Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

T
Evaluating effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 on safety performance in
manufacturing companies in Iran
Abolfazl Ghahramania, , Simo Salminenb
⁎

a
Occupational Health Engineering Department, Urmia University of Medical Sciences, Urmia, Iran
b
Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, Finland

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The application of occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMSs) in recent decades has led to
Safety culture the successful control of workplace injuries in high-income countries. The occupational health and safety as-
Certification sessment series (OHSAS) 18001 has gained a considerable acceptance worldwide, and a large number of or-
Management commitment ganizations have implemented the requirements of it. However, few studies have examined the effectiveness of
Lagging
OHSAS 18001 on safety performance in certified organizations. The present study was conducted in three
Leading
OHSAS 18001-certified and three control manufacturing companies to evaluate the effectiveness of OHSAS
18001 on the improvement of safety performance indicators of occupational injury rate (OIR), safety climate,
occupational health and safety (OHS) practices. The results did not indicate a significant effect of OHSAS 18001
certification on the OIR and safety climate level has not improved 4–9 years after certification. The certified
companies had better OHS activity rates compared with the control companies. The assessment of OHSAS 18001
activity rates showed that the certified companies fulfill about fifty percent of the requirements of the OHSAS
18001 standard. It can be concluded that having an OHSAS 18001 certification cannot be a guarantee for
achieving a good performance on safety. The characteristics of a certified organization in how to implement and
maintain the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard is a decisive factor for the effectiveness of it on the
improvement of safety performance.

1. Introduction
Occupational injuries are a major problem worldwide that parti-
cularly impact the developing countries (Concha-Barrientos et al.,
2004), and require comprehensive actions to control and prevent them.
In recent decades, the application of the occupational health and safety
management systems (OHSMSs) has led to the successful control of
workplace injuries in high-income countries (Dalrymple et al., 1998).
The system also introduces a systematic structure for the effective
management of safety and health in adopting organizations. The oc-
cupational health and safety assessment series (OHSAS) 18001 as a
world-recognized OHSMS has gained a considerable acceptance after its
formation in 1999, and a large number of organizations have im-
plemented the requirements of this British standard (BSI, 2007; Chang
and Liang, 2009; Hohnen and Hasle, 2011). OHSAS 18001 certification
is done about 90.000 companies in 127 different countries. However,
international standards organization (ISO) committee had started the
work to develop a new standard ISO 45001, which will replace OHSAS
18001 standard. Many organizations were contributed to the technical
committee in charge of developing the ISO 45001 that issued in March
2018 (Bureau Veritas Finland, 2017; ISO, 2018). However, few studies
have examined the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 on safety perfor-
mance in certified organizations (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012).
The main objective of the OHSAS 18001 standard is minimizing the
occupational health and safety (OHS) risks and assuring the protection
of human resources (BSI, 2007; De Oliveira, 2013). The OHSAS 18001
standard offers a good framework for improvement of safety perfor-
mance in organizations. It is directed to control OHS risks in a proactive
way and to improve OHS performance in adopting organizations
(Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2011). Albeit these objectives are in paper and
the achievement of a good OHS performance depends on the appro-
priate implementation and maintenance of the requirements of the
standard in an adopting workplace. Frick (2011) criticized the systems
and stated that most of OHSMSs aim to prevent occupational injuries
and illnesses, but the objectives in paper differ from practice.
Studies have identified the influencing factors on the successful
implementation and maintenance of OHSMSs including OHSAS 18001
(Bluff, 2003; Chen et al., 2009; De Oliveira, 2013; Fernández-Muñiz

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: Ghahramani@umsu.ac.ir (A. Ghahramani), Simo.salminen@pp.inet.fi (S. Salminen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.10.021

Available online 08 November 2018

Received 28 September 2017; Received in revised form 4 October 2018; Accepted 21 October 2018

0925-7535/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A. Ghahramani, S. Salminen
et al., 2012; Ghahramani, 2016a; Gallagher, 2000; Kennedy and
Kirwan, 1998; Lee and Harrison, 2000; Robson et al., 2007; Rocha,
2010; Zanko and Dawson, 2012). These factors include management
commitment, communication, employee involvement, training, safety
culture, characteristics of an adopting organization and its employees,
low educational levels of workers, complexity of procedures and in-
structions, lack of performance indicators, allocation of OHSMS’ re-
sponsibility to health and safety department alone, failure to establish
safety and health as a strategic objective, integration of OHSM into
other business activities, and maintenance of the system. In addition,
several same factors can influence the performance of safety in a
company. These factors include positive safety culture (O'Toole, 2002),
employee participation in safety activities (LaMontagne et al., 2004),
safety training (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012), the commitment of
managers and their involvement in safety (Gallagher, 2000;
LaMontagne et al., 2004), as well as good communication between
managers and employees (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012; Gallagher,
2000). An OHSAS 18001-adopting company can improve its safety
performance by considering the mentioned factors.
Despite the acceptance of the OHSMSs, especially OHSAS 18001
standard by organizations to systematic management of the OHS
worldwide, there is no conscious agreement on the effectiveness of the
systems (Goh and Chua, 2013). The proper implementation of the re-
quirements of OHSAS 18001 impact the rate of sales (Fan and Lo 2012),
safety performance (Abad et al., 2013), a higher level of safety man-
agement practices and better self-reported safety behavior
(Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2011) in a positive way. Other studies reported
fewer occupational injuries (Bottani et al., 2009; Fernández-Muñiz
et al., 2007; O'Toole, 2002; Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2011), positive
safety climate (Dejoy et al., 2010; O'Toole, 2002; Robson et al., 2007),
improvement of working conditions and ensuring compliance with OHS
regulations (Santos et al., 2013), and reducing direct health care costs
and enhancing productivity (Rocha, 2010) in the OHSMS-adopting
companies. However, Robson et al. (2007) did not find a clear indica-
tion in their systematic review to make a clear conclusion in favor of or
against the implementation of a mandatory or voluntary OHSMS.
Organizations attempt to apply prevention strategies i.e., OHSMSs
in an effective way to achieve a better OHS performance. However,
some enterprises do not measure the effectiveness of their implemented
systems. Frick (2011) stated that the monitoring of OHS outcomes is
essential in OHSMS effectiveness studies to determine whether the
management system is effective in practice. An OHSMS-adopting or-
ganization should measure the performance of safety to achieve the aim
of improvement the level of safety performance (Obadia et al., 2007;
Teo and Ling, 2006; Tinmannsvik and Hovden, 2003). The assessment
of safety literature indicated some OHSMS-adopting organizations i.e.,
OHSAS 18001-certified companies fail to conduct a proper evaluation
of safety performance (Chang and Liang, 2009; Chen et al., 2009). Such
inappropriate evaluation may result in the occurrence of occupational
injuries. A good example is the occurrence of a catastrophic accident
reported by Hopkins (2000). Two types of indicators are employed for
the assessment of safety performance in an organization. First, the
retrospective (lagging) indicators such as lost time injury rates and
compensation costs that focus on outcomes of safety and measure the
failures of safety programs. Second, the prospective (leading) indicators
such as safety audit and safety climate that used to measure the success
of an OHSMS (Cooper and Phillips, 2004; Yule et al., 2007; Ma and
Yuan, 2009). Although these indicators separately apply to measure the
performance of safety, Cooper and Phillips (2004) suggested the ap-
plication of both indicators to assess the effect of safety programs.
Robson et al. (2007) stated that the OHSMS studies should measure the
effectiveness of implemented systems using quantitative intermediate,
economic, and final OHS outcomes. Studies should also compare these
outcomes before and after OHSMS interventions.
Although the OHSMSs i.e., OHSAS 18001 is popular in the sys-
tematic management of OHS worldwide, the number of studies that
207
Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212
assessed the effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 on the improvement of OHS
performance is scarce (Robson et al., 2007; Vinodkumar and Bhasi,
2011). Assessment of the safety literature showed that there is no re-
ported study that determined the effectiveness of an OHSMS using both
objective and subjective safety performance indicators. Therefore, the
present study designed to assess the effectiveness of adaptation with the
requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard in manufacturing compa-
nies in Iran using both lagging and leading indicators of safety perfor-
mance.
2. Methods
The present study was conducted to evaluate the safety performance
in six manufacturing companies, including three OHSAS 18001-certi-
fied and three control companies, which had not implemented the re-
quirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard in 2011. The indicators of
safety performance consisted of occupational injury, safety climate,
OHS and OHSAS 18001 practices. The companies were manufacturing
facilities for producing beverages, chemical, and electrical products, as
well as goods used in construction and agriculture.
The injury data were collected from injury records in the workplaces
during 1999–2009. The occupational injury rate (OIR) was calculated
(annual number of occupational injury/annual number of em-
ployees × 100) for each company. A five-point Likert-type scale (ran-
ging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) was used to collect safety
climate data (Ghahramani and Khalkhali, 2015). OHS practices were
assessed using the method for industrial safety and health activity as-
sessment (MISHA) (Kuusisto, 2000). These assessments were conducted
in both certified and control companies to compare the safety perfor-
mance indicators. OHSAS 18001 practices were measured through the
application of a prepared checklist considering all requirements of the
OHSAS 18001 standard (revision 2007) in the certified companies. All
questions of the checklists were rated on a four-point scale from zero to
three. Required data for conducting an analysis of OHS and OHSAS
18001 practices collected through the assessment of documents, site
visits, and interviews. Activity rates (sum of scores for activity area/
maximum available scores for activity area × 100) were calculated for
each element of the OHSAS 18001 standard and MISHA as well as for
total questions of the completed checklists (sum of scores for activity
areas/sum of maximum available scores for activity areas × 100).
A series of statistical tests were applied to assess the collected data.
A t-test was applied for before–after certification comparisons of the
OIR, comparison of safety climate scores and OHS practices between
the certified and the control companies. A negative binomial regression
with considering occupational injury as dependent variable, as well as
OHSAS 18001 intervention, workplace, source of data, and time as
independent variables (for comparisons of certified and non-certified
years among both certified and all companies), and a repeated measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) [to test the interaction between group
(certified vs. control) and year (before vs. after certification)] were used
to analyze the occupational injury data. Hierarchical regression was
used to examine the ability of independent variables including OHSAS
implementation to predict safety climate. A detailed information re-
garding the studies can be found in Ghahramani (2016b), Ghahramani
and Summala (2017), and Ghahramani (2017).
3. Results
As shown in Fig. 1, the graph demonstrated some fluctuations in the
OIRs of the companies. The OIR steadily has declined in certified 1 from
1999 to 2003 and it has been constant till 2004. After that, the OIR has
had two variations and reached 3 in 2009. In certified 2, the OIR has
gradually increased from 1999 to 2001 and then it has dropped during
the following two years. It has approximately unvaried from 2003 to
2005. After 2005, the OIR has had a fluctuation and reached to more
than 5 in 2009. The OIRs has had some fluctuation in certified 3 that
A. Ghahramani, S. Salminen Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212

Fig. 1. OIRs in the certified companies (*The white bullets show the years of certification).

Table 1 descending order of safety climate scores in the certified companies was
Means of the OIRs in the certified and the control companies. ranked as follows: certified 1 (3.39 ± 0.49), certified 2 (3.37 ± 0.56),
Companies Pre-intervention* Intervention* Post-intervention*
and certified 3 (3.04 ± 0.49). As can be seen from the Fig. 2, the
certified 3 has the lowest safety climate score for all dimensions com-
Certified 1 17.1 9.4 6.22 pared with other certified companies.
Certified 2 3.85 1.77 4.8 The t-test analysis did not find a significant difference in the per-
Certified 3 2.78 2.01 4.88
Control 1 9.75 5.83 4.8
ceptions of participants about safety climate between the certified and
Control 2 4.9 6.5 9.12 the control companies (t(261) = 0.08, p > 0.05). The assessment of
Control 3 7.12 4.19 4.31 safety climate revealed that the personnel of the studied companies
differed significantly in their perceptions of safety climate (F (5,
* The same years for the certified companies considered in paired control
257) = 13.30, p < 0.01), and the participants in one control company
companies.
(control 2) reported a higher level of safety climate (3.77 ± 0.45,
p < 0.01) than other companies. A hierarchical regression revealed
has started about 4 in 1999 and reached less than 2 in 2009. The that the models were statistically significant and the implementation of
amount of OIR reduction in certified 1 in the years before the certifi- the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard and safety training
cation was higher, while after that time it progressed with fluctuation were significant predictors of safety climate.
same as other companies. Certified 1 experienced the lowest OIR after A descending order of the mean OHS activity rates of the companies
the certification in 2006, but the certified 2 and 3 experienced the was ranked as follows: certified 1 (53.93), certified 2 and 3 (42.42),
lowest OIRs before the certification in 2000 and 1999 respectively. control 2 (18.18), control 1 (12.12), and control 3 (9.69). The certified
Table 1 presents means of OIRs in the certified and the control com- companies had better activity rates for all elements of MISHA com-
panies. paring with the control companies. Certified 1 has the highest rates for
The before-after analysis of OIRs showed that one out of the three all sub-elements of MISHA except work ability of the employees (D2)
certified companies (certified 1) has a positive safety performance ef- and social work environment (D3) of follow-up element that are iden-
fect of the certification (t (9) = 5.74, P < 0.01). A negative binomial tical in all companies (Fig. 3). Certified 2 and certified 3 have same
regression indicated significant models (F(9, 56) = 10.32, p < 0.001) activity rates for most of elements and sub-elements of MISHA ex-
for all 66 study years in the six companies and for the certified com- cepting organization and administration (A), safety activities in practice
panies (F(6, 26) = 9.51, p < 0.001). The analysis also showed higher (A2), work environment (C), and physical work environment (C1). The
occupational injuries in certified 1 (β = 1.62, CI = 1.01–2.22, certified companies had the highest activity rates for organization and
p < 0.001) during the non-certified years (pre-intervention and inter- administration (m = 55.07) and the control companies had the highest
vention) than the certified years when all 33 workplace years included. activity rates for work environment (m = 19.99). The activity rates of
A repeated measures ANOVA showed that, for five years (two years the follow-up element are the lowest one for all companies, particularly
before, the intervention year, and two years after the intervention) in for the control companies. The control companies did not have a
the certified cohort and the same years in paired companies from the written safety policy and did not conduct any activity to follow-up the
control cohort, the differences of OIR between both cohorts were not safety performance. The comparison of the certified and the control
statistically significant (F (1.03, 5.18) = 1.42, P > 0.05). companies using MISHA indicated a positive effect of certification on
It is clear from Table 2 that safety climate dimensions differ across OHS practices (t (4) = 7.17, P < 0.01).
the companies. The participants from the certified 1 reported the The assessment of activity rates for the main elements of OHSAS
highest level of safety competency (m = 3.91) and the lowest level of 18001 indicated the certified companies fulfilled about fifty percent of
supportive environment (m = 3.03). However, the participants of other the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard (Table 3). The checking
certified and the control companies reported the highest level of safety (m = 53.65) and OHS planning (m = 41.58) have the highest and
procedures and the lowest level of safety involvement and training. The lowest rates respectively. Certified 1 has the highest and certified 3 has

208
A. Ghahramani, S. Salminen Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212

Table 2
Means and standard deviations of safety climate dimensions in the certified and the control companies.
Certified Non-certified

1 2 3 1 2 3

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Safety commitment and communication 3.53 0.65 3.46 0.71 3.1 0.71 2.95 0.80 3.93 0.63 2.9 0.87
Safety involvement and training 3.22 0.75 2.95 0.88 2.79 0.75 2.6 0.81 3.37 0.69 2.56 0.78
Positive safety practices 3.3 0.71 3.41 0.82 2.98 0.72 3.13 0.96 3.87 0.49 2.78 0.61
Safety competency 3.91 0.94 3.83 0.92 3.25 0.97 3.39 1.22 4.14 0.63 3.4 0.91
Safety procedures 3.83 0.62 4.01 0.66 3.41 0.76 3.46 0.94 4.18 0.54 3.56 0.81
Accountability and responsibility 3.44 0.73 3.43 0.83 3.26 0.81 3.3 0.96 3.76 0.62 3.14 0.90
Supportive environment 3.03 0.90 3.29 0.90 2.92 0.76 3.31 1.01 3.88 0.66 2.7 0.89

4.1 Table 3
Activity rates for the OHSAS 18001 standard in the certified companies.
3.9
Certified-1 Certified-2 Certified-3
3.7
OHS Policy 61.11 50 48.15
3.5 Planning 43.81 40.95 40
Hazard identification, risk assessment and 35.71 28.57 21.42
3.3 determining controls
Legal and other requirements 66.66 50 50
3.1 Objectives and program(s) 61.9 47.62 57.14

Implementation and operation 52.91 49.58 50

2.9
Resources, roles, responsibility, 61.11 38.88 38.88
accountability and authority
2.7 Competence, training and awareness 46.66 33.33 33.33
SCC SIT PSP SC SP AR SE Communication, participation and 53.33 40 46.66
certified 1 certified 2 certified 3 consultation
Documentation 66.66 66.66 66.66
Fig. 2. Safety climate scores in the certified companies. Note: SCC = safety Control of documents 66.66 50 50
commitment and communication; SIT = safety involvement and training; Operational control 50 33.33 33.33
PSP = positive safety practices; SC = safety competency; SP = safety proce- Emergency preparedness and response 53.33 40 46.66
dures; AR = accountability and responsibility; SE = supportive environment. Checking 55.26 52.63 53.07
Performance measurement and 66.66 50 41.66
monitoring
the lowest activity rates. The companies slightly differed in activity Evaluation of compliance 66.66 44.44 44.44
rates of the main elements of OHSAS 18001. They have identical rates Incident investigation, nonconformity, 55.55 37.04 33.33
for review, but certified1 has a higher rate for OHS policy (Table 3). corrective action and preventive
Detailed analysis of the activity rates for sub-elements of the OHSAS action
Control of records 77.77 77.77 44.44
18001 standard indicated that documentation has the highest, but the
Internal audit 58.33 41.66 41.66
hazard identification, risk assessment and determining controls’ item
Management review 48.71 48.71 48.71
has the lowest rate of activity. The rates of other sub-elements did not
noticeably differ between the companies. The companies have identical Average 51.35 48.15 48.02
rates for documentation, control of documents, control of records, and
internal auditing.

70 Fig. 3. OHS activity rates in the certified com-

panies. A. Organization and administration (A1.
60 Safety policy, A2. Safety activities in practice, A3.
Personnel management), B. Participation, com-
munication, and training (B1. Participation, B2.
50
Communication, B3. Personnel safety training), C.
Work environment (C1. Physical work environ-
40 ment, C2. Psychological working conditions, C3.
Rate

Hazard analysis procedures), D. Follow-up (D1.

30 Occupational accidents and illnesses, D2. Work
ability of the employees, D3. Social work en-
20 vironment).

10

0
A A1 A2 A3 B B1 B2 B3 C C1 C2 C3 D D1 D2 D3
Activities
Certified 1 Certified 2 Certified 3

209
A. Ghahramani, S. Salminen
4. Discussion
The current study found that OIR decreased in one of the certified
companies (certified 1) after the introducing OHSAS 18001 interven-
tion. Although hierarchical regression revealed the significant effect of
the intervention on the prediction of safety climate, safety climate did
not significantly differ between the certified (3.28 ± 0.53) and control
(3.27 ± 0.63) companies, and one of the control companies (control 2)
had the highest safety climate. The results also indicated that the cer-
tified companies had better OHS activity rates than the control com-
panies, and certified 1 had the highest activity rate. These findings
suggest that the certified companies had a better safety performance
than the control ones and certified 1 had the best safety performance.
The analysis of OHSAS 18001 activity rates indicated that the certified
companies fulfilled about fifty percent of the requirements of the
OHSAS 18001 standard.
This study has been unable to demonstrate the significant reduction
of OIR and improvement of safety climate in the certified companies.
These findings are in contrast with the studies of Bottani et al., 2009;
Dejoy et al., 2010; Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2007; O'Toole, 2002; Robson
et al., 2007; Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2011, which indicated the reduc-
tion of OIR and improvement of safety climate as positive effects of an
OHSMS implementation. A possible explanation for this might result
from the inappropriate implementation and maintenance of the man-
agement systems. Since, safety culture of an organization is associated
with the behavior of employees and with accidents/injuries (Neal and
Griffin, 2006), another possible explanation for the inappropriate re-
duction of OIR and improvement of safety climate in the companies
might link with safety culture of the companies. A genuine change of
safety culture in the organization along with the implementation of the
requirements of an OHSMS required to avoid the existence of a paper
system and improvement of safety performance (Fernández-Muñiz
et al., 2007).
The highest score of safety climate in the control 2 company in-
dicated that the possibility of the improvement of safety climate
through other program/strategies than the implementation of the re-
quirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard such as a high-level of safety
training and a higher OHS activity rates than other control companies.
The highest score for safety involvement and training factor in the
company compared with other companies indicated the importance
given by the managers of control 2 company to safety training. The
difference in OHS activity rates between the certified companies and
the control 2 company may relate to the creation of a good amount of
OHS documentation due to the implementation of the requirements of
the OHSAS 18001 standard. The highest score of safety procedure and
the lowest score of safety involvement and training (see Table 2) and
the existence of a large number of documentation in the certified
companies due to the mechanical implementation of the requirements
of the OHSAS 18001 standard indicated that the companies had paper
systems in their sites.
The findings of the current study indicated that the certified com-
panies had better OHS activity rates than the control companies. This
finding agrees with the findings of Paas et al., 2015; Vinodkumar and
Bhasi, 2010, who found the OHSAS 18001-certified companies had
better safety practices than the non-certified companies. The proper
implementation and maintenance of an OHSMS should increase OHS
activity rates to ultimately improve safety performance. The practice of
an OHSMS is an indicator of an adopted organization's commitment to
safety and perception of employees about safety (Fernández-Muñiz
et al., 2007), and management commitment is directly associated with
safety practices (Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2010). Thus, the findings in-
dicate the poor management commitment to safety and low level of
safety climate in the companies. The practical commitment of top
management to safety and the involvement of employees in the system
activities were required for the development of an OHSMS in the
companies (Fernández-Muñiz et al., 2012; Vinodkumar and Bhasi,
210
Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212
2010). Although the employees were needed to follow the OHSAS
procedures and safety instructions, to participate in OHSAS and safety
activities, to communicate with their supervisors and managers re-
garding safety concerns, they are unresponsive and passive towards
safety threats when observing a lack of commitment from their super-
visors and managers (Cui et al., 2013). Therefore, the companies should
revise their commitment to better maintenance and improvement of the
management systems and achieve an effective system for improving
safety performance.
The complying about fifty percent with the requirements of the
OHSAS 18001 standard in the certified companies might result from
failure of the companies to properly implement and maintain essential
arrangements and perform actions required by the standard to develop
a high-quality OHSMS. Since culture is “the way we do things around
here”, the insufficient compliance with the requirements of the OHSAS
18001 standard shows the low level of safety culture in the companies.
Lower activity rates of OHS practices and inappropriately fulfill the
requirements of the OHSAS 18001 in their sites reveal the insufficient
efforts of the companies in the institutionalization of the systems in
their worksites. Prior studies have reported that the implementation of
OHSAS 18001 is not enough to create an effective system and the
adopting companies should conduct more efforts to improve the safety
culture (Gordon et al., 2007; Granerud and Rocha, 2011). Conducting
the OHSAS 18001 activities by the limited number of managers and
employees in the certified companies (Ghahramani, 2016a) may de-
crease the institutionalization of the OHS and OHSAS 18001 practices
and postpone the better effect of OHSAS 18001 on safety performance.
Because people learn by doing practices and repetition of them resulted
in the alternation of their habits. It can influence the improvement of
safety culture in OHSAS 18001-certified companies. Therefore, the
certified companies should conduct more efforts for the improvement of
safety culture by considering the involvement of managers and em-
ployees.
Iranian national culture is characterized by intermediate power
distance and collectivism (Hofstede, 2015). Previous research has in-
dicated that organizational and safety culture affected by national
culture (Mearns and Yule, 2009). Employees who worked in organiza-
tions, which are located in intermediate power distance nationalities
i.e., Iran may be less likely to follow standard operating procedures
about safety. It seems that they do not actively participate in safety and
OHSAS practices (Bahari and Clarke, 2013). Thus, the consideration of
national and organizational culture is an important issue when im-
plementation and maintenance of safety interventions e.g., OHSAS
18001. Managers should consider the culture to develop measures to
control their employees’ behavior in implementation, development, and
maintenance of the interventions.
Krause (1993) identified downstream of safety culture, OHSMS, and
exposure as three main causes of incidents. This author also stated that
the behavior of employees resulted directly from the operation of
OHSMS in organizations. An OHSMS, in turn, is affected by the culture
of an organization. An organization with a positive safety culture has
the ability to effectively manage elements associated with the safety in
their operations (Glendon and Stanton, 2000). Therefore, the certified
companies should train their employees and involve them in OHS and
OHSAS practices until the practices conducted in a daily manner and
perform as their habits. It is important to note that the creation of a
significant modification in the safety culture required more time. Other
companies that plan to adopt with the requirement of the OHSAS 18001
standard should not be in a hurry in the implementation and certifi-
cation.
In-depth analysis of the OIR, safety climate scores, and OHS activity
rates of the certified companies revealed that the certified 1 had a better
safety performance compared with others. In addition, the company
had the highest activity rates of OHSAS 18001 practices. These findings
apparently indicated the effect of better implementation and main-
tenance of the requirements of OHSAS 18001 in the improvement of
A. Ghahramani, S. Salminen
safety performance. As the certified companies only fulfill about fifty
percent of the requirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard, there are
places for improvement of their systems. It seems that the improvement
is not enough 4–9 years after certification, and it is needed that the
certified companies conduct more efforts to better maintenance and
improvement of the system.
A major limitation of this study can be not using a representative
sample of OHSAS 18001–certified companies from manufacturing
companies in Iran. It was difficult to make a country-wide measurement
of the effect of OHSAS 18001 on safety performance due to the con-
fidentiality of injury data and lack of interest of the companies to
participate in such study. This study includes only three OHSAS 18001-
certified manufacturing companies in the West Azerbaijan province due
to the limited number of OHSAS 18001–certified companies at the time
of study. The corresponding control companies were chosen to perform
a comparison of safety performance. The control group selected based
on the existence of injury data and their ’ acceptance to conduct the
study. In addition, the used injury data consisted of the injuries re-
ported to and registered with the safety department within the studied
companies. The first author tried to collect data from Iranian social
security organization, but the organization was not agreed to share the
injury data for the manufacturing companies. Other limitations of this
study were the use of questionnaire and checklist for gathering the
required data. The application of these tools is routine ways to collect
the safety climate and OHS/OHSAS practices ’ data. For the purpose of
OHS/OHSAS practices, different methods including observation,
document analysis, and interview used to collect the required and valid
data. The data checked for few times to find out the required evidence
for calculating activity rates. The cross-sectional design of these sub-
studies also might be included as another limitation.
5. Conclusion
The present study was set out to explore the effectiveness of OHSAS
18001 in the manufacturing companies in Iran. The results revealed
that the certified companies did not conduct a satisfactory level of ef-
forts to develop an effective OHSMS. The mechanical implementation
of the requirement of the OHSAS 18001 standard (documentation) and
certification by a certifying body is not a difficult task. The im-
plementation provides a good foundation for achieving a safe working
environment, but it cannot guarantee it. The transferring the docu-
mented system to daily tasks that conduct by employees require the
commitment of all personnel and the active involvement of employees
in OHS/OHSAS 18001 practices.
This study emphasized the cultural development of safety in the
certified companies to build up an effective OHSMS. OHSAS 18001 is a
management tool, and its success depends on how adopting organiza-
tions employ the standard requirements to manage OHS. To develop an
effective system, the certified companies should implement all standard
requirements, maintain daily OHS practices, and conduct more efforts
to improve the safety culture.
The present study indicated that the implementation of the re-
quirements of the OHSAS 18001 standard had a positive effect on oc-
cupational injury reduction, improving the safety climate and OHS/
OHSAS practices in one of the certified companies. Since the external
environment and context were similar for all certified companies and
even two of the companies (certified 1 and certified 2) produce same
goods, the characteristics of the companies and behavior of their
managers and employees impact the safety performance of the com-
panies. It can be concluded that the characteristics of a certified com-
pany, especially the level of safety culture in it and how to use OHSAS
18001 for the management of OHS by a certified company impact the
effectiveness of OHSMS. The implementation of OHSAS 18001 facil-
itates the improvement of safety performance by making a good in-
frastructure to systematically managing OHS. Therefore, the OHSAS
18001-certified companies should use this opportunity to improve their
211
Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212
conditions to develop their systems from paper compliance to a prac-
tical system for having an effective tool for a better management of OHS
issues and improving safety performance. Otherwise, the system did not
develop in an appropriate manner.
Because there is a scarce number of studies about the effectiveness
of OHSAS 18001 in adopting companies, more research is needed to be
conducted in this field. The studies might investigate the effects of
OHSAS 18001 certification on the used or other lagging or leading
safety performance indicators. It is suggested that the application of a
combination of these performance indicators would help researchers to
assess the effect of OHSAS 18001 on safety performance in both re-
active and proactive manners. It is recommended the researchers in-
clude more certified and control companies in their studies to better
understand the effects of OHSAS 18001.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank occupational safety officers from the studied
companies for their cooperation in the collection of data and all em-
ployees who participated in this study.
References
Abad, J., Lafuente, E., Vilajosana, J., 2013. An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 certifi-
cation process: objective drivers and consequences on safety performance and labour
productivity. Saf. Sci. 60, 47–56.
Bahari, S.F., Clarke, S., 2013. Cross-validation of an employee safety climate model in
Malaysia. J. Saf. Res. 45, 1–6.
Bureau Veritas Finland, 2017.
Bluff, L., 2003. Systematic Management of Occupational Health and Safety. National
Research Centre for Occupational Health and Safety Regulation, Australian National
University, Working Paper.
Bottani, E., Monica, L., Vignali, G., 2009. Safety management systems: performance dif-
ferences between adopters and non-adopters. Saf. Sci. 47, 155–162.
BSI, 2007. OHSAS 18001: Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems;
Requirements. British Standard Institute.
Chang, J.I., Liang, C.L., 2009. Performance evaluation of process safety management
systems of paint manufacturing facilities. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22, 398–402.
Chen, C.Y., Wu, G.S., Chuang, K.J., Ma, C.M., 2009. A comparative analysis of the factors
affecting the implementation of occupational health and safety management systems
in the printed circuit board industry in Taiwan. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22,
210–215.
Concha-Barrientos, M., Nelson, D., Driscoll, T., Steenland, N.K., Punnett, L., Fingerhut,
M., Corvala’n, C., 2004. Selected Occupational risk Factors. Comparative
Quantification of Health Risks: Global And Regional Burden of Diseases Attributable
to Selected Major Risk Factor. In: s. World Health Organization, Geneva, pp.
1651–1801.
Cooper, M.D., Phillips, R.A., 2004. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety
behavior relationship. J. Saf. Res. 35, 497–512.
Cui, L., Fan, D., Fu, G., Zhu, C.J., 2013. An integrative model of organizational safety
behavior. J. Saf. Res. 45, 37–46.
Dalrymple, H., Redinger, C., Dyjack, D., Levine, S., Mansdorf, Z., 1998. Occupational
Health and safety management system: Review and analysis of international, na-
tional, and regional systems; and proposal for a new international document, IOHA
report to International Labor Office.
De Oliveira, O.J., 2013. Guidelines for the integration of certifiable management systems
in industrial companies. J. Cleaner Prod. 57, 124–133.
DeJoy, D.M., Della, L.J., Vandenberg, R.J., Wilson, M.G., 2010. Making work safer:
Testing a model of social exchange and safety management. J. Saf. Res. 41, 163–171.
Fan, D., Lo, C.K., 2012. A tough pill to swallow? The impact of voluntary occupational
health and safety management system on firms' financial performance in fashion and
textiles industries. J. Fashion Market. Manage.: An Int. J. 16, 128–140.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M., Vázquez-Ordás, C.J., 2007. Safety management
system: development and validation of a multidimensional scale. J. Loss Prev. Process
Ind. 20, 52–68.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J.M., Vázquez-Ordás, C.J., 2012. Safety climate in
OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety be-
haviour. Accid. Anal. Prev. 45, 745–758.
Frick, K., 2011. Worker influence on voluntary OHS management systems–A review of its
ends and means. Saf. Sci. 49, 974–987.
Ghahramani, A., 2016a. Factors that influence the maintenance and improvement of
OHSAS 18001 in adopting companies: a qualitative study. J. Cleaner Prod. 137,
283–290.
Ghahramani, A., 2016b. An investigation of safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified and
non-certified organizations. Int. J. Occ. Saf. Ergon. 22 (3), 414–421.
Ghahramani, A., 2017. Diagnosis of poor safety culture as a major shortcoming in OHSAS
18001-certified companies. Ind. Health 55 (2), 138–148.
Ghahramani, A., Summala, H., 2017. A study of the effect of OHSAS 18001 on the oc-
cupational injury rate in Iran. Int. J. Injury Control Saf. Promot. 24 (1), 78–83.
A. Ghahramani, S. Salminen
Ghahramani, A., Khalkhali, H.R., 2015. Development and validation of a safety climate
scale for manufacturing industry. Saf. Health Work 6 (2), 97–103.
Gallagher, C., 2000. Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: System Types
and Effectiveness. Doctor of Philosophy Thesis. Deakin University.
Glendon, A.I., Stanton, N.A., 2000. Perspectives on safety culture. Saf. Sci. 34, 193–214.
Goh, Y.M., Chua, D., 2013. Neural network analysis of construction safety management
systems: a case study in Singapore. Constr. Manage. Econ. 31, 460–470.
Gordon, R., Kirwan, B., Perrin, E., 2007. Measuring safety culture in a research and de-
velopment center: a comparison of two methods in the Air TrafficManagement do-
main. Saf. Sci. 45, 669–695.
Granerud, R.L., Rocha, R.S., 2011. Organisational learning and continuous improvement
of health and safety in certified manufacturers. Saf. Sci. 49, 1030–1039.
Hofstede, G., 2015. The Hofstede Center: Strategy, Culture, Change, Retrieved 10 April,
2015. < http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html > .
Hohnen, P., Hasle, P., 2011. Making work environment auditable–A ‘critical case’study of
certified occupational health and safety management systems in Denmark. Saf. Sci.
49, 1022–1029.
Hopkins, A., 2000. Lessons from Longford: The Esso Gas Plant Explosion. CCH Australia
Limited North Ryde, New South Wales, Australia.
ISO, 2018. International Standards Organization. ISO 45001-Occupational health and
safety. Retrieved 8 January 2018. < https://www.iso.org/iso-45001-occupational-
health-and-safety.html > .
Kennedy, R., Kirwan, B., 1998. Development of a hazard and operability-based method
for identifying safety management vulnerabilities in high-risk systems. Saf. Sci. 30,
249–274.
Kuusisto, A., 2000. Safety Management Systems, vol. 4, 8 2.
Krause, T.R., 1993. Safety and quality: two sides of the same coin. Occup. Hazards 55, 47.
LaMontagne, A., Barbeau, E., Youngstrom, R.A., Lewiton, M., Stoddard, A.M., McLellan,
D., Sorensen, G., 2004. Assessing and intervening on OSH programmes: effectiveness
evaluation of the Wellworks-2 intervention in 15 manufacturing worksites. Occup.
Environ. Med. 61, 651–660.
Lee, T., Harrison, K., 2000. Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations. Saf. Sci. 34,
61–97.
Ma, Q., Yuan, J., 2009. Exploratory study on safety climate in Chinese manufacturing
212
Safety Science 112 (2019) 206–212
enterprises. Saf. Sci. 47, 1043–1046.
Mearns, K., Yule, S., 2009. The role of national culture in determining safety performance:
challenges for the global oil and gas industry. Saf. Sci. 47, 777–785.
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.
J. Appl. Psychol. 91, 946.
Obadia, I.J., Vidal, M.C., Melo, E., F, P., 2007. An adaptive management system for ha-
zardous technology organizations. Saf. Sci. 45, 373–396.
O'Toole, M., 2002. The relationship between employees' perceptions of safety and orga-
nizational culture. J. Saf. Res. 33, 231–243.
Paas, Õ., Reinhold, K., Tint, P., 2015. Estimation of safety performance by MISHA method
and the benefits of OHSAS18001 implementation in Estonian manufacturing in-
dustry. Agron. Res. 13 (3), 792–809.
Robson, L.S., Clarke, J.A., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P.L., Mahood, Q.,
2007. The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system in-
terventions: a systematic review. Saf. Sci. 45, 329–353.
Rocha, R.S., 2010. Institutional effects on occupational health and safety management
systems. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 20, 211–225.
Santos, G., Barros, S., Mendes, F., Lopes, N., 2013. The main benefits associated with
health and safety management systems certification in Portuguese small and medium
enterprises post quality management system certification. Saf. Sci. 51, 29–36.
Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y., 2006. Developing a model to measure the effectiveness of safety
management systems of construction sites. Build. Environ. 41, 1584–1592.
Tinmannsvik, R.K., Hovden, J., 2003. Safety diagnosis criteria—development and testing.
Saf. Sci. 41, 575–590.
Vinodkumar, M., Bhasi, M., 2010. Safety management practices and safety behaviour:
assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid. Anal. Prev.
42, 2082–2093.
Vinodkumar, M., Bhasi, M., 2011. A study on the impact of management system certifi-
cation on safety management. Saf. Sci. 49, 498–507.
Yule, S., Flin, R., Murdy, A., 2007. The role of management and safety climate in pre-
venting risk-taking at work. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manage. 7, 137–151.
Zanko, M., Dawson, P., 2012. Occupational health and safety management in organiza-
tions: a review. Int. J. Manage. Rev. 14, 328–344.