Analysis and Findings

Moreover, the action agenda’s goal is to focus on the sectors with high fatality rates. Table 1 below shows the number of cases of serious harm notifications per region as of June 2011. The data showed that the top five regions are Auckland, Wellington, Waikato, Canterbury and Otago. The goal therefore could be further narrowed and directed per area or region in New Zealand with the most number of fatalities and injuries.

Table 1. Number of serious harm notifications per region from 2006 to June 2011

Source: http://osh.dol.govt.nz/resources/stats/serious-harm.html

DOL spearheads the implementation of the Strategy.  When the action agenda was later developed and priority sectors were identified, Maritime New Zealand was identified to lead the action plan for the fishing sector, with all the other sectors to be still led by DOL. A tripartite body created in 2007, the Workplace Health and Safety Council was expected to give an oversight to the Strategy. It would also work with Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) and NZ Statistics.

Moreover, a network of government agencies is expected to be established along with industry leadership groups and leadership forum.

There is not much change in terms of institutional, organizational or procedural requirements to support the Strategy. As to procedure, DOL through the OSH service unit continues its enforcement activities of inspection albeit more directed and focused to the five priority areas. It is not clear as to how this will be done. An absolute increase in the number of inspections from the previous performance can be a clearer goal.

On the other hand, the organizational activities of the WHSS are much more on engagement and active participation in the programs and activities of DOL geared towards increasing the health and safety climate e.g. a review of the health and safety standards for guidance, enforcement activities, and promotion of health and safety and injury messages, all directed to the five priority sectors. Additionally, ACC shall give an incentive to firms called Experience Rating.

The WHSS at its best encourages and promotes to all stakeholders the attainment of the vision. The shift if there is would be an increased awareness without changing any of the usual practices. In the meantime, what systems and interventions are addressed at the firm level?

The project implementation is in placed through the action agenda, outlining the programs and activities that DOL undertakes. Firstly, DOL consulted various stakeholders in the development of the Strategy to ensure relevance and acceptance of it. The program was launched which called for commitment or pledge to the WHSS. The action agenda targets to achieve the goals in three years’ time and action plans will be developed from each of the priority sector.

The various stakeholders who can benefit from the WHSS can also be  sources of threat to its implementation if their interests are not considered and/or aligned. One of these could be the health providers and safety tool and equipment manufacturers. Changes to the systems and requirements of health and safety practices could make their products obsolete, and thus could have the motivation to disrupt the success of the implementation.  They could be invited and contribute in terms of capability building and product development that are relevant and aligned to the strategies identified.

The Strategy takes a voluntary approach and hinges on partnership and collaboration with various stakeholders. The voluntary and coordinating approaches prevent hostile responses from stakeholders and increase commitment (Mintrom 2012). But it is also this voluntary nature of the Strategy that can be a source of threat if other existing systems and programs are not effectively managed. The WHSS is implemented alongside the enforcement program of DOL and the existing health and safety programs of the firms. As earlier mentioned, stakeholders perceived health and safety practices in terms of compliance. How the WHSS could be implemented in the firm level when this could mean change in the way of doing things. Management for one, although would be interested to make the WHSS works, assuming commitment, would be more focused in achieving the bottom-line. Health and safety management are sidelined into the background (Mayhew, Quinlan et al. 1997) Moreover, workers could perceive changes in the health and safety procedure as an additional work on their part and could potentially view said Strategy as a burden.

An evaluation framework is used and conducted on a regular basis to examine how the Strategy is working, if the outcomes are met and what else needs to be done for the Strategy to work. DOL then provides an annual progress report on WHSS implementation. The evaluation is undertaken by DOL and uses data from programmes of other offices/agencies e.g. injury information manager from Statistics NZ, NOHSAC reports and ACC injury prevention.

DOL used the following evaluation framework that may have probably led to the development of the action agenda.

Figure1. WHSS Evaluation Framework.

Source: (http://www.dol.govt/nz/whss/resources/evaluation 1-fig1.asp)

The evaluation framework is developmental, not only assessing the implementation but also in the process making the required changes and improvements of the Strategy discovered from the feedback loop.

The evaluation is conducted by DOL. It uses a naturalistic inquiry discovery oriented method to minimize manipulation of study settings. However, there are inherent weaknesses in the evaluation when the evaluator and implementer are done by the same office (Mintrom, 2012).

From the inception of the Strategy to the present, there has not been any significant drop of the fatalities and injuries. Table 2 below shows the number of serious harm per industry from 2006 to June 2011. Such data are gathered from those reported cases only. A question arises as to those cases which have not been reported. Moreover, these cases do not also include those injuries and fatalities related to maritime and civil aviation and work related crashes investigated by the police. So these mean that the numbers could be higher.

Table 2. Serious Harm Notifications Received per priority sectors from 2006- June 2011

            Source: http://osh.dol.govt.nz/resources/stats/serious-harm.shtml