Brain Drain: More Management Oversight Required for Shiftwork Safety

According to this EHS article, recent studies suggest that irregular or longer-than-normal shift hours have a negative impact on cognitive abilities and can cause the brain to age an extra 6.5 years!

EHS

Can working longer shifts or rotating shifts age your brain? A recent study published in Occupational and Environmental Medicine, "Chronic Effects of Shift Work on Cognition:Findings from the VISAT Longitudinal Study," examined the “chronicity and reversibility” of the effects of shiftwork on cognition. Researchers found that irregular shiftwork can result in cognitive impairment equal to 6.5 years of aging for a worker’s brain.

While cognitive loss is a focal point of the study, as a safety professional, I see the research as an opportunity to discuss and highlight the immediate safety issues related to workers and society associated with shiftwork. On an industry-wide level, managers need­­ to take steps to understand the effects of shiftwork on their employees and actively oversee their scheduling and culture in order to recognize the unique safety issues that could disrupt a company’s efficiency, safety and overall health.

Sleep Patterns and Safety
Work hours generally are separated into first, second and third shift, with the third shift spanning the late night through early morning times. Some shiftwork takes place in an industrial environment, where employees are working with equipment

To view the full article and read more, click here.

Just Not Buying It: Purchase of 'Green' Products Slows Down

Today, about a quarter of Americans purchase products based on their green reputation, but this number is declining. This EHS Today article discusses the projected future for consumers and green product consumption. 

EHS Today

A new study finds that “green” certification and brand reputation are playing a larger role for

Further, when making a product selection, about 30 percent of American consumers select products based on a company’s “green” reputation, and 25 percent look to see if the product has been certified by a leading certification organization.

The study also pointed out that while overall interests in green and sustainable issues are gaining ground, many green purchases and behaviors – including selecting green cleaning products and personal care and food products, and energy and water conservation – either are stagnant or in decline.
consumers when choosing products. The Shelton Group, a marketing and communications firm focusing on the sustainability and energy sector, conducted the study and found that 70 percent of consumers want “greener” products and corporate commitments to sustainability.

Click here to continue reading.

A Roadmap for Holistic EHS Management

A holistic approach is necessary for a safety culture to be created in a work environment. This EHS article details the type of approach desired to help ensure that everyone in the organization is a key component to the safety culture. 

Heather, Flickr.com

When it comes to their approaches to workplace safety and health, companies today can be lumped into one of three categories: reactive, managed and proactive.

Reactive companies focus on complying with regulations and applying lessons learned from their safety failures.

Companies that take a managed approached to safety leverage systems, policies and procedures to prevent incidents. However, this group considers incidents to be a natural consequence of operations – in other words, they believe that incidents are bound to happen every now and then.

Proactive organizations have the most mature approach to EHS. Companies in this category strive for a zero-incident environment by employing proactive safety management systems and behavior-based safety strategies. These companies operate under the principle that it's not acceptable to subject employees to any kind of avoidable danger and risk, and that it's not acceptable for the operation to pose any threat to the environment.

To read the full article, follow this link. 

Does Poor Safety Equal Poor Management?

Safety Signs, photo by mikecogh via flickr.com

Seeing accidents as inevitable, or devaluing human capitol, might be at the heart of poor safety culture decisions. As with any aspect of a business, if it's pushed down the ladder or put off for the future, it can be overlooked. With safety, that can have serious consequences. Read more about the connection between poor safety and poor management on EHSToday.com. See an excerpt below.

Many high-ranking leaders in various organizations have been quoted as saying that poor safety results are an indicator of other poor management practices. In interviews with top officials, the majority indicated that they demand excellence in safety from contractors and suppliers for the very reason that they view poor safety results as a warning sign of other management or performance weaknesses. Following this lead, many contractor management firms have vaunted safety as a primary condition of being included in the list of approved providers. But is safety necessarily linked to other performance areas, and if so, which ones? And what is the link?

To better answer this question, consider the potential causes for poor safety performance:

• Leaders of some organizations simply view safety as a low priority. This view can originate from other, more-valued priorities or from a philosophy that accidents are inevitable and unavoidable. Sadly, some organizations value the management of capital or technology more than the management of people and don't appreciate the importance of human capital.

Read the full article on EHSToday.com. 

Is the Term "Accident" Still Acceptable?

The following is an excerpt from EHS Today.

Safety, like all other fields of endeavor, has its own terminology. In science, terminology is critical to ensure that everyone is talking about precisely the same thing. Shared terminology can align thinking and foster common understanding. When trying to solve problems or expand knowledge, defined terminology can provide the same starting place from which progress is made. In short, terminology can get everyone on the same page.

One of the most common terms in safety has been under attack for the past two decades. This is the term "accident." The attackers have suggested that the term implies that the event was inevitable and unstoppable; that accidents are events over which humans have no control. Some also have implied that a true accident is an "act of God" and therefore it is useless to try to place blame or determine causation. Why attempt to control something that is uncontrollable and beyond human manipulation?

To read the full article, visit EHSToday.com.

310 More Workers Returned Home to their Families in 2012

This is an excerpt from an EHS Today article.

Preliminary results from the Bureau of Labor Statistics' National Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries released Aug. 22 show a reduction in the number of fatal work injuries in 2012 compared with 2011. Last year, 4,383 workers died from work-related injuries, down from a final count of 4,693 fatal work injuries in 2011.

The rate of fatal workplace injuries in 2012 was 3.2 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, down from a rate of 3.5 per 100,000 in 2011. The numbers could be better, according to the secretary of labor.

"Workers in this country have the right to return home safe and healthy at the end of a work day," said Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez. "Despite that right, poor safety conditions cause thousands of people each year to lose their lives at work."

To read the full article, visit ehstoday.com.

EHS Today Releases its National Safety Survey Results

Below is an excerpt from the EHS Today 2013 National Safety Survey article. 

The respondents to the 2013 National Safety Survey generally are well-paid (approximately 80 percent earn more than $55,000 and 15 percent earn more than $105,000 per year); most have responsibility for safety (96 percent) followed closely by emergency preparedness (74 percent), occupational health (73 percent), ergonomics (66 percent) and industrial hygiene (65 percent); 94 percent attended college; and three-quarters are certified safety professionals (CSP). 

Most rate their organization's EHS performance as "good" (31.8 percent), "very good" (34.2 percent) or world-class (4.9 percent). Companies that offer a "one-size-fits-all" approach to EHS were criticized and the "production versus safety" argument appears to be ongoing. 

Here is a sample of what some respondents said when asked: "What is the most frequent complaint you hear from employees about your organization's safety and health program?":

    • Our managers care more about product than safety.

    • The foremen of the company still push and drive with disregard to safety. The foremen are not held accountable [for poor safety performance].

    • Management does not follow safety programs.

    • That our side (construction) has to follow the regulations but the facilities and maintenance sides do not have to follow safety policies, training or OSHA requirements.

The full article and the full survey results are available at ehstoday.com.