Ikhwan Muhammad Literatures review: safety management system

Literatures review: the relation of Safety management System, Quality Management System and Environmental Management System The shared history of the management approaches The historical development of Safety Management System (SMS) is ironically started by a tragic consequence for the absence of the system, a disaster. The first requirement for companies to present a Safety Case is led by an accident in Flixborough back in 1974, in this accident, an explosion at the Nypro Ltd caprolactam production facility tragically blown away a whole village (Hudson, 2001). However, a massive disaster occurred in Bophal, December 1994, is believed to act as a catalyst leading to the actual awareness of a safety system (Gallagher, Teicher, Health, Commission, & Relations, 1997). Sweeney (1992) points out that after the disaster occurred; companies start to put more serious attention to the hazards and risks posed in the process throughout the organisation. Being in the spot of attention since the disaster, numbers of Process Safety Management models were developed by many organisations. Some of the developers of these models include Central for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), the American Petroleum Institute (API), the Chemical Manufacturers Association (CMA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (Sweeney, 1992). Realizing the importance of the system in a company, scholars start to make effort to introduce health and safety as an integrated part of a management system (Gallagher et al., 1997). In relation to this, Gallagher, Rimmer, and Underhill (2001) mention that a successful implementation of SMS can only be achieved by integrating it into a broader management systems. According to Karapetrovic and Jonker (2003), the interest to the integration itself started about 6 years ago with the introduction of the second internationally recognized Management System Standard (MSS) (ISO 14001: 1996). At first, the early literatures shown that the scholars focused only on the integration of Quality Management System (QMS) and Environmental Management System (EMS), not until recently that SMS started to be included into the functional scope (Karapetrovic & Jonker, 2003). Karapetrovic (2002) state that the idea of integration is originated from the demand of company performance to provide adequate worth to employees, local and global community, investor, and society rather than only focus on customer need. However, the integration of the systems pose is somehow problematic, because each of the MS has its own standard (e.g. ISO 9000, ISO 14000, and OHSAS 18001). It is also believed that there is limitation in the integration of SMS into a general management system (Gallagher et al., 2001). For this, Karapetrovic and Jonker (2003) further conclude that what standard user actually need is a model that is able to accommodate the standard and its diverse requirements. Key historical figures in the management approaches There are numbers of historical figures in the development of management; one of them is William Edward Deming. One of his major contributions is the introduction of Demings Cycle in management to develop continuous improvement in the company. This
Page 1

Ikhwan Muhammad Literatures review: safety management system

principle is adopted in the implementation of QMS, EMS and SMS. Furthermore, Dr. Deming also emphasises about the integration of safety and quality in one management system (Rahimi, 1995). Elton Mayo, a professor in Harvard, is also considered as one of the important figures in the development of management. He states that manager should become more people oriented. He further emphasize that the workers productivity is largely affected by participation in social groups and group pressure. This finding led to the revolution of managerial role to give more concern to the workers physical and mental health (Bosman, 2009). In the development of SMS, one of important figures that play a great role is Lord Cullen. Lord Cullen identified the requirement for systematic safety management after Piper Alpha disaster in 1987 (Hudson, 2001). In his investigation report, He outline that it is essential to create a corporate atmosphere or culture in which safety is understood to be and is accepted as, the number of priority (Roger, Flin, Mearns, & Hetherington, 2010). According to Hudson (2001), this requirement developed the goal setting approach which later resulted in the UK Health and Safety at Work Act in 1974. Commonalities between of the management approaches On one hand, along with the development of the systems; QMS, EMS and SMS share common approaches in the implementation. One of the direct ways to address the commonalities is by reviewing the development of the management standards based on ISO 9000 (QMS), ISO 14000 (EMS) and OHSAS 18001 (SMS). It is based on the commonalities on these standards, numerous attempts have been made to combine them into one integrated management system (e.g. Matias & Coelho, 2002). The followings are some of the commonalities of the management approaches. Both, QMS and EMS use common terms, including leadership, top management and continuous improvement. Furthermore, both also focus on process improvement and optimisation (Matias & Coelho, 2002). QMS concern with environmental preservation, externally in terms of natural environment (related to EMS) and internally to the organization itself in terms of work environment (related to OHSMS) (Matias & Coelho, 2002). In the revision version of QMS standard in 2000, it introduces the new concept of working environment. The standard explicitly emphasizes the importance of human resources and their working environment for the quality of products. In other word it gives concern to the OHSMS. QMS, EMS, and OHSMS demand common general requirements, including: system requirements, leadership (management responsibility), management of resources, management of processes, system implementation, and monitoring and measuring. In term of specific requirements, the common requirements shared include: system documentation, verification, audits, conformity, continuous improvements and prevention (Matias & Coelho, 2002). The three MSS adopt Demings cycle (Plan-Do-Check-Act) as their basic underlying principle for continuous improvement. In terms of continuous improvement, the standards
Page 2

Ikhwan Muhammad Literatures review: safety management system

outline that it is important to improve the management system continuously, as the Demings cycle they use as the basis (Matias & Coelho, 2002). In terms of leadership, the three MSS outline that top management should ensure process leadership and have the maximum responsibility. Furthermore, the top management should also nominate one of its members to conduct correct implementation of the management system (Matias & Coelho, 2002). In terms of prevention the three MSS outline that in order to prevent the occurrence of potential non conformities, preventive actions should be identified (Matias & Coelho, 2002). Therefore, based in this commonalities, it is generally that the implementation of OHSMS will also satisfy the aims of other management system (Matias & Coelho, 2002). Differences between of the management approaches In the other hand, apart from the commonalities, there are some differences between QMS, EMS and SMS which are expressed in the set of standards. These differences are both beneficial and problematic in the efforts of integrating the systems. Some of the commonalities of the management systems are mentioned below. According to Matias and Coelho (2002), the most clear difference is in the aim. They emphasize that QMS specifically aims toward customer satisfaction, while EMS aims toward environmental protection, pollution prevention and promoting social-economic harmony, and SMS aims toward occupational risk control to improve safety and health related performance. Environmental protection and energy conservation are mentioned more thoroughly in EMS while SMS focus on creating and maintaining safe environment, while protecting and maintaining the good health of the workers. Gallagher et al. (2001) outline that QMS, EMS and SMS possess different traditional mode of operation; these are logic of managerial control, logic of accountability and state control, and logic of interest representation and bargaining respectively. In terms of the implementation, QMS is applied 100% voluntarily, while EMS, even though also voluntarily offered, is partly obligated by legal demands in many countries (Matias & Coelho, 2002). Another difference is that there is no ISO standard for SMS in the present, which differentiate SMS with the other two MS. Moreover, the available SMS standard is somehow superimpose with other legal demands in many countries and havent been globally accepted while QMS standard can be easily adopted in many countries (Matias & Coelho, 2002).

Page 3

Ikhwan Muhammad Literatures review: safety management system

References Bosman, M. (2009). The Historical Evolution of Management Theory from 1900 to Present: The Changing role of Leaders in Organizations. Retrieved from http://www.strategicleadershipinstitute.net/news/the-historical-evolution-ofmanagement-theory-from-1900-to-present-the-changing-role-of-leaders-inorganizations-/ Gallagher, C., Rimmer, M., & Underhill, E. (2001). Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems [electronic Resource]: A Review of Their Effectiveness in Securing Healthy and Safe Workplaces: National Occupational Health and Safety Commission. Gallagher, C., Teicher, J., Health, A. N. O., Commission, S., & Relations, M. U. N. K. C. i. I. (1997). Health & safety management systems: An analysis of system types and effectiveness: National Key Centre in Industrial Relations, Monash University. Hudson, P. (2001). Occupational Health & Safety Management Systems: Proceedings of the First National Conference. Paper presented at the the First National Conference on Occupational Health and Safety Management System, the University of Western Sydney. Karapetrovic, S. (2002). Strategies for the integration of management systems and standards. The TQM Magazine, 14(1), 61-67. Karapetrovic, S., & Jonker, J. (2003). Integration of standardized management systems: searching for a recipe and ingredients. Total Quality Management and Business Excellence, 14(4), 451-459. Matias, J. C. D. O., & Coelho, D. A. (2002). The integration of the standards systems of quality management, environmental management and occupational health and safety management. International Journal of Production Research, 40(15), 3857-3866. Rahimi, M. (1995). Merging strategic safety, health and environment into total quality management. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 16(2), 83-94. Roger, I., Flin, R., Mearns, K., & Hetherington, C. (2010). Leading Safely: Development Of A Safety Leadership Tool For Senior Managers. Sweeney, J. C. (1992). Measuring process safety management. Plant/Operations Progress, 11(2), 89-98.

Page 4