Networking among small and medium-sized enterprises to promote health and safety What are the lessons to learn?

Hans Jørgen Limborg, hjl@teamarbejdsliv.dkSisse Grøn, sig@teamarbejdsliv.dk

Nordic Work Life Conference 2014Göteborg

BACKGROUND OF THEPROJECTCURRENT RESEARCH ON SME’S AND OHS

Reasonable knowledge about regulation – but difficulties to meet demands for formalised OHS practise (Hasle et al 2004, Forteyn et al 97)

They have few ressources but responses to external pressure (Champoux & Brun 2003, Hasle & Limborg 2006)

Questions of OHS are approached with the same informal approach as the task of management (Walters 2001, Axelsson 2002)

Local and sectorial networks are important to them (Birgersdottir 2002, Johansson 98, Limborg & Mathiessen 2010)

THE PTHE PROJECTROJECT - IDEA, DATA AND METHODOLOGY

Three networks; a group of small diaries (21) and microbreweries (26) received funding for development projects aimed to reduce MSD + a group of demolishersOur hypothesis is that SME’s are influenced stronger by their networks than other external actors, but we need to identify the mechanisms the ‘drive’ the processData: Interviews with key persons, documents, company visits and project evaluations.

THE OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT AND THE PAPER

To provide knowledge on how networks among SME’s can be a catalyst for general policy instruments aiming to improve OHSTo pinpoint effective network mechanisms

5

NETWORKING AND MECHANISMS

•Critical realismCombines a realist ontology with a

constructuvist epistemiology (Maxwell)‘…I assume that the real world is out there

– but that our representations of that world are constructions’ (Fredrik Barth)

•Analysis: Bygstad & Munkvolds framework for identifying causal structures (IT)Mechanism: a causal structure that

explains a phenomenon

19-04-2023

6

THE DAIRIES CASE

• 21 small dairies• Applied for funding jointly• Project to develop technical aids• Aided by private consultant• Cases and controls openly selected

• One major competitor• Pressure from labor inspection• Pioneer figure• Agreement on power relations• Openess pact• Outcome:

PrizeTechnical aids developed and implemented in case dairiesSome dissermination of ideas

19-04-2023

Billede fra: http://www.st-clemens.dk/

7

THE BREWERIES CASE

• 25 small breweries• Applied for a similar project• Case breweries selected themselves…• Aided by a consultant

• One major competitor• Entrepreneurs• Driven by enthusiasm

• Outcome:Equipment implemented in control breweriesA booklet

19-04-2023

8

THE DEMOLISHERS CASE

• 25 enterprises in the group• Need to become a profession• Decision to provide vocational training• Aided by a consultant

• Need to distinguish between top and bottom• Pioneer

• Outcome: Well functioning trainingKnowledge sharing on employees levelStratification

19-04-2023

Billede fra http://www.brandis.dk/billeder

9

KEY COMPONENTS

•Need for distinktion•External pressure•Funding•Professional support•Pioneer figure (s)•Assymtry

19-04-2023

PROGRAM THEORYTHEORY OF BOTH PREVENTION PROJECTS

The network as context: Open culture and tradition for cooperation, organised meeting opportunity ,

limited resources, a “we” in opposition to the large company, focus on quality

Project

group

Screening and

priority of

problems

Nomination

of frontrunner

companies

Development and

implementa-tion of

solutions

Improved

working conditi

ons

Distribution of

ideas to the

network

Fund

ing

(P

rev

en-

tion

Fund

)

External mechanism

The network

Skilled consul-tants

IMPLEMENTATION

Control and

possible

enforce-

ment

Funding

KnowledgeProcesDevelop-ment

Policy instruments:

Prevention project

The network

The network context: Open culture and tradition for cooperation,

organised meeting opportunity , limited resources, a “we” in opposition to the

large company, focus on quality

Skilled advisor

s

External mechanisms:

Prevention fund

Labour Ínspectio

n

Project

group

Screenin

g and priority

Nomination of

frontrunn

er

Develop

-men

t and implemen-

tation

Improved

working conditions

Distribution of ideas

to the network

Financial support from Prevention Fund

2020- actionplan reduction of MSD

•Projectorganisation

•Mapping of exposure

•Catalogue of good ideas

Committee”Firebrand”

• Development of prototypes

• Real time testingTest companies

Followers,Supplyer

• Implementation of aids

• Utilisation• ”Open house” dissemination of experience

Safety commitee

•Fewer notes from L.I.

• Price for best project 2011

•New generally accepted standard

•Reduced number of heavy lifts

•Reduced sick leave Outcome

Mechanism 1: External support to project & presure from L.I.

Mechanism 2:• “Handshake” - trust among

network participants• Skillful Consultant – able to

push

Mechanism 3:Development and testning in real lifeWorkers participationGood relation to supplyer

Mechanism 4:• Curiosity from peers• Accessibility to experiences – “Pact on openness”•Willingness to share

Mechanism 5:Sustainability

Internal context: History, knowledge and experience related to OHS

Primary context: The network

Secondary context: Labour inspection, unions

and society

MECHANISMS

National regulationLabour inspection

I SPITMECHANISMSPROGRAMME THEORIES THE PROJECTS DEVELOPED VERYMECA DIFFERENT.

Mechanism Dairies (1) Breweries (2) Demolishers (3)

External External pressure from Labour Inspection

Active Limited Active

Need for distinction

Active Active Active

External funding

Active Active Active

Professional support (consultant)

Active Partly Active

Internal Pioneer figure Active Partly Partly

Recognition of asymmetry

Agreed None None

14

DISCUSSION

•Power relations

•Pioneers, but with what mandate?•The limitations of causality•The limitations of measurable outcome•Research in less than perfect circumstances

19-04-2023

Trust in networks

Thank you for listeninghjl@teamarbejdsliv.dk