Safety and Health at Work

Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (산업안전보건연구원)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationship Between Occupational Safety and Health Policy Principles, Organizational Action on Work-related Stress and the Psychosocial Work Environment in Italy

  • Stavroula Leka (Centre for Organizational Health & Well-being, Lancaster University) ;
  • Luis Torres (Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus) ;
  • Aditya Jain (Nottingham University Business School, Jubilee Campus) ;
  • Cristina Di Tecco (Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, INAIL-Italian Workers' Compensation Authority) ;
  • Simone Russo (Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, INAIL-Italian Workers' Compensation Authority) ;
  • Sergio Iavicoli (Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Epidemiology and Hygiene, INAIL-Italian Workers' Compensation Authority)
  • Received : 2023.04.12
  • Accepted : 2023.10.03
  • Published : 2023.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Background: It is acknowledged that legislation acts as a motivator for organizational action on psychosocial risks. Our study aims to provide evidence on the relationship between key occupational safety and health (OSH) policy principles and organizational action on work-related stress, and, in turn, with reported employee job demands and resources and their experience of work-related stress. We focus on Italy where specific legislation and practices on work-related stress were introduced in 2008 which are underpinned by these key OSH policy principles. Methods: Secondary analysis of the Italian samples from the employer ESENER-2 and employee 6th EWCS surveys was conducted, using path analysis in structural equation modeling (SEM) linking the two datasets. Results: We found a strong statistically significant relationship between OSH policy principles and organizational action on work-related stress (C.I. = .62-.78 p < .001). The existence of an organizational action plan on work-related stress was found to be significantly associated with more reported job resources (C.I. = .02-.24, p < .05) but these were not found to be significantly associated with less work-related stress. No significant association was found between having an organizational action plan for work-related stress and reported job demands. However, job demands were significantly related to reported work-related stress (C.I. = .27-.47, p < .001). Conclusions: Findings add support to the call for specific legislation on work-related psychosocial risks and highlight how an organizational OSH culture underpinned by key OSH principles, and awareness/competence development on psychosocial risk management can have a positive effect on organizational action. However, further support needs to be provided to organizations around developing primary prevention interventions at the organizational level with the aim of reducing job demands.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Project implemented with financial contribution from the Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work: BRIC 2019 ID n. 20/2019.

References

  1. European Agency for Safety & Health at Work. Research on work-related stress. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2000. 
  2. Leka S, Jain A., World Health Organization. Health impact of psychosocial hazards at work: an overview. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010. 
  3. Leka S, Jain A, Iavicoli S, Di Tecco C. An evaluation of the policy context on psychosocial risks and mental health in the workplace in the European Union: achievements, challenges, and the future. Biomed Res Int 2015 Oct 18;2015:213089. 
  4. International Labour Organization. Global commission on the future of work-Work for a brighter future. Geneva: ILO; 2019. 
  5. Schulte PA, Streit JMK, Sheriff F, Delclos G, Felknor SA, Tamers SL, Fendinger S, Grosch J, Sala R. Potential scenarios and hazards in the work of the future: a systematic review of the peer-reviewed and gray literature. Ann Work Expo Health 2020 Oct 8;64(8):786-816.  https://doi.org/10.1093/annweh/wxaa051
  6. Leka S. The future of working in a virtual environment and occupational safety and health. Discussion paper [Internet]. Bilbao: European Agency for Safety & Health at work. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 06]. Available from: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/future-working-virtual-environment-and-occupational-safety-and-health. 
  7. European Commission. Peer Review on 'Legislation and practical management of psychosocial risks at work. A critical evaluation of the EU policy context'. Thematic Discussion Paper. Written by Stavroula Leka in collaboration with Sergio Iavicoli and ICF [Internet]. Brussels: European Commission. 2019 Sep cited 2023 Mar 06]. Available from: file:///C:/Users/xf49637/Downloads/Thematic%20Discussion%20KE-02-20-730-EN-N%20(5).pdf. 
  8. European Commission. Interpretative document on the implementation of Council Directive 89/391/EEC in relation to mental health in the workplace [Internet]. Brussels: European Commission. 2014 [cited 2023 Mar 06]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=13880&langId=en. 
  9. European Commission. Report on the implementation of the European social partners - framework agreement on work-related stress. SEC; 2011. 241 p final, Commission staff working paper. [Internet] Brussels: European Commission; 2011 [cited 2023 Mar 06]. Available from: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/docs_autres_institutions/commission_europeenne/sec/2011/0241/COM_SEC(2011)0241_EN.pdf. 
  10. Iavicoli S, Leka S, Jain A, Persechino B, Rondinone BM, Ronchetti M, Valenti A. Hard and soft law approaches to addressing psychosocial risks in Europe: lessons learned in the development of the Italian approach. J Risk Res 2014 Aug 9;17(7):855-69.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2013.822911
  11. INAIL. The methodology for the assessment and management of work-related stress risk. Handbook for companies. In: Compliance with LEGISLATIVE. Decree 81/2008 and subsequent integrations and modifications. Milan: Tipolitografia INAIL; 2018. 
  12. Iavicoli S, Di Tecco C. The management of psychosocial risks at work: state of the art and future perspectives. Med Lav 2020 Oct 31;111(5):335-50. 
  13. European Agency for Safety & Health at Work. European survey of enterprises on new and emerging risks: managing safety and health at work. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2010. 
  14. European Agency for Safety & Health at Work. Second European survey of enterprises on new and emerging risks (ESENER-2). Overview report: managing safety and health at work.. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; 2016. 
  15. Di Tecco C, Jain A, Valenti A, Iavicoli S, Leka S. An evaluation of the impact of a policy-level intervention to address psychosocial risks on organisational action in Italy. Saf Sci 2017 Dec 1;100:103-9. 
  16. European Agency for Safety & Health at Work. Third European survey of enterprises on new and emerging risks (ESENER 2019): overview report how European workplaces manage safety and health. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2022. 
  17. Jain A, Torres LD, Teoh K, Leka S. The impact of national legislation on psychosocial risks on organisational action plans, psychosocial working conditions, and employee work-related stress in Europe. Soc Sci Med 2022;302:114987. 
  18. Nielsen K, Randall R. Opening the black box: a framework for evaluating organizational-level occupational health interventions. Eur J Work Organ Psychol 2013;22(5):601-17.  https://doi.org/10.1080/1359432X.2012.690556
  19. Nielsen K, Miraglia M. What works for whom in which circumstances? On the need to move beyond the 'what works?'question in organizational intervention research. Hum Relat 2017 Jan;70(1):40-62.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726716670226
  20. Lamontagne AD, Keegel T, Louie AM, Ostry A, Landsbergis PA. A systematic review of the job-stress intervention evaluation literature, 1990-2005. Int J Occup Environ Health 2007 Jul-Sep;13(3):268-80.  https://doi.org/10.1179/oeh.2007.13.3.268
  21. Holman D, Johnson S, O'Connor E. Stress management interventions: improving subjective psychological well-being in the workplace. Handbook of well-beingvol. 2. Salt Lake City, UT: DEF Publishers; 2018. 
  22. Montano D, Hoven H, Siegrist J. Effects of organisational-level interventions at work on employees' health: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 2014 Dec;14(1):1-9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-14-1
  23. Tappura S, Jaaskelainen A, Pirhonen J. Creation of satisfactory safety culture by developing its key dimensions. Saf Sci 2022 Oct 1;154:105849. 
  24. Dollard MF, Bakker AB. Psychosocial safety climate as a precursor to conducive work environments, psychological health problems, and employee engagement. J Occup Health Psychol 2010 Sep;83(3):579-99. 
  25. Bakker AB, Demerouti E. Job demands-resources theory: taking stock and looking forward. J Occup Health Psychol 2017 Jul;22(3):273-85.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000056
  26. Schaufeli WB, Taris TW. A critical review of the job demands-resources model: implications for improving work and health. Bridging occupational, organizational and public health: a transdisciplinary approach. In: Bauer GF, Hammig O, editors. Bridging occupational, organizational and public health. Dordrecht: Springer; 2014. p. 43-68. 
  27. Eurofound. Sixth. European working conditions survey - overview report (2017 update). Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2017. 
  28. Eurofound. Working conditions and workers' health. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union; 2019. 
  29. R Core Team. R. A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2021 [cited 2023 Mar 06]. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/. 
  30. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications; 2015 Nov 3. 
  31. Morata-Ramirez MD, Holgado-Tello FP. Construct validity of Likert scales through confirmatory factor analysis: a simulation study comparing different methods of estimation based on Pearson and polychoric correlations. Int J Soc Sci Stud 2013;1(1):54-61. 
  32. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd edition). New York: Routledge; 2016. 
  33. Lai K. Estimating standardized SEM parameters given nonnormal data and incorrect model: methods and comparison. Struct Equation Model A Multidisciplinary J 2018;25(4):600-20. Lai K. Estimating standardized SEM parameters given nonnormal data and incorrect model: Methods and comparison. Struct Equ Modeling. 2018 Jul 4;25(4):600-20. 
  34. International Labour Organization. Workplace Stress: a collective challenge. Geneva: ILO; 2016. 
  35. Persechino B, Valenti A, Ronchetti M, Rondinone BM, Di Tecco C, Vitali S, Iavicoli S. Work-related stress risk assessment in Italy: a methodological proposal adapted to regulatory guidelines. Saf Health Work 2013 Jun;4(2):95-9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2013.05.002
  36. Di Tecco C, Ronchetti M, Ghelli M, Russo S, Persechino B, Iavicoli S. Do Italian companies manage work-related stress effectively? A process evaluation in implementing the INAIL methodology. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:197156. 
  37. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol 2003 Oct;88(5):879. 
  38. Srivastava S. Verifiability is a core principle of science. Behav Brain Sci 2018 Jan;41:e150.