For some time, health and safety was viewed with thinly veiled derision, with those working in the field regarded as busy bodies hell bent on inventing pointless reasons not to do something.  The coronavirus pandemic has changed all of that, and the safety of workplaces has shot to the top of the organizational agenda.

With organizations struggling for liquidity as a result of the lockdown, resources are in short supply.  Interestingly, however, research from Oregon State University suggests that it’s more likely to be the best resourced organizations that shirk their responsibilities to provide a safe work environment.

The study suggests that when it’s cheaper to pay small fines for safety violations than it is to actually provide safe workplaces, many organizations will choose the path of least financial resistance.

“Organizations that do not provide a safe workplace gain an economic advantage over those that do,” the researchers say. “The goal of improving the longevity of a business conflicts with the goal of protecting the workforce.”

Safe workplaces

The study was undertaken of over 100,000 American workplaces over a 25-year period.  The researchers assessed whether the employer provided a safe workplace by examining things such as claim data, which includes information on whether workers suffered temporary or permanent disabilities.

The analysis suggests that providing a safe workplace was detrimental to the overall survival chances of the organization.  The data showed that companies with worker injury claims appeared to survive 56% longer than those without.  What’s more, this effect was most prominent in larger, older companies, who are likely to have the most resources to invest in health and safety.

By contrast, high claim costs could be hugely damaging to the survival chances of younger firms, or those that are growing quickly.  Such firms, the researchers suggest, have a higher incentive to protect their workers, but often insufficient resources to do so.

Surviving the storm

The data suggests that companies with over 100 employees were more likely to survive, even if they had claims made against them.  This holds so long as the claims don’t escalate out of control, with the tipping point appearing to be claims of up to $9 million every quarter, which is a very high benchmark that few firms would ever reach.

“Our results imply that the regulations of a developed economy are not enough to incentivize the elimination of poor safety,” the researchers say.

The authors believe that a better approach to securing the safety of workers is to use more carrot and less stick.  By incentivizing and rewarding innovations that improve both the safety of workers and the survival chances of the organization, they believe that better results are more likely to ensue.

As with so much, the coronavirus has fundamentally changed the game with regards to the health and safety of workers, but whilst the research was conducted in the pre-covid world, it nonetheless provides some interesting food for thought during these challenging times.  With firms battling for survival, it’s by no means certain that the health of their workforce will be their foremost concern, so it’s important that regulations are drafted that ensure that is not the case.