Safety and Proportion: A Qualitative Study of Expert Perceptions of OSH Decision Making in the UK

IF 5.2 1区 管理学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Laurence N. Ball
{"title":"Safety and Proportion: A Qualitative Study of Expert Perceptions of OSH Decision Making in the UK","authors":"Laurence N. Ball","doi":"10.5539/par.v12n2p33","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since the early 1970s the UK has been a global pioneer of a risk-based approach to OSH, a key element of which is that duty holders are responsible for assessing risks and on that basis determining which controls are necessary. According to the accompanying legislative doctrine, duty holders may be penalized if there is a failure to implement necessary controls. Events have also shown that duty holders who implement controls which are deemed to be disproportionate may also be criticised. This paper describes an investigation of how the risk-based regulatory regime is perceived 50 years on by a cohort of UK experts, and the nature in their view of any difficulties encountered by duty holders in achieving proportionality. It is concluded that while the risk-based approach continues to enjoy widespread support, duty holders face a challenging task in striking an appropriate balance, and some system-related perils render this task problematic.","PeriodicalId":48366,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5539/par.v12n2p33","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the early 1970s the UK has been a global pioneer of a risk-based approach to OSH, a key element of which is that duty holders are responsible for assessing risks and on that basis determining which controls are necessary. According to the accompanying legislative doctrine, duty holders may be penalized if there is a failure to implement necessary controls. Events have also shown that duty holders who implement controls which are deemed to be disproportionate may also be criticised. This paper describes an investigation of how the risk-based regulatory regime is perceived 50 years on by a cohort of UK experts, and the nature in their view of any difficulties encountered by duty holders in achieving proportionality. It is concluded that while the risk-based approach continues to enjoy widespread support, duty holders face a challenging task in striking an appropriate balance, and some system-related perils render this task problematic.
安全与比例:在英国职业安全卫生决策的专家看法的定性研究
自20世纪70年代初以来,英国一直是基于风险的职业安全与健康方法的全球先驱,其中一个关键因素是责任持有人负责评估风险,并在此基础上确定哪些控制是必要的。根据附带的立法原则,如果未能实施必要的控制,义务持有人可能会受到惩罚。事件还表明,实施被认为不成比例的控制的责任人也可能受到批评。本文描述了一项调查,调查了一群英国专家50年来如何看待基于风险的监管制度,以及他们认为责任持有人在实现相称性方面遇到的任何困难的性质。结论是,尽管基于风险的方法继续得到广泛支持,但职责持有人在实现适当平衡方面面临着一项具有挑战性的任务,一些与系统相关的风险使这项任务存在问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
11.90%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory serves as a bridge between public administration or public management scholarship and public policy studies. The Journal aims to provide in-depth analysis of developments in the organizational, administrative, and policy sciences as they apply to government and governance. Each issue brings you critical perspectives and cogent analyses, serving as an outlet for the best theoretical and research work in the field. The Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory is the official journal of the Public Management Research Association.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信