Companies are always looking to cut costs, especially now. And unfortunately, the safety budget is often one of the first things they look to trim. One of the line items that draws the most scrutiny are the considerable dollars spent on fall arrest systems, respirators and other personal protective equipment for workers. Senior management may be tempted to, say, buy cheaper—and perhaps inferior quality—PPE or eliminate PPE training. Although it might save some money in the short run, this strategy is likely to result in higher costs in the long run. In addition to increasing workers’ risk of injuries and illnesses, cutting corners on PPE can increase the company’s risk of liability for violating the PPE requirements in the OHS laws.
Unfortunately, although the business case for not cutting PPE expenditures just to save money may be logically sound, it’s also hard to document. In fact, we know next to nothing about how the amount of money companies spend on PPE affects their illness and injury rates and the performance of their OHS programs. But we do know some things about the economics of PPE. One source of insight comes from a new report commissioned by 3M. The independent report examines the perceptions and use of PPE in the construction industry in Great Britain and the impact the recession is having on PPE. We’ll discuss the report in detail and the financial lessons that can be learned from it.
The British Construction Industry
As in many countries, the construction industry in Great Britain is one of the country’s most dangerous. In the past 25 years, more than 2,800 British workers died from injuries suffered as a result of construction work and many more were injured or made ill. The most recent data shows that the rate of work-related musculoskeletal disorders was higher in construction than in other industries. In addition, construction’s rates for asbestos, mesothelioma and diffuse pleural thickening exceed all other industry averages—and hearing problems in construction workers are roughly twice the national rate.
However, the quality, variety and availability of PPE for construction workers has improved substantially. And there’s more workplace health and safety legislation in place now in Great Britain to protect workers. In theory, better PPE and stronger regulations should have reduced the number of incidents, injuries and illnesses in the construction industry. But the latest statistics show that construction still has the largest number of fatal injuries of the main industry groups. For example, in 2007-8, there were 72 construction-related fatalities. And the combined estimate of the number of work days lost in that period due to workplace injury and illness was 2.8 million—an average annual loss of 1.2 days per construction worker.
The 3M Report
3M commissioned an independent survey to find out exactly what workers and safety managers think of PPE in the construction industry. The researchers interviewed 226 workers and 127 safety coordinators who work on large construction sites in England, Scotland and Wales. The researchers questioned the workers and safety coordinators about the following topics:
Problems with PPE. Safety coordinators said they found it difficult to select the correct PPE, often because they faced unknown or unexpected hazards or didn’t understand what specifications different products met. More disturbing, one in four said the main issue in selecting PPE was knowing which level of PPE to use for which hazard—a lack of knowledge that could endanger workers. Workers’ main complaint about PPE was that it was uncomfortable.
Actual PPE use. PPE is only effective when workers use it. But most safety coordinators (70%) thought that workers occasionally didn’t use PPE when they should have. In contrast, 78% of workers said they always use PPE and only 20% said they occasionally didn’t do so. Why the very different responses? Safety coordinators may have been being cautious in their estimates and allowing for mistakes and the occasional oversight. Also, workers may have been unwilling to admit that they don’t use PPE all of the time
PPE training. The vast majority of safety coordinators (87%) said that training is the best method for ensuring that workers use PPE. Yet only 56% of workers said they get regular PPE training. In addition, 55% said they were told what to use by the safety coordinator when they started work while 30% said they just use what they think is best.
Impact of economy. The telephone and on-site interviews took place during late November and early December 2008 when the global recession was in its early stages. But the impact of the economy’s decline on workplace safety may have already started to show. Some workers (8%) said they had been given cheaper PPE; 11% in the South and a whopping 20% in Scotland said their PPE had been replaced with less expensive alternatives. In addition, workers said they found it hard to get a hold of PPE when they needed it, possibly indicating that companies are buying less PPE.
Safety culture. Many safety coordinators (48%) felt that the image of workplace health and safety should be improved to increase PPE compliance. The strength of this response suggests that safety coordinators aren’t getting the support they need from senior management when it comes to ensuring that PPE use is enforced.
Lessons from the Report
The report’s conclusions about the perception and use of PPE in the British construction industry provide lessons about the importance of PPE that apply to other industries and countries:
Lesson #1: PPE training is critical. PPE training is the best way to ensure that workers understand why they need to use PPE and how to use it properly. But workers may not be getting the PPE training they need. So companies shouldn’t cut corners when it comes to PPE training. In fact, they should actually ramp up their PPE training efforts with the understanding that dollars spent on such efforts in the short term will likely cut costs in the long term by reducing illnesses and injuries.
Lesson #2: Economy could undercut safety efforts. The survey results show that the danger that the economic downturn could cause safety standards to start slipping is very real. In fact, it indicates that the undercutting of safety measures in an effort to save money is already happening. Buying less PPE or cheaper PPE that doesn’t protect workers as well isn’t an acceptable way for companies to save money. So safety coordinators need to step up their efforts to convince senior management that, if anything, more money needs to be spent on workplace safety—not less.
Lesson #3: Support from senior management is needed. Safety coordinators can’t do all the heavy lifting. They need support from senior management to be taken seriously by workers and be seen as more than bureaucratic clipboard carriers. A safety culture needs to be embedded at the heart of the company to ensure that workplace safety is taken seriously by all stakeholders at all levels of the company. And that culture needs to start at the very top of the company.
Conclusion
PPE is a key component of an OHS program. In general, the preference under the OHS laws is to try to eliminate hazards first. If a hazard can’t be completely eliminated, the next step is to use engineering or mechanical controls, such as machine guards, to protect workers from that hazard. But engineering controls aren’t always possible. In that case, PPE can be used to protect workers from the hazard. In other words, use of PPE is the last resort. So if your company eliminates or cuts corners on PPE, there may be nothing left standing between workers and a hazard.
The 3M report is significant because it sheds light on the link between PPE expenditures and workplace illnesses and injuries. In addition, the report suggests that when it comes to getting the best safety result from PPE dollars, training workers to use the equipment is just as important as choosing which equipment to buy.
INSIDER SOURCE
“PPE matters: A report on attitudes towards Personal Protective Equipment in the construction industry,” 3M, February 2009.
Loading ...
