Occupational Health and Safety and Business Ethics

Introduction

Ultimate responsibility for employee wellbeing rests with the employer, as they have the greatest control over their employees working conditions (Stone 2005, 660). While ethically, the employer may be responsible for employees, according to this reader, the reality is that the employee's health and wellbeing is soley on the shoulders of said employee. Upon persuing workmans' compensation for injury, according to attorneys, insurance companies and Ombudsman, the burden of proof of injury is on the employee, and therefore much of the responsibility for preventing injury. (Coklyat 2007, 1) Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) is concerned with the provisions of a safe and healthy working environment (Stone 2005, 660). OSHA is only able to regulate violations when they occur and when they are plainly visible or spoken of by current or recent employees. Many workers fail to present critical work violations due to lack of time or interest and employers can become a law unto themselves. OSHA can be greatly bound by limitations of people power and timing regarding observing and penalizing violations (Coklyat 2007, 2). Organisations that compromise on health and safety standards expose their employees to injuries and fatalities. The establishment of a safe workplace is not only ethical and socially responsible; it is also cost effective (Sappey 2006, 372).

Stewart, Ledgerwood and May (1996, 2) define ethics simply as the study of what is good or right for human beings. Business ethics and health and safety are significantly intertwined, since managerial and organisational decisions and policies affect workers safety and wellbeing. Stewart et al (1996, 2) further explains that organisations are ethically obliged to make occupational health and safety an utmost priority through corporate social responsibility. Krause (2007, 1) states that today ethics relates to corporate social responsibility; what organisations owe their employees, customers, shareholder and the community at large and how the fulfilment of these obligations will ensure the long term sustainability as a company. Organisation could start meeting the most important obligation, by valuing the sanctity of human life. Krause (2007, 1) says that providing a safe a workplace lays the foundation for organisational success.

Organisations unfortunately ignorantly assume that employee health and safety represents unnecessary resource expenditure which will ultimately detract from their bottom line (Stewart et al 1996, 2. It can no longer be acceptable for organisations around the world to put profit levels ahead of employee health and safety. This article will discuss OHS and its ethical implications. It will provide examples from industrialised countries such as Australia and USA, illustrating that it is not only developing countries such as China that have poor levels of OHS.

Health and Safety at Chinese Workplaces

Safety at the workplace has become a significant concern to the people of China.
The improvements in the quality of life following two decades of economic growth has brought about growing awareness of high risk accidents in the workplace, occupational hazards and the economic costs of accidents and illness at the workplace (Wang 2006, 2).
Stone (2005, 660) provides a confronting example where in Shenzhen, southern China, every week an average of two workers die in industrial accidents and sadly more than two hundred lose an arm or a leg. The research undertaken for this article indicates that China has an appalling record of workplace safety and the coalmining industry is its most deadly. Wang (2006, 2) demonstrates this by providing official statistics from 2004 that show there were 16, 497 fatalities at the workplace, from which a staggering 24.8% came from the coalmining industry alone.

Chinese Coal mining Industry

China’s coal reserves make up 11. 6% of the worlds total and therefore the country is heavily dependent on it (Wang 2006, 4). McLaughlin (2006, 1) argues that without coal, China’s economic miracle would evaporate overnight. In 2006, three million people worked in China’s coal mining industry and labour right groups label these mines as slaughter houses (McLaughlin 2006, 3). These mine workers are known to have virtually no other option for a source of income and enter this deadly occupation out of desperation. This shows how these desperate employees are being exploited to the hilt. McLaughlin (2006, 2) explains that a significant proportion of mining accidents are preventable if basic safety procedures are followed. The preventable nature of many accidents exacerbates the ethical implications. Many mines in some of China’s most gaseous regions lack gas ventilation and monitoring equipment, without which, a spark in the mine shaft could set of a massive explosion in the highly inflammable air (Wang 2006, 14).

The central government ordered local officials to close 5000 shafts in 2005 for safety violations, but only forty percent of those ordered to stop mining actually did (McLaughlin 2006, 3). Chaojie and Gui (2006, 2) explain that it is not easy for Beijing to enforce safety directives on cash strapped local authorities. This indicates that there is a prevalence of bribery and often work safety is only given lip service while issues are brushed under the carpet. It is clear that China’s health and safety problems seem to be exacerbated by a lack of enforcement. People in places of authority either look the other way or stay silent. In business ethics this is referred to as moral myopia and moral muteness.

Problems with Chinese OHS Legislations

Zhi, Sheng and Levine (2000, 1) state that Chinese OHS legislation was formed when the People’s Republic of China was established. It is alarming to know that the main purpose of OHS laws and regulation in China is to; promote the development of economy (Chaojie and Gui 2006, 1). There are gross unethical undertones in that statement. Shouldn’t the main purpose of a nations OHS legislation be the protection of its workers and ensuring their safety and wellbeing? OHS legislation around the world should pursue workers health and safety rights, not the development of the economy.

Another deficiency that exists in China’s OHS legislation is that it doesn’t cover all occupations. According to Article 2 of the Law on Work Safety the fundamental protective law is; applicable to work safety units that are engaged in production (Chaojie and Gui 2006, 6). This Article excludes all types of occupations that aren’t involved in some form of a production based enterprise and exposes them to have no health and safety rights at the workplace. Most OHS hazards do exists in the productive enterprises, but that is not to say employees in other occupation aren’t exposed to occupational hazards. A teacher in China for example working in a laboratory would have no protection under the OHS despite working in conditions that could lead to injury or fatalities just as a factory worker would. It is imperative for China to rethink its OHS legislation, as it is questionably unethical that a significant proportion of employees are excluded on the basis of the industry they work in.

Health and Safety at Australian Workplaces

Australia’s construction sector is the third most dangerous working environment in the country, with an average of 49 building and construction workers dying since 1997 (Fraser 2007, 19). Occupational health and safety problems account for more lost production time in Australia than industrial disputes. Organisation need to wake up and realise that the money saved by disregarding OHS policies, will result in dollars lost in the long run. Promoting a corporate culture that puts safety first will result in improved levels of performance, efficiency, public image and employee loyalty, consequently ensuring the long term sustained growth of the company

Common law and government legislation in Australia enforces the locus of responsibility of employee wellbeing on the employer. It is therefore essential that top management take the lead in establishing the corporate philosophy and objectives for health and safety.
In Australia the underground mining sector is the most dangerous sector, fatality rate is about six times the Australian industry average (Stone 2005, 661). All stakeholders in the Australian mining industry need to demonstrate their commitment to creating a safe and healthy mining industry.

OHS & Business Ethical Implication

There are numerous concepts and theories within the field of Business Ethics. For the relevance of this article; concepts such as stakeholder, dirty hands, moral myopia and moral muteness will be discussed.

OHS and Stakeholders

Organisations have a responsibility to a multitude of stakeholders and therefore must ensure the health and safety of its workers. Grace and Cohen (2007, 53) define the stakeholder as “a group or individual who can affect, or is affected by, the achievement of the corporations purpose”. Possible stakeholders of an organisation that compromises the health and safety of their workers

The employees: This group is obviously the most directly affected. Of all the human rights, isn’t being alive and health the most fundamental one?

The investors, sponsors, etc: In today’s modern world, where there is greater emphasis laid on corporate social responsibility, this group of stakeholders should use their powerful position to exert influence to ensure organisations not only comply with legal requirements of OHS legislation in their country, but also goes above and beyond to value the health and safety of their employees. Poor public image of an organisation will ultimately result in the long run to lower profits levels. This is an important stakeholder group as it has a financial vested interest in an organisations ethical behaviour in regards to its treatment of its employee’s wellbeing and working environment.

Community: There are greater demands from the global community, for organisations to behave in an ethical and socially responsible manner. Poor or non existent OHS policies that result in injuries and fatalities, affect communities at large as they might have a friend, relative that has been exposed to occupational hazards, or might possibly face one in the future. The broader community will have a vested interest, as they too are employees and see the merit in organisations valuing employee health and safety.

Dirty Hands

‘Dirty hands’ is often used as an excuse, by organisations that have an indifferent attitude to OHS. Spending time and resources are often seen by these unethical companies as a waste, fearing that it will jeopardise profit levels. Business is seen by many as a game, where nice guys finish last. Organisations that ensure a safe working environment for their employees aren’t obliging the workers with any extra favours. It is every human being’s fundamental right to work in an environment that isn’t detrimental to ones health and life. Cutting corners that will ultimately cost someone’s life is unacceptable. Unfortunately many organisation and their leaders are of the opinion that if a business is to survive difficult decision must be made, that might be unethical (Grace and Cohen 2007, 45). Employees enable businesses to grow and flourish and to think many organisations expose them to occupational hazards is not only unethical but also inhumane.

Moral Myopia and Moral Muteness

Drumwright and Murphy (2004) define moral myopia as failing to see moral dimensions, whereas moral muteness occurs when ethical issues do not enter discussions at either individual or organisational levels.
An example of moral myopia and moral muteness occurred in the coalmining diasters in the United States of America. Stringent following of OHS polices could have prevented the fatalities. These examples show that failure to act ethically in regards to health and safety will eventually result in the loss of lives.

The Sago Mine disaster in West Virginia in January 2006 took the lives of 12 miners (Waterloo 2006, 1). The ICG Sago Mine had received three safety violation notices a year earlier in 2005 (Waterloo 2006, 3). These notices were ignored, safety violations weren’t attended to and further there were no actions taken against this mine. The Sago Mine overlooked safety violations and put their employers at incredible risk. Management at this mine have exhibited moral muteness as no action was carried out while safety violations were outrageously and unethically ignored. Government officials and safety inspectors further didn’t intervene, despite the inaction shown by Sago and didn’t hold the organisation accountable. Meanwhile 12 miners lost their lives due to the negligence, complacency and gross acts of incompetence.

Schimmoller (2006, 2) state that according to a United States Government Accountability Office report from 2006, more than 235, 000 significant and substantial violations from 1993 to 2002 for which a deadline was specified, inspectors did not follow up on 48 % by the deadline.

In another mine tragedy in the USA, at a Kentucky mine, 5 men were killed in an explosion in 2006, and were cited at least forty one times in the last five years for neglecting to clean up coal dust effectively which can lead to explosions according to federal records (Urbina 2006, 1)

Conclusion

Organisations around the world have an ethical and legal obligation to provide their employees with a safe and healthy working environment. The article has provided examples of how organisations in China, Australia and the US, often treat their human resources as an expense and not as capital to be valued. Organisations that are indifferent to employee working conditions could be largely associated with the lack of enforceability they face, as they are not accountable for their highly questionable unethical actions. Government, industrial bodies and the wider community in China, Australia and the US need to deal with the deficiencies in its OHS systems with immense urgency. Tidwell (2000, 1) highlights the needs for a framework for safety and ethics at the workplace.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu