CHAPTER (Kilaparthi, 2014). The reduction in the

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDYThe idea or concept of health, safety and environment is not a new phenomenon in the enterprising world. Since the last many years, it has evolved and developed. However, recently, this concept has gained outstanding importance, recognition and attention.

This resulted from worker’s empowerment, regulatory pressure, obligation to standard regulations and developing a working environment that is sustainable (Lowe, 2008). All business organizations regardless of their nature, scope and size of operations have started assigning high value to safety and health related issues. Before now, HSE was seen as a mere support function to the business. But today, the emphasis on business integration has positioned it in its pride of place as fully in-charge of its processes. As a result, the idea of health and safety is being cultivated in the overall culture and philosophy of business organizations. The health and safety culture is defined as an aggregation of attitudes, beliefs and values that influence environment and hygiene behaviour in an organization (Kilaparthi, 2014).

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

The reduction in the occurrence of near misses, incidents, accidents and illness is evident of a strong and functioning health and safety culture. The effect of this reduction helps a business organization develop a strong health and safety culture (Ariss, 2003).Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) culture comprises of three different facets and supplies an approach that makes it effortless for organizations to effectively manage challenges that may arise during processes involved in production (Emetumah, 2015). This approach according to Høivik et al. (2009) improves the social responsibility status of a company.

The reputation of a company improves when they are perceived to take adequate care of the environment, workers, stakeholders and host communities. The safety element of HSE culture is basically concerned with reducing unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, near misses, incidents and accidents thereby improving safety performance. Health element of HSE concerns mainly with human wellbeing and wellness in the workplace; these occupational issues significantly affect the ability of employees to effectively perform their functions According to Emetumah ; Duru (2015), the impact of the emissions of greenhouse gases on the environment is essential to explain the sustainable development principle; environmental issues like pollution, global warming and temperature change resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels without adequate control measures.HSE performance depends on psychological, economical, technical, operating, organizational, and environmental challenges in the workplace (Sawacha et al., 1999). HSE performance can be measured by variety of indices, such as near misses, incident rate and accident rate which are negative measures, unlike other performance criteria. The HSE performance therefore depends on internal and external factors (El-Mashaleh et al., 2010).

According to Ng et al., (2005), there are two divisions of safety factors which are project and organizational levels. The study explained that the major elements relating to the project level according to their significance includes the management commitment; hazard management; implementation; information, training and promotion; emergency procedures; reporting, recording and investigation and safety review; and key factors of the organizational level according to their significance were declared to be administration and management commitment; health and safety training; legislation, codes and standards; safety review; selection of accident record and the control of subcontractors. The most important elements associated with site safety as declared by Sawacha et al., (1999) were: the commitment of management to safety, availability of safety booklets, availability of safe equipment, providing safe and hygienic environment, and appointing an expertise on safety related issues on site. Abdelhamid and Everett (2000) showed that unsafe conditions are caused by four factors: Management actions/inactions, unsafe behaviour of an employee, non-human-related event(s), and unsafe conditions. Aksorn and Hadikusumo (2008) identified 16 significant factors of safety and grouped them as employee involvement, safety management system, safe arrangement, and management commitment.

Management support was concluded to be the highest valuable factor. Lack of proper training, non availability of safe equipment, lack of proper enforcement of safety, unsafe conditions, unsafe behaviour, inadequate usage of the safety equipment provided, and poor behaviour towards safety as the main causation of accidents as mentioned by Toole (2002).To improve safety performance, the safety culture is an auxiliary factor for protecting and providing a safer work environment to take place.

Hinze et al. (2013) proved that lagging indicators gives information only to what happened in history, so no preventive or corrective actions can be planned for improving the performance based on these indicators. Furthermore, by defining appropriate leading indicators and monitoring their levels during the project’s execution steps, there is the probability of predicting the results in advance, so that prevention or correction are taken when necessary.1.2 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMIncidents and accidents are measured by the operations of systems and procedures used to prevent and eliminate the hazards and its effects to ascertain they are operating as intended.

Records of incidents and accidents in oil and gas industries in Nigeria are necessary for formulating safety policies and regulations in the petroleum industry. Therefore, evaluating the safety status in these industries periodically is important as it forms the bulk of safety management.The oil and gas industries carry out operations that pose high risk levels. Many of these industries have experienced accidents because of poor safety culture/ safe work operating procedures and poor regulations. The side effects of incidents (injuries, illness and pollution) arising from the petroleum sector on workers’ productivity are so huge that they should be morally, socially and legally compelled to instill safety culture in their workforce.

It is essential to estimate how the HSE culture concept is viewed in the petroleum sector in Nigeria, which is a key element for Nigerian economy. Therefore, estimating the performance of HSE culture is very important in identifying challenges and making corresponding improvements regarding HSE in Nigeria.1.3 AIM AND OBJECTIVES OF STUDYThe overall aim of this research is to evaluate the performance of HSE in selected oil and gas servicing companies in Rivers State, Nigeria.

This evaluation will provide insights towards the challenges to a positive HSE culture perception in these selected oil servicing industries with the view to making breakthroughs. The specific objectives are: To determine their awareness level on the Health, Safety and Environment Management Systems (HSE MS). To determine the performance or practice level of HSE MS. To identify areas that is deficient in the practice of HSE MS in the chosen oil servicing companies. To give recommendations on the efficacy of the HSE performance in the selected oil servicing companies. 1.

4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDYThis study will be focused specifically on the evaluation of HSE performance of selected oil servicing companies in Rivers State, Nigeria. All data and conclusions will relate exclusively to these companies. The study will be significant to the entire management and staff of these selected companies and other servicing companies that carry out similar activities as it will identify the deficient areas in the efficiency of the evaluation system and make it possible for them to take proactive and precautionary measures to limit accident and incident rates hence protect people, assets, environment and reputation of the company. SCOPE OF STUDYThis research is centered on determining the awareness and performance or practice levels of the HSE management systems, identifying areas that are deficient in the efficacy of health and safety culture in selected oil servicing companies and give recommendations on the methods to improve HSE culture in these companies. Two sources of data were both used in this study and analysis done with simple percentages, Microsoft excel and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance.

Presentation of the results were in charts, bars and tables. LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDYThis study will be conducted amongst the chosen oil and gas servicing companies in Rivers State, Nigeria. The population for the study will be limited to professionals, management and staff of these companies. Also, due to fear of given out information about their workplace and the negative attitude of Nigerians towards research, there was limitation in the structuring of the questionnaire. CHAPTER 2LITERATURE REVIEW2.1 THE BACKGROUND OF HSEFor decades, the idea of a secured and safe workplace has been in existence.

The first set of “laws” dealing with safety were recorded approximately 2000 B.C. These laws were set punishment in Babylon for those involved in injuries to workers (Dennis, 1997). According to Bamber (2008), the humanitarian reason for accident prevention revolves on the duty of any person ensuring the general well-being of his peers. This then places a responsibility on an employer to provide a working environment that is safe, secured and healthy for its workforce and the community where the business is conducted. The development of HS&E management became imperative after numerous catastrophes and harm to human life in the work environment and on sites (Channing, 2008).

Na’ankwat (2012) reported that as far back as the 1960s, researchers have alerted the world to the hazards posed by the chemical industry. The 1980s were earmarked by serious environmental and social incidents involving businesses, including the American oil tanker Exxon-Valdez which collided with the Bligh Reef and thus caused a major oil spillage in Alaska’s Prince William Sound, the Piper Alpha explosion, in the North Sea, near Aberdeen, the lethal explosion at the Union carbide chemical plant in Bhopal (Peattie, 2008). According to Na’ankwat, (2012), global warming, ozone layer depletion and climate change are the factors that combine to create widespread public, media and political concerns relative to the health and safety (H;S) of the products and production technologies that organizations employed and the function of the managers behind them.Since early 1980s, environmental and social issues have become a segment of the strategic agenda of an extensive range of industries. These were exclusive rights of the automotive, chemical and oil industries, coupled with social responsibilities centered on generating wealth, respecting laws and regulations regarding contracts, employment and H;S (Na’ankwat, 2012).

The general aim of HSE management is to guarantee that risks to workers, assets and the environment are properly controlled. This result in the efficient conduct of HS&E, which is paramount to the well-being of the employee, contributes to enhancing business reputation, and helps in achieving high performance in business and cost benefits. This assertion is supported by Erickson (2011) who suggested that treatment of employees was the most predictive factor of health and safety performance.2.2 THE HS&E MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORKThe principle of good and effective management provides a sound ground for the improvement of HS&E performance. HS&E management is concerned with organizational structures, the climate for change within an organization and individual roles within the organization.

According to Na’ankwat, (2012), most key elements required for effective HS;E management are very similar to those required for good quality, finances and general business management practices. Successful organizations usually have good HS;E management policy in place. Thus, if people are able to perform their tasks in a benign environment and employees find their work stimulating, this could help improve the health and well-being of an employee and also encourage job satisfaction.

Organizations that manage HS;E effectively know the correlation between the assessment and management of risks, health and the very core of the business itself. Management’s adherence to HS&E may vary either by obeying what the law says, considering the human resources aspects, or economic aspects, since every accident and ill health has a cost. It is the responsibility of management to identify those organizational attributes which influence safety and health behaviour by creating a positive attitude in which HS&E is seen by both management and employees as being fundamental to the organization’s day-to-day operations. This can happen through ensuring that the policies and systems take proper account of human capabilities and fallibilities (Na’ankwat, 2012). It is not enough for senior management to trust but they must also proof that workers are doing the right thing.2.2.1 Fundamental Components of effective HS&E Management SystemHSE Management System defines the elements by which an organization conducts operations to protect people, asset and the environment in which they work and live (HSE, 2000).

Effective HS&E management is not just critical to employee well-being, but also plays a crucial role in giving businesses a human face while facilitating the achievement of high-performance in groups. Due to unhealthy environmental management practices in oil servicing companies in Nigeria, it is imperative for these companies to place emphasis on achieving excellence in HS&E management. It is imperative for managers to establish and develop effective HS&E management systems to address challenges faced in existing policies.

A key outcome of successful HS&E management is that HS&E performance meets both organizational and statutory requirements and demonstrates commitment to continual growth (HSE, 2000). An average balance must be reached between the duty of a worker and that of the management to provide good working conditions in the workplace. Figure 2.1 shows the fundamentals of successful HS&E management. Figure 2.1 Key elements of successful health and safety management (HSE, 2000). ?Organizations must note that even with HS&E being extensively integrated into their business priority like HS&E policies, procedures, and training, HS&E experts, and top managers endorsing HS&E, the manner in which HS&E is approached to employees, will significantly influence their performance. PolicyStrong health and safety policies direct the organization on the best way to follow (HSE, 2006). The H&S policy must be endorsed by the Managing Director (MD) to state the mission and vision of a company. They contribute to every part of business performance as a segment of a demonstrable commitment to continual growth.

It is designed in a manner that roles to people and the environment are met in ways which fulfill the spirit and letter of the law (Hughes and Ferrett, 2007). Stakeholders’ expectations in project activities are achieved and satisfied. It must be simple, concise and the information passed to all relevant parties. Effective policies by the HSE (2000) should indicate a genuine commitment to action. OrganizingA shared common knowledge of the organization’s vision, values and beliefs is in place.

A direct and strong health and safety culture is seen by active leadership of top authorities (HSE, 2006). According to the HSE (2006), the successful management of HS&E is a line management responsibility with active participation at all employee levels under line supervision. Therefore, the organization management structure in place should be made to achieve a strong HS&E policy. Planning and ImplementingThere is a plan to implementing the health and safety policy through an effective HSE MS (HSE, 2006). The plan is focused on risk assessment methods designed to eliminate hazards and reduce risks.

Organizations must therefore conduct risk assessment to ensure control measures are developed (Holt, 2005). If the removal of risk is not feasible, they are lowered by using physical controls or through work systems and personal protective devices. 2.

2.1.4 Measuring PerformanceThe major aim of measuring performance against agreed standards is to reveal when and where improvement is needed (HSE, 2006).

It is pertinent to measure the organization against its long-term achievements. Individual monitoring reveals the effectiveness and significance of health and safety management system .If there is failure in the control measures, reactive monitoring will investigate whether accidents, illness or incidents could pose a potential harm or loss.HSE (2006) asserts that the active and reactive monitoring objectives include evaluation of the immediate causes of sub-standard performance; and determination of the underlying causes and the implications for the significance of HSE MS.It is imperative to note that managing an organization well does not measure only the presence of the positive (Bamber, 2008). Health and Safety is positive and observable and therefore measurable. According to Bamber (2008), an organization cannot be qualified as doing a good job by just relying on the absence of injuries and costs. Auditing and Reviewing PerformanceLesson is learnt by the management by past and relevant experiences (HSE, 2000). The results of monitoring and independent audits should be systematically reviewed to show that the right results are being achieved by the management.

HSE (2000) posits that overall performance can be evaluated by internal reference to key performance indicators; and external comparison with business competitors and best practice, irrespective of employment sector.2.3 HSE REGULATIONS IN AFRICAEnforcement of regulations is important to ensuring the effectiveness of regulations.

Researchers (like Anderson 2007; Idubor & Osiamoje 2013) explained that regulations without proper enforcement are significant to no laws, in the same vein Idubor & Osiamoje (2013) postulate that lack of strict enforcement of OSH regulations enables non- compliance to OSH regulations. According to Nwagbaraocha (2011), before late 2000s, African countries did not have legislation/regulations on HS&E laws. However, this practice has changed in recent times as countries on the continent have made improvements in their HS&E regulatory frameworks. Nwagbaraocha (2011) reports that the reason for this move can be attributed to pressure to modernize HS&E regulatory frameworks caused by increased foreign investment in the continent.

Nwagbaraocha (2011) also reported that the combination of public and private investment has given rise to considerable growth in countries such as Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Kenya which have experienced an average gross domestic product (GDP) growth of 6 % to 10 % in the last decade. The quantum of capital flows into Africa from international corporations and foreign governments is attracting attention to HS&E considerations. Concern for basic human rights, health and safety in the workplace, and potential environmental impacts of increased and expanded industrial operations have given rise to a new desire for operational clarity within Africa. Thus, the pursuit of clarity has also resulted in the need to improve HS&E regulatory frameworks (Nwagbaraocha, 2011). According to Na’ankwat (2012), all of this legislation is placing pressure and impacting on improved legislation on HS;E in African countries.

These attempts to strengthen the clarity about operations located beyond domestic borders may be a continuous factor as African countries strengthen their HS;E regulatory structures.?2.4 HSE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IN NIGERIANon-compliance to OSH regulations is a major contributor to the deplorable state of OSH in Nigeria.

According to Diugwu et al. (2012), the non-functionality of OSH regulations and provisions is the contributory factor to the failed OSH management system in Nigeria. There is also an argument that enforcement and complying with OSH guidelines are not the standalone steps for improving OSH, as enhancing organizational culture can also enhance OSH (Umeokafor et al., 2014).Nigeria signed the 1981 Convention held in Geneva (Adeogun and Okafor 2013), yet 36 years on, implementation of the convention is insignificant. The origin of OSH regulations/bills in Nigeria runs from the beginning of theLabour Act of 1974 to the enactment of the Labour, Safety, Health and Welfare Bill of 2012 (which has not been signed by the president).

With all these developments, Nigeria still has no national agency or authority, policy, established process and procedures, frameworks or guidelines that govern H;S in the country (Na’ankwat, 2012).In an effort to ensuring a responsible attitude to HS&E issues without clear or comprehensive HS&E regulations, multinationals impose either the laws of their parent company or some type of internal corporate requirements often without considering local conditions and the cultural differences such as risk perceptions and H&S cultures that exist between Nigeria and these countries. Currently, there is no comprehensive health and safety policy in Nigeria which would provide standards or guidelines to be adhered to by industry. What exist today, are pieces of old and obsolete Factories Acts which appears to be quite inadequate in coverage, empowerment, independence and currency (Umeokafor et al.

,2014),(Diugwu et al.,2012).2.5 THE CONCEPT OF HEALTH AND SAFETY CULTURESeveral authors and researchers have in their different studies explained the concept of health and safety culture. According to Antonsen (2009), “it is the values, attitudes, motivations and knowledge that affect the extent to which safety is emphasized over competing goals in decisions and behavior”. To some authors like Fishback and Kantor (2007), the concept of health and safety culture is regarded as “a process, belief or ideology” while some others have identified it as system and mechanism of retaining human resource.According to Stranks (2006), the health and safety culture should be taken as a “framework consisting variety of multi-dimensional elements”.

Stranks (2006) identified six main dimensions in the framework of safety culture in the oil and gas industry which include commitment, behaviour, awareness, adaptability, information and justness. It is said that all these six dimensions are interrelated and effective functioning of these dimensions is absolutely needed for the successful enforcement of health and safety culture at the oil and gas environment. The author has detailed the individual dimensions to ascertain the manner through which these six dimensions influence and establish the level of health and safety culture. 2.5.1 CommitmentCommitment is the number one in the six dimensions of safety culture which shows the level at which the top management and other members of the oil and gas industry hold positive vibe and behaviour to ensure and provide safety to its workforce.

Stranks (2006), in his study emphasized that commitment is concerned primarily with top managerial authorities. The management commitment determines and affects of resources made available for implementing safety culture. Inadequate commitment by top management will prevent the effectiveness of health and safety culture. Thus, gaining genuine commitment by top management for effecting safety culture is paramount to ensuring excellent level of safety to employees.

2.5.2 BehaviourBehaviour as the second dimension reflects worker’s attitude towards implementing, maintaining and improving the health and safety level (Burke ; Clarks, 2012). Positive attitude and behaviour by organization members towards safety culture prove beneficial in minimizing chances of hazards and its risks, danger, threats in the concerned business firms.To eliminate the chances of legal litigation in the oil and gas industries, it is necessary for the workers and other organization members to show positive behaviour and attitude to health and safety culture (Burke ; Clarks, 2012).2.5.

3 AwarenessAccording to Walker (2007), awareness reflects the level to which members of oil and gas companies are aware and understand the importance that safety and wellness of us and others is the obligation of every business organization despite the different operations they perform. Awareness applies equally to both higher and lower authorities of oil and gas industries. This is because awareness is conceptualized by higher authorities of the companies while it is executed actually by workers. A study by Walker (2007) explained that maintaining high monitoring level towards safety issues and concerns in oil and gas companies should be top priority for workers and top management.2.5.4 AdaptabilityThe willingness and commitment of workers towards learning modern safety strategies and actions is measured by adaptability (Stranks, 2010).

The failing to adhere strictly instructions on safety issues often results in various harm and consequences in the oil and gas environment. The extents at which harm and its effects are taken by top management and employees and level of response gained from past experience determine the successful efficiency of safety culture (Stranks, 2010).2.5.5 InformationInformation as the fifth dimension brings attention towards right flow of message to the correct persons from the right source. Right flow of communication is necessary to prevent the occurrence of misinformation and taking right actions at best time. Often times, misinformation leads to hazardous and high risk situations in oil and gas industries.

Therefore, authorities handling safety concerns and issues should ensure that members receive information in the right manner to avoid hazardous and high risk situations at the primitive stage (Wien, 2011).Maintaining a safety culture in the oil and gas environment involves focusing on the manner and approach with which members react to the safety related information. Many at times, it is seen that workers assign little or no significance to the flow and passage of information relating to safety.

This in turn makes the performance process in the oil and gas industries incline to high risk and hazardous situations. It is pertinent that workers and other members assign high significance to safety related information and react seriously towards such information (Burke ; Clarks, 2012).2.5.6 JustnessJustness is purely the duty of top level authorities in oil and gas companies. More precisely, justness indicates the limit at which safe behaviour and adherence with safety standards are encouraged, rewarded and motivated (Collins, 2009). It is a means of measuring the limit at which unsafe acts and unsafe conditions are discouraged at the work environment.

Collins (2009) explains that justness determines the future success and influence of safety culture in oil and gas companies. Rewarding and encouraging workers motivates them towards implementation and adherence of safety issues and concerns. Punishing and discouraging them for an unsafe act also develops fear among workers (Collins, 2009).2.5.2 Fundamental Elements of Safety CultureAccording to Ridley (2012), the health and safety culture concept comprises of eight fundamental elements and this is as shown in the Figure 2.2 below. The figure below shows the eight elements (business priorities, risk perceptions, safety procedure perceptions, competence, leadership, employee communication, worker’s involvement in safety and ownership of safety).

These fundamental elements of safety culture are interrelated and effective implementation of any of them influences the success rate of the other. It is seen from the diagram that every element of the safety culture is focused on strategic personnel of oil and gas industries and this is why Speegle (2012) explained these elements in the context of oil and gas environment.? Figure 2.2 Elements of Safety Culture (Ridley, 2012)?The element of business priorities depicts the aim and objectives of strategic authorities of respective business firms regarding safety aspects and health concerns.

The risk and threatening issues are pictured by the strategic authorities before considering the decision of effecting a safe and healthy oriented working environment (Speegle 2012).According to Speegle (2012), risk perceptions vary in every business firm because every business organization has a unique and distinct way of operation and nature and kinds of risk factors depend on the company. For example, risk perceptions are high in cases with high risk operations and hazardous situations like the oil and gas, pharmaceutical, chemical, manufacturing, leather industries compared to business organizations engaged in telecommunication, financial services, and insurance sector with less susceptibility to risk perceptions. The strategic top management of oil and gas industries visualizes and perceives safety procedures in their minds before the implementation in actual practice. Such visualization and perception is then portrayed in safety operating procedures. The strategic authorities of business firms also consult and discuss such visualization with specialized personnel in risk management before reaching the final result (Iqbal et al.

, 2004). The prepared safety operating procedures are then performed in real practice with strong leadership skills and competence. With regards to the last element of the process (ownership of the health and safety culture), this process is owned mutually by all organization members regardless of their level and function (Collins, 2009). This implies that safety is everyone’s concern and must be implemented with mutual efforts by all members. No personnel can implement this process individually or without coordinating with others. Therefore, it would be judicious decision on business firms to acknowledge formally that safety culture is owned by all members of the organization (Collins 2009).2.5.

3 Challenges and Barriers in Implementing Safety CultureThere are various challenges facing the effectiveness of safety culture in the oil and gas work environment. Inadequate support and commitment by high authorities is the main challenge to implementing a safety culture. Its cultivation and values among employees for the past many years is seen as being of little significance to the top management.

The effectiveness of safety culture requires adequate amount of financial, technological, and human resources. But, lack of appreciation of its importance lead oil and gas industries to linger in implementing safety culture (Maslen, 2008).Infrastructure is another challenge in implementing a healthy safety culture by Michael (2016).

Building the right environment for a safety management system is a difficult task and doesn’t happen overnight, so experiencing setbacks is part of it. Ensuring that your system is used to provide support to your teams, and not being scared to grow or scale back as needed (Michael, 2016) will help in overcoming this challenge.The complexness of the safety operating system is also shown as a barrier to implementing safety (Ariss, 2003). His study has stated that many oil and gas companies have shown appreciation for the significance of safety system and have also implemented it. But, the complexities faced in implementing this safety system in the oil and gas environment prevent the other firms from creating and implementing safety systems.

Training of employees was highlighted by Michael (2016) as another challenge facing safety culture implementation. He stated that properly trained employees can become the best advocates for the new safety culture whether it’s making alterations to an already existing system or introducing a recent one. Michael (2016) suggests that investing money and time in training and retaining team members, and permitting them to use their expert knowledge in leading a successful safety management system would help curb this challenge.Lack of worker’s involvement is also a challenge to the development and effectiveness of safety culture according to Quartey & Puplampu1 (2012). The situations leading workers to show little or no concern in the effectiveness of safety culture have been detailed by these authors.

This is seen by announcement of rewards when the workplace is attributed with less injuries and accidents. The employees are rewarded if the injuries reported are less. According to Kilaparthi (2014), such rewards enable workers to show less concern in using safety systems in reporting harm and its effects. The behaviour and attitude of an organization, from the top authorities to the least employee, influences the outcome of a safety management system. A lack of trust, or leaders who focus on the past, can frame any change as a negative, so it’s important to work together (Michael, 2016).2.6 HSE KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS (KPIs)Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) is a simple way of indicating how organizations are performing against their set objectives as they connect with safety, finance or production. Safety Performance Indicators (SPIs) are known for focusing on the negative workplace activities with indicators such as lost time injuries (LTIs) (HSE, 2006).

SPIs fall into two types just like other KPIs – leading and lagging. Lagging indicators (Lost time incidents, minor accidents, days lost, absence data, property damage) are in common use and tend to consider activities that are wrong, while the challenge is to develop meaningful leading indicator which include; safety audits, behaviour, attitude surveys and inspections. The ‘Swiss cheese’ model of accident causation by Prof. James Reason says that major accidents result from failures in risk control systems occurring at the same time – the holes in the Swiss cheese slices line up as shown in Figure 2.3 below. Leading indicators measure the actions used by an organization to lower the probability of an incident occurring. Lagging indicators analyze the probability, consequence, and type of incidents. Leading indicators that show systems are operating as presumed could include: Inspection records – Are inspections being carried out as needed? Maintenance Records – records indicate all maintenance ; repairs completed on each machine, vehicle, etc as indicated on the unit registry.

Meeting minutes – Are safety meetings being held in conformity with the schedule? Investigation reports – Are appropriate causes being identified? Are corrections being made in a manner that is timely and orderly? ? Figure 2.3 Swiss Cheese Model of Accident Trajectory (Adapted from Reason, 1997). ?The leading indicators are there to identify the failures through routine checking, to plug the holes before an incident or accident occurs. The HSE (2006) describes a six step approach to developing and using SPIs and they include; Establish the organizational arrangements to prepare and implement SPIs Define the range of the measuring system Identify the risk control system in place and set a lagging indicator that indicates failure Identify fundamental elements of the risk control system-actions or processes which must function correctly and set associated leading indicators Establish a data collection and reporting system Review data and take action.

?CHAPTER 3MATERIALS AND METHODS3.1 THE STUDY AREAThe study was carried out majorly in oil servicing companies in Trans-Amadi industrial layout, Port Harcourt City, Nigeria. It is located 5 km from the heart of Port-Harcourt with latitudinal extent between 4° 47′ N and 4o 48′ N and longitudinal extent between 7o1’E and 7o 2’E as shown in Figure 3.

1 below. It is the major industrial area of Port-Harcourt largely populated with many national and trans-national companies with very few residential areas. There is high in rush of people resulting in a rise in population which has been influenced by urbanization. This in turn is the reason for oil and allied industries expansion which also have attracted other manufacturing industries. The relief is generally lowland which has an average elevation of between 20 m and 30 m above sea level (Wikipedia, 2017). Figure 3.1: Study area showing Trans-Amadi (Google Maps, 2017).?Three oil servicing companies were used in this study from this study area and these companies carry out dissimilar activities and were labeled X, Y and Z because of ethical reasons.

Company X engage in logistics services, company Y carry out mud logging services, and finally, company Z that engage in engineering services. All companies are involved with high risk operations.3.2 RESPONDENTSFifty questionnaires were distributed each to three from the many oil servicing companies in Trans-Amadi Port Harcourt, Rivers State and 120 were returned and found suitable for the study. The answer or response rate for the respondents as per the three companies is as shown: company X 42, company Y 40, and company Z 38 respectively.

3.3 QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGNThe questionnaire for this research was arranged into three sections. Five questions which reveals information of the participants on age, gender, education, years of work experience and the employment type is structured in section one. Section two consists of ten questions on the awareness level of HSE MS, and section three has 10 questions on performance level of HSE MS. A self-completion format of questionnaire was used; and thus ‘yes’, ‘no’ and ‘undecided’ were given as the answer options. According to Ogbonna and Nwaogazie (2015), the ‘yes’ option is the correct answer, the ‘no’ and ‘undecided’ are the wrong answers.The questions were structured depending on the information from the interview with audit team of selected companies; information from personal communication with employees and also from HSE professionals and its approval was made by my research supervisor.

3.4 DATA COLLECTIONTwo sources of data have been employed in this study. The source of the primary data is drawn from using a well structured questionnaire administered to workers in three selected oil servicing companies in Trans-Amadi, Rivers State. Collection was made because research can only be conducted if data collection is feasible.From the 150 questionnaires shared among respondents of these companies, 120 were retrieved and found suitable for the study which represents 80% response rate. The resulting data collected serves as a standard for estimating the HSE performance of the selected companies. Secondary data were from audit reports on HSE performances of the companies (X, Y and Z).

3.5 DATA ANALYSISThe questionnaire reviewed the responses by these workers. Simple percentages, Microsoft excel and a statistical tool called Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (showing the concordance level among the raters) were used to analyze the data.3.5.

1 Kendall’s Coefficient of Concordance (W)Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (Kendall’s W) is an example of a non-parametric statistic. It serves as a means of assessing or estimating the agreement or concordance level among raters. Kendall’s W value covers from zero (no agreement) to one (complete agreement), (Nwaogazie, 2011). Intermediate values signify maximum or minimum degree of unison among respondents. The responses are rated with numerical values (known as the Likert series): Yes =3, No =2, Undecided =1.This is used when results come from different sources (from different opinion or judges) and concerns a few (k?2) objects.

It is often used in measuring the inter-judge reliability strength which could be awareness, performance, practice, attitude or opinion. Kendall’s coefficient of concordance is calculated on an ordinal scale (Likert scale) or interval scale. Its value is calculated as follows:?3.

5.2 Summation of RanksAssume that the object T is allocated the rank rt,j by judge number j, where there are in total n objects and m judges. Then the total rank allocated to object T is given as; Rt = ?_(j=1)^m?r_(t,j) (3.1)And the mean value of the total ranks (R?) is shown in equation (3.2) as: R? = 1/(2 )m (n+1) (3.

2)The sum of the squared deviations (Sd) is shown in equation (3.3) as: Sd = (3.3)Kendall’s (W) statistics is defined as (Nwaogazie, 2011) using equation (3.4) W= (12???(Rt-R?)^2 ?)/(?{m?^2 n(n^2-1)}) (3.4)Where Ri is shown by Equation (3.1) and it represents the total rank or rating given by respondents; m represents the total number of participants while n represents the total number of objects (in this case, questions); and R? is the mean value of the total rating represented in Equation (3.2) (Nwaogazie, 2011).

?CHAPTER 4RESULTS AND DISCUSSION4.1 RESULTSThis chapter shows the survey results obtained from the questionnaires administered. The analyzed results were organized in the excel sheet where tables, and charts were generated; giving room for comparison of the data obtained.

These results were presented alongside the research objectives in line with the methodology.The questionnaire designed for this study has three sections. Section one comprises of five questions intended for obtaining information on the background of the participants. Sections two and three aimed at obtaining respondent’s opinions with ten questions each on the awareness level of HSE-MS and performance level of HSE-MS respectively in companies X, Y and Z. The questionnaires were administered fifty (50) each to three different oil servicing companies namely: Company X which is engaged with logistics services, Company Y (engaged in mud logging services) and Company Z (that carry out engineering services).4.

1.1 QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSESThe basic (primary) data were collated via questionnaires administered to one hundred and fifty (150) persons. The total numbers of questionnaires retrieved and found valid for the analysis were 120.The responses were from 42 workers in Company X, 40 from Company Y, and 38 from Company Z. The response rates were 35% Company X, 33.30% Company Y and 31.70% Company Z as displayed in Figure 4.

1;? Figure 4.1: Response rate amongst three selected oil servicing companies in Rivers State, Nigeria.?4.1.

1.1Background Information of the Participants/Respondents Age Distribution Gender Distribution Educational Background Work Experience Employment TypeAge (Years) Frequency Gender Frequency Education Frequency Years Frequency Type Frequency18-25yrs 20 Male 100 Primary Nil 0-5yrs 18 Permanent 2826-35yrs 33 Female 17 Secondary 30 6-9yrs 16 Contract 6536-45yrs 42 No Response 3 Tertiary 84 10-14yrs 38 Labour 2746-55yrs 20 No Response 6 15yrs and above 45 ;55yrs 5 No response 3 Table 4.1: Respondent’s Background data DistributionTable 4.

2: HSE-MS Awareness level parametersS/No Awareness level of HSE MS Yes No UndecidedLA-1 Are you aware of what HSE MS entails 72 48 0LA-2 Leadership and commitment is the first element in HSE MS 104 15 1LA-3 Are you aware of what governs the integrated HSE MS 59 58 3LA-4 Do you agree that safety is an integral part of an industry 110 9 1LA-5 The management system uses the management process as a means of controlling risk in the organization 106 13 1LA-6 HSE MS enables organizations to meet legal requirements thereby remaining compliant 108 12 0LA-7 The Plan-Do-Check-Act for occupational health & safety management forms the basis of the three OH&S Management Systems 64 53 3LA-8 Successful organizations usually have good HS&E management policy in place 117 2 1LA-9 Non-compliance to OSH regulations is a major contributor to the poor state of OSH in Nigeria. 108 11 1LA-10 The principle of good and effective management provides a sound basis for the improvement of HS&E performance 103 16 1 *Shows the identified gaps; +LA-1 = Level of Awareness for question 1 Figure 4.2: The awareness level of HSE-MS in companies X, Y and Z and only the respondents that answered correctly are presented as measured from Table 4.2. Table 4.3 shows how the Kendall’s statistic, W was calculated. Rt for LA-1 was drawn from Table 4.

2 using Equation (3.1) as follows:Rt = (72*3) + (48*2) + (0*1) = 312.R? is evaluated using Equation (3.2), viz:R? = 0.5 *(120)*(10+1) =660 (same for all LA questions); andW = 12 * 1067769 1202 * 10(102-1) = 0.90 = 90% Based on Equations (3.

1) – (3.4), the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W for the level of HSE-MS awareness data in Table 4.2 is 0.

90. This indicates a high degree of agreement amongst the participants.The level of HSE-MS awareness among companies X, Y and Z is as displayed in Table 4.4 and only the number of respondents that answered correctly is represented and level of HSE-MS awareness among workers in companies X, Y and Z displayed in Figure 4.3 (extracted from Table 4.4).

?Table 4.3: Evaluation of Kendall’s W Statistic for respondents on HSE-MS awarenessS/N Level of Awareness Parameters, LA+ m n R R ? (R-R ?)^21 LA-1 120 10 312 660 1211042 LA-2 120 10 343 660 1004893 LA-3 120 10 296 660 1324964 LA-4 120 10 349 660 967215 LA-5 120 10 345 660 992256 LA-6 120 10 348 660 973447 LA-7 120 10 301 660 1288818 LA-8 120 10 356 660 924169 LA-9 120 10 347 660 9796910 LA-10 120 10 342 660 101124Total ?(R-R ?)^2 = 1067769Table 4.4: Level of HSE-MS Awareness among companies X, Y and Z.Parameters Company X (%) Company Y (%) Company Z (%)LA-1 76 75 26*LA-2 83 93 84LA-3 67 58 21*LA-4 95 88 92LA-5 90 95 79LA-6 100 95 74LA-7 83 53 21*LA-8 95 98 100LA-9 90 85 95LA-10 90 75 92*the identified gaps; +LA-1 = Level of HSE-MS Awareness for question 1? Figure 4.3: A good level of HSE-MS awareness among workers in companies X, Y and Z (extracted from Table 4.4).

The level of HSE-MS performance parameters among companies X, Y and Z is as displayed in Table 4.5 with only the respondents that answered correctly in Figure 4.4 and a good level of HSE-MS performance among workers in companies X, Y and Z displayed in Figure 4.5 (extracted from Table 4.7).

Table 4.5: HSE-MS level of performance parameters among companies X, Y and Z.S/No Performance Level of HSE MS Yes No UndecidedLP-1 There is a working HSE policy in the company 99 19 2LP-2 There is a good system for communicating HSE issues 87 33 0LP-3 Permit to work (PTW) procedure is made available before carrying out high risk operations 77 43 0LP-4 HSE induction and training is conducted for employees 76 43 1LP-5* A hygienic environment where employees can bring their food and eat is provided 45 73 2LP-6 There is an incident reporting procedure in the company 79 40 1LP-7 Contingency plans for emergencies are made available 75 43 2LP-8* Safety equipment and PPE are made available for employees 54 65 1LP-9 There is a good system in place to manage employee’s health 79 40 1LP-10 There is a good workplace organization 101 18 1*shows the identified gaps; +LP-1= Level of HSE-MS Performance for question 1 Figure 4.4: The Performance level of HSE-MS in three selected oil servicing companies in Rivers State and are represented as drawn from Table 4.5. Table 4.

6 shows how the Kendall’s statistic, W was calculated. Ri for LP-1 was calculated from Table 4.5 using Equation (3.1) as follows:Rt =(99*3) + (19*2) + (2*1) = 337.R? is evaluated using Equation (3.2), viz:R? = 0.5 *(120)*(10+1) =660 (same for all LP questions); andW = 12 * 1185447 1202 * 10(102-1) = 0.

99 = 99%Based on Equations (3.1) – (3.4), the Kendall’s coefficient of concordance, W for the performance level of HSE-MS data in Table 4.5 is 0.99. This indicates that the degree of agreement among the respondents is high.The Performance level of HSE-MS among the workers in companies X, Y and Z is as displayed in Table 4.7 and only the respondents that answered correctly is represented.

?Table 4.6: Evaluation of Kendall’s W Statistic for respondents on performance level of HSE-MSS/N Level of Performance Parameters, LP+ m n R R ? (R-R ?)^21 LP-1 120 10 337 660 1043292 LP-2 120 10 327 660 1108893 LP-3 120 10 317 660 1176494 LP-4 120 10 315 660 1190255 LP-5 120 10 283 660 1421296 LP-6 120 10 318 660 1169647 LP-7 120 10 313 660 1204098 LP-8 120 10 293 660 1346899 LP-9 120 10 318 660 11696410 LP-10 120 10 340 660 102400Total ?(R-R ?)^2 = 1185447 Table 4.7: Performance Level of HSE-MS among companies X, Y and Z Parameters Company X (%) Company Y (%) Company Z (%)LP-1 100 93 53LP-2 95 93 26*LP-3 90 98 0*LP-4 95 70 21*LP-5 93 10* 5*LP-6 86 88 21*LP-7 83 75 26*LP-8 90 25* 16*LP-9 83 80 32*LP-10 71 95 87 *the identified gaps; +LP-1 = Performance Level of HSE-MS for question 1? Figure 4.5: A good performance level of HSE-MS among X, Y and Z oil servicing companies (extracted from Table 4.

7). 4.2 DISCUSSION Result from Table 4.1 shows that 37.5% of the participants have worked for a period more than 15years, followed by those working for 10-14years (31.7%), then those working for 0-5years (15.

0%) and those who have worked for 6-9years (13.3%). Finally, no response in the years of experiences was shown by 2.5 % participants.Also, Table 4.1 shows that most workers in these companies are on contract employment (54.2%), followed by permanent staff (23.

3%), and finally by those employed under labour (22.5%).The results from (Tables 4.2 and 4.3) show that workers in companies (X, Y, Z) have good knowledge of HSE Q-MS, except on what governs the integrated HSE-MS.

The results indicated that only 49% of the participants have knowledge of what governs the integrated HSE-MS. Before now, HSE was just seen as a mere support function to the business. But today, the emphasis on business integration has positioned it in its pride of place as fully in-charge of its processes. This concept of integration is governed by the tripod of business integration, quality management and risk management to safeguard people, assets, environment and reputation of the company. Having good knowledge that safety is an integral part of an industry can reduce accidents that may lead to loss of people and production. Thus, it is imperative to train people adequately and checks and counter checks incorporated.To maintain that good HSE –MS is practiced and its performance evaluated, the oil servicing companies must be committed to leadership and organization, own an operating HSE policy, have a good system for communicating HSE issues, conduct HSE induction and training, ensure immediate plans for emergencies are made available, provide safety equipment and PPE to workers, provide a working environment that is hygienic and ensure there is a good system available to manage and maintain employee’s health.

Table 4.5 depicts the performance level of HSE-MS among companies X, Y and Z servicing companies in Rivers State. Majority of the workers indicated that they have an operating HSE policy in the company except for only 17%. HSE policy in an organization helps to raise workers awareness on the importance of HSE in achieving hitch free operations. Therefore, an organization must set its HSE policy to evaluate the present and future decisions of the company.Only 38% of the workers agreed that a hygienic environment where food can be eaten has been provided for them. This implies that hygiene is a lacking activity in these companies.

A good hygienic environment can help preserve health and thus, it is imperative for the management to preserve a hygienic environment for its workforce. Fifty-five percent (55%) of workers claimed that safety equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE) are not made available for them. This low practice of not providing safety equipment and PPE for workers can pose a potential harm to them. Ensuring that workers have their PPE is a safety practice and this can help protect them from an immediate danger.The good level of awareness on HSE-MS demonstrated by workers of companies X, Y and Z could be attributed to the fact that; Rivers State is characterized with oil and gas industries that carry out high risk operations and which in turn demands a high level of health and safety consciousness. The three selected oil servicing companies showed good level of awareness starting with company X, followed by company Y and finally, Company Z (see Figure 4.3).

Also, the ranking of HSE-MS performance level follows similar trend as the awareness level (see Figure 4.5). This is similar with the secondary data from the HSEQ MS audit report of these companies which indicated that the overall assessment of company X on HSEQ MS is 72% which is good in rating. The overall performance of company Y is 64.3%, which is fair in rating.

Finally, company Z showed 30% in its overall assessment which is unsatisfactory in rating (see Appendix II). Company Z is the least in both awareness and performance levels with ratings of 68% and 29% respectively. This shows that company Z has unsatisfactory performance level of HSE MS in providing a good system for communicating HSE issues, providing permit to work (PTW), conducting HSE induction and training for its employees, ensuring a hygienic environment, providing an incident reporting procedure, ensuring that contingency plans are made available, providing safety equipment and PPE for workers and maintaining a good system for managing employee’s health.Kendall’s analysis showed there were 90% and 99% levels of agreement amongst workers in these companies on HSE MS awareness and HSE MS performance respectively. These indicated a high degree of concordance among the participants.Stranks (2006), in his study emphasized that management commitment is concerned primarily with top managerial authorities. The management commitment determines and affects the resources made available for implementing HSE. Inadequate commitment by top management will prevent the effectiveness of health and safety culture.

Thus, gaining genuine commitment by top management for effecting safety culture is paramount to ensuring excellent level of safety to employees which is demonstrated in the findings of the study.?CHAPTER 5CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS5.1 CONCLUSIONBased on the results on the level of awareness of HSE MS and the performance level of HSE MS in Companies (X, Y, and Z), the study showed: There is good level (79%) of awareness on HSE MS among the workers of these selected oil servicing companies in Rivers State, Nigeria.

There is 64% average level of performance of HSE MS in companies X, Y and Z. The gaps identified in these companies include; lack of awareness on what governs the integrated HSE MS, lack of hygienic environment and non availability of safety equipment and personal protective equipment (PPE). More gaps were identified in company Z which included; providing a good system for communicating HSE issues, providing permit to work (PTW), conducting HSE induction and training for its employees, providing an incident reporting procedure, ensuring that contingency plans are made available, and maintaining a good system for managing employee’s health. On the statistical analysis, Kendall showed high degree of agreement among participants on the awareness level of HSE MS (0.

90) and (0.99) on the performance level of HSE MS respectively.?5.2 RECOMMENDATIONSThe following were recommendations underpinning the research study. Management of the three companies should give more HSE training to employees to create more awareness on integrated HSE MS. A hygienic environment should be made available for safeguarding workers against diseases and illness in all three companies.

Management the three companies should make provision for safety equipment and PPE to save workers from immediate danger. The management of company Z should make provision for contingency plans because emergency preparedness is necessary and maintain a good system for managing employee’s health. Tool box meetings and HSE review meetings in company Z should be carried out to communicate HSE related issues effectively. The management of company Z should provide a permit to work (PTW) procedure and draw a schedule to audit PTW process.?5.3 CONTRIBUTIONS TO KNOWLEDGEThe findings and recommendations of this research will be a yardstick to these companies in implementing HSE MS as business integration in quality and risk management. The findings will also maintain that these organizations give health and safety the same emphasis as other business objectives.

The recommendations will be a benchmark to a better practice and performance of HSE MS in oil servicing companies in Rivers State, Nigeria and provide references for further studies.


I'm Casey!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out