Human Resource Management and Occupational Health and Safety

Carol Boyd

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2004
• Print ISBN: 9780415265904
• eBook ISBN: 9781134502073
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Business
• Subtopic: Business General
• Index: Business

Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) is a complex area which interacts widely with a broader spectrum of business interests and concerns. To date OHS has been confined to the periphery of Human Resource Management (HRM), where its role, influence and importance have been overlooked. This text sets out to reposition OHS in HRM and business agendas.This book unravels the complex range of factors affecting OHS policy, practice and outcomes. These factors are then placed into context within the international airline, call centre and nuclear power industries. The author presents a wide range of primary and secondary research in order to offer an accessible framework for OHS in contemporary occupational settings.This book will be essential reading for students, practitioners and professional academic audiences who seek a broader understanding of the relationship and interaction between HRM principles, policies and practices and OHS.

Part I

Mapping the OHS landscape

1 Human resource management and occupational health and safety

Introduction

The 21st century will be an era of increasingly global competition, and what will distinguish one organisation from another in terms of continuing success … is optimising the people contribution. Effectively managing the health and welfare of all employees … will be a major contributor to improving productivity.

(Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 1995: 4)

Human resource management (HRM) encapsulates a whole range of notions on management theory, style and practice. Perhaps most usefully considered as a generic term that covers the entirety of work organisation, working terms and conditions and representational systems, HRM can be depicted as being concerned with all those activities associated with the management of people in organisations. Storey (1995: 5) defines HRM as ‘a distinctive approach to employment management which seeks to achieve competitive advantage through the strategic deployment of a highly committed and capable workforce, using an integrated array of cultural, structural and personnel techniques’. Extensive training and culture management programmes, individualised reward management systems, as well as a range of employee involvement mechanisms, all operate towards achieving enhanced employee contribution. More recently the contributory role of OHS in organisational performance has come into vogue, partly because of alarming upward trends in work-related illness and injury, and the related costs to organisations and governments. Every year about 10 million of the 150 million workers in the European Community are affected by accidents or diseases at work. Direct-compensation costs are estimated at 20 billion ECU per year (Agius 2001). Work-related injuries cost the USA some $125 billion in 1998 – equivalent to nearly three times the combined annual profits of the top five Fortune 500 companies (Economist National Safety Council 1999). For the UK, the cost of work-related injury and illness to employers has been placed at between £3.5 billion and £7.3 billion annually – equivalent to between 4 per cent and 8 per cent of all UK companies' gross trading profits (HSE 1997). This estimation includes the £750 million cost of paying employers' liability insurance to cover compensation to injured workers, the cost of recruiting and training replacements for those forced to give up work and the total cost of property loss. The estimation does not, however, include the costs of social-security payments, NHS costs and the non-financial losses to the victims of accidents and occupational ill-health. When these are incorporated the cost of work-related accidents and illness to society as a whole is estimated at between £10 billion and £15 billion a year – equivalent to between 1.75 per cent and 2.75 per cent of the UK's gross domestic product (HSE 1997). Other estimates have placed the figure as high as £18 billion (DETR/HSC 2000) and, as such, illustrate the haemorrhage both of organisations' profits and of tax-payers' money that follows OHS failures. Despite being alarmingly high, UK official statistics on work-related fatalities, injuries and illness are thought to be grossly underestimated because of the propensity of under-reporting, which makes it difficult to construct a realistic picture of OHS outcomes and related costs. Consequently, the actual cumulative costs of OHS failures are likely to be even more daunting if these figures represent only the ‘tip of the iceberg’.

It is surprising to find OHS in such bad condition given that since the 1980s there has been a massive rise in popularity of HRM – an approach to people management that commonly characterises employees as ‘the most important asset’. Based on this, an initial expectation might be that OHS will occupy a high-priority position in HRM and management agendas. In addition, HRM is all about making companies more profitable through improved employee contribution. Based on the exponential rise in the costs of employee absence, illness and injury, it would make perfect sense, therefore, to protect and uphold ‘good practice’ in all aspects of workplace health and safety. But HRM is (allegedly) about more than profit – it is lauded as a ‘humane’ and ‘ethical’ approach to people management. However, extracting the value from any asset does not necessarily guarantee a benevolent approach. If workers are treated in as ‘rational a way as any other resource’ (Storey 1987), is it possible that a trace of malevolence could taint the virtuous HRM? This hints at the critical theorists' accounts of HRM as ‘unethical and inhumane’ (for example, Hart 1993). These opposing perspectives mean that we cannot be quite so sure that HRM principles, policies and practices guarantee ‘good practice’ in health and safety management.

While training, selection and culture initiatives have continued to hog the HRM limelight, OHS has to a large degree remained on the periphery. The fact that OHS receives minimal coverage (or none at all) in key HRM texts and journals suggests that commentators have been slow in recognising the interaction between a range of people-management policies and workplace health and safety. One exception is Bach (1994), who argues that HRM and health and safety are intimately connected by four themes: cost effectiveness, commitment, quality and strategic integration. In his view, cost efficiency may be undermined by the cost of accidents, in terms of the costs of absence and fines resulting from Health and Safety Executive (HSE) action, while the management of quality and safety may affect the ability of companies to produce quality output consistently. Further confirmation of this is found in literature from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) – the professional body of human resource/personnel specialists – where OHS is identified as a critical factor in making organisations more profitable, productive and cost-effective. From government, the same message is echoed:

the health and well-being of employees is a key factor in the success of any business or organisation. Recognising the value of a healthy workplace will ensure that staff are ‘healthier, happier and here’. Placing these issues at the centre of an organisation's concerns will help ensure its continuing effectiveness.

(The Healthy Workplace Initiative, UK Department of Health,
April 1999)

However, the ideological stance that good health and safety management contributes to organisational success is compromised by the common reality that financial imperatives often undermine good health and safety practice, explaining in part why all too often organisations fail to practise what they preach, as evidenced by an array of international industrial tragedies (for example, Piper Alpha, Tokaimura nuclear accident, Southall rail crash).

While our expectations of health and safety management under a range HRM principles, policies and practices may be fuelled by the rhetoric of its proponents, the economic logic for ‘good’ OHS practice along with the expressed policy intentions of policymakers, the different emphases given to HRM are also worth noting. These are contained in the ‘hard–soft’ dichotomy. In simple terms, these emphases occupy polar ends of the HRM spectrum, with ‘resource to be invested in’ or ‘soft HRM’ at one end and ‘cost to be minimised’ or ‘hard HRM’ at the other. The ‘hard’ model reflects a ‘utilitarian instrumentalism’, where the overriding characteristic is the focus on the ‘quantitative, calculative, and business strategic aspects of managing the headcount resource in as “rational” a way as for any other economic factor’ (Storey 1987: 6). Short-termism and cost prioritisation are two of the potential dangers (and often realities) of such an approach to people management and OHS. Alternatively, the ‘soft’ developmental approach, while still emphasising the importance of integrating human resource policies with wider business objectives, stresses the development of employee commitment via ‘communication, motivation and leadership’ (Storey 1987: 6). However, it does not usually come down to a case of either/or. A pick-and-mix approach combining both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ aspects of HRM is visible in a number of major organisations, including Hewlett-Packard, Marks and Spencer and British Airways (BA). Keenoy (1997) describes how BA has taken a ‘hard’ approach to ‘headcount’, while at the same time implemented a wide-ranging programme of ‘soft’ HRM (see, for example, Truss et al. 1997). As such, ‘HRM’ remains a ‘slippery concept’, able to mutate and conform to organisational needs in rapidly changing economic and political environments where a cost variable status may be all too easily assigned to OHS.

The debates about HRM are to date extensive, but few, if any, have explored this approach to management from an OHS perspective. As such, OHS provides an ideal prism through which we can explore one of the most popular and debated approaches to people management in recent decades. This text sets out to provide a unique litmus test for the faith many commentators have placed in HRM principles, policies and practices. In doing so, we consider some of the fundamental principles within HRM, such as consensus in the employment relationship, employee involvement and some of the structures that attempt to facilitate ‘communication, trust and openness’ between employers and the employed. In addition to this, the primary goal of improving employee contribution through an ‘array of strategically integrated personnel techniques’ (Storey 1995), directs our attention to how HRM policies and practices impact upon work organisation. When these components are set in an organisational context, particularly within current political and economic climates, we may be more inclined to question whether HRM is even capable of offering the conditions conducive to good policy and practice in OHS.

HRM and OHS: was it good for you?

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s HRM gained massive popularity and attracted considerable attention from both practitioners and academics (Hill 1991; Marginson et al. 1993; Millward et al. 1992). For some commentators, the ascendancy of HRM can be understood partly on the basis of ‘right time, right place’ (e.g. Keenoy and Anthony 1992; Legge 1995). As Hyman (1995: 28) notes, from 1979 conservative industrial relations since the industrial revolution’, where a myriad of potent factors led to the transformation of the structures and processes immanent in the employment relationship. Bubbling in the cauldron of change were economic recession, globalised markets, rapid technological change, culled employment legislation, the feminisation of the workforce and the proliferation of Japanese and US multinational companies across the UK – all of which created fertile conditions for the propagation of HRM principles, policies and practices. Momentum continued to build as proselytes preached to the masses on the almost magical abilities of HRM to transform employee and organisational perfomance, while the subject area went on the gain academic credibility following the proliferation of international journals and texts covering the area. This flurry of activity and attention was instrumental in repositioning the personnel practitioner's role from the downtrodden ‘middleman’ into a high-flying HR executive charged with strategic responsibilities.

For some commentators, the HRM decades have provided little evidence of a new ‘ethical’ approach to people management, with UK organisations ‘locked into a vicious circle of low pay, low skill and low productivity’ (Sisson 1994: 42), and the regrouping of laissez-faire, short-term, cost-reduction employer attitudes (Ackers 2001) combining to offer a gloomy presage for OHS. However, amidst these tumultuous conditions, OHS may have enjoyed the sheltered haven provided by the commonly perceived ‘greater degree of shared interest’ between employers and employees in relation to health and safety. Indeed, with a proposed ‘all new’ consensual approach to employment relations, many of the ruffled feathers in the workplace might also be smoothed. Hopes were raised, and as Ackers (2001: 391) explains:

The sleek new HRM model is boldly contrasted with the ‘bad old days' of personnel past, much as a born-again Christian celebrates his new creation by darkening his own past. Before, labour was a cost to be controlled; now, a resource to be nurtured. Before, personnel was a routine administrative activity; now, a strategic champion of people management for heightened business performance. Before, industrial relations was adversarial and arm's length; now, founded on consensus and employee consent.

Quite a feat, especially when we consider the extent of the transformation in employee and management attitudes, especially over historically conflictual issues. According to some commentators, OHS is not, and has never been, a matter of general consensus between employers and the employed (Carson 1985, 1989; Carson and Henenberg 1988; Nichols 1997). These commentators might direct our attention to the evidence that identifies health and safety as one of the most common workplace grievances and reasons for ballots for industrial action (TUC 1999a, 2000, 2001a). They might also point to the damaging impact of employer prerogative on workplace health and safety outcomes as well as to the correlation between trade union influence and levels of employment protection. For example, evidence suggests that higher injury and illness rates occur in workplaces where management alone decide on health and safety issues (Millward et al. 1992; Reilly, Paci and Holl 1995; Walters 1996; James and Walters 1997; Nichols 1986; Litwin 2000).

Since managerial prerogative is a cornerstone of HRM principles and practices, the above evidence might lead us to lose confidence in the ability of HRM to adequately provide for ‘good practice’ in OHS. However, the emphasis that HRM places on communication and employee involvement could overcome some of these concerns. For example, team briefings, problem-solving groups and newsletters are all highly popular communication techniques in the UK (Cully et al. 1999). In addition, employers are under a legal duty to consult with their employees, either directly or through a representative, on health and safety issues. However, some critics have argued that these consultative forums offer little in the way of meaningful employee participation, limiting in turn workers' ability to have their interests heard and addressed. This is of particular concern in relation to workplace health and safety, given the range of evidence that suggests that where employee representatives have a meaningful participative role in OHS, fewer accidents and injuries occur (for example, Millward et al. 1992; Reilly, Paci and Holl 1995; Walters 1996; James and Walters 1997; Nichols 1986; Litwin 2000).

It appears then that HRM principles and practices are struggling to deliver promises of consensus, trust, meaningful employee involvement and open communication in the workplace. Can we expect similar difficulties in the area of employee performance? It appears that this is one area where the short-term returns on HRM policies and practices have been impressive. The implementation of reward, appraisal and training strategies has, by some accounts, led to remarkable improvements in both individual employees' and organisations' performance (for example, read any CIPD material). Bathing in the spotlight of individual accountability, some employees have flourished while others have undeniably withered. According to one individual working under HRM-related principles, policies and practices in a manufacturing plant: ‘Don't fall ill, don't grow old, and above all, don't get tired’ (Delbridge and Turnbull 1992: 69).

This points to a possible malevolent streak in HRM – how far will HRM policies and practices go to achieve (short-term) enhanced employee performance? Short-term benefits are flagged up because of the evidence pointing to the longer-term outcomes of these practices on employee health. Absence and turnover costs, never mind employee compensation for work-related injury, are, after all, potentially huge drains on profits. However, who said HRM was about the long term? Evidence from the international call centre industry points to a ‘sacrificial HR strategy’ whereby stringent recruitment and selection techniques cherry-pick the most vibrant and enthusiastic recruits who are subsequently bled dry by an unrelenting intensive work regime. As one of the managers explains: ‘We don't want people to stay past 18 months. By that stage they are burnt out and are no good’ (Wallace, Eagleson and Waldersee 2000: 178).

The clear interaction between work organisation and employee health flags up an important gap in the literature. While there is voluminous evidence relating to the outcomes of culture management, training and customer service programmes, it appears that a lesser emphasis is given to the interaction between these people management policies and employee health. This of course might expose a side of HRM policies and practices that employers, consultants and policymakers fail to, or choose not to, see. In forthcoming chapters we explore possible linkages between these policies and employee health and safety. While doing so might be useful for practitioners and employee representatives in presenting an economic or ‘business’ case for adaptations to working practices for example, it is important not to overlook a major caveat. In reinforcing OHS as a cost variable, nothing is done to address the fundamental weaknesses in approaches to health and safety management in the UK and elsewhere. These weaknesses relate to the political and economic environments in which HRM principles and OHS are imme...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Half Title page
• Series
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Tables
• Preface
• Acknowledgements
• Abbreviations
• Part I Mapping the OHS Landscape
• 1 Human resource management and occupational health and safety
• 2 The regulatory politics of OHS
• 3 The social processes of OHS
• 4 Workplace factors in OHS
• Part II HRM and OHS in practice
• 5 HRM and OHS in the international airline industry
• 6 HRM and OHS in the international call centre industry
• 7 HRM and OHS
• 8 The verdict
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Author index
• Subject index