Occupational Safety and Hygiene

Occupational Safety and Hygiene – Arezes et al. (eds) © 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00047-6

Terms and concepts: A reflection on occupational health and safety definitions and terminology C. Gomes de Oliveira Instituto Superior de Educação e Ciências, Portugal

F.O. Nunes Instituto Superior de Engenharia de Lisboa, Portugal

A. Pinto Independent researcher

ABSTRACT: Often occupational health and safety (OH&S) terminology is ambiguous and controversial. Different terms for the same concept or different definitions for the same term lead to misunderstanding even between OH&S’s experts. The development of a methodology aim to construct a OH&S glossary containing the terms that are necessary to describe. characterize, analyze/assess, evaluate, manage and communicate risks, based on a better understanding of the underlying terms seems to be of paramount importance. 1

INTRODUCTION

Occupational health and safety (OH&S) is a relatively new and developing branch of knowledge composed by knowledge from different sciences. Its terminology is a source of ambiguity and at times even a source of controversy within experts from different sciences, because roots deeply in different views on the applied terms often derail a discussion from its core issue(s). This led to ambiguity in the use of terms, both between different OH&S sciences and between the different parties involved in OH&S debates. It must be noted that some of the concepts used in OH&S are diffuse/uncertain by nature (such as: safety and risk), which means that this kind of concept cannot be defined with precision, certainty and rigor. Several authors (Leeuwen and Hermens, 1995; Lewalle, 1999; Christensen et al., 2003) and institutions (NRC, 1983; IPCS, 1989; UNEP/ILO/WHO, 1994; EC, 1996, 2000; US-EPA, 1997; ISO, 2001; SRA, 2012) had regularly made suggestions on terminology in different branches of OH&S related sciences. The main object on OH&S is the risk. In fact, risk and safety are linked both conceptually and pragmatically (Hollnagel, 2008). The conceptual link can be seen by comparing definitions of the two main concepts: risk and safety. Risk is usually defined as the likelihood that something unwanted

can happen (Hollnagel, 2008). Safety is likewise defined as the absence of unwanted (health harmful) events, which essentially means as the absence of risk (Hollnagel, 2008). From an historical point of view, the risk concept has been related with the culture and the language of those who use it (Oliveira, 2010). In some way, all the other OH&S concepts are risk-related. Consulting the legal and bibliographic sources, different terms related to the same concept can be found, according to the specific scientific/technological field where it is applied. The elaboration of a coherent, consistent and efficient glossary needs the establishment of criteria in order to justify the chosen relationship between concept, definition and term. The purpose of this paper is to explain and discuss a rational criteria for the development of a methodology aim to construct a OH&S glossary containing the terms that are necessary to describe, characterize, analyze/assess, evaluate, manage and communicate risks, based on a better understanding of the underlying physical (fundamental terms) and societal (action oriented, such as legal terms) terms. The approach will follow the criteria: • Identification and/or assessment of terms widely used on current practices but taking into account the legal and normative terms; • Minimization of interfaces between definitions;

613

AREZES0_Book.indb 613

3/8/2013 3:09:19 PM

• Rejection of redundancies; • Systemic approach by fundamental terms and action oriented terms considering the significant levels. 2

METHODOLOGY

As early referred, in addressing this subject prima facie, a structural issue emerges: the object of safety is admittedly the risk, i.e., risk is the core concept of a whole set of limiting, derived and engaging notions. But if risk is, in itself, a concept which is intimately related to the concept of uncertainty, how to define uncertainty? How can one frame, relate, make consistent, different concepts that bind with it (upstream and downstream)? And of course, the concept of risk is paradigmatic, not only by the different approaches found in the technical and scientific literature, but also by the specificity of legal definitions, often with restricted and restrictive scopes. It is not intended, in this study, to prepare a glossary of terms useful in the area of Safety, though this goal will be necessarily a development of the theme. It is intended, firstly, to establish a set of rules and procedures allowing such elaboration, so that glossary can be a structured and coherent system of terms, linked to definitions and translating unambiguously the concepts used in this area of knowledge.

Figure 1.

Related concepts.

Figure 2.

Concept-definition-term.

Figure 3. and term.

Relationship between concept, definition

The fundamental question is, then, not only to find a clear and justified definition of each term but also, for each concept, the term that best fits his definition. To clarify the relationship between concept, definition and term the example in Figure 2 may be used. Naturally, the relationships between these entities are not easy to fit, given the interdependence that exists between them. However, one can establish a two-way relationship between concept and definition, so that for each definition there is a corresponding term that is, naturally, semantically conditioned by concept. Consulting dictionaries and other reference sources, with a necessarily critical approach, is crucial as a starting point for proposing a set of concepts/definitions. A number of glossaries, dictionaries and thesaurus of OH&S used terms can be found in the bibliography (Garcia, F. M. et al., 1993, Uva, A. S. & Graça, L. 2004, US-EPA, 2006, Society for Risk Analysis, 2012, as an examples) but most of them approaches the terminology in a sectorial point of view and, sometimes, using restricted sources (Nunes, 2010). Essentially, two types of sources can be found: the regulations that correspond to various legal documents and other related literature where it is possible to obtain scientific and technical justification for defined terms. The use of either (or both) will require, mandatorily, a critical and comparative analysis, particularly in those cases where discrepancies or even contradictions between definitions may occur. However, one must relativize these sources of information, given that the context of the presented definitions has a very comprehensive character, therefore, not consistent with specific interpretations, proper of a well delimited area of knowledge. They will always be, then, necessary but not sufficient sources on their own. Options arising from the consultation of different sources involve the application of valid criteria that allows the selection of the one with the best characteristics—simplicity, consistency, scientific

614

AREZES0_Book.indb 614

3/8/2013 3:09:19 PM

rigor, usability—present. These criteria will be based mainly on two key aspects: • Priority—the obligation arising from law must of course be taken into account. However, one must consider the scope defined in the law and assess its comprehensiveness. Recommendations resulting from technical standards are necessarily important aspects to consider, overlapping, in terms of significance, the information contained in non-normative technical documentation. The analysis of bibliographic sources presents major difficulties regarding the establishment of evaluation criteria. The context in which the settings are inserted, the type of development where they fall and, of course, technical and scientific credibility of authors and/or institutions, are aspects that determine the priority and significance of definitions analyzed. The extent to which the various definitions are applied, in terms of expertise and/or coverage, also contributes to determine the weight they may have. • Synthesis—is expected that, in a search for sources, either regulatory or bibliographic, one will find different definitions for the same concepts, varying both the scope and form (syntactic and/or semantic). This means that there will probably be, complementarities and overlapping between the various definitions referenced (see diagram in figure 4). It is then necessary for an effort of synthesis to be made, in order to obtain a single definition which is, on one hand, complete and comprehensive and, on the other, concise and not redundant.

The important thing is, then, to establish a two-way relationship between these two concepts, which results in a two-column table: “term”/“definition”. The fundamental issue is, therefore, not only finding a clear and justified definition of each term but also to the term that best fits your definition for each concept. Naturally, the relationships between these entities are not easy to fit, given the interdependence that exists between them. However, you can establish a two-way relationship between concept and definition, so that to each definition there is a corresponding term that is naturally semantically conditioned by the concept. For a better understanding among all stakeholders, a uniform glossary of the technical terms used within OH&S is crucial.

Figure 5.

Hierarchy of concepts.

Figure 6.

Flowchart of the proposed methodology.

The correspondence between the term and definition adopted has to, necessarily, take into account the cultural appropriateness and comprehensiveness of the latter by using a common language or a technical-professional “jargon”, obviously while respecting their scientific relevance. Thus, the establishment of normative and methodological basis for the preparation of a glossary implies a sequential process of research, either starting from the term to the concept (deductive method) or from the concept to the term (inductive method).

Figure 4.

Synthesis of definitions.

615

AREZES0_Book.indb 615

3/8/2013 3:09:20 PM

place (Nunes, 2003); Training and employee participation (Kinney & Wiruth, 1976; Malchaire, 2003); Top event (Fault Tree Analysis). Note: these concepts should not be included in the glossary of the technical terms of OH&S, but must be clearly defined in the description of the method/technique to which they relate.

A consistent way of building definitions, implies a hierarchy of several concepts that shows, as noted earlier, the dependency ratio—and causality—connecting them. Hence, a glossary will always sit in a tree structure, in which • the definition of the basic concepts should be broad and based on a perceptive language to most participants in the process, without ever yielding to a generalization that will remove accuracy, and seeking, in particular, to minimize possible overlaps between definitions; • there are, obviously, concepts which are derived from each other, so that for a particular concept, there might be several definitions of terms that result from it and that can be related through an inductive tree; • as one moves towards the specificity of concepts, definitions should be increasingly accurate and interfaces increasingly narrow. Such a sequential process will necessarily include two levels of analysis: • The search for a relationship of the form concept ↔ definition ↔ term through a search on the relevant literature, taking into account the definitions from applicable legal and regulatory documents. • The proposal of a set of the form concept ↔ definition ↔ term based on a critical analysis of the data obtained in the previous level, duly justified by linguistic and conceptual considerations, given their autonomy and uniqueness and their applicability in the context of Safety. 3

A way to relate concepts/definitions/terms systemically coherent and comprehensive is proposed, emphasizing the semantic and conceptual relationship between the definition and the defined. An example can be the term “risk” for which several definitions can be founded even in legal documents. US-EPA, (2006) states up to 19 different definitions related to different applications. A structured methodology and a clear identification of criteria for the analysis of such cases will permit the proposal of a synthetic but comprehensive definition. Searching for some legal definitions of “hazard” we can find: “source, situation, or act with a potential for harm in terms of human injury or ill health, or a combination of these” (BS OHSAS, 2007) or: “the intrinsic property of a facility, activity, equipment, agent or other material component of work with the potential to cause harm” (Portuguese Law no. 102/2009). From those sources, it is possible to propose a definition of “hazard” rooted on the synthesis of legal and normative terms: “Intrinsic property of any source, equipment, situation, or act with the potential to cause injury or/and ill health”.

4

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This reflection has the main purpose of establishing and proposing a scientifically grounded methodology, to be applied to the preparation of a Technical Glossary for OH&S. In accordance with the hierarchy of concepts, the following definitions are used: • Basic concepts—those whose definition under OH&S, is absolute, i.e., not dependent on previous definitions. Examples: Hazard; Event; Operation technique; Decision; Probability; Damage. • Derived concepts—those that are defined with reference to preceding concepts. Examples: Risk, Risk calculation factor; Cause. • Specific concepts—that correspond to the quantities and/or variables used in methods and techniques of specialized application. Examples: Deficiency level (Belloví & Malagón, 1993); Index of safety conditions in the work-

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of disciplines that contribute to the Occupational Health and Safety reinforces the need to harmonize the terminology used. The development of criteria to ensure a coherent, complete and synthetic relationship between concept, definition and term must be the preliminary but necessary step to achieve this harmonization. This paper proposes a reflection aimed to establish and propose a scientifically grounded methodology, applicable to the preparation of a Technical Glossary on OH&S, preparing in the near future. The primary goal of a technical glossary is to achieve a better way to describe, characterize, analyze/assess, evaluate, manage and communicate OH&S definitions and related terms. In conclusion, the proposed methodology could be very useful for the systematic and rational identification of terms widely used on current (OH&S) practices, including the legal and normative terms and to propose a term associated to a definition

616

AREZES0_Book.indb 616

3/8/2013 3:09:21 PM

rooted on the synthesis of the various definitions currently used. REFERENCES Assembleia da República, Lei no. 102/2009 de 10 de setembro. Belloví, M.B. & Malagón, F.P. (1993). Sistema simplificado de evaluación de riesgos de accidente. Nota Técnica de Prevención 330. Instituto Nacional de Seguridad y Higiene en el Trabajo, Barcelona. BS OHSAS 18001. (2007). Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: Requirements. British Standard Institution. European Commission, (1996). Technical Guidance Document in Support of Commission Directive 93/67/EECon Risk Assessment for New Notified Substances and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1488/94 on RiskAssessment for Existing Substances. Part I. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities,Luxembourg. European Commission, (2000). First Report on the Harmonisation of Risk Assessment Procedures. Part 2. Appendices, Appendix 1: glossary of terms, 26–27 October 2000 (published on the internet on 20–12–2000). Garcia, F.M. ed al (1993). Diccionario MAPFRE de Seguridad Integral, Fundación MAPFRE Estudios, Madrid. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Generic Terms and Concepts in the Assessment and Regulation of Industrial Risks, London, 1995. Hollnagel, (2008). E. Risk + barriers = safety?, Safety Science 46, 221–229. International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), (1989). Glossary of terms on chemical safety for use in IPCS publications, World Health Organization, Geneva. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (1999). Safety aspects – Guidelines for Their Inclusion in Standards, ISO/IEC Guide 51. International Organization for Standardization (ISO), (2001). Risk Management—Vocabulary—Guidelines for Use in Standards, Draft ISO Guide 73. Kinney, G.F. & Wiruth, A.D. (1976). Practical Risk Analysis for Safety Management. California, Naval Weapons Center. Technical Publication 5865. Leeuwen, C.J., Hermens, J.L.M. (1995). Risk Assessment of Chemicals: An Introduction, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Lewalle, P. (1999).Terminology Standardization and Harmonisation (TSH), 11 (1–4).

Malchaire, J. (2003). Estratégia Sobane de Gestão de Riscos Profissionais., Available at: http://www.deparisnet. be/sobane/pt/Estrategia_SOBANE_Port_8-4-09.pdf (assessed oct. 2012). National Research Council (NRC), Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public Health, (1983). Risk assessment in the federal government: Managing the process, National Academy Press, Washington, DC. Nunes, F.O. (2003). Avaliação de Níveis de Segurança nos Locais de Trabalho: Uma Abordagem Quantitativa. 3.º Colóquio Internacional sobre Segurança e Higiene do Trabalho, Ordem dos Engenheiros, pp. 77–82. Nunes, F.O. (2010). Sobre a utilização de termos e conceitos em avaliação de riscos profissionais, 1ª Parte, Segurança, nº 198, set/out, p. 3–5; 2ª Parte, Segurança, nº 199, nov/dez, p. 5–7. Oliveira, C.G. (2010). Proposta de uma Metodologia Integrada de Avaliação de Riscos Profissionais, PhD Thesis, Departamento de Ciências Biomédicas—Universidad de Léon, Available at: https://buleria.unileon.es/bitstream/ handle/10612/904/2010ON-CUNHA%20GOMES%20 D E % 2 0 O L I V E I R A % 2 c % 2 0 C A R LO S % 2 0 A 1 . pdf ?sequence=1 (assessed nov. 2012). Society for Risk Analysis, (2012). Glossary of Risk Analysis Terms, Available at: http://www.sra.org/resources_ glossary.php (assessed nov. 2012). United Nations Environment Programme, International Labour Organization, World Health Organization (UNEP/ILO/WHO), (1994). Assessing human health risks of chemicals: derivation of guidance values forhealth-based exposure limits, Environmental Health Criteria 170, World Health Organization, Geneva. US-EPA, (1997). Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision-making, The Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Final Report, vol. 2, Glossary (posted in RiskWorld on March 27, 1997), Available at: http:// www.riskworld.com (assessed aug. 2010). US-EPA, (2006). Thesaurus Of Terms Used In Microbiological Risk Assessment, Available at: http://water.epa. gov/scitech/swguidance/standards/upload/2007_10_01_ criteria_humanhealth_microbial_thesaurus_microbialthesaurus.pdf (asses-sed nov. 2012). Uva, A.S. & Graça, L. (2004). Saúde e Segurança: glossário de termos e expressões mais comuns cadernos avulso nº 4, Sociedade Portuguesa de Medicina do Trabalho.

617

AREZES0_Book.indb 617

3/8/2013 3:09:21 PM