Submit a research proposal

Experienced researchers can apply to us for funding on four different occupational safety and health topics.

Topic A – Firefighters’ exposure to toxic chemicals: barriers and facilitators to adopting decontamination practices

Topic A – Firefighters’ exposure to toxic chemicals: barriers and facilitators to adopting decontamination practices

Firefighting is one of the most challenging and dangerous professions, exposing workers to various toxic agents while performing their duties, many of which are carcinogenic, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds.^{(1, 2)} The risk posed to the health of firefighters was recognised in 2010 when the International Agency for Cancer Research classified their occupational exposure as being possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B).⁽¹⁾ Research has found increased mortality and risk for mesothelioma, and multiple cancers, among firefighters globally, including the United Kingdom.^(3-5) Additionally, significantly higher mortality was found for acute ischaemic heart diseases, stroke, interstitial pulmonary diseases, renal failure and musculoskeletal system diseases.⁽⁴⁾ Emerging risks, such as electric vehicle fires and photovoltaic installations, bring additional unexplored risks to this occupational group, which could further exacerbate risks to health.⁽⁶⁾ The need to protect firefighters from exposure to toxic agents is undisputed.

Firefighter kit or personal protective equipment (PPE) provides protection from these exposures during fire incident responses. Following these responses, firefighting kit may be contaminated with potentially harmful substances, increasing exposure risk.^{(1, 7)} There are three levels of exposure: exposure to pollutants from the incident; exposure to pollutants on PPE when doffing PPE; and exposure to contaminated fire stations and fire engines due to cross contamination from pollutants on PPE.⁽⁸⁾ Uncleaned kit and/or equipment, as well as improper decontamination techniques, prolong carcinogenic and toxic exposures among firefighters, highlighting the need to follow effective decontamination procedures. However, questions remain over the extent to which decontamination procedures are implemented.

Although cleaning firefighting kit is common among firefighters, a study by Moore et al.⁽⁷⁾ found that only a small proportion of survey respondents indicated high levels of self-reported knowledge and confidence in cleaning and drying their kit. Wolffe et al ⁽⁹⁾ also reported poor practices, such as storage of gloves in helmets and eating before showering after an incident response.

Routine cleaning and decontamination are recommended after fire incident responses, yet little is known about adherence to these guidelines and researchers acknowledge that enhanced knowledge is necessary in areas such as decontamination.⁽¹⁰⁾

Research objective

To explore and compare the barriers and facilitators to the implementation of effective decontamination protocols and practices for firefighters in the United Kingdom, and we would welcome comparisons with developed economies (such as Canada, USA and Sweden).

Call for proposals

IOSH is calling for research proposals (in English) from experienced researchers exploring this research objective. We are particularly interested in research that can be transferred to other relevant sectors where decontamination practices are routinely required, such as health care, nuclear, and waste management sectors.

References

1. Fent KW, Alexander B, Roberts J, Robertson S, Toennis C, Sammons D, et al. Contamination of firefighter personal protective equipment and skin and the effectiveness of decontamination procedures. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2017;14(10):801-14.

2. Calvillo A, Haynes E, Burkle J, Schroeder K, Calvillo A, Reese J, et al. Pilot study on the efficiency of water-only decontamination for firefighters' turnout gear. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2019;16(3):199-205.

3. Daniels RD, Kubale TL, Yiin JH, Dahm MM, Hales TR, Baris D, et al. Mortality and cancer incidence in a pooled cohort of US firefighters from San Francisco, Chicago and Philadelphia (1950–2009). Occupational and environmental medicine. 2014;71(6):388-97.

4. Stec AA, Robinson A, Wolffe TAM, Bagkeris E. Scottish Firefighters Occupational Cancer and Disease Mortality Rates: 2000-2020. Occupational Medicine. 2023;73(1):42-8.

5. Wolffe TAM, Robinson A, Dickens K, Turrell L, Clinton A, Maritan-Thomson D, et al. Cancer incidence amongst UK firefighters. Scientific Reports. 2023;12(1):22072.

6. Szmytke E, Brzezińska D, Machnowski W, Kokot S. Firefighters' clothing contamination in fires of electric vehicle batteries and photovoltaic modules-Literature review and pilot tests results. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(19).

7. Moore KJ, Koru-Sengul T, Alvarez A, Schaefer-Solle N, Harrison TR, Kobetz EN, et al. Safety gear decontamination practices among Florida firefighters: Analysis of a text-based survey methodology. Workplace Health & Safety. 2018;66(11):522-9.

8. Oh HE, Kim SJ, Woo H, Ham S. Associations between awareness of the risk of exposure to pollutants occurring at fire scenes and health beliefs among metropolitan firefighters in the Republic of Korea. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(14).

9. Wolffe TAM, Clinton A, Robinson A, Turrell L, Stec AA. Contamination of UK firefighters personal protective equipment and workplaces. Sci Rep. 2023;13(1):65.

10. Bodurtha P, Dickson EFG. Decontamination science and Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) selection for Chemical-Biological-Radiological-Nuclear (CBRN) events. 2016. Contract No.: DRDC-RDDC-2016-R236.

Topic B – Occupational health training for occupational safety and health professionals: context, challenges and opportunities

Topic B – Occupational health training for occupational safety and health professionals: context, challenges and opportunities

Occupational safety and health (OSH) professionals play a key role in supporting the health and work ability of employees and yet traditionally, the role of these professionals has been focused on securing a safe working environment (i.e., free from accident and injury). The introduction of health into workplace safety and health legislation in the 1970s (e.g., Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act of 1974 in the UK, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 in the US) saw a shift in focus. These developments acknowledged that health-related issues are as important as the safety related ones. In some countries, particularly those that have transitioned from manufacturing to predominantly service related economies, accident and injury rates are now outnumbered by a proliferation of adverse health outcomes (i.e. musculoskeletal disorders, mental health disorders, cardiovascular and respiratory disease, occupational cancers) emphasising the need to prevent adverse health outcomes in the workplace.

The WHO/ILO report of the work-related burden of disease and injury clearly shows that, globally, 81% of the burden is related to disease rather than injury.⁽¹⁾ This statistic clearly highlights the need to prevent adverse health-related outcomes in the workplace. As with the prevention of workplace accidents, the OSH professional should be involved in this prevention effort. This sentiment is supported by safety and health professionals themselves, who have previously identified the need for improved training on health-related priorities.⁽²⁾ Research in the USA for example, showed that 69.5% of surveyed OSH practitioners had a less-than-basic knowledge of the health impacts of whole-body vibration on worker health.⁽³⁾ The lack of understanding of health implies that the workers may not be supported by practitioners with an adequate knowledge of the health impacts of occupational hazards. Despite the inclusive approach of legislation around occupational safety and health, there appears to be a lack of focus on the health-related component of workplace hazards in the training programmes for safety focused practitioners, or for those practicing in a general OSH capacity.

Globally, work-related health issues require attention in order to reduce the incidence of occupational diseases and disorders. The OSH needs of workers should be approached from a holistic perspective, which requires practitioners to better understand both the health impacts of hazards in the workplace, and the bi-directional relationship between hazards and health (i.e., the impact that hazards have on health as well as the impact that non-communicable diseases such as hypertension, diabetes, asthma have on a worker’s work ability). This research call reiterates the ILO’s discussion around the development of OSH education and training and the professional collaboration within OSH disciplines.⁽⁴⁾ There is a need to explore and address occupational health training for professionals who provide either safety related or a mixture of safety and health related functions at the workplace.

Research objectives

To explore aspects of existing occupational health training for OSH practitioners in countries with a sophisticated/mature regulatory framework in order to evaluate:

• knowledge of the health impacts of occupational hazards
• competencies required to prevent work-related diseases and ill health
• the role, type and content of education and training programmes designed to equip OSH practitioners with the skills and knowledge to prevent and address occupational disease.

Countries chosen as research subjects should be selected and motivated based on a high level of maturity of the regulatory approach and OSH qualifications and training system within the country.

Call for proposals

IOSH is calling for research proposals (in English) from experienced researchers to explore the relationship between occupational health knowledge among OSH practitioners (i.e., those with traditionally safety focused or general health and safety training), their required competence, and the role of these OSH practitioners in preventing occupational disease.

Note: The research should focus on occupational safety and health professionals with a safety focused or general health and safety training and/or educational background. It does not cover other allied professions such as ergonomics and hygiene for example.

References

1. Pega F, Al-Emam R, Cao B, Davis CW, Edwards SJ, Gagliardi D, et al. New global indicator for workers’ health: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2023;101(6):418.

2. Leka S, Khan S, Griffiths A. Exploring health and safety practitioners’ training needs in workplace health issues. Wigston, UK: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. 2008.

3. Paschold HW, Sergeev AV. Whole-body vibration knowledge survey of U.S. occupational safety and health professionals. Journal of Safety Research. 2009;40(3):171-6.

4. International Labour Organization. Occupational safety and health professionals at the workplace level. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2023.

Topic C – OSH and climate change: the impact of psychosocial factors in the agricultural sector

Topic C – OSH and climate change: the impact of psychosocial factors in the agricultural sector

Climate change poses a major global threat, leaving no dimension of human health untouched.⁽¹⁾ The World Health Organization COP24 Special Report states that climate change is “the greatest health challenge of the 21st century, with major threats to life, health and well-being”.⁽²⁾ For instance, Ansah et. al.⁽³⁾ identified connections between climate change and health issues in workers including injuries, chronic health illnesses, and psychological stress. Within an occupational safety and health (OSH) context, climate change poses unprecedented and novel risks to workers’ health and safety⁽⁴⁾, including changes to the psychosocial dimensions of work. These psychosocial hazards refer to aspects of the design and management of work and its social and organisational contexts which have the potential for causing psychological or physical harm.⁽⁵⁾

Climate change can alter working patterns and the ability to carry out work and by proxy negatively impact the psychosocial risks at work. Changes in weather patterns, for example, can adversely affect workers’ experience on the job. Outdoor workers in particular have been considered at high risk of adverse impacts such as being vulnerable to heat stress, heat exhaustion, heat stroke and even death, in part because of their increased exposure to heat and humidity and work that may involve heavy exertion.⁽⁶⁾ Agricultural workers are particularly exposed to the impacts of climate change such as higher temperatures and greater weather variability which pose a dual threat to agricultural production. Farmers in developing countries are among the most vulnerable to climate change effects.⁽⁷⁾

While the physical effects of climate change have broadly been established in scientific research, studies on the psychological mechanisms that influence the ability of workers in the agricultural sector to adapt to these changes have been less of a focus.⁽⁸⁾

Areas of concern highlighted in the current literature acknowledge that climate change influences factors such as changing work patterns in agriculture. Ferrari et al.’s⁽⁹⁾ scoping review found that previous research in the field has tended to focus on the direct impact of increased temperatures on workers’ health, safety and performance, and whilst the agriculture sector has been studied, the mental health impact of climate change on agricultural workers has not sufficiently been explored. Schulte et al⁽⁶⁾ established the role of foresight techniques to enable the prediction of climate-related OSH hazards which could establish priorities and responsibilities for workers’ safety and health. However, psychosocial risks must now also be considered in more depth to understand the psychological impact of climate change on workers.⁽¹⁰⁾ Ebi et al,⁽¹¹⁾ also highlighted the need to consider that occupational health risks are likely to increase with climate change. There is some evidence of adaptation to increasing temperatures in high-income countries, however, projections of a hotter future suggest that without investment in research and risk management actions, heat-related morbidity and mortality are likely to increase.

Whilst current literature broadly addresses the relationship between climate change and OSH hazards, many gaps persist, and the paucity of literature on the psychosocial impacts of climate change on workers justifies further investigation.

This call focuses on the mental health impact of climate change on agricultural workers in Africa and Asia, two continents that are vulnerable to climate change and related occupational hazards. Given the paucity of literature, there is scope for multi-disciplinary research to address key concerns surrounding climate change and agricultural workers, by exploring the psychosocial impacts of climate change in these regions that supports the development of good practices.

Research objectives

1. To explore the impact of climate change on the mental health of agricultural workers in Africa and/or Asia and identify ways that these impacts can be mitigated to support good practice.
2. To evaluate the work-related psychosocial impact of climate change on agricultural workers, contrasting those in low- and medium- income countries (i.e., those in Africa and/or Asia) with those in high income countries such as in Europe.

Call for proposals

IOSH is calling for proposals (in English) from experienced researchers exploring the research objectives. We are particularly interested in research projects which can be transferred to other relevant sectors.

References

1. WHO. Climate change 2024 [cited 2024 25 July]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/climate-change

2. WHO. COP24 Health and climate change2024:[74 p.]. Available from: https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/276405/9789241514972-eng.pdf

3. Ansah EW, Ankomah-Appiah E, Amoadu M, Sarfo JO. Climate change, health and safety of workers in developing economies: A scoping review. The Journal of Climate Change and Health. 2021;3:100034.

4. EU-OSHA. Climate Change: Impact on Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) 2023 [cited 2024 24 July]. Available from: https://oshwiki.osha.europa.eu/en/themes/climate-change-impact-occupational-safety-and-health-osh

5. IOSH. Preventing and managing psychosocial risks. 2024. [cited 2024, 20 Aug] Available from: https://iosh.com/about/what-we-do/policy-positions/preventing-and-managing-work-related-psychosocial-risks

6. Schulte P, Bhattacharya A, Butler C, Chun H, Jacklitsch B, Jacobs T, et al. Advancing the framework for considering the effects of climate change on worker safety and health. Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene. 2016;13(11):847-65.

7. Jack K, Wilkinson N. Risk and resilience: Agricultural adaptation to climate change in developing countries. IGC Growth Brief Series 024 [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2024 25 July]. Available from: https://www.theigc.org/publications/risk-and-resilience-agricultural-adaptation-climate-change-developing-countries#:~:text=Higher temperatures and increased variability,food insecurity and extreme poverty

8. Truelove HB, Carrico AR, Thabrew L. A socio-psychological model for analyzing climate change adaptation: A case study of Sri Lankan paddy farmers. Global Environmental Change. 2015;31:85-97.

9. Ferrari GN, Leal GCL, Thom de Souza RC, Galdamez EVC. Impact of climate change on occupational health and safety: A review of methodological approaches. Work. 2023;74:485-99.

10. Di Tecco C, Persechino B, Iavicoli S. Psychosocial Risks in the Changing World of Work: Moving from the Risk Assessment Culture to the Management of Opportunities. Med Lav. 2023;114(2):e2023013.

11. Ebi KL, Capon A, Berry P, Broderick C, de Dear R, Havenith G, et al. Hot weather and heat extremes: health risks. The Lancet. 2021;398(10301):698-708.

Topic D – The robustness of national occupational safety and health statistics in the United Kingdom

Topic D – The robustness of national occupational safety and health statistics in the United Kingdom

National statistics provide key insights into various facets of a country’s economy and society and are used by government, businesses and individuals to make decisions and plan the future.⁽¹⁾ In an occupational safety and health (OSH) context, effective surveillance systems rely on data collection methods that produce quality statistics that can be used by governments, businesses, and OSH practitioners to improve the working experience of all workers.⁽²⁾ The ILO acknowledge that access to reliable and comprehensive OSH statistics is necessary for assessing the extent to which workers are protected from workplace hazards and risks. Statistics related to safe and secure work are specifically reflected in the targets of Sustainable Development Goal 8.⁽³⁾

OSH statistics are vital in understanding trends, burdens and risks across nations and regions; however, this remains a challenge due to differences in regulations, national OSH systems and the scope of data collected.⁽²⁾ The under-reporting of OSH data limits the reliability of identifying potential trends, strategies and hence the prioritisation of resources. Barriers that may lead to the under-reporting of work-related disease and injury include workers’ fear of victimisation, time, the complexity of reporting systems, perceiving injuries and illnesses as a part of the job and lack of trust in remedial action.⁽⁴⁾ Apart from under-reporting, OSH surveillance systems are limited in terms of data collection from under-represented racial/ethnic minorities and immigrants consequently making their experiences and prevalent inequities invisible in published OSH data.⁽⁵⁾

In the UK, the introduction of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 paved the way for the establishment of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) as the national regulator of workplace health and safety. In addition to its regulatory function, the HSE manages OSH data in collaboration with the Office of National Statistics, publishing statistics on work-related injuries, diseases and ill health. Similar to other countries, the UK has a well-established and comprehensive system for collating OSH related data.(2) Data is collected through both mandated and voluntary reporting schemes, including national reporting systems, compensation systems, national surveys and injury or disease specific databases. Despite the merit of OSH surveillance systems in the UK, its data sources are not free of constraints and limitations.⁽⁶⁾ More recently, legal reforms, such as the move away from proactive inspection for ‘low risk’ sectors and the abrogation of regulatory authority, have arguably limited the HSE’s capacity to effectively enforce OSH legislation.⁽⁷⁾

The paucity of research into national reporting systems, coupled with documented limitations of data sources and OSH reporting systems in the UK, warrants the scrutiny of current national OSH statistics and reporting systems. There is a need to identify barriers within existing systems, evaluate the validity and sufficiency of current OSH data, and propose evidence-based recommendations for improvement.

Research objectives

Explore the following aspects of the UK OSH reporting structures and statistics:

• The robustness and reliability of current reporting structures, available data sources, data collection mechanisms, and the categorisation for work-related disease, injury and ill-health to reflect the modern workplace.
• Identify the strengths and weaknesses within the current recognised data sources at both national and local level.
• Analyse national policy impacts on the reliability of national OSH statistics and OSH enforcement.

Call for proposals

IOSH is calling for research proposals (in English) from experienced researchers to explore the robustness and reliability of the UK’s national system for OSH reporting, and identifies contributing factors at both a national and local level. While the call topic is focussed on the reporting structures in the UK, we welcome proposals from international teams, as well as those drawing on learnings from other national OSH systems.

References

1. Office of National Statistics. Our studies: Office of National Statistics; N.D [cited 2024 23 July]. Available from: https://www.ons.gov.uk/surveys#:~:text=The statistics we produce on, that reflects the whole population

2. Tedone TS. Counting injuries and illnesses in the workplace: An international review. 2017. Report No.: 0098-1818.

3. International Labour Organization. Occupational Safety and Health Statistics (OSH database) Geneva: ILO; N.D [Available from: https://ilostat.ilo.org/methods/concepts-and-definitions/description-occupational-safety-and-health-statistics/#:~:text=Occupational safety and health at,work-relatedchazardscandcrisks

4. Kyung M, Lee S-J, Dancu C, Hong O. Underreporting of workers’ injuries or illnesses and contributing factors: a systematic review. BMC public health. 2023;23(1):558.

5. Flynn MA, Check P, Steege AL, Sivén JM, Syron LN. Health Equity and a Paradigm Shift in Occupational Safety and Health. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(1):349.

6. HSE. Data Sources United Kingdom2023 [cited 2024 27 July]. Available from: https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/assets/docs/sources.pdf

7. Moretta A, Tombs S, Whyte D. The escalating crisis of health and safety law enforcement in Great Britain: what does Brexit mean? International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022;19(5):3134.

2023/24
2023/24
During our 2023/24 call for research, we asked for proposals on three topics.
• Topic A - Investigation of work-related adverse health outcomes in the workplace (including physical and mental ill health): barriers, facilitators and guidance
• Topic B – Occupational health training for occupational safety and health professionals: context, challenges, and opportunities
• Topic C – Algorithmic management and occupational safety health risks in a digital workplace
Topic A – Investigation into work-related adverse health outcomes: barriers, facilitators and guidance
Work-related health problems result in an economic loss of 4–6 per cent of GDP for most countries (1). A total of 12 billion working days are lost every year to common mental health disorders (2). The World Health Organization (WHO) and International Labour Organization (ILO) joint report states that disease is responsible for more than 80 per cent of the global burden of work-related disease and injury.(3)
Physical and mental ill health have a significant impact on workers, organisations and national economies. Despite these known impacts the negative health outcomes of work-related exposures and events are rarely investigated. Investigation would help establish the underlying causes, with the intention of implementing corrective action to prevent recurrence.
Recent anecdotal insights(4, 5) show that adverse work-related health outcomes (including physical and mental health disorders) are poorly investigated by health and safety professionals. Various reasons have been cited for this lack of investigation, including:
• lack of knowledge on how to investigate them
• lack of training and understanding on the health effects of workplace exposures
• the latency of disease
• complexity of causality (for example, personal versus workplace)
• stigma
• the confidential nature of many health-related conditions.
Even where practical guides to investigating accidents and diseases are in place, they provide little information on how to investigate a work-related disease.
Workplace investigations are a key first step to establishing the root cause of these adverse physical and mental health outcomes and gathering information to prevent future cases.
Lots of methods exist for accident investigation in the workplace, which are constantly reviewed to ensure high quality investigations (6). This is not the case for adverse health outcomes. For example, a recent review on work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) highlighted the need to develop processes to support the investigation of MSDs in organisations (7). There is a lack of research examining investigation practices and methodologies to respond to reports of adverse health outcomes including mental health disorders.
Call for proposals
We called for research proposals (in English) from experienced researchers exploring the research objective. Given the novelty of the research, we proposed that a multidisciplinary reach should be applied.
Research objective
Examine the barriers and facilitators to the investigation of adverse health outcomes (including both physical and mental ill health) in the workplace, and develop a framework, model or guide for use by multidisciplinary professionals to facilitate the investigation of adverse health outcomes in the workplace.
References
1. World Health Organization. Tackling NCDs: 'best buys' and other recommended interventions for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Contract No.: WHO/NMH/NVI/17.9.
2. WHO. WHO guidelines on mental health at work. Geneva: WHO; 2022.
3. Pega F, Al-Emam R, Cao B, Davis CW, Edwards SJ, Gagliardi D, et al. New global indicator for workers’ health: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2023;101(6):418.
4. 4. ICOH/IOSH. Applying safety investigation standards to occupational health incidents Leicester, England: IOSH; 2022. Available on the IOSH YouTube channel
5. 5. IOSH/ICOH SCAP. Investigating adverse health events Leicester, England. 2023. Available on the IOSH YouTube channel
6. Salguero-Caparros F, Suarez-Cebador M, Rubio-Romero JC. Analysis of investigation reports on occupational accidents. Safety Science. 2015;72:329-36.
7. Goode N, Newnam S, van Mulken MRH, Dekker S, Salmon PM. Investigating work-related musculoskeletal disorders: Strengths and weaknesses of current practices in large Australian organisations. Safety Science. 2019;112:105-15.
Bibliography
ILO 2015. Investigation of occupational accidents and diseases : A practical guide for labour inspectors. Geneva: ILO.
Topic B – Occupational health training for occupational safety and health professionals: context, challenges and opportunities
Occupational safety and health professionals play a key role in supporting the health and workability of employees. Traditionally, the role of the occupational safety and health professional was seen as securing a safe working environment. For example, free from accident and injury.
The introduction of health into workplace safety and health legislation in the 1970s (for example, Health and Safety at Work Act of 1974 in the UK, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 in the USA) saw a shift in focus acknowledging that health-related issues were as important as the safety related ones.
The high accident injury statistics of old have largely been addressed, albeit not to the extent that accidents do not happen. What is now seen is a wide range of adverse health outcomes in the workplace, such as musculoskeletal disorders, mental health disorders, cardiovascular and respiratory disease and occupational cancers.
Disease
The WHO/ILO report of the work-related burden of disease and injury shows that globally the most significant contributor is disease. 81 per cent of the burden is related to disease rather than injury (1).
This statistic clearly highlights the need to prevent adverse health-related outcomes in the workplace. As with the prevention of workplace accidents, the occupational safety and health professional should be involved.
This view is supported by safety and health professionals in the UK, who identified the need for improved training on health-related priorities (2). Research in the USA also showed that 69.5 per cent of surveyed occupational safety and health practitioners had a less than basic knowledge of the health impacts of whole-body vibration on worker health (3).
Not supported
The lack of understanding of health implies that the workers may not be supported by practitioners with an adequate knowledge of the health impacts of occupational hazards. Despite the inclusive approach of legislation, there appears to be a lack of focus on the health-related component of workplace hazards in the training programmes for safety and health practitioners.
Globally, work-related health issues require focused attention in order to reduce the incidence of occupational diseases and disorders. Occupational safety and health needs of workers should be approached from a holistic perspective. This requires practitioners to better understand the health impacts of hazards in the workplace, as well as the bi-directional relationship between hazards and health. For example, the impact that hazards have on health as well as the impact that non communicable diseases (hypertension, diabetes, asthma) have on a worker’s workability.
This research call aligns with ILO's discussion around the development of occupational safety and health education and training and the professional collaboration within occupational safety and health disciplines (4). There is a need to explore and address occupational health training for professionals that provide either safety related or a mixture of safety and health related functions at the workplace.
Call for proposals
We called for research proposals (in English) from experienced researchers to explore occupational health knowledge among occupational safety and health practitioners, their required competence and the role of occupational safety and health practitioners in preventing occupational disease in coming years.
Research objectives
Explore aspects of occupational health training for occupational safety and health practitioners in countries with a sophisticated regulatory framework to evaluate:
• knowledge of health impacts of occupational hazards
• competencies required to prevent work-related diseases and ill health
• role of education and training programmes in equipping the practitioner to address occupational disease.
Participating countries should be selected and motivated based on level of maturity of the regulatory approach and occupational safety and health qualifications and training system within the country, allowing for comparison.
References
1. Pega F, Al-Emam R, Cao B, Davis CW, Edwards SJ, Gagliardi D, et al. New global indicator for workers’ health: mortality rate from diseases attributable to selected occupational risk factors. Bulletin of the World Health Organization. 2023;101(6):418.
2. Leka S, Khan S, Griffiths A. Exploring health and safety practitioners’ training needs in workplace health issues. Wigston, UK: Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. 2008.
3. Paschold HW, Sergeev AV. Whole-body vibration knowledge survey of U.S. occupational safety and health professionals. Journal of Safety Research. 2009;40(3):171-6.
4. International Labour Organization. Occupational safety and health professionals at the workplace level. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2023.
Topic C – Algorithmic management and occupational safety and health risks in a digital workplace
Algorithmic management, also known as algorithmic control or digital management, refers to using algorithms and automated systems to monitor, evaluate, influence and discipline worker behaviour in various workplace settings.
This emerging phenomenon has gained significant attention in recent years as organisations increasingly rely on algorithms to streamline operations, improve productivity, and optimise decision-making processes. The implementation of algorithmic management systems also raises concerns regarding potential occupational safety and health risks in the workplace.
Algorithmic management fits into a broader context of the implementation of technological tools and digitalised supervision systems aimed at governing the workforce (1-3). Algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled tools are used to manage, discipline, and evaluate workers’ performance. This can be viewed as a form of automation of managerial roles in organisations (4).
Vast amount of data
One of the crucial components necessary for these algorithms to function properly is a vast amount of data on workers. Data needs to be collected from different sources, which implies that almost every worker activity is, in principle, subject to monitoring and tracking. These activities may include the worker's use of computers (for example, email and social media), their location, or even their health status. The data is then processed by software to assess, among other purposes, productivity and engagement.
Algorithmic management can lead to monitoring workers to an extent that would have been unthinkable in the past. And also to collecting and processing an enormous amount of personal data on life and work activities (5).
This collection and processing of data by machines exceeds the capacity of any kind of human supervision, past or present (6). It has been documented in scholarly research as causing an increase in psychosocial issues in workers (7). Other OSH risks, such as MSDs, heat stress and chemical exposure could be influenced or improved by algorithmic management systems.
Research to date provides limited lived experience of workers being managed by algorithmic management. A human perspective of working with algorithmic management systems would be a welcome contribution to the scholarly debate.
Research objectives
We asked for research that highlighted the occupational safety and health impacts of cross-industry transfer of digital technologies and organisations' adoption of algorithmic management. The research needed to:
• investigate the interaction between algorithmic management and occupational safety and health risks
• explore the facilitators and barriers to worker health, safety and wellbeing when implementing algorithmic management
• evaluate workers' lived experience and the role of relevant stakeholders in relation to algorithmic management and occupational safety and health
• lead to the development of a framework, model and/or guide of occupational safety and health best practice for adopting algorithmic management systems in the workplace, across industries.
References
1. Ajunwa I, Crawford, K, and Schultz, J. Limitless worker surveillance. California Law Review. 2017:735-76.
2. Moore P.V. APUM. Digitalisation of work and resistance, in Moore P.V., Upchurch M. and Whittaker X. (eds.) Humans and machines at work, Cham, Palgrave Macmillan, 17-44. In: MacMillen P, editor. Humans and machines at work. Cham: Palgrave MacMillen; 2018. p. 17-44.
3. Moore, P., OSH, and the Future of Work: benefits and risks of artificial intelligence tools in workplaces, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA), 2019.
4. Adams-Prassl J. What If Your Boss Was an Algorithm? The Rise of Artificial Intelligence at Work. Comparative Labor Law & Policy Journal. 2019;41:123.
5. Dagnino E. People Analytics: lavoro e tutele al tempo del management tramite big data. Labour and Law Issues. 2017(1):1-31.
6. De Stefano V. 'Masters and Servers': Collective Labour Rights and Private Government in the Contemporary World of Work. International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations. 2020;36(4).
7. EU-OSHA - European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, Artificial intelligence for worker management: implications for occupational safety and health, 2022.
Bibliography
1. Kellogg, K. C., Valentine, M. A., & Christin, A. Algorithms at work: The new contested terrain of control. Academy of Management Annals, 2020 14(1), 366-410.
2. EU-OSHA (European Agency for Safety and Health at Work), Artificial intelligence for worker management: an overview, 2022.
3. Urzí Brancati, C., Curtarelli, M., Digital tools for worker management and psychosocial risks in the workplace, Seville: European Commission, 2021, JRC125714.
2022

2022

During our 2022 call for research, we asked for proposals on the topic of occupational safety and health as a fundamental right at work.

There is global recognition that the health of workers is a prerequisite for social and economic development and sustainability in all countries⁽¹⁾ and that both health at work and safe and healthy workplaces are valuable assets.⁽²⁾ A World Health Organization (WHO)/International Labour Organization (ILO) joint report on the burden of work-related death and disease identifies occupational health issues (for example cardiovascular disease, cancer and respiratory diseases) as significant contributors to both the death and disability-adjusted living years of workers, with an anticipated increase into the future.⁽³⁾ While the incidence of occupational injury is lower than that of health-related issues, injuries continue to impact workers’ lives negatively through economic and social hardship. The prevention of occupational disease and injury is achieved through the implementation of preventative services delivered by multiple stakeholders. These stakeholders assume multi-disciplinary roles with varied functions including occupational safety, health, toxicology, ergonomics and hygiene.⁽⁴⁾

Despite the recognition that occupational safety and health (OSH) is a basic human right,^(5-8) and the recent adoption of a safe and healthy working environment as a fundamental principle and right at work,⁽⁹⁾ it is reported that 80 per cent of the global working population still do not have access to basic occupational safety and health services, ^{[1] (4, 10)} the scope of which are clearly outlined in ILO Conventions 161⁽⁷⁾ and 155.⁽⁶⁾ In addition, where these services are implemented, they vary in scope, content and quality of service delivery.^(10-13) Furthermore, disparities are experienced between high income countries (HICs) and low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), and between occupational sectors and models of work.⁽¹⁴⁾

Where OSH services are provided, a multi-disciplinary approach is seldom undertaken. The level of service delivery is often based on legislation and regulation, as well as a company’s maturity, size and location.⁽¹⁰⁾ These factors, together with the call to provide workers with universal occupational healthcare, the need to develop socially sustainable businesses and the reported global shortage of OSH professionals (especially occupational health professionals), require a creative approach to ensure, at least, a basic OSH service delivery at the worker level.

The magnitude of work-related death and disease, recent trends and adverse events (for example, the changing nature of work, the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on worker wellbeing) and widespread recognition of the importance of occupational safety and health (for example, ILO Centenary Declaration for the Future of Work, 2019, ⁽¹⁵⁾ ILO’s declaration of OSH as a fundamental principle and right at work and the impact OSH has on achieving the Sustainable Development Goals) highlight the need to preserve and protect the healthy working life expectancy of all workers in all occupations. Therefore, it is necessary to understand better how OSH services are delivered and influenced by factors including the scope of programmes, facilitators and barriers to service delivery and the competence of those delivering the programmes.

Research objective

Research is necessary to explore globally the scope, reach and effectiveness of OSH service delivery to workers in order to understand the influence of country economic status (for example, HICs vs LMICs), national policy, laws and regulations (eg ratification of ILO conventions), organisation size (for example, large, medium, small and/or micro), models of work (for example, formal and informal) and occupational sector.

We want to identify the facilitators and barriers that influence OSH service delivery to workers and to establish how this knowledge could be used to improve and promote access to OSH services.

Call for proposals

We called for research proposals (in English) from experienced researchers to explore and influence the adoption of occupational safety and health as a universal, basic or fundamental right at work. The requirement was for diverse and inclusive research that had a global reach and included a focus on both HICs and LMICs.

Proposals that explore any of the following aspects of OSH delivery are desirable:

1. organisations from high, medium and low risk sectors
2. services provided to formal and informal sector workers
3. service delivery from a multi-disciplinary approach.

References

1. World Health Organization. Workers’ health: global plan of action (2008-2017). Report. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2008.
2. Rantanen J. Basic occupational health services ¬¬– their structure, content and objectives. SJWEH 2005; (no 1):5-15.
3. World Health Organization, International Labour Organization. WHO/ILO joint estimates of the work-related burden of disease and injury, 2000-2016: global monitoring report. Geneva: World Health Organization and the International Labour Organization; 2021.
4. Rantanen J, Lehtinen S, lavicoli S. Occupational health services in selected International Commission on Occupational Health (ICOH) member countries. SJWEH. 2013;39(2):212-6.
5. Rantanen J. New challenges to professional ethics in occupational health. Safety and Health at Work. 2022;13:S72.
6. International Labour Organization. Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 1981 (No. 155). Normlex; 1981.
7. International Labour Organization. Occupational Health Services Convention, 1985 (No. 161). Normlex; 1985.
8. International Labour Organization. Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention, 2006 (No. 187). In: ILO, editor. Geneva 2006.
9. International Labour Organization. ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work 2022 [Available from: https://www.ilo.org/declaration/lang--en/index.htm]
10. Walters D, Johnstone R, Bluff E, Jørgen Limborg H, Gensby U. Prevention services for occupational safety and health in the European Union: Anachronisms or supports for better practice? Safety Science. 2022;152:105793.
11. Michell KE, Rispel LC. “Mindless Medicals”: Stakeholders’ perceptions of the quality of occupational health service delivery in South Africa. Workplace Health & Safety. 2016;65(3):100-8.
12. Bigaignon-Cantineau J, Gonzalez M, Broessel N, Denu B, Hamzaoui H, Cantineau A. Occupational health nurses’ contribution to health care workers’ health. SJWEH. 2005;1:54-7.
13. Joseph B. Universal occupational health care – the need of the hour. Indian J Occup Environ Med. 2019;23(2):59-60.
14. Rantanen J, editor Globalisation and the implications for worker health. Sharing solutions in occupational health through and beyond the pandemic; 2022; Virtual – Rome and Melbourne.
15. Work GCotFo. Work for a brighter future. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2019.

^[1] For the purposes of the call, the term “occupational safety and health services” referred to the multidisciplinary approach to the protection of health at work and the prevention of adverse outcomes (for example, injuries and illnesses).