Description
Topic: Environment, Health and Safety Management Paper
Request: Based on the material attached (pdfs), write a (4) page double spaced 12 point times roman paper that addresses the following situation “Imagine that you have been selected to interview for a consulting position for a firm that provides ESH advice and consultation to private, public and non-profit organizations. A member of the search committee asks you a two-part question about your understanding of : (a) how do high performance driven organizations unfold (designed & managed)? (b) how would you advise the ESH functions, (i.e., the consulting firms book of business clients) to achieve clarity in the strategic intent of their ESH function. The paper needs to be correctly written without evident grammar errors (I am a native English speaker) – the paper needs to score at least 90 points out of 100 on Grammarly. In addition, no plagiarism is accepted as the paper will be check through multiple softwares.
Grading Rubric (a) Describes a logical and meaningful rationale for how do high performance driven organizations unfold (b) Describes a logical and meaningful rationale for how to advise the ESH functions, (i.e., the consulting firms book of business clients) to achieve clarity in the strategic intent of their ESH function.Correct spelling & grammar, uses all environment, safety and health vocabulary correctly. Response (a) …………………….. 2 pages Response (b) ……………………. 2 pages
Thank you in advance for your support. Materials which MUST be used are attached to the message.
5 attachmentsSlide 1 of 5attachment_1attachment_1attachment_2attachment_2attachment_3attachment_3attachment_4attachment_4attachment_5attachment_5
Unformatted Attachment Preview
Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Management 2015 International Annual Conference
S. Long, E-H. Ng, and A. Squires eds.
SAFETY: LET’S START AT THE BEGINNING
Ean H. Ng and Anthony Veltri
Collaborators: Anh B. Tong, Karl R. Haapala, Javier Calvo-Amodio
Oregon State University
____________________________________________________________________________________________
Abstract
When examining the life cycle of any given product, the consideration of workplace safety usually does not come
into the picture until protype testing or later in the production process. At these points in the product life cycle,
workplace safety is managed as a compliance activity, and any accident or incident that occurs is managed with the
goal of minimizing worker impacts and costs. Safety must not only be considered as a compliance activity, but also
in terms of complete systems. The conventional passive and reactionary approach to safety creates an oppositional
relationship between the safety experts, production managers, and design and process engineers, where each have
different, often incongruous goals and performance measures while dealing with the same processes.
Safety, production, and engineering practice and research exist in the same space, involve the same workers and
production system; hence, it seems vital to examine the three areas jointly. Addressing the oppositional relationships
among safety personnel, engineers, and production managers is crucial to successful workplace safety. One method
to accomplish this is to ensure that safety, engineering, and production managers have the same goals and
performance measures. This paper presents a conceptual model to incorporate workplace safety into the entire
product life cycle, and research questions that address adoption and implementation concerns in organizations.
Keywords
Safety program, integrated approach
Background Information
The disciplines of safety management, operations management, and systems engineeringhave developed into mature
areas of research and practice. But the research and practices are weak in a critical perspective that could enhance
our understanding of how to better control for exposures to hazards from new and existing products and production
processes that over their economic life cycle could negatively impact workers, the environment, and firm
competitiveness. Specifically, research rarely examines practices in safety, operations, and engineering in a joined
systems manner (i.e., the fusion of standalone disciplines into a single decision support framework).
Safety should be considered to be the most demanding of all requirements (Black, Hull, & Jackson, 2011)
and should be included within the requirements phase of a designed product and production process as early as
possible (Bernard & Hasan, 2002; Sierla, Tumer, Papakonstantinou, Koskinen, & Jensen, 2012). Design and process
engineers typically devise systems to create and produce functional products that gain market share and tie their
outcomes to bringing products to market rapidly and resolving production problems (Dym, Agogino, Eris, Frey, &
Leifer, 2005), but generally do not explicitly consider safety in the early stage of a products design and production
process. Operations managers focus on improving workplace practices (Swamidass, 1986; Hayes & Wheelwright,
1984) and tie their outcomes to cost, quality, delivery, and flexibility (Ward, Duray, Leong, & Sum, 1995), but
generally consider safety and engineering as standalone topics and separate from managing operations. Safety
managers focus on improving workplace safety and health practices and tie their outcomes to preventing injuries and
illnesses and to minimizing the associated costs (Cohen, 1977; Smith, Cohen, Cohen, & Cleveland, 1978; Habeck,
Hunt, & VanTol, 1998; Shannon, Mayr, & Haines, 1997; Shannon, Robson, & Sale, 2001; Vredenburgh, 2002;
Mearns, Whitaker, & Flin, 2003), but do not often make explicit linkages to operating and engineering priorities
(Veltri et al., 2013). As a result, the literature comes to multiple conclusions as to the relationship between designing
and managing engineering systems and managing safety and operations (Veltri et al., 2013).
The rationale offered for joining these functions is that research and practice in these areas take place in the
same space and involve the same workers and production system. Hence, it seems vital to examine the three areas
jointly. Further, joining these disciplines would answer calls for flatter organizational structures and cross-functional
teams (Griffin & Hauser,1996) and enhance overall competitiveness (Song, Thieme, & Xie, 1998; Turkulainen &
Ketokivi, 2012).
Copyright, American Society for Engineering Management, 2015
Ng, Veltri, Tong et al
Integrating Safety, Systems Engineering and Operations
Safety has generally been discussed and studied as a standalone topic, somehow separate from integrating with
engineering and operations. During the last decade, numerous papers have explored the safety and systems
engineering interface and its role in the life cycle design engineering of products and production processes (Ishii,
1995; Knight, 2002; Leveson, 2004; Black et al., 2011), as well as the safety and operations management interface
and its role in designing safe and efficient production (Das, Pagell, Behlm, & Veltri, 2008; Veltri et al., 2013;
Pagell, Dibrell, Veltri, & Maxwell, 2014). However, safety managers, systems engineers, and operations managers
looking to the literature for guidance on how to holistically design and operate a production system to
simultaneously be safe and productive will be disappointed in what little guidance does exist.
The proposed hypotheses focus on the structure for achieving system integration and the phases for
integration. Exhibit 1 shows research space of safety management, systems engineering, and operations
management, where the shaded area is the proposed integration of the three areas in this paper.
Exhibit 1. Integration of Safety Management, Systems Engineering, and Operations Management
To fully integrate safety management, operations management, and systems engineering as depicted in
Exhibit 1, a framework that outlines the process of integration is necessary. The framework is built upon the
Hoffman (1995) tiered approach to design for environment (DfE) using the product life cycle matrix, and the
Hanfield and Melynk (1998) framework building model. The following sections present a conceptual framework for
joining the three disciplines, a brief background on the theoretical background upon which the conceptual
framework is based, and the future work for this research.
Conceptual Framework
Framework Development
A conceptual framework building model created by Handfield and Melnyk (1998) was modified to establish the
boundary of the research and guide the necessary linkage between the research purpose, the research question, and
research structure. The concept of a framework allows the developer to combine a series of disparate methods using
the helpful features of each to produce a result (Black et al., 2011). A framework is a representation of how a system
is constructed and assists in driving decision-making and operating action capabilities (Jabareen, 2009). The
framework is a result of a review of existing literature in safety management, systems engineering and operations
management. Specific attention was placed on searching for commonality among peer-reviewed articles,
empirically-derived relationships among stock safety, engineering, and operations practices, and de-emphasized
equivocal, unsubstantiated, or rhetorical evidence. The literature was codified using a pseudo meta-analysis method
that combined commonly-cited practices into a decision-support framework that informs current understanding of
how to better control for exposures to hazards from new and existing products and production processes that over
their economic life cycle could negatively impact workers, the environment, and firm competitiveness.
Life Cycle Framework
2
Ng, Veltri, Tong et al
In attempt to integrate the concept of design for environment into the engineering design process at Motorola,
Hoffman (1995) based his conceptual framework in design for manufacturability theory and incorporated life cycle
assessment theory and the product life cycle matrix into a tiered approach for design for environment. Hoffman
(1995) identified three stages of design: concept development, detail design, and prototype manufacture. The
concept development stage considers all pre-design specifications, and determines the design and general structure;
the detail design phase involves designing individual parts and subassembly processes; and the prototype
manufacture phase begins when all the part designs are completed and the manufactured prototype comes together.
For this proposed research, the life cycle framework provides the necessary time aspect to the integration
process. However, the Hoffman (1995) framework does not go beyond the prototype stage. For an integrated safety
management approach, the life cycle of a product is better represented by the cradle-to-grave model. Exhibit 2
shows the life cycle stages that will be used for the integration of safety, operations, and systems engineering.
Exhibit 2. Product Life Cycle Stages for Safety, Operations, and Systems Engineering Integration
1
Product Life
Cycle Stages
Concept Design
2
Detail Design
3
Full Product
Assessment
4
Manufacturing
Design
5
Operation Design
6
Actual Production
7
Sales/
Commercialization
8
Product Disposal
Examples of activities in each stage
• Identify customers’ needs
• Explore new markets
• Adding new features
• Determine materials used
• Determine assembly process
• Approximate sizing
• Prototype
• Determine manufacturing process
• Determine assembly/disassembly
Note: Change to product is not likely at this
point
• Determine production process
• Determine production cost
• Safety consideration
• Optimize production
• Reduce cost
• Increase productivity
• Quality control
• Safety prevention
• Responding to failure
• Distribution
• Customer care
• Managing product defects
• Litigation
• Recycling
• Environmental preservation
Integration Phases
The product life cycle framework depicts the life cycle from the perspective of a design and production process,
which generally involves engineering and operations management. To integrate safety into the product life cycle
framework, three distinct phases of the integration process are identified: Design, Preparation and Protection, and
Preservation.
Design Phase. The design phase considers mitigating exposures to hazardous materials at the earliest possible stage
in the engineering design of products. This phase is intended to minimize later risk and cost burdens throughout the
life cycle, while integrating safety practices with the systems engineering or engineering design practices. The main
focus of this phase is to identify potential risks and dangers in the production process and to “design out” these
threats, so that they will not materialize and cause accidents (or related injuries and illnesses) in production.
3
Ng, Veltri, Tong et al
Preparation and Protection Phase. This second phase, preparing for risk and protecting against danger begins once
the safety managers and the engineers have exhausted all the possibilities to eliminate exposures to hazards from the
production process, or with the knowledge that the new designs will be infeasible to produce from quality and
economic perspectives. In this phase, risk and danger control measures will be created and incorporated into the
production process will integrate safety personnel with operations personnel and process engineers.
Preservation Phase. This third phase focuses on minimizing the effects of accidents/incidents when risk and danger
control measures are deficient and/or not effective. This phase is intended to focus on incident response, recovery
and business resumption activities.
Exhibit 3 shows the relationship between the safety intergration phases and the product life cycle stages to
integrate safety, operatons, and systems engineering.
Exhibit 3. Safety Integration Phases and Product Life Cycle Stages
Concept
Design
Detail Design
Product Life Cycle
Full Product Manufacturing Operation
Assessment
Design
Design
Actual
Production
Sales/
Commercialization
Product
Disposal
Design
Preparation
Preservation
Exhibit 4 shows the involvement of each organization unit throughout the product life cycle in existing
approach to safety (Existing Method), and compares that to the proposed integrated method (Proposed Method).
Proposed Method
Existing Method
Exhibit 4. Existing Method of Safety Management versus Proposed Integrated Approach to Safety
Unit w/in
organization
Engineering
Design
Operations
Management
Safety and
Health
Concept
Design
Product Life Cycle
Detail Design Full Product Manufacturing Operation
Assessment
Design
Design
Actual
Production
Sales/Comm
ercialize
Product
Disposal
Engineering
Design
Operations
Management
Safety and
Health
Key: Unit Lead/ In charge
Should be consulted
Rework due to safety & Health concern
Discussion
This research was by nature exploratory with the purpose of offering an initial integration model at a joint safety
management, systems engineering, and operations management perspective to control exposures to hazards from
new and existing products and production processes that may affect workers and impact firm competitiveness.
While a primary driver of the research was the assumption that additional insight can be gained by adding a joint
perspective, the form of that insight was unknown at the start of the study. Actively confronting and managing
safety issues linked to products and processes is difficult, but it is much too important for academia and industry to
remain passive and reactive. Typically, work in safety management, operations management, and systems
engineering is conducted along separate parallel paths. However, the need to integrate safety into upfront design
4
Ng, Veltri, Tong et al
engineering and operational processes is evident in all phases of the product life cycle. The framework outlined in
the paper is a step in building this unique capability.
The proposed framework is not specific to safety, operations, or engineering, but rather is a decision
support structure that can be implemented across engineering and operations management where human safety is of
concern. This framework should be applied to all product and process designs regardless of their perceived safety
assumptions, since unknown safety risks represent latent costs of doing business.
Future Work
In order to incorporate safety into the design stage and, subsequently, the operation management stage, industry
decision makers will need to invest human and financial resources into these activities. Traditionally, safety has
been treated as a cost-generating activity, rather than a revenue-generating activity. Cost-generating activities tend to
require more justification for funding. One major aspect of future work for this research is to evaluate the cost
efficiency in investing in safety in the engineering design stage, the manufacturing design stage, and operations
design stage. The main research questions (RQs) for this part of future work include:
• RQ 1: Does an increased investment in the design phase reduce the overall cost of safety?
• RQ 2: Does an increased investment in the design phase reduce the level of investment needed in the
prevention phase and preservation phase?
To increase the adoption rate of this framework by organizations, it is critical to develop the ability to provide
proper justification and to show that investment in safety in the early stages will, at a minimum, not increase the
overall cost due to safety.
In closing, it should be noted that workplace safety is generally not included in the formal educations for most
engineers and operations managers. All companies provide basic safety training to all employees, however, this type
of training is mainly focused on on-the-job safety of individuals and the workers around them. Training is often
reactionary, in that the system is already in place, along with the hazard. To successfully implement the framework
proposed herein, a guideline on design for safety from the aspect of product design and operations design is
necessary, at the minimum, to inform and guide engineering design and operations management in the initial stages
(design) of the product life cycle. Future work for this research is expected to create such guideline as a starting
point and to develop supporting educational and training modules on design for safety theory and practice.
References
Bernard, A., & Hasan, R. (2002). Working situation model for safety integration during design phase. CIRP AnnalsManufacturing Technology, 51(1), 119-122.
Black, D. D., Hull, M. E. C., & Jackson, K. (2011). Systems engineering and safety–a framework. IET software, 5.1,
43-53.
Cohen, A. (1977). Factors in Successful Safety Programs. Journal of Safety Research, 9, 168-178.
Das, A., Pagell, M., Behm, M., & Veltri, A. (2008). Towards a theory of linkages between safety and quality.
Journal of Operations Management, 26(4), 521-535.
Dym, C. L., Agogino, A. M., Eris, O., Frey, D. D., & Leifer, L. J. (2005). Engineering design thinking, teaching, and
learning. Journal of Engineering Education, 94, 103–120. doi: 10.1002/j.2168-9830.2005.tb00832.x
Griffin, A., & Hauser, J. R. (1996), Integrating R&D and Marketing: A Review and Analysis of the Literature.
Journal of Product Innovation Management, 13, 191–215. doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1330191
Habeck, R. V., Hunt, H. A., & VanTol, B. (1998). Workplace factors associated with preventing and managing work
disability. Rehabilitation Counselling Bulletin, 42 (2), 98-143.
Handfield, R. B., & Melnyk, S. A. (1998). The scientific theory-building process: a primer using the case of
TQM. Journal of operations management, 16(4), 321-339.
Hayes, R. H., & Wheelwright, S. C. (1984). Restoring our Competitive Edge: Competing through manufacturing.
New York: Wiley.
Hoffman, W. F. (1995). Proceedings from the IEE Conference: A tiered approach to design for environment.
Edinburgh, Scotland.
Ishii, K. (1995). Life-cycle engineering design. Journal of Vibration and Acoustics, 117.B, 42-47.
Jabareen, Y. R. (2009). Building a conceptual framework: philosophy, definitions, and procedure. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(4), 49-62.
Knight, J. C. (2002). Proceedings from the 24rd International Conference on IEEE 2002: Safety critical systems:
challenges and directions, Software Engineering, ICSE 2002.
Leveson, N. (2004). A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Safety science, 42.4, 237-270.
5
Ng, Veltri, Tong et al
Mearns, K., Whitaker, S., & Flin, R. (2003). Safety climate, safety management practice, and safety performance in
offshore environments. Safety Science, 41, 641-680.
Pagell, M., Dibrell, C., Veltri, A., & Maxwell, E. (2014). Is an Efficacious Operation a Safe Operation: The Role of
Operational Practices in Worker Safety Outcomes. IEEE Transactions On Engineering Management,61(3),
511-521.
Shannon, H.S., Mayr, J., Haines, T. (1997). Overview of the relationship between organizational and workplace
factor and injury rates. Safety Science, 26, 201-217.
Shannon, H. S., Robson, L. S. & Sale, J. E. M. (2001). Creating safer and healthier workplaces: Role of
organizational factors and job characteristics. Am. J. Ind. Med., 40, 319–334. doi: 10.1002/ajim.1106
Sierla, S., Tumer, I., Papakonstantinou, N., Koskinen, K., & Jensen, D. (2012). Early integration of safety to the
mechatronic system design process by the functional failure identification and propagation
framework. Mechatronics, 22(2), 137-151.
Smith, M., Cohen, H., Cohen, A., & Cleveland, R. (1978). Characteristics of successful safety programs. Journal of
Safety Research, 10, 5-15.
Song, X. M., Thieme, R. J. & Xie, J. (1998). The impact of cross-functional joint involvement across product
development stages: an exploratory study. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 15, 289–303.
doi: 10.1111/1540-5885.1540289
Swamidass, P. M. (1986). Manufacturing strategy: It’s assessment and practice. Journal of Operations Management,
6(4), 471-484.
Veltri, A., Pagell, M., Johnston, D., Tompa, E., Robson, L., Amick III, B. C., … & Macdonald, S. (2013).
Understanding safety in the context of business operations: An exploratory study using case studies. Safety
science, 55, 119-134.
Turkulainen, V., & Ketokivi, M. (2012). Cross-functional integration and performance: what are the real
benefits?. International Journal of Operations & Production Management, 32(4), 447-467.
Vredenburgh, A. G. (2002). Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective in reducing
employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 259-276.
Ward, P., Duray, R., Leong, G. K., Sum, C. (1995). Business Environment, operations strategy, and performance:
An empirical study of Singapore manufactures. Journal of Operations Management, 13, 99-115.
About the Author(s)
Ean H. Ng, is an assistant professor/senior research at Oregon State University. She received her Ph.D.in Systems
and Engineering Management from Texas Tech University. Her research interests include engineering economic
anlaysis, high reliability organization, safety engineering, organization behavior and performance measurement.
Anthony Veltri is an Associate Professor of Environment, Safety & Health at Oregon State University. Dr. Veltri
does research on topics such as economic analysis and making the business case for environment, safety and health
practices, decision-support tools for balancing business/economic priorities alongside safety and environmental
responsibilities, management of safety in operational/production settings and operational responses to safety risk and
economic uncertainty. Dr. Veltri has published over 30 peer reviewed journal articles in a number of premier outlets
including: Journal of Operations Management, Production and Operations Management, Safety Science, Journal of
Safety Research, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, International Journal of Production Research,
Sloan management Review.
Anh B. Tong is a Ph.D. student in Industrial Engineering at Oregon State University. She obtained her M.S in
Engineering Management at Saint Martin’s University in Washington and B.S in Mathematics at Southwestern
Oklahoma State University. Her research interests include systems engineering, systems management, sustainability
assessment, healthcare system and management, and environmental health and safety. She works as a Healthcare
Administrative Officer in the US Army.
Karl R. Haapala is an Assistant Professor in the School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering
at Oregon State University, where he directs the Industrial Sustainability Laboratory and is Assistant Director of the
OSU Industrial Assessment Center. He received his B.S. (2001) and M.S. (2003) in Mechanical Engineering, and
his Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering-Engineering Mechanics as an NSF IGERT trainee (2004-2008), from
Michigan Technological University. He has served in a variety of capacities within ASME, IIE, and SME, and has
been inducted into the honor societies of Pi Tau Sigma, Phi Kappa Phi, and Sigma Xi. His research addresses
6
Ng, Veltri, Tong et al
sustainable manufacturing challenges, including life cycle engineering methods, manufacturing process performance
modeling, and sustainable engineering education. He has received funding from DOE, NIST, NSF, the U.S. Army,
the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Oregon Metals Initiative, and industry. His work has appeared in more
than 75 peer-reviewed proceedings and journal articles.
Javier Calvo-Amodio is an assistant professor and Director of the Change and Reliable Systems Engineering and
Management Research Group (CaRSEM) in the School of Mechanical, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
(MIME) at Oregon State University. His areas of interest include systems-based design of solutions to complex
problems in socio-technical systems, engineering and systems management, engineering economics, and
engineering education.
7
Typical Ways High Performance
Organizations Unfold
Designed and Management
Considerations
Student Thoughts On
• How do you envision organizations unfolding?
• How do you envision organizational design?
• How do you envision organizations being
managed? (implementation)
Operational Aspects Considered
•
Superior Assessment (Due Diligence)
•
Strategy (Confront and Manage)
•
Organization Structure (Positioning Arrangement, Integration)
•
Financing Arrangement (Capital requirements)
•
Technical Tools/Competencies/Capabilities
•
Information Systems (Guide decision-making)
•
Performance Evaluation (Impact of Activities)
•
Research & Development (Continuous Improvement)
Reframing ESH Decisions
• The most important strategic business decisions
managers make is the maintaining the long-term
competitiveness of the firm. This typically
requires building organizational capabilities that
improve organizational competitiveness.
• The ESH function can contribute to concern by
building organizational capabilities that
simultaneously protect workers and the
environment and improve firm competitiveness.
What are we managing?
• The control of exposures to risk to the firm’s
tangible resources (workers, environment,
property, products) and intangible resources
(manufacturing processing activities) over their
productive/economic life that could adversely
affect workers, the environment and firm
competitiveness.
What is needed?
• A management approach that integrates
systems (i.e., environment, safety and health
management systems) with engineering,
operations and financial management systems
in a manner that improves how the
organization confronts and manages ESH
issues.
What should the
integrated management system entail?
• A design phase (upfront design engineering), that considers ESH
concerns at the earliest possible stage in the design engineering
and manufacturing of products to minimize later risk and cost
burdens throughout the life-cycle.
• A risk preparation and protection phase (hierarchy of controls) that
develops and integrates risk control measures with process
engineers & operations specialists, when upfront design
engineering efforts are not feasible.
• A preservation phase that focuses on minimizing the effects of
incidents, when risk control measures were deficient and/or not
effective. Typically involving response, recovery & business
resumption activities.
Reframing ESH Decisions
The most important strategic business decisions managers make is the maintaining the long-term
competitiveness of the firm. This typically requires building organizational capabilities that
improve organizational competitiveness.
The ESH function can contribute to concern by building organizational capabilities that
simultaneously protect workers and the environment and improve firm competitiveness.
ESH = what are we managing?
The control of exposures to risk to the firms tangible resources (workers, environment, property,
products) and intangible resources (manufacturing processing activities) over their
productive/economic life could adversely affect workers, the environment and firm
competitiveness.
What is needed: A management approach that integrates systems environment, safety and health
management systems with engineering, operations and financial management systems in a
manner that improves how the organization confronts and manages ESH issues.
What should the integrated management system entail?
1. A design phase (upfront design engineering), that considers environmental, safety and
health concerns at the earliest possible stage in the design engineering and manufacturing
of products to minimize later risk and cost burdens throughout the life-cycle.
2. A risk preparation and protection phase that develops and integrates risk control measures
with process engineers & operations specialists, when upfront design engineering efforts
are not feasible.
3. A preservation phase that focuses on minimizing the effects of incidents, when risk control
measures were deficient and/or not effective. Typically involving response, recovery &
business resumption activities.
Note
IMPROVING THE ORGANIZATIONAL POSITION OF
RESOURCE PROTECTION TYPE FUNCTIONS: A CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Introduction
A company’s ability to perform competitively tends to be based on protecting and using organizational
resources productively. One way companies can improve business performance is to rethink the manner in
which they have organizationally structured and positioned resource protection type functions. Currently,
senior level executives, responsible for structuring and positioning functions within the organizational chart
of the company, are not taking full advantage of the technologies of these functions. Many resource
protection type functions (i.e., environmental affairs, safety and industrial hygiene, fire and security
protection, and emergency and disaster preparedness) are organizationally misaligned, inadequately
grouped and out of position to contribute effectively to business performance. As a result it becomes
extremely difficult for managers of these functions to leverage their strategy, technology and related
activities in ways that to go beyond traditional concerns for regulatory compliance to more modern
concerns for enhancing eco-safe business performance. However, among some senior-level executives and
process engineers, there is growing interest in the role these functions play in helping companies perform
competitively. This interest is occurring primarily at two organizational levels. At the executive level,
conceptual interest in a company-wide strategy and structure that (a) prepares, protects, and preserves
organizational resources , (b) enhances compliance with regulatory requirements, and (c) uses resources in
ways that create added value is economically appealing. At the operating level, the practical notion of a
strategy and structure that assists process engineers in (a) assessing and counteracting risk to resource
problems at an early stage in the process life-cycle to forestall later roadblocks and expenses, and (b)
understanding activities that drive environmental, safety and industrial hygiene, fire and disaster incident
costs enhances their processes business performance and sends a powerful message that they are a main
source for improving the company’s competitive performance.
The purpose of this paper is to present a set of conceptual guidelines for integrating resource protection
type functions into a single organizational department. The intent is not to take away the autonomy of
these existing functions, but to group them in ways that senior-level executives can leverage the collective
competencies and capabilities of these functions to mount an aggressive and sustained attack on the risks to
resource problems that confront the company, while at the same time adding competitive value and
maintaining compliance with regulatory standards. As yet, the implications for this resource protection
concept are unclear because little effort and study has been made to develop the practical implications of
the framework. This is due, in part, because the merger of these functions into a single source function is
only a recent development.
Structuring Resource Protection Technology Strategy
1
Recent efforts in structuring resource protection technology strategy have been focused on enhancing
structural fit (i.e., assuring congruency between the functions strategic intent, mission, and initiatives and
the long-term business and regulatory performance standards of the company). Any modern attempt at
structuring a resource protection technology function should begin with well formulated strategy.
The following approach to devising strategy and structure is offered (See Exhibit A) because it enables
senior level executives and resource protection managers to think in a systematic way during the strategy
formulation and structuring process and to avoid misallocation of resources. The method is organized
around a two-stage procedure. Stage 1 concentrates on developing a strategic intent (vision), mission
statement and initiatives that set the direction necessary for guiding the performance of the function. Stage
2 focuses on constructing an organization structure that welds the resource protection technology strategy
and structure together in a manner that gains broad consensus and support throughout the organization.
Exhibit A.
Stages and Steps for
Devising Resource Protection Technology Strategy and Structure
Stage 1. Strategy Formulation
Steps
a.
review corporate competitive performance strategy
b. envision a strategic intent
c. construct a statement of mission
d. identify initiatives (developmental + reform)
e. develop projects that support the initiatives
Stage 2. Organization Structure
Steps
a.
concentrate on assuring a structural fit
b. determine a logical process for taking direction
c. assure appropriate positioning arrangement within company chart
d. think of ways of integrating vertically and laterally
Stage 1. Strategy Formulation. The first step in devising a strategy for the resource protection
technologies function is to review the company’s corporate business plan or competitive performance
strategy and determine ways to assure congruency between the functions strategy and the organization’s
business strategy. Assuring congruency sends the correct signal to senior level executives that you are
concerned about arranging conditions to help meet the organizations business performance needs and
expectations. Major attention should be placed on identifying those statements appearing in the documents
that indicate the need for a strategy to sustain business performance. Herein lies the greatest opportunity
for the resource protection technologies function to justify its organizational existence. Step two focuses
on developing a strategic intent (vision statement). Any modern attempt to strategy formulation needs to
begin with a strategic intent (vision) of what the desired future for the company’s resource protection
technologies strategy should look like. Strategic intent basically means the envisioning of building and
sustaining a unique set of competencies and capabilities that enhance the organization’s ability to sustain
long-term business performance. The vision statement can be developed by requesting the senior-level
2
executive team and a sample of organizational stakeholders to envision what they would like the
organizations resource protection technologies function to become. It seems reasonable to believe that a
member of the senior-level executive team and a few organizational stakeholders, based on their first-hand
experiences, their second-hand information, or their own creative insights, would possess information or
well founded beliefs about a vision for the company’s resource protection technologies strategy. The
challenge is to effectively tap this store of creativity, knowledge and judgment from these individuals.
Another way of developing the vision is to base the vision statement upon the technical knowledge,
experience, and intuition of the resource protection technology specialists. It only seems logical that the
staff would keep abreast of research developments in the field and could recommend cutting edge thinking
and strategy to pursue in this area. Both ways are usually products of information gathering processes
which usually can be performed by interview or by survey type techniques. However, the criteria that must
be used to judge the value of the information is the perceived degree for sustaining the business
performance of the company, while at the same time maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements.
The third step in the strategy formulation process is to construct the mission statement. A
mission statement describes the ambitious long-term strategic purpose of the function and is intended to
guide decision making and operating action capabilities of all stakeholders. The statement of mission is the
cornerstone on which initiatives (developmental/reform) are developed and the organization structure is
constructed. The basic question that should be answered in order to develop a resource protection
technologies mission statement is “What is our strategic purpose? or What should it be?”. The following
competitive business performance concept is provided to help guide the process of developing a mission
statement. (“Long-term economic and regulatory performance within the enterprise derived from cost
effective use of resources”) is recognized as being applicable to any business. Such a statement has an
over-arching relationship to the various core strategic business units and operating functions and serves as a
guideline statement for the resource protection technologies function to develop a statement of mission that
is congruent with the intent of the firms competitive performance strategy. For instance “Optimal
preparation, protection and preservation of enterprise resources” is an example of a resource protection
technologies mission statement that describes the congruency between the function’s mission and the firm’s
competitive performance strategy. The following rationale illustrates this congruency.
A firm’s ability to compete and stage for long-term business sustainment depends on three factors;
first, the attractiveness of the industry in which it is located; second, establishing a competitive advantage
over competing industries; and third, using assets and resources effectively. This third factor is the
important one for the resource protection technologies function to concentrate on. Because assets and
resources are used to compete and stage for long-term business sustainment they need to be prepared for
risk, protected against danger, and preserved from loss. The resource protection function can play the lead
role in preparing the organizations resources and must possess a statement of mission for guiding decisionmaking and operating action capabilities in this important area of business concern. History has proven
3
repeatedly, that designing protection strategies at an early stage in the process life-cycle tends to forestall
later problems, roadblocks and expenses.
The fourth step is to identify initiatives (development and reform) that support the
accomplishment of the mission. This step (see Exhibit B) is principally based on the results extrapolated
from the assessment phase and is intended to close the gaps between an organization’s current resource
protection technology strategy and what it should be.
Exhibit B
Identifying Initiations
1.
Review results from assessment phase (gaps between strategy)
2.
Select developmental and reform initiatives for closing the gaps
3.
Determine specific projects that relate to each initiative
Closing the gap between and organization’s current strategy and it’s future strategy requires
perceiving and structuring a set of initiatives (developmental and reform) and mobilizing resources and
commitment to those initiatives. This requires making a series of coordinated decisions that transforms the
way the organization thinks and performs relative to resource protection. These initiatives are examples of
ways of shaping a sense of direction for the firm to take and creating the architecture needed for preparing,
protecting, and preserving resources. The following initiatives are examples of such decisions.
Initiative I. Rethink how resource protection technology management strategy is
formulated and directed.
Initiative II. Reconstruct the organization structure of the resource protection technology
management function with emphasis on (a) integrating vertically and laterally and (b) changing the
positioning-location arrangement within the company’s organization chart.
Initiative III. Modify the financial tools used in (a) accounting activities that drive
environmental, safety and health, fire and disaster costs, and (b) determining the fiscal allocations
needed for preparing the organization to effectively deal with risks to resource problems.
Initiative IV. Improve the process for influencing and preparing senior-level executives,
managerial, supervisory and line-level employees to take part in resource protection technology
activities.
Initiative V. Rethink and revise the technical tools, competencies and capabilities related to
emergency preparedness, mitigation, response, business recovery and resumption, risk ranking methods,
environmental, safety and health costing, upfront process design, mass/energy balancing, life-cycle
analysis, and finding ways to off-set existing compliance costs through innovation.
Initiative VI. Refine methods for measuring, evaluating and benchmarking environmental,
safety and health management performance.
Initiative VII. Consider developing and installing management information systems to
improve decision making and operating action capabilities and for setting priorities concerning
environmental, safety and health and fire protection an emergency/disaster performance.
4
Initiative VIII. Consider establishing the means for designing and conducting resource
protection technologies operations research.
Stage 2. Organization Structure. There are a variety of ways to structure resource protection
type functions; however each approach should be influenced by its strategy and how other
functions/departments need to integrate with the resource protection function. Any company’s resource
protection function should reflect its concern for maintaining compliance with regulatory requirements and
in creating added value to the company’s business performance. However, we have found that the various
resource protection technology functions tend to evolve and be structured in unpredictable ways, and
sometimes are thwarted in being an asset to the company due to strategy and positioning location in the
organizational structure of the company. The purpose of organizing is to weld the resource protection
technology strategy and structure together in a manner that gains broad consensus and support throughout
the organization. We have found that the approach used for structuring strategy and selecting the
positioning arrangement for the function within the organizational chart of the company tends to fall into
one of four developmental levels, characterized as follows.
Level 1 ⎯ Reactive
No formal organization structure exists. The company relies primarily on the
services of a small group of environmental, safety, industrial hygiene, fire and emergency management
specialists and collateral duty personnel positioned in various departments to provide direction.
Level 2 ⎯ Adaptive
The structure at this level is organized around a small group of environmental,
safety, industrial hygiene, fire and emergency management specialists. This group is positioned and
dispersed in the organization’s core business units (i.e., manufacturing, quality control, transportation,
engineering, maintenance) to provide technical advice on resource protection efforts. The function takes its
direction from core business unit executives and from recommendations of external consultants.
Level 3 ⎯ Active
At this level, a formal organizational structure exists. The function reports and
takes direction from a senior-level executive and is composed of a team of specialists that create and fulfill
needs and expectations, develop policies, and provide strategic and technical solutions regarding ways to
protect and use resources productively.
Level 4 ⎯ Dynamic
The approach for structuring strategy at this level is to integrate efforts internally
(vertically and horizontally) within the overall organization chart and to integrate externally with outside
strategic alliances and agencies. Functions at this level are structured in the business strategy process of the
firm and are organized to remain constantly tuned into the needs of both internal and external constituents
while providing strategic management and technology transfer services. The function takes its direction
from research findings, audits, special assessments, and studies, as well as task forces organized by seniorlevel executives.
Recent efforts in structuring management strategy have been focused on structural fit (i.e.,
assuring congruency between the strategic intent, mission statement, initiatives, and the organization
structure. (See Exhibit C). As previously mentioned in strategy formulation phase, any modern attempt at
structuring resource protection technology strategy should begin with a strategic intent (vision) statement
that describes the desired future for the functions performance. Next, conditions must be arranged to close
5
Exhibit C
Concept of Structural Fit: An Application to Resource Protection Technologies Management
Structure
(Organizing Loop)
STRATEGIC INTENT ……………………………………………….. →
as ultimately desired accomplishment
Describes the future state (vision) for the organizations
resource protection technology function.
MISSION STATEMENT …………………………………………….. →
for guiding decision-making and
operating actions.
Describes the ambitious long-term strategic purpose of the
function.
INITIATIVES …………………………………………………………….. →
for transforming the function and the
organization.
Describes ways and means for closing the gap between the
organizations current level of performance and it’s desired
level.
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE …………………………… →
for coordination of work.
Provides a pictorial representation of what the function looks
like, how the flow of executive action and communication
takes place and how individuals are welded together in a
common mission, while allowing various individuals and
groups to focus their attention an expertise on a specific
structure of strategies and tactics.
REPLICATE MODEL WITH BUSINESS
UNITS/FUNCTIONS ………………………………………………….. →
for integrating decision-making and
operating actions.
(Reorganizing Loop)
the gap, between the current performance and desired performance, by identifying initiatives that focus
efforts on a mission statement. Then, an organizational chart can be drawn for providing a pictorial
representation.
Constructing the organization structure after formulating the strategy tends to enhance structural fit. Some
of the worst mistakes in designing for structural fit have been made by imposing a concept of an ideal
resource protection technology function without attending initially to the strategy formulation process.
When these structural fit concepts are mismatched ⎯ when the wrong strategy is formulated ⎯ the
resource protection technology management structure will tend to be ineffective and inefficient. Although
there is no universally agreed-upon framework for structuring emergency management strategy, the
following organizing principle should be used “structure follows strategy”. Strategy is the answer to the
question: What it will be? determines the purpose of structure. Structural fit, therefore, is the glue for
bonding structure and strategy.
6
Positioning Arrangement. A dilemma commonly encountered by senior-level executives is
determining the optimal organization location for positioning the environmental, safety and industrial
hygiene, fire and emergency & disaster preparedness functions within the overall organizational chart of
the firm. This task is particularly difficult when one discovers that (a) there is no organizational location
that is universally accepted and sufficient for positioning these functions and (b) there are no research
studies or conceptual models to review that could facilitate decision making in this area. In general, there
is a lack of literature in this area, however, the use of these seven positioning principles may help guide
senior level executives and environmental, safety and health managers in organizational location efforts.
We have found in discussions with senior level executives, management consulting firms, environmental,
safety and health managers, and other university professors that improved organizational positioning
arrangements tend to be influenced by the:
1. actual degree of contribution a function makes to the competitive and regulatory
performance standards of the firm,
2. perceived capability of the function’s formulated strategy to contribute to the long-term
competitive and regulatory performance standards of the firm,
3. strategic fit of the function’s formulated strategy with the competitive performance strategy
of the firm,
4. capability of the function’s organizational structure to (a) integrate vertically and laterally
across all business units within the company, (b) provide technology transfer services, and (c)
arrange conditions that facilitate organizational learning,
5. capability of the function to create and sustain a management information system that
improves decision making and operating action capabilities within the company,
6. capability of the function to apply research and development methodology for influencing
competitive and regulatory performance, and
7. perceived ability of the function to be strategically opportunistic (i.e., the ability of the
function to be focused on the long-term, while remaining flexible enough to solve day-to-day
problems and recognize new opportunities).
These positioning principles are essential to deciding on where to locate the resource protection
technology function; however, they do not uniquely identify a particular solution. Based on the concept
that structure follows strategy and location-positioning-charting of the function follows structure, the
following organizational location and position is proposed for the resource protection technology function
(see Figure 1).
SAMPLE OF SYNERGY AND ALLIANCES
This organization chart is an example of a location and positioning arrangement that should be
favorable to accomplishment of the resource protection technology mission. The following are a sample of
key synergy and alliances that might develop.
Key Synergy:
7
1. Support the company’s competitive performance strategy by having a company-wide strategy
specifically concerned with resource protection, use, and preservation and a company-wide structure in
which client departments will no longer have to find their way through the maze of fragmented units to
resolve their risk to resource problems.
2. Provides a single source (point of contact) department consisting of an integrated group of multidisciplinary functions that are concerned with the preparation, protection, and preservation of the
company’s resources, while at the same time enhancing compliance with regulatory requirements.
3. Provides consolidation and coordination of resources for conducting risk to resource research, training,
inspections, investigations, assessments, measurements, and evaluations. A variety of cross-functional
training opportunities exist for personnel already employed in these functions. Personnel can work together
and be more productive in new groupings when they share a common mission, strategy, and structure, and
analytical tools for problem solving.
Key Alliances:
1. Provides an internal organizational alliance with senior-level executives. managers, supervisory
personnel, and front-line employees for protecting resources, using resources more effectively and
efficiently, and for leveraging resources in ways that create distinctive capabilities.
2. Provides an external organizational alliance with regulators, by sending the correct signal of the
company’s commitment to excel in regulatory requirement matters by having a department that is
principally concerned with resource protection.
3. Provides a “shield of creditability” against adversaries who might challenge the company’s strategic
intent of protecting and using resources productively, plus enhances the likelihood that insurers will
minimize the denial of claims due to inadequate resource preparation, protection, and preservation
practices.
SUMMARY
These guidelines are essential to deciding on where to position these functions; however, they do not
uniquely identify a particular solution. However, we believe that failure to follow them will only adsorb
the energies of the function’s participants without producing any significant output to the organization.
These guidelines are not intended to “clear the air” for the structural approach we describe, but are intended
to make it clear that there is no organizational structure that is universally sufficient for structuring resource
protection strategy, the organizational structure ought to accommodate the messy dilemmas resource
protection managers face, so each company should customize its own approach, using the guidelines
identified in this paper as the building blocks. Whatever the chosen organizational approach, constant
change in resource protection structure will be necessary to achieve the particular strategy set out to
achieve. The positioning structure described in this article is only useful for companies in which the
strategy formulated drives the organizational structure and positioning arrangements.
8
9
Safety, Health and Environmental Strategies Available
to Firms and Being Used by Firms: A Conceptual
Framework for Formulating Strategy
By Anthony Veltri, Ed.D., MS, CSHM and Elisabeth Maxwell, MS
Contact Information:
Anthony Veltri, Ed.D., MS, CSHM
Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Safety
Rm. 308 Waldo Hall, Oregon State University
Corvallis, Oregon 97331
Tel: 541.737.3831 Fax: 541.737.4001
Email: anthony.veltri@oregonstate.edu
Biographies
Dr. Anthony Veltri, Associate Professor:
Anthony Veltri is an Associate Professor in Oregon State University’s College of Health
and Human Science. Dr. Veltri’s research interests include strategy formulation and
assessment and economic analysis of environment, safety and health practices.
Elisabeth Maxwell, M.S., Doctoral Student:
Elisabeth Maxwell is a Graduate Research Assistant in the Environment, Safety and
Health Program at Oregon State University. She is a PhD candidate and currently
investigating the link between business decisions and occupational health and worker
safety outcomes.
Abstract
Many private sector firms omit safety, health and environmental (SHE) management
strategy from the competitive strategy of the firm. This leaves the SHE branch exempt
from any expectation that the SH&E function confront and manage its internal and
external affairs strategically and with the perspective of showing its contribution to firm
competitiveness. The authors have proposed a conceptual framework to jump start this
under-researched area. Specifically, the proposed conceptual framework profiles levels
and pathways of SHE strategy to consider. As part of others’ studies focusing on strategic
planning and economic analysis of SHE issues and practices, interviews with 7 seniorlevel executives, 15 operations managers, 20 design and process engineers, 15 finance
specialists and 25 safety, health and environmental specialists (n = 82), representing 29
medium to large U.S. based firms engaged in manufacturing, construction, distribution,
and utilities were conducted. The framework should provide a solid foundation for
guiding safety, health and environmental management educators to expand on the major
insights from this gleaned from the research to date and to continue to make strides in an
area that to date has had little work. For the classroom, the results help to arrange for
lectures that guide students in understanding the possible SHE strategies that are being
used or considered by firms. For students, the framework serves as a way to help make
the strategy decisions for the firms that they will eventually serve as well as pursue
research in an area that has much interest.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 2 of 27
Introduction
Many private sector firms omit safety, health and environmental (SHE) management
strategy from the competitive strategy of the firm. This leaves the SHE branch exempt
from any expectation that the function confronts and manages its internal and external
affairs strategically and with the perspective of showing its contribution to firm
competitiveness. The prevailing complaint of many SHE specialists is that SHE strategy
should be linked to the competitive strategy of the firm. However, few specify what this
means and even fewer have specified how to go about it and how to assess its
contribution to firm competitiveness. While many factors tend to contribute to this
problem, it seems reasonable to believe that SHE specialists have had to satisfy
themselves with fragmented and unreliable approaches when formulating strategy.
Despite the considerable literature available on strategy formulation (Adler, McDonald,
and MacDonald, 1992; Kiernan, 1993; Porter, 1998; ), linking strategy to firm
competitiveness (Porter, 1998) and assessing its contribution to firm competitiveness
(Porter, 1998) and its extensive use by other internal organizational specialists (i.e.,
research and development, design and process engineering, operations management,
finance, information management, and maintenance, transportation/distribution, etc.)
specialists in SHE have not received comparable guidance in the professional literature.
Typically, SHE strategy tends to be overly fashioned around reacting to pressures from
outside concerns (i.e., government agencies, insurance carriers, non-government
organizations) with little attention to linking it to the firm’s competitive business strategy
(Roome, 1992; Brown, 1994). The emphasis on formulating and linking SHE strategy to
the firm’s competitive strategy should not be interpreted to mean that there is any
intention to de-emphasize the importance of formulating and linking strategy to strictly
comply with the pressures from outside concerns (Hunt and Auster, 1990). Attention to
outside concerns is assured to exist, as it rightly should, and formulating a SHE strategy
that is linked to the competitive strategy of the firm is not intended to replace this critical
consideration. However, a strategy that is formulated solely for compliance reasons tends
to become suspect because this type of strategy is not expected to yield positive financial
returns and is difficult to assess its contribution to firm competitiveness (Brown, 1994;
Hunt and Auster, 1990; Sharma, 2000; Singh, 2000).
This new interest in alternative approaches that formulate and link SHE strategy to the
competitive business strategy of the firm is being driven at both external and internal
financial levels (Maxwell, Rothenberg, Briscoe and Marcus, 1997; Reinhardt, 1998). At
the external level, the growing understanding of the potential business benefits derived
from a SHE strategy that is competitive based has led to the construction of stock indexes
such as the Dow Jones Sustainability Group Index 1999 and Innovest EcoValue 21™
1999. Moreover, numerous websites and investment firms are catering to their customers
by listing stocks and companies that have superior SHE records (InvestorIdeas.com,
2008; SustainableBusiness.com, 2008). These indexes provide institutional and retail
investors with a financial and social interpretation of the SHE practices of a firm. The
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 3 of 27
external financial community, specifically investment bankers are starting to view SHE
performance as a proxy for other firm business performance behaviors that tend to
enhance the overall competitive performance for a firm (Feldman and Soyka, 1997;
Carter and Veltri 1999). Although the evidenced-based research results of this claim are
not substantial, a distinct group of firms are promoting a more business looking SHE
strategy that could be important for increasing competitiveness. Perhaps, assessments of
SHE strategy that are linked to firm competitiveness will become a standard part of the
way a firm promotes its competitive business performance and may possibly affect its
attractiveness in the external financial marketplace.
At the internal level, the operative notion of an approach for linking SHE strategy to the
firm’s competitive strategy is financially appealing. Internal finance specialists, design
and process engineers and operational managers are extremely interested in being
provided an SHE strategy that is most likely to contribute to the firm’s business
fundamentals (i.e., revenue and earnings growth, quality of management, free cash flow
generation). However, they are somewhat skeptical of the results of assessments that
provide data such as the number of compliance audits performed, behavior-based training
provided, and perception surveys conducted. They much prefer assessments of strategy
that present data that specifically profiles cost and profitability potential.
Because internal and external stakeholders will rely on a firm’s SHE strategy for
understanding the intended course of action chosen by a firm in the context of its
response to confronting and managing SHE issues, SHE practitioners must make
available a newer kind of strategy that is linked to the firm’s competitive strategy and
most accurately reflects SHE contribution to the business fundamentals of the firm
(Henriques and Sadorsky, 1999).
Showing a linkage between SHE strategy and the firm’s competitive strategy is a
complicated proposition with very real methodological issues such as how to collect,
verify and report pertinent data that shows congruency. One way to correct this
deficiency is extract the better features of models and methods used by management
strategists that have successfully linked their strategy to firm competitiveness (Epstein
and Roy, 2003; Hoffman, 2008; Klassen and Whybark, 1999).
Formulating a SHE strategy that is linked to the competitive strategy of the firm has
generally evaded the practitioner and student in SHE management. While they may be
well read in the technical principles and practices that guide decision-making and
operating actions for the field, they seldom have studied and used principles and practices
which underlie their strategic logic and competitive attractiveness and their books,
journal articles and lectures merely mention these in passing. A review of the
professional literature finds that no approaches exist for formulating SHE strategy and
linking it to the organization’s competitive strategy. Because no clear guideposts exist,
SHE specialists will continue to be lost when trying to formulate and link SHE strategy to
the firm’s competitive strategy. The authors have proposed a conceptual framework to
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 4 of 27
jump start this under-researched area. Specifically, the proposed conceptual framework
profiles levels and pathways of SHE strategy to consider.
Methodology
As part of others’ studies focusing on strategic planning and economic analysis of SHE
issues and practices (see Bibliography), we conducted preliminary interviews with 7
senior-level executives, 15 operations managers, 20 design and process engineers, 15
finance specialists and 25 safety, health and environmental specialists (n = 82),
representing 29 medium to large U.S. based firms engaged in manufacturing,
construction, distribution, and utilities. We urge caution in generalizing the results due to
the preliminary nature of this investigation. After a discussion about the purpose and
methodology involved in the research and confidentiality, individuals were asked openended questions specifically dealing with the SHE strategy formulation process. Strategy
was defined in the interviews as ‘the manner in which firms confront and manage SHE
issues.’ Examples of these questions are listed below:
(1) Describe the major elements that should be included when formulating strategy
for confronting and managing SHE issues,
(2) Describe the existing level of SHE strategy currently being pursued by firms.
(3) Describe what would make a difference in improving the way SHE strategy is
formulated.
Responses were arranged into a two-dimensional assessment scheme (Figure 1) for
guiding decision-making capabilities. Generalizations and inferences made as a result of
the study were based upon consideration of the following limitations:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Responses may be influenced by the philosophical beliefs concerning SHE,
Current position occupied
Relevant management/organizational and SHE related experiences of respondents
Discussion questions and the two-dimensional assessment scheme, used by the
investigators, were not subject to evaluation before being considered by
respondents.
The research was delimited to perceptions related to the SHE strategy formulation
process and not perceptions related to strategy implementation and assessment. We also
note that the intended purpose was not to test the model that was developed as a result of
the interviews, but might be used at a later date for further research. This is also a
limitation in the development of the conceptual framework. However, we argue this is a
minor limitation because of the expertise of the respondents in the area of study and the
capacity of the data to address a concern that is an under-researched topic and in dire
need of study. Still, future research that perhaps utilizes a random sample should be
directed at collecting data purely to address the usefulness of the model for guiding
decision-making capabilities related to SHE strategy formulation process.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 5 of 27
The following conceptual framework was constructed from the analysis of the 82 semistructured discussions. The SHE strategy formulation process constituted the major
theme of each discussion and it is the analysis of this data that is evidenced in the
following charts.
Figure 1: Model Development and Framework
Elements of a Firm’s SHE Strategy:
1. Strategy Formulation: The manner in which the firm intends on confronting and
managing occupational safety, health and environmental issues.
2. Organization Structure: The manner in which the firm intends on structuring
occupational safety, health and environmental strategy within the organization structure
of the firm.
3. Financing Strategy: The manner in which the firm intends on funding occupational
safety, health and environmental strategy.
4. Technical Strategy: The manner in which the firm intends on creating and/or
transferring and using technology to confront and manage occupational safety, health and
environmental issues.
5.Management Information Strategy: The manner in which the firm intends collecting,
using and providing occupational safety, health and environmental information to internal
and external stakeholders.
6. Evaluation Strategy: The manner in which the firm intends on evaluating
occupational safety, health and environmental practices.
Developmental Levels of SHE Strategy Within A Firm:
Level1. (Reactive) Strategic posture is to respond to safety, health and environmental
issues as they occur
Level2. (Static) Strategic posture is to respond to safety, health and environmental issues
based on the prevailing regulatory requirements
Level3. (Active) Strategic posture is to accept and internalize safety, health and
environmental issues and extend broad management and technical effort
Level4. (Dynamic) Strategic posture is to focus on the competitive value of safety, health
and environmental practices
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 6 of 27
(Chart A) 1. Strategic Formulation: The manner in which the firm intends on
confronting and managing SHE issues.
Level 1: Reactive:
Strategy formulated at this level can be characterized as somewhat indiscreet and scanty
with response to SHE issues occurring after a harmful incident happens or the
organization is mandated to do so.
Organizational stakeholders tend to be unaware of the extent and magnitude of SHE
issues and unconcerned about formulating any strategy to confront and manage SHE
issues. There are more pressing demands on the business agenda of the firm than to
recognize the SHE challenge facing the business. No conscious or deliberate efforts to
reduce SHE impacts are made, because the firm does not want to, does not think it needs
to, or is not aware of its economic effects. The organization generally will undertake
discreet and remedial action only when threatened by government and/or insurance
sanctions.
Since meager consideration and effort is made in the strategy formulation process, a ‘get
by with what you can’ mentality exists, usually resulting in very narrow and incremental
solutions to SHE issues. The firm excuses itself from taking any prudent action because
of financial, technological, and human capital deficiencies. Even though the firm may
not posses a formal strategy, it can nonetheless still be categorized as possessing a SHE
strategy. For example, doing nothing is a strategy in itself, whether it is a deliberate
decision or not.
Level 2: Static:
Strategy formulated at this level can be characterized as mostly dependent and driven by
SHE regulations imposed by agencies of government, insurance carriers, and nongovernment interest groups, usually without regard to how these responses strategically
fit and contribute to the competitive aspects of the firm.
Organizational stakeholders’ awareness of the extent and magnitude of SHE issues is
somewhat limited and they tend to be passive and detached from formulating any strategy
to confront and manage SHE issues. The organization sees its strategy formulation
process strictly from a compliance perspective. Compliance with regulatory standards
tends to be considered as an inevitable on-going threat that negatively impacts
productivity and erodes competitiveness and plays a very small part of each business
operating decision. The organization promotes a play by the rules and everything will be
all right mentality Many times SHE professionals are told not to draw any attention by
being non-compliant and to keep the organization out of trouble so it can compete.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 7 of 27
Because scanty attempts chiefly focused on maintaining compliance are made in the
strategy formulation process, a strategic intent that describes the organization’s
intermediate and long-term SHE vision is absent. A mission statement exists and is
primarily focused on compliance and incident reduction. The strategic plan is comprised
of a small portfolio of short-term technical initiatives principally driven by compliance
issues and incidents that have affected key internal operating units.
Level 3: Active:
Strategy formulated at this level can be characterized as pushing for the detection and
correction of current and anticipated SHE issues, usually with attention to how these
issues impact the competitive and regulatory performance standards of the firm. SHE
strategy is generally permanent and ongoing, but not always fully integrated into the
business aspects of the firm.
Organizational stakeholders are aware of the extent and magnitude of SHE issues and
they understand how a well-constructed, financed, and integrated SHE strategy can help
in improving operational performance. They look at SHE issues and regulations affecting
the organization not as unnecessary cost burdens, but as opportunities to reduce short
and long term risk and contingent liability.
Genuine attempts are made in formulating strategy and verifying that it strategically fits
with the competitive performance strategy of the firm on an annual basis. The strategic
intent is to adapt imaginatively and effectively to SHE issues and new regulatory agency
compliance changes and to improve the management of risk and contingent liability,
while reducing the outlays associated with accidents/incidents, lawsuits and boycotts.
The mission statement includes preventing the causes of loss producing incidents and
minimizing their effects. The strategic plan is comprised of a well-balanced blend of
short- and long-term objectives that tend to meet the needs and expectations of key
internal organizational clients.
Level 4: Dynamic:
Strategy formulated at this level can be characterized as enhancing the long term
economic aspects of the firm. SHE issues are considered at the earliest possible stage in
the life cycle design of products, services, technologies and processes, usually with
attention to how they strategically strengthen the firm’s business fundamentals (e.g.,
revenue and earnings growth, quality of management, free cash flow generation) and on
how they enhance societal expectations for sustainable resource development.
Organizational stakeholders tend to fashion SHE needs as a criterion for making business
decisions and business needs become a criterion for making SHE decisions. There is
understanding that solid performance in this area tends to serve as a proxy for other
corporate business behaviors, which tend to produce good business performance.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 8 of 27
The strategy formulation process is taken seriously and embedded in the overall
competitive business strategy of the firm. The strategic intent is to constantly build
competencies and capabilities ahead of needs and to lead the firm in its sustainable
resource development and use practices. The mission statement is focused on preparing,
protecting and preserving the firm’s resources and spotting opportunities for revenue
growth in sustainable new products and technologies. Strategic plans tend to have a clear
fit with the firm’s business objectives, focused on a set of high-leverage developmental
and reform initiatives and reforms that are characterized substantively while delivering a
unique mix of economic value. Organizations at this level frame SHE improvement in
terms of resource productivity and protection.
(Chart B) 2. Organization Structure: The intended approach used for structuring
SHE strategy within the overall organizational structure of the firm.
Level 1 -Reactive:
The organization structure at this level can be characterized as an unspecified
arrangement that tends to be shaped only when the organization is confronted with orders
by government agencies and/or insurance carriers to arrange conditions within the
organization to control existing SHE issues. When facing orders, companies at this level
generally comply reluctantly, a fix-operate-fix and ‘get by with what you can’ mentality
prevails. This type of structure tends to tackle single SHE issues, affecting processes,
only when they arise or when it suits organizational stakeholders to make a response.
Direction for structuring SHE strategy tends to be principally provided by external
regulatory agencies, insurance carriers and internal committees. Responsibility for
structuring activities tends to be assigned to a SHE coordinator/collateral duty specialist
with limited authority usually employing a command and control structure. Efforts are
focused on controlling exposures to hazardous that exist and reporting back to
stakeholders what was done.
An organizational positioning arrangement for SHE is non-existent within the
organization chart of the firm.
Level 2 –Static:
The organization structure at this level can be characterized as a functional-staff
arrangement that tends to be shaped by regulatory compliance priorities. When facing
existing and new regulatory and/or enforcement actions, companies at this level react by
letting only their SHE staffs handle it. However, it is not organized in a manner that
properly structures and assimilates other SHE strategies and technical activities into
existing business structures. This type of structure is organizationally connected only to
the firm’s processes encountering regulatory compliance problems.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 9 of 27
Direction for structuring SHE strategy tends to be principally provided by internal
inspections/incident investigations and external regulatory agency and insurance carriers.
Responsibility for structuring SHE organization is assigned to a small-centralized group
of SHE specialists positioned and dispersed in the organization’s core
production/processing areas. Efforts are focused on providing technical advice on
regulatory compliance matters (i.e., understanding the intent and purpose of compliance
activities that affect SHE and in selecting from legislation those standards that are most
applicable to work activities performed under their jurisdiction) and controlling
exposures to hazards affecting the core production/processing areas.
The organizational positioning arrangement is undistinguished and buried within the
organizational chart of the firm. The function tends to report to a mid-level operational
manager.
Level 3- Active
The organization structure at this level can be characterized as a line-staff arrangement
that tends to be shaped by existing exposures to hazards, long-term contingent liabilities
resulting from past operations, and new regulatory priorities expected to affect the
organization. When confronting these issues, companies at this level bring SHE, legal,
and operational staffs together to find effective and efficient solutions. This type of
structure is organizationally connected to the core business units within the organization
encountering existing and/or potential risk, danger, and loss to the resources that they
control.
Direction for structuring SHE strategy tends to be principally driven by the internal needs
and expectations of core business unit managers derived from corporate wide audits and
information from design and process engineers, and external consultants. Responsibility
for structuring strategy is assigned to a moderate sized team of SHE specialists
possessing a wide array of technical competencies and capabilities, with powers to
integrate activities vertically and laterally within the organization. Efforts are focused on
developing corporate wide policy, constructing risk identification, assessment and control
initiatives, contingent liability reduction, enhancing regulatory compliance and fostering
SHE responsibility among employees and external suppliers by encouraging their
initiative to support SHE initiatives through training activities.
The organizational positioning arrangement is somewhat distinguished and arranged on
the same level as other major producing and servicing business units within the
organizational chart of the firm. The function tends to report to a vice-president involved
in operations and/or finance.
Level 4- Dynamic:
The organization structure at this level can be characterized as a hybrid solutions-based
business arrangement that tends to be shaped by the competitive performance plans of the
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 10 of 27
organization. When facing new major and strict regulations, companies at this level
review their activities (products, technologies, processes, services) asking such questions
as:
•
•
•
What activities are causing the most risk and cost burdens?
Are the activities in high enough demand to justify spending resources to reengineer and modify?
Are any of the activities creating SHE problems, unprofitable enough to
eliminate?
These companies then determine the cost of controls under different scenarios and
conduct risk and economic analysis to find the best solutions. Dynamic companies look
at major new regulations in a new light. Instead of viewing them as an unnecessary cost
burden, they see them as an opportunity to make production more efficient. This type of
structure is organizationally connected to the firm’s products, technologies, processes and
services contributing to SHE risk and cost burdens.
Direction for structuring strategy tends to be principally driven by the competitive
performance strategy of the organization, by internal and external operations research
studies, corporate audits, risk and cost assessments, and special task force studies.
Responsibility for structuring strategy is assigned to a superimposed multi-level and
interdisciplinary team of internal and external SHE specialists having dual allegiance to a
particular SHE assignment and to their organizational business unit area. These
specialists possess a wide array of strategic management and technical competencies and
capabilities with power to extend and structure business management strategies in ways
that connect SHE practices to the organization’s business fundamentals. Major attention
is focused on determining ways to enhance compliance with requirements authorized by
governmental regulatory agencies and insurance carriers, counteract existing and
potential risk to resource problems affecting the firm, reduce long-term contingent
liabilities, and to lead the organization in activities that sustain the organization and its
resources. In addition, these specialists contribute constructively to the shaping of public
policy based on sound business and scientific principles. The SHE function constantly
reframes SHE issues into business and technological problems. This results in the
organization’s ability to cooperate more fully with internal and external networks,
thereby finding solutions to problems that do not alter technology or production systems
to any great extent.
The organizational positioning arrangement is well distinguished, is internally and
externally structured into the business strategy process of the organization, and reports to
a senior-level executive.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 11 of 27
(Chart C) 3. Financing Arrangement: The manner in which the firm intends on
funding SHE strategy.
Level 1 Reactive
Strategy for financing the firm’s SHE investments at this level can be characterized as a
reactive and resistive arrangement. Access to financial resources is based solely on
correcting violations cited by government regulatory agencies and mandates from
insurance carriers. Additional financial resources needed for providing technical day to
day SHE services are provided when it financially suits the company. Tools for
performing economic analysis of SHE issues do not exist, because the firm does not want
to, does not think it needs to, or is not aware of the potential cost impact of failing to
counteract these issues.
Level 2 Static
Strategy for financing the firm’s SHE investments at this level can be characterized as an
informal arrangement. A mentality of funding only as much as others in their industry
sector are funding is strongly adhered to. An informal-pay as you go funding mentality
exists; invest to counteract issues only when trying to reduce the outlays associated with
injury/illness and environmental incidents. Investments, undertaken for preventing
occupational injuries, illnesses, and environmental incidents and compliance with
regulations, generally do not compete for access to financial resources. However, access
to financial resources needed to confront and manage more technically discriminating
SHE issues depends upon the capabilities of the firms’ SHE specialists to assemble
internal coalitions of support in order to compete for funding. These technical
discriminating prevention initiatives tend to have no clear criteria and pattern of funding,
thus subjecting them to unpredictable funding outcomes. Tools for performing economic
analysis of SHE investments are considered by internal organizational stakeholders to be
qualitatively and quantitatively immaterial for competing with other investment
allocation decision alternatives. SHE cost accounting practices focus on aggregating cost
data causing costs to be hidden in general overhead accounts and to be not included
throughout the life cycle of the product, service, technology or process responsible for
their generation. As a result, integrated and concurrent design engineering decisionmaking capabilities required for aggressively controlling SHE costs are limited and
incomplete.
Level 3 Active
Strategy for financing the firm’s SHE investments at this level can be characterized as an
applied arrangement. Access to financial resources tends to be allocated when
investment requests are intended to reduce risk to products, technologies, processes and
services, enhance compliance with regulatory standards, reduce contingent liability
caused by past operations, and minimize outlays associated with accidents, environmental
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 12 of 27
incidents, lawsuits and boycotts. The funding level tends to be above others in their
industry sector and included into the overall budget of the core business units obtaining
the services. Tools for performing economic analysis of SHE investments are chiefly
focused on cost-benefit analysis and payback and sometimes internal rate of return. Cost
are accumulated either through the use of cost accounting systems or through the use of
cost finding techniques and reported on a regular basis for management information
purposes. The costs of incidents are charted and charged back to core business units and
incorporated into the firm’s budget process. However, profiling the cost and profitability
of SHE issues affecting the organizations products, technologies, processes and services
and integrating cost information into decision-making does not occur. This condition
results in senior-level executives looking at SHE issues as non-business issues.
Level 4 Dynamic
Strategy for financing the firm’s SHE investments at this level can be characterized as
being self-sustaining and a down-to-business arrangement. A strategically opportunistic
funding position is taken, this means having sufficient funding for the long-term, while
having the financial wherewithal to remain flexible enough to solve new issues and
support research and development and other opportunities for innovation that, over time,
will lead to significant SHE performance gains while advancing measurable business
goals. Business strategies and SHE changes are tightly interwoven; changes in products,
technologies, processes and services affect SHE and changes in SHE issues and practices
in turn force product, technology, process and service changes. Access to financial
resources and capital is approved for 3 years (typically related to potential business
contribution over the long and short term) and based on factors and circumstances that
are causing the firm to fail in its efforts to protect and use resources productively and
conditions/circumstances under which SHE pays. Senior level financial executives desire
SHE strategy and activities to become financially self-sustaining and contribute
measurably to company competitiveness. Tools for performing economic analysis of
SHE investments provide reliable and timely information on the full cost burdens
associated with the firm’s products, technologies, processes and services over their
productive and economic life cycle. Major thinking is performed on how to enhance the
efficiency and effectiveness of SHE spending.
(Chart D) 4. Technical Strategy: The manner in which the firm intends on creating
and/or transferring and using technical tools for confronting and managing SHE
issues.
Level 1 (Reactive):
The technical strategy can be characterized as resistive and driven only when required to
provide personnel protection equipment to employees. Access to technical resources is
based solely on correcting violations cited by government regulatory agencies and
mandates from insurance carriers. Concern for providing day to day SHE technical
services are provided when it financially suits the company.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 13 of 27
Technical tools for confronting and managing SHE issues are lacking within the firm’s
products, technologies, processes and services. Technical tool use tends to be periodic
and intermittent, with emphasis on general recognition, evaluation and control of SHE
exposures to hazards affecting the firm.
The firm does not conduct any relevant training on how to confront and manage SHE
issues facing the firm.
Level 2 (Static):
The technical strategy can be characterized as driven by technology changes to meet
regulatory compliance problems. Only environment, safety and health technical tools
that fulfill regulatory reporting requirements by state and federal administrations (i.e.
MSDS software, Job Safety Analysis (JSA)) are used by the firm.
Technical tool use tends to be periodic and intermittent, with emphasis on general
recognition, evaluation and control of environment, safety and health exposures to
hazards affecting the firm.
Technical considerations are included in organizational R&D and project planning
processes on an ad hoc or adaptive basis. These considerations are seldom a factor in
determining if or which product is made and are primarily formulated in reaction to
current and imminent urgent problems, compliance with regulatory requirements, or in
response to explicit request from business customers. The firm sees no relevant market
or strategic opportunity in developing environment, safety and health technical
innovation and favors short-term solutions mainly through the adoption of end-of-pipe
technologies.
Limited and basic technical training sessions are focused on meeting regulations and
ensuring current and future compliance. Specialized technical training on environment,
safety and health issues for engineering, design, and R&D personnel does not exist above
that which is available to all employees. Additional attempts at environment, safety and
health awareness in developing product, processes, procedures, and tools are not evident.
Level 3 (Active):
The technical strategy can be characterized as promoting technological change for
production purposes (i.e. main business innovation). The firm has adopted a continuous
and interval application of environment, safety and health assessment tools (i.e. Detailed
Hazard Analysis (DHA), Product Line Analysis (PLA), Environmental Site Assessment
(ESA)) to manage quantities of natural resources used, wastes produced, hazard
exposure, and contingent liability). Tool attention is focused on current and future
detection, interpretation, and modification of environment, safety and health impacts
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 14 of 27
linked to operations. Management decision-making is dependent on these tools for
providing information that initiates strategic action.
Environment, safety and health technical considerations are included in organizational
R&D and project planning processes on an opportunistic basis. The firm monitors
developments, changes, and trends in environment, safety and health technologies, but
does not systematically and consistently incorporates it with R&D planning. The R&D
function pursues technical development in elected regulatory-driven projects, projects
aimed at improving environment, safety and health and business performance, and
projects exploring new product/process opportunities. The firm has built a technical
understanding and capacity for linking environment, safety and health innovation with
improved organizational competitiveness. Distinguished from traditional add-on ‘end-ofpipe’ controls, the new innovative initiatives undertaken encompass pollution prevention,
toxic use reduction, and clean technology.
Dedicated technical training is conducted for all employees involved in product design,
production processes, and resource utilization aspects. Management has recognized that
a proactive approach to enhancing compliance is a knowledgeable, environmentally
aware work force. Technically competent employees are expected to better position the
company to deal with the regulatory framework and develop cost-effective solution when
available.
The technical training is conducted internally (mentoring, on-the-job training) and
externally (consultants, conferences, meetings, professional journals) and focuses on
developing environment, safety and health awareness within the mindset and
methodologies of the employees. Traditional job tasks are expanded to include
environment, safety and health concerns so that they may be reflected in both design and
operational criteria of the firm’s technology.
Level 4 (Dynamic):
The technical strategy at this level can be characterized as routinely allocating resources
to maintaining a technical knowledge foundation and developing core technologies and
new tools for improving technical productivity. The firm has invested in an extensive
compilation of ongoing environment, safety and health and economic tools (i.e. Life
Cycle Analysis (LCA), Total Quality Assessment (TQA), Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)) to investigate environmental, safety, health, financial, and social
effects of the organizational processes and their impact on organizational
competitiveness. Tool attention focuses on the comprehensive identification and
modeling of: the risk, loss, dangers that resources are subjected to, quality and financial
effects from environment, safety and health issues, future liabilities, and organizational
sustainability. Management relies on the strategic choice of tools, strongly related to
organizational environment, safety and health objectives, to support research and
technology decisions and serve as a baseline to improve environment, safety and health
performance and sustainable development practices.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 15 of 27
The strategic consideration of environment, safety and health technical innovation is fully
embedded and linked within R&D, project process planning, and business operations.
These SHE considerations are seen in the overall broad organizational picture, and
improved technical efficacy within them is recognized as a strategically potent means for
obtaining competitive advantage. Environment, safety and health projects are viewed as
key investments to the future of the company that will address resource threats and
opportunities. Technical productivity enhancements are sought that balance strategic
objectives with current needs by developing core technologies and new tools. The firm is
recognized as continually surpassing industry benchmarks and setting the standard of
technological environment, safety and health innovation. Initiatives focusing on
technical change address multimedia pollution sources and reflect fundamental shifts in
the design and reformulation of products and processes (Design for Environment, Health,
and Safety).
Strategically tailored technical training programs are developed for all design, scientific,
pre-production, production, and R&D functions to ensure a consistency with sustainable
organizational development. Management has found it financially and competitively
advantageous to stay ahead of regulations and competitors and respond to current public
attitudes toward environment, safety and health issues through technical development.
The technical training initiated by the firm occurs regardless of the existence of
regulatory requirements and meets or exceeds the industry average. The majority of
technical training programs are carried out internally (mentoring, job rotation,
workshops, communities of practice) and are supplemented by external opportunities
(universities, conferences, partnerships). Both explicit and tacit technical knowledge
transfer of environment, safety and health issues and procedures within the organizational
products, processes, and tools are integrated in the training for use in a common context.
Trained employees are accountable for viewing and considering environment, safety and
health matters equally with other product/process concerns (costs, marketability,) when
performing all job tasks.
(Chart E) 5. Management Information Strategy: The manner in which the firm
provides information to internal and external parties on SHE strategy control and
progress.
Level 1 (Reactive):
The management information strategy at this level can be characterized as a highly
incomplete and partial compilation of information pertaining to SHE issues within the
firm. Previous insufficient data generation and recording activities are lacking which
leads to a piecemeal collection of information. With a mentality of responding after the
fact to SHE issues, there is a lack of focus on organizing existing information into a
coherent and continuous outline. Often, important SHE information is only gathered and
compiled by necessity after receipt of fines and mandates by regulatory agencies.
Journal of SH&E Research Vol. 5, No. 3
Page 16 of 27
Organizational access of SHE information internally is confined to the point of origin of
the data. Information available is not present beyond the actual process, department, or
area in which it was generated. Communication of SHE strategy, control, and progress
does not take place unless initiated in response to regulatory mandates threatening the
stability of the company and will involve as few people/resources as possible. Additional
information transfer of performance, issues, and concerns of the firm in this area are
informal, unplanned and not expected of the employees, divisions, etc…
Reporting to the external environment does not take place because the firm does not want
to, does not believe it needs to, or sees no potential benefit in disclosing the SHE
performance level and status of its operations.
Level 2 (Static):
The management information strategy at this level can be characterized as a fragmented
approach that centers on targeted areas within the firm. This focus concentrates on those
processes and activities that dictate the regulatory and legal standing of the firm. Under
this level, knowledge management of these areas aims to fulfill required reporting
formats designated by occupational and environmental regulators.
Organizational access of SHE information is internally available as a limited number of
hard-copy graphs, spreadsheets, figures, and tables. These documents are accessible
within the department where it was generated and within the SHE function. The extent of
the information covers only a limited number of regulated processes over specified time
periods. This information composition is based upon simplicity and comparability
between previous and present time intervals. Communication of SHE strategy, control,
and progress is the responsibility of a core group of SHE specialists located in central
operational areas encountering regulatory compliance concerns. Information is presented
to mid-level management responsible for the particular department. Each individual
overseeing the information collection of a specific operation, and subsequent reporting,
works independently of similar employees in different areas. This ad-hoc arrangement
creates a limited and vertical flow of information confined within each department.
Repo…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
Tags:
organization structure
Organizational sustainability
environmental strategies
technical productivity
new technologies and products
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool’s honor code & terms of service.
Reviews, comments, and love from our customers and community: