Networking among small and medium-sized enterprises to promote health and safety

1. Hans Jørgen Limborg, hjl@teamarbejdsliv.dk Sisse Grøn, sig@teamarbejdsliv.dk Nordic Work Life Conference 2014 Göteborg • Networking among small and medium-sized enterprises to promote health and safety • What are the lessons to learn?

2. Background of theprojectCURRENT RESEARCH ON SME’S AND OHS • Reasonable knowledge about regulation – but difficulties to meet demands for formalised OHS practise(Hasle et al 2004, Forteyn et al 97) • They have few ressources but responses to external pressure (Champoux & Brun 2003, Hasle & Limborg 2006) • Questions of OHS are approached with the same informal approach as the task of management (Walters 2001, Axelsson 2002) • Local and sectorial networks are important to them (Birgersdottir 2002, Johansson 98, Limborg & Mathiessen 2010)

3. The pThe projectroject - idea, data and methodology Three networks; a group of small diaries (21)andmicrobreweries (26) received funding for development projects aimed to reduce MSD + a group of demolishers Our hypothesis is that SME’s are influenced stronger by their networks than other external actors, but we need to identify the mechanisms the ‘drive’ the process Data: Interviews with key persons, documents, company visits and projectevaluations.

4. The OBJECTIVES OF THE PROJECT AND THE PAPER To provide knowledge on how networks among SME’s can be a catalyst for general policy instruments aiming to improve OHS To pinpoint effective network mechanisms

5. Networking and Mechanisms • Critical realism • Combines a realist ontology with a constructuvistepistemiology (Maxwell) • ‘…I assumethat the real world is out there – but thatourrepresentations of thatworldareconstructions’ (Fredrik Barth) • Analysis: Bygstad & Munkvolds framework for identifyingcausalstructures (IT) • Mechanism: a causalstructurethatexplains a phenomenon

6. The dairies case • 21 small dairies • Applied for fundingjointly • Project to developtechnical aids • Aided by private consultant • Cases and controlsopenlyselected • One major competitor • Pressure from laborinspection • Pioneer figure • Agreement on power relations • Openess pact • Outcome: • Prize • Technical aids developed and implemented in case dairies • Somedissermination of ideas Billede fra: http://www.st-clemens.dk/

7. The breweries case • 25 small breweries • Applied for a similarproject • Case breweriesselected themselves… • Aided by a consultant • One major competitor • Entrepreneurs • Driven by enthusiasm • Outcome: • Equipmentimplemented in • controlbreweries • A booklet

8. The demolishers case • 25 enterprises in the group • Need to become a profession • Decision to provide vocational training • Aided by a consultant • Need to distinguishbetween top and bottom • Pioneer • Outcome: • Wellfunctioningtraining • Knowledge sharing on employeeslevel • Stratification Billede fra http://www.brandis.dk/billeder

9. Key components • Need for distinktion • External pressure • Funding • Professional support • Pioneer figure (s) • Assymtry

10. Program theorytheory of both prevention projects Skilledconsul-tants The network as context: Open culture and tradition for cooperation, organised meeting opportunity , limited resources, a “we” in opposition to the large company, focus on quality External mechanism Funding (Preven-tion Fund) The network

11. Implementation Labour Ínspection Prevention fund Skilledadvisors Policy instruments: Externalmechanisms: • Knowledge • Proces • Develop-ment Funding Control and possibleenforce-ment The network context: Open culture and tradition for cooperation, organised meeting opportunity , limited resources, a “we” in opposition to the large company, focus on quality Prevention project The network

12. Secondarycontext: Labour inspection, unions and society Primarycontext: The network MECHANISMS • Mechanism 4: • Curiosity from peers • Accessibility to experiences – “Pact on openness” • Willingness to share 2020- actionplanreduction of MSD • Mechanism 2: • “Handshake” - trust among network participants • Skillful Consultant – able to push • Fewer notes from L.I. • Price for bestproject 2011 • New generally accepted standard • Reducednumber of heavy lifts • Reducedsickleave Committee ”Firebrand” Safety commitee National regulation Labour inspection • Development of prototypes • Real time testing • Implementation of aids • Utilisation • ”Open house” dissemination of experience • Projectorganisation • Mapping of exposure • Catalogue of good ideas • Financial support from Prevention Fund Test companies Followers, Supplyer Outcome Mechanism 3: Development and testning in real life Workers participation Good relation to supplyer Mechanism1: External support to project & presure from L.I. Mechanism5: Sustainability Internalcontext: History, knowledge and experiencerelated to OHS

13. I spitMechanismsprogramme theories the projects developed veryMeca different.

14. Discussion • Power relations • Pioneers, but with whatmandate? • The limitations of causality • The limitations of measurableoutcome • Research in lessthanperfectcircumstances

15. Trust in networks Thankyou for listening hjl@teamarbejdsliv.dk