4.3.2. Which Factors Influence Respondents' Ratings of Their Organizations' Efforts to Prevent Work-Related Accidents?

In Table 3, we examine factors influencing respondents' ratings of their organizations' efforts to prevent work-related accidents.


**Table 3.** Linear regression. Dependent variable: "How would you rate your organization's efforts to prevent work-related accidents?" (Min = 1, Max = 7) Standardized beta coefficients.

\* *p* < 0.1 \*\* *p* < 0.05 \*\*\* *p* < 0.01.

The analyses in Table 3 indicates three main results. First, the most important result is that the variable "Scope of safety regulations" is the variable which has the strongest contribution to respondents' rating of their efforts to prevent work-related accidents. The positive beta coefficient indicates that respondents (in the maritime sector) who have the most comprehensive safety regulations, rate their efforts as better (than the road sector), also when we control for companies' reporting of accidents (which we have included as an indicator of sector safety culture) and framework conditions like competition between companies in the sector, and customers' focus on transport safety over price. The two latter framework conditions are measured by the following statements: "Heavy competition between companies is detrimental to safety in my sector" and "Safety is more important than price to customers". As illustrated in Figure 2, the maritime sector scores significantly higher than the road sector on the "Scope of safety regulations" variable. As noted, the full wording of the Scope of safety regulation variable is: "Imagine a scale from 1 to 10 indicating the scope of safety regulations, where 10 corresponds to the amount of safety regulations in international commercial aviation. How would you rate your sector?"

The second main result is that there is a close relationship between the scope of safety regulations variable and the variable "Responsibility for prevention of accidents is clearly defined". This variable contributed significantly and negatively in Model 4, indicating that lack of clearly defined responsibility for work-related accident prevention is related to lower ratings of your own organization's efforts to prevent such accidents. The clearly defined responsibility variable ceases, however, to contribute significantly in Model 5, when "scope of safety regulations" is included, indicating the close correlation between the two.

The third main result is that these variables are also closely related to sector. The sector variable contributes significantly in Models 2 and 3, indicating higher ratings of efforts to prevent work-related accidents in the maritime sector. The sector variable ceases, however, contribute significantly in Model 4, when the clearly defined responsibility variable is included, indicating the close relationship between the two, i.e., that this is more clearly defined in the maritime sector.

The fourth main result is that companies' reporting of incidents (i.e., sector safety culture), also is related to the scope of sector regulations, as the variable reporting of incidents ceases to contribute significantly when the variable scope of sector regulations is included in Model 5. The positive contribution indicates that reporting of incidents is related to higher ratings of efforts to prevent work-related accidents (and presumably a positive safety culture in the sector).

Finally, we see that neither customer focus on safety, nor heavy competition between companies influence respondents' rating of their efforts to present work-related accidents.

The Adjusted R value is 0.207, which means that the model explains 21% of the variation in the dependent variable.

#### **5. Concluding Discussion**

#### *5.1. Is the Responsibility to Prevent Work-Related Accidents Clearly Defined?*

In contrast to the road sector, the maritime sector has had rules requiring SMS, clearly defining shipping companies' responsibilities for prevention of work-related accidents, for over 20 years. In the present study we tested the influence of different sector rules on work-related accident prevention in Norwegian road and maritime transport. 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 place the responsibility for safety on the shipping company and the shipmaster [25], we hypothesized that respondents in the maritime sector have a stronger perception that the responsibility for accident prevention is clearly defined in their sector regulations than respondents in the road sector (Hypothesis 1).

Survey results supported Hypothesis 1; the road sector had a relatively low share of respondents agreeing that the responsibility for accident prevention was defined clearly enough in current regulations in the sector. The shares agreeing were 37% in the road sector, compared with 78% in the maritime sector. Respondents from the road sector who gave reasons for their answers underlined that transport buyers also influence the safety of transport assignments. Moreover, in the road sector, interviewees stated that drivers at work usually carry the entire responsibility, as the Road Traffic Act, which places all responsibility with the driver, is enforced through controls and in police investigations. Interviewees pointed out that the Working Environment Act, which focuses on the responsibility of the employer and work-related risk factors is rarely enforced in practice in the road sector. The practical focus on the driver in the road sector is line with previous research from Norway [23] and research from other countries (e.g., [22,36]). Work-related road safety has traditionally been managed using single driver-focused measures, and not SMS and safety culture (e.g., [24]). In contrast, one of the main purposes of the ISM-code is to firmly define the shipping company and the ship master's responsibility for the management of safety and the environment [25,26].

To sum up, results from the qualitative data indicate that respondents from the road sector found responsibility for work-related accident prevention unclear as: (1) the safety of drivers at work is regulated through at least two different rules; (2) only one of these is enforced in practice; and (3) in addition, other parties (e.g., transport buyers) also have a strong influence work-related road safety, but their influence is not recognised legally.
