Skip to main content

Current Usage of Models and Methods to Prevent Unsafe Behaviour of Employees in Industrial Companies

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Developments in Information & Knowledge Management for Business Applications

Part of the book series: Studies in Systems, Decision and Control ((SSDC,volume 420))

Abstract

Accidents at work not only cause personal suffering for the employees affected, but also cause a great deal of damage to companies. The aim of the study was to find out how companies react to accidents at work, to what extent they investigate the causes and which models and methods they use to prevent accidents. In a survey of 92 companies with more than 50 employees, it was confirmed that although occupational accidents cause the loss of 29.6 million working days every year and the associated costs of approx. 11.85 billion euros, only approx. 73% of the companies investigate all occupational accidents with injuries in accordance with the legal requirements in their company. 76% of the companies record the causes of occupational accidents in accordance with the TOP principle, finding that 57% of accidents are caused by direct human error, 22% are due to organisational failure, 12% of accidents are due to technical failure and 9% of accidents are due to so-called fundamental conditions. The fact that 30% of the companies surveyed do not record any different variants of human error at all and only 33% record all variants of human error as the cause of occupational accidents shows that the in-depth analysis of the causes of occupational accidents in the area of human error is not yet widespread in German companies. In addition, the survey was able to determine that only about 50% of the companies purposefully apply scientific models and methods to prevent the causes of human error. Furthermore, it could be determined that approx. 25% of the companies do not sanction rule-breaking unsafe behaviour at all and only 2.2% of the companies state to sanction such behaviour with defined measures according to standardised escalation levels, although human error is considered to be the main cause of occupational accidents, shows that the systematic planning of positive and negative consequences as a consequence of human unsafe behaviour is hardly present in German companies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Meyer, et al.: Krankheitsbedingte Fehlzeiten in der deutschen Wirtschaft im Jahr 2019, p. 397. Springer, Heidelberg (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Techniker Krankenkasse: Gesundheitsreport 2020. Techniker Krankenkasse, Hamburg (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  3. DGUV: Zahlen und Fakten 2020, Abgerufen von. https://www.dguv.de/de/zahlen-fakten/au-wu-geschehen/index.jsp], DGUV, Berlin (2021)

  4. BAUA: Mit Sicherheit mehr Gewinn - Wirtschaftlichkeit von Gesundheit und Sicherheit bei der Arbeit, BAUA, Berlin (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Wöll, V., Sulíková, R.: How to prevent unsafe behaviour of employees? In: Natalia Kryvinska, N., Poniszewska-Maranda, A. (eds.): Developments in Information & Knowledge Management for Business Applications, pp. 499–528. Springer International Publishing (2022), Online publication 16.08.2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77916-0_16

  6. Baur, N., Blasius, J. (eds.): Handbuch Methoden der empirischen Sozialforschung, Mixed Methods, p. 601. Springer Fachmedien, Wiesbaden, Germany (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Webster, J., Watson, R.: Analysing the past to prepare for the future: writing a literature review. MIS Q. 26(2), 13–24, MIS Research Centre, Minneapolis, USA (2002)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Friedrichs, J.: Methoden empirischer Sozialforschung, p. 243. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Schörner, M.: Public affairs government relations und lobbying. Lit. Verlag Dr. W. Hopf, Berlin (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  10. DGUV: DGUV V 2. DGUV, Berlin (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  11. DESTATIS: Beschäftigtengrößenklassen nach Destatis. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Unternehmen/Unternehmensregister/Tabellen/unternehmen-beschaeftigtengroessenklassen-wz08.html. Accessed 03 May 2021

  12. DGUV: Arbeitsunfallgeschehen 2019. DGUV, Berlin, Germany (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  13. DESTATIS: Sectors according to DESTATIS. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Branchen-Unternehmen/Unternehmen/Unternehmensregister/_inhalt.html. Accessed 3 May 2021

  14. Bundesregierung: Das Siebte Buch Sozialgesetzbuch SGB VII. Bundesregierung, Berlin, Germany (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Zou et al.: Exploring the Potential Use of Near-Miss Information to Improve Construction Safety Performance. Nanjing University, Nanjing (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bördlein, C.: Verhaltensorientierte Arbeitssicherheit—Behavior Based Safety (BBS), 2nd edn. Erich Schmidt Verlag, Berlin, Germany (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bundesregierung: Arbeitsschutzgesetz. Bundesregierung, Berlin, Germany (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Li, et al.: Analysis of Complexity of Unsafe Behavior in Construction Teams and a Multiagent Simulation. Nanjing University, Nanjing (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  19. VCI: VCI-Leitfaden Kennzahlen im Arbeitsschutz. Verband der Chemischen Industrie e.V., Frankfurt (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  20. BBSGT: Sicherheitsschulung 2018. Bundesverband Behälterschutz Gütegemeinschaft Tankschutz & Tanktechnik, Freiburg (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  21. BGRCI: Werkzeuge zur Reduzierung von Arbeitsunfällen. BGRCI, Heidelberg (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haufe (ed.): Haufe Personal Office Platin Lexikon. https://www.haufe.de/personal/haufe-personal-office-platin/unfallanalyse_idesk_PI42323_HI5193296.html. Accessed 03 May 2021

  23. DGMK: SCC Dok 006. DGMK Deutsche Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft für Erdöl, Erdgas und Kohle e.V., Hamburg (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. DGUV: DGUV V1. DGUV, Berlin, Germany (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  25. BG ETEM: Alkohol und Arbeit – zwei, die nicht zusammenpassen. BG ETEM, Köln (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  26. DGUV: DGUV Information 206–009. DGUV, Berlin, Germany (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Bundesregierung: Arbeitssicherheitsgesetz. Bundesregierung, Berlin, Germany (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  28. BMVI: Die häufigsten Unfallursachen. www.runtervomgas.de. https://www.runtervomgas.de/unfallursachen/artikel/die-haeufigsten-unfallursachen.html BMVI, Berlin, Germany (2020)

  29. Wiste V (ed.): Paradissis, A.: Ermittlungsverfahren nach Arbeitsunfällen, Wirtschaftsstrafrechtliche Vereinigung e.V., Köln (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  30. DGUV: SIFA Langzeitstudie. DGUV, Berlin (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  31. DESTATIS: Nicht tödliche Arbeitsunfälle in der BRD. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Arbeit/Arbeitsmarkt/Qualitaet-Arbeit/Dimension-1/nicht-toedliche-arbeitsunfaellel.html. Accessed 02 Sept 2021

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Valéry Wöll .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Wöll, V., Sulíková, R. (2022). Current Usage of Models and Methods to Prevent Unsafe Behaviour of Employees in Industrial Companies. In: Kryvinska, N., Greguš, M. (eds) Developments in Information & Knowledge Management for Business Applications. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, vol 420. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-95813-8_24

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics