The survey included six questions measuring organizational safety culture, and six additional questions on work related factors with relevance for transport safety. These questions were also used in a previous study of safety culture among drivers (N=224) in three Norwegian haulage companies (Nævestad & Bjørnskau 2014). The three haulier companies were selected based on an assumption that they had good safety cultures, and the results of the study supported that assumption. Below we compare the frequencies and scores of the three national groups with those of the 224 drivers from the previous study (Norwegian II).
Figure 7.1 shows the three national groups’ and Norwegian II’s shares on three statements measuring safety commitment:
- The management of the company focuses on safety17
- The drivers in my company do everything they can to avoid unwanted incidents and accidents
- In my company, it is more important to drive safely than to deliver on time
17 The wording of this statement was different in the Norwegian II survey: “Management regards
Figure 7.1 National groups’ shares on three statements measuring safety culture. Per cent. Norwegian (N=61), Western European country (N=17), Central/Eastern European country (N=52), Norwegian II (224).
The figure indicates that, of the three national groups we primarily compare in the study, WE region has the largest share of drivers agreeing with the statement “The management of the company focuses on safety”, followed by Norwegian drivers and drivers from CEE. A comparison of means shows that Norwegian drivers score 4.2, WE drivers score 4.3, while CEE drivers score 3.6 in average. An ANOVA analysis of variances shows that the differences are statistically significant at the 10 %-level (P=0.097). Thus, it seems that there are differences between the groups when it comes to respondents’ self-reports of their managers’ commitment to safety. Finally, the shares agreeing with the statement (mean score 4.2 points) in the Norwegian II sample were fairly similar to those of the Norwegian drivers and the drivers from WE, although we would expect the Norwegian II sample to score higher than the other groups on this question.
The same pattern is evident for the drivers’ response to the statement: “The drivers in my company do everything they can to avoid unwanted incidents and accidents”. Although on this question, the differences between the groups are bigger (up to 24 percentage points). A comparison of means shows that Norwegian drivers score 4.3, WE drivers score 4.6, while CEE score 3.8 in average. An ANOVA analysis of variances shows that the differences are statistically significant at the 10 %-level (P=0.052). Thus, it seems that there are differences between the groups when it
7% 0% 21% 3% 0% 0% 21% 1% 7% 0% 15% 3% 2% 9% 12% 4% 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% 18% 6% 4% 15% 9% 5% 15% 16% 9% 12% 8% 20% 12% 8% 22% 18% 27% 10% 30% 35% 27% 10% 37% 28% 12% 12% 26% 58% 55% 52% 50% 49% 64% 57% 51% 44% 59% 60% 45% 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %
Nor. WE CEE Nor. II Nor. WE CEE Nor. II Nor. WE CEE Nor. II The management of the company
focuses on safety The drivers in my company doeverything they can to avoid unwanted incidents and accidents
In my company, it is more important to drive safely than to deliver on
time
comes to respondents’ self-reports of colleagues’ commitment to safety. Finally, the shares agreeing with the statement (mean score 4.4 points) in the Norwegian II sample were fairly similar to those of the Norwegian drivers and the drivers from WE , although we would expect the Norwegian II sample to score higher than the other groups on this question.
The shares agreeing with the statement “In my company, it is more important to drive safely than to deliver on time” is fairly similar for the three groups that we primarily compare in this study, although the share agreeing totally is lower among drivers from Norway. A comparison of means shows that Norwegian drivers score 4, WE drivers score 4.1, while CEE drivers score 3.9 in average. An ANOVA analysis of variances shows that the differences not are statistically significant (P=0.885). Thus, we cannot conclude that there are differences between the groups when it comes to self-reported company focus on safety versus efficiency. Finally, the shares agreeing with the statement (mean score 4.1 points) in the Norwegian II sample were fairly similar to those of the Norwegian drivers. This is unexpected, as it indicates that fewer respondents “totally agreed” with the statement in the Norwegian II sample (of Norwegian companies with good safety culture) than in the groups of foreign drivers.
We also made a safety commitment index based on the three questions, with a minimum value of 3 points (1*3) and a maximum value of 15 points (5*3).
Norwegian drivers score 12.4, WE drivers score 12.6, while CEE drivers score 11.4 in average. An ANOVA analysis of variances shows that the differences are not statistically significant (P=0.251). The score of the Norwegian II sample on the safety commitment index was 12.6 points. As expected, Norwegian II scores slightly higher than the Norwegian group, and equal to the group of WE drivers. This is
unexpected, given the comprehensive work on safety in the Norwegian II sample.
Safety training and reporting routines
Figure 7.2 shows two additional statements measuring safety culture:
- Drivers in my company receive adequate training to drive in a safe way - In my company, there are routines for reporting safety problems and safety
Figure 7.2 National groups’ shares on two statements measuring safety culture. Per cent. Norwegian (N=61), Western European country (N=17), Central/Eastern European country (N=52).
The figure indicates that, of the three national groups we primarily compare in the study, CEE has the largest share of drivers agreeing with the statement “Drivers in my company receive adequate training to drive in a safe way”, while the shares in the two other groups are fairly similar. A comparison of means shows that Norwegian drivers score 3.4, WE drivers score 3.5, while CEE drivers score 3.5 in average. An ANOVA analysis of variances shows that the differences are not statistically significant (P=0.940). Thus, we cannot conclude that there are differences between the groups when it comes to self-reported training. Finally, the shares agreeing with the statement and the mean score (4 points) in the Norwegian II sample were considerably higher in the Norwegian II group, indicating that this group is notably better when it comes to driver safety training.
The figure indicates that, of the three national groups we primarily compare in the study, the Norwegian drivers to a higher extent than the other groups report that they have “routines for reporting safety problems and safety violations”. In this case, the difference between Norwegian drivers and the two other groups is about 10 (EEC) and 20 (WE) percentage points. A comparison of means shows that Norwegian drivers score 4.1, WE drivers score 3.4, while CEE drivers score 3.6 in average. An ANOVA analysis of variances shows that the differences are not statistically significant (P=0.1). Thus, we cannot conclude that the Norwegian drivers’ companies have better routines and systems for incident reporting. Finally, the shares agreeing with the statement and the mean score (4.4 points) in the
Norwegian II sample were considerably higher in the Norwegian II group, indicating that this group is notably better when it comes to reporting systems.
9% 2% 9% 24% 4% 3% 18% 17% 15% 5% 18% 2% 6% 3% 18% 12% 24% 19% 18% 10% 16% 9% 9% 7% 33% 38% 27% 29% 24% 22% 18% 19% 20% 36% 27% 36% 51% 64% 36% 45% 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 %
Nor. Nor. II WE CEE Nor. Nor. II WE CEE Drivers in my company receive adequate training to
drive in a safe way In my company, there are routines for reporting safetyproblems and safety violations Totally disagree Disagree somewhat Neither agree or disagree Agree somewhat Totally agree
In sum, the two questions in figure 7.2 could indicate a higher quality of safety management systems (training, reporting) among the companies employing the Norwegian drivers in the sample than the companies employing the foreign drivers. (We discuss this in chapter 8 below).
Summing up
According to the results of the literature review, it is likely that foreign drivers carry with them influences from the national traffic safety cultures of their home country, influenced by traffic rules, the police enforcing the rules, road user interaction, driver licensing and driver education. We have unfortunately not been able to measure this adequately in our survey, although our measures of for instance transport safety behaviours, incident reporting and working hours could be used as indicators of different national transport safety cultures.
Interviewees were careful about making generalizations about differences between national safety cultures, but it was noted that Eastern European countries may have less focus on safety, and labour relations in these countries are also different from those in Norway, with lower trust in the governments and unions and more deference to authority.
The literature review indicates that although the concept of organizational safety culture only recently has been applied in studies of professional drivers in road transport, it influences transport safety behaviour and safety outcomes. The small- scale survey includes five questions measuring organizational safety culture, i.e. the safety cultures of the companies that the respondents work for. We made a safety commitment index based on the first three safety culture items, and found that the differences were only minor and not statistically significant. This is unexpected, given the comprehensive work on safety and the supposedly stronger commitment to safety in the Norwegian II sample.
8 Safety management
Results from literature review
Research indicates that safety management systems influence safety in transport organizations, in road, sea and air transport (Nævestad et al 2015). This is also highlighted in Nævestad & Bjørnskau’s (2014) study of three haulier companies with good safety culture and safety performance. Analyses of AIBN-reports shows that the most frequently mentioned risk factor in organizations which have been involved in accidents in road, sea and air transport is lack of complete, written risk assessment. Risk assessment is the cornerstone of what AIBN road refers to as safety
management systems (SMS), consisting of three elements. Taken together, these three processes summarize an ideal of how transport operators should relate to risk and how they should work with safety management. We formulate these normatively in the following:
1) Transport companies must perform (and document) risk assessments of critical operations.
2) These risk assessments must be used as the basis for job
descriptions/procedures that transport operators can consult prior to operations.
3) The risk assessments and job descriptions/procedures must be used as the basis for a training programme for transport operators to prepare them for the risks related to their work.
In the accidents described in the AIBN-reports, it is often concluded that one or several of these processes have failed. This ideal of HSE requirements is in
accordance with the Working Environment Act and the Internal Control provision.
Results from interviews
Interviewees had little knowledge about the safety management systems of foreign transport companies, but suggested that it is unlikely that foreign transport
companies are in a position to manage the safety of drivers that they seldom see. Another interviewee stated that lacking safety management systems also is a general challenge in the Norwegian transport business. Several managers started up as drivers 30 years ago, became car owners and then managers. These managers do not put a great emphasis on administrative tasks, and establishing safety management systems. It was suggested that the transport business therefore is less developed in this aspect than other lines of business in Norway, and that competition with foreign actors on costs is not likely to improve the situation. The compliance with the Internal control provision of the Norwegian Labour Environment Act is for instance too low within the Norwegian goods transport sector.