Griffith University: Oughton Managing Cccupational Risk in Creative Industry

Oughton Managing cccupational risk in creative industry
Griffith University
Nicholas Oughton
Managing occupational risk in the creative industries: a new perspective—or has

OHS reached its use-by date?
Abstract:
Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) was designed in the mid nineteen-seventies to
enforce compliance with workplace safety legislation and improve industrial working
conditions for all workers. This initiative led to improved safety performance across most
Australian industries. Thirty-five years on, industrial contexts have changed dramatically
with the result that OHS, as originally conceived and currently practiced requires reform.
In setting about this task, consideration should be given to the rise of ‘New’ or ‘Creative’
industries (film, television and entertainment software; writing, publishing and print media;
performing arts; visual art and design; music composition and production), and a
commensurate decline in traditional industry. Creative industry thrives on risk opportunity
and flexibility, and is constrained by risk avoidance. An obsession with loss-control and
systems methodology that permeates traditional OHS practice is antipathetic to creative
enterprise. This paper discusses the contemporary context of OHS in Australia and its
failure to accommodate creative enterprise. It concludes by proposing the adoption of a
new model to be called Occupational Risk Management and Wellbeing (ORMW)
Biographical notes:
Nicholas Oughton has had many years experience in film and television production having
worked as a director, producer and production manager on a wide range of productions.
These include television commercials, documentary, educational and short feature films.
He has been involved in education since 1980 holding senior leadership positions such as
Associate Director, TAFE and Head, Griffith Film School. He has written and supervised
the delivery of many graduate and post-graduate degree programs as well as lecturing on a
variety of topics. He is currently the Convener of Film and Television Production at
Griffith University, is an executive officer and Past President of the Australian Screen
Production, Education and Research Association (ASPERA). Nicholas has been involved
with risk management and occupational health for over 20 years and is a Fellow of the
Safety Institute of Australia. His particular focus has been on the arts, and the film and
television industries. He has developed an on-line health and safety course for visual
Broderick & Leahy (eds) 1

TEXT Special Issue, ASPERA: New Screens, New Producers, New Learning, April 2011
artists, written a popular and informative book for visual and performing artists called ‘ A
Hard Hat to Follow’ and acted as a consultant on a range of national OHS projects.
Nicholas’s research encompasses many aspects of Risk Management and OHS relating to
the arts, creative practice, and the film and television industries. This research has been
published in national and international refereed journals.
Keywords:
OHS legislation – Creative industry – Film and television – Health and safety – Risk
management

Introduction
There has been little recognition of the fact that the creative industries, including the
screen-based industries, operate in a different environment and context from that of
traditional industries. This notion has resulted in the application of an orthodox or ‘one
size fits all’ framework of Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) in creative enterprise.
Certain challenges arise from this strategy, mainly because the OHS systems currently
employed were principally designed for twentieth century manufacturing with a focus on
evading risk and ensuring compliance. Put simply, creative enterprise thrives on risk
opportunity, and is constrained by risk avoidance and an obsession with safety.
Creative industries (sometimes called ‘knowledge’ or ‘new’ industries) generally include
those involved in film, television and entertainment software; writing, publishing and
print media; performing arts; visual art and design; music composition and production;
advertising, graphic design and architecture (Australian Government 2002).
I begin this article by discussing contemporary thinking regarding OHS and its general
application across all industries, and then focus on its function within the creative
industries. I will close with the proposal that we need a new OHS model for creative
practice, including the screen-based industries, and that this new model should be called
Occupational Risk Management and Wellbeing (ORMW).
OHS: A failing paradigm

The review Safety – a Wicked Problem, a study of CEOs’ views of contemporary OHS,
comments that: ‘Australia has reached a cross roads in its performance of OHS. We have
a complex, compliance based system in place, yet according to available evidence,
outcomes have leveled off or even worsened’ (Wagner 2010). Steve Griffiths (Griffiths
2007) suggests reasons for this predicament when stating that: ‘For many organizations,
improvements in safety performance plateau prematurely, largely because the
organizations underestimate the human aspect of safety’. In an article titled The Fifth Age
of Safety: The Adaptive Age, Borys and colleagues comment: ‘The gap between work as
imagined and work as performed and the failure of OHS management systems and safety
rules to adequately control risk means that a new perspective is required’ (Borys
2009:19).
In her landmark report, Working for a Healthier Tomorrow, Dame Carol Black
emphasizes the need for a new OHS model when she states: ‘The challenge for a new
paradigm of OHS is to examine the care pathways for working people and find new ways
to support them before, during and after illness at work’ (Black 2008:10). In a reflection
on Dame Carol’s report and other contemporary issues, Professor Niki Ellis, CEO of the
Institute of Compensation, Safety and Recovery Research, made the comment that: ‘OHS
is not fit for the 21st century. It is isolated, has a limited academic base and remit, uneven
provision, lack of good quality data, a poor image and is perceived by many as the
servant of the employer’ (Ellis 2010). Put bluntly, many researchers and practitioners
believe that OHS has reached its use-by date. Why are these researchers and practitioners
making these statements?
In terms of a parallel issue, related to management practices found in universities, Mark
Dudgson comments: ‘The trend is towards relationships becoming transactional, single-
minded focused on operational efficiencies, and incentives being directed towards the
immediately measurable.’ He continues: ‘Risk-taking is curtailed by procedure and
innovation is made subsidiary to established routines.’ Dodgson further comments:
‘Command and control management may be suitable for industrial factories, but it is
totally wrong for universities’ (Dodgeson 2010). Equally, just as industrial management
is wrong for universities, so industrial OHS is failing the creative industries.
Robens-style WHS legislation was introduced in the United Kingdom in 1974 (Quinlan
and Bohle 1991). The Robens approach strongly influenced safety practice and
legislation in Australia and is the dominant paradigm employed today. However, this
framework was designed for traditional industries, where the following applied: unions
were relatively strong; most workers worked on a permanent, full-time basis in medium
to large public enterprises for some years, giving stability and continuity to workplace
OHS culture and systems; consultative arrangements were assisted by continuity of
employment, union support and stable OHS frameworks; labour markets were highly
regulated, and workers generally trained ‘in house’ with the support of government-
sponsored technical colleges; workplaces were almost exclusively separated from
workers’ homes; products were generally made for a mass market; society valued
material products more highly than cultural/creative ones; and OHS responsibilities were
shared and incorporated in a line management structure.
the creative industry does not reflect the above paradigm. in this sector: unionization is
sporadic (where it exists at all); workers are mostly self-employed and their work is part
time, casual, precarious and often poorly paid; those who are employed change their
employers regularly (Gulberg 1999); consultative arrangements are hampered by the
transitory nature of employment; work is highly unregulated; many creative workers are
self-taught or gain credentials through higher education; most products are one-offs, or
made in limited batches for individuals or specialist markets; many workers work from
home; OHS is a personal responsibility that is individually managed; and, OHS practices
are often inadequate (Oughton 2006).
In addition, profound changes have occurred in the nature of work itself. The OHS
paradigm of the 1970s was designed for an industry model where workers were treated as
a unit of production—human cogs in a technocratic system. In well-designed workplaces,
ergonomists planned environments that were compatible with the physical, and to a lesser
degree the cognitive, nature of workers. The end-purpose, however, was most often
concerned with preserving the means of production rather than protecting workers. In the
new economies, cognitive, conceptual and creative capability is becoming highly valued,
replacing physical, technical and motor skills. The result is a need to shift the balance of

attention from controlling mechanical, chemical and biological hazards to managing risks
associated with the psychosocial and psychodynamic aspects of work.
OHS in isolation
One of the greatest failings of the current OHS paradigm is its isolation from general
health considerations and its separation from other aspects of the risk-management
spectrum. OHS, as generally applied, often fails to consider external determinants of a
person’s health such as socioeconomic circumstances, mainstream health care, health
specialties and the desire of many workers to create an effective work–life balance. For
example, many workers, in particular creative arts workers, strive to blend their work,
domestic and recreational life, spirituality and well-being in a borderless continuum. For
them, occupational health is inseparable from general health and not limited to reducing
business costs such as injury and illness, absenteeism, reduced work performance and
productivity, loss of skills and compliance failure.
Dame Carol Black (2008: 57) emphasizes the obvious when stating: ‘The way
workplaces affect a person’s health and well-being is not simply a medical issue. The
quality of the workplace experience can also impact on workers’ health.’ For example,
the impact of psycho-social hazards such as stress, bullying and harassment, lack of
control, poor communications, lack of support and recognition, interpersonal conflict and
procedural injustice can impact deleteriously on a worker’s health.
A second aspect of isolation is the failure of OHS to relate to other aspects of business
management. OHS today is generally associated with risk management, but is often
segregated from other areas of risk such as legal, financial, environmental, commercial,
psychosocial and security risk. In best practice, all risks should be treated in concert, as
decisions implemented in one risk area will inevitably have consequences for others.
OHS: A poor image

Occupational health and safety generally has a poor image. Mention that you work in, or
are associated with, this area at a dinner party and you will be rewarded with polite
silence, or subjected to a tirade of abuse concerning the restrictions and cost of applying
OHS, and how it is driving people out of business—particularly small business. Put
simply, OHS is not sexy!
Many small business owners believe that operating an OHS program is a moral
obligation, but that it constrains their ability to operate their business effectively. This is
partly because they are not conversant with the business case and economic benefits of
managing occupational wellness appropriately. It is also a result of the way OHS is
employed in contemporary industrial settings, including the way it is often unrelated to
other aspects of risk management, its disassociation from the general wellness of
workers, its failure to relate to contemporary industry contexts, its preference for saying

what you can’t do rather than what you can do, an emphasis on risk-avoidance and the
dated paradigm that is often taught in the education and training sector.
Minimal research, a limited academic base and inadequate education

The research infrastructure relating to OHS is limited, providing a paucity of data with
which to evaluate performance, design new pathways for professional practice and
provide the context for delivering high-quality education and training. Further, the
training that does take place is often reactive, and limited to managing compliance in a
corporate context where workers are required to follow orders rather than to think for
themselves.
Many educational institutions are perpetuating the twentieth century OHS canon driven
by a compulsion to comply with outdated legislation and regulations. They seek the
comfort and security of an authoritarian regime, rather than encouraging skills acquisition
and a self-regulatory environment. In many institutions, including my own, students are
expected to follow OHS procedures established by educational managers, and are not
encouraged to participate in designing these procedures and investing in their
implementation. With 50 per cent of creative workers being self-employed after
graduation, and thus becoming their own risk managers, we are failing to provide these
graduates with the skills and initiative to manage their well-being in professional life.
Worse, this failure is amplified by the fact that the other 50 per cent will generally work
in small business.
According to Walters and Lamm (2003: 3), small businesses face considerable challenges
when managing OHS. Compounding the problem is the fact that ‘small businesses are
difficult to regulate as they are heterogeneous, geographically scattered, lack cohesive
representation and have short life cycles’. Walters and Lamm list a number of factors that
make workers in small business more vulnerable to injury and ill-health, including: a lack
of staff, time and financial recourses available for safety management; balancing safety
requirements against business survival in an environment of financial constraint; under-
representation in the design of legislation, the burden of complying with complex
regulations, time consumed in responding to legislative changes, record-keeping and a
host of other administrative tasks; and, alienation from regulatory agencies and a belief
that legislative requirements threaten profits and survival.
What is clear is that the ‘at-risk’ status of small business workers and sole operators is
elevated by the highly interrelated and interdependent nature of their work. Sole operators
or owner-managers often fulfill all, or many, management functions themselves, and
there are rarely enough resources available to ‘buy in’ professional OHS support.
Additionally, consultation—a valuable cornerstone of contemporary OHS practice that is
often usefully employed in large and medium-sized businesses—is limited or non-
functional in small business. Who do you consult, confer with and seek council from if
you work alone?

Mindful of the fact that creativity has never been restricted to the arts alone, for creativity
prodigiously occurred at the Einsteinhaus in Berne, Edison Laboratory in New Jersey and
the Bauhaus in Weimar, as creative practice increasingly percolates into conventional
industry, a new model for managing occupational risk and wellbeing should take account
of tried and tested WHS practices that have provided increasingly healthier workplace for
traditional industry workers.
The case for occupational wellness rather than OHS

In 2008, PriceWaterhouseCoopers published the study Building the Case for Wellness.
This report, commissioned for the UK review Working for a Healthier Tomorrow: The
Health of Britain’s Working Age Population (PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2008), builds a
strong case for incorporating a broad, inclusive approach to occupational wellness in
business settings. The report draws attention to: the changing demographics of the
workforce; an aging workforce and need to deal with and avoid the disability associated
with a longer working life; the changing spectrum of injury and illness because of a
movement from manufacturing to creative and service0based industries; an increase in
psychosocial risk associated with workplaces; an increase in migrants and women in the
workforce; changing expectations of workers, including the notion of attaining a good
work–life balance; the increasing utilization of the home as a place of work; an increase
in chronic disease and the need to find improved ways to keep workers with disabilities at
work rather than finding ways to exclude them; the availability of research demonstrating
that ‘good’ work contributes to positive well-being, while being out of work can be a
health hazard; the increasing cost of ill-health in the workplace through higher rates of
absenteeism and reduced job performance; a changing focus of enterprises to incorporate
social responsibility, including the environment, the community and workers’ families;
and, an increasing competitiveness in the employment market and the need to attract and
retain staff.
These factors have a bearing on how health and wellness should be treated in a
contemporary workplace. Importantly, ideas rather than real estate, factories and plant are
the major assets of contemporary business. Ideas are the principal, and sometimes the
only, asset of creative enterprise.
The nature of creative practice

Currently, management theory and technocratic thinking dominate the discourse
surrounding OHS. This conversation now requires the refreshing ventilation of
imaginative reflection that comprehends the nature of both creative enterprise and
creative people.
Creativity is not a new phenomenon; it has been employed in the production of goods and
services for thousands of years. Creative endeavors embellished the walls of Paleolithic
caves with scenes celebrating the symbiosis of man and nature, composed Renaissance
choral music to enhance spiritual enlightenment, and provided the products of the
nineteenth century Arts and Crafts Movement as an alternative to mass production. These
were the original creative industries, and they were significant; however, they were also
small in scale, output and economic relevance. Today, though, creativity is at the heart of
a vast and growing industry sector.
According to Simon Evans, the founder of the UK company Creative Clusters: ‘Across
the world the creative sector is booming. Economic development agencies everywhere
have identified the creative industries as a growth sector, and most support them through
some form of cluster development’ (Evans 2005) In Australia, the federal government
actively supports what it views as an essential and growing industry with the injection of
substantial financial resources (Australian Government 2002).
Richard Florida (2004: 21) suggests: ‘We value creativity more highly than ever before
and cultivate it more intensely.’ Peter Coy contributes to the discourse when he suggests
that: ‘Now the industrial economy is giving way to the creative economy, and
corporations are at a crossroads, attributes that made them ideal for the 20th century will
cripple them in the 21st century’ (Coy 2000: 2). Creativity is a major component of the
‘new economy’, and creative enterprise is not well served by the current OHS paradigm.
Risk-taking and creative practice

Pablo Picasso provides a useful insight into gain, loss and creativity when he says: ‘Every
act of creation is also an act of destruction.’1 Picasso draws attention to the tradeoff that
often takes place when pursuing innovative, pioneering and creative activity. Creative
people are continually faced with the dilemma of trading loss for gain and utilizing risk.
John F. Kennedy pointed out that, when written in Chinese, the word ‘crisis’ is composed
of two characters – one represents danger, the other opportunity. Wayne Dwyer (1989:
71) argues that ‘obstacles are opportunities’ and ‘living with this paradox and
understanding that two seeming opposites always function within a harmonious whole is
integral to enlightenment’ (Dwyer 1989: 119). While seeking enlightenment and
illumination, creative practitioners require a risk-management tool that accommodates
ambiguity and paradox, one that sees beyond dualism into the concept of ‘oneness’.
Elizabeth Farrelly proposes that most people are a mix of contradictions, but that artists
are extreme versions of normalcy. She suggests that great artists are not just talented, but
also brave: ‘Spurred on by pain or necessity, they are driven to places from which the rest
of us shy’ (Farrelly 2007: 26-27). A recent example of this courage to go where others
fear to tread is documentary filmmaker Lisa Jackson. In her film The Greatest Silence, a
video story concerning the rape and mutilation of thousands of women in the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Jackson courageously confronts the horrors faced by many
Congolese women and the soldiers of a confused war who perpetrated the atrocities.
Risk management itself is a paradox: it is a process and discipline employed for
predicting and controlling the future—but risk (or chance) implies future uncertainty. The
tension that exists between risk and management—possibility and certainty—is a place
familiar to most creative practitioners, as they walk a fine line between the various
contradictory and opposing forces that permeate their work. Like kite-flying, where the
conflict between lift and restraint holds the kite aloft in a coalition and balance of
opposing forces, the confluence of seemingly contradictory elements is often the seat of
revelation, inspiration and explanation.
Discussing creative practice and innovation, Dr John H. Howard (2008: 16) suggests that:
‘Creative businesses have their origins in a process of inspiration, iteration and
experimentation rather than any codified body of knowledge’. Within Howard’s
definition, creative people are innovators, adventurers and risk-takers who create new
knowledge and modes rather than working within the secure confines of orthodox ideas
and forms.
Risk-taking is both central to creative practice and the initiator of innovation.
Unfortunately, this is not always recognised in contemporary OHS. For example, Risk
Management Code of Practice 2007 provided by Workplace Health and Safety
Queensland (WHSQ) defines risk negatively as: ‘The likelihood that a harmful
consequence (death, injury or illness) might result when exposed to a hazard’
(Department of Employment and Public Relations 2007: 18).
Subjective and qualitative risk management

Risk management is often defined as ‘the systematic application of policies, procedures
and practices to the task of managing risk’ (Standards Australia 2004: 4). It is a process
that relies heavily on rational thinking, empirical evidence and quantitative data in an
attempt to predict and control the future. This process is a valuable business tool, but
often fails to utilize subjective and qualitative information that can add value and efficacy
to a decision-making process.
Better known for his contribution to science, Daniel Bernoulli (1700–1782) was also
concerned with the nature of risk. His contribution to the study of risk resides in the
notion that objective calculations—or instance, those based on historical evidence—are
not totally reliable predictors of future events. In his observations concerning probability,
Bernoulli drew attention to subjective, or human, factors.
Referring to the work of Bernoulli, Peter Bernstein observes: ‘Bernoulli’s boldest
innovation was the notion that each of us, even the most rational, has a unique set of
values and responds accordingly.’ Bernstein adds: ‘He [Bernoulli] opens up a fascinating
insight into human behavior and the way we arrive at decisions and choices in the face of
risk’ (Bernstein 1998).
Turner (2002) adds to this perspective when stating that ‘the idea that we should consider
the world as a rationale deterministic machine with wholly straightforward laws and
wholly predictable outcomes is a fantasy … natural sciences are having to get to grips
with natural systems which are unpredictable, chaotic and never repeat themselves.’
Commenting on the role of behavior and human factors in OHS risk management,
Hillson and Murray-Webster (2005) point out that: ‘Risk-management is not done by
machines and robots.’ They emphasize the importance of individuals and their attitudes in
making decisions, referring to ‘judgment, insight, intuition and previous experience.
Human factors are important when considering the qualitative, subjective and intuitive
nature of creative practice. Artist Dennis Nona comes from the Torres Strait, and his
work is based on the rich narratives, creation stories and teachings of his Islander people.
While carving a lifelike replica of a Dugong (see Figure 1) from a large cedar log at art
school, Nona generated a considerable amount of wood chips and dust. Problems arose
when students and staff believed that, despite Nona’s attempts to dispose of the residue,
hazardous dust was accumulating in the Sculpture Studio. Cedar dust is a recognized
cause of injury to mill workers who have suffered long-term exposure.
Reflecting on this event later, Nona recalled an occurrence that presaged the incident and
its problems. One morning, while working on the sculpture, some crows on a nearby tree
behaved in a portentous manner, their actions reinforcing the feeling of trepidation he felt
as he carved a significant totem of his people in another mob’s country. On this occasion,
Nona was responding to intuitive information that is often discounted in orthodox risk
management. Gut feelings, instincts and hunches are often dismissed as non-scientific
claptrap, but may foreshadow incidents and dangerous events. In addition, the
socio/cultural context of this example draws attention to further research that should be
conducted into an indigenous perspective of risk perception, risk exploitation and risk
management in creative practice.
Figure 1: ‘Dugong Birthing’. Artist: Dennis Nona, 2007. Photography by Nicholas Oughton.
Managing occupational risk in the creative industries

Richard Florida provides guidance for the design of an occupational risk management
and wellness model when he says of creative people:
They are impatient with the strict separations that previously demarcated work, home and
leisure. Whereas the lifestyle of the previous organizational age [and traditional Industry]

emphasized conformity, the new lifestyle favors individuality, self-statement … and

multidimensional experience (Florida 2004: 13).
Occupational Risk-Management and Well-Being (ORMW) is a contemporary framework
designed to manage the risks associated with work and its relationship to both external
and internal factors. Its purpose is to ensure a holistic approach to wellness, while
understanding that work—which manifests itself in many ways—and life are often
integrated. It is designed to enhance the social and economic capital of society, while
sustaining industries, the environment and the working and wider community. At the
heart of ORMW is a focus on the primacy of the individual, with the understanding that
their well-being is a personal, community and corporate asset.
An occupational risk-management and well-being model

Some points to be considered when designing an ORMW framework for the creative
industries include:
• An ORMW model must focus on the small-business nature of creative industry,
its human dimensions, the paradox of creative practice and qualitative reflection.
• Contemporary OHS knowledge and practices do provide a useful starting point
from which to refine and build a contemporary ORMW framework for creative
industry.
• Creative workers often work alone. They are required to administer a broad range
of management tasks involving personal decision-making.
• Creative practitioners are often isolated from professional counseling, advice and
support.
• Creative practitioners are generally self-regulators, but require support systems to
assist them manage the risk environment in which they work.
• Creative business can be volatile and ephemeral, with little opportunity to develop
continuity and coherence in operational and management systems.
• Creative activity is often transient, with no consistent attachment to corporate or
institutional governance and standardized management structures.
• Creative industry lacks cohesion and there is limited opportunity for collective
deliberation and action.
• Creative activity usually involves reinvention and the creation of new, customized
products with little opportunity for economy of scale, effort and risk through
repetition and duplication.
• The creative process thrives in a risk-rich environment and is diminished by risk-
aversion.
• Creative workers often work in a home-based workshop.
• Hazard exposure levels are leveraged by long working hours and constant
exposure when a home and workshop are adjacent.
• Creative work is borderless. Professional practice, domestic life, social activity
and play are all part of one continuum.
• Creative practice often lacks a well-defined business model to govern its progress
and assist its sustainability.
• Creative practitioners often fail to develop an appropriate risk-management plan
for their work.
• Risk management in limited when only ‘command and control’ management is
applied, neglecting the role of qualitative factor such as intuition, creative
thinking and emotional intelligence.
With these points in mind, the following ORMW model has been designed to inform an
appropriate business plan, risk management plan and occupational risk-management and
wellness program for creative enterprise. The major elements of the proposed model are:
• A consideration for the integrated nature of work and life outside work, and a
focus on total wellness;
• An understanding that the risk context of a creative practitioner is broad and
determined by both external and internal forces;
• A well-balanced approach to qualitative and quantitative methods of risk
identification, evaluation, control and review;
• An understanding that work and risk are a personal perspective within a
community context, and that an occupational risk management and wellness
program should be individually created, community minded and environmentally
conscious;
• Predetermined business goals and business plans for arts practice and enterprise;
• Recognition of the idiosyncratic nature of creative industry and practice, including
its transitory, ephemeral, self-managed, self-regulated, home-based, low-
resourced and isolated circumstances;
• The understanding that risk should be managed creatively with an understanding
of balancing gain and loss, paradox and logic, ambiguity and certainty, instinct
and evidence;
• A holistic approach to risk-management in which the interrelatedness of
independent risk factors, as well as their scope, is accounted for;
• A framework that function as a ‘business’, as well as a ‘project’ occupational risk-
management and wellness program, and risk-management plan;
• An opportunity to development tailor-made programs and plans rather than
employing generic or off-the-shelf items; and,
• The integration of external support mechanisms from higher education

institutions, arts organizations, government entities and an ORMW Code of
Practice.
In reality, this is a starting point only. A longer, more thoughtful process should be
considered. The goal is to provide creative practitioners with a model that maximizes
their opportunity to create successful businesses, protect their well-being and enhance
their communities. The model should consider a blend of life and creative goals, business
planning, risk management, occupational wellness and traditional occupational health and
safety.
Notes
1. Found at Think Exist.Com,
http://thinkexist.com/quotation/every_act_of_creation_is_first_an_act_of/217991.html (accessed 21
October 2010)
Works cited
Australian Government 2002 Creative Industry Clusters Report, Canberra: Department of Information,
Technology and the Arts
Black, C 2008 Working for a Healthier Tomorrow: A review of Britain’s working population, Report for
the Secretary of State for Health, London, 17 March
Bernstein, Peter 1998 Against the Gods: The remarkable story of risk, New York: John Wiley and Sons
Borys, D, Else, D and Leggett, S 2009 ‘The Fifth Age of Safety: The adaptive age’, Journal of Health and
Safety Research and Practice, 1:1, 7
Coy, P 2000 ‘The Creative Economy: The 21st Century Corporation’, Business Week Online, 28 August, at
http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_35/b3696002.htm (accessed 21 October 2010)
Department of Employment and Industrial Relations 2007 Risk Management Code of Practice 2007,
Brisbane: Government of Queensland.
Dodgson, M 2010 ‘Loose the Corporate Straitjacket and Set Minds Free’, The Australian, 26 May, 23
Dwyer, WD 1989 You’ll See It When You Believe It, Melbourne: Schwartz
Ellis, N 2010 ‘Towards a Policy on OHS Research’, conference paper, OHS Research 2010–2020,
Melbourne 19-20 April
Evans, S 2005 Creative Clusters, at http://www.india-seminar.com/2005/553/553 simon evans.htm
(accessed 21 October 2010)
Farrelly, E 2007 ‘Art in the Fast Lane’ Sydney Morning Herald, Spectrum 8 December, 26-7
Florida, R 2004 The Rise of the Creative Class New York: Basic Books
Griffiths, S 2008 ‘Achieving Cultural Change Through Safety Leadership’ SIA News, 1, August
Gulberg, H 1999 The Arts Economy 1968–98, Sydney: Australia Council
Hillson, D and Murray-Webster, R 2005 Understanding and Managing Risk Attitude, Burlington: Gower

Howard, JH 2008 Between a Hard Rock and a Soft Place: Creative practice and innovation, Melbourne:
Council of Humanities and Social Sciences
Oughton, N 2006 ‘The Art of Survival: An OHS study of arts practitioners’ Journal of Occupational
Health and Safety, Australia and New Zealand 22 (4), 351-35
Peter Wagner and Associates 2010 Safety, A wicked problem A review of CEO’s views on OHS
transformation, at [email protected] (accessed 15 April 2011)
PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2008 Building the Case for Wellness, Report commissioned by the Health Work
Wellbeing Executive, 4 February, London: Pricewaterhouse Coopers LLP
Quinlan, I and Bohle, P 1991 Managing Occupational Health and Safety in Australia, Melbourne:
Macmillan
Standards Australia 2004 Risk Management Guidelines: Companion to AS/NZS 4306:2004, Sydney:
Standards Australia International
Turner, BA 2002 ‘The Symbolic Understanding of Organizations’, in M Reed and M Hughes (eds)
Rethinking Organizations London: Sage, 47-53
Walters, D and Lamm, F 2003 ‘OHS in Small Organizations: Some challenges and ways forward’
conference paper, Australian OHS Regulations for the 21st Century, Gold Coast, 20-22 July


Griffith University: Oughton Managing Cccupational Risk in Creative Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griffith University: Oughton Managing Cccupational Risk in Creative Industry

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Griffith University: Oughton Managing Cccupational Risk in Creative Industry

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Oughton Managing cccupational risk in creative industry

Managing occupational risk in the creative industries: a new perspective—or has

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 1

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 2

OHS: A failing paradigm

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 4

OHS: A poor image

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 5

Minimal research, a limited academic base and inadequate education

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 6

The case for occupational wellness rather than OHS

The nature of creative practice

Risk-taking and creative practice

Subjective and qualitative risk management

Managing occupational risk in the creative industries

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 10

emphasized conformity, the new lifestyle favors individuality, self-statement … and

An occupational risk-management and well-being model

• The integration of external support mechanisms from higher education

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 13

Broderick & Leahy (eds) 14

You might also like