Understanding the programme theories underlying ...

Understanding the programme theories underlying national strategies to improve the working environment in small businesses Stephen Legg BSc (Hons) PhD FIHFE CNZE,a Kirsten Olsen MSc (Eng) PhD,a Felicity Lamm BA MPhil PhD,b Ian Laird BSc (Hons) MSc PhD,a Leigh-Ann Harris BBS,a and Peter Hasle PGDip (Org Psych) MSc PhDc a

Massey University, New Zealand

b

Auckland University of Technology, New Zealand

c

National Research Centre for the Working Environment, Denmark

Abstract Little is known about how knowledge of the particular features of small businesses can be transformed into national occupational safety and health programmes that can successfully prevent accidents and occupational diseases. This paper describes a theoretical framework for an analysis of occupational safety and health programmes aimed at small businesses, based on ‘programme theory’ – the fundamental rationale and driver(s) underlying what makes a programme work. It describes the existing programmes in New Zealand and an in-depth analysis of three specific types of programme – general (the Workplace Safety Discount scheme), sector (FarmSafe) and local (the Waitakere City Council Cleaner Production: Boat Building Project) – each representing a particular strategy for reaching out to small businesses. In doing so, the rationales and mechanisms underlying each programme were sought and described in order to make them transparent. The programme theory for each was further examined through analysis of nine illustrative cases, involving interviews with owner-managers so as to examine how the programmes worked in practice. This afforded the development of a model for the national effort to improve the working environment in small businesses, which will have implications for the future development of small business programmes and for research. Our programme theory analysis indicated that the general, sector and local programmes in New Zealand relied mainly on economic incentives or on the small business’s desire to create a better working environment. None of the programmes was properly integrated into the ways of running a business. They were largely ad hoc add-on programmes. Also, there was very little evidence of programme evaluations for intervention effectiveness. The implications of this for the New Zealand model, and for the introduction of the concept of programme theory in analysing national occupational safety and health programmes for small businesses, lies in the potential to facilitate a more systematic way of developing a cohesive national programme in order to reduce occupational safety and health risks in small businesses. It is concluded that programme theory can be a useful new tool in this regard.

Key words Evaluation theory, interventions, occupational safety and health, programme theory, regulations, small and medium-sized enterprises

Introduction It is generally accepted that small businesses (SBs) are exposed to serious occupational hazards

Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 08.2 2010 © IOSH Services Limited

06 Legg, Olsen, Lamm, Laird, Harris and Hasle

and that they have a higher injury risk than larger organisations.1–4 They also lack the resources to control these hazards and have difficulties in meeting legislative demands for control of risks.5–9 In comparison with larger businesses, SBs are usually characterised as having insufficient financial and managerial resources. This characteristic has been a focal point in business research literature for many years.10–13 In particular, the SB owner is often the manager and has to deal with a number of different administrative and management functions, such as sales, planning, human resources, finance, accounting and billing. In addition to these tasks, owner-managers also have to be aware of their occupational safety and health (OSH) duties, and thus they cannot be expected to have much motivation to engage in issues such as the working environment that – in their view – are not relevant to their core business. It is not surprising, therefore, that OSH research in SBs has to a large extent focused on high-risk activities and insufficient compliance with health and safety regulations5,14,15 and provided broad support for the idea that inadequate knowledge and resource constraints are the main explanations for the problems faced by SBs.4,6,9,16 Due to the many constraints that SBs face in meeting legislative requirements, OSH regulatory authorities and other OSH actors have pursued the development of programmes which can reach out to SBs and motivate and assist them in improving the working environment. Not only has research provided some knowledge about the nature of the special risks associated with SBs and of the possibilities for intervention, but a number of conceptual models have been developed that may help to enhance our understanding of OSH interventions in SBs and their effectiveness.6,17–25 Such models tend to recommend the development of industry-specific interventions with a focus on the SBs’ specific external intermediaries and internal cultures, as well as their needs, internal resources and processes. However, these models have not been rigorously evaluated by empirical research and there is scant knowledge about how particular features of SBs can be transformed into national programmes, which in turn can successfully prevent work-related injuries, accidents and diseases. One reason for this is that OSH research normally generates information about causal links between risk and health outcome and about how risk can be controlled – most commonly in the form of interventions. Thus, such OSH research, which is largely based on a medical perspective, tends to provide knowledge mainly about the possibilities for preventing negative health outcomes from occupational risks. In contrast, OSH management research often involves a social science perspective. Since it is difficult and complex to transform this knowledge to national programmes in a way that can secure its implementation on a broad scale in society, it is necessary to identify mechanisms which can assure that a specific target group, such as SBs, is actually applying the knowledge and thereby controlling the risk. There is a twofold problem for regulators and other actors in the case of prevention of occupational risks in SBs. First, there is a problem in reaching out to this group, which faces a number of constraints related to its size and nature. The large number of SBs, their inadequate managerial resources and their informal nature make them difficult and expensive to reach. Second, there is a problem of actually convincing employers and employees that it is necessary and beneficial for the business to do something to control risks. There are a few examples of scientific evaluations of national programmes aimed at SBs. Most of the literature describes various kinds of pilot interventions, either as intervention studies26 or pilot public programmes.27 There are also some examples of programmes where no evaluations of their outcomes have been carried out.28–31 However, there are some indications of positive outcomes from a German programme that used local trade associations as intermediaries,32 and a Swedish intervention model of regional safety representatives has been extensively described and also evaluated in part.24,25 Similar observations may be made for

Understanding the programme theories underlying national strategies to improve the working environment in small businesses 07

several smaller such systems in other countries, eg roving representatives in the UK. Walters33 has reported on evaluations of national European programmes aimed at chemical regulation in SBs. In general, however, reports from responsible public authorities or consultants appointed by them have rarely been subject to scientific analysis and peer review. One reason for this is that it is quite complicated to understand the complex mechanisms and many possible constraints behind real-life programmes, and it is often difficult to identify clear causal relations in complex intervention programmes.34,35 However, in spite of the constraints there is an emergent need to understand how programmes can be designed and implemented in such a way that they can create a positive effect, and subsequently, how to follow the progress of the programme and make the necessary alterations in order to ensure that they can still achieve the main objectives. The purpose of the present paper, therefore, is to assist in the development of a process that may help in understanding the fundamental drivers underlying various programmes. In particular, it probes the issue of transforming OSH knowledge into real-life national programmes which have the potential to influence the behaviour of SBs. We believe that it is possible to take an important step in this direction by applying ‘evaluation theory’ and ‘programme theory’ to the field of OSH and SBs. Evaluation theory is concerned with theories of change. Programme theory is the fundamental rationale and driver(s) underlying what makes a programme work. It has been used in the evaluation of public programmes in local communities, education, healthcare and similar fields. In this paper, we scrutinise some of the main programmes targeted at SBs in New Zealand (NZ) so as to illustrate how programme theory could be used to generate suggestions for better tools for both the development and scientific evaluation of such programmes. We start with the development of a theoretical framework for an analysis of programmes aimed at SBs, which is based on the construct of programme theory. Next, we describe the existing programmes in NZ and make an in-depth analysis of three specific types of programme – each representing a particular strategy for reaching out to SBs. In doing so, we search for the rationales and mechanisms underlying the programmes in order to make them transparent, and delve further into the programme theories by discussing the recognition of possible conditions or moderators by drawing on interviews with some selected SB ownermanagers. Finally, we develop a model for the nationwide NZ effort to improve the working environment that will have implications for the future development of SB programmes and for research.

A theoretical framework for the analysis of national programmes aimed at SBs It is suggested in the literature6 that the evaluation of interventions to reach SBs should take into account whether the actual intervention could work and which intermediaries should deliver the intervention to the SB, as well as how the SB can be reached by the intervention. One particular problem, according to Hasle & Limborg,6 is that many SB interventions have not been sustainable, as those operating in the SB sector were only actively involved during the development of pilot interventions. In the case of national programmes supported by legislation and government institutions (in addition to local programmes that are operated in the nation), the sustainability issue is still relevant (eg have sufficient resources been allocated for the implementation of the programme?; how is the regulatory programme conveyed to the SB?; and how is it received and implemented in the SB?). These questions are even more important because national programmes are not only expected to reach out to all SBs in the country but also have to be cost-effective and not restrict the targeting of resources to a small group of SBs only, as in many interventions reported in the scientific literature.6,36 It would,


for instance, be difficult to allocate resources to ‘close personal contact’ to all SBs, even though this is a generally accepted recommendation for SB interventions.6,37,38 Given that national, as well as local, programmes may be relatively inadequate in relation to much of the research on targeted interventions, it is important to understand the mechanisms by which any programme is expected to work and the contextual constraints which can hamper its delivery, success and effects. In this regard, evaluation theory39 is useful to consider as it is concerned with the development of theories of change. In principle, a project or a programme is built on a logical sequence of inputs, activities, outputs and subsequently short- and long-term effects. In essence, the central idea is ‘if A, then B’.39 That is, one provides the input necessary to undertake the activities, which in turn creates outputs. However, in order to get this logical sequence to work there must be a mechanism which makes it work. It can be called a theory of change or ‘programme theory’.40* Essentially, programme theory provides the fundamental rationale and the underlying driver(s) that makes a programme work. The construct ‘programme theory’ can be particularly useful because it is a construction of a plausible and sensible model of how a public programme is supposed to function.42 It is also useful in evaluating the programme and identifying moderators. A simple example of ‘programme theory’ in SB could be: a) If SB owner-managers are informed about the risk of hearing impairment when noise exposure is 85 dB(A) or above and that it can be prevented by using hearing protection, then b) Hearing protectors will be used by employees when noise exceeds 85 dB(A). The question is whether that hypothesis is actually valid. It is therefore necessary to add follow-up questions, such as: • Once both parties have been informed about noise, why should SB owner-managers encourage employees to wear hearing protectors? • What is the mechanism that would make the employees wear hearing protectors after being informed? • Could it perhaps be that neither the owner-managers nor the employees want to have impaired hearing or that they are concerned about the hearing loss of others? The examples above constitute causal drivers. But even if they work, there can be contextual moderators,39,43 which are variables influencing whether, and to what extent, the causal effect will happen. Using the hearing impairment example above, if SB owner-managers are informed in writing and they do not read the material (perhaps because they are too busy and do not prioritise OSH), then hearing protectors will not be used. Whether SB ownermanagers actually read written material is, therefore, a strong contextual moderator. It is also an example of implementation failure: the SB owner-managers do not read written material, therefore they are not informed about the risk of hearing impairment and do not take action. The implementation strategy of providing written information material has failed. Moreover, if the SB owner-managers have actually read the material and are considered to be informed, and if they do not take action by encouraging employees to wear hearing protectors, and hence the employees do not use them, this constitutes a theory failure. As illustrated by the above simple example, the constructs of programme theory and

* See also Dahler-Larsen39 and Vedung.41


moderators can be helpful in the design and evaluation of SB programmes to improve the working environment. We can therefore (with inspiration from Hasle & Limborg6) suggest a theoretical framework model for the analysis of SB programmes (see Figure 1). The framework model is based on the assumption that in principle it is possible to identify a change theory behind any kind of programme. It may not be explicitly stated or valid, but it is still present, with some kind of assumption about the mechanism that should make it work. The logic in the model is that the OSH actors have identified a need to intervene in SBs and that they design an intervention programme based on a programme theory about how the need can be fulfilled. The programme theory will contain a theory about how it can reach the SB target group and how it can influence them to do as intended and, finally, that the intended action will have positive effects on the control of risk. There are, in particular, three points with important moderators which can enhance or constrain the effects of the programme theory. The first is ‘contact with the SB’: are they actually reached? The second is ‘interpretation in the SB’: do they actually interpret the programme as intended? Using the example above of the effort to reduce noise exposure, the issue is whether the owner-manager regards hearing protectors as important and useful, or underestimates the risk and considers hearing protectors too costly. The third point concerns ‘the effects’; that is, whether the action is carried out as intended. Using the same example, do the employees actually wear hearing protectors or do they, for various reasons, refuse to wear them or only wear them for a short time? In the literature, a number of moderators are described – most often as constraints. These need be taken into consideration in the design and evaluation of SB programmes. Based on reviews of the literature,6,16,38,44,45 some of the most common moderators are: • Contact with SBs • SBs do not actively search for information about OSH • SBs rarely read material mailed to them • The large number of SBs makes it expensive to reach out to the majority of them in a personal way • Inadequate resources in terms of attention and time for contact • SBs tend to react to ad hoc needs • Dependence on personalised contact and on suppliers Figure 1 Theoretical framework model for analysis of the intended function of a small business programme

Moderators

Interpretation OSH programme

Programme theory

Programme design

Contact with small business

Change process Effects

The small business


• Interpretation of programmes • A lack of trust in authorities (SBs think the authorities do not understand the special needs of SBs and that they are responsible for creating too much bureaucracy) • An underestimation of risk • An overestimation of their own knowledge and capability • Change process according to programme theory • A lack of funds to invest in OSH • A lack of attention and time to implement actions • A lack of qualifications to carry out actions as intended • A lack of knowledge about available solutions • A need for information about readily implementable solutions Some of the more common positive moderators include: • SB managers know their own production processes and may have a firm grasp of what the OSH risks are and thus find simple solutions more easily • SB managers work close to, or with, their workers and therefore more readily accept ethical motives not to injure them. In addition to these SB moderators, there will also be more contextual moderators, such as the: • • • •

economic situation availability of labour stability of the political situation power relations between employers and employees.

Such moderators will have a potentially strong influence on any programme, but it is not possible to generalise their effect. The situation described in the theoretical framework model above is rarely so simple in reality. Even taking moderators into consideration, SB programmes are seldom straightforward, such as ‘if A then B’. Often it is difficult to be entirely certain of the outcomes and there are commonly numerous other mechanisms at play. A specific programme will not only interact with the SBs but will also be influenced by employment and OSH practices in an industry, as well as by the attitude of employers’ associations, for example, and other parallel SB programmes. In order to better understand the whole picture in society, the interaction between influences on SBs and interventions is perhaps better understood in terms of complicated and complex interventions.46 An intervention is complicated when it requires many different elements and the successful outcome is dependent on all of them. An example of this is sending a rocket to the moon. The outcome ‘the rocket arriving at the moon’ is predictable, but there are many elements in that action which need to fit, thus making it a complicated process. An example of a complex intervention is raising a child: even though one may know something about how to bring up a child successfully, a positive outcome depends on many unpredictable contextual factors. The same could be said for SB interventions, in that it is likely that an SB will need more than the influence from one programme to spur it into action to improve the working environment. For example, information about the risk of hearing impairment may raise awareness, but not result in action. Additional motivators may be necessary, such as labour inspection, pressure from customers and employees about noise in the workshop and participation in training activities. Many different elements push in the same direction and the intervention can therefore be


described as complicated. But it is also complex because it is not possible to foresee the outcome. The SB may accept the risk and do nothing, introduce measures to reduce the risk or put the responsibility for reducing the level of risk onto the employees. If we consider more complicated interventions such as health promotion, the outcome is even more unpredictable than for the prevention of noise exposure. The use of programme theory recognises that it is also necessary to take into consideration the extent to which an SB intervention is complicated and complex. To understand individual national programmes, it is necessary to start by examining each specific programme and to search for its underlying rationale (ie its programme theory). In the next part of this paper, we use the framework model in Figure 1 and a consideration of relevant moderators to analyse the national programmes aimed at improving the working environment of SBs in NZ. We endeavour to expose the programme theory and the possible moderators. We do that on a general level for all identified national NZ programmes and then in detail for three selected programmes. Subsequently, we discuss how the different programmes relate to each other and to general contextual factors, thereby studying the complicated and complex aspects of the programmes.

National programmes aimed at SBs in New Zealand Publications and the internet were searched for information about OSH programmes aimed at SBs in NZ. The search included academic journal and conference publications in the past decade and all relevant government-commissioned reports, eg from the NZ Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), the Department of Labour (DoL) and the National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee.46–51 The main criteria for the inclusion of a programme were that it was specifically targeted at SBs, was operational in practice (ie policies and strategies were excluded), and was aimed at improving the work environment or reducing accidents and injuries. In addition,42 key actors in the field were interviewed about SB programmes. They included central and local government officials from the ACC and DoL, representatives from employers and trade associations such as the Employers and Manufacturers Association (EMA), trade unions such as the NZ Council of Trade Unions, professional organisations such as the NZ Institute of Safety Management, and independent advisers and consultants. They helped in the identification of additional programmes, but the main emphasis of the interviews was to get information about how the programmes were intended to work and about any kind of experience interviewees had with the programmes. Altogether 13 programmes were identified (see Table 1). In accordance with the theoretical framework model in Figure 1, we summarised each of the programmes according to the programme theory ‘driver’, the programme design, the form of contact with the SB and ‘reported effects’. Our aim in including reported effects was to focus on data that could be validated and therefore we have only included information that is publicly available and published. Table 1 lists the main programmes aimed at SBs currently used in NZ. Further details can be found in Legg et al.45 The various programmes have been grouped into four categories: national strategy, general programmes, sector programmes and local programmes. Following the theoretical framework in Figure 1, the programme theory components of each programme are summarised in the table as: • • • •

programme theory driver programme design contact reported effects.

Programme design

Contact(s)

Workplace Safety Discount • Economic incentive scheme • Training (Accident Compensation implementation Corporation) (recognition and control of hazards) • Possible control – honest self-assessment

General programmes

Progress on the achievement of strategy objectives are reported annually as ‘snapshots of progress’

Reported effect(s)

• Target group: self-employed and • The ACC’s website and • Slow growth and lower SBs (10 employees or fewer) in injury prevention uptake than expected, ‘high-risk’ industries consultants despite increased • Employers who attend two • Promoted through awareness, may be due training courses, conduct a selfindustry associations and to passive promotion of assessment of hazard training providers, trade the programme management, training of staff, magazines, expos and • Reduction in the number incident investigation and safety adviser visits of injuries reported by management of industry-specific participants, but injury hazards agree to a site audit and rates relatively apply for a 10 per cent reduction constant in the ACC levy

Workplace Health and • Development and Part focused on SBs to improve OSH Individual agencies Safety Strategy for New implementation of and productivity Zealand to 2015 strategy (Department of Labour and • Development of actions Accident Compensation • Contact with SB via Corporation) individual agency’s strategy for implementation of change

National strategy

Programme theory driver(s)

Table 1 Summary of the programme theory components of the main OSH programmes aimed at small businesses in New Zealand

Name of programme and actor(s)


SBs’ need for tools – SBs commonly seek tools and want help in implementing them

• SBs’ need for information and desire for change in the workplace • The DoL’s provision of information and advice SBs’ need for information, desire to have guidelines and to implement changes

Hazard Handler (Department of Labour)

Support for Small Businesses (Department of Labour)

Health and Safety Resources for Small Businesses (Accident Compensation Corporation)

Personal contact with an ACC injury prevention consultant

Information centre hotline and the DoL website

• Target group: SBs in general The ACC website and • ACC’s development of leaflets on leaflets OSH management and management of specific hazards

• Target group: SBs in general • Establishment of an information centre – SBs are given information by Business NZ networks

• Target group: all SBs • The DoL’s website • According to the DoL website: • Also referred to via the ‘…designed to help small Workplace Safety businesses kick-start their hazard Discount scheme management system – practical information on how to identify and handle health and safety issues’

• Economic penalty • Target group: employers that • Personal adviser to help have a higher-than-average SBs identify problems claims rate; most are SBs that and solutions have between 10 and 30 employees • The ACC assigns an injury prevention consultant to assist with the improvement of health and safety practices • If the employer fails to improve over a specified period of time, their ACC levy is increased

Workplace Safety Evaluation scheme (Accident Compensation Corporation)

No known evaluation

No known evaluation

No known evaluation

Only two levy increases have been made


FishSafe (Maritime NZ, Accident Compensation Corporation and the commercial fishing industry)

Written material publicly • Development of strategies to • Contact through sector No known evaluation available and free to improve the safety performance and community groups, encourage implementation of the New Zealand commercial as well as ACC staff of changes with industry fishing sector, ie to prevent • Programme promoted mentors so as to achieve fishermen injuring themselves through magazines, safe workplaces • Development of a guideline, expos and safety adviser distributed on the website visits • Development of training courses that fulfil the requirements of the Workplace Safety Discount scheme

• Contact through sector • Process evaluation and community groups, indicated widespread as well as ACC staff participation achieved • Programme promoted • No impact or outcome through magazines, evaluation published expos and safety adviser visits

Table 1 Continued

FarmSafe • Increased knowledge for • Target group: all farming (Accident Compensation SBs through training businesses, mainly SBs Corporation and Federated and implementation of • Managed by a consortium of Farmers) change Agriculture Industry Training • According to FarmSafe’s Organisation, Agriculture New website, their mission is Zealand and Telford Rural to ‘provide quality Polytechnic training and services to • A series of workshops provide make rural people safer guidance on safety awareness, in the workplace’ planning and skills, delivered locally by 10 regional co-ordinators • Two courses fulfil the requirements of the Workplace Safety Discount scheme

Sector programmes


Workplace Initiatives SBs’ need for information (Civil Aviation Authority on problems and possible and Department of Labour) solutions, as well as on implementing safe work practices

SBs’ need for information on problems and possible solutions, as well on implementating safe work practices

Stress and Fatigue (Land Transport New Zealand and Accident Compensation Corporation)

Contact via Land Transport New Zealand and industry associations through websites, industry publications and face-toface meetings

Contact via Land Transport New Zealand and industry associations through websites, industry publications and face-toface meetings

• Information and training are Contact via leaflets and targeted at the small operator, web information eg Safety guideline: farm airstrips and associated fertiliser, cartage, storage and application

Information and training are targeted at the small operator

Industry safety rating • Categories of safety performance system leads to minimum for transport service operators compliance required to and approved taxi organisations operate the SB, resulting in • Information and training are improved OSH targeted at the small operator

The Operator Safety Rating Rule (Land Transport New Zealand)

No known evaluation

No known evaluation

All participating operators are given a rating that is published on the Land Transport New Zealand website, which has begun to distinguish between good and poor performers


• SBs’ need for • Workplace assessment of SBs in Personal contact with a information about a geographically defined area compliance inspector from compliance over a short period of time the DoL requirements and how • SBs are sent general information SBs fail to meet them before a visit by a DoL • Personal advice on compliance inspector, who then where to get issues notices and advice, and information and how to carries out an evaluation comply conducted using a questionnaire • SBs’ desire for change in the workplace

Team Compliance Project (Department of Labour (Christchurch and Wellington))

Contact via industry publications and meetings, local government website and publications

• SBs’ need to comply • National (ACC and DoL) and with hazard local (city council) management standards government and industry groups and desire for raised • Specific target group: boatawareness building businesses in a region • Industry leaders’ (Waitakere) development of hazard management best practice communicated to SBs to help improve OSH

• 25 out of 38 SBs implemented change • 27 SBs reported change in their understanding of OSH • The project seemed not to be effective in promoting best practice but in ensuring a minimum level of health and safety practices

Raised awareness of hazards associated with the industry provided the impetus to introduce hazard management systems in the industry

Table 1 Continued

Cleaner Production: Boat Building Project (Waitakere City Council)

Local programmes



National strategy There is a national workplace health and safety strategy in NZ that incorporates OSH in SBs.52 In relation to programme theory, its main actors are the DoL and the ACC. The programme theory driver relating to SBs is the development of a national strategy, actions, contacts with SBs and plans for implementation, including a national aim of improving OSH and business productivity in SBs. Other industry and hazard-specific OSH programmes in NZ have also been developed. Although these programmes are not specifically designed for SBs, many individuals employed in SBs or those who are self-employed participate in them, eg GrowSafe and SiteSafe. Enforcement of the NZ OSH legislation by DoL inspectors is part of the national health and safety strategy, but it is not broad enough in scope and effectiveness due to the relatively large number of SBs (about 450,000)45 compared to inspectors (about 15053). In part at least, because the likelihood of a visit from an inspector is about once every 18 years,53 the DoL has turned its attention to working in partnership with a number of stakeholders – such as the ACC and industry associations, eg those governing fishing and farming – and developed the targeted programmes described below.

General programmes General programmes are aimed at all SBs, irrespective of sector. There are two types of general programme. The first involves working with economic incentives as the major programme theory. The ACC’s WSD and Workplace Safety Evaluation (WSE) schemes are the two prominent examples. The second entails providing information on webpages and in pamphlets. Examples of this ‘information approach’ include Hazard Handler (DoL), Support for Small Businesses (DoL) and Health and Safety Resources for SBs (ACC).

Sector programmes There are many sector programmes in NZ. Most of them do not explicitly target SBs, but as they are designed for sectors dominated by SBs, they have effectively focused on SBs and their special needs. Important examples are FarmSafe and FishSafe. and similar programmes linked to the WSD scheme, as well as independent sector programmes, such as Land Transport NZ’s Operator Safety Rating Rule, Land Transport NZ and the ACC’s Stress and Fatigue, and Workplace Initiatives from the Civil Aviation Authority and DoL.

Local programmes Local programmes are those in which actors at the local level target activities primarily in SBs. We have identified two examples: Waitakere City Council’s Cleaner Production: Boat Building Project and the DoL’s Team Compliance Project.

Analysis of the programme theory in three SB programmes We have selected three specific programmes – a general programme, a sector programme and a local programme – to illustrate how programme theory and the possible moderators can be identified in the three programme types. To illustrate the general programmes, we have chosen the WSD scheme. For the past few years it has been the most extensive programme aimed at the SB sector in NZ. The sector programme we have chosen is FarmSafe, which was the first of its type to be developed in NZ and is currently the most elaborated of the sector training programmes. The final example that we have selected for illustration, a local programme, is Waitakere City Council’s Boat Building Project. Our analysis of the three selected programmes is based on publicly available data, including reports, evaluations and training material, all of which are available in printed form or from the internet. In addition, we have also drawn on information from interviews with key actors


taken from a recent national study of OSH in NZ SBs.45 In our analysis of each type of programme in the sections below, we have systematically described and addressed the following: • • • • • • • •

the origin and nature of the programme the actors the programme theory the programme design contact with SBs interpretation in the SBs the change process in the SBs the effects in the SBs.

Our analysis also includes the results from nine case studies of independently owned SBs, undertaken as part of the study by Legg et al.45 A summary of the characteristics of each case study is provided in Table 2. The SB cases were selected on the basis that they were likely to have a high awareness of OSH issues and treat the working environment as a high priority. The rationale for this was that if the programmes were ineffective in relation to these ‘good SBs’, then they would be unlikely to successful in relation to SBs in general, but perhaps less visibly so on a broader scale. The cases fulfilled the criteria for ‘critical cases’ (ie they had strategic importance in relation to the general population), as per Flyvbjerg.54 We also tried to select SBs that would provide illustrations from different sectors. The owner-manager of each SB was visited and interviewed. In our analysis of the SBs, we examined whether the underlying rationale/drivers in programme theory could be recognised. We also assessed whether the programme theory could be traced in these firms and whether moderators have an influence on the outcome of the programme.

A general programme: WSD scheme The WSD scheme developed by the ACC and the DoL was introduced on 1 April 2006. The scheme applies to SBs with fewer than 10 employees, as well as self-employed people in specific subsectors of certain industries, including agriculture, forestry, construction, road freight, motor trades and inshore fishing. The background for the programme was that the DoL and ACC perceived that SBs had a higher incident rate and higher cost of ACC claims compared to medium and large businesses. They believed that this was due to the owner-managers’ lower levels of health and safety awareness and general hazard management practices, on top of the fact that some of the SBs operated in higher-risk industries. The ACC and DoL also wanted to increase the number of SB owners who attended the industry safety training programmes. The aim of the programme is for SBs in high-risk sectors to reduce the number and severity of injuries and diseases, and to make ongoing improvements in OSH management capability and practice. The OSH actors in the WSD scheme are the ACC, the DoL, the industry associations and the industry training organisations for the specific industries. The programme theory for the WSD scheme was based on the need for intervention to reduce severe injuries and disease. The main driver was an economic incentive: a 10 per cent reduction in the ACC levy. The input was two half-day training courses to improve knowledge about specific hazards and OSH management. The incentive to put knowledge gained into practice was a possible control of a self-assessment of the SB’s hazard management, which needed to pass an audit test to achieve the reduction in levy. Re-audit was required to maintain the reduction and should result in ongoing improvements in OSH management and reduce the numbers of severe injuries and diseases.

Recommended by Boating Assembly of inflatable Industry Training Organisation boats Yellow Pages

Recommended by NZ Fishing Inshore and offshore Industry Guild fishing Recommended by the ACC Recommended by Hawke’s Apple growing Bay Fruitgrowers’ Association Recommended by WorkSafe training provider Yellow Pages Recommended by Horticulture New Zealand

Boat-building

Civil aviation

Fishing

Forestry

Horticulture

Residential construction

Transport

Horticulture

Vegetable growing

Bulk freight delivery

House building

Tree harvesting

Helicopter crop spraying

Dairy farming

Recommended by friends

Agriculture

Nature of small business

Selection method

Industry sector

Owned SB (+10) Born into business

Owned SB (20) Truck driver

Owned SB (10) Carpenter and OSH professional

Owned SB (30)

Owned SB (9) Forestry manager

Owned SB (16) 20 years’ fishing

Owned SB (3) 13 years’ flying

Owned SB (1) Background in accounting

Owned SB (5) Operated SB (10)

Owner-manager – owned SB (no. of years) and experience

Fishing, processing, loading

Repeated 5 to 10-minute low-level flights dispensing agrochemicals, and refuelling the helicopter

Assembly of aluminium and fibreglass boats

Milking, silage, stock movement, repairs, maintenance, spraying

Main activities

Pruning, spraying, picking, mowing

Driving, supervising loading 0 full-time; assisted by Planting, tending, elderly parents harvesting

7 full time (recently expanded to 30)

2 full-time: carpenter, Concreting, framing, apprentice roofing

8 casual at peak picking season

17 full-time, Felling trees and moving 10–14 subcontractors and loading logs

10 full-time, 8 part-time

2 full-time ground crew (loader/drivers), 1 part-time administrator

13 staff

1 full-time, 1 parttime; wife assists

Number of employees


Table 2 Summary of case studies of nine small businesses


Some moderators were taken into account: insufficient time and financial resources, and the preference for informal management with little and simple written documentation. In terms of the programme design, the SB can apply for a 10 per cent discount off its ACC levy after it fulfils two requirements. First, they have to attend two half-day training courses developed by the ACC and the industry associations. This should mitigate the owner’s insufficient health and safety capability and knowledge, and the lack of available time. And because the courses are free, this should mitigate their financial constraints. Second, they have to complete a self-assessment identifying the main hazards in their workplace and how they control them. The self-assessment can be controlled through an audit of the business workplace safety management practice.49 The 10 per cent discount should work as an incentive to make more SBs attend the already developed training courses in industry programmes, such as FarmSafe, SiteSafe and FishSafe. The first contact with the SB was to be conducted by the industry associations and the industry training organisations. This was intended to mitigate the fact that SBs are numerous and not formally networked and therefore difficult to reach using standard methods with known moderators. We have not been able to retrieve information about how this contact was sought in all industries. In the construction industry, contact was promoted through trade magazines, expos and safety adviser visits. Material was also available from the ACC’s offices and could be downloaded from its website. The training was conducted by the industry training organisations and the audits were carried out by a certified auditor. The ACC reported that the uptake of the programme was lower than expected due to the fact that the programme was merely included on its website, and not actively promoted.47 The interpretation in the SBs relies on the view that the SB owners will see the training as free help to manage significant hazards and be able to implement OSH management systems (including incident and accident reporting, investigation and recording systems), assess and manage hazards after the training, and continue maintaining these improvements and systems. The change process was reliant on the owners’ ability to apply the knowledge gained, including identifying hazards, and sourcing and implementing solutions to reduce the hazards. The ACC has not been able to measure the effects on the SBs in terms of a reduction in their injury claims rates in NZ as a whole. However, it has reported that there has been a reduction in the numbers of injuries among SBs that participated in the scheme,48 although the uptake has been much lower than expected. We have not been able to access any specific evaluation of the scheme. Moreover, it was not possible to assess the full intended effect of the scheme in our analysis of the case studies. Only the construction business had obtained the 10 per cent discount, but its owner-manager did not think that it had improved OSH because he perceived that the business already performed well. The forestry owner had implemented OSH systems that fulfilled the requirements of the discount, but was not able to find the time to fill in the paperwork to apply for it. This could indicate that the mechanism and the driver worked but was affected by a lack of time (the moderator). We do not know whether the process improved OSH or the management of OSH. Only one owner did not know about the WSD scheme. This indicates that the contact methods and channels worked. All the SB owners eligible for the programme used industry organisations as one of the most important informants about OSH. Using these organisations to reach SBs seems to build on the established information channels and to be effective in reaching them, in that OSH management is improved. With one exception, all owners who knew about the WSD scheme interpreted the programme correctly. The exception was the owner of the transport business, who thought the programme was targeted at


larger businesses. The economic driver seems to motivate some of the owners in the case studies, although some found that the discount was too low to be an incentive. The results of the case studies in relation to the WSD scheme and programme theory are summarised in Table 3 and are further explained below. The SB owner in the construction industry was aware of the WSD scheme, had been engaged in its development, achieved the discount and passed the audit. The owner did not consider the discount to be a great incentive but said that it added to the ‘bottom line’ and allowed more money to be spent on safety gear, such as earmuffs. He felt that increasing the discount to 15–20 per cent would encourage more to engage with the programme. The owner felt that the WSD scheme gave him confidence that the business performed well and saw it as good marketing. The main reason for taking the audit was to display commitment to OSH and ‘to be one-and-a-half steps ahead of the OSH inspector’. The owner did not think the business became safer as a result of the audit, as he perceived it as already being safe. He felt that the reaudit needed to be more thorough to be effective. The forestry SB owner came to know about the WSD scheme through a large forestry customer who wanted their subcontractors to be part of such schemes, which the customer considered as proactive. The owner had been through the training and had finalised the audit, but was not able to find the time to apply for the discount. The ACC assured him that he would get the discount as soon as he filled in the paperwork. The road transport SB owner had only heard about the WSD scheme but thought it was targeted at corporate businesses. He normally heard about programmes through emails from the industry association and by ‘word of mouth’. The contact was direct and personalised. He had not participated in any programmes mainly because it was difficult for him to find the time and the information. The owner’s normal contact for advice about OSH was the ACC, the DoL and induction training from large customers. He said he would seek more information about the WSD scheme from his accountant. The apple grower was aware of the scheme but did not consider a discount of 5–10 per cent a sufficient incentive. He wanted to keep things simple, implying that the scheme was a bit complicated. In the owner’s opinion, the audit schemes Euro GAP (Good Agriculture Practice) and NZ GAP influenced OSH because the auditor inspects the business, particularly the spray house and other equipment. As he stated: ‘Twenty years ago you could do anything and now it is very regulated, eg moving fruit across town was once easy but now it needs hooks, straps and licences etc, which just adds cost.’ The dairy farmer and his wife had heard of the scheme and wanted to get the 10 per cent reduction, which was the main driver. The farmer felt that the ACC levy was very high and that he mainly subsidised other people through his levy. Both the farmer and his wife wanted to attend the courses but had not been able to because the courses were not offered in the region in the first year and, when they were offered in the second year, they had difficulties finding the time to attend. They were not certain about legal requirements and would prefer a written booklet explaining the scheme expectations, supplemented by the telephone number of someone who could help with implementation, eg in relation to hazard management. They did not find government agencies helpful in general but found that some of their employees were, and they went back to these employees if they needed help. The vegetable grower was not aware of the scheme but knew of other ACC programmes aimed at reducing slips, trips and falls, and back pain. He gained his knowledge about OSH from a range of materials, including emails from the industry organisation, GAP certification and training targeted at handling chemicals.

Yes

No

?/No

Yes/No

Yes/No

Yes/Yes

Yes/No

Forestry

Apple grower

Construction

Transport

Vegetable grower No/No

Yes

Yes

No, but mainly for larger customers

?

N/A

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

?

N/A

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

?

Yes

Fishing

Yes

Yes/No

Dairy

Yes

Aware of WSD/ Contact Correct Driver Participated? mechanism interpretation worked? worked? by the owner?

Case study business

N/A

?

?

Possibly

N/A

?

N/A

N/A

No, but ? perceived as performing well

N/A

Possibly

?

Possibly

Mechanism Expected in effect programme worked?

No

No

No

No

No

?

N/A

Thought it only applied to larger businesses

No

No

No

?

N/A

Lack of time and difficulties finding information

Perceived as performing well

Too complicated

Lack of time

?

Lack of time and too many written procedures

Interpretation Process

Few No opportunities

Contact

Moderators affecting

Table 3 Case study: businesses’ implementation and awareness of the WSD scheme, described in relation to the elements of programme theory

The process of programme intervention



In summary, the contact mechanism and the interpretation of the WSD scheme seemed to work. The economic driver worked for some but not for others. The mechanism (making change in the company) was affected by the owner’s perception of good practice (which may or may not be correct) as a moderating factor, while the uptake of the programme was affected by a lack of time to attend training courses or apply for the discount. There was also a perception that the audit was complicated and contained too many documents. The Waitakere City Council Cleaner Production: Boat Building Project had the best effect in the industry sectors that already had good programmes in place, such as inshore fishing, where they had a good mentoring programme. In conclusion, the ‘programme theory’ approach to intervention design and evaluation appears to be appropriate when applied to general level OSH interventions for SBs.

A sector programme: FarmSafe The FarmSafe programme was developed in 2001 by a national alliance of key stakeholders in the agriculture industry in NZ, representing farmers’ interests, government agencies, and the agricultural education and training sectors. The FarmSafe programme is currently implemented in two phases. The first phase is the FarmSafe Awareness workshops: they have been open to all dairy, sheep and beef farmers, horticulture farmers and farm workers since October 2002. The workshops focus on injury statistics in relation to farming activities and an analysis of contributing factors, hazard identification and management. They are intended to raise awareness of farming-specific hazards and provide knowledge of methods to take action for farm safety. The aim is to have an ‘immediate impact on the way they view risk and hazards on the farm’ and to have participants make ‘simple changes immediately following the workshop’. Completion of the FarmSafe Awareness workshop is a prerequisite to attending the second phase of the programme. The second phase was implemented in late 2004 and consists of two further workshops. The FarmSafe Plans workshops are aimed at farm owners and managers, and focus on developing farm-level safety plans. The FarmSafe Skills workshops are open to all farmers and farm workers, and participants are trained in practical skills, such as all-terrain vehicle (ATV) riding, operating chainsaws, driving tractors, riding motorbikes, animal handling, driving four-wheel drive vehicles and handling agrochemicals. The overall aim was to reduce agriculture and horticulture accidents by providing training, assessment and OSH management services. Relating the FarmSafe programme to the elements of the theoretical framework (Figure 1), the OSH actors are key stakeholders in the agriculture industry in NZ, representing farmers’ interests, government agencies, and the agricultural education and training sectors. The programme theory illustrated in the FarmSafe programme involves a strategy to reach and influence farmers by providing a structured voluntary framework of training and skills development that is linked to a national certification scheme for agrochemical safety training. Participation in the programme is voluntary and there are no legal requirements to attend the courses. There are, however, certification requirements for the FarmSafe Agrochemical Approved Handler workshops (under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996). The programme design involves a combination of information and training workshops, linked to workshops aimed at developing practical safety plans and skills for farm activities. A key role of the Agriculture Industry Training Organisation has been to market the programme. The industry association (Federated Farmers NZ) has also raised awareness of the programme with its membership, and ACC’s local injury prevention consultants have raised awareness in their industry work. Contact with the farming businesses is indirect.


Local FarmSafe co-ordinators have distributed flyers extensively to advertise their presence in the community and future workshops. Morgaine et al.27 report, however, that workshop attendees in 2003 constituted only 8 per cent of the eligible population. We suggest that these participants may be innovators and early adopters, ie people who are more willing to take on new practices or are already safety conscious. At this stage, the interpretation of the elements of the programme into farming practice is hard to determine, as are the implementation and outcome, because impact or outcome evaluations of the programme are unavailable. However, the interpretation component could be evaluated by surveys of farmers’ knowledge, attitudes, perceptions and self-reported behaviours before and after participation in the workshop. The effects of the programme relate primarily to the implementation of FarmSafe Plans and Skills initiatives at the farm. Morgaine et al.27 completed a process evaluation of year one (2003) of the FarmSafe Awareness programme, and reported that the programme was successful in achieving widespread participation in a safety training programme in an industry that is predominantly one of self-employment or SBs, and renowned for its independence and geographical isolation. Morgaine et al.27 also commented that the FarmSafe Awareness workshop lacked a key ingredient of other successful programmes: there was no audit of the participants’ farm hazards or safety practice. They suggest this is a serious failing, in that the most successful programmes in the literature include embedded safety audits. To date, no planned impact or outcome evaluation of the FarmSafe programme has been published. It would be a relatively simple task to determine whether plans had been developed as a consequence of participation in the programme and whether there is evidence that these plans had been implemented. It would be more difficult to determine whether there has been an improvement in safety-related skills (riding ATVs, using chainsaws or chemicals) without some form of systematic evaluation or audit of behaviour and practice. In Table 4, the results from the three case studies from the FarmSafe target group are summarised in relation to the programme theory of the FarmSafe programme. Only one of the three owners was aware of the programme. This could imply that the contact mechanism was not effective, but the programme used the information channels that all three owners mentioned they used. When potential participants become aware of a programme, a lack of time seems to be one of the moderating factors for participation in it. There are no data from our interviews which indicate that the drivers – the intention to create a safe working environment and free training – should not work. The moderators – for the one owner that was aware of the programme – were a lack of time and the opportunity to participate. It is concluded that the ‘programme theory’ approach to intervention design and evaluation appears to be appropriate when applied to sector-level OSH interventions for SBs.

A local programme: Waitakere City Council Cleaner Production: Boat Building Project The Waitakere City Council’s Cleaner Production programme commenced in 2000. Included in the programme was the Boat Building Project, which targeted the substantial boat-building industry in the Waitakere area, regarded as being a particularly hazardous industry and composed mostly of small and medium-sized businesses. Government statistics showed that in 2004, Waitakere City employed around 50 per cent of the country’s boat-building apprentices. However, many of these businesses were ‘poor performing’ in terms of health and safety. A 2004 survey of boat-building companies in Waitakere City showed that 40 per cent of the companies were not participating in any ACC incentive programme to reduce the level of workers’ compensation claims.56 In the same survey, the most significant hazards in the industry were identified as dust fumes, machinery and working at height. The overarching aim of the project was to promote safer workplaces and healthier environments

Yes/No

?/?

Dairy

Apple grower

Vegetable grower No/No

Aware of FarmSafe/ Participated?

Case study business

No

?

Yes

N/A

?

?

N/A

?

?

Contact Correct Driver mechanism interpretation worked? worked? by the owner?

N/A

N/A

N/A

Mechanism in programme worked?


N/A

N/A

N/A

Expected effect

None mentioned

None mentioned N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Lack of time to attend

Interpretation Process

Few No opportunities

Contact



Table 4 Case study: business implementation and awareness of FarmSafe described in relation to the elements of programme theory


by promoting health, safety and environmental best practice. Although compliance with the OSH legislation was encouraged, the project focused more on promoting best practice to protect both employees and the environment. The composition of actors was the key ingredient of this initiative. While the Cleaner Production programme was originally initiated and driven by the Waitakere City Council, the ACC and the DoL also became involved in the project in 2002, together with Marine Industry Association and a selection of boat-building businesses. This partnership gave those involved in the project the impetus to provide forums for discussion and develop a set of guidelines, as well as create an industry-based resource manual. The Boat Building Project also included two group forums, namely the Boat Building Information Group and the Boat Building Working Group. The Boat Building Information Group consisted of key stakeholders, for example representatives from the Marine Industry Association, the Boating Industry Training Organisation, Auckland Regional Council, the Occupational Safety and Health Service, New Zealand Engineering, and the Printing and Manufacturing Union. The second group, the Boat Building Working Group, consisted solely of boat-builders and was facilitated by Waitakere City Council and the ACC. Both of these groups worked together to produce the Health, safety and environment guide for the boat building industry, a national guide for the industry administered by the Marine Industry Association and the Boating Industry Training Organisation. Launched in November 2003, the guide was deliberately kept incomplete and was intended to be a ‘living document’ that members of the industry could update and amend in the future.56 In terms of the programme theory model, the programme clearly took moderators into account (see Figure 1). To prevent a lack of industry support (the first moderating factor) the developers tried to ensure that the project had senior level support, protagonists and champions in place from the industry, government agency and the firm. Without this level of support, the project could not have commenced. This and many of the other NZ OSH initiatives investigated were reliant on one or more champions or protagonists, who worked either in the public sector or industry. It was clear that the continuation of the initiatives was reliant, in a large part, on their support and drive. The second moderator was grassroots/community commitment. The interviewees noted that in order for the OSH initiative to have impact on the target group, grassroots commitment is required. This finding is supported by the literature.57–59 Such commitment can be fostered in a number of ways: by government agencies (eg the ACC and DoL) or industry associations (eg the Marine Industry Association), or by using a collaborative approach (the Boat Building Information Group and the Boat Building Working Group). The third critical moderating factor was to ensure that each of the participating businesses had health and safety committees that were representative of the organisation’s employees, from the shop floor, engineering unit, the office and management divisions, and to ‘… encourage all staff to participate in identifying opportunities and implementing changes in processes’.60 The findings show that involving the employers and employees, as well as other interested parties, had a beneficial impact on health and safety in the industry. This approach has been credited, in part, for successfully identifying health and safety areas that require improvement. For example, participants identified a higher than anticipated prevalence of eye injuries in the Waitakere boat-building industry.56 The programme design evolved collaboratively among the key actors, in which the components included benchmarking the use of resources, identifying hazards and industrial waste, and implementing hazards and waste reduction systems. Contact was maintained through regular bimonthly meetings of the Boat Building Information Group. However, by 2008 the meetings had


become infrequent as the champions and participating firms and agencies began to leave the industry or the district. Accordingly, the interpretation in the SBs was diminished. Implementing the process of change in the participating SBs was done via a system of mentoring. The use of mentoring to effect positive change in the boat-building industry was one of the recurring themes to emerge from interviews with the boat-building and marine industry stakeholders.45 Respected industry stalwarts with industry experience, knowledge and commitment to health and safety were engaged to act as mentors, working alongside both employers and employees to improve their workplace health and safety. While mentoring is resource intensive, interviewees noted that in industries in which the dominant management style is ‘command and control’ and where the work is mainly mobile, such as the commercial fishing industry, this approach works well. It was evident from interviews45 and Waitakere City Council’s reports (2004–2007)61 that the effects of the project were an increased awareness of the necessity to implement hazard and waste management systems and to control critical OSH issues – namely dust, fumes and machinery. However, by the beginning of 2008 the project had stalled, and by 2010 the project had halted altogether for three key reasons. First, central and local government funding for the project ran out and it was always the intention of the Waitakere City Council, the ACC and the DoL to pass the responsibility of maintaining and developing the project back to the industry – namely the Marine Industry Association. Unfortunately, at that time, many of the members of the Marine Industry Association were facing financial hardship due to the downturn in the economy, and they were unable to take responsibility for it. Second, there was no thought given to a succession plan. Central and local government staff involved in progressing the project have subsequently moved on and the industry association has yet to take responsibility for it. In addition, almost all the industry champions of the project have left their jobs and many of the businesses have also either ceased to trade or have relocated outside the district. The final blow for the project was that Waitakere City Council was dissolved in September 2010. Future local matters have now been amalgamated into a larger council administration structure. It is doubtful, therefore, if the Waitakere City Council’s Cleaner Production: Boat Building Project will continue in its present form, if at all. There was only one case study that involved boat-building. The results of this case study analysis are summarised in Table 5. Since there is only a single case, it is hard to reach any firm conclusions about the effectiveness of using programme theory to analyse local OSH programmes for SBs.

A model for the national New Zealand effort to improve the working environment Figure 2 depicts a model for the national NZ effort to improve SBs’ working environments. For simplicity of presentation, it is drawn as a linear sequence. As such, it is limited in its ability to describe a model that, in reality, is more organic, complex and complicated. The overall aims/outcomes of the various programmes in NZ are to minimise serious injuries and hazardous conditions and create healthy and safe conditions in SBs (see top box in Figure 2). The programme theories underlying the various programmes essentially aim at two main drivers for change in SB behaviour: to increase capacity and to increase motivation (see central boxes in bold font). The first main driver is to increase capacity to take effective and appropriate action. One of the ways to achieve this is mainly to provide knowledge (often via practical help as in the case of the DoL’s Team Compliance Project) and to induce the right actions through OSH

No – retrieved N/A information from EMA and DoL’s website

Case study: No/No boatbuilding

N/A

• Industry • Involvement • Key driver publications of employer, was a • Industry employees stakeholder meetings and other in council • Local groups in • Economic government hazard and benefit from publications waste waste and website identification reduction • Inspiration • Best practice from implemented examples by industry leaders

Correct Driver interpretation worked? by the owner?

Programme N/A theory

Aware of Contact programme/ mechanism Participated? worked?

N/A

Industry leaders’ development of hazard management best practice communicated to SBs to help improve OSH

N/A

No economic resources or time to attend meetings

?

?

• DoL, ACC and city council responsible for start-up process • Intention to hand it over to industry stakeholders • Involve all stakeholders in business

Interpre- Process tation

Reduction • Support by N/A in the senior key number stakeholders of injuries in industry and of • Support by waste grassroots in local area

Mechanism Expected Contact in programme effect worked?


Table 5 Case study: businesses’ implementation and awareness of Waitakere City Council’s Boat Building Project described in relation to the elements of programme theory



Evidence N/A from interviews with stakeholders

N/A

N/A

N/A

Raised N/A awareness of hazards in the industry

N/A

N/A

• Programme stopped when the ACC, DoL and city council withdrew the resources • Industry associations not ready to take over • Key personnel moved on – no succession plan



management systems which focus on hazard management. This may be encouraged via introduction of appropriate OSH qualifications. The second main driver is to increase motivation to take action. Motivation is mainly targeted via economic incentives and by enforcement. The general working environment legislation and enforcement (mainly actioned by the DoL) and compensation legislation (largely actioned by the ACC) (see the bottom two levels of boxes in Figure 2) form the bases for the programmes. Five examples of programmes (based on information from Table 1 and summarised as: information material; sector training activities; the DoL’s Team Compliance Project; the WSD scheme; and the WSE scheme) are shown in the model (see box labelled ‘Programmes’). Thus, in summary, Figure 2 provides a depiction of how some of the programmes in NZ attempt to increase capacity and motivation to improve OSH in SBs. So far in this paper, we have considered the OSH programmes as single efforts to improve the working environment in SBs, but in reality they have to be considered together. In Figure 2, the interdependence of these efforts is indicated with unbroken arrows (the broken arrow indicates a less clear interdependence). Given that there will never be one single programme with the ability, by itself, to solve the working environment problems of SBs, it is necessary to link different programmes into a framework in which they support the same overall objective and interact and support each other in various ways. The WSD scheme is an example of a national programme that builds on industry-specific programmes. In fact, the scheme builds on the SiteSafe, FarmSafe and FishSafe programmes (as indicated by the bold arrows in Figure 2). It integrated the industry training programme as the means to increase the capacity of the owners and then added a control of implemented action and an economic incentive. It is an example where the national authorities use the more-or-less rigorous assessment or evaluation of implemented programmes to improve new programmes. Figure 2 A model for improving the working environment in small businesses in New Zealand

Aims/outcomes

Healthy and safe conditions in small business

Implementation

Small businesses apply motivation and capacity to improve the working environment

Increase capacity Programme drivers

Increase motivation

Knowledge and qualification

Economic benefit

Practical help

Programmes

Bases for the programmes

Information material

Sector training activities

DoL Team Compliance Project

Workplace Safety Discount scheme

General working environment legislation and enforcement

Workplace Safety Evaluation scheme

Compensation legislation

Hazardous conditions in small businesses


The importance of the model outlined in Figure 2 is that it shows how some of the most important programmes in NZ work in conjunction with each other and join forces in pushing for the same objective of getting SBs to take action to improve the working environment. It must be noted that all of the NZ programmes rely on economic incentives or the SBs’ own desire to create a better working environment. None of the programmes is properly integrated into the ways of running a business or the development of apprentice training in safe work practices in the industry. To this extent, they are largely ad hoc add-on programmes. The implication of the model, and of the introduction of the concept of programme theory in analysing national OSH programmes, lies in its potential to facilitate a more systematic way of developing a cohesive national programme to try and reduce OSH risks in SBs.

Conclusions This paper has developed and presented a theoretical framework for analysing OSH programmes aimed at SBs, based on the construct of ‘programme theory’. It describes the main national programmes in NZ and includes an in-depth analysis of three specific programmes – each representing a particular strategy for reaching out to SBs. By drawing from interviews with owner-managers, it illustrates and identifies the rationales and mechanisms and conditions or moderators underlying each programme. Finally, it presents a model for a national effort in NZ to improve the working environment which will have implications for the future development of SB programmes and for research. On balance, our analyses of a general, a sector and a local programme indicate that they mainly rely on economic incentives or on the SBs’ own desire to create a better working environment. As noted above, the programmes were largely ad hoc add-ons, and none was properly integrated into the ways of running a business, or linked specifically with the development of apprentice training in safe work practices in the industry. Also, there was very little evidence of programme evaluations for intervention effectiveness. The implication of the NZ model, and of the introduction of the concept of programme theory in analysing national OSH programmes for SBs, lies in the potential to facilitate a more systematic way of developing a cohesive national programme to try and reduce OSH risks in SBs. We conclude that the application of programme theory can be a useful new tool in the analysis of the effectiveness of national OSH programmes aimed at improving the effectiveness of OSH programmes in SBs. There remains a need to develop broad programmes with links between sectors and localities that can create synergies to improve OSH in SBs.

Acknowledgments This study was supported by funding from the New Zealand National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee, Wellington.

References 1. 2.

3. 4.

Fabiano B, Curro F and Pastorino R. A study of the relationship between occupational injuries and firm size and type in the Italian industry. Safety Science 2004; 42 (7): 587–600. Schlunssen V, Vinzents P S, Mikkelsen A E and Schaumburg I. Wood dust exposure in the Danish furniture industry using conventional and passive monitors. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2001; 45 (2): 157–164. Sørensen O H, Hasle P and Bach E. Working in small enterprises – is there a special risk? Safety Science 2007; 45 (10): 1044–1059. Champoux D and Brun J P. Occupational health and safety management in small size enterprises: an overview of the situation and avenues for intervention and research. Safety Science 2003; 41 (4): 301–318.

32 Understanding the programme theories underlying national strategies to improve the working environment in small businesses

5.

6. 7.

8.

9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

Addison N and Burgess G. Compliance with the manual handing regulations amongst a random selection of small businesses in England. Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2002; 46 (2): 149–155. Hasle P and Limborg H J. A review of the literature on preventive occupational health and safety activities in small enterprises. Industrial Health 2006; 44 (1): 6–12. Lamm F. Occupational health and safety in Australian small business: what can be done to reduce the lack of awareness and raise the level of compliance in Australian small business? Sydney: Industrial Relations Research Centre, University of New South Wales, 1999. Vickers I, James P, Smallbone D and Baldock R. Understanding small firm responses to regulation: the case of workplace health and safety. Policy Studies 2005; 26 (2): 149–169. Walters D. Health and safety in small enterprises. European strategies for managing improvement. Brussels: PIE-Peter Lang, 2001. Beaver G. Management and the small firm. Strategic Change 2003; 12 (2): 63–68. Martin G and Staines H. Managerial competences in small firms. Journal of Management Development 1994; 13 (7): 23–34. Scase R and Goffee R. The real world of the small business owner. London: Croom Helm, 1980. Storey D J. Understanding the small business sector. London: Routledge, 1994. Baldock R, James P, Smallbone D and Vickers I. Influences on small-firm compliancerelated behaviour: the case of workplace health and safety. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 2006; 24 (6): 827–846. Fairman R and Yapp C. Enforced self-regulation, prescription, and conceptions of compliance within small businesses: the impact of enforcement. Law and Policy 2005; 27 (4): 491–519. Eakin J M, Lamm F and Limborg H J. International perspective on the promotion of health and safety in small workplaces. In: Frick K, Jensen P L, Quinlan M and Wilthagen T (eds). Systematic occupational health and safety management: perspectives on an international development. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 2000: 227–247. Antonsson A-B, Birgersdotter L and Bornberger-Dankvardt S. Small enterprises in Sweden. Health and safety and the significance of intermediaries in preventive health and safety. Stockholm, Sweden: National Institute for Working Life, 2002. Antonsson A-B, Birgersdotter L and Christensson B. Varför vidtas (inte) arbetsmiljöåtgärder? En systemanalys av åtgärder mot isocyanater i bilverkstäder. Research. Report no. B1668. Stockholm, Sweden: Swedish Environmental Research Institute, 2006. www3.ivl.se/rapporter/pdf/B1668.pdf. Viewed 10 November 2010. Lamm F. Small business and OH&S advisors. Safety Science 1997; 25 (1–3): 153–161. Vickers I, Baldock R, Smallbone D James P and Ekanem I. Cultural influences on health and safety attitudes and behaviour in small businesses. RR150. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2003. www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr150.pdf. Viewed 10 November 2010. LaMontagne A, Stoddard A M, Youngstrom R A, Lewiton M and Sorensen G. Improving the prevention and control of hazardous substance exposures: a randomized controlled trial in manufacturing worksites. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2005; 48 (4): 282–292. Pratt B. Barriers and enablers to control of hazardous chemicals in small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Australian Safety and Compensation Council, 2006. www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/AboutSafeWorkAustralia/WhatWeDo/Publications/ Documents/105/BarriersAndEnablers_Control_HazardousChemicals_SMEs_2006_ ArchivePDF.pdf. Viewed 16 November 2010.


23. LaMontagne A D, Stoddard A M, Roelofs C, Sembajwe G, Sapp A L and Sorensen G. A hazardous substance exposure prevention rating method for intervention needs assessment and effectiveness evaluation: the small business exposure index. Environmental Health 2009; 8 (10) doi:10.1186/1476-069X-8-10. www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/10. Viewed 10 November 2010. 24 Frick K and Walters D. Worker representation on health and safety in small enterprises: lessons from a Swedish approach. International Labour Review 1998; 137 (3): 367–389. 25 Frick K. Health and safety representation in small firms: a Swedish success that is threatened by political and labour market changes. In: Walters D and Nichols T (eds). Workplace health and safety: international perspectives on worker representation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2009. 26. Stave C, Törner M and Eklöf M. An intervention method for occupational safety in farming – evaluation of the effect and process. Applied Ergonomics 2007; 38 (3): 357–368. 27. Morgaine K, Langley J D and McGee R O. The FarmSafe programme in New Zealand: process evaluation of year one (2003). Safety Science 2006; 44 (4): 12. 28. Eakin J and Weir N. Canadian approaches to the promotion of health in small workplaces. Canadian Journal of Public Health (Revue Canadienne de Santé Publique) 1995; 86 (2): 109–113. 29. Mizoue T, Huuskonen M S, Muto T, Koskinen K, Husman K and Bergström M. Analysis of Japanese occupational health services for small- and medium-scale enterprises in comparison with the Finnish system. Journal of Occupational Health 1999; 41 (2): 115–120. 30. Muto T, Takata T, Aizawa Y and Mizoue T. Analysis of Japanese occupational health services for small-scale enterprises, in comparison with the recommendations of the Joint WHO/ILO Task Group. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 2000; 73 (5): 352–360. 31. Walters D. The efficacy of strategies for chemical risk management in small enterprises in Europe: evidence for success? Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 2006; 4 (1): 81–116. 32. Froneberg B and Boldt U. Occupational health care in small and medium-sized enterprises – introduction of services to craftsmen by using their professional networks. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 1999; 5 (4): 581–584. 33 Walters D. Within REACH? Managing chemical risks in small enterprises. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing Company Inc, 2008. 34. Kristensen T S. Intervention studies in occupational epidemiology. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005; 62 (3): 6. 35. Neumann W P, Eklund J, Hansson B and Lindbeck L. Effect assessment in work environment interventions: a methodological reflection. Ergonomics 2010; 53 (1): 130–137. 36. Curtis Breslin F, Kyle N, Bigelow P, Irvin E, Morassaei S, MacEachen E, Mahood Q, Couban R, Shannon H, Amick III B C and The Small Business Systematic Review Team. Effectiveness of health and safety in small enterprises: a systematic review of quantitative evaluations of interventions. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2010; 20 (2): 163–179. 37. Thurman J, Louzine A E and Kogi K. Higher productivity and a better place to work. Practical ideas for owners and managers of small and medium-sized industrial enterprises. Geneva: ILO, 1988. 38. Walters D. Working safely in small enterprises in Europe. Towards a sustainable system for worker participation and representation. Brussels: European Trade Union Confederation, 2002.

34 Understanding the programme theories underlying national strategies to improve the working environment in small businesses

39. Dahler-Larsen P. From programme theory to constructivism: on tragic, magic and competing programmes. Evaluation 2001; 7 (3): 331–349. 40. Patton M Q. Utilization-focused evaluation. Los Angeles: Sage, 2008. 41. Vedung E. Public policy and program evaluation. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1997. 42. Bickmann L. The functions of program theory. New Directions for Program Evaluation 1987; 33: 5–18. 43. Baron R M and Kenny D A. The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986; 51 (6): 1173–1182. 44. MacEachen E, Kosny A, Scott-Dixon K, Facey M, Chambers L, Breslin C, Kyle N, Irvin E, Mahood Q and The Small Business Systematic Review Team. Workplace health understandings and processes in small businesses: a systematic review of the qualitative literature. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 2010; 20 (2); 180–198. 45. Legg S, Battisti M, Harris L-A, Laird I, Lamm F, Massey C and Olsen K. Occupational health and safety in small businesses. Technical report no. 12. Wellington, New Zealand: National Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Committee (NOHSAC), 2009. http://ohsnetnz.org.nz/documents/NOH14723TechReport12v4Allfinal.pdf. 46. Rogers P J. Using programme theory to evaluate complicated and complex aspects of interventions. Evaluation 2008; 14 (1): 29–48. 47. Accident Compensation Corporation. Annual Report 2008. Wellington, New Zealand: Accident Compensation Corporation, 2008. 48. Accident Compensation Corporation. Annual Report 2009. Wellington, New Zealand: Accident Compensation Corporation, 2009. 49. Department of Labour. Workplace service: Business plan 2008–09. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of Labour, 2008. 50. Conroy J. The Porirua project. Assessment of the effect of TCP style workplace assessments on health and safety compliance in 40 small businesses within the Wellington-Kapiti region. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Department of Management, Massey University, 2009. 51. Gribble A, Mortimer L and Smith R. Occupational health and safety in New Zealand. Technical report no. 7. Wellington: National Occupational Health and Safety Advisory Committee, 2006. 52. Department of Labour, NZ. Workplace health and safety strategy for New Zealand to 2015. Wellington: Department of Labour, New Zealand, 2005. 53. Quinlan M, Bohle P and Lamm F. Managing occupational health and safety: a multidisciplinary approach. Chapter 7: Law and prevention. South Yarra, Victoria: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010: 366. 54. Flyvbjerg B. Make social science matter: why social inquiry fails and how it can succeed again. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. 55. Personal communication. P. McIntosh, former ACC Workplace Prgrammes Manager, 29 March 2010. 56. Waitakere City Council. Cleaner Production Programme, Boat Building Project: a survey of the environmental, health and safety practices of members of the Boat Building Working Group. Waitakere City Council, June–July 2004. 57. Kawakami T. Networking grassroots efforts to improve safety and health in informal economy workplaces in Asia. Industrial Health 2006; 44 (1): 42–47. 58. Rao S. Safety culture and accident analysis – a socio-management approach based on organizational safety social capital. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2007; 142 (3): 730–740.


59. Samant Y, Parker D, Brosseau L, Pan W, Xi M and Haugan D. Profile of machine safety in small metal fabrication businesses. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2006; 49 (5): 352–359. 60. Wise resource use. Waitakere City Council, Auckland, New Zealand, 2001. 61. Cited in: Lamm F. OHS compliance in the small business sector: matching compliance behaviour with OHS initiatives. In press.

Understanding the programme theories underlying ...

Understanding the programme theories underlying ...

Suggest Documents

Understanding Regulatory Mechanisms Underlying

Understanding the neurotransmitter changes underlying cognitive ...

Theories Underlying Requirements Engineering: An ... - CiteSeerX

Understanding mechanisms underlying the pathology ...

Understanding and Promoting Learning Theories.

Learning Management System and the Underlying Learning Theories

A Discussion of Underlying Theories Explaining the ...

Underlying Concepts and Theories of Learning with the Semantic Web

Understanding biological mechanisms underlying adverse birth ...

Understanding Social and Interactional Practices Underlying ... - CORE

Understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying the effects of ...

Understanding the basic biology underlying the flavor world of children

Models of Wave-function Collapse, Underlying Theories, and ...

Essential concepts and underlying theories from ... - Wiley Online Library

Understanding the Underlying Physics of Multimode Coupled Bridge ...

Foundational concepts and underlying theories ... - Wiley Online Library

Choosing Appropriate Theories for Understanding Hospital Reporting ...

PDF Understanding Social Networks: Theories ... - Google Sites

[PDF] Understanding Social Networks: Theories ... - Google Sites

Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories ... - CiteSeerX

understanding learning: theories and critique

Choosing Appropriate Theories for Understanding Hospital Reporting

PDF Download Understanding Investments: Theories ... - Google Sites

Understanding the Why, What, and How of Theories ...