DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Risk Assessment in Finland: Theory and Practice

  • 투고 : 2010.07.28
  • 심사 : 2010.08.27
  • 발행 : 2010.09.30

초록

The Finnish risk assessment practice is based on the Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Act aiming to improve working conditions in order maintain the employees' work ability, and to prevent occupational accidents and diseases. In practice there are hundreds of risk assessment methods in use. A simple method is used in small and medium sized enterprises and more complex risk evaluation methods in larger work places. Does the risk management function in the work places in Finland? According to our experience something more is needed. That is, understanding of common and company related benefits of risk management. The wider conclusion is that commitment for risk assessment in Finland is high enough. However, in those enterprises where OSH management was at an acceptable level or above it, there were also more varied and more successfully accomplished actions to remove or reduce the risks than in enterprises, where OSH management was in lower level. In risk assessment it is important to process active technical prevention and exact communication, increase work place attraction and increase job satisfaction and motivation. Investments in OSH are also good business. Low absenteeism due to illness or accidents increases directly the production results by improved quality and quantity of the product. In general Finnish studies have consistently shown that the return of an invested euro is three to seven-old. In national level, according to our calculations the savings could be even 20% of our gross national product.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Federation of Accident Insurance Institutions. Occupationalaccidents and diseases in Finland 2006: review of trendsstatistical years 1996-2004. Helsinki (Finland): Federation ofAccident Insurance Institutions; 2006. 8 p.
  2. Kauppinen T, Hanhela R, Heikkila P, Kasvio A, Lehtinen S,Lindstrom K, Toikkanen J, Tossavainen A. Work and healthin Finland 2006. Helsinki (Finland): Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health; 2007. p. 445-59.
  3. Malchaire J, Gebhardt HJ, Piette A. Strategy for evaluationand prevention of risk due to work in thermal environments.Ann Occup Hyg 1999;43:367-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/43.5.367
  4. Paakkonen R, Rantanen S, Uitti J. Identification of healthhazards. Helsinki (Finland): Finnish Institute of OccupationalHealth; 2005. 99 p.
  5. British Standards Institute. BS 8800:2004. Occupationalhealth and safety management systems: guide. London (UK):British Standards Institute; 2004. 70 p.
  6. Perkio-Makela M, Hirvonen M, Elo A, Ervasti J, HuuhtanenP, Kandolin I, Kauppinen K, Kauppinen T, Ketola R,Lindstrom K, Manninen P, Mikkola J, Reijula K, Riala R,Salminen S, Toivanen M, Viluksela M. Work and health:interview study. Tabular report. Helsinki (Finland): FinnishInstitute of Occupational Health; 2006. 373 p. Finnish.
  7. Niskanen T, Kallio H, Naumanen P, Lehtela J, Liuhamo M,Lappalainen J, Sillanpaa J, Nykyri E, Zitting A, Hakkola M.The impacts of occupational safety and health legislation inrisk assessment. Reports of the Ministry of Social Affairs andHealth 2009:22. Helsinki (Finland): Ministry of Social Affairsand Health; 2009. 149 p. Finnish.
  8. Hamalainen M, Rantanen S,Virtema P, Paakkonen R. Thesituation and development focus of occupational safety atwork places 2007. Helsinki (Finland): Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health; 2008. 46 p.
  9. Savinainen M, Paakkonen R, Oksa P. Cooperation of occupational and safety personnel in assessing work conditions in Finland: some conclusions. 7th Seminar on Work Life Development; 2009 Oct 6-8; Lappeenranta, Ruokolahti, Tampere (Finland). Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2009.
  10. Anttonen H, Ketola L, Vorne J. OSH management andrisk control [abstract]. In: 50 Nordiska Arbetsmiljomotet;2004 Aug 30–Sep 1; Reyakjavik, Island. Reykjavik:Arbetarskyddsstyrelsen; 2004. p. 171-2.
  11. Apaja J, Vorne J, Anttonen H, Sarkela A. The developmentof risk management and occupational safety from 1970's untilnow in metallurgical industry described by two risk factor.Tyo ja ihminen 2007;21:465-80. Finnish.
  12. Roelofs CR, Barbeau EM, Ellenbecker MJ, Moure-Eraso R.Preventive strategies in industrial hygiene: a critical literaturereview. AIHA J (Fairfax, Va) 2003;64:62-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/15428110308984788
  13. von Bonsdorff ME, Vanhala S, Seitsamo J, Janhonen M,Husman P. Employee well-being and company performance-puttingthe pieces together. In: Labart L, Paakkonen T,editors. Towards better work and well-being. International Conference; 2010 Feb 10-12; Helsinki, Finland. Helsinki:Finnish Institute of Occupation al Health; 2010. p. 37.
  14. Verbeek J, Pulliainen M, Kankaanpaa E. The business casefor better work and well-being. In: Labart L, Paakkonen T,editors. Towards better work and well-being. InternationalConference; 2010 Feb 10-12; Helsinki, Finland. Helsinki:Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2010. p. 33.
  15. Naumanen P, Paakkonen R, Liuhamo M, Savinainen M,Hanhela R, Saamanen A, Viitaniemi J. What makes workplace attractive? In: Labart L, Paakkonen T, editors. Towardsbetter work and well-being. International Conference; 2010Feb 10-12; Helsinki, Finland. Helsinki: Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health; 2010. p. 64.
  16. Cox LA Jr. What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Anal2008;28:497-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
  17. Anttonen H, Rasanen T. Well-being at work: new innovationsand good practices. Helsinki (Finland): Finnish Institute ofOccupational Health; 2009. 32 p.