*2.3. Mechanisms through Which SMS May Influence Safety Outcomes*

SMS may lead to positive safety outcomes through at least two mechanisms. The first is that SMS provides a systematic way of managing organizational safety, and that it clearly places responsibility for this process in the company. The philosophy that the ISM code is based on is total quality management, highlighting continuous improvement through management commitment and personnel empowerment (Lappalainen 2008 in [29]). The process of continuous improvement follows Deming's circle ('plan–do–check–act') [29]. Implementing an SMS involves analyzing the safety status and setting goals (plan), implementing measures to fulfil the goals (do), developing indicators to measure goal attainment (check), and adjusting the measures if necessary (act).

The second mechanism through which SMS may produce positive safety outcomes is through the development of a positive safety culture. As noted, this is the explicit motivation for most SMS legislation, hypothesizing that the development of formal procedures ("how things should be done"), will influence informal practices ("how things actually are done") [11]. Implementing an SMS largely concerns implementing certain routines and ways of doing things in the organization, e.g., carrying out risk assessments, documenting the process, developing procedures, and training new employees etc. [13,16,17]. The implementation of such activities can lead to improved safety culture, especially if it is followed by increased focus on safety among managers and employees in the organization.

#### *2.4. Potential Barriers to SMS Implementaion*

Contrary to the hypothesized relationship between SMS and safety culture that is described above, several studies report discrepancies between formal and informal aspects of safety in organizations [26,33,34]. Thus, it seems that a positive safety culture does not necessarily follow from SMS implementation. This can be explained by, e.g., SMS that are poorly adapted to the companies in question, by referring to the nature of the working activities, to the competence of the personnel, etc. [26,34]. These factors can also be related to the size and maturity of companies, etc. The report from the ITF [22] roundtable on SMS in transport mentions several such potential barriers to successful SMS implementation in the road sector, for example: (1) there is no international regulatory or standard setting body in road transport of the kind responsible for aviation (ICAO) or maritime transport (IMO); (2) there is a large share of non-professional road users; (3) there are many small companies; (4) high proportion of owner-drivers; and (5) low organizational maturity, indicated, e.g., by low degree of reporting of incidents and little systematic focus and follow up of indicators measuring performance [22]. These factors may challenge the possibilities to implement SMS and continuous improvement (PDCA) in companies in the road sector.

#### *2.5. Hypotheses*

As the SMS rules in the maritime sector firmly places the responsibility for safety on the shipping company and the shipmaster, we hypothesize that respondents in the maritime sector have a stronger perception that the responsibility for accident prevention is clearly defined in their sector regulations (Hypothesis 1). Moreover, based on this we also expect respondents in the maritime sector to rate their efforts to prevent work related accidents as higher than respondents in the road sector (Hypothesis 2). Finally, we expect that respondents in the maritime sector rate SMS as more important for the safety level in their sector than respondents in the road sector (Hypothesis 3).

#### **3. Methods**

We have used two methods to fulfil the study aims. The first method is semi structured qualitative interviews with 17 sector experts. We conducted these to get rich information, based on the interviewees' experiences and viewpoints, and also as a background to the development of the quantitative survey. The qualitative interviews resulted in textual data that we used to complement the numerical data from the survey. The use of quantitative survey data is the second method, and this is based on 112 respondents. We use this to make statistical comparisons between the answers of respondents from the two sectors.

#### *3.1. Interviews*

We have conducted qualitative interviews with 17 sector experts to gain knowledge on the aims of the study. Interviewees were selected from transport companies, the Labour Inspection Authority, the Public Roads Administration, including personnel from the Accident Analysis Groups, the Norwegian Maritime Directorate, the Accident Investigation Board, the Norwegian Coastal Administration, and other relevant actors. The interviews were conducted in 2016 and 2017. The interviews were conducted face-to-face and by telephone. The interviews generally lasted for between one and one and a half hours. We used a semi structured interview guide, and the themes and questions in the guide focused on the aims of the study.

The interview guide focused on the following themes:


The purpose of the interviews was to give us more insight into the interviewees' understanding of their organizations' knowledge and information sources about work-related accidents, views on risk factors and thoughts on roles and responsibilities. We collected this information to be able to conduct rich comparisons between the studied sectors. Interviewees were encouraged to "think out loud" and they were assured that the purpose of the interview was to provide us with nuanced viewpoints and thoughts that we cannot collect by means of survey methods. Although the themes in the interviews were fairly similar to those in the survey, the qualitative interviews involved open ended questions which allowed the interviewees to elaborate freely when answering.

#### *3.2. Survey*

#### 3.2.1. Recruitment of Respondents and Sample Characteristics

A small-scale web-based survey was distributed to representatives from government agencies, NGOs, and personnel in transport companies in the two sectors. Relevant representatives from government agencies were identified with assistance from the project's reference group. The survey was sent to relevant persons in the Transport Accident Inves-

tigation Board Norway, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Norwegian Public Road Authority, the Norwegian Maritime Authority, the Norwegian Labour Inspection Authority, and the Norwegian Public Roads Administration's Accident Analysis Groups. The survey was also sent to transport companies in the studied sectors, and they were asked to distribute the survey among elected safety officials and trade union representatives. Thus, the survey includes what we may term sector experts, with good knowledge resulting from efforts to prevent work-related accidents within the sectors. Table 1 shows the distribution of sector experts in the different sectors, by type of organization.


**Table 1.** Distribution of sector experts in the studied sectors, by type of organization.

There were 112 individual respondents: 59% (N = 66) from the road sector and 41% (N = 46) from the maritime sector. The respondents from transport companies in both sectors were largely recruited from two unions: one union from the road sector including drivers and one union from the maritime sector which largely includes ship navigators. Thus, although both groups of union members are transport operators, the operators from the maritime sector rank higher in the organizational hierarchy than those in the road sector. While the method of distribution makes it impossible to calculate the response rate, it is obvious that it has been very low. This, in addition to the limited number of responses, means that results must be treated with considerable caution.

#### 3.2.2. Survey Themes

The survey contains seven different themes:


#### 3.2.3. Quantitative Analysis

Regression analysis. We have performed two regression analyzes. The first was conducted to assess the conditions explaining variation in the respondents' answer to the question: "Is responsibility for accident prevention sufficiently clearly defined in current regulations in the sector?" The second was to assess respondents' agreement with the statement: "How would you rate your organization's efforts to prevent work-related accidents?". We used logistic regression in the first analysis, as the dependent variable was made dichotomous (1: Yes, 2: No/do not know). We used linear regression in the second analysis, since the dependent variables are continuous. The regression analyzes show the effects of the independent variables that we include on the two dependent variables, controlled for the other variables in the analysis.

#### **4. Results**

#### *4.1. Is Responsibility for Accident Prevention Is Clearly Defined?*

The first aim of the study was to examine how the different sector rules influence perceptions of whether the responsibility to prevent work-related accidents is clearly defined in the maritime sector and in the road sector. As the SMS rules in the maritime sector firmly places the responsibility for safety on the shipping company and the shipmaster, we hypothesize that respondents in the maritime sector have a stronger perception that the responsibility for accident prevention is clearly defined in their sector regulations (Hypothesis 1).

In the survey, we asked whether responsibility for accident prevention was defined clearly enough in current regulations in the sector. The road sector stands out with a relatively low share of respondents stating that responsibility is defined clearly enough; 37% answered yes, compared with 78% in the maritime sector. The corresponding shares for no were 31% in road and 13% in the maritime sector. The road sector also had a larger percentage of respondents stating that they "do not know" (31%), compared with 9% in the maritime sector. Differences between the sectors were statistically significant at the 1% level.

Respondents from the road sector who gave reasons for their answers referred to the relationship between drivers and their employer organizations and/or their customers. They referred to stress or pressure as a result of short deadlines, and the fact that drivers are held responsible even though they are not the ones who define the route and the time frame. In this manner, they underlined that transport buyers also indirectly influence the safety of transport assignments. Moreover, they also pointed to drivers' legal responsibilities as a problem, as they may provide an opportunity for managers or customers to ignore their actual influence and liability. This indicates a discrepancy between the legal responsibilities of drivers and the practical responsibilities of, e.g., transport buyers in the road sector.

The majority of interviewees from the road sector thought employers should take more responsibility for their employees' behaviour and safety in traffic, as part of their HSE work. Specifically, they believed that work assignments should be based on risk assessments, including an analysis of the road and conditions, and employers should develop safetypromoting routines, procedures and guidelines. It was noted that many businesses fail to fulfil these requirements today. Road transport differs from most professional sectors in that individual drivers usually carry the entire responsibility for safety, and some of the interviewees stated that the companies have—or should take on— the overarching responsibility for the interplay between the various elements and actors involved in road traffic. Some of the interviewees from the road sector believed that relations of responsibility in this area should be more clearly defined, especially HSE-requirements or safety standards. Others found responsibilities to be well-defined in theory, but they said that the practical follow-up was inconsistent. The Working Environment Act gives employers a wide-ranging responsibility for their workers' safety, but interviewees noted that this is rarely enforced. The Road Traffic Act—which places all responsibility with the driver—is enforced through controls and in police investigations following accidents, but the responsibility of the firms is not enforced to the same degree. So while the law divides responsibility between different actors, this is not the case in practice.

Interviewees in the maritime sector underline that safety in the maritime sector is circumscribed by the International Maritime Organisation (IMO). This is a specialized agency of the United Nations whose primary purpose is to develop and maintain a comprehensive regulatory framework for shipping. The Norwegian Maritime Authority (NMA) is the government agency responsible for life, health, and working conditions for Norwegianregistered ships and ships at Norwegian ports and is also in charge of active safety work, such as inspections regulated by international law. The Norwegian Coastal Administration is responsible for maritime infrastructure and maritime safety services, while the Labour Inspection Agency is responsible for working conditions in ports. Safety in the maritime

sector in Norway is regulated through the Ship Safety and Security Act, which came into existence in 2007. According to this act:

"The company has an overall duty to see to that the construction and operation of the ship is in accordance with the rules laid down in or pursuant to this Act, including that the master and other persons working on board comply with the legislation". (§6)

Section 58 in this act relates to the establishment of SMS (as required by the ISM code).
