How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, but not necessarily safety

Abstract

Context Professional sea fishing is among the world’s most variable (non-standardized) and dangerous sectors of activity. Because of this, it provides a remarkable model to study the complex links existing between resilience and safety. Paradoxically, even if the huge risks being run cause many shipwrecks (low safety level), studies show that these sailors avoid an even greater number of accidents thanks to their exceptional skill and know-how (remarkable resilience level). This article examines several ways of improving safety in an activity of this type. Method Two intervention strategies are tested: (i) a micro-ergonomics strategy offering conduct assistance guidelines based on accident analyses of the most serious and frequent causes (collisions while fishing); (ii) a macro-ergonomics strategy comparing the safety level of large firms having committed to a Total Quality approach, to that of smaller companies, often privately owned. Result Neither of the two strategies works out as expected. The micro-ergonomics anti-collision assistance strategy is misused towards an increase of the fishing objective; the macro-ergonomics strategy is even more surprising: the largest firms suffer from a smaller number of shipwrecks, but a much greater number of work-related injuries; the strategy simply results in a minor shift of the sacrificial decision between performance and safety (loss of men vs. loss of vessels), while maintaining the same priority for financial performance. Discussion The article submits a simple modeling of the relationship between resilience and safety, and discusses the choice of strategies for safety-improving interventions, taking into account the system’s financial performance and the legal pressure to which it is subjected.