Preben Hempel Lindøe

Job characteristics and computer anxiety in the production industry

Abstract The present study was part of a larger Norwegian research effort termed “Learning in computer based industrial information networks,” which is funded by the Norwegian Research Council. This action research based investigation was aimed at developing and implementing computer technology for improving profitability, employee well being, and work environment. The present study was conducted to investigate antecedents of computer anxiety, and was based upon a postal survey conducted in 1999. The sample included 336 employees. Data analyses were performed with structural equation modeling (LISREL). In addition to gender, age and education, the data analyses revealed that the job characteristics of decision authority and training were the most important determinants of computer anxiety. Job demands did not relate significantly to computer anxiety. Managers had less computer anxiety than non-managers. The practical implications of these findings corresponded with findings in a number of other Norwegian action research studies, and suggested that clear and specific goals should be expressed for any continuous improvement activity. New technology introductions should be accompanied by user involvement, training and active practical use. Special attention should be paid to women, lower educated, and older employees.

The Nordic Osh Model at a Turning Point

Abstract This paper examines the emergence and development of the ‘Nordic model’ of occupational safety and health. The model emerged during the 1970s and since then has been used to regulate the working environment and occupational safety and health in Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden). The model, both innovative and future-oriented, stemmed from labour contract negotiations of the 1930s, and was based on a ‘three-pillar’ system involving employers, employees and government. The paper goes on to examine the fragmentation of the Nordic model during the 1990s, which resulted in a shift away from the former reflexive practice based on common ideas, tripartism and job security, towards principles of flexibility, thereby leaving important aspects of occupational safety and health to be regulated by market forces rather than institutional actors. The paper concludes with a look at how the Nordic occupational safety and health model may develop in the coming years.

Risk Governance of Offshore Oil and Gas Operations

1. A generic model for risk governance: concept and application to technological installations Ortwin Renn 2. Modes of risk regulation for prevention of major industrial accidents Michael Baram and Preben H. Lindoe 3. Values and norms - a basis for a safety culture Kathryn Mearns 4. Optimising offshore health and safety inspections: how the markets could help Emre Usenmez 5. Safety regulation on the Norwegian continental shelf Knut Kaasen 6. Health and safety regulation on the UKCs: evolution and future prospects John Paterson 7. Preventing accidents in offshore oil and gas: the US regulatory regime Michael Baram 8. A new policy direction in Australian offshore safety regulation Jan Hayes 9. Safety indicators used by authorities in the petroleum industry of UK, US, and Norway Helene Cecilie Blakstad 10. Governmental enforced self-regulation: the Norwegian case Paul Bang and Olaf Thuestad 11. Contested terrains in risk regulation. Legitimacy challenges in implementation processes Jacob Kringen 12. Boxing and dancing: tripartite collaboration as an integral part of a regulatory regime Ragnar Rosness and Ulla Forseth 13. Emergent risk and new technologies Ole Andreas Engen 14. Near major accidents - a challenge for regulator and the regulated Ole Andreas Engen 15. Inspections, independence and intelligence Helge Ryggvik 16. Advancing robust regulation: reflections and lessons to be learned Andrew Hale.

Safe off Shore Workers and Unsafe Fishermen – a System Failure?

Abstract This paper is a case study of the safety records of the Norwegian offshore industry and Norwegian fishing fleet. A comparison of the major and fatal accident rates in these two industries shows that, in the past 16 years, the loss of life is 12 times higher for fishermen than for offshore workers. The paper highlights the way in which safety levels in both industries are influenced by a range of factors. These factors characterise the industries in terms of their respective regulatory frameworks, stakeholders in the market, industrial relations and safety management systems. The paper concludes that the effectiveness of self-regulation and proven safety management tools depends on the competence, commitment and co-ordinated action of the actors who use the tools, as well as on the contextual framework for their actions.

Robust Offshore Risk Regulation - an assessment of US, UK and Norwegian approaches

In the 1970s and 80s, major accidents involving offshore rigs and platforms in the North Sea led the regulatory agencies in UK and Norway to replace their prescriptive regulations with performance-based rules. In contrast, the US approach remained essentially unchanged with a prescriptive and technically- detailed approach to offshore safety regulation. After the Macondo accident in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, the question of robust risk regulation for offshore oil and gas production has appeared on the political and industrial agenda not only in US but also in other oil and gas producers countries including those such as Norway and UK which ad heretofore been regarded (and indeed regarded themselves) as in the regulatory vanguard. The purpose of the paper is to identify and compare some of the key elements in the approaches taken by the US, UK and Norway towards offshore risk regulation. The factors considered are the effect of major accidents: the political-administrative and legal orientation and socio-cultural values, and industrial and labour relations. Multiple sources of information provide the empirical basis for the analysis; a portfolio of research projects on the Norwegian and US approaches related to technological change, safety management and regulation, legal documentation from the countries, and key documents in the aftermath of the Macondo disaster.

Implementing Quality and Health/Safety Systems in the Hospitality Industry. A Comparison with the Aluminium Industry in Norway

This paper discusses mechanisms facilitating the implementation and merging of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) management and Quality Management Systems (QMS) in the hospitality industry in Norway. An earlier study concluded that combining a quality system of food control with regulation of OHS seems to be a healthy recipe for the hospitality industry in Norway (Lindøe & Lie, 2002). This study goes a step further by addressing issues regarding the industrial context, industrial relations and active participation from all stakeholders. By comparing the implementation of QMS and OHS-management with the process in the aluminium industry what seems to be lacking in the hospitality industry is an implementation process rooted in the workforce where workers and safety representatives act as constructive and critical stakeholders. In booth industries issues concerning quality will to a large extent be managed through market signals, whereas health and safety issues still need to be regulated and supported by the authorities due to lack of market influence. If the OHS-management is not to be institutionalized among the stakeholders in the hospitality sector there is a risk of degenerating from a healthy and dynamic participatory process to a bureaucratic management tool.

Offshore Safety Regimes—A Contested Terrain

This chapter introduces a framework for analysis, and assesses the variance in risk regulating regimes. The legitimate base for risk regulations is grounded in common values stating that citizens should be protected against accident risks, implying that no use of technology should damage individual or public interests. The chapter presents important phases in development of the offshore regimes. The North Sea risk offshore regime has been developed through different phases over a period of 50 years. After the Macondo disaster, members of the EU Parliament raised questions about how robust the existing risk regulatory approaches for offshore health and safety regulation was among the Member States. The Norwegian response concludes by accepting the Commissions intention by proposing a regulation to obtain the same level of safety in all member states with offshore petroleum activities. Safety regulations for workers and safety of the environment have different ideological, institutional and legal foundations. Keywords: EU Parliament; Macondo disaster; Member States; North Sea risk offshore regime; Norwegian response

Conflicting goals and mixed roles in risk regulation: a case study of the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate

This paper discusses the challenge of a regulator being on a position of preventing organisational accidents in high‐technology domains when causes are complex, often poorly understood and with an open or hidden expectation of adding values to society. The purpose of the paper is to assess the combination of mixed roles when a regulator combines the task of facilitating resources management along with controlling the accompanied risks – multiple goals that may be in opposition to each other and mixed roles that may serve opposite interests. The roles and goals of Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), divided after 30 years of successful operation, are used as a case study. The analysis shows that separating the mixed roles of NPD seems reasonable. However, multiple goals embedded in the resource development create dilemmas facing institutions in the market as well as the regulating authorities in their effort to realise their purpose. That cannot be suspended by a shortcut redesign or new division of labour in ministries, directorates or agencies. The Janus face is a reminder of risks as essential human and social phenomena, being particularly true in sectors and arenas where economic, social and technological risks being at stake.

Risk governance of hazardous industrial ports and areas: a case study of industrial areas and harbors in Norway

Composite industrial areas created to store, process, and transport energy pose risks to the health, safety, property, and environment of their host communities. Whether these risks are seen as acceptable may, however, depend on frameworks applied in risk governance processes and may also be subject to controversy between stakeholders and roles. Individual companies and actors may follow safety standards and regulations within their domain, but the accumulated risks may not be properly evaluated. Furthermore, attitudes and perceptions about risk in host communities may trigger conflicts regarding the siting or continuance of activities or plans for new activities. The paper addresses these issues from a risk governance perspective, focusing on conflicting goals, roles, and knowledge base among decision-makers and on regulatory complexity. The empirical basis is comprised of two case studies of industrial areas including storage and transport of energy and dangerous goods in major harbors close to urban and populated areas. The first case is an LNG storage and distribution facility located in a harbor and industrial area in the Sola municipality near the city of Stavanger. Disputes about safety issues have arisen during the planning, construction, and current operation of this facility. The second case is a multiple-facility industrial area in Oslo Harbor that has been undergoing a major expansion combined with parallel expansions in public environments (e.g. housing, transport, institutions, etc.).

Risk Communication Between Companies and Local Stakeholders for Improving Accident Prevention and Emergency Response

Hazardous industrial areas pose major accident risks. In recent years, two innovative approaches have been used for improving accident prevention and emergency response beyond conventional regulatory requirements: the Seveso and RMP models of local involvement in state regulation. Both promote information sharing and enable direct engagement between companies and local stakeholders, and therefore involve extensive risk-related communications. The authors examine the two approaches in detail by using case studies of their application to hazardous industrial sites in Norway and the US and identify obstacles to their implementation. Nevertheless, they conclude that the approaches advance corporate social responsibility and make risk governance more democratic, respectful, and responsive to the population sectors that are most vulnerable to major industrial accidents.