MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

Introduction

The workers’ safety health and wellbeing are vital concerns to the millions of people working in the whole world. Statistics show that approximately two million people die globally from work-related accidents, injuries, or illnesses. Furthermore, depression has been highly attributed to occupational risks, thus negatively impacting on the worker’s health conditions. As such, the global action plan has deliberated on strategies to develop policy instruments needed to protect and maintain a worker’s health condition. Besides, the government and other stakeholders in the working environment have articulated the positive effects of productivity. So, the need to increase productivity has led to the development of ILO guidelines to help the workers, employers, and government to collectively improve OSH performance. Therefore, a critical analysis of the similarities and differences between ILO guidelines on OSH management and healthy workplaces, a model for action is developed.

The scope of workplace safety, health, and wellbeing programs

The ILO guidelines highlight the scope of workplace safety, health, and wellbeing programs as the expected behavior while responding to an emergency. Hence, ILO guidelines provide evacuation procedures based on outlined OSH control measures to prioritize stakeholder’s wellbeing (ILO Guidelines, 2013). As such, workplace safety and health are only applicable in instances working towards achieving sustainable economic development. Safety scope provided by ILO conventions recommends that stakeholders be protected based on their rights and existing labor standards. As such, ILO guidelines scope on safety, health, and wellbeing abide by the three international labor conventions put in place to promote the development of a conducive working environment. On the other hand, WHO healthy workplace model action utilizes a comprehensive scope that utilizes the traditional aspects used in workplace health and safety (WHO, 2010). So, the model actions scope of operation seeks to address physical, ergonomic, and mechanical risks present in the workplace environment. Hence, a strong connection is created between the firm’s and employee’s health to promote sustainable development in the future. For instance, the European Network for Workplace Health Promotion (ENWHP) outlines its scope based on combined efforts undertaken by all stakeholders to promote health and wellbeing.

Similarities

ILO guidelines on OSH management compare to WHO safety workplaces a model for action based on their unique plan (Kim & Park, 2016, pp. 91). For instance, OSH management ensures that organizations increase their commitment towards developing a favorable working environment, thus increasing sustainability. As such, the plan utilized by ILO guidelines utilizes unique practical tools required to help organizations achieve continuous improvement in their OSH performance. It is, therefore, evident that the International Labor Standards are continuously being utilized by firms to create a sustainable working environment. Besides, WHO safety for workplaces utilizes a coordinated plan to support and improve its management. So, WHO safety measures are capable of deploying practical tools to develop the required action model to make desirable changes (Burton & WHO, 2010). For instance, the global plan of action by WHO has been utilized by some of the successful organizations to protect and promote healthy wellbeing at the workplace. Therefore, the two systems used by organizations compare since they seek to promote the overall workplace performance.

In addition, the two systems adopt coherent national workplace health policies and safety measures that can also be utilized by the government to improve working conditions. For instance, evidence from some of the most successful firms globally, such as Amazon, shows that ILO guidelines were collectively used by the government and stakeholders to improve OSH performance. Such initiative proved effective since the effectiveness of the OSH management system was managed based on stipulated guidelines (Arocena & Núñez, 2010, pp. 402).  Furthermore, WHO safety ensures they develop sustainable workplace policies that can collectively be utilized by the government and employers to spur growth and developments. For example, Amazon has, over time, engaged the federal governments based on developing favorable workplace safety, health, and wellbeing concerns as stipulated by WHO safety standards. Thus, it is clear that the two systems articulate worker’s safety through a two-way feedback system to continually meet and evaluate adopted safety measures.

The two systems help check, measure, and monitor incidences that require audits and evaluation. The ILO guidelines on safety, health, and wellbeing have designated auditors mandated to measure the efficiency of OSH management relative to set goals and objectives. Thus, auditing and evaluation have proved to key steps in managing the OSH systems while outlining opportunities that must be exploited (O’brien & Marakas, 2011). Hence, auditing and evaluation create a chance to compare an organization’s performance relative to 16 other items as outlined by ILO-OSH 2001 as a strategic approach to identifying weaknesses. Similarly, WHO safety carries out audits through a structured process aimed at improving the effectiveness of an organization’s safety management system. The audits carried out by WHO safety compare to ILO guidelines since they seek to promote the overall effectiveness and reliability of the management systems (Sivris & Leka, 2015, pp. 296). Audits carried out by WHO safety, health, and wellbeing seek to avert problems caused by biological and ergonomic perils in the workplace environment.

Furthermore, the two systems have adopted initiatives to encourage its members to take the necessary course of action in line with physical, biological, and psychosocial factors. For instance, the global plan of action relating to worker’s security ensures that organizations shun from utilizing factors that adversely impact the safety and health of its workers. So, WHO safety ensures that it promotes the values on equity, solidarity, and respect as it aims at improving stakeholder’s wellbeing in the working environment. Similarly, ILO guidelines are presented in a manner that increases awareness of why members need to promote occupational safety and wellbeing at all times (Kim & Park, 2016, pp. 94). For instance, action for improvement is constantly carried out to manage OSH systems relative to its desirable performance. The corrective actions are required to promote continual improvement based on the action plan outlined by the auditors.

Differences

WHO prioritizes its regional plans to strengthen the capability of different countries in anticipating, evaluating, and controlling risks posing dangers to the workplace environment (Burton & WHO, 2010). As such, the action plan by WHO main initiative is to promote worker’s health through the enactment of regulations and legislation aimed at improving the workplace environment. Thus, it is evident that initiatives undertaken by the WHO model for action are aimed at improving the quality of the workplace environment through the use of appropriate laws and legislations. On the other hand, ILO guidelines have different priorities since they prioritize events having the highest risk levels severe to the overall organizational performance. So, OSH objectives are set depending on risk levels contrary to WHO, which prioritizes regional plans to achieve overall effectiveness (Arocena & Núñez, 2010, pp. 405). For instance, the ILO governing body is mandated to identify organizations in fast-growing economies like Singapore to help prioritize fundamental principles of work that promote collective bargaining.

Besides, ILO guidelines on OSH management highlights health and safety at the workplace as set principles enacted to protect employees against injuries, sicknesses, or diseases (Alli, 2008, pp. 102). As such, ILO standards have been put into place to safeguard workplace health through the use of essential tools by involved stakeholders such as the government (ILO Guidelines, 2013). Therefore, a collective approach is utilized to maximize occupational safety, as outlined by OSH management. However, WHO defines occupational safety and health as the process of maintaining a positive outcome despite the working environment being stressful. Thus, WHO ensures that its workers are motivated to promote occupational health and safety. As a result, stakeholders at the workplace must be happy as a strategic approach to increasing production and efficiency (Burton, 2010). Therefore, professionals must utilize competent communication skills to achieve the projected positive outcomes using the best desirable manner. For example, the current COVID-19 epidemic has compelled the WHO to utilize excellent communication skills in offering guidance on the best occupational health and safety measures.

WHO safety workplaces a model for action utilize a stepwise critical process to achieve continued growth by increasingly mobilizing employees. WHO has increasingly utilized a shared set of values and ethics as a form of influence. It is evident that the WHO model for action influences key areas such as physical and psychosocial environments to help develop a healthy workplace environment (Alli, 2008, pp. 102). Thus, while using the model for action, it is necessary to outline the avenues of influence to mobilize workers on undertaking the right duties. On the other hand, ILO guidelines influence employers to achieve growth by identifying possible hazards. Hence, the guidelines ensure that the employer develops a safety plan to influence workers to minimize or eliminate the risk. As postulated, the influence approach seems risky since it can easily result in catastrophic results.

Appropriateness based on organizational needs and resources

ILO guidelines on OSH management

ILO guidelines on OSH management are appropriate to organizations that utilize information resources. For example, the use of ILO guidelines in Deeni Madaris in Pakistan libraries has been effective for the increasing usage of information resources (Habib, Calderón & Ullah, 2017). Information resources play a vital role in developing social and cultural values in organizations that deal with a huge amount of data. ILO guidelines are, therefore, appropriate in developing information resources since they engage in comprehensive auditing while managing the OSH management system. In such a case, organizations utilizing information resources help articulate OSH issues competently (Amponsah & Dartey, 2011, pp. 14). Thus, the guidelines are necessary to allow stakeholders such as employers and the government to articulate a vital agenda within the stipulated timeframe. Hence, organizations are therefore able to benefit from contingency funds to cater for emergency situations that require immediate actions.

Besides, ILO guidelines on OSH management are appropriate for firms that provide basic OSH needs (Meier, 2014). Some of the basic health, safety, and wellbeing needs at the workplace include the protection of the workers and maintaining a favorable working environment. As such, ILO guidelines are suitable for organizations seeking to achieve growth and development by articulating worker’s concerns in the occupational environment. Also, the guidelines outlined by ILO are appropriate if they fulfill the auditor’s needs while utilizing the investigative approach. Hence, ILO guidelines are necessary for such an organization to seek evidence and help draw conclusions on presented facts.

WHO safety workplaces a model for action

WHO safety guidelines are appropriate for organizations dependent on human resources to solve challenges posed by unhealthy workplace environments (Habib, Calderón & Ullah, 2017). Thus, WHO safety precautions are, therefore, applicable to firms that utilize human competence to develop healthy policies to increase sustainability in the modern diverse occupational environment. In the long-term WHO safety workplaces, a model for action is capable of initiating the growth of personal health resources to improve the overall social wellbeing of involved stakeholders. The use of human resources increases flexibility in the workplace, thus promoting timely communication. Besides, the use of human resources necessitates the deployment of personal health directed at motivating the employees towards achieving the overall organizational goal. In such a case, psychosocial hazards would be easily identified to develop competent control measures as outlined by WHO occupational safety measures. As a result, such an organization would be in a capacity to achieve set goals relative to the available resources (Habib, Calderón & Ullah, 2017).

WHO safety workplaces a model for action is appropriate for organizations having growth and development needs. Such organizations include firms in the hospitality sector since they desire to improve their services, thus governing a larger market base (Antão et al., 2016, pp. 270). Guidelines provided by WHO seeks to provide a favorable working environment necessary to spur innovativeness in the hospitality sector as a strategic approach to achieving institutional competency. Therefore, it is evident that organizations seeking continuous growth and development must utilize stipulations provided by the WHO to achieve long-term sustainability. As a matter of fact, health and safety guidelines provided by WHO ensure that stakeholders in an organization requiring growth and development engage in teamwork to increase environmental sustainability. Thus, guidelines by WHO on safe workplaces are applicable to needs affecting both small and large enterprises to increase diversity and integration of key aspects needed to achieve growth and development.

Practical implications of creating a combined approach

A combined approach between the two management systems stands to ensure, and workers and employers enjoy adequate protection against interference from the government. The government often directs a country’s financial systems, which results in income inequalities and low poverty levels. As a result, a combined approach would lead to the development of workers’ organizations to fight for their rights relative to the creation of a healthy workplace. Hence, workers would not be subjected to anti-union discrimination; hence total respect would be accorded to the signed terms of employment (Meier, 2014). Besides, a combined approach on the management systems assures that employees’ causes of dismissal are reasonable and within the scope of violating occupational code of conduct. Hence, it is evident that combining the approaches safeguards the workers’ job security and provides a legal framework that must be followed to achieve mutual coexistence (LaMontagne et al., 2010, pp. 19). A single management system is not capable of comprehensively articulating the safety concerns of the workers at the workplace.

Besides, the use of a combined approach for the two management systems would ensure that workplace health, safety, and wellbeing include employees’ dignity. As such, it would be an obligation for the workplace environment to improve the dignity of men and women due to their critical role in economic development. Single management systems, as outlined, have failed to improve social integration while assuring them of their freedom of expression (Cascio, 2015). Thus, the combined approach stands to promote the freedom of the individuals to freely express themselves without fear of intimidation. So, the occupational environment would promote opportunity equality while promoting fair treatment of all individuals without discrimination. Social protection would, therefore, be a key to promoting conditions in the workplace environment rather than just creating a favorable working portfolio as stipulated by WHO safety guidelines (Fleming, 2011, pp. 191). Therefore, creating a combined approach would align with social protection guidelines spearheaded by the sustainable development agenda of 2030.

Moreover, a combined between ILO guidelines and WHO safety stands to actualize the attainment of the legal internationalization framework. Hence, fair and stable globalization would be achieved to improve organizational economies to the required international level (Labour Standards, 2012). As a result, international legal tools to deal with finance, trade, and human rights would be developed to achieve required labor standards. The single management system has failed to achieve a comprehensive means of articulating workers’ concerns, thus threatening the international requirements of a healthy and safe occupational environment. So, the combined approach stands to improve ILO’s tripartite structures as unique by ensuring that they are supported by the workers, employees, and the government. The incorporation of WHO safety workplaces a model for action to lead to the development of minimum social standards that have a positive impact on organizations’ economies. Consequently, a legal framework would be created to articulate the concerns of the occupational environment comprehensively compared to the use of a single management system (Burke, 2016).

The application of a combined approach to improve health, safety, and wellbeing stands to improve economic performance (Labour Standards, 2012). Compliance with both management systems pose improvements in economic performance and productivity. Successful organizations like Google and Tesla have invested in performance satisfaction as a strategic approach complies with ILO guidelines and WHO safety measures. Hence, the firms have resulted in increased performance from their workforce, thus improving their overall turnover compared to other companies. Besides, Tesla has a strong adherence to safety standards due to its application of a combined approach to necessitate sustainable growth and development. Besides, the firms have embarked on employment protection to meet its social responsibility (Dėjus & Antuchevičienė, 2013, pp. 730). Moreover, the combined approach poses positive prospects in the enactment of labor market policies needed to promote health and safety in the occupational environment. Social protection has been the key to achieving coexistence while fulfilling their economic mandate as profit-making organizations (Lovejoy & Saxton, 2012, pp. 341).

Finally, the application of a combined approach in maintaining health, safety, and wellbeing serves as precautions to avert dangers posed by the economic crisis. For instance, the Asian financial crisis of 1997 would have been averted if organizations utilized a combined approach directed by the two management systems (Labour Standards, 2012). Workers’ exploitation was the norm following the 1997 Asian crisis, which jeopardized their safety while endangering the workplace environment. The disastrous events were characterized by the fact that many countries did not have proper social protection systems to address employees’ concerns. The Asian nations did not have viable labor market policies, thus negatively impacted on workers’ ability to address personal challenges at the workplace. Therefore, it is evident that if the governments utilized the combined approached on management systems, the social protection issues would have been averted during the financial crisis (Amponsah & Dartey, 2011, pp. 14). Evidently, the combined approach helps maintain health, safety, and wellbeing by considering the social impacts of every undertaken initiative.

Conclusion  

Workers’ safety, health, and wellbeing have proved to be a vital concern for stakeholders in the occupational environment. The scope of the workplace safety provides an insight into the applicability of ILO and WHO guidelines in promoting social protection of stakeholders in the occupational environment. Workers are protected based on current labor standards and legislations enacted by host governments in a move to protect every individual. The similarities show how ILO guidelines on OSH compare to WHO a model for action to develop a common basis of argument. Thus, the two management systems could be used together to improve the workplace environment in a bid to promote social protection. On the other hand, the disparities areas that do align with each other and how they could be altered to promote total protection of stakeholders. However, management systems have different appropriateness based on organizational needs and resources. Finally, practical implications have been outlined in utilizing the combined approach.

References

ILO Guidelines, 2013. [online] Ilo.org. Available at: <https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/—ed_protect/—protrav/—safework/documents/publication/wcms_214128.pdf> [Accessed 25 March 2020].

World Health Organization, 2010. Healthy workplaces: a model for action: for employers, workers, policy-makers, and practitioners. Link: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44307/9789244599310_rus.pdf

Burton, J., and World Health Organization, 2010. WHO Healthy workplace framework and model: Background and supporting literature and practices. World Health Organization, pp 1-142 Link: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/113144/9789241500241_eng.pdf

Burton, J., 2010. WHO Healthy workplace framework and model. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organisation, 12. Link: http://www.who.int/entity/occupational_health/publications/healthy_workplaces_framework.pdf

Alli, B.O., 2008. Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety Second edition. Geneva, International Labour Organization 1-221. Link: http://www.ilo.int/wcmsp5/groups/public/—dgreports/—dcomm/—publ/documents/article/wcms_098126.pdf

Amponsah-Tawiah, K., and Dartey-Baah, K., 2011. Occupational health and safety: key issues and concerns in Ghana. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(14). Link: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Kwasi_Dartey-Baah/publication/280557400_Occupational_Health_and_Safety_Key_Issues_and_Concerns_in_Ghana/links/55b9055d08ae092e965b18b6.pdf

Arocena, P., and Núñez, I., 2010. An empirical analysis of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety management systems in SMEs. International small business journal, 28(4), pp.398-419. Link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0266242610363521

Kim, Y., Park, J., and Park, M., 2016. Creating a culture of prevention in occupational safety and health practice. Safety and health at work, 7(2), pp.89-96. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2093791116000093

Antão, P., Calderón, M., Puig, M., Michail, A., Wooldridge, C., and Darbra, R.M., 2016. Identification of occupational health, safety, security (OHSS), and environmental performance indicators in port areas. Safety Science, 85, pp.266-275. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925753516000412

Dėjus, T., and Antuchevičienė, J., 2013. Assessment of health and safety solutions at a construction site. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 19(5), pp.728-737. Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3846/13923730.2013.812578

Habib-ur-Rehman, H., Idrees, H., and Ullah, A., 2017. Organization and usage of information resources at Deeni Madaris libraries in Pakistan. Library Review. Link:  https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/LR-02-2016-0016/full/html

Meier, J., 2014. Four Needs Of The Organization. [online] Sourcesofinsight.com. Available at: <http://sourcesofinsight.com/four-needs-of-the-organization/> [Accessed 25 March 2020].

Labour Standards, 2012. The Benefits Of International Labour Standards. [online] Ilo.org. Available at: <https://www.ilo.org/global/standards/introduction-to-international-labour-standards/the-benefits-of-international-labour-standards/lang–en/index.htm> [Accessed 25 March 2020].

Cascio, W.F., 2015. Costing human resources. Wiley Encyclopedia of Management, pp.1-1. Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118785317.weom050012

O’Brien, J.A., and Marakas, G.M., 2011. Management information systems (Vol. 9). McGraw-Hill/Irwin. Link: https://dias.ac.in/download/2015/dtr8/102-112%20Pages%20of%20DTR%208th%20issue.pdf

Lovejoy, K., and Saxton, G.D., 2012. Information, community, and action: How nonprofit organizations use social media. Journal of computer-mediated communication, 17(3), pp.337-353. Link: https://academic.oup.com/jcmc/article-abstract/17/3/337/4067685

Fleming, P., 2011. Healthy workplaces: balancing employee health and economic expediency. Health promotion settings: principles and practice, p.191. link: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=zZybak9tEqgC&oi=fnd&pg=PA191&dq=Healthy+workplaces:+a+model+for+action+For+employers,+workers,+policy-makers+and+practitioners&ots=fEvHAHSgId&sig=rhTIHKEb_MFnTwpUEsg7tCuJBkA

Sivris, K.C., and Leka, S., 2015. Examples of good holistic practices in promoting and protecting mental health in the workplace: current and future challenges. Safety and health at work, 6(4), pp.295-304. Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S209379111500058X

LaMontagne, A.D., Keegel, T., Louie, A.M., and Ostry, A., 2010. Job stress as a preventable upstream determinant of common mental disorders: A review for practitioners and policy-makers. Advances in Mental Health, 9(1), pp.17-35. Link: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.5172/jamh.9.1.17

Burke, R.J., 2016. Improving Individual and Organizational Health: Implementing and learning from interventions. In Creating Healthy Workplaces (pp. 27-46). Routledge. Link: https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781315574608/chapters/10.4324/9781315574608-8