*5.2. The Quality of Efforts to Prevent Work-Related Accidents*

The second aim of the study was to compare respondents' perceptions of the quality of their sectors' efforts to prevent work-related accidents, and factors influencing this. Quantitative results indicate that respondents from the maritime sector rate their own organizations' efforts to prevent work-related accidents, and the safety level in their sector, as higher than respondents from the road sector. Moreover, respondents from the maritime sector also rate their sector authorities' focus on safety as higher, and the customer focus on safety in their sector as higher than respondents in the road sector. Respondents from the maritime sector also rate the scope of safety regulations as more comprehensive than respondents in road.

We conducted multivariate analyses to examine the factors influencing respondents' rating of their own organizations' efforts to prevent work-related accidents. The multivariate analyses generally indicate that respondents in the maritime sector rate their organizations' efforts to prevent work-related accidents as higher, as responsibility for accident prevention is more clearly defined, which in turn is related to the scope of the safety regulations. These results are in line with previous research, which indicates more focus on safety management systems, more advanced safety cultures and better safety outcomes in transport sectors with legal SMS requirements compared to the road sector (cf. [22,29,30]). Moreover, studies find relationships between SMS, or SMS elements and positive safety culture and safety outcomes in aviation [12,32], in rail [15], in the maritime sector [13], and in the road sector [17]. These results indicate the importance of sector rules requiring SMS for the prevention of work-related accidents. In accordance with this, the sector experts that we interviewed often referred to the rules governing safety in their sector and the enforcement of these rules when discussing their sectors' efforts to prevent work-related accidents.

It is difficult to compare transport sectors, as several framework conditions are likely to differ, in addition to the rules. In Figure 2, we saw, for instance, that customer focus on safety and authority focus on safety was rated higher among respondents in the maritime sector than in the road sector. In the multivariate analyses, we therefore controlled for such sector characteristics that could potentially represent confounding variables, e.g., competition between companies and customers' focus on safety versus price. In conclusion, we found that these variables do not influence respondents' rating of their efforts to present work-related accidents.

Additionally, we should ideally compare the risk of work-related accidents in each sector to compare the quality of efforts to prevent work-related accidents. It is however difficult to make such comparisons, as the measures of exposure differ in the sectors (e.g., kilometre in the road sector and days/hours at work in the maritime sector). This is an important issue for future research. Another interesting issue for future research is the influence of sector rules on safety culture in the sectors. Our multivariate analyses (Table 3) indicate relationships between sector rules, companies' reporting of incidents, which can be used as an indicator of sector safety culture (cf. [37]), and respondents' rating of their organization's efforts to prevent work-related accidents. This is in line with previous research indicating that SMS rules may facilitate key aspects of safety culture; e.g., reporting, justice, and learning culture [12,13,15].

## *5.3. The Perceived Importance of SMS for Safety in the Maritime Sector*

The specific characteristic of the safety regulations that we focus on in the present study is the defined responsibility of companies for safety management through SMS rules, which are legally required in the maritime sector [13]. Based on this, our third hypothesis was that we expected that respondents in the maritime sector rate SMS as more important for the safety level in their sector than respondents in the road sector. We tested this hypothesis by asking respondents in the two sectors about the most important reasons for the decline in the number of work-related accidents in their sector, which has occurred in recent years [2]. The most important answer provided by respondents from the maritime sector was "companies' safety management" (76% in the maritime sector vs. 39% in the road sector). This is in accordance with Hypothesis 3, and we can probably attribute this result to the focus on SMS in the maritime sector. This result is not surprising, given the fact that SMS is mandatory in the maritime sector, but not in the road sector. In contrast, the most important answer provided by respondents from the road sector was technological development. The SMS requirements of the ISM code was also mentioned by interviewees in the maritime sector when asked to identify the most important measures against work-related accidents that has been introduced in recent years.

#### *5.4. Methodological Weaknesses and Issues for Future Research*

The main methodological weakness of the present study is the relatively small samples sizes of respondents from the road and maritime sectors that the quantitative survey is based on. The quantitative data is based on only 112 questionnaires in total. This is a small sample, which should be labelled a pilot study, especially since the groups of people working in transport companies were only 35 people in road transport and 25 people in maritime transport. The people in the transport companies are very important in a study like the current, because they directly encounter the issue of work-related accidents. Thus, we recommend that future studies further examining the themes that we discuss here include larger samples of people working in transport companies. This is required to establish robust conclusions. We have, however, not seen studies comparing sectors like we do in the present study, and it therefore provides an important contribution, although it is based on a small sample.

The small samples are due to the fact that recruitment of sector expert respondents was difficult, as we targeted very specialized personnel in the public authorities, NGOs, etc., and that there are relatively few of these specialized personnel in Norway. We made several efforts, e.g., by sending several reminders, to recruit relevant study participants.

The small samples may make comparisons across sectors difficult, in the sense that it may increase the risk of type II errors (false negative observations). This means that if we do not see significant differences between the studied sectors, it could potentially indicate that the groups are too small, rather than that the observed difference is unimportant.

Another potential challenge related to the small sample is the issue of representativity. With the low number of respondents, it is reasonable to ask whether they actually are representative for their own sector. Unfortunately, it is impossible to calculate response rates, due to the method of survey distribution. When discussing the relatively small quantitative sample, it is important to note that we complement the quantitative data with rich qualitative interview data. Comparisons of quantitative data across sectors may be difficult, due to different reference points and baselines among the respondents. The qualitative data allows us to "control" for this in some sense, as we are able to get rich descriptions of these reference points and baselines, and comprehensive and complex accounts of the situation in each sector.

Since the quantitative and qualitative data was collected in 2016/17, it is important to discuss its current relevancy for policy and research. All in all, the main results of the present study can still be considered valid, as the rules regarding SMS and responsibility in road and the maritime sector have not changed since the data was collected. It is of course possible that some of the specific details provided in the qualitative interviews may have changed, but the legal contexts in the two sectors are still the same [27,38,39], indicating that the main results regarding the comparisons of the sectors still provide important lessons for policy makers and researchers. Additionally, international research also indicates that the main conclusions regarding the comparisons of the sectors are valid for the situation in other countries (cf. [22,24,30,40], indicating the importance of our study.

### *5.5. Policy Implications*

We may draw three main policy implications based on our study. The first is that our results indicate that the responsibility for the prevention of work-related accidents in the road sector is unclear in practice, and that this responsibility should be clarified. Both the Road Traffic Act and the Working Environment Act apply to drivers at work, but it seems that only the former is enforced in practice. The consequence is that drivers at work are treated as other private drivers, and that the potential of organizational safety management largely remains relatively unexploited in the road sector. As noted, about 36% of fatal road accidents involved at least one driver who was "at work" [1], and measures focusing on SMS and safety culture may lead to reductions in accident risk with up to 60% [40]. In a previous study, we estimated that between 7 and 56 deaths and severe injuries could have been avoided annually in Norway in the period 2007–2016, if more haulier companies had worked systematically with SMS and safety culture [41]. The potential is even greater if we focus on all drivers at work. It seems that this conclusion also applies to the international context (cf. [24]).

The second main policy implication of our study is that the responsibility should be clarified by also introducing SMS requirements in the road sector. The present study indicates that SMS rules are related to more clearly defined responsibilities for the prevention of work-related safety, a higher rating of the prevention of work-related accidents, and a higher perceived safety level in the maritime sector. Additionally, several studies also indicate that implementation of SMS is related to positive safety outcomes in the road sector [18–20] and in other sectors [3].

We have, however, seen that there are several differences between the road sector and the transport sectors with SMS requirements, which may represent barriers to SMS implementation in the road sector, including: (1) no international regulatory or standard setting body in road transport of the kind responsible for aviation (ICAO) or maritime transport (IMO); (2) a large share of non-professional road users; (3) 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]. The factors related to small companies and maturity have also been found to be relevant in some subsectors in the maritime sector, where studies indicate poorly adapted SMS and violations of procedures [29,34]. These studies indicate

that SMS implementation may fail, and that it does not necessarily leads to improved safety culture.

The barriers to SMS implementation in the road sector that were discussed in the ITF [22] roundtable on SMS in transport point to an important paradox: on the one hand, SMS is supposed to contribute to positive safety culture, but if companies have a poor safety culture, they may not be mature enough for successful SMS implementation (and thus improved safety culture). Insufficient organizational maturity, e.g., due to many small companies is listed as a barrier to SMS implementation in the road sector by the ITF [22]. One of the possible solutions to this dilemma, which is suggested in the ITF report, is to implement less comprehensive and simplified SMS in the road sector. This seems to be a fruitful approach, given the barriers to implementation. Nævestad et al. [42] provides such an alternative, which is called the Safety Ladder for safety management. Based on a systematic literature review, taking Norwegian research as its point of departure, Nævestad et al. [42] concludes that four measures seem to be most realistic for small goods-transport businesses, and that these measures seem to have the greatest safety potential. These four measures can be arranged on a ladder, where businesses start at the lowest and most basic level, before proceeding to the next step. The validation and implementation of such simplified SMS approaches is an important issue for future research and policy development.

The third main policy implication of our study is that the responsibility of other parties involved in road transport also should be clarified, e.g., transport buyers, as these also are perceived to have a considerable influence on road safety (cf. [22]).

#### **6. Conclusions**

The present study supports the assertion that the implementation of rules focusing on the responsibility of road transport companies to prevent work related accidents, by implementing safety management systems (SMS), could lead to increased safety in the road sector. The study indicates that the SMS rules in the maritime sector are related to more clearly defined responsibilities for the prevention of work-related safety. Our study indicates that this in turn is related to a higher rating of the prevention of work-related accidents and a higher perceived safety level in the maritime sector. Additionally, respondents in the maritime sector view SMS as the most important safety measure in the sector in recent years. However, due to barriers to SMS implementation in the road sector, we suggest starting with a simplified version of SMS.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, T.-O.N. and B.E.; methodology, T.-O.N., B.E., K.R.; formal analysis, T.-O.N., B.E., K.R.; writing—original draft preparation, T.-O.N., B.E., K.R.; writing—review and editing, T.-O.N.; visualization, T.-O.N.; project administration, B.E., T.-O.N.; funding acquisition, T.-O.N., B.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** The study was financed by the TRANSIKK program of the Research Council of Norway. Grant number 236643.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by NSD, Norwegian Centre for Research Data.

**Informed Consent Statement:** Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

**Data Availability Statement:** The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

**Acknowledgments:** The study was financed by the TRANSIKK program of the Research Council of Norway, as part of a larger research project "Work-related accidents in road, sea and air transport: Prevalence, causes and measures" (2014-2017). The information described based on the qualitative interviews is based on the situation in 2016-2017, and some of the details may have changed since then. Results from the project are also presented in Elvebakk et al [43].

**Conflicts of Interest:** The authors declare no conflict of interest.
