1.

2 THE MORAL, SOCIAL AND

ECONOMIC REASONS FOR
MAINTAINING AND
PROMOTING GOOD
STANDARDS OF HEALTH AND
SAFETY IN THE WORKPLACE

1.2.1 The Moral reasons-ILO Statistics

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The ILO estimates that more than 230 Million people

die every year from work related accidents or
diseases.
There are about 270 million accidents and about 160
millions victims of workplace accidents and illnesses
each year.
According to the ILP 3.9% of the worldwide deaths
are due to occupational injuries or diseases.
15% of the world population have incurred minor or
major injuries from work in any one year.
30% of the unemployed labor had reported that they
have been exposed to minor or major occupational
accident or illness when they used to work in the
past.

1.2.2 Moral Reasons

1.

2.
3.

The main preventable factors for

accidents are
Lack of a preventative safety and
health culture
Poor management systems
Poor Supervision

1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident Rates

Accident Rates : Employee should not

have to risk injury or death at work.

1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident Rates

1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident Rates

1.2.1 The moral reasons- Accident Rates

Conclusion of Tables
Fatality rates are lower in developed
countries or established market
economies than under-developed or
emerging economies of Asia and south
America. However its important to stress
that many hazardous industries have
relocated from developed to emerging
countries.

1.2.1 The moral reasons- Disease rates

Out of the 2.2 million work related deaths each year,

about 1.7 million are due to work related diseases.
Work related diseases can cause economical loss for
governments and organizations. ( Costs include sick
pay, and compensation pays).
Hazardous substances claim about 438000 lives each
years. Asbestos alone claims about 100,000 lives
annually.
Women tend to be more preventive than men at work.
However women are more vulnerable for diseases in
agricultural works simply because more women do
jobs in this sector than men.( Malaria Hepatitis..etc)

1.2.1The moral reasons- Disease rates

Men are more vulnerable to fatal

accidents at work.
In UK during 2007/2008 there were 2.1
million people suffering from work
related illness, of whom 563000 were
new cases in that year. This led to 28
million working days lost compared to 6
million days lost due to workplace
injuries.
Musculoskeletal disorders were
responsible for 8.8 million working days

1.2.1The moral reasons- Disease rates

This is an average of 21 days 0ff work for each illness.

13.5 million days off were lost due to stress,
depression, and anxiety causing each sufferer to have
,on average, a 31 days off.
Researches show that one of five employees with
sickness leave from work for six weeks will stay off
work permanently.
The World Health Organization WHO had estimated
that 37% of Low back pain, 16% of hearing loss, 13%
of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 11% of
asthma, and 8% of injuries are related to work place
activities.

1.22 Social Reasons

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

In all countries, employers owe a duty of care to each of their

employees and others that might be affected by their
undertaking, such as contractors and members of the public.
This duty must not be assigned to others , even of a consultant is
employed to advise on Health and safety, or employees are
subcontracted to work with another employer. This duty must be
sub-divided into five groups. Employers must
Provides a safe place of Work, including access or egress
Provide safe plant and equipment
Provide a safe system of work
Provide safe and competent fellow employees.
Provide adequate levels of supervision, information, instruction
and training.

1.22 Social Reasons

Vicarious Liability : In many countries, Employers are

responsible for the action of their employees,
provided that the action in question took place
during the normal hours of work.
Employer duties are often mirrored in national
legislation and apply even if the employee is working
at a third party premises or if he/she has been hired
by their employer to work for another employer.
These duties indicate clear social reasons for sound
Health and safety management systems to protect
employees, members of the public and in some case
the general environment.

1.22 Social Reasons

Enforcement
Occupational Health and Safety maybe re
enforced by the civil law and-or criminal law.
Many countries believe that with out the extra
encouragement.
Prevention is paying not only in human terms but
also in better performance by business and
national economic strength. Together we can
make sure that decent work is safe work
Thaksin Shinwatra
Prime Minister of Thialand.

1.23 Economic Reasons

Poor Occupational health and Safety
performance results in additional costs
to both public and private sectors of the
economy of a country.
Costs of Accidents
1. Direct Costs
2. Indirect Costs
3. Employers liability insurance
4. Fault and no fault injury compensation

1.23 Economic Reasons

1.

Costs of Accidents

1.23 Economic Reasons

UK HSE had shown in a study that

indirect costs
(Hidden costs) can
reach up to 36 times greater than direct
costs of an accident.
In 2000 costs of accidents in UK was 55
billion Euros with 120,000 deaths caused
by occupational illness and 60,000
deaths caused by fatal accidents.

1.23 Economic Reasons

1.

Direct costs: These are costs which are

directly related to the accident and
maybe

a)

Insured direct cost or

b)

Uninsured direct cost

1.23 Economic Reasons

a)
)

Insured direct costs normally include

Claims on employers and public liability
insurance
Damage to buildings, equipment or
vehicles.
Any attributable production and/or
general business loss
The absence of employees

1.23 Economic Reasons

b)
)

)
)

Uninsured direct costs include

Fines resulting from prosecution by the enforcement
authority
Sick pay
Some damage to product, equipment, vehicles or process
not directly attributable to accident
( e.g. caused by
replacement staff)
Increase in insurance premiums resulting from the
accident.
Any compensation not covered by the insurance policy due
to an agreement between the insurance company and the
employer.
Legal presentation following any legal claim.

1.23 Economic Reasons

Indirect Cost
These are costs that are not attributable to
the accident but may result from a
series of accidents.
2.

a)

Insured Indirect Cost

b)

Uninsured direct cost

1.23 Economic Reasons

a)
)
)
)

Insured Indirect Cost include

A cumulative business loss
Product or process liability claims
Recruitment of replacement staff

1.23 Economic Reasons

b)
)
)

)
)
)

)
)
)
)

Uninsured Indirect Cost include

Loss of goodwill and a poor corporate image;
Accident investigation time and any subsequent remedial
action required;
Production delays
Extra overtime payments
Loss time of other employees such as first aid staff, or
employees who tend to the need of an injured person.
The recruitment and training for a replacement employee.
Additional administration time incurred
First aid-provision and training
Lower employee morale possibly leading to reduced
productivity

1.23 Economic Reasons

3.

Employers Liability insurance

In many countries, employers are
required to have a liability insurance to
cover their liability in the event of
accidents and work-related-ill-health to
employees and others who may be
affected by their operations.
This insures that employees who sues
their employers get compensated
regardless of the financial situation of
their employer.

1.23 Economic Reasons

4.

Fault and no fault injury compensation

In the UK compensation for an injury after an
accident is achieved by means of a successful
legal action in a civil court. In such cases
employee sues his employer and the employer
are found at fault. This might take time.
This process is adversarial, costly and can
deter injured individuals of limited means from
pursuing their means and had led to the
increase of the cost of insurance premium. This
had led to the no fault injury compensation.

1.23 Economic Reasons

The no Fault compensation was then

introduced to over come the delay and
cost of the fault compensation. In these
systems amounts are agreed centrally at
a national or state level according to the
type and severity of the injury. The
compensations is in the form of a
structured payment rather than a lump
sum and may be awarded in the form of
a service, such as nursing care, rather
than cash.

1.23 Economic Reasons

1.
2.

3.
4.
5.

In 1974 a No Fault compensation system was introduced

and administered by the Accident Compensation
Corporation (ACC). This followed a report that was issued
in 1966 that advocated for a 24 hour accident cover for
everybody in New Zealand. It suggested the following
five principles for any national compensation system
Community responsibility
Comprehensive Entitlement irrespective of income or
job status
Complete rehabilitation for the injured party
Real compensation for the injured party
Administrative efficiency of the compensation scheme

1.23 Economic Reasons

1.

2.
3.

4.

5.

The advantages of a no fault compensation scheme include:

Accident claims are settled much quicker than Fault

schemes
Accident reporting rates will improve
Accidents become much easier to investigate because
blame is no longer an issue.
Normal disciplinary procedures within an organization or
through a professional body are unaffected and can be
used if the accident resulted from negligence on the part
of an individual.
More Funds are available from insurance premiums for
the injured party and less used of the judicial and
administrative process.

1.23 Economic Reasons

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

The disadvantages of a No Fault compensation scheme.

There is often an increase in the number of claims, some
of which may not be justified.
There is a lack of direct accountability of managers and
employers for accidents.
Mental injury and trauma are often excluded from no-Fault
schemes because of the difficulty in measuring these
conditions.
There is more difficulty in defining the causes of many
injuries and industrial diseases than in a fault scheme.
The Monetary value of compensation awards tends to be
considerably lower than those in fault schemes (Although
this can be seen as an advantage to organizations).