Sociological factors influencing the practice of incident reporting: the case of the shipping industry
| Published date | 11 November 2011 |
| Date | 11 November 2011 |
| Pages | 4-21 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/01425451211183237 |
| Author | Syamantak Bhattacharya |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Sociological factors influencing
the practice of incident reporting:
the case of the shipping industry
Syamantak Bhattacharya
Plymouth Business School, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to present the ways in which underlying social and
organisational factors and employment relations underpin the practice of incident reporting in the
international shipping industry.
Design/methodology/approach – The paper uses a qualitative case study method involving field
trips to two shipping organisations and sailing on research voyages on two ships of each of the
organisations. It draws on empirical data using semi-structured interviews, notes from fieldwork
observations and documentary analysis of company policies, procedures and practices.
Findings – In the two companies studied there were significant gaps between the policy and practice
of incident reporting, which were present primarily due to the employees’ fear of losing jobs. It is
shown that these findings were manifestations of deeper sociological issues and organisational
weaknesses in the shipping industry. In particular ineffective regulatory infrastructure, weak
employment practices, the absence of trade union support and lack of organisational trust were the key
underlying concerns which made incident reporting notably ineffective in the shipping context.
Originality/value – While the weaknesses in the practice of incident reporting in the shipping
industry were reported in the past, previous studies did not offer further explanations. This paper
addresses the gap and provides another illustration of the need for looking into deeper sociological
underpinnings for practices in the workplace. The author also hopes that the study will have a positive
impact on policy makers in the shipping industry.
Keywords Incident report,Shipping industry, Employment relations, Fear of blame, Trade unions,
Organizationaltrust, Marine transport, Industrialrelations
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
The significance of incident reporting stems from the notion that safeguarding workers
from workplace hazards is a continuous learning process. It is thus considered as one
of the central elements in the management of workplace health and safety (see HSE,
1997). It enables organisations to learn lessons from an incident by analysing its
underlying causal factors so that similar incidents may be prevented in the future.
In the shipping industry incident reporting is a regulatory obligation. The
International Safety Management (ISM) Code, which is a piece of globally applicable
legislation introduced to the industry in 1998, obliges the managers in shipping
companies to ensure that shipboard incidents are reported, investigated and analysed,
and subsequently the corrective actions are implemented with the objective to improve
shipboard safety (IMO, 2002).
However, reports from the industry indicate that the practice of incident reporting is
ineffective as it suffers from considerable underreporting. Maritime news articles, for
instance, point out that seafarers’ fear of being held responsible for the incidents that
they report results in significant underreporting (see, for instance, Sagen, 2006).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0142-5455.htm
ER
34,1
4
Employee Relations
Vol. 34 No. 1, 2012
pp. 4-21
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0142-5455
DOI 10.1108/01425451211183237
Maritime accident investigation reports and other anecdotal evidences also indicate
that such blame culture in the industry is the main hindering factor. While such views
and reports are useful to get an overall impression of the practice of incident reporting
in the shipping industry, there is a lack of academic study in the industry investigating
how social relations of employment and organisation al factors underpin the
operational aspects of incident reporting.
This paper aims to address this gap by discussing the empirical evidence of the
practice of incident reporting and analysing it in terms of the social relations between
the seafarers on board ships and their managers in shore-based management offices of
the same organisations. It also intends to place the finding in the context of
employment relations affecting seafarers, as well as in terms of the wider context of the
organisation and relations of employment in the shipping industry.
2. Incident and near-miss reporting
Heinrich (1931) theorised that the underlying causes for incidents which result in
near-miss occurrences, and those which unfortunately lead to more serious
consequences such as fatalities and injuries are similar. Therefore analysing the
causes of near-miss occurrences have equally significant benefits. In support of this
argument Wright and van der Schaaf (2004) highlighted that as the number of
workplace incidents, such as fatalities and injuries, are usually low it is important to
investigate the near-miss incidents with the same fervour. The relatively greater
number of near-miss incidents give the opportunity to get a more statistically reliable
result and also give opportunity to investigate the root causes of a greater number of
cases. The authors also pointed out that such an approach encourages a preventative
attitude towards protecting occupational health and safety. A number of more recent
empirical works (see for example Powell et al., 2007; Alamgir et al., 2009) have
supported this view. In the shipping context too the ISM Code follows similar
arguments and identifies the importance of reporting and analysing near-miss cases
with the same dedication as incidents.
Based on the common cause theory proposed by Heinrich (1931) an accident triangle
ratio relationship between the different severities of incidents, such as fatality, minor
injury and near-miss occurrence have been another popular development in this field. It
is now common to find safety literatures discussing that a single case of fatality
equates to a greater number of minor injury cases and to a much higher number of
non-injury or near-miss cases. The UK Health and Safety Executive, for instance, states
that when one major incident or over three-day lost-time injury occurs in an
organisation it is likely that in the same organisation the workers suffer from around
seven minor injury cases and around another 189 non-injury or near-miss cases (HSE,
1997, p. 8). However, there is a debate on the validity of such relationship. It questions
the legitimacy of such claim and argues that the objective of reporting and analysing
near-miss incident reports should be confined to the common cause theory and not
extended to the ratio relationship (see Wright and van der Schaaf, 2004).
Even though incident reporting is viewed as an important element to safeguard
workplace health and saf ety, studies indicate a nu mber of concerns in its
implementation. Research conducted in different industries such as steel, airline and
railways have revealed a high case of underreporting. Powell et al. (1971) in their
review of 2,000 cases of industrial injuries and incidents revealed the extent of the
Factors
influencing
reporting
5
To continue reading
Request your trial