International Safety Rating System Research Articles

Fire emergency response system at PT X based on International Safety Rating System (ISRS)

Fire is the unwanted occurrence of fire. Preparedness in the face of catastrophic fire events is part of the Occupational Safety and Health (K3) standards that must be implemented in the company. PT X is a company engaged in concrete manufacturing. In the production process, many potential hazards, such as fires, can cause losses. This research aims to study the fire emergency response system at PT X. The method used is descriptive research, with data collection done cross-sectionally. The analysis was carried out descriptively by clearly and thoroughly describing the condition of the object of study and comparing it with the applicable regulatory standards. The results showed that PT X had implemented a fire emergency response system and efforts to prevent and overcome fire hazards. PT X's efforts include forming a firefighting team providing fire hazard management facilities such as fire extinguishers, fire blankets, first aid kits, evacuation stretchers, and other infrastructure facilities. PT X has conducted fire emergency response and first-aider training for employees and workers. This research concludes that PT X has implemented an emergency response system well and refers to the International Safety Rating System.

Development of an Incident Investigation Process

In many industries a traditional approach to incident investigation is still used, especially in incidents with limited consequences, and near-misses. The systematic identification of underlying and root causes is often limited to accidents with more serious consequences. While it is widely acknowledged that human error plays a role in a large number of incidents across all industries, many still rely on methods such as the International Safety Rating System for classifying the causes of incidents. In such systems, factors which can influence human performance, such as training, procedures, work systems, etc., are only superficially addressed. This results in data which are of little value in developing remedial actions to prevent reoccurrence. This paper outlines a simple but systematic incident investigation process, which is aimed at identifying the human and organisational causes of everyday incidents in the offshore petroleum industry.

Safety Management: The Challenge of Change

Foreword. Introduction. Perspectives on safety management and change (Hale et al.). Part 1. Understanding and Modelling the Safe Management System. Models of organisations versus safety management approaches: a discussion based on studies of the internal control of SHE reform in Norway (Hovden). Developments in HSE management in oil and gas exploration and productions (Visser). Safety management assessment and task analysis - a missing link? (Kirwan). The role of safety climate in a safety management system (Cabrera, Isla). Corporate cultures towards strategic health and safety management and the challenge of organisational change (Wehrmeyer). Part 2. Change, Learning and Safety Improvement. Participative management models and the role of groups and supervision (Seppala). Elements for designing a self-correcting organisation: examples from nuclear plants (Bourrier). Layer system for learning from human contributions to events: a first outline (Becker). An evaluation of the use of the international safety rating system as intervention to improve the organisation of safety (Chaplin, Hale). Part 3. Responding to Outside Change. Process safety management and the implications of organisational change (Baram). Management of health and safety aspects of major organisational change (Wright). Privatisation and division into competing units as a challenge for safety management (Maidment). Safety related interventions in inter-organisational fields (Wilpert, Fahlbruch). Organisational decision making and risk management under pressure from fast technological change (Svedung, Rasmussen). Conclusions. Conclusions (Baram, Hale). Keywords.

Do we really know how well our occupational accident prevention programs work?

This article summarizes evaluation data for ten types of accident prevention program drawn from 53 program evaluations: personnel selection variables, technological interventions, behavior modification programs, poster campaigns, quality circles, exercise and stress management, nearmiss accident reporting, comprehensive ergonomics, the International Safety Rating System (ISRS), and the Finnish national control program. Standard measures of effect size were computed for source studies which described the effectiveness of programs in terms of the percentage reduction in accidents attributable to the program. By this standard, personnel selection techniques were the least effective (3.8%), and comprehensive ergonomics programs (49.5%) were the most effective. Some methodological issues in safety program evaluation are discussed in conjunction with some further thoughts on a previously published review of ISRS evaluation results (in 1991).

Some further evaluations of the International Safety Rating System

Guastello, S.J., 1991. Some further evaluations of the International Safety Rating System. Safety Science, 14: 253–259. Secondary analysis was performed on three sets of data that were originally collected to assess the effectiveness of the International Safety Rating System (ISRS), also known as the “Five Star” program. The analyses, which were based on South African and Australian mining experience and North American industrial experience, showed that the ISRS program has no discernible effect on accident rates.

International safety rating system : New Zealand's experience with a successful strategy

International safety rating system : New Zealand's experience with a successful strategy

The international safety rating system in South African mining

The “International Safety Rating” (ISR) system used by the Chamber of Mines of South Africa is reviewed critically. The system aims to (i) identify and set standards for the management work required to control injuries, and (ii) measure the performance of this work and award stars (1 to 5) based on ‘audits’. Although labelled as “international” the ISR is not used widely in European and US mines. Despite glowing testimonials there is no substantially significant evidence that it has reduced injury and fatality rates by improving safety. The ISR covers some areas of mine safety to a high standard but coverage is not consistent. Certain areas are dealt with only in generalities and others neglected. The practicality of objectively and thoroughly auditing a mine is questioned given the system's long checklists, the great detail required by some questions and the limited number of auditing staff. While ostensibly high standards are set for scoring, more than eighty per cent of gold and coal mines have been awarded four or five stars. Recent disasters have highlighted inadequacies of the system. More generally, there is no correlation between star rating and either fatality or reportable injury rates. A danger of the scheme is the degree of complacency it appears to have engendered. Attempts to reduce South Africa's high underground fatality rates must first come to grips with this.