Literature Review on the

Value of Safety and Safety as a

Value
Simo Salminen, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Gerard Zwetsloot, TNO

Henriikka Ratilainen, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Markku Aaltonen, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

Pia Perttula, Finnish Institute of Occupational Health

1 Introduction

There is a growing attention for the value of safety and safety values. This can be illustrated
by the recent European Guideline for the oil and gas industry, whereby that industry is
required to have ‘safety as a core value’ (EC 2013/30). The International Atomic Energy
Agency (2009) also puts an emphasis on the importance of safety ’as a clearly recognized
value’.

As there is no generally accepted definition of the value of safety, or a safety as a value, the
VALOSA project aims to fill that gap.

The purpose of this paper is to review the scientific literature on the value of safety, and
safety as a value. Safety can thereby be a value for organizations, for individuals (e.g.
managers or, workers) and for society at large. There are quite few peer-reviewed scientific
publications on the value of safety, other than the economic value. In fact, the value of
safety seems and safety values are implicit in most safety research (as the aim is usually to
somehow contribute to the improvement of safety). However, it is only very seldom
explicitly addressed in the scientific literature. Therefore we have included also some not
peer-reviewed publications in this review.

Many companies describe safety as their top priority but that does not necessarily mean
that safety is a (core) value? Values are operating philosophies or principles that guide an
organization’s internal conduct as well as its relationship with the external world. Values
provide guidance for people on what is good or desirable and what is not. This means that
values are more stable and can expected to have a more sustainable impact on safety than
safety as ‘just a priority’.

1
In this literature review we first focus on the value of safety and safety values. Though there
is not yet an accepted consensus on what the safety value is, there are still some literatures
wherein practical issues with respect to safety values are mentioned. While it is likely that
the respective authors give different meanings to the concept of ‘the value of safety’ it
seems nevertheless relevant to give an overview of literature on the impact of safety values
on daily routines, and on factors relevant for implementation.

The annex includes the list of publications which were used in preparing this review. Some
key points of the publications are also provided.

2 Values

There are many different definitions of values. However, when speaking about safety values,
the number of definitions is more limited. There is no unanimously accepted definition of
safety values.

Values are defined by Milton Rokeach as “core conceptions of the desirable within every
individual and society” (Crowe, 1995). On the other hand, Colley et al. (2013) defined values
as beliefs regarding what is important, either for individuals, or for the organization as a
whole. Ravlin (1998) includes also the social learning in the definition when describing that
values are “constant set of core beliefs held by individuals concerning how they should or
ought to behave over a broad range of situations” which are difficult to change in adulthood,
but can through the socialization processes experienced during life.

In an earlier study Zwetsloot et al. (2013b) have listed the definitions for value.

“According to the Oxford dictionary (2015) values are the “principles or standards of
behavior; one’s judgment of what is important in life”. According to the glossary terms
of the excellence model of the European Foundation for Quality Management (2015)
values are “operating philosophies or principles that guide an organization’s internal
conduct as well as its relationship with the external world. Values provide guidance for
people on what is good or desirable and what is not. They exert major influence on the
behavior of individuals and teams and serve as broad guidelines in all situations”.
According to the Cambridge dictionary (2015) a “core value is a value or belief that is
more important than any other”.”

Core values “underlie the organization’s mission, vision, and strategies, but also the
design and functioning of their systems, structure, style of operation, and the selection
and development of staff and skills (Peters & Waterman 1982); they have the potential
to guide the practices and behaviors of managers, supervisors, and workers. When
internalized, core values are more stable than corporate structures or management
systems, especially in periods of reorganization and change.”

2
This shows a great potential if safety is really a shared (core) value in organisations.

Values are motivational elements (Ravlin 1998). They give a reason to desire one alternative
over another.

Keller, Bouchard, Arvey, Segal and Davis (1992) have shown in their work value study that
40% of the variance in measured values of individuals was related to genetic factors, and
60% of the variance was associated with environmental factors and error variance. This
means that the values of individual people can be influenced significantly by environmental
factors, but also that there are also personality factors that cannot be influenced.
Organizations can set safety as a priority but that does not automatically include the value of
safety, certainly not for all individuals. However, systematic and consistent prioritizing safety
can be seen as a tool for sharing values and encouraging members of the organization to
acquire them.

Values are learned from others but after that strengthened and molded by individual’s
experiences and values can be changed through socialization.

3 The value of safety and safety values

One can state that safety is a value in itself (Zwetsloot et al. 2013b). There are good reasons
to say that safety at work represents a value in themselves. Safety certainly belongs to what
most people judge to be important in life (which was part of one of the definitions of a
value, given above), (Zwetsloot et al. 2013b). However that does not give us a definition or
further insight into the value of safety, or safety values.

US OSHA quotes in their White paper on Injury and Illness Prevention Programs (OSHA 2012)
the CEO of Parsons cooperation: Establishing safety as a value rather than a priority tells our
employees and our customers that safety is built into our culture, not something we do to
merely comply with regulations.

Zwetsloot et al (2013a) call the ‘zero accident vision’ the only ethically sustainable long-term
goal for safety management, while the ILO declared that the protection of health and safety
at work is fundamental right, related to the Declaration of Human Rights. That was
confirmed by the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights in 1976 (Alli 2008).

Value of safety is expressed through the organization’s safety policies, practices, and
procedures (Sinclair et al., 2010). In safety-critical organizations framework supplied by
value-focused thinking helps to understand decisions made by operators (Merrick et al.,
2005).

3
Cooper (2001) has stated that the idea of ‘safety is a value’ is based on the “fundamental
philosophy that all injuries are preventable and that the goal of zero injuries can be
achieved”

Safety values are defined by Newman and her co-workers (2012) as the importance
associated with safety within an organization. According to Newman et al safety values are
predictors of the safety information exchange between supervisors and employees.
Newman and her co-workers (2008) concentrated on intrinsic value of safety, rather than
extrinsic motivators, such as rewards and punishment.

Perceptions of workplace safety values are transmitted across levels of the organization. Fu
and Chan (2014) defined safety values at Taipei International Airport as safety practices
which are implemented even under the pressure of completing tasks.

The Robert W. Campbell Award recognizes organizations that achieve business excellence by
integrating environmental, health and safety (EHS) management into their business
operating systems (see table).

Recognizing Business Excellence in Safety and Health

The Award aims to:
• Recognize businesses that uphold EHS as a key business value and link measurable
achievement in EHS performance to productivity and profitability.
• Establish a validated process by which industries can measure the performance of their
EHS operations system against well-tested and internationally accepted key performance
indicators.
• Use a rigorous systematic review process to capture and evaluate the successes and lessons
learned.
• Share leading edge EHS management systems and best practices for educational purposes
worldwide.
The Award program is supported by a network of 22 Global Partners across five continents
committed to promoting EHS as an integral component of business management worldwide.
Source: www.campbellaward.org.

4 Safety related supporting values

According to Reason [1997], a characteristic of a positive safety culture is a ‘just culture’: an

atmosphere of trust that encourages people to deliver OSH relevant information and where
everybody knows what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Justice and reliable
information, even if it is bad news, generates credibility and confidence in safety
management. Reason also emphasized the importance of informedness and trust as values
that are necessary elements of a good safety culture. (Reason 1997).
Dierdorf and Morgeson (2013) wrote that achievement (accomplishment and utilization of
one’s abilities), independence (reinforcement and stimulation initiative and creativity),
altruism (fostering harmony and service to others), status (advancement, recognition and
prestige), and comfort (supportive and free from stress) were safety-related values. On the

4
other hand, Colley and Neal (2012) had identified 42 concepts across a series of interviews,
which were indicators of the value and importance that ascribed to safety

Gregory et al. (2009) mentioned five culture domains, associated with competing values:

1. Group culture, which included belonging to the group, cohesiveness, participatory

decision making, and support from co-workers,
2. Development culture: flexibility and adaptation
3. Rational culture considering goal attainment, productivity, achievement and
competition
4. Hierarchical culture: internally focused control, job security
5. Balanced culture including values associated with each domains are strongly held.

The basic values of security cover an emphasis on safety, harmony, and stability (Hystad &
Bye, 2013).

In the book of Townsend (2013) there is attention to safety values and beliefs. He analyses
the values and beliefs of 11 companies and the HSE, based on the companies’ CSR reports
and the HSE report. Based on the idea that a value is what is important to the organization,
he regards statements like “injuries are unacceptable” as a value. As a follow-up Townsend
analyses how consistent they then translate these values into “key themes and concepts” i.e.
commitment, audits, worker/staff behavior, competency, communication, skills, ability and
proficiency, shared values and attitudes, motivation, and mutual trust and reciprocal
dialogue.

Zwetsloot et al. (2013b) identified twenty-nine values and value related factors that are
described in the literature as supportive to Health, Safety and Well-being at Work. These
were clustered around seven core values. These seven core values were then grouped in
three value clusters. The first value cluster is characterized by a positive attitude toward
people and their ‘being’; it comprises the core values of interconnectedness, participation
and trust. The second value cluster is relevant for the organizational and individual ‘doing’,
for actions planned or undertaken, and comprises justice and responsibility. The third value
cluster is relevant for ‘becoming’ and is characterized by the alignment of personal and
organizational development; it comprises the values of growth and resilience.

5 Safety values and safety culture

Schein (1997, 2007) distinguished three levels of organizational culture: basic assumptions,
espoused values, and artifacts. The basic assumptions cannot be directly observed or
perceived, but they are the core of an organizational culture. The espoused values are those
that the organization and its top management proclaim to be important. The artifacts, e.g.
working practices, are phenomena co-determined by the corporate culture; they can easily

5
be observed or measured, but it is not so easy to clarify the link with the two underlying
layers of the culture. The influence of the deeper layers of culture, the basic assumptions
and values, on the members of the organization remains largely unconscious or even
subconscious [Hofstede et al 2010, Schein 1997, Schein 2007]. It is transferred to new
members of the organization through implicit socialization processes. In his research Schein
clearly demonstrated that for a long-lasting safety improvement, a change in the
organizational culture can be needed, implying that this change cannot be limited to a
change in artifacts or espoused theories, but also requires a change of the ‘basic
assumptions,’ which we assume to include internalized values (Giddens 1991).

Safety culture concern meanings, interpretations, attitudes, values, beliefs, rules and
procedures related to safety (Díaz-Cabrera et al., 2007). Safety climate is defined as “these
shared perceptions about safety values, norms, beliefs, practices, and principles of workers
in their environments” (Gyekye & Salminen, 2009, 2010).

Safety values are closely connected with organizational culture. Organizational culture is
defined as shared values and beliefs that interact with company’s people, organizational
structures and control system to produce behavioral norms (Edwards et al., 2013). On the
other hand, Guldenmund (2000) includes beliefs and values about work, people, the
organization and the community that are shared by most members within the organization
as a part organizational culture.

Safety climate describes individual perceptions of the value of safety in the work
environment (Neal, Griffin & Hart 2000). Organizational safety climate is a specific form of
organizational climate, which denotes the shared perception of safety values, norms, beliefs,
practices, and principles that workers have of their work environments (Gyekye et al., 2012).
An anthropological view sees safety culture as a series of underlying beliefs, attitudes, values
and assumptions shared by members of an organization (Edwards et al., 2013).

The definitions of safety culture and safety climate often share the same words illustrating
the weak boundary between organizational climate and safety culture.

In addition, Diaz-Cabrera and her co-workers (2007) found in the factor analysis of
organizational safety climate a factor including the following values: values ruling fulfillment,
values in sincerity and participation, values of goal achievement, values in collaboration in
goals achievement, values participating in safety promotion, values ruling observation,
values contributing creative ideas, and values initiating in finding new solutions.

6 Mechanism that form and strengthen organizational

safety values

6
Values can be conveyed through organizational socialization, when leaders set the values of
the organization and propagate them to employees. This requires that values serve some
kind of function for the individual or they must be presented as the only possible
interpretation of the situation. (Ravlin 1998)

Some mechanisms have been found that strengthen safety values. For example, supervisor
safety practices are associated with a stronger safety values (Newman et al., 2012). Griffin
and Neal used a four item scale about the degree to which managers were perceived to
value safety in the workplace. An example item was “Management values safety” (Griffin &
Neal, 2000). Drivers were motivated to drive safely if they perceived both their supervisors
and fleet manager value safety.

Management tend to be associated with global policies and safety culture, and so influence
safety at an industry level. On the other hand, supervisors and workmates influence safety
climate and group values and thus showed a greater influence on local safety performance.
At the shop-floor level the guidelines and values are modified or reinterpreted. Level of trust
in workmates was the strongest predictor of near-miss involvement (Conchie & Donald,
2006). Trust/mistrust attitudes towards management were identified as the strongest
influence on safety performance (Conchie & Donald, 2006). Trust is a necessary condition for
spread of safety values (compare with Reason 1997). Well-aligned words and actions send
clear signals to employees that appropriate safety behavior will be rewarded and
inappropriate safety behavior will be sanctioned

Trade unions make workplace safety a high priority in contract bargaining. Safety motivation
was related to the union and supervisor safety values, but safety knowledge was not related
to safety values (Sinclair et al., 2010). When sea farers were high on hardiness, personal
values had no effect on safety behavior. On the other hand, when hardiness was low,
conservation values (security) seemed to increase safety behavior (Hystad & Bye, 2013).

Safety value chain identifies those who contribute to accident prevention and sustain of
system safety. It also highlights the agency influencing and contributing to accident
prevention and sustainment of system safety. Safety value chain includes operators,
technicians, engineers, system designers, managers and executives, shareholders, regulators,
safety inspectors, and accident investigators (Saleh & Pendley, 2012). Gregory et al. (2009)
listed managers’ support, empowerment, mentoring and supporting team work ways to
improve safety values.

7 Impact of safety values on daily routines

7
Safety and environmental matters are the first on the agenda, said an English CEO (Karr,
1999). When managers espouse safety values in their speeches, employees may perceive
the leader’s concern for safety as more genuine, and therefore they would be more likely to
speak about safety issues (Halbesleben et al., 2013). Responsibility of Australian fleet
managers in safety management could be acknowledged more formally, in order to
strengthen the fleet manager’s role to ensure the organizational approach to fleet safety.
They also provide feedback to drivers on their safety performance in a work vehicle
(Newman et al., 2008). A supervisor who values safety is more likely to be committed to
prioritizing safety within their work role tasks, and this tendency is consistent with their
safety actions (Newman et al., 2012). However, 88% of British senior directors indicated that
employee morale and reputation would be adversely affected by a poor health and safety
culture (Smallman & John, 2001).

Colley and Neal (2012) found some unexpected results. Firstly, corporate values were more
central to supervisors’ schema than to senior managers’ schema. Corporate values play an
important role for supervisors in the way that they approach and deal with safety. Secondly,
issues relating to the work environment, e.g. trade-off between safety and productivity are
more central for senior managers than for supervisors.

When workers perceive their organization to be supportive, they also perceive management
as valuing their safety (Salminen et al., 2013). Older workers had the best perceptions of
safety, managements’ concern for workers’ safety, and efficacy of safety programs in place at
worksite (Gyekye & Salminen, 2009). Workers who perceived organizational support
relatively high, considered their companies safety programs worthwhile, good, useful, first-
rate, and important more often than other workers (Gyekye & Salminen, 2007).

Values influence employee perception of safety (Colley et al., 2013). Blue collar workers
valued secure surroundings more than top managers in a large Finnish metal factory
(Salminen & Koivula, 2006). Trade unions’ safety values influence safety outcomes through
its association with higher safety motivation, showing a similar effect as that of supervisors’
safety values (Sinclair et al., 2010). American contractors should emphasize organizational
safety values to new workers during selection process (Lai et al., 2011). Sea farers with a
stronger emphasis on conservation values reported a higher level of safe behaviors (Hystad
& Bye, 2013).

Safety values are also important among American college students. They predicted safety
practices among students. Female students were found to be more conscious about safety
values than male students (Crowe, 1995). In an American hospital, group culture and
balanced cultures (with values necessary to operate in all four quadrants) achieve higher
level of patient satisfaction (Gregory et al., 2009).

Safety values are also included in questionnaires used at workplaces. For example, a social
capital questionnaire includes items like feelings of safety and value of life and social agency

8
(Kritostakis et al., 2011). A balanced cultural profile would be associated with better safety
(Colley et al., 2013).

In conclusion, we can say that status in the company contributed on the valuing safety. Top
managers said that safety is in the top of agenda, and often it is held among first issues in
the meetings. Employees look at safety values in different way as more practical way
concerning their personal safety.

8 Barriers for implementing safety-related values

Values set for the organization may lose their priority if organization rewards value violation,
or when individuals are forced to choose between conflicting values. (Ravlin 1998). Few
studies has been done concerning barriers for implementing safety-related values. For
example, managers in health care may be forced to espouse high safety values, without
being able to follow-up on these expectations themselves. In addition, looking at only one
indicator (e.g., frequency of injuries) may not represent the whole picture of safety
(Halbesleben et al., 2013). In an Australian transportation fleet, it is uncertain whether
senior-level managers had given supervisors the directives, how to manage their fleet safely
(Newman et al., 2008).

Colley and Neal (2012) presented that bottlenecks in transferring and reinforcing the safety
message may occur because of the communication styles and differing values of supervisors.
Managers are more likely to emphasize components of safety which are prominent in their
personal safety schema (i.e. corporate values and organizational safety priorities), and give
less attention to topics that are central to the safety schema of employees (e.g. practices,
procedures, and training). Employees often do not share unified beliefs about the value of
safety with managers.

Line managers have to manage the dual goals of productivity/efficiency and safety. If a
productivity schema is more salient and important in the thinking of individual managers,
they may over-emphasize productivity and under-emphasize safety. Information that is
communicated to employees that is inconsistent with their existing schema may not be
recalled as easily and may be given less attention and even be ignored. When these reasons
are combined, it becomes important to develop and implement strategies to minimize
miscommunication arising from misaligned safety schema (Colley & Neal, 2012).

Prevention of occupational injuries should be focused concerns with safety and

responsibility (Higgins, 2002). The threat of work stoppages or grievances should increase
management awareness about safety concerns and increase the likelihood that existing
policies are followed (Sinclair et al., 2010).

9
These studies showed that barriers related to safety values are often connected to the wider
culture in corporations.

9 Conclusions

Some conclusion can be drawn from the review of literature:

1. There is not yet a clear and broadly accepted definition of the value of safety or
safety values.
2. Safety is a value in itself, associated with a basic human right.
3. The value of safety is often implicitly associated with the importance associated with
safety in the organization.
4. ‘Safety as a value’ goes beyond ‘safety as a priority’. Organizational values have a
more strategic impact than priorities. They can also be expected to have implications
for a longer period, as priorities may easily change, while shared values are much
more stable over time.
5. There are several safety related values that are important for developing or
supporting safety practices and/or safety culture. The most well-known are justice
(Dekker 2012, Reason 1997), trust and informedness (Reason 1997). Trust between
managers and employees, as well as a just culture seem to be necessary
preconditions for spread of safety values.
6. Safety values are closely related to organizational culture. But safety culture is a
broader concept (also with many definitions), which includes in addition to values
norms, beliefs, practices and principles which can be related to safety.
7. Top managers and supervisors can strengthen safety values by consistent actions.
8. It is important to distinguish between values that are really shared and lived-up to,
and espoused values, which are mainly communicated verbally and in writing. When
there is a difference between the two, employees will not believe the espoused
values.
9. Employees look at safety values in more practical way than managers and often do
not share same safety values as managers.

10
 10References

From edited material:

Colley S. & Neal A. (2012). Automated text analysis to examine qualitative differences in safety
schema among upper managers, supervisors and workers. Safety Science 50, 1775-1785.
Colley S.K., Lincolne J. & Neal, A. (2013). An examination of the relationship amongst profiles of
perceived organizational values, safety climate and safety outcomes. Safety Science 51, 69-76.
Conchie S.M. & Donald I.J. (2006). The role of distrust in offshore safety performance. Risk Analysis,
26 (5), 1151-1159.
Cooper D. (2001). Treating safety as a value. Professional Safety, February, 17-21.
Crowe J.W. (1995). Safety values and safe practices among college students. Journal of Safety
Research 56, 187-195.
Giddens, A. (1991) The consequences of modernity. Stanford, Stanford University Press, California.
Dekker S. (2012) Just Culture, Balancing Safety and Accountability. 2nd edition, Aldershot: Ashgate
Publishers. 171 p.
Diaz-Cabrera D., Hernandez-Fernaud E. & Isla-Diaz R. (2007). An evaluation of a new instrument to
measure organisational safety culture values and practices. Accident Analysis & Prevention 39, 6,
1202-1211.
Dierdorf E.C. & Morgeson F.P. (2013). Getting what the occupation gives: exploring multilevel links
between work design and occupational values. Personnel psychology, 66, 687-721.
Duncan C. (ed). (2012) The zero index. Behavioral Science Technology, Ojai, California.
Edwards J.R.D., Davey J. & Armstrong, K.(2013). Returning to the roots of culture: A review and re-
conceptualisation of safety culture. Safety Science 55, 70-80.
Fernández-Muñiz B., Montes-Peón J. & Vázquez-Ordás C.J. (2007). Safety culture: Analysis of the
causal relationships between its key dimensions
Fu Y.-K. & Chan T.-L. (2014). A conceptual evaluation framework for organizational safety culture: An
empirical study of Taipei Songshan Airport. Journal of Air Transport Management 34, 101-108.
Gregory B.T., Harris S.G., Armenakis A.A. & Shook C.L. (2009). Organizational culture and
effectiveness: A study of values, attitudes, and organizational outcomes. Journal of Business research
62, 673-679.
Griffin M.A. & Neal A. (2000). Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to
safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5, 347-
358.
Guldenmund F.W. (2000). The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety
Science 34, 215-257.
Gyekye S.A. & Salminen S. (2007). Workplace safety perceptions and perceived organizational
support: Do supportive perceptions influence safety perceptions? International Journal of
Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 13, 2, 189-200.
Gyekye S.A. & Salminen S. (2009). Age and workers’ perceptions of workplace safety: A comparative
study. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 68, 2, 171-184.
Gyekye S.A. & Salminen S. (2009). Educational status and organizational safety climate: Does
educational attainment influence workers’ perceptions of workplace safety? Safety Science 47, 20-
28.
Gyekye S.A. & Salminen S. (2010). Organizational safety climate and work experience. International
Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics 16, 431-443.

11
Gyekye S.A., Salminen S. & Ojajarvi A. (2012). A theoretical model to ascertain determinates of
occupational accidents among Ghanaian industrial workers. International Journal of Industrial
Ergonomics 42, 233-240.
Halbesleben J., Leroy H., Dierynck B., Simons T., Savage G., McCaughey D. (2013). Living Up to Safety
Values in Health Care: The Effect of Leader Behavioral Integrity on Occupational Safety. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology, Vol. 18 (4), pp. 395-405
Higgins E.T. (2002) How self-regulation creates distinct values: the case of promotion and prevention
decision making. Journal of Consumer Psychology 12, 177-191.
Hystad S.W. & Bye H.H. (2013) Safety behaviors at sea: The role of personal values and personality
hardiness. Safety Science 57, 19-26.
Karr A. (1999). The CEO difference. Safety+Health, June, 74-79.
Peters T.J. & Waterman, R.H.(1982) In search of excellence: lessons from America’s best-run
companies. Harper & Row, New York.
Meglino, B.M. & Ravlin, E.C. (1998) Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and
research. Journal of Management 24, 351-389.
Reason, J.(1997) Managing the risk of organizational accidents. Ashgate, Aldershot.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A. & Hart, P.M.(2000) The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and
individual behavior. Safety Science 34, 99-109.
Peters TJ, Waterman RH. In search for excellence. New York: Harper & Collins, 1982.
Reason JT. Managing the risks of organisational accidents. Aldershot: Ashgate; 1997. 252 p.
Keller L.M., Bouchard T.J., Arvey R.D., Segal N.L. & Davis R.V. (1992) Work values: Genetic and
environmental influence. Journal of Applied Psychology 77, 1, 79-88.
Kritsotakis G., Vassilaki M., Chatzi L., Georgiou V., Philalithis A.E., Kogevinas M. & Koutis A. (2011).
Maternal social capital and birth outcomes in the mother-child cohort in Crete, Greece (Rhea study).
Social Science & Medicine 73, 1653-1660.
Lai D.N.C., Liu M. & Ling F.Y.Y. (2011). A comparative study on adopting human resource practices for
safety management on construction projects in the United States and Singapore. International
Journal of Project Management 29, 1018-1032.
Merrick J.R.W., Grabowski M. Ayyalasomayajula P. & Harrald J.R. (2005). Understanding
organizational safety using value-focused thinking. Risk Analysis, 25(4), 1029-1041.
Newman S., Lewis, I. & Watson, B. (2012). Occupational driver safety: Conceptualizing a leadership-
based intervention to improve safe driving performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention 45, 29-38.
Newnam S., Griffin M. & Mason S. (2008). Safety in Work Vehicles: A Multilevel Study Linking Safety
Values and Individual Predictors to Work-Related Driving Crashes. Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol
93 (3), pp. 632-644
Prichard R.(2002) The value of safety. Risk & Insurance. ww.irmi.com/expert/articles/2002/prichard
Saleh J.H. & Pendley C.C. (2012). From learning from accidents to teaching about accident causation
and prevention: Multidisciplinary education and safety literacy for all engineering students.
Reliability Engineering and System Safety 99, 105-113.
Salminen S. & Koivula N. (2006). Personal values in a Finnish steel company. In: K.L. Saarela, C.-H.
Nygård & S. Lusa (Eds.): Promotion of well-being in modern society. 38 th annual congress of the
Nordic Ergonomics Society, 24-27 September 2006 in Hämeenlinna, Finland. Pk-paino oy, Tampere,
pp. 91-93.
Salminen S., Gyekye S.A. & Ojajärvi A. (2013). Individual and organizational factors of safe behavior
among Ghanaian industrial workers. Engineering Management Research 2, 98-110.
Sinclair R., Martin J. & Sears L. (2010). Labor unions and safety climate: Perceived union safety values
and retail employee safety outcomes. Accident Analysis and Prevention 42, pp. 1477-1487.

12
Smallman C. & John G.(2001). British directors’ perspectives on the impact of health and safety on
corporate performance. Safety Science 38, 227-239.
Talalay P., Fan X., Xu H., Yu D., Han L., Han J. & Sun Y. (2014). Drilling fluid technology in ice sheets:
Hydrostatic pressure and borehole closure considerations. Cold Regions Science and Technology 98,
47-54.
Townsend A.S. (2013). Exploring large organizations – to fear or not to fear? Farnham: Gover.
Zwetsloot G., Aaltonen M., Wybo J-L., Saari J., Kines P., Op De Beeck R. (2013a). The case for research
into the zero accident vision. Safety Science, Volume 58, October 2013, Pages 41–48. Available at
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.01.026 (Visited 27.7.2015)
Zwetsloot G.I.J.M., van Scheppingen A.R., Bos E.H., Dijkman A. & Starren A. (2013b). The core values
that support health, safety, and well-being at work. Safety and Health at Work 4, 187-196.

13
 Other references:

Alli B. O. (2008). Fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. International Labour
Organisation. Geneva (Switzerland). 221p.
British Quality Foundation (BQF). (2015). Glossary of the European Foundation for Quality Management’s
excellence model terms, BQF [Internet]. Available at http://www.bqf.org.uk/efqm-excellence-
model/glossary-terms (Visited 27.7.2015)
Cambridge Dictionary (CD). (2015). “Core value”, CD Online [Internet]. Available at
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/core_1?q¼coreþvalue#core_1__3 (Visited 27.7.2015)
Directive 2013/30/EU on safety of offshore oil and gas operations and amending. European Parliament and
of the Council. 12 June 2013. Available at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?
uri=celex:32013L0030 (Visited 27.7.2015)
GiddensA. (1991).Theconstitutionofsociety.5thed.Cambridge(UK):PolityPress; 402p.
Hofstede G., Hostede G. J., Minkov M. (2010). Cultures and organizations: software of themind. 3 rd ed.
NewYork (NY): McGraw – Hill. 560p.
Schein E. A. (1997). conceptual model for managed culture change. In: Schein E, editor. Organisational
culture and leadership. 2nd ed. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass. 406p.
Schein E. (2007). Can learning cultures evolve?. In: The new workplace: transforming the character and
culture of four organizations. Waltham (MA): Pegasus Communications. Pp. 59-68
The management system for nuclear installations. (2009). International Atomic Energy Agency. Vienna.
Available at http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub1392_web.pdf (Visited 27.7.2015)
The Robert W. (2015). Campbell Award. Recognizing Business Excellence in Safety and Health. The Campbell
Institute 2015. Available at www.campbellaward.org (Visited 28.7.2015)
“Value”, 2nd meaning, Oxford Dictionary Online [Internet]. (2015). Available at
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/value?q¼value (Visited 27.7.2015)White paper on Injury
and Illness Prevention Programs. US OSHA 2012. Available at
https://www.osha.gov/dsg/InjuryIllnessPreventionProgramsWhitePaper.html (Visited 27.7.2015)

14