IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v18y2021i10p5423-d557626.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Occupational Health Hazards: Employer, Employee, and Labour Union Concerns

Author

Listed:
  • Oscar Rikhotso

    (Department of Environmental Health, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa)

  • Thabiso John Morodi

    (Department of Environmental Health, Tshwane University of Technology, Private Bag X680, Pretoria 0001, South Africa)

  • Daniel Masilu Masekameni

    (Occupational Health Division, School of Public Health, University of Witwatersrand, Parktown 2193, South Africa)

Abstract

This review paper examines the extent of employer, worker, and labour union concerns to occupational health hazard exposure, as a function of previously reported and investigated complaints. Consequently, an online literature search was conducted, encompassing publicly available reports resulting from investigations, regulatory inspection, and enforcement activities conducted by relevant government structures from South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States. Of the three countries’ government structures, the United States’ exposure investigative activities conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health returned literature search results aligned to the study design, in the form of health hazard evaluation reports reposited on its online database. The main initiators of investigated exposure cases were employers, workers, and unions at 86% of the analysed health hazard evaluation reports conducted between 2000 and 2020. In the synthesised literature, concerns to exposure from chemical and physical hazards were substantiated by occupational hygiene measurement outcomes confirming excessive exposures above regulated health and safety standards in general. Recommendations to abate the confirmed excessive exposures were made in all cases, highlighting the scientific value of occupational hygiene measurements as a basis for exposure control, informing risk and hazard perception. Conclusively, all stakeholders at the workplace should have adequate risk perception to trigger abatement measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Oscar Rikhotso & Thabiso John Morodi & Daniel Masilu Masekameni, 2021. "Occupational Health Hazards: Employer, Employee, and Labour Union Concerns," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(10), pages 1-61, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5423-:d:557626
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5423/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/10/5423/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Risteski, Temelko & Sijic, Vesna, 2013. "Realisation of the right to health and safety at work in the Republic of Macedonia," SEER Journal for Labour and Social Affairs in Eastern Europe, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, vol. 16(4), pages 443-455.
    2. Odd Hellessy & Kjell Grønhaug & Olav Kvitastein, 1998. "Profiling the High Hazards Perceivers: An Exploratory Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 253-259, June.
    3. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    4. Mark Fleming & Rhona Flin & Kathryn Mearns & Rachael Gordon, 1998. "Risk Perceptions of Offshore Workers on UK Oil and Gas Platforms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(1), pages 103-110, February.
    5. Patrick L. Yorio & Dana R. Willmer & Joel M. Haight, 2014. "Interpreting MSHA Citations Through the Lens of Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems: Investigating Their Impact on Mine Injuries and Illnesses 2003–2010," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(8), pages 1538-1553, August.
    6. Thomas Leoni, 2010. "What drives the perception of health and safety risks in the workplace? Evidence from European labour markets," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 37(2), pages 165-195, May.
    7. Wen‐Qiang Bian & L. Robin Keller, 1999. "Chinese and Americans Agree on What Is Fair, but Disagree on What Is Best in Societal Decisions Affecting Health and Safety Risks," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 439-452, June.
    8. Jahn K. Hakes, 1999. "Stringency of Workplace Air Contaminant Exposure Limits: A Case Study of OSHA Risk Management," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(6), pages 1113-1125, December.
    9. Paul Almond & Mike Esbester, 2018. "Regulatory inspection and the changing legitimacy of health and safety," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(1), pages 46-63, March.
    10. Vivienne Walters & Ted Haines, 1988. "Workers' Use and Knowledge of the 'Internal Responsibility System': Limits to Participation in Occupational Health and Safety," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 14(4), pages 411-423, December.
    11. David Fairris, 1995. "Do Unionized Employers Reappropriate Rent through Worsened Workplace Safety?," Eastern Economic Journal, Eastern Economic Association, vol. 21(2), pages 171-185, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Oscar Rikhotso & Thabiso John Morodi & Daniel Masilu Masekameni, 2022. "The Extent of Occupational Health Hazard Impact on Workers: Documentary Evidence from National Occupational Disease Statistics and Selected South African Companies’ Voluntary Corporate Social Responsi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-25, August.
    2. Oscar Rikhotso & Thabiso John Morodi & Daniel Masilu Masekameni, 2022. "Occupational Health and Safety Statistics as an Indicator of Worker Physical Health in South African Industry," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-21, February.
    3. Mahmaod Alrawad & Abdalwali Lutfi & Sundus Alyatama & Ibrahim A. Elshaer & Mohammed Amin Almaiah, 2022. "Perception of Occupational and Environmental Risks and Hazards among Mineworkers: A Psychometric Paradigm Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-12, March.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    3. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    5. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    6. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    7. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    8. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    9. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    10. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    11. Donna Brown & Jonathan Wadsworth, 2022. "Accidents will happen: (de)regulation of health and safety legislation, workplace accidents and self employment," CEP Discussion Papers dp1855, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    12. Ehsan Taheri & Chen Wang, 2018. "Eliciting Public Risk Preferences in Emergency Situations," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 15(4), pages 223-241, December.
    13. Mathew P. White & J. Richard Eiser & Peter R. Harris & Sabine Pahl, 2007. "Who Reaps the Benefits, Who Bears the Risks? Comparative Optimism, Comparative Utility, and Regulatory Preferences for Mobile Phone Technology," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 27(3), pages 741-753, June.
    14. Hope, Aimie L.B. & Jones, Christopher R., 2014. "The impact of religious faith on attitudes to environmental issues and Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) technologies: A mixed methods study," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 48-59.
    15. Matt Baucum & Heather Rosoff & Richard John & William Burns & Paul Slovic, 2018. "Modeling public responses to soft-target transportation terror," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 239-249, June.
    16. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.
    17. Julita Gil Cuesta & Joris Adriaan Frank Van Loenhout & Maria Da Conceição Colaço & Debarati Guha-Sapir, 2017. "General Population Knowledge about Extreme Heat: A Cross-Sectional Survey in Lisbon and Madrid," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(2), pages 1-11, January.
    18. Bart Vyncke & Tanja Perko & Baldwin Van Gorp, 2017. "Information Sources as Explanatory Variables for the Belgian Health‐Related Risk Perception of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(3), pages 570-582, March.
    19. Marco Caliendo & Juliane Hennecke, 2022. "Drinking is different! Examining the role of locus of control for alcohol consumption," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 63(5), pages 2785-2815, November.
    20. Kayode Ajewole & Elliott Dennis & Ted C. Schroeder & Jason Bergtold, 2021. "Relative valuation of food and non‐food risks with a comparison to actuarial values: A best–worst approach," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(6), pages 927-943, November.
    21. Hasibuan, Abdul Muis & Gregg, Daniel & Stringer, Randy, 2020. "Accounting for diverse risk attitudes in measures of risk perceptions: A case study of climate change risk for small-scale citrus farmers in Indonesia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:18:y:2021:i:10:p:5423-:d:557626. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.