Upload
henry-lamb
View
219
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
INCREASED COMPLIANCE FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS
Marius Søberg
Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority
Lessons from effect assessments
• Inspections, guidance, regulations, validating body
• 4 year strategic planning periods• Priorities made on basis of risk assessments• Area of responsibility: Some 250,000
enterprises employing approx. 2.600,000 employees
Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority
Potentially years between inspections, crucial to have information on impact and effect
APPROACH TO EFFECT ASSESSMENTS
Learning by doing Experiments Share lessons and experiences
Use feedback«How can we do better next time
around?»
4
CONTENT
1.Effect assessments 2008-2012:Methodology and results
2.Effect assessments 2013-2016: A more comprehensive
approach
5
PLANNING PERIOD 2008 - 2012
•7 priority areas
•Approx. 67,000 inspections
•113 000 formal orders were given
What happened toOSH-compliance after
inspection?
Inspections Formal orders0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
EFFECT = COMPLIANCE
ControlReportingReputationKnowledge
Aim: Goal achievement / regularly
Main purpose of inspections is to enforce compliance
with OSH-regulations
Benefits
7
OSH-COMPLIANCE MEASUREMENTS 2008 / 2012
PRIORITY AREA MEASUREMENT YEAR
Musculoskeletal disorders2010 2012
Psychological strains20112012
Requirements regarding arrangement and follow-up of workers reported sick and employees with reduced working abilities
20082011
Chemical and biological exposure20092011
Accidents at work 2011
Total: Approximately 800 inspections
8
DESIGN
GROUP TREATMENT MEASUREMENT
Experimental group Inspection Follow up Inspection
Stratified Control group
Inspection
Check points Yes No
General OSH-related
1… 1 0
2… 1 0
3… 1 0
4… 1 0
Priority area specific
5… 1 0
6… 1 0
7… 1 0
8… 1 0Sum 8 0
OSH-INDEX: 8 CHECK POINTS MEASURING COMPLIANCE
Enterprises assigned score between zero and eight following inspection
OSH-index a reasonable interpretation of
objectives for a given priority area
(OSH – Occupational safety and Health)
OSH-COMPLIANCE IN TWO GROUPS OF ENTERPRISES
Control group:Average score OSH-index
Check
points
Check
points
Check
points
Experimental group:
Average score OSH-index
Check
points
Check
points
Check
points
Statistically significant
differences in OSH-compliance?
No prior inspections
11
SUMMARY SO FAR…
OSH-indexA reasonable interpretation of the Labour Inspectorate’s aims for a priority area. Used as inspection checklist
Experimental groupRecently subject to inspection, chosen by random selection
Control groupSimilar enterprises, but never previously subject to inspection.
ComparisonOSH-average index scores. Tested for statistical significance.
MAIN FINDINGSIncreased compliance in enterprises as a result of prior inspection in all priority areas measured in 2008-2012
Increased compliance in all priority industries measured
OSH-compliance varies with size of enterprise, also after inspections
arbeidstilsynet.no/publikasjoner
13
OSH-INDEX BY PRIORITY AREA. AVERAGE SCORE
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
86.9 6.8 6.8 6.7
6.2
4.9
5.8 5.7
4.8 4.9
Experimental group Control group
N= 800
Significant differences but average scores well below maximum, also following
inspections
14
EXAMPLE: CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL EXPOSURE
2009 20110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5.3
4.4
76.4
Control group Experimental group
N= 100 N= 100
Statistically significant
Statistically significant
15
COMPLIANCE WITH FUNDAMENTAL OSH-REQUIREMENTS
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
77%80%
55%49%
89% 89%
82%
76%
Control group Experimental group
N= 800
OSH-INDEX BY INDUSTRY. AVERAGE SCORE
Construction and building
Health and welfare Industry Wholesale and retail
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
6.2
7.3 7.1
6.1
4.1
6.1
4.6 4.7
Experimental group Control group
17
OSH-INDEX BY SIZE OF ENTERPRISE. AVERAGE SCORE
1 - 4
em
ploye
es
5 - 9
em
ploye
es
10 - 1
9 em
ploye
es
20 - 4
9 em
ploye
es
50 em
ploye
es012345678
5.7 6.2
6.8 6.9 7.4
4.4 4.5 5.2
6.1 6.3
Experimental group Control groupN= 800
18
STRATEGIC PLAN 2013 - 2016
National campaigns directed at selected industries:• Construction and building
• Cleaning services
• Transport
• Health and Social Welfare
• Accommodation and food services
2013–2016: A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH
-Increased focus on knowledge and future planning
-Increased collection of data and information
-Reduced focus on controller function
2013–2016: NEW TOOLS
-New IT support for inspections – increased data collection for analysis
-Inspector surveys / QuestBack
-Combined with follow-up inspections
Inspector surveys increasingly used for data collection and reporting
ONGOING EFFECT ASSESSMENTS
Campaigns: Cleaning Services Health and welfare
Inspection data analysisInspector surveysFollow-up inspections
Project reports in 2015 and 2016
Project reports are typically published following national
campaigns
Aim: Combine own data with external sources where possible
2014 QuestBack/
Inspector Survey
2015Follow-up
inspections «Cleaning services»
2016Re-
assessmentFAFO?
2012Base line
assessment FAFO
2014Follow-up
inspections «Buyers»
Effect
Member surveyNHO-
service
Survey data
Statistics Norway
Example: Data collection and effect assessments in Cleaning Services campaign 2013-2014
Multiple sourcesMultiple areas of interestMultiple measure points
EFFECT ASSESSMENTS IN 2015 AND 2016
Construction and buildingTransportationAccommodation and food services
Project reports in 2016 and 2017
COMMUNICATION
Pilot studiesInternal result assessments
Article Internal evaluation
s
2008-2012 Report
Available by request
LESSONS
PROS- Improved planning of
campaigns and activities
- Strengthened focus on effect and reporting in campaigns
CONS- No long term effects
measured- Mainly focus on
effect of inspections so far, not impact of labour inspection as such