) and Work Permits
Communication that is clear , consistent and constant ( 3Cs ) is essential when laying out safety expectations — it drives the basic foundation for a superior safety-centric workplace culture
exist in many companies , the quality of execution comes into question . In addition , where the jobs are not routine ( e . g . chemical spill clean-ups and emergency maintenance ) and do not contain specific planning steps , the incident frequency tends to be considerably higher . Experience notes that the split between the number of incidents between routine and non-routine categories is approximately 50 %, with a large portion of the incidents occurring in non-routine tasks where the personnel involved considered the same tasks to be routine . Of the two categories , however , it would be reasonable to assume that routine tasks would contribute the most significant number of work hours , thus increasing real incident rates for those non-routine injuries .
38 VOL 97 JANUARY - MARCH 2024