Siemons, J C M M (1992) Occupational safety and health policy implementation: A comparison between Japan and the Netherlands. PhD thesis, University of Twente, Netherlands.
Abstract
This study attempts to describe and explain the implementation process of the occupational safety and health policies in Japan and the Netherlands. The following questions were selected as the focus of research: (a) What is the context of the occupational safety and health policy implementation process in Japan and the Netherlands? (b) What is the content of occupational safety and health policies in Japan and the Netherlands? (c) How are occupational safety and health policies implemented in Japan and the Netherlands? (d) Which characteristics of the actors affect the occupational safety and health policy implementation process in Japan and the Netherlands? (e) What is the goal attainment of occupational safety and health policy in Japan and the Netherlands? The case study method was used in order to obtain the required data in three industrial sectors: the construction industry, the harbour cargo handling industry and the metalworking industry in Japan and the Netherlands. Altogether six case studies, a product of empirical field research in Japan and the Netherlands by participatory observation (during on-the-spot inspections by the Labour Inspectorates) and 230 interviews with various Japanese and Dutch actors (both in the private and public sectors), are incorporated in this study. It is assumed that there are two sets of variables that influence the policy implementation process. The first set concerns the cultural, socio-economic, political-administrative, industrial relations, technological, and working environment contextual characteristics. In addition, five characteristics of the actors are distinguished, i.e. the goals, information, capacity, and power of the actors, and the coordination of the activities of the actors. The contextual factors are assumed to affect the course of the implementation process through their influence upon the five characteristics of the actors. This framework of analysis has been very useful, both in the Netherlands and Japan. Both for the entire industry as well as for the industrial sectors chosen for this study, Japan's performance in the reduction of occupational accidents was better than that in the Netherlands. It seems that the Japanese have been better able than the Dutch to combine the advantages of formal organization and informal group dynamics. In addition, most work practices in large Japanese firms are the outcome of conscious rational behaviour and not cultural tradition.
| Item Type: | Thesis (Doctoral) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | coordination; group dynamics; industrial relations; policy; safety; Netherlands; case study; inspection; public sector; Japan; interview |
| Index terms: | group dynamics, policy implementation, work practice, harbour, interview, Japan, Netherlands, occupational safety and health, occupational accident, coordination, construction industry, implementation, case study, industrial relation, inspection, public sector |
| Subjects: | health risk and incident analysis, management, Geography, sociology, occupational health and safety management, quality assurance, administrative law, infrastructure and transport systems, industry analysis, policy studies, data collection methods, psychology, contractual arrangements |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Legal Issues, Organizational Design, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Governance, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCTE |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here