Table Of ContentOrganizational Safety Culture and
Sustainability
Ildikó Kertai-Kiss
Abstract
Sustainabilityandsecurityarenotionsthatareinseparablefromeachother.Asa
result of cultural changes generated by technological advancement, analogous
processes appear at societal, organizational, and individual levels. The new risk
factorsareglobalandunpredictableandcanbeforecastonly toalimitedextent
and change quickly and constantly. In this context, the extent and number of
uncertainties are on the increase. Organizational cultures, rooted in societal
culture, are playing an increasingly important role in sustainable development.
Atthesametime,securityisapivotalissueformoderncompanies.Itisconsid-
ered to be a focal issue, albeit with different approaches on different organiza-
tionallevels.Organizationalprocesses,however,arepeopledriven;thereforethe
humanfactorhasacrucialroleintheinterdisciplinaryresearchofsafetyscience.
Thesafety-focusedapproachinorganizationalbehaviorandtheenhancementof
safety awareness have become indispensable. Sustainable development is not
plausiblewithoutasafetyconsciousbehavior.
Keywords
Global risk (cid:129) Socio-technical system (cid:129) Human error (cid:129) CSR (cid:129) Organizational
behavior
Contents
Introduction:TheTopicalityandImportanceoftheSafetyScienceApproach.................. 2
TheKeyConceptsofSafetyandSecurity:RiskandUncertainty................................ 3
OrganizationalandGlobalSustainability.......................................................... 5
GlobalRisksVersusSafetyandSustainability................................................ 6
I.Kertai-Kiss(*)
DepartmentofBusinessandManagement,ÓbudaUniversity,DoctoralSchoolonSafetyand
SecuritySciences,Budapest,Hungary
e-mail:[email protected]
#SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2017 1
M.Yülek(ed.),IndustrialPolicyandSustainableGrowth,
SustainableDevelopment,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-3964-5_2-1
2 I.Kertai-Kiss
InternationalDocumentsandOrganizationalSafety......................................... 7
ProtectiveTools:Standards,SpecializedSystems,andDirectives.......................... 8
DifferentApproachestoOrganizationalSafetyandSecurityCulture,BasedontheInternational
AcademicLiterature.............................................................................. 10
TheDefinitionandCharacteristicsoftheOrganizationalSafetyCulture................... 11
TheRelationshipBetweenProduction,Quality,andSafety................................. 13
SafetyandDigitalTechnology................................................................ 14
SustainableOrganizationalStrategiesandSafety................................................ 15
NewRisk-ResilienceStrategies............................................................... 16
KnowledgeManagementStrategiesandSafety.............................................. 16
AFitBetweenCulturesandSafety.............................................................. 19
SafetyCultureinLightofSustainabilityandCSRReports..................................... 20
Conclusions....................................................................................... 21
References........................................................................................ 23
Introduction:TheTopicalityandImportanceoftheSafetyScience
Approach
Placingtheaspectsofsafetyandsecurityintothecontextofthedigitaleraisoneof
the most topical research areas at the moment. The social, economic, and techno-
logicalchanges ofourtime notonly affectbutalsocontinuouslyshape thecharac-
teristics of human thinking and behavior (Adler 1986). Due to the various threats,
crisis situations, and unprecedented complex risks and events, safety awareness is
becomingincreasingly important on theglobal, social, organizational, andindivid-
uallevelsalike.
Regarding the concept of safety and security culture, the responsibility of orga-
nizations is particularly great, because they have an impact on all the aspects of
sustainable development, including social processes and environmental protection.
The safe operation of companies is closely related to our quality of life, the
sustainable utilization of natural resources, and the protection of the environment.
This,however,requiresorganizationswhichconsidersafetyasapriorityandavalue.
Thecomplexapproachtoorganizationalsafetyandsecuritycultureincludessuch
attributesasreporting,just,flexible,andlearningcultures(Reason1994).Acrucial
aspect in the analysis of a company’s safety and security culture is whether the
organizational culture is embedded in the national (societal) culture and whether it
can be regarded as a subculture within the organizational structure, where the
employeeshaveahighlevelofsafetyawareness(Vasvári2009).Theinterdisciplin-
arynatureoftheareaunderreviewalsoincludesthestudyoftheinteractionbetween
humans and theworking environment, as well asthe interconnections between the
scienceofergonomics(IzsóandAntalovits2000)andorganizationalbehavior.
Not all organizations do the maximum within these areas, although companies
can do a lot not only for their own safety but also for global security, which
encompassessustainability.Someofthereasonsforthisareasfollows:nosystem-
aticapproachtosafetymanagement;noopportunityisprovidedtolearnfromsafety
incidents and identify safety measures; organizations tend to invest in production
OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 3
processes,ratherthanineffectivesafetycontrols;tendencytothinkintheshortterm,
which means that some companies prefer to pay a fine rather than consider the
implementationofaproactivepreventionsystem;etc.
Thischapterdiscussesthekeyorganizationalandsustainability-relatedaspectsof
thesafetyscienceapproachandhighlightstheinterconnectionswhichcaninfluence
thelinksbetweenthesafetyandsecuritycultureandsustainability.
The study is structured along three main concepts. The first part (sections “The
Key Concepts of Safety and Security: Risk and Uncertainty” and “Organizational
andGlobalSustainability”)discussesthefundamentalconceptsofthedisciplineand
the risk factors of global sustainability. It also points out that specialized safety
systems, international standards, quality assurance systems, and directives are not
enoughontheirownifthereisnoinclusiveorganizationalculturetosupportthem.
Inotherwords,themainobstacletotheeffectiveimplementationofcorporatesafety
policy is the company’s corporate culture itself (norms, values, beliefs, etc.). The
next part (sections “Different Approaches to Organizational Safety and Security
Culture, Based on the International Academic Literature,” “Sustainable Organiza-
tionalStrategiesandSafety”and“AFitBetweenCulturesandSafety”)presentsthe
latest aspects of the organizational safety and security culture: the dilemmas of
digitaltechnology,organizationallearning,risk-resilientstrategies,aswellassafety
expendituresandinvestments.Finallythethirdpart(section“SafetyCultureinLight
of Sustainability and CSR Reports”) analyzes the increased responsibility of orga-
nizationstowardsustainability.Oneofthemostpressingissuesinthisrespectisto
examine the ways the safe operation of high-risk socio-technical systems and
companiesusinghazardoustechnologies(powerplants,oilrefineries,criticalinfra-
structures)cancontributetoglobalsustainability.
The Key Concepts of Safety and Security: Risk and Uncertainty
Themostimportantelementsofestablishingasafetyandsecuritycultureincludethe
identification and analysis of the hazards and vulnerabilities, the definition of the
safetysystems,andthecontinuousdevelopmentofsafetyconsciousbehaviors.Risk
management and decision-making processes are always accompanied by uncer-
tainties which need to be considered consistently (Krómer 2011). The conceptual
frameworkofriskanduncertaintyisdescribedinthefollowingTable1.
Afundamentaldilemmaofdecision-makingonsocietalandorganizationallevel
ishowtoadjustthecostsofrisk-mitigatingearlywarningsorpreventiontothecosts
of potential damage control. Decision makers are often reluctant to accept that the
costs of prevention are demonstrably and substantially smaller than the costs of
damagecontrol.
During risk management decision makers do not know which of the probable
events might happen, but they know the probability of it happening. Uncertainties
are the consequences of risk-mitigating decisions, and their management may
generate additional strategic measures. This way the quality and the level of
4 I.Kertai-Kiss
Table1 Theconceptualframeworkofriskanduncertainty(ownedition,basedonPokrádi2008;
Krómer2011)
Risk Uncertainty
Knight(1921) Quantifiable(quantitativemeasure), Notquantifiable,canbegeneratedby
thepossibleoutcomesandtheir data,models,statistics,etc.,the
probabilitydistributioncanbe probabilitydistributionofthe
predicted;thereforeitcanbe outcomesisnotknown;thereforeit
prevented cannotbeprevented
Current Possibleoutcomesmayinclude Complex,withdifferentsources,
interpretation losses,damages,orotherhazards thereforeitsimpacthastobeanalyzed
anduse ineveryphase
Scientific Thecombinedextentofthe Possibleoutcomesareunknown,e.g.:
approach probabilityofanadverseeventand Stochastic>>thevariabilityof
theseverityofitsconsequences eventscannotbereduced
Epistemic>>limitedknowledge
inagivendecision-makingmoment
Categories, Technological Complex,notlimitedtoagivenarea
areas Economic
Psychological
Sociological
etc.
Management, Proactive(avoidance) Decision-makingstrategies(e.g.,
methods Active(mitigation) flexiblyresistant,adaptive,
“cautious,”knowledgegap
Reactive(acknowledgement)
management)
Pass-on
Qualityassurance
Methods,e.g.,expertopinion,safety Expertpredictions
audit,questionnairesurvey, Scenarioanalysis,etc.
estimatingtheseverityand
probabilityofbreakdowns,“faulttree
analysis,”statisticalanalysisofpast
events,hazardanalysis,exposure
assessment,etc.
developmentofthesafetyandsecurityculturehaveanimpactonthedecisionsmade
as a result of a safety conscious behavior, which in return affect the safety and
securityculture.
When making risk management decisions, the functioning of hard elements
embeddedintotheorganizationalsafetyandsecurityculture(e.g.,regulatoryframe-
work,laws,guidelines,statutes,ISOstandards,auditstrategies,safetymanagement,
methods,ITsystems,expertsystems,BCP,etc.)largelydependsontheattitudesand
behaviors related to the management of risks and uncertainties. Companies, how-
ever,havetobemadeawarethateffectiveriskmanagementandahighlevelofsafety
andsecurityculturenotonlyprotectsthembutalsomayincreasetheirvalueinthe
longterm.Thesafetyscienceapproachofthisstudyisaimedatexploringtheways
safetyculturecancontributetosustainability.
OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 5
Organizational and Global Sustainability
The long-term operation of companies and the issue of sustainability are closely
related to the notion of safety. Sustainability and safety strategies appear together
withincreasedemphasiswithinindustrialpolicies.Corporatesafetyandsecurity,as
the“normal”stateofaffairswithinorganizationalprocesses,however,areinsepara-
blefromsustainabilityalsointhesensethatacompanycannotendangeritssocial,
economic, and natural environment during its operation. The analytical aspects of
corporatebehavior,responsiblefortheundisturbedoperation(safety)andtheenvi-
ronment (sustainability), include, for example, legal compliance; ethical behavior;
relationshipwiththe environment (e.g., theexistenceorabsence of theISO 14001
environmentalmanagementsystem);thepoliticalstance(e.g.,cooperationwiththe
administration, with NGOs); operations that not only focus on maximizing profits
but are also beneficial for the society; mindfulness of social issues (Angyal 2008),
whichisthetotality;andinterconnectionsofstandardizableandnon-standardizable
corporateprocesses.Thestudysetsouttohighlightthesesynergies.
According to the UN’s definition (1987), sustainable development is a form of
developmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityof
future generations. This is manifested within an organization as corporate sustain-
ability, which includes the triple bottom line. These are environmental, economic,
andsocialsustainability(“People,Planet,Profit”)(Elkington1997).
When establishing corporate sustainability, environmental sustainability is usu-
ally identified with ecological efficiency, social sustainability is identified with
applying certain basic norms (such as improving working conditions, not using
childlabor),aswellasfinancialdonations,andeconomicsustainabilityisidentified
with a profitable operation that is competitive in the long term. These endeavors,
however,donotnecessarilyleadtoriskmitigationandlong-termsafety.
Inordertoestablishsustainability,companiesneedtoassumesocialresponsibil-
ity,whichmeansthattheybuildsocialandenvironmentalaspectsintotheirbusiness
activities and stakeholder relations on a voluntary basis (Mullerat 2013). In other
words,corporatesocialresponsibilitycanbedefinedas“acommitmenttoimprove
communitywellbeingthroughdiscretionarybusinesspracticesandcontributionsof
corporate resources” (Kotler and Lee 2007). According to the EU Commission’s
definition,CSRisa“concept,wherebycompaniesintegratesocialandenvironmen-
tal concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stake-
holders on a voluntary basis” (EC 2006). On this basis, the only acceptable
behaviors,decisions,andglobalandlocalactivitiesaretheonesthatregardsustain-
abilityeffortsasbeneficialinanormativeway–thatisbeneficialinthemselves.
Organizations,however,define sustainabilitydifferently. Companies, which use
the basic concept to define sustainable development and incorporate it into their
organizationalstructure,areabletopursueresponsibleandsustainableoperationsby
realizing their goals even at the expense of their profits. There are even examples
where non-sustainable companies transform into ecologically and socially efficient
organizations, or there are corporate models which even make a higher level of
organizationalformspossible(e.g.,socialentrepreneurs,alternativecapitalists,etc.)
6 I.Kertai-Kiss
(Hassard 1993). Others, on the other hand, interpret sustainability instrumentally,
ratherthannormatively.TheirprimarygoalisprofitmaximizationandCSRisonly
themeansforit.Itshouldbenotedthattheextensiveuseofthenormativeapproach
requires a high level of safety and security culture, which includes the ability to
recognizeglobalrisksandestablishsafetystrategiesresponsibly.
Global Risks Versus Safety and Sustainability
Indevelopedcountries,themostsignificantenvironmentalproblemsappear onthe
global, instead of the local level (Fleishman-Hillard 2007) A global risk is “an
uncertaineventorconditionthat,ifitoccurs,cancausesignificantnegativeimpact
for several countries or industries within the next 10 years” (The Global Risks
Report,11thEdition2017).
The Global Risks Perception Survey involved almost 750 experts and decision
makersfromtheWorldEconomicForum’smulti-stakeholdercommunities.Respon-
dentswerefrombusiness,academia,civilsociety,andthepublicsector.Thesurvey
askedthemtoconsiderthemostimportantglobalrisksovera10-yeartimehorizon
(categorizedassocietal,technological,economic,environmental,andgeopolitical).
Accordingtotheresultofthesurvey,thetopfivemostimpactfulrisksare:thefirstis
the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation, the second is weapons of
massdestruction,andthethirdiswatercrises.Thetopfiverisksalsoincludelarge-
scale involuntary migration and energy price shock (increase or decrease). The
psychological background of risk perception shows that when it comes to risks,
the topical events of our era have a large impact on the perception and way of
thinking. For example, large-scale involuntary migration, interstate conflict, and
cyberattacks are now perceived as short-term risks, instead of their previous posi-
tioningamongtherisksofthenext10years.
In the digital era, risks assume a very complex nature. By analyzing the inter-
connections,theGlobalRisksReport(2017)establishedthreeriskclusters:
(cid:129) The cluster linking the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation with
watercrisesandlarge-scaleinvoluntarymigration
(cid:129) Theclusterlinkinglarge-scaleinvoluntarymigrationwitharangeofrisksrelated
tosocialandeconomicstability
(cid:129) Theclusterlinkingeconomicglobalriskswithuncertaintyaroundtheimpactsof
theFourth IndustrialRevolution. The year 2016 hasbeenprofoundshiftsinthe
way global risks are wiewed. “Societal polarisation, income inequality and the
inward orientation of countries are spilling over into real-world politics.” (The
Global Risks Report, 2017) Due torecent developments (e.g., Brexit, US presi-
dential election), in 2017 geopolitical and societal risks are becoming increas-
ingly pronounced among the most prominent global risks (economic risks,
enviromental risks, geopolitical risks, societal risks, technological risks). They
include:thethefailureofregionalorglobalgovernance,thestateofcollapse or
crisis, the failure of national governance, the large-scale involuntary migration,
OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 7
the profound social instability. Consequently, 2017 could be the start of crucial
periodfortheglobalcommunity.Societalphenomena,suchasthethreatofaless
cooperative and more inward-looking world will render the development of
safetyandsecuritycultureinsupportofsustainabilityindispensable.
The report states that in order to have long-term sustainability, a new type of
culture needs to be established within the domain of global safety and security,
which also results in system-level changes in the operation of organizations. The
currentriskmanagementpracticemustbereplacedbythecultureofintegratedrisk
management (beliefs, norms, and values that underpin daily actions) and multi-
stakeholder partnerships. Accordingly, companies should discontinue the current
practice:tohavedifferenttypesofrisksmanagedbydifferentpoliciesandoperating
proceduresandbydifferentofficials,executives,andagencies.Thereisaneedfora
much larger integration within the organizational safety and security culture. All
partsofanorganizationmustcollaboratetransparentlyonriskmanagementthrough
integratedplanning.Inthisregard,communicationandorganizationallearningplay
animportantroleinthetransformationofthesafetyculture.
However, the safe operation of an organization in itself does not necessarily
supportsustainability.Thatiswhymeasuresforthemitigation ofglobalrisksneed
tobeincorporatedintoasophisticatedorganizationalsafetyandsecurityculture:the
hardelements(standards,rules,laws)andsoftelements(competencies,setofvalues,
behavior)ofthesafetyandsecurityculturemustbedevelopedcontinuously(Peters
and Waterman 1982). Responsibly operating organizations reduce the global risks.
The joint management of organizational and global security and safety risks there-
foreisacrucialaspectintheoperationoforganizationalprocesses.
International Documents and Organizational Safety
Globalchangesresultingfrominnovativetechnologicalsolutionsmadeitnecessary
toreconsidertheconceptofsafetyculture.Documentsfrominternationalorganiza-
tions and legislation emphasize the role of three fundamental factors in the new
conceptual framework: systematic approach, safety awareness, and cooperation
(Nagy 2008). Collaboration and cooperation have recently become particularly
important. Regarding the safety and security culture at the societal level, “interna-
tionalsecurityreferstothemeasurestakenbystateornon-stateactors,individually
orcollectively,toensuretheirsurvivalandintegrityagainsttransboundarythreats.”
The Security Outlook 2030 survey states that the significance of understanding
geopolitical and international security in order to mitigate global risks has gained
unprecedented importance. Getting to know the characteristics of various national
and organizational cultures and adapting them to the safety and security strategies,
however, are key factors in the planning and implementation of specific, practical,
andoperationalsolutions.
Apart from the elements, included in the guidelines and international docu-
ments,thepracticaldimensionofthefunctionalframeworkswithinorganizational
8 I.Kertai-Kiss
safety and security has also expanded. Safety processes on the different levels of
corporate hierarchy are performed with different roles and responsibilities and
according to different rules, but in terms of the underlying content, the highest
priorityistoimplementsafetyawarenessonawiderscale.Anotherimportantshift
in focus has also taken place recently: instead of risk avoidance, proactive risk
management has come to the forefront. It should be noted, however, thatsystem-
level risk management issues can only be resolved by operating proactive (e.g.,
risk analysis) and reactive (e.g., case analysis, improved regulations) organiza-
tional processes together. This argument is also supported by international docu-
ments,e.g.:
(cid:129) OECD“Guidelines,”approvedattheOECD’s1037thmeetingin25June2002,
withinwhich,e.g.,theup-to-dateCOBIT(ControlObjectivesforInformationand
Related Technology) framework and maturity model, can be used to define the
levelsofsafetyandsecurityculture
(cid:129) Resolution A/RES 57/239, adopted at the 57th session of the UN’s General
Assembly(26November2002)
(cid:129) “TheCyberSecurityEnhancementAct”approvedbytheUSlegislationin2002
Shortly afterward the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development adopted
itsworkingplanforthenext14yearsatitsApril/May2003session,whichstates
that the Commission shall consider such cross-cutting issues in all cycles, as
changing unsustainable production methods and consumer habits, managing nat-
ural resources, globalization, health, poverty, gender equality, and education.
However, apart from complying with and improving legal and economic regula-
tionsandstandards,aradicalchangeinattitudeisalsorequired.Manycompanies
regard the sustainable use of natural resources as a disincentive, which deepens
globalrisksandcrises.
Protective Tools: Standards, Specialized Systems, and Directives
As previously mentioned, companies usually identify social responsibility with
environmental protection, economic indicators, sponsorship, quality assurance, as
well as occupational health and safety. There is an increasing number of standards
and directives for this. First came ISO 9001, followed by the ISO 14001 environ-
mentalmanagementsystemandEMAS,itsEuropeancounterpart.Theseareaimed,
amongothers,atmitigatingenvironmentalburdensandpromotingenvironmentally
conscious behavior. Since the system is primarily based on ethical considerations,
integrating it into a company’s management system depends on the value systems
and behavioral norms of the decision makers, inother words on the organizational
culturetheyestablishedandrepresent.Withalsosustainabilityinmind,standardizers
recently started to focus on occupational health and safety management (OHSAS
18001), the affected party theory (AA 1000, SA 8000), and the quality of sustain-
abilityreports(GRI).
OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 9
The standard issued by SAI (Social Accountability International, 1998) was
established for suppliers and subcontractors of international companies. It deals
with issues such as child labor, forced labor, occupational health and safety, dis-
crimination, and fair wages and working hours. The above standards and recom-
mendations primarily define organizational tasks related to sustainability, thus
enhancing safety. The European Commission and the UN also take on an active
role in this regard (e.g., Global Compact, Cleaner Production Initiative), coupled
with the involvement of researchers, e.g., the Factor 4 or the zero-emission pro-
grams. In addition to these framework systems, there are numerous national and
otherqualificationsystemsforenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts.
Theassumptionofresponsibilitiesbythepolicymakersplaysacrucialroleinthe
choice of strategic goals and the protection that is based on risk analysis. This
primarilymeansorganizationalstability,aswellastheuseofstandardsandspecial-
ized systems that provides business continuity. Policy makers, responsible for
organizational safety and security, however, are often “spoilt for choice” and are
facedwithexcessive“redtape”generatedbytheuseofstandardswhichcanexhaust
company resources and endanger smooth operations. The problem of multiple,
overlapping regulations is eliminated by using integrated management and control
systems.ThecommonfeatureoftheISO9001qualitymanagement,theISO14001
environmental management, and the ISO 27001 information security management
systems is their process-oriented approach. In 2012 the BPM-GOSPEL (Business
Process Modelling for Governance SPICE and Internal Financial Control) consor-
tium,withtheinvolvementofHungarianexperts,establishedthegovernancemodel
for trusted businesses based on the COSO and CObIT 4.1 et al. (2008) models, as
wellastheISO/IEC15504setofstandards.Byusingthismodel,companiesareable
toestablishsustainable,regulated,andcontrolledbusinessprocesses(Michelberger
2013).
Wemustconsider,however,thatestablishingtheseregulationsandmethodsdoes
not always guarantee sufficient protection within the organization’s processes. The
choice of values, applied by the management within the organizational culture in
order to achieve safety and security, is also a key factor. The establishment and
development ofthe non-standardizableelements oforganizational safety andsecu-
rity(norms,behavioralpatterns,values,etc.),togetherwithsafetyawareness,there-
foremustalwaysbekeptontheagenda,whichrequiresthecommitment,exemplary
behavior, and activity of managers and policy makers. They must realize that the
effectiveness of professional specialized systems greatly depends on the organiza-
tions’safetyculture.Managers,however,oftenthinkthattheculturecanbechanged
by changing the visible elements (such as policies, processes, rules of procedure,
regulations). This is rarely the case if the underlying values and fundamental
assumptions or beliefs remain unchanged. That is why often the emphasis within
the existing safety culture must be placed on improving the safety performance
(Fichtinger2015).
Additional questions are raised by the fact that the experts and managers,
responsible for organizational safety and security, tend to overlook the industry
policy aspects of global sustainability when making their decisions. The
10 I.Kertai-Kiss
harmonization and joint implementation of an organization’s safety policy and
sustainability strategies are aimed at mitigating and preventing global risks; it falls
withinthecompetenceoftopmanagement,anditiscloselylinkedwiththelevelof
theorganization’ssafetyculture.
Different Approaches to Organizational Safety and Security
Culture, Based on the International Academic Literature
Culture is a broad concept for which many different definitions are used by the
variousareasofscience,whichmeansthatthereisnogenerallyaccepteddefinition
forit.
Theconceptofsafetyculturedoesnothaveaconsistentdefinition,andtheterm
may refer to completely different theoretical approaches (Amalberti 2013). Out of
thewide-ranginganalyticalandconceptualoptions,approachesthatarerelevantto
ourtopicincludetheconceptofhumanerror(Reason1994)andtheinterpretationof
high-level safety and security culture in organizations which use hazardous
technologies.
Westrum(2004)definesgoodsafetyculturebyfocusingonhowmiddleandtop
managers deal with business process incidents/accidents. In such interpretations
researchers stress theneed for an in-depth analysis and insist that sanctions should
be connected to the adverse events. At the same time, they maintain that there is a
need for a sustainable system which helps to avoid legal consequences, as long as
there is evidence that the human error/omission was unintentional (“just culture”).
BasedonWestrum’stypology(pathological,bureaucratic,andgenerativecultures),
itisclearthatorganizationswithtechnologiesthatposeaparticularlylargedangerto
sustainabilitybelong tothegenerative type ofculture. Thoseworking here haveto
manage the issue of safety and security with the necessary focus and proactive
attitude at all levels of the hierarchy. They actively search for safety-related infor-
mation, share, and are committed to responsibilities; their failures lead to far-
reaching,comprehensivereforms.Theyalsowelcomeandencouragenewideas.
BasedonReason’s(1994)definition,anorganization’ssafetycultureisthesum
total of individual and group values, attitudes, relations, competences, and behav-
iors. Similarly to Westrum’s typology, Reason’s findings also confirm that the key
characteristicsoforganizationswithahighlevelofsafetyculturearecommunication
basedonmutualtrust,attachingthesamegreatimportancetosafetyissues,andtrust
intheeffectivenessofprevention.Inthisconceptsafetycultureischaracterizedby
thejointmanifestationofallfourtypesoforganizationalcultures:
(cid:129) Reportingculture,whereincidentsarereportedtothecompetentpeople
(cid:129) Justculture,whereunsafeactsareinvestigatedandsanctioned
(cid:129) Flexibleculture,whichiscapableofadaptingtoquickchangesflexibly
(cid:129) Learningculture,whichischaracterizedbytheabilitytolearnfromincidents
