Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

Motivational factors for occupational safety and health improvements: A

mixed-method study within the Swedish equine sector
Åsa Bergman Bruhn a, *, Cecilia Lindahl b, Ing-Marie Andersson a, Gunnar Rosén a
a
Work Sciences, Dalarna University, SE-79188 Falun, Sweden
b
Dept. Agriculture and Food, RISE Research Institutes of Sweden, P.O. Box 7033, SE-75007 Uppsala, Sweden

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: A well-functioning systematic occupational safety and health management is beneficial for both individuals and
Employee participation organizations, and employee motivation seems to be crucial for positive outcomes. Occupational safety and
Intrinsic motivation health issues are a major concern for the Swedish equine sector since the work environment in horse stables is
Occupational culture
known to be characterized by low mechanization, high physical workloads, and high injury risks. The purpose of
Safety motivation
Self-determination theory
this study was to gain an increased understanding of how systematic occupational safety and health management
Systematic OSH management is performed and which factors that influence motivation for occupational safety and health improvements in the
Swedish equine sector. An explanatory sequential mixed-methods study, based on quantitative data from
questionnaires and qualitative data from semi-structured interviews, was conducted. Various statistical analyses
were performed to obtain quantitative data and an abductive applied thematic analysis was applied for the
qualitative data. The results indicate that both intrinsic motivators, i.e. attitudes, values, and influence, as well as
contextual factors such as motivational management, occupational culture, and workplace resources, influence
compliance in systematic occupational safety and health management and participation in occupational safety
and health improvements, which in turn affect workplace outcomes regarding safety and health. The positive
relationship found between an implemented and functioning systematic occupational safety and health man­
agement and employee motivation for occupational safety and health improvements indicate the importance of
employee involvement and participation. Understanding the motivational factors for occupational safety and
health improvements from an employee perspective is an important step to creating healthy and sustainable
workplaces.

1. Introduction
Given that work is a dominant part of modern life, the working
environment can have a significant impact on employee health and well-
being (Waddell & Burton, 2006). A healthy and safe work environment
with decent working conditions is associated with better self-assessed
and objective health (Nappo 2019), improved job satisfaction (Erro-
Garces & Ferreira, 2019), and productivity (Strömberg, Aboagye, Hag­
berg, Bergström & Lohela-Karlsson, 2017). However, accidents caused
by or occurring during work activities are a major cause of impairments
to employees’ health and have serious social and economic impacts
(International Labour Organization, 2020; Markusson, 2012; Strömberg
et al., 2017). Debates regarding sustainable working lives have received
increasing attention due to the ambitions of policymakers to increase
both retirement ages and workforce participation (Virtanen, 2018).
Arguably, the core of the debate is to develop work environments which
enable individuals to stay healthy at work. Systematic occupational
safety and health (OSH) management can be seen as the foundation for
the creation of safe and healthy workplaces. In Sweden, laws, and reg­
ulations (e.g. SFS 1977; AFS 2001:1) govern the systematic OSH man­
agement. The Swedish regulations of systematic work environment
management (SWEM) (AFS 2001:1) stress, among other things, that
employers, on a systematic basis, are required to investigate, follow up,
and take action to prevent accidents and illness among staff. SWEM
complies with internationally implemented legislation on how to ensure
a safe working environment (European Agency for Safety and Health at
Work, 1989).
However, it appears to be difficult for organizations to create good
working environments (Nordlöf 2015; Vinberg, 2020) and research has
revealed shortcomings regarding follow-ups and evaluations (Frick

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: asa.bruhn@du.se (Bergman Bruhn), Cecilia.lindahl@ri.se (C. Lindahl), ima@du.se (I.-M. Andersson), grs@du.se (G. Rosén).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.106035
Received 12 August 2022; Received in revised form 9 November 2022; Accepted 27 November 2022
Available online 8 December 2022
0925-7535/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
Bergman Bruhn et al.
2014; Rydell & Andersson, 2019), as well as work environmental im­
provements (Masi & Cagno, 2015; Niskanen, Louhelainen & Hirvonen,
2014). In particular, handling and systematically working with safety
and health issues seem to be extra challenging in small-scale enterprises
(SSEs), i.e. enterprises with<50 employees, because of limited resources
(Vinberg, 2020). In addition, managers in SSEs are often guided more by
personal and cultural beliefs than by national guidelines (Hasle &
Limborg, 2006; MacEachen et al., 2010). More knowledge of systematic
OSH management and OSH improvements within SSEs is therefore
necessary (Vinberg, 2020).
Since the implementation of safety legislations and regulations, as
well as campaigns aimed at improving the working environment, alone
seem to have a limited effect (Hasle & Limborg, 2006; Lehtola et al.,
2008), safety motivation appears to play an important role in whether
employees follow rules and engage in safety-related activities (Hedlund,
Gummesson, Rydell & Andersson, 2016; Neal and Griffin, 2006;
Nykänen, Salmela-Aro, Tolvanen & Vuori, 2019). In addition, recent
research has highlighted the role of individual factors (e.g. attitudes and
abilities) as antecedents of safety performance (Beus, McCord & Zohar,
2016; Vierendeels, Reniers, van Nunen & Ponnet, 2018). Despite this
finding, knowledge of the factors which contribute to safety motivation
is scarce (Nykänen et al., 2019). Motivation theories can therefore
provide explanations for why individuals choose to perform and engage
in systematic OSH management and improvements. According to Self
Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagné & Deci, 2005),
motivation can occur either when an individual participates in an ac­
tivity for the enjoyment inherent in the activity itself (intrinsic moti­
vation), or when behaviors are enacted for an instrumental reason
(extrinsic motivation). Intrinsic motivation is related to the three basic
psychological needs of competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Another
important distinction, within SDT, is the degree of self-determination, i.
e. whether the motivation is autonomously driven compared to whether
it is controlled (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
An interesting and relevant empirical setting to investigate the
implementation and compliance of SWEM, but also employees’ attitudes
to OSH improvements, is the Swedish equine sector. This is based on the
fact that work environment issues are a major concern for the sector
since it is stressful and demanding (Kim, Lee & Hwang, 2019) and labor-
intensive (Bergman Bruhn, 2022; Löfqvist, 2012). The equine sector is
characterized by being highly traditional, and many work tasks are still
performed manually with old-fashioned tools and equipment leading to
high workloads and physical strain (Löfqvist, 2012). Furthermore,
working with and handling horses is a hazardous activity as horses are
large, powerful, and unpredictable animals (Thompson, McGreevy &
McManus, 2015). The Swedish equine sector has a relatively high
occupational injury rate, but there is a lack of reliable statistics. During
2016–2020, a total of 301 occupational injuries with sick leave were
reported by riding and trotting schools according to the Swedish Work
Environment Authority’s injury statistics (2012). In addition, studies
across countries have reported the equine sector as a high-risk work
environment (Chapman, Thomas & Thompson, 2020; Flunker, Clouser
& Swanberg, 2020; Leppälä; Kolstrup; Pinzke, Rautiainen, Saastamoi­
nen, & Särkijärvi, 2015). Despite the somewhat challenging working
conditions, employees consider their work both attractive (Bergman
Bruhn et al., 2020) and meaningful (Bergman Bruhn, 2022). A culture
based on military traditions (Thorell & Hedenborg, 2015), caring norms
(Bergman Bruhn 2022), and acceptance of injury risks during horse in­
teractions (Lindahl et al., 2022) exist in the sector. The attitudes to work
and the occupational culture have proven to be obstacles to OSH
improvement initiatives (Bergman Bruhn, 2022; Lindahl et al., 2022).
Overall, the Swedish Work Environment Authority (2018) has high­
lighted failures in systematic OSH management within the Swedish
equine sector. Thus, in order to create safe and healthy working con­
ditions in horse-related professions, more research is needed (Bergman
Bruhn, 2022; Kim et al., 2019; Lindahl et al., 2022).
Based on this background the overall purpose of this study was to
2
Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035
gain an increased understanding of how systematic OSH management is
performed and which factors influence motivation for OSH improve­
ments. The study focused on the employee perspective within the setting
of the Swedish equine sector. The study aimed to answer the following
questions: How is the implementation of SWEM assessed by managers
and described by employees? How is the motivation for OSH improve­
ments assessed and described by employees? Is there any correlation
between the implementation of SWEM and employee motivation for
OSH improvements?
2. Material and methods
2.1. Research design
An explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano
Clark, 2018) was used in the study. Initially, quantitative data were
collected and analyzed to gain an understanding of how the Swedish
regulations of systematic work environment management (SWEM) was
implemented at the workplace from a managerial perspective (Part I),
and how employees assess their motivation for OSH improvements (Part
II). To obtain a deeper understanding and explanation of the results,
qualitative data were collected and analyzed through interviews with
employees (Part III). The results were then summarized and interpreted.
A summary of the design, data collection, perspective, sample size, and
methods of analysis for the three parts is presented in Table 1.
The included workplaces were chosen through a combination of
purposive and convenience sampling, based on geographical location
and willingness to participate in the study. Both the data collection and
analysis followed the ethical guidelines of the Swedish Research
Council.
2.2. The setting and study participants
This study is part of two joint projects with the overall aim of
improving the work environment and safety in the Swedish equine
sector. The Swedish equine sector is complex and multifaceted, covering
many different types of activities all with their own culture and identity,
e.g. sports and games as well as leisure, recreation, and therapy
(Löfqvist, 2012). Two widely disparate pictures of the nature of equine
activities are visible in the literature and societal debate. Firstly, as an
activity mostly performed by girls and young women who ride and are
interested in horses, often at riding schools; and, secondly, as a sport
practiced by professional people, with a larger proportion of men
compared to riding schools, e.g. within trotting racing. While riding
schools are often run as non-profit associations, trotting racing is pri­
marily driven by small-scale enterprises (here: trotting stables). The
manual work with the horses such as mucking out, sweeping, and
replacing bedding as well as the feeding and caring of both the horses
and their equipment is, however, similar for both riding schools and
trotting stables. The differences between riding schools and trotting
Table 1
A summary of the design, data collection, perspectives, sample sizes, and
methods of analysis for the three parts of the study.
Part I Part II Part III
Design Quantitative Quantitative Qualitative
Data SWEM Motivation questionnaire** Semi-
collection questionnaire* structured
interviews
Perspective Employer Employee Employee
Sample size N = 12 N = 66 N = 47
Methods of Descriptive Descriptive statistics, t-test, Thematic
analysis statistics Mann-Whitney U test, and analysis
Spearman’s rho.
*
Systematic work environment management questionnaire;
**
Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaire.
Bergman Bruhn et al. Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035

stables regarding culture, organizational structure, and forms of level of the organization sets goals and works systematically with work
ownership justify that both types of operations should be included in environment improvements. For each question, answers assigned using
order to attain a maximal variation sampling (Creswell & Plano Clarke, a Likert scale with six scale steps from “Not at all” (1) to “Completely”
2018). (6). The questionnaire also contained background questions regarding
For this study, data were collected from managers and employees at gender, age, managerial responsibility, and length of employment.
12 workplaces, six riding schools and six trotting stables, located in Another background question, designed as a statement, concerned the
Sweden. The riding schools had between four and 15 employees, while general opinion of the work. That statement was measured using a 6-
the trotting stables had between three and eight employees. The extent point Likert scale from 1 (“This is a job like all others. You do what
of employment, full or part-time, differs between the different work­ you are supposed to do, but the only thing that matters is the salary”) to
places. The facilities ranged from old ones with a lack of mechanization 6 (”There is something special with this job. Except the salary, it gives
to relatively new ones with some mechanization. Background charac­ me a feeling of personal satisfaction“).
teristics of the respondents in the study, i.e. those who answered a The qualitative part was based on data collected between February
questionnaire or participated in an interview, are summarized in 2019 and May 2021 through 47 individual interviews with employees at
Table 2. nine of the included workplaces (Table 2). Semi-structured interviews
were conducted using an interview guide including the topics (1)
perception of OSH management, (2) perception of prevention strategies
2.3. Data collection and participation, and (3) perception of motivation for OSH improve­
ments. The employees were encouraged to “tell their stories”, starting
The responsible manager at each workplace was initially asked to from their first interest and activity related to horses and the equine
answer a self-assessment questionnaire regarding systematic OSH sector to their current situation, as well as their ideas and thoughts about
management at their workplace. A total of 11 managers responded to the the future to gain an understanding of their overall experiences. The
questionnaire (Table 2). The Systematic work environment management duration of the interviews varied from 11 to 73 min with an average of
questionnaire (SWEM questionnaire) was provided by the Swedish Work 36 min. The interviews were performed with visual contact, either at a
Environment Authority and consists of 14 statements based on the physical meeting at the workplace (27 interviews) or digitally using
Swedish provisions and general recommendations on systematic work Microsoft Teams software with cameras activated due to the COVID-19
environment management (AFS 2001:1). The results from the ques­ restrictions (20 interviews). Two researchers were present during the
tionnaire are intended to be used as internal support and form a dis­ interviews, where one was responsible for guiding the interview and one
cussion basis for OSH improvements. An English translation of the 14 was responsible for taking notes. All except one interview were digitally
statements is presented in Appendix 1. For each statement, the respon­ recorded, and the transcripts were completed afterward using the re­
dent was asked to rate the level of agreement according to a 6-point cordings. All the interviewees had the opportunity to receive the inter­
Likert scale ranging from “Strongly disagree” (1) to “Strongly agree” view transcripts to verify the content which the majority took; two
(6). In connection with the first visit to the workplaces, all permanent employees made additions to the content.
staff was asked to individually complete the questionnaire Motivation
for work environment improvements (Hedlund, Åteg, Andersson & 2.4. Data analysis
Rosén, 2010). The questionnaire, which has been tested for validity and
reliability (Hedlund et al., 2010), can be a useful tool to measure both The SWEM questionnaire results, both for the whole survey and for
OSH management and improvements (Hedlund et al., 2016). The each question individually, were re-calculated as mean values for the
Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaire consists included workplaces as well as for riding schools and trotting stables
of 26 questions, divided into three key factors for motivation: Perception separately. These data were considered too limited for statistical com­
of safety behavior (Factor 1), Intrinsic safety motivation (Factor 2), and parison between type of operation to be meaningful. Data obtained from
Perception of safety goal setting (Factor 3). Perception of safety the Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaire were
behavior involves perceptions of participation, compliance, and lead­ analyzed by calculating a mean value for each participant both for the
ership regarding OSH improvements. Intrinsic safety motivation refers entire questionnaire and for each factor separately. Each respondent’s
to the importance of OSH improvements and a good work environment, mean value then formed the basis for the calculation of the mean values
and Perception of safety goal setting, is about the perception of which for the entire workplace. A t-test (2-tailed) was used to analyze differ­
ences in the mean values within the variables ‘type of operation’ (em­
Table 2 ployees at riding schools and trotting stables), ‘gender’ (females and
Background characteristics of respondents in the study. males), ‘age’ (20–35 years old and ≥ 36 years old), and ‘work experi­
SWEM* Motivation** Interviews ence’ (0–5 years and ≥ 6 years). As the distribution was skewed for the
(N = (N = 66) (N = 47) variables ‘employees at riding schools and trotting stables’ and ‘age’, the
11***) comparison was also conducted using a non-parametric test (Mann-
Age (years) Median 35 33 33 Whitney U test) (Hinton, Brownlaw, MacMurray & Cozens, 2004). Since
Max 58 65 60 the results from the parametric and the non-parametric tests were equal,
Min 28 20 20 only the results from the t-test will be presented here. The correlations
Gender (no. and percent of Female 6 (55 51 (77 %) 40 (85 %)
between the outcomes of the SWEM questionnaire and the Motivation
respondents) Male %) 15 (23 %) 7 (15 %)
5 (45 questionnaire, i.e. between the mean values for each workplace, were
%) conducted using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient based on the
Work experience (years) Mean 15 9 12 low number of respondents to the SWEM questionnaire (Hinton et al.,
Max 30 41 40 2004). The significance level was set at p < 0.05 and the analysis was
Min 6 1 1
Type of operation (no. and Riding 6 (55 36 (55 %) 30 (64 %)
performed in the software package SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version
percent of respondents) school %) 30 (45 %) 17 (36 %) 28.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).
Trotting 5 (45 The qualitative data were analyzed through a thematic analysis
stable %) inspired by the recommendations of Braun and Clarke (2006). Due to the
*
Systematic work environment management questionnaire; explanatory sequential mixed methods design (Creswell & Plano Clark,
**
Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaire; 2018), an abductive (Karlsson & Bergman, 2017) and semantic (Braun &
***
One missing data. Clarke, 2006) approach was used. The process began with the

3
Bergman Bruhn et al. Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035

researchers reading the transcribed texts several times in a careful SWEM was implemented to a lesser extent in the trotting stables than in
manner to obtain an overview of the content and to create a summary of the riding schools.
each interview based on the purpose of the study. The text units were The employees’ experience of systematic OSH management was
initially analyzed with an open coding process (Miles & Huberman, largely in line with the managers’ assessments of SWEM. The interviews
1994). The codes were then sorted into potential themes and subthemes, also confirmed the differences between riding schools and trotting sta­
and all the relevant coded data extracts were collated within the iden­ bles found in the questionnaire analysis, as well as the differences be­
tified themes. The notes were helpful in both the processing of the text tween the included riding schools. Overall, employees seemed to have a
and structuring ideas as well as differentiating and defining potential vague idea of the concept of OSH management, although they generally
themes and subthemes. Finally, the themes were reviewed, refined, and had poor knowledge of which activities were included in SWEM at their
named. Two people in parallel conducted the analysis of the themes in workplace. Furthermore, the employees had difficulties identifying their
order to increase the reliability of the results. responsibilities and contributions to OSH improvements and the sys­
tematic OSH management was, according to the employees, primarily
3. Results for someone else’s safety (i.e. the horses or the pupils) and mainly the
managers’ responsibility.
The findings are presented in three sections: Implementation of a The differences regarding the implementation of SWEM between
systematic OSH management, Motivation for OSH improvements, and riding schools and trotting stables clearly apply to investigation and risk
Determinant motivational factors for OSH improvements. Although assessment, measures and action plans, as well as the follow-up of sys­
separated for the sake of presentation, the content of the themes is tematic work environment management which also emerged during the
intertwined and interrelated. The interviews were conducted in Swedish interviews. Activities such as investigations, assessments, and measures,
with the quotes being translated into English by the researchers. The which are directly related to risks and safety issues in the environment,
results from the questionnaires and interviews are integrated under the seemed to be better known by the riding school employees. For example,
respective subsections, where similarities and differences are high­ most of the employees knew that risk assessments were carried out and
lighted when applicable. that accidents were reported and followed up. They were also aware of
routines for the work environment management. It is noteworthy that
the trotting stable managers assessed the employees’ knowledge
3.1. Implementation of a systematic OSH management regarding instructions for work which is associated with serious risks as
low. This might be related to the fact that most trotting stable employees
The mean values of the statements in the SWEM questionnaire are testified that they had never talked about safety with their manager;
presented in Table 3. According to the managers’ assessments, the re­ neither had the manager raised these issues to any great extent. The
sults show that SWEM was to some extent implemented in the work­ employees instead took a lot of responsibility for their own safety based
places. SWEM was not fully implemented in any of the workplaces, and on their knowledge and previous experience.
there were some differences between the workplaces (see Table 3). Most participants experienced a lack of information mainly
There were also differences between the two types of operations, as regarding routines and instructions on how they should work to avoid
ill-health, accidents, and incidents, and shortcomings in terms of
Table 3 structure and routines for participation in the systematic OSH man­
Mean scores of the Systematic work environment management questionnaire for agement. In addition, several of the employees testified about challenges
all managers together and for managers at riding schools and trotting stables regarding compliance and follow-up with SWEM partly due to ignorance
separately. and lack of interest and knowledge, but also lack of goals and limitations
Assessment of All managers Managers at Managers at in resources.
(N = 11) riding schools trotting stables Although several of the riding schools had a relatively well-
(N = 6) (N = 5)
implemented SWEM according to the managers’ assessment, there
1 Cooperation 3.7 4.0 (1–6) 3.4 (3–4) were always areas in need of development according to the employee
2 Work environment 4.5 5.0 (4–6) 3.8 (3–5) interviews. For example, even though the workplaces had regular staff
policy
meetings, work environment issues and practices were not on the
3 Routines 3.9 4.3 (2–6) 3.4 (2–4)
4 Task allocation 3.9 3.8 (2–6) 4.0 (3–5) agenda. While routines for the daily work existed, they were commonly
5 Task allocation and 4.4 4.7 (3–6) 4.0 (3–5) not written down or known by all employees. Even though SWEM was
knowledge not implemented to a great extent in the trotting stables, certain
6 Employee knowledge 4.5 4.7 (4–6) 4.2 (4–5)
important factors for a functioning systematic OSH management
(about risks)
7 Employee knowledge 3.9 4.2 (3–5) 3.6 (3–4) emerged. For example, the employees met almost daily, and the man­
(introduction) ager was present and participated in the daily work, both of which to
8 Employee knowledge 3.7 5.0 (5–6) 2.2 (1–3) some extent could compensate for the lack of formal meetings.
(instructions)
9 Examination and risk 3.9 5.2 (3–6) 2.4 (1–4)
assessment
3.2. Motivation for work environment improvements
10 Investigation of ill 4.8 5.3 (3–6) 4.2 (2–6)
health, accidents, Overall, the results indicate that employees within the Swedish
incidents equine sector are to some extent motivated to work environment im­
11 Measures and action 3.4 4.2 (3–5) 2.4 (1–4)
provements (mean 4.2 on a 6-point scale). The results imply that while
plans
12 Follow-up 4.3 4.5 (3–6) 4.0 (2–5) the intrinsic motivation for work environment improvements was
13 Annual follow-up 3.7 5.2 (3–6) 2.2 (1–3) assessed as quite high (mean 4.8), participation in safety behavior and
14 Occupational Health 3.7 4.3 (2–6) 3.0 (1–5) perception of goal setting was estimated lower (mean 4.1 and 3.8
Services respectively). In addition, the average opinion of work for the entire
respondent group was 5.4 on a 6-point scale, which means that most of
Mean 4.0 4.6 3.3 the respondents perceived their work as something special and, apart
Notes: The range between the lowest and the highest values within the respec­ from the salary, it gives them personal satisfaction. However, differences
tive operation is presented in parentheses. The three activities with the greatest emerged between how the two operations considered their motivation
difference between riding schools and trotting stables in bold. for the work environment improvements. The t-test results for

4
Bergman Bruhn et al. Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035

differences in mean score for the entire Motivation for work environ­ Table 5
ment improvements questionnaire as well as within the variables type of The Correlation matrix reports the outcomes from the Systematic work envi­
operation, gender, age, and work experience are presented in Table 4. ronment management questionnaire (SWEM) and the Motivation for work
The results showed significant differences within the variable ‘type of environment improvements questionnaire (Motivation).
operation’, where riding school employees scored a higher motivation Motivation Participation in Intrinsic Perception of
for work environment improvements than trotting stable employees. safety behavior safety safety goal
motivation setting
This applied to the motivation questionnaire as a whole (p = 0.007) and
to the factor “Intrinsic safety motivation”, specifically (p < 0.001). No SWEM rs 0.51 0.48 0.71 0.41
significant differences were found within the background variables P 0.109 0.132 0.014* 0.208

‘gender’, ‘age’, and ‘work experience’. *

p < 0.05.
The Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient showed positive re­
lationships between the outcomes of the SWEM questionnaire and emerged during the thematic analysis process are presented in Table 6.
Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaires (rs Furthermore, the themes seemed to be crucial for the motivation of OSH
0.41–0.71), and the correlation was significant between the outcome of improvements from an employee perspective.
the SWEM questionnaire and the factor Intrinsic safety motivation (p < Intrinsic motivation emerged as one of the most determining moti­
0.05), see Table 5. The results indicate that a well-functioning system­ vating factors for OSH improvements during the interviews, which may
atic OSH management correlates strongly with high employee motiva­ explain why Factor 2, intrinsic safety motivation, received the highest
tion for work environment improvements. average value on the Motivation for work environment improvements
Four themes emerged from the interviews with the employees: questionnaire for both operations. To promote intrinsic motivation, it
intrinsic motivation, motivational management, occupational culture, was considered important that the motivators’ attitudes and values, and
and workplace resources, which can help to gain an in-depth under­ influence were satisfied. The basic prerequisite for motivation and
standing of the results from the Motivation for work environment im­ willingness to participate in work environment improvements was, ac­
provements questionnaire. The themes and the related subthemes that cording to the interviewees, an identified need for improvement and
that the improvement was perceived as significant and valuable to the
employees. The employees work in the sector because of their interest in
Table 4 animals and love of horses, and most of the participants stated that both
Results of t-test analysis for the entire Motivation for work environment im­ people and horses should have a safe and secure environment for the
provements questionnaire and for the three factors separately between the benefit of the latter. However, the importance of identified needs can
variables type of operation, gender, age, and work experiences.
clearly be seen within Factor 1, Participation in safety behavior, in the
Total Participation Intrinsic Perception Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaire, and
in safety safety of safety
especially in the following question: “To what degree would you say that
behavior motivation goal setting
the work environment needs improvement?”. Furthermore, riding school
Type of Riding schools (Dataset 1)—Trotting stables (Dataset 2) employees estimated the need for work environment improvements
operation
Dataset 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
much higher than trotting stable employees which may partly explain
the significant differences in mean scores between the two operations for
Sample size 36 30 36 30 36 30 36 30
the entire Motivation for work environment improvements question­
Mean value 4.45 3.92 4.21 3.89 5.16 4.33 3.98 3.55
Std. Deviation 0.68 0.86 0.89 0.84 0.70 1.01 1.10 1.15 naire. Even during the interviews, it emerged that riding school em­
t 2.764 1.484 3.814 1.526 ployees identified a greater need to improve their work environment
p 0.007* 0.143 <0.001** 0.132 than trotting stable employees, both to be able to work an entire pro­
fessional life without becoming ill or injured, and also to be able to re­
Gender Females (Dataset 1)—Males (Dataset 2) cruit and retain colleagues. This may be an explanation for the large and
Dataset 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 significant differences between the two operations regarding intrinsic
Sample size 51 15 51 15 51 15 51 15
safety motivation (Factor 2).
Mean value 4.23 4.15 4.10 3.95 4.87 4.48 3.72 4.01
Std. Deviation 0.83 0.76 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.99 1.16 1.04 To maintain intrinsic motivation for OSH improvements, the em­
t 0.344 0.561 1.142 − 0.884 ployees expressed the necessity to not only be able to influence the
p 0.732 0.577 0.160 0.380

Age 20–35 Years Old (Dataset 1)—≥36 Years Old (Dataset 2) Table 6
Dataset 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 Themes and subthemes identified in qualitative analysis of data obtained in
Sample size 36 30 36 30 36 30 36 30 interviews with employees.
Mean value 4.04 4.41 3.97 4.18 4.61 4.98 3.55 4.07
Std. Deviation 0.91 0.62 0.90 0.84 1.10 0.68 1.24 0.94 Themes Subthemes
t − 1.878 − 0.976 − 1.689 − 1.874
Intrinsic motivation Attitudes and values
p 0.065 0.333 0.096 0.065
Influence

Work 0–5 Years of Work Experience (Dataset 1)—≥6 Years of Work

Motivational management Clarity
experience Experience (Dataset 2)
Feedback
Dataset 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2
Participation
Sample size 41 25 41 25 41 25 41 25
Management structure
Mean value 4.20 4.23 4.07 4.05 4.72 4.88 3.80 3.77
Std. Deviation 0.89 0.66 0.93 0.79 1.01 0.84 1.26 0.92
t − 0.183 0.119 − 0.667 0.093 Occupational Culture Competence
p 0.855 0.905 0.507 0.926 Assumptions

Notes: The number indicates the prerequisites for motivation to work environ­
ment improvements: the higher the number, the more important or well- Workplace resources Personal
functioning the motivating factor is. Time
* Money
p < 0.05;
** Facilities and equipment
p < 0.001.

5
Bergman Bruhn et al.
planning and performance of the daily work but also to be involved in
the implementation of both systematic OSH management and OSH im­
provements. Most of the employees felt that they were involved in the
planning and implementation of the daily work, while several em­
ployees, mainly in trotting stables, testified to a lack of both influence
and involvement in terms of OSH improvements. Lack of information
and communication emerged as obstacles to both influence and
involvement for both respondent groups. Trotting stable employees also
mentioned the lack of formal meetings as a hindering factor. Several of
the employees specifically mentioned that lack of inclusion lead to a
feeling of exclusion, which meant that they had neither the opportunity
nor the motivation to participate in work environment improvements.
Even if the riding schools to a greater extent had formal meetings, not all
employees were allowed to participate which can be illustrated by the
following quotation:
“I do not attend staff meetings that we have had every other week because
stable staff do not attend. It’s about being part of the group and being
involved. Not all questions concern me personally, but they are questions
related to what you are involved in. It is about including every-one in the
workplace. To feel that you are worth just as much. But it feels like I’m not
that important”.
The importance of inclusion and involvement can partly contribute
to the understanding of the significant difference between the two
groups in terms of Intrinsic safety motivation in the Motivation for work
environment improvements questionnaire.
Motivational management appeared to be an important prerequisite
for motivation for OSH improvements according to both the Motivation
for work environment improvements questionnaire and the interviews.
Questions specifically about leadership are found in Factor 1, Partici­
pation in safety behavior, in the Motivation questionnaire. Indirectly,
leadership also has a major impact on intrinsic motivation (Factor 2),
and goal setting (Factor 3). Significant factors, which according to the
participants affect the motivation for OSH improvements, seem to be
clarity, feedback, and participation. The employees stressed that clarity
applied to goals, instructions, and expectations, as well as feedback on
the work performed. On the other hand, unclear management leads to a
lack of motivation to make work environment improvements. The re­
sults from the interviews indicate that there was a certain difference
between the riding school management and that of the trotting stables.
Several trotting stable employees experienced the leadership as insuf­
ficient both in terms of expectations and feedback, which the following
quote can illustrate: “I wish he [the manager]… could give feedback on how
he wants things to be done to make it better. I can take it…. Sometimes you
have to be a boss and not just a friend”. Nevertheless, participation was
mentioned as one of the most important motivational factors for OSH
improvements. A manager who delegates various tasks creates
commitment and participation among the employees, which the
following quote may exemplify: “She [the manager] delegates different
areas of responsibility and works to make all employees involved, it feels like
we run the company together”. Also, in terms of participation, a difference
emerged between the participants’ experiences; several riding school
employees testified that they were involved in OSH improvements while
many trotting stable employees experienced a lack of systematic OSH
management in general. These results are in accordance with the ex­
periences regarding influence and involvement above, and the differ­
ences between the operations may partly explain the differences in the
Motivation for work environment improvements questionnaire, both for
Factors 1 and 3 directly, and Factor 2 indirectly.
Moreover, the employees testified about challenges regarding man­
agement structures, which made systematic OSH management more
difficult in general and reduced the motivation for OSH improvements.
Many of the trotting stable employees mentioned that the business was
relatively new and perceived that the manager lacked managerial
experience. Riding school employees, on the other hand, specifically
mentioned major challenges regarding management within non-profit
6
Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035
associations; for example, the chairman is replaced every-two years
and a board that does not have the same goal and plan for the operation
as the manager and the employees.
The occupational culture was an additional theme that emerged dur­
ing the interviews and was identified as being linked to motivation for
OSH improvements from an employee perspective. The theme included
the subthemes of competence and assumptions. The interview results
linked to this theme cannot directly improve the understanding of any
factor in the Motivation questionnaire, as the concept of culture was not
mentioned in the questionnaire. However, occupational culture can
indirectly influence both intrinsic safety motivation (Factor 2), and
participation in safety behavior (Factor 1). The participants had
different educational backgrounds, but similar practical experiences.
That specific and unique type of competence came from a genuine in­
terest in horses and their welfare as well as years of practical experience
in the equine sector. Common working methods foster a sense of
belonging and understanding between the employees, which are seen as
a prerequisite for being able to participate in OSH improvements. The
working methods in the sector are based on a tradition of working
manually with old-fashioned tools and inadequate equipment, which is
fostered at an early age. This type of fostering results in employees
continuing to work in the way they have always done which this quote
can illustrate: “You are so used to it because you have been working with
horses since you were little, so you think nothing is difficult, it is just like that.
I’ve had it this way all my life”. In addition, several of the employees
testified that the norms in the sector promoted an attitude that you
should work hard and not complain. This norm, or tradition, was
expressed in the following ways during the interviews: “If you work hard
then you are seen as a good employee”, “You just carry out and do not stop to
reflect”, and “A groom doesn’t hit the wall, they go through it and continue
no matter what”. The shared values and goals, i.e. to prioritize the horses’
health and well-being before their own, together with traditions and
norms within the sector promote an acceptance of the prevailing
working conditions, which can be illustrated by this quote from a riding
school employee:
“I have learned to work in the environment and I am used to that envi­
ronment, but of course, it could be made safer… So you are stuck in old
routines although you could easily keep up with the new that is coming”.
According to the participants, however, the traditions and norms in
the sector, as well as the attitude that “hard work pays off” seem to be
changing. The new generation of employees is not prepared to work
under these conditions just to have the opportunity to work with their
hobby and interest. To be able to recruit and retain new employees,
several employees believed that the sector must improve the work
environment and offer decent working conditions.
Another recurrent theme that emerged during the interviews was
workplace resources, which can provide an improved understanding of
Factor 1 in the Motivation questionnaire, participation in safety
behavior. When it comes to resources, the employees mainly mentioned
personnel, time, money, facilities, and equipment. These factors can
have both positive and negative effects on the motivation for OSH im­
provements. However, several participants, mainly at the trotting sta­
bles, mentioned staff shortages and lack of time as hindering factors for
motivation for OSH improvements. Lack of sufficient resources (i.e. time
and money) to change the work environment was also low in the
Motivation questionnaire even if the differences between the operations
were not so great. Most of the participants, both at the riding schools and
trotting stables, testified that the work is physically demanding and
performed at a high work rate, often under time constraints, which
means that there is neither time nor energy to work with workplace
improvements. In addition, finances govern work environment man­
agement to a large extent and every improvement must be related to all
other costs and prioritized accordingly. Both riding schools, i.e. non-
profit associations, and trotting stable, i.e. small businesses, have com­
mon financial challenges in terms of income uncertainty and difficulties
Bergman Bruhn et al.
in making long-term plans. A riding school employee described the
difficulty of conducting long-term OSH improvements when time and
money are lacking as follows:
“We have worked continuously with the work environment… but every­
thing is a matter of cost and time. It’s difficult because we’re so tightly
controlled. Everything costs money. Even the purely physical things… if
there is no money you cannot do anything”.
Most of the employees also testified that they worked in old facilities
with a lack of mechanization. Although some workplaces had newer
facilities which were partly mechanized, there were challenges and
problems regarding the equipment used in the daily work. Old and
outdated facilities can have a negative effect on work environment im­
provements while new construction and renovations can affect the
motivation for work environment improvements in a more beneficial
way, which the following quote from a riding school employee can
illustrate:
“It is good when we build something new, we can think in a different way
and make improvements. We try to think about how we can make the
work quicker or easier, to get rid of or facilitate a step”.
3.3. Determinant motivational factors for work environment
improvements
Based on the integration and interpretation of the results from the
SWEM and Motivation questionnaires and from the interviews, an
increased understanding of factors which affect employees’ motivation
for OSH improvements has emerged. Intrinsic motivators such as atti­
tudes, values, and influence, as well as occupational climate and culture,
which can be seen as both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators, to a large
degree affect the motivation for OSH improvements. In addition,
external motivators such as management and resources also influence
the motivation for improvements in the work environment by creating
directions and conditions. Therefore, both intrinsic and extrinsic moti­
vators influence participation in OSH improvements and compliance in
systematic OSH management which in turn affect the outcomes
regarding workplace safety and health. The summarized results from the
different methods, i.e. a combined display of the findings, are presented
in Fig. 1.
4. Discussion
This paper adopts a mixed-method approach to increase the under­
standing of which factors influence motivation for OSH improvements
from an employee perspective within the Swedish equine sector. How­
ever, to attain an increased understanding of the determinant motiva­
tional factors for OSH improvements, it was first necessary to gain an
understanding of how the Swedish regulations, SWEM, were imple­
mented at the included workplaces. This study, therefore, also
Motivational factors
Attitudes and values
Influence
Motivation for OSH
Culture
improvements
Management
Resources
Fig. 1. Summary of the results regarding determinant motivational factors for work environment improvements (developed from Hedlund et al., 2010; Hedlund
et al., 2016).
7
Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035
contributes to the existing OSH literature by adding knowledge about
systematic OSH management in SSEs and non-profit associations in
general and in the Swedish equine sector in particular.
This study showed that the Swedish regulation SWEM was neither
fully implemented nor fully functional within the included workplaces,
with differences between the workplaces being visible, and that the
employees’ descriptions of the systematic OSH management system
differed from the managers’ assessment. Overall, SWEM was to a greater
extent implemented and integrated into the daily work at the riding
schools than at the trotting stables. The shortcomings in systematic OSH
management, both from a managerial and employee perspective, were
most evident in the following activities: cooperation, knowledge,
investigation, measures and action plans, and follow-up which is in line
with previous research from other branches and sectors (Andersson,
Gunnarsson, Hedlund & Rosén, 2016; Frick 2014). The systematic
aspect of OSH management, i.e. to follow a plan in an orderly and
structured way and follow up the measures regularly, was lacking for the
included workplaces. This suggests that a reactive approach appeared to
be more common in the workplaces rather than a more promotional or
preventive approach (Frick, 2014; Lindahl et al., 2022; Rydell &
Andersson, 2019; Rydell, Andersson, Bernsand & Rosén, 2019). Lack of
follow-up leads to ignorance regarding the long-term effects of the
measures which can negatively affect both employee health and safety
as well as motivation for OSH improvements.
Moreover, the study also showed that an implemented SWEM does
not automatically lead to functioning systematic OSH management. In
other words, while the workplaces may fulfil many of the activities
which the regulation prescribes, if they are not known and used by
employees and managers, they do not achieve any function and have no
long-term effect. Furthermore, the results from the study showed a
strong and significant correlation between an implemented SWEM and
employee motivation for work environment improvements. However,
the results cannot clearly demonstrate the causal relationship, i.e. if an
implemented SWEM leads to motivation among the employees or if a
high motivation among the employees leads to SWEM being imple­
mented. A possible explanation may be that the content the Swedish
regulation SWEM prescribes, i.e. the included activities, is based on
participation and involvement (i.e. cooperation) which would indicate
that an implemented and functioning SWEM is an important starting
point for creating motivation for OSH improvements among employees.
On the other hand, long-term well-functioning systematic OSH man­
agement requires employee participation and compliance. Regardless,
well-implemented and well-functioning systematic OSH management is
of value to both employers and employees. To create and maintain safe
and healthy workplaces, it seems important to identify and consider
factors that facilitate both employee compliance in systematic OSH
management and participation in OSH improvements.
The integrated and interpreted results showed that the employees
were generally quite motivated to work environment improvements,
although differences between employees at riding schools and trotting
Behavior Outcome
Participation in OSH
improvements
Safe and healthy
workplace
Compliance in
systematic OSH
management
Bergman Bruhn et al.
stables appeared. Determinant motivational factors for compliance with
systematic OSH management and participation in OSH improvements
seem to be motivational management based on employee involvement
and feedback, a permissive occupational culture, and sufficient work­
place resources. These contextual factors should be seen as basic pre­
conditions for systematic OSH management and OSH improvements.
However, the most prominent factor seems to be at the individual level
in the form of intrinsic motivation, which emerged both in the survey
results and during the interviews.
4.1. Intrinsic motivation
The results from this study indicate that employees in the Swedish
equine sector see their work as something special, which gives them
personal satisfaction. This can be interpreted as the work being
perceived as meaningful and motivating in itself (Deci & Ryan, 1985). In
addition, and in line with the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), the results show
that both intrinsic motivation (based on interest) and extrinsic motiva­
tion (based on importance) are important to consider when it comes to
motivation for systematic OSH management. However, factors such as
attitudes, values, and involvement, i.e. intrinsic motivation, seem to be
more important for participation in OSH improvements. There was a
clear and significant difference between how riding school and trotting
stable employees estimated their motivation for OSH improvements;
riding school employees valued their motivation higher than trotting
stables employees. The most important factors in terms of motivation for
OSH improvements are that the employees have identified a need for
improvements and that the need was perceived as significant and
valuable, i.e. meaningful (Pratt & Ashforth, 2003). The fact that em­
ployees already found their work attractive (Bergman Bruhn et al.,
2020) and meaningful (Bergman Bruhn, 2022) may negatively affect the
motivation for OSH improvements and partly explain the difference
between the two operations. However, the employees’ intrinsic moti­
vation cannot fully explain the results; differences in leadership and
resources also emerged as contributing factors.
In accordance with the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985), intrinsic motiva­
tion can increase by promoting three basic psychological needs:
competence, relatedness, and autonomy. These basic human needs were
also visible in the results as presumptions for motivation for OSH im­
provements; mainly in the occupational culture theme when the em­
ployees talked about the importance of knowledge and experience, i.e.
competence, and the importance of a sense of belonging, i.e. relatedness.
However, the basic need for autonomy, which involves acting with a
sense of volition and having the experience of choice, did not emerge so
clearly in this study. A challenge regarding autonomy is that the moti­
vation for OSH improvements is based on individual wishes and needs,
while systematic OSH management is based on the needs of the work­
group and the organization. Therefore, the activities in systematic OSH
management and the initiatives for OSH improvements are not
completely under the control of any individual employee. In addition,
the SWEM regulations prescribe the activities to be included in sys­
tematic OSH management which also reduces the individual employee’s
control over what is to be improved and in what way it should be
implemented. Furthermore, current legislation has a clear focus on risk
assessment. Changing work methods to a more promotive approach, i.e.
also examining and assessing health factors should increase employees’
motivation for OSH improvements. Overall, lack of autonomy may be an
explanation for the somewhat reduced motivation for OSH improve­
ments within the two studied groups.
However, when people engage in an activity because they find it
interesting, they are doing the activity wholly volitionally, i.e. autono­
mous motivation, which means that the employees engage in OSH im­
provements because they find it interesting and necessary. If they do not
find it interesting and necessary, some form of controlled motivation is
needed, e.g. when the employees need to see that systematic OSH
management and OSH improvements have a positive effect on the work
8
Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035
environment and working conditions. Intrinsic motivation should
therefore be seen as a form of autonomous motivation. A task which is
perceived as necessary, important, and meaningful can be defined as
self-determined and satisfy the need for autonomy (Gagné & Deci,
2005). The results from this study suggest that autonomous forms of
motivation are far more important in promoting positive workplace
outcomes than more controlled forms, which is in line with other
scholars (e.g. Howard, Gagné, Morin & Van den Broeck, 2016; Kuvaas,
Buch, Weibel, Dysvik & Nerstad, 2017).
4.2. Contextual factors
The results from both the questionnaires and the interviews showed
that the management varied greatly between the different workplaces
related to OSH issues and practices. These results are important to
consider when the work environment is to be improved as a robust body
of literature has shown that management plays an important, and
partially decisive, role in creating safe and healthy workplaces (Eriks­
son, Orvik, Strandmark, Nordsteien & Torp, 2017; Macke & Genari
2019; Nielsen et al. 2017; Wallo & Lundqvist, 2020), and affects moti­
vation and employee participation (Jiang & Probst, 2016). The results,
mainly from the trotting stables, are in line with previous research,
especially that conducted at SSEs, which has also shown that employers
often have insufficient motives and limited interest in conducting sys­
tematic OSH management (Vinberg 2020) and limited competence in
OHS management (Hasle, Kvorning, Rasmussen, Smith & Flyvholm,
2012; Landstedt, Hedlund & Vinberg, 2017; Legg, Olsen, Laird & Hasle,
2015). The results are especially important when the availability of
external expert help regarding systematic OSH management is deficient
(Vinberg, Torsdatter Markussen & Landstad, 2017) and when the person
responsible for the OSH either is the owner with dual interests (Hasle &
Limborg, 2006) or a chairman of the board with limited interest,
knowledge, and experience in these issues.
Furthermore, the results, primarily from the qualitative analysis,
showed that many of the managers did not include and involve the
employees in systematic OSH management on a daily basis. Lack of
involvement means that employees neither want nor have the oppor­
tunity to participate in systematic OSH management. Employee partic­
ipation in systematic OSH management seems to be one effective
motivator for OSH improvements, which also has been seen in previous
research (Hedlund et al., 2016; Kuvaas et al., 2017; Nykänen et al.
2019). The main reason for engaging employees in continuous
improvement is the assumption that the people closest to the work
process are best suited to identify areas in need of improvement and,
consequently, implement action plans and follow-up the measures
(Ulhassan, Von Thiele Schwarz, Westerlund & Sandahl, 2015). The re­
sults, therefore, support the notion that employee participation in sys­
tematic OSH management and OSH improvements is crucial both for the
motivation and engagement of the employees but also for the outcomes
(Nielsen & Randall, 2012).
Safety culture has been identified as a key factor determining the
importance of workplace safety and health within an organization (Beus
et al., 2016; Vierendeels et al., 2018), which means that the occupa­
tional culture must be taken into account in both systematic OSH
management and when the work environment is to be improved. The
results from the interviews showed that an occupational culture based
on traditions and norms exists in the sector which seems to have nega­
tively affected employee attitudes toward OSH improvements. The
shared core values in the sector could even be seen as obstacles to OSH
improvements. The common attitudes, that the horses’ well-being is
prioritized before the employees’ safety and health and that the work
should be performed manually without complaints, must be changed to
increase motivation for OSH improvements. Negative aspects of a strong
occupational culture can, among other things, lead to challenges when
trying to break cultural patterns and implement change (Alvesson &
Sveningsson, 2015). Furthermore, the results, from the interviews,
Bergman Bruhn et al. Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035

indicate that the manager maintains and enhances the occupational
culture which affects or even prevents OSH improvements. The man­
agement has a direct impact on employee health and safety in the form
of the occupational culture and the organization of work by reproducing
the prevailing traditions and values. Previous research has shown that
this is particularly evident in organizations that are small to medium-
sized (MacEachen et al., 2010; Löfving, Säfsten, and Winroth, 2016).
Finally, the results, from both questionnaires as well as interviews,
clearly showed that a lack of resources could have a decisive impact on
compliance in systematic OSH management and participation in OSH
improvements which also have been identified in previous research
(Frick 2014; Vinberg, 2020).
4.3. Strengths and limitations
A mixed-method design was used in order to gain a more complete
understanding of the implementation of SWEM and motivation for OSH
improvements. The main advantage of the method is that it is compli­
mentary, i.e. it utilizes the strengths and partially eliminates the
weaknesses of each method, which strengthens the credibility of the
results (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018). For this study, the questionnaires
have been important in mapping out determining factors both for a well-
functioning systematic OSH management and motivation for work
environment improvements and to be able to compare the results with
other branches and sectors, while the interviews were valuable in
creating a deeper understanding of the results. In addition, the in­
terviews made it possible to identify occupational culture as an impor­
tant motivational factor for work environment improvements, as that
dimension was not included in the Motivation for work environment
questionnaire. However, the study should also be seen in the light of its
limitations. First, the results are based on empirical data from one spe­
cific occupational context, the Swedish equine sector, which raises the
question of its generalizability. Those working in the equine sector are
lifestyle-oriented implying that an employee’s interest and lifestyle
provide the foundations for their choice of occupation (Bergman Bruhn,
2022). Nevertheless, since earning a living from one’s leisure interest
and/or personal lifestyle can be seen in many occupations, the results
could be transferred to other contexts, professional settings, and occu­
pational groups. Moreover, since SSEs play a major role in economic
development in most countries, the results could be generalized to many
other workplaces. A minority of the participants in the study were male
which created a gender imbalance in the sample. However, in Sweden,
there is a predominance of females employed in the equine sector, thus
the distribution of this study’s participants reflects reality. The sample
represented a range of ages and work experiences, as well as workplaces
of various sizes, which is a strength (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2018).
5. Conclusions
This mixed-method study has contributed to the existing literature in
the field of OSH by presenting an increased understanding of factors that
influence motivation for OSH improvements from an employee
perspective and enhanced knowledge about systematic OSH manage­
ment in SSEs and non-profit associations. The Swedish equine sector is a
risk-filled, stressful, and labor-intensive sector which means that sys­
tematic OHS management is not only a legal obligation but also a very
important strategy to promote employee health and wellbeing. Creating
safe and healthy work environments is of value to both individuals and
organizations, regardless of profession and industry. Overall, this study
showed both that the Swedish regulation SWEM was not entirely
implemented, and that the systematic OSH management was not fully
functional within the included workplaces. The study also showed that
there was a significant correlation between an implemented and func­
tioning systematic OSH management/SWEM and a high degree of
employee motivation for OSH improvements. Furthermore, intrinsic
motivators, i.e. attitudes, values, and influence, as well as contextual
factors such as motivational management, occupational culture, and
workplace resources, emerged as determinant factors for both compli­
ance in systematic OSH management and participation in OSH im­
provements. Understanding the motivational factors for OSH
improvements from an employee perspective, i.e. to ensure participation
in OSH improvements and compliance in the systematic OSH manage­
ment appears to be an important step in the creation of safe and healthy
workplaces. A well-functioning systematic OSH management can
therefore be a useful tool to increase employee motivation.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Åsa Bergman Bruhn: Writing – original draft, Visualization, Meth­
odology, Investigation, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Cecilia
Lindahl: Writing – review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Inves­
tigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Ing-Marie Ander­
sson: Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Methodology,
Investigation, Funding acquisition, Conceptualization. Gunnar Rosén:
Writing – review & editing.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.

Appendix 1. The SWEM questionnaire is based on the Swedish provisions and general recommendations on systematic work
environment management (AFS 2001:1). A translation from Swedish to English is provided below.

Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

1 Cooperation: Within our organisation, employees and safety representatives have the possibility to regularly take part in work environment 1 2 3 4 5 6
management activities; and, they receive the information they need in order to be able to participate effectively.
2 Work Environment Policy: Within our organisation, there is a concrete work environment policy which describes how working relationships 1 2 3 4 5 6
should be in order to prevent ill health and accidents, as well as how to create a good work environment.
3 Routines: Within our organisation, there are set routines which describe when, how and by whom systematic work environment management 1 2 3 4 5 6
should be carried out.
4 Task Allocation: Within our organisation, the systematic work environment management tasks are distributed to one or more managers, team 1 2 3 4 5 6
leaders or other employees who also have the authority and resources to perform the allocated tasks.
5 Task Allocation and Knowledge: Within our organisation, those who are assigned systematic work environment management tasks have 1 2 3 4 5 6
sufficient knowledge for those tasks regarding regulations, potential risk areas within the work environment, and preventative measures to avert
ill health and accidents.
6 Employee Knowledge: Within our organisation, employees have knowledge about their work environment and its potential risks. Knowledge, 1 2 3 4 5 6
including routines and instructions for the prevention of ill health and accidents, is kept up-to-date to reflect any organisational/work changes.
(continued on next page)

9
Bergman Bruhn et al. Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035

(continued )
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree

7 Employee Knowledge: Within our organisation, newly-employed staff, or those returning to work after a period away, receive an introduction 1 2 3 4 5 6
which includes not only how the organisation functions but also systematic work environment management, potential risks and preventative
measures.
8 Employee Knowledge: Within our organisation, there are written, easily accessible, instructions so that potentially risky work can be carried out 1 2 3 4 5 6
without ill health and accidents.
9 Examination and Risk Assessment: Within our organisation, an examination and risk assessment of working conditions is carried out regularly to 1 2 3 4 5 6
identify potential risks for ill health or accidents and this assessment is documented in writing.
10 Investigation of ill health, accidents and incidents: Within our organisation, the causes of employee ill health, accidents or other serious incidents 1 2 3 4 5 6
are investigated so that preventative measures can be put in place.
11 Measures and Action Plans: Within our organisation, work environment measures considered necessary to prevent ill health and accidents and 1 2 3 4 5 6
which should be implemented in future are documented. Such action plans state when the measures will be implemented and who is responsible
for their implementation.
12 Follow-up: Within our organisation, there are checks to ensure that the implemented preventative measures have led to the expected results. 1 2 3 4 5 6
13 Annual Follow-up: Within our organisation, there is an annual follow-up of the systematic work environment management to ensure it is 1 2 3 4 5 6
performed according to the regulations and that changes have lead to improvements.
14 Occupational Health Services: Where competence is lacking within our organisation, occupational health services or equivalent external expert 1 2 3 4 5 6
help are employed.

References Hedlund, A., Gummesson, K., Rydell, A., & Andersson, I-M. 2016. Safety motivation at
work: Evaluation of changes from six interventions. Safety Science, 82, 155-163. doi.
org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.09.006 0925-7535/.
Systematic Work Environment Management (AFS 2001:1). Stockholm: Swedish Work
Hinton, P.R., Brownlaw, C., MacMurray, I., Cozens, B., 2004. SPSS Explained. Routledge,
Environment Authority. Retrieved from Systematic Work Environment Management,
New York.
AFS 2001:1 (av.se).
Howard, J., Gagné, M., Morin, A.J.S., Van den Broeck, A., 2016. Motivation profiles at
Alvesson, M., Sveningsson, S., 2015. Changing Organizational Culture, 2nd ed. Taylor
work: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Vocational Behavior 95–96,
and Francis.
74–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2016.07.004.
Andersson, I-M., Gunnarsson, K., Hedlund, A., & Rosén, G. 2016. Young Peoples’
International Labor Organization (2020). Safety and health at work. Retrieved from htt
Entrance to the Workplace – Introduction to Occupational Health and Safety.
ps://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang–en/index.htm.
Working papers in transport, tourism, information technology and microdata
Jiang, L., Probst, T.M., 2016. Transformational and passive leadership as cross-level
analysis (2016:2). Borlänge: Dalarna University.
moderators of the relationships between safety knowledge, safety motivation, and
Bergman Bruhn, Å., 2022. The Double-Sided Nature of Meaningful Work: Promoting and
safety participation. Journal of Safety Research 57, 27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/
Challenging Factors within the Swedish Equine Sector. Challenges 13, 13. https://
j.jsr.2016.03.002.
doi.org/10.3390/challe13010013.
Karlsson, J., Bergman, A., 2017. Methods for Social Theory: Analytical tools for
Bergman Bruhn, Å., Rydell, A., Andersson, I.-M., Lindahl, C., 2020. Med stallet som
theorizing and writing. Routledge, New York.
arbetsplats: om attraktivt arbete i hästnäringen [With the stable as a workplace:
Kim, K.-W., Lee, S.-G., Hwang, G.-S., 2019. The mental health and occupational
about attractive work in the equine sector]. Arbetsmarknad & Arbetsliv 26, 53–69.
characteristics of horse stable hand workers in Korea. Safety and health at work 10,
Beus, J.M., McCord, M.A., Zohar, D., 2016. Workplace safety: A review and research
384–388. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2019.07.004.
synthesis. Organizational Psychology Review 6 (4), 352–381. https://doi.org/
Kuvaas, B., Buch, R., Weibel, A., Dysvik, A., Nerstad, C.G.L., 2017. Do intrinsic and
10.1177/2041386615626243.
extrinsic motivation relate differently to employee outcomes? Journal of Economic
Braun, V., Clarke, V., 2006. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research
Psychology 61, 244–258. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2017.05.004.
in Psychology 3 (2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
Landstad, B.J., Hedlund, M., Vinberg, S., 2017. How managers of small-scale enterprises
Chapman, M., Thomas, M., Thompson, K., 2020. What people really think about safety
can create a health promoting corporate culture. International journal of workplace
around horses: The relationship between risk perception, values and safety
health management 10 (3), 228–248. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJWHM-07-2016-
behaviours. Animals 10, 2222. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122222.
0047.
Creswell, J.W., Plano Clark, V.L., 2018. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods
Legg, S.J., Olsen, K.B., Laird, I.S., Hasle, P., 2015. Managing safety in small and medium
Research, 3rd ed. Sage Publications, Los Angeles.
enterprises. Safety Science 71, 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (Eds.), 1985. intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in
ssci.2014.11.007.
Human Behavior. Springer US, Boston, MA.
Lehtola, M., Molen, H., Lappalainen, J., Hoonakker, P., Hsiao, H., Haslam, R., Hale, A.,
Eriksson, A., Orvik, A., Strandmark, M., Nordsteien, A., Torp, S., 2017. Management and
Veerbek, J., 2008. The effectiveness of interventions for preventing injuries in the
Leadership Approaches to Health Promotion and Sustainable Workplaces: A Scoping
construction industry: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventing
Review. Societies 7 (2), 14. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc7020014.
Medicine 35, 77–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2008.03.030.
Erro-Garcés, A., Ferreira, S., 2019. Do better workplace environmental conditions
Leppälä, J., Kolstrup, C.L., Pinzke, S., Rautiainen, R., Saastamoinen, M., Särkijärvi, S.,
improve job satisfaction? Journal of Cleaner Production 219, 936–948. https://doi.
2015. Development of a safety management web tool for horse stables. Animals 5,
org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.02.138.
1136–1146. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5040402.
European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. The European Framework Directive on
Lindahl, C., Bergman Bruhn, Å., Andersson, I.-M., 2022. Occupational climate in the
Safety and Health at Work (Directive 89/391 EEC). Retrieved from Directive 89/
Swedish equine sector. Animals 12, 438. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani12040438.
391/EEC - OSH “Framework Directive” | Safety and health at work EU-OSHA
Löfqvist, L. 2012. Physical workload and musculoskeletal symptoms in the human-horse
(europa.eu).
work environment. Doctoral thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Flunker, J.C., Clouser, J.M., Swanberg, J.E., 2020. Analysis of Thoroughbred horse farm
Alnarp. Retrieved from Physical workload and musculoskeletal symptoms in the
workers’ compensation insurance claims in Kentucky: Injury frequency, cost, lost
human-horse work environment - Open access publications in the SLU publication
time, and associated occupational factors. American Journal of Industrial Medicine
database.
63, 936–948. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23159.
Löfving, M., Säfsten, K., Winroth, M., 2016. Managing strategy formulation, leadership
Frick, K., 2014. The 50/50 Implementation of Sweden’s Mandatory Systematic Work
style and organisational culture in small and medium-sized enterprises. International
Environment Management. Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 12 (2), 23–46.
Journal of Manufacturing Technology and Management 30 (5), 306–325. https://
https://doi.org/10.1080/14774003.2014.11667802.
doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2016.078918.
Gagné, M., Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
MacEachen, E., Kosny, A., Scott-Dixon, K., Facey, M., Chambers, L., Breslin, C., Kyle, N.,
Organizational Behavior 26 (4), 331–362.
Irvin, E., Mahood, Q., 2010. Workplace Health Understandings and Processes in
Hasle, P., Kvorning, L.V., Rasmussen, C.D.N., Smith, L.H., Flyvholm, M.-A., 2012.
Small Businesses: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Literature. Journal of
A Model for Design of Tailored Working Environment Intervention Programmes for
Occupational Rehabilitation 20 (2), 180–198.
Small Enterprises. Safety and health at work 3, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.5491/
Macke, J., Genari, D., 2019. Systematic literature review on sustainable human resource
SHAW.2012.3.3.181.
management. Journal of Cleaner Production 208 (20), 806–815. https://doi.org/
Hasle, P., Limborg, H.J., 2006. A Review of the Literature on Preventive Occupational
10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.091.
Health and Safety Activities in Small Enterprises. Industrial Health 44 (1), 6–12.
Markussen, S., 2012. The individual cost of sick leave. Journal of Population Economics
https://doi.org/10.2486/indhealth.44.6.
25 (4), 1287–1306. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-011-0390-8.
Hedlund, A., Åteg, M., Andersson, I.-M., Rosén, G., 2010. Assessing motivation for work
Masi, D., Cagno, E., 2015. Barriers to OHS interventions in Small and Medium-sized
environment improvements: internal consistency, reliability, and factorial structure.
Enterprises. Safety science 71, 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
Journal of Safety Research 41, 145–151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2009.12.005.
ssci.2014.05.020.

10
Bergman Bruhn et al.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook, 2nd ed., Sage publications.
Nappo, N., 2019. Is there an association between working conditions and health? An
analysis of the Sixth European Working Conditions Survey data. PLoS ONE 14 (2).
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0211294.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., 2006. A Study of the Lagged Relationships Among Safety Climate,
Safety Motivation, Safety Behavior, and Accidents at the Individual and Group
Levels. Journal of applied psychology 91 (4), 946–953. https://doi.org/10.1037/
0021-9010.91.4.946.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., 2012. The importance of employee participation and perceptions
of changes in procedures in a teamworking intervention. Work & Stress 26 (2),
91–111. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.682721.
Nielsen, K., Nielsen, M.B., Ogbonnaya, C., Känsälä, M., Saari, E., Isaksson, K., 2017.
Workplace resources to improve both employee well-being and performance: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Work & Stress 31 (2), 101–120. https://doi.
org/10.1080/02678373.2017.1304463.
Niskanen, T., Louhelainen, K., Hirvonen, M.L., 2014. Results of the Finnish national
survey investigating safety management, collaboration and work environment in the
chemical industry. Safety science 70, 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2014.06.006.
Nordlöf, H. 2015. Prerequisites and Possibilities for Manufacturing Companies to
Prioritize and Manage Occupational Health and Safety. Doctoral thesis. Uppsala
University, Uppsala. Retrieved from FULLTEXT02.pdf (diva-portal.org).
Nykänen, M., Salmela-Aro, K., Tolvanen, A., Vuori, J., 2019. Safety self-efficacy and
internal locus of control as mediators of safety motivation – Randomized controlled
trial (RCT) study. Safety Science 117, 330–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ssci.2019.04.037.
Pratt, M.G., & Ashforth, B.E. 2003. Fostering meaningfulness in working and at work. In:
K.S. Cameron, J.E, Dutton & R.E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship;
1.ed., p. 309-327). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.
Rydell, A., Andersson, I.-M., 2019. Work environment investments: outcomes from three
cases. International journal of occupational safety and ergonomics 25 (1), 138–147.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1374583.
Rydell, A., Andersson, I.-M., Bernsand, C.-O., Rosén, G., 2019. Work environment
investments: Critical elements for success in optimizing occupational health and
safety effects. Work 64 (1), 107–116. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-192974.
Swedish Work Environment Act (SFS. 1977:1160). Stockholm: Swedish Ministry of
Employment.
Strömberg, C., Aboagye, E., Hagberg, J., Bergström, G., Lohela-Karlsson, M., 2017.
Estimating the Effect and Economic Impact of Absenteeism, Presenteeism, and Work
11
Safety Science 159 (2023) 106035
Environment-Related Problems on Reductions in Productivity from a Managerial
Perspective. Value in Health 20 (8), 1058–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jval.2017.05.008.
Swedish Work Environment Authority (2012). ISA. Informationssystemet om
arbetsskador [The Swedish Information System for Occupational Accidents and
Workrelated Diseases]. Retrieved from https://www.av.se/arbetsmiljoarbete-och
-inspektioner/arbetsmiljostatistik-officiell-arbetsskadestatstik/.
Swedish Work Environment Authority (2018). Projektrapport Hästnäringen [Project
report Equine sector]. Retrieved from Projektrapport Hästnäringen 2016/053355
(av.se).
Thompson, K., McGreevy, P., McManus, P., 2015. A critical review of horse-related risk:
A research agenda for safer mounts, riders and equestrian cultures. Animals 5,
561–575. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani5030372.
Thorell, G., Hedenborg, S., 2015. Riding Instructors, Gender, Militarism, and Stable
Culture in Sweden: Continuity and Change in the Twentieth Century. The
International Journal of History in Sport 32, 650–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09523367.2015.1021337.
Ulhassan, W., Von Thiele Schwarz, U., Westerlund, H., Sandahl, C., 2015. How visual
management for continuous improvement might guide and affect hospital staff: A
case study. Quality Management in Healthcare 24 (4), 222–228. https://doi.org/
10.1097/QMH.0000000000000073.
Vierendeels, G., Reniers, G., van Nunen, K., Ponnet, K., 2018. An integrative conceptual
framework for safety culture: The Egg Aggregated Model (TEAM) of safety culture.
Safety Science 103, 323–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.021.
Vinberg, S., 2020. Occupational safety and health challenges in small-scale enterprises.
Industrial health 58 (4), 303–305.
Vinberg, S., Torsdatter Markussen, L., Landstad, B.J., 2017. Cooperation between
occupational health services and small-scale enterprises in Norway and Sweden: a
provider perspective. Workplace Health Safety 65, 355–364. https://doi.org/
10.1177/2165079916668527.
Virtanen, M., 2018. Towards sustainable work and longer working lives. Scandinavian
Journal of Public Health 46, 287–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1403494818765394.
Waddell, G., Burton, A.K., 2006. Is work good for your health and well-being? Stationary
Office Books, London.
Wallo, A., & Lundqvist, D. 2020. Leadership for health and well-being – A systematic
review. Government mandate to compile knowledge about factors that create
healthy, thriving workplaces (Report 2020:5; ISBN 978-91-985961-3-7). Retrieved
from Swedish Agency for Work Environment Expertise: Leadership for health and
well-being – a systematic review (sawee.se).