*1.1. Background*

A study from Norway indicates that 36% of fatal road accidents involved at least one driver who was "at work" at the time of the accident [1]. An average of 1.490 people is injured (lightly or seriously) in these accidents and the majority (81%) of these people are other road users [2]. This means that measures to improve transport safety in companies with working drivers will not only reduce the number of injuries among drivers at work, but particularly among other road users.

Although there are relatively few systematic studies in this area, research indicates that implementation of safety management systems (SMS) can lead to increased road safety. A comprehensive literature review indicates that the implementation of SMS is related to positive safety outcomes [3]. SMS is legally required as a tool for implementing safety culture in several high-risk industries, e.g., the nuclear sector [4], aviation [5,6], and oil and gas (e.g., [7]).

**Citation:** Nævestad, T.-O.; Elvebakk, B.; Ranestad, K. Work-Related Accident Prevention in Norwegian Road and Maritime Transport: Examining the Influence of Different Sector Rules. *Infrastructures* **2021**, *6*, 72. https://doi.org/10.3390/ infrastructures6050072

Academic Editors: Krzysztof Goniewicz, Robert Czerski and Marek Kustra

Received: 13 March 2021 Accepted: 6 May 2021 Published: 11 May 2021

**Publisher's Note:** MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

**Copyright:** © 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/).

SMS denote the formal aspects of safety in organizations ("how things should be done"). The informal aspects of safety management generally refer to safety culture ("how things are actually done"), which can be defined as shared and safety relevant ways of thinking or acting that are (re)created through the joint negotiation of people in social settings [8]. The development of a positive safety culture is a formal aim and justification of SMS in the maritime sector [9], in aviation [5] in rail [10], and also in the voluntary ISO:39001 standard in the road sector. Thus, it is believed that the development of formal procedures ("how things should be done") will influence informal practices ("how things actually are done") [11]. Studies also indicate positive effects of SMS on safety culture in aviation [12], in the maritime sector [13] and in rail [14,15].

SMS typically comprise formal routines and measures enabling the organization to work systematically with safety, e.g., by establishing formal safety policies and goals, establishing key roles and responsibilities, systematically collecting information about incidents and hazards, developing countermeasures, monitoring the effects of these, and adjusting measures if necessary (cf. [3]). Moreover, SMS clearly define companies' responsibility to prevent work-related accidents, through the implementation of such formal measures [16].

Studies of SMS implementation from the road sector report of reductions in accidents and incidents, improved safety culture and improved road safety behaviours [17–20]. In addition, previous studies show that hauliers transporting dangerous goods (road tanker) by road have a 75% lower risk of accidents than other goods transport companies [21]. These companies also work more systematically with SMS and safety culture than other hauliers [22].

Despite the promising safety outcomes of SMS in road and other sectors, Norwegian research from the road sector indicates that neither transport companies nor authorities focus sufficiently well on the importance of SMS and the organizational responsibility for safety [23]. Similar tendencies have been found in research from other countries, indicating that work-related road safety traditionally has been managed using single driver-focused measures, and not SMS and safety culture (e.g., [22,24]).

The tendency to focus on the driver instead of the organization in efforts to prevent accidents has been related to the legal rules governing work-related accident prevention in the road sector. Interviewees in a previous Norwegian study reported that authorities largely focus on the Road Traffic Act, which places the main responsibility for safety on the driver, in their enforcement of the safety of drivers at work [23]. This means that drivers at work in practice are treated as private drivers, although the employers of the former have a legal responsibility for their safety through the Working Environment Act. The interviewees also stated that very few employers recognize this responsibility, e.g., by implementing SMS. Based on this, sector experts in the study of Nævestad and Phillips [23] suggested that the road sector should learn from other sectors, which focuses on the organizational responsibility to prevent work related accidents, e.g., by implementing SMS. The same suggestion is discussed in an ITF roundtable session about SMS in transport [22].

In the present study we test the validity of this suggestion, by examining the influence of different sector rules on work-related accident prevention in Norwegian road and maritime transport. More specifically, we examine whether the maritime sector performs better on the prevention of work-related accidents because of the different rules regulating safety in the two sectors. We have chosen to compare road with the maritime sector, as the maritime sector has had rules requiring SMS for over 20 years, clearly focusing on the organizational responsibility to prevent accidents. In contrast, formal SMSs for companies in the road sector are voluntary so far (e.g., ISO:39001).

#### *1.2. Aims*

The aims of the study are to: (1) examine how the different sector rules influence perceptions of whether the responsibility to prevent work-related accidents is clearly defined in road and the maritime sector; and (2) compare respondents' perceptions of the quality of their sectors' efforts to prevent work-related accidents, and factors influencing this.

#### **2. Theoretical Approach and Previous Research**

#### *2.1. The Rules Governing Safety and SMS in the Road and Maritime Sector*

SMS was legally required in the maritime sector in 1998 through the International Safety Management (ISM) code of the International Maritime Organization (IMO), which requires SMS in all commercial ships over 500 GT. The ISM code was introduced after several severe maritime accidents were found to be caused by human error and insufficient SMS. 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, through the implementation of ISM compliant SMS [25]. According to the ISM code, an SMS should include, for instance: (1) a safety and environmental protection policy; (2) procedures to ensure the safe operation of ships; and (3) defined lines of communication between shore and shipboard personnel [9,26]. The ISM code is implemented as a provision to the Norwegian Ship Safety and Security Act [27]. Actors in the sector have considered this act to clarify responsibilities, through increasing the focus on shipping companies' responsibility for accident prevention [28].

International research indicates low SMS implementation among companies in the road sector, as this is not legally required [22]. Some of the large companies have, however, adopted advanced SMS practices, particularly companies transporting dangerous goods including oil and chemical products [22]. The closest one comes to overarching legislation for SMS in the road sector is the EU Framework Directive on Safety and Health at Work (Directive 89/391/EEC) and corresponding national legislation that sets out the need for employers of drivers at work to manage accident risks associated with road users, trips, and vehicles [16]. The corresponding national legislation in Norway is the Working Environment Act (WEA). However, although employers of drivers at work in Norway have a legal responsibility for their safety through the WEA, very few employers recognize this responsibility, e.g., by implementing SMS [23]. The most important legislation regulating road safety in Norway is the Road Traffic Act (RTA), which applies to all road users, and which places the main responsibility for safety on the driver. Nævestad and Phillips [23] report that authorities tend to enforce the RTA more often than WEA when dealing with drivers at work. This indicates a less clear responsibility for work-related accident prevention in the road sector, and a more driver-centered approach, which also is found in international approaches [24]. The most well-known SMS approach in the road sector is the ISO:39001 traffic safety standard. This is, however, voluntary. The standard is often described as a management system for traffic safety and a tool for building safety culture. An explicit goal of this standard is to create a positive safety culture by implementing SMS. Only eight companies had, however, implemented this standard in Norway in 2018.

### *2.2. Safety Outcomes of SMS*

Although there are few studies comparing safety culture and safety outcomes across transport sectors, previous research indicates more focus on safety management systems, more advanced safety cultures and better safety outcomes in aviation, rail, and the maritime sector, compared with the road sector (cf. [22,29,30]. This can be explained by the fact that companies in the road sector do not have the same legal requirements for safety management systems as in aviation (IATA 2019), the maritime sector [13], and railways [10]. In these sectors, requirements are set for systems aiming to facilitate key aspects of safety culture; e.g., a safety culture including reporting, justice, and learning. These requirements are often cited to explain why companies in aviation [31,32], the maritime sector [13], and rail transport [14] perform better than the road sector on safety. Several studies find relationships between implementation of SMS, or SMS elements, and positive safety culture and safety outcomes in aviation [31,32], in rail [15], in the maritime sector [13] and in the road sector [17].

Finally, it should also be noted that identifying the safety outcomes of SMS is a challenging methodological issue. There are few robust evaluations of this (i.e., with prepost measurements, control, and test groups). Additionally, studies have not yet managed

to study the separate effects of the different elements in SMS. There are also several different definitions of SMS. It should also be noted that relationships are complex, and that it may be difficult to discern between elements of safety culture interventions and elements in SMS interventions. In his systematic review of the effects of safety management systems in the transport sector, Thomas [3] concludes that, despite little research in the field, there seems to be a relationship between SMS and objective safety outcomes (behavior and accidents). Although there is no agreement on which components of safety management systems contribute most to safety, Thomas [3] concludes that the following two factors are the most important: management commitment to safety and safety communication. Additionally, there are few studies comparing safety management across sectors as we do in the present study. Making such comparisons may be difficult, as other framework conditions (in addition to SMS rules) are also important in explaining different safety levels between sectors (cf. [29]). Such framework conditions may be, e.g., competition, business structure (number and size of companies), economy, and customer focus on safety. We return to this issue.
