Volume 8, Issue 2 (Summer 2021)                   johe 2021, 8(2): 50-57 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Beheshti M H, Esmaeili A, Mahmoodi E, Rezaieyan E. Determining the Optimal Economic Evaluation Model in Occupational Safety and Health Investments. johe 2021; 8 (2) :50-57
URL: http://johe.umsha.ac.ir/article-1-680-en.html
1- Department of Occupational Health, Faculty of Health, Social Development and Health Promotion Research Center, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran
2- Iranian Oil Pipelines and Telecommunication Company (IOPTC)- West District, HSE Department
3- Department of Occupational Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
4- Department of Occupational Engineering, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran , e.rezaieyan@modares.ac.ir
Abstract:   (2737 Views)
Background and Objective: Investment in health and safety has long been considered costly and inevitable, and the cost has been always a barrier to the achievement of safety and health interventions. Decision-makers in this area need to demonstrate that such interventions are not only effective in the obtainment of their goals but also have high economic efficiency. The present study aimed to determine an optimal model for the economic evaluation of occupational safety and health investments.
Materials and Methods: The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) method and Expert Choice® software were used to determine the optimal model. To this end,  the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) economic evaluation models were initially identified based on a review of previous studies. Thereafter, considering seven main criteria, the models were evaluated and the optimal model was introduced.
Results: A number of 20 models/tools were identified after literature review and screening of the findings. Firstly, the specifications of models were extracted and compared using a decision matrix; thereafter,  four models were identified for prioritization with AHP. The accuracy and precision with a final weight of 0.490 and the comprehensiveness with a final weight of 0.076 were the most and least important criteria, respectively. After prioritizing the alternatives over the target, the ROHSEI model, ToolKit method, Productivity Assessment tool, and Potential Method weighed 0.320, 0.281, 0.240, and 0.159, respectively.
Conclusion: As evidenced by the obtained results, HSE experts can use the ROHSEI model to demonstrate the financial incentives for their goals, allocate limited resources, and improve the economic efficiency of their projects
Full-Text [PDF 1097 kb]   (1635 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Research Article | Subject: Safety

1. Jain A, Leka S, Zwetsloot GI. The economic, business and value case for health, safety and well-being. Managing health, safety and well-being. Dordrecht: Springer; 2018. P. 67-98. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-024-1261-1_3 [DOI]
2. Lucchini RG, London L. Global occupational health: current challenges and the need for urgent action. Ann Glob Health. 2014;80(4):251-6. PMID: 25459325 DOI: 10.1016/j.aogh.2014.09.006 [DOI] [PubMed]
3. Leppink N. Socio-economic costs of work-related injuries and illnesses: building synergies between occupational safety and health and productivity. Available at: URL: http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---europe/---ro-geneva/---ilo-rome/documents/genericdocument/wcms_415608.pdf; 2015. [Article]
4. Safety and health at work (Safety and health at work). International Labour Organization (ILO). Available at: URL: https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang--en/index.htm; 2019. [Article]
5. Palaz S, Çolak O. Economic development and incidence of fatal occupational accidents: Evidence from the selected OECD countries. Dubrovnik Int Econ Meeting. 2017;3(1):913–24.
6. Ikpe E, Potts K, Proverbs D, Oloke D. A critical assessment of the viability of cost benefit analysis in the management of construction health and safety. CME 25 Conference Construction Management and Economics, Reading, England; 2007. P. 721.
7. Tompa E, de Oliveira C, Dolinschi R, Irvin E. A systematic review of disability management interventions with economic evaluations. J Occup Rehabil. 2008;18(1):16-26. PMID: 18259843 DOI: 10.1007/s10926-007-9116-x [DOI] [PubMed]
8. Hinze JW. Indirect costs of construction accidents. Austin: University of Texas; 1991.
9. Chen H, Hou C, Zhang L, Li S. Comparative study on the strands of research on the governance model of international occupational safety and health issues. Saf Sci. 2020;122:104513. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104513 [DOI]
10. Kigozi J, Jowett S, Lewis M, Barton P, Coast J. Estimating productivity costs using the friction cost approach in practice: a systematic review. Eur J Heal Econ. 2016;17(1):31-44. PMID: 25387561 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-014-0652-y [DOI] [PubMed]
11. Santana VS, Araújo-Filho JB, Albuquerque-Oliveira PR, Barbosa-Branco A. Occupational accidents: social insurance costs and work days lost. Rev Saude Publica. 2006;40(6):1004-12. PMID: 17173156 DOI: 10.1590/s0034-89102006000700007 [DOI] [PubMed]
12. Biddle EA, Ray TK, Owusu-Edusei K, Camm T. Synthesis and recommendations of the economic evaluation of OHS interventions at the company level conference. J Saf Res. 2005;36(3):261-7. PMID: 16038935 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.008 [DOI] [PubMed]
13. Lim MK. Health and economic impact of occupational health services. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;1(Suppl):38-42.
14. Cagno E, Micheli GJ, Masi D, Jacinto C. Economic evaluation of OSH and its way to SMEs: a constructive review. Saf Sci. 2013;53:134-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.08.016 [DOI]
15. Uegaki K, de Bruijne MC, Lambeek L, Anema JR, Van der Beek AJ, Van Mechelen W, et al. Economic evaluations of occupational health interventions from a corporate perspective–a systematic review of methodological quality. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2010;36(4):273–88. PMID: 20473477 DOI: 10.5271/sjweh.3017 [DOI] [PubMed]
16. Rose LM, Orrenius UE, Neumann WP. Work environment and the bottom line: Survey of tools relating work environment to business results. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Indust. 2013;23(5):368–81. DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20324
17. Heidarimoghadam R, Hassan-alhosseini SM. Cost-benefit analysis and assessment of ergonomic interventions effects: case study boiler and equipment engineering and manufacturing company. J Occup Hyg Eng. 2015;2(3):10-6. [DOI]
18. Babaei M, Gorbani Shahna F, Bahrami A. Comparative study of cost-benefit integrated system of water spary with industrial ventilation and bag filters in a minerals processing company. J Occup Hyg Eng. 2016;3(1):41–50. DOI: 10.21859/johe-03016 [DOI]
19. Jallon R, Imbeau D, De Marcellis-Warin N. Development of an indirect-cost calculation model suitable for workplace use. J Safety Res. 2011;42(3):149–64. PMID: 21855685 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2011.05.006 [DOI] [PubMed]
20. Linhard JB. Understanding the return on health, safety and environmental investments. J Safety Res. 2005;36(3):257-60. PMID: 16038936 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed]
21. Fram EH. We can do a better job of selecting international distributors. J Busin Ind Mark. 1992;7(2):61–70. DOI: 10.1108/08858629210037218 [DOI]
22. Golbabaei F, Azar A, Ganji Kazemian M. Designing a model for selection of air pollution control equipment using fuzzy logic. Heal Saf Work. 2014;4(2):37-50.
23. Amiri M, Ardeshir A, Abbasi A. Hybrid approach for occupational hazard assessment in road construction projects. Heal Saf Work. 2019;8(4):345–58.
24. Heydari M, Omidvari M, Fam IM. Presenting of a material exposure health risk assessment model in Oil and Gas Industries (case study: Pars Economic and Energy Region). Heal Saf Work. 2014;3(4):11–22.
25. Saaty TL. A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. J Math Psychol. 1977;15(3):234–81. DOI: 10.1016/0022-2496(77)90033-5 [DOI]
26. Saaty TL. The analytic hierarchy process: planning, priority setting, resource allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1980.
27. Rose LM, Orrenius UE, Neumann WP. Work environment and the bottom line: Survey of tools relating work environment to business results. Hum Factors Ergon Manuf Serv Indust. 2013;23(5):368–81. DOI: 10.1002/hfm.20324 [DOI]
28. Reniers GL, Brijs T. An overview of cost-benefit models/tools for investigating occupational accidents. Chem Engin Transact. 2014;2014:36. DOI: 10.3303/CET1436008 [DOI]
29. Rikhardsson PM, Impgaard M. Corporate cost of occupational accidents: an activity-based analysis. Accid Anal Prev. 2004;36(2):173–82. PMID: 14642872 DOI: 10.1016/s0001-4575(02)00147-1 [DOI] [PubMed]
30. Dorman P. The economics of safety, health, and well-being at work: an overview. Geneva: ILO; 2000.
31. Oxenburgh M, Marlow P. The pductivity asessment tol: computer-based cost benefit analysis model for the economic assessment of occupational health and safety interventions in the workplace. J Saf Res. 2005;36(3):209-14. PMID: 16038939 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed]
32. Van den Broek K, De Greef M, Van Der Heyden S. Final report socio-economic costs of accidents at work and work-related ill health VT-2008/066. Eur Comm Dir Employment Soc Aff Inclusion Benefits Occup Saf Heal. 2011;74:1–217.
33. Linhard JB. Understanding the return on health, safety and environmental investments. J Safety Res. 2005;36(3):257-60. PMID: 16038936 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.007 [DOI] [PubMed]
34. Mattke S, Balakrishnan A, Bergamo G, Newberry SJ. A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. Am J Manag Care. 2007;13(4):211-7. PMID: 17408341 [PubMed]
35. Zhang W, Bansback N, Anis AH. Measuring and valuing productivity loss due to poor health: a critical review. Soc Sci Med. 2011;72(2):185–92. PMID: 21146909 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.10.026 [DOI] [PubMed]
36. Guimarães LB, Ribeiro JLD, Renner JS. Cost-benefit analysis of a socio-technical intervention in a Brazilian footwear company. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(5):948-57. PMID: 22464605 DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.01.003 [DOI] [PubMed]
37. Scott PA. Sustainability: an ergonomics watchword for the twenty-first century. Ergonomics in Developing Regions. Florida: CRC Press; 2009. P. 437-44.
38. Paltrinieri N, Dechy N, Salzano E, Wardman M, Cozzani V. Lessons learned from toulouse and buncefield disasters: from risk analysis failures to the identification of atypical scenarios through a better knowledge management. Risk Anal. 2012;32(8):1404–19. PMID: 22211299 DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01749.x [DOI] [PubMed]
39. Tompa E, Dolinschi R, De Oliveira C, Amick BC, Irvin E. A systematic review of workplace ergonomic interventions with economic analyses. J Occup Rehabil. 2010;20(2):220-34. PMID: 19890618 DOI: 10.1007/s10926-009-9210-3 [DOI] [PubMed]
40. Kandi N, Lamri LR. Trial to assess the health situation of workers at the level of companies in the municipality of Bejaia. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Algeria: University Abderrahmane Mira Bejaia; 2010.
41. Amador-Rodezno R. An overview to CERSSO's self evaluation of the cost-benefit on the investment in occupational safety and health in the textile factories: "a step by step methodology". J Safety Res. 2005;36(3):215-29. PMID: 16038938 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed]
42. Asche F, Aven T. On the economic value of safety. Risk Decis Policy. 2004;9(3):253–67. DOI: 10.1080/14664530490505602 [DOI]
43. Rose L, Örtengren R. Personal injury risk management in companies. Proceedings of the International Seminar on Risk Management & Human Reliability in Social Context. Karlstad, Sweden; 2000. P. 15–6.
44. Mossink JC, de Greef M. Inventory of socioeconomic costs of work accidents. Bilbao: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2002.
45. Handbook, Occupational Outlook. department of labor. Washington, D.C: Occupational Safety and Health Administration; 2013.
46. Johanson U, Johrén A. Personnel economics today. Sweden: Uppsala Publishing House; 2007.
47. Koningsveld EA. Participation for understanding: an interactive method. J Safety Res. 2005;36(3):231-6. PMID: 16024044 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.004 [DOI] [PubMed]
48. Prevent. Available at: URL: https://prevent.be/en; 2011. [Article]
49. Lahiri S, Gold J, Levenstein C. Net-cost model for workplace interventions. J Safety Res. 2005;36(3):241-55. PMID: 16038937 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed]
50. Eurostat C. Statistical analysis of socio-economic costs of accidents at work in the European :union:. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European :union:; 2004.
51. Reniers G, Brijs T. Major accident management in the process industry: An expert tool called CESMA for intelligent allocation of prevention investments. Proc Saf Environ Prot. 2014;92(6):779–88. DOI: 10.1016/j.psep.2014.02.003 [DOI]
52. Bergström M. The potential-method-an economic evaluation tool. J Saf Res. 2005;36(3):237-40. PMID: 16026800 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsr.2005.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed]
53. Aneziris O, de Baedts E, Baksteen J, Bellamy L, Bloemhoff A, Damen M, et al. The quantification of occupational risk The development of a risk assessment model and software. Available at: URL: https://www.rivm.nl/publicaties/quantification-of-occupational-risk-development-of-a-risk-assessment-model-and-software; 2008. [Article]
54. American Industrial Hygiene Association. Demonstrating the Business Value of Industrial Hygiene. Virginia, United States: American Industrial Hygiene Association; 2008.
55. Barra I. OH&S economic analysis: the INAIL model. The 8th IOHA International Scientific Conference, Rome, Italy; 2010.
56. Barra I, Fioretti P, Terracina A. Sulla “non sicurezza”-un modello di calcolo che stima i costi aziendali (on “non-safety”–a calculation model that estimates the costs of enterprises). Ambiente Sicurezza. 2009;21:46-50.
57. Barra I, Fioretti P, Morinelli G, Terracina A. A user-friendly software to calculate OH&S cost and saving. The 29th ICOH, International Congress on Occupational Health, Cape Town, South, Africa; 2009. P. 22–7.
58. Vankerckhoven D. A practical tool for the estimation of the direct and indirect costs of occupational accidents. [Doctoral Dissertation]. Leuven, Belgium: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven; 2008.
59. New experimental experience rating (NEER) program. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. Available at: URL: https://www.wsib.ca/en/new-experimental-experience-rating-neer-program; 2020. [Article]
60. Behm M, Veltri A, Kleinsorge I. The cost of safety cost analysis model helps build business case for safety. Prof Saf. 2004;49(4):22-9.

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2024 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Occupational Hygiene Engineering

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb