Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect
Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845

6th International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2015) and the
Affiliated Conferences, AHFE 2015

Accident causation, prevention and safety management: a review of

the state-of-the-art
Manikam Pillay*
School of Health Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308, Australia

Abstract

According to the International Labour Organization some 2.3 million diseases and 474 million accidents are experienced
annually by workplaces. The associated social and economic costs of these accidents and diseases, which are estimated at 4
percent of Global Gross Product, are expected to increase further as our next generation of workers continues to face challenges
from a range of quarters. Managing these costs, therefore, continues to be a challenge for policy makers, practitioners and
academics involved in accident prevention and safety management. A possible reason for this dire state of affairs is that
developments in safety management have been outpaced by technological advancements, and more innovations are needed. This
requires us to re-think the way organizations manage safety. Doing this, however, requires us to have a much better
understanding of how accidents are caused, how they can be prevented and how safety can be managed in organizations. This
paper attempts to do this through a review of the state-of-the-art, by revisiting our current understanding of how accidents are
caused and how they can be prevented and managed. First, it introduces a scheme known as the three eras of safety. This is
followed by a review of published papers in accident causation and safety management, which are analysed using a three-step
approach based on the scheme introduced. The paper concludes by proposing research questions that policy makers, practitioners
and academics may want to think about in advancing the accident prevention and safety management agenda.

© 2015
© 2015 The
The Authors.
Authors. Published
PublishedbybyElsevier
ElsevierB.V.
B.V.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference.
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference
Keywords:Eras of safety; Organizational culture; High-reliability; Normal accidents; Adaptive

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 4931 7438; fax: +61 2 4931 7053.
E-mail address: Manikam.Pillay@newcastle.edu.au

2351-9789 © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
Peer-review under responsibility of AHFE Conference
doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.224
 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845 1839

1. Introduction

According to the most recent estimates, some 2.3 million workers die from work-related accidents and diseases;
over 474 million people suffer from occupational diseases and non-fatal accidents; with the costs of these exceeding
US$2.8 trillion, or 4% of gross domestic product [1]. These have increased by at least ten percent compared to a
decade ago [2]; and are expected to increase even further as countries and organizations are challenged by rapid
advancements in technology, changing nature of accidents, hazards and risks, changing societies views of accidents,
introduction of new forms of regulations, and increasing levels of complexity and coupling [3, 4]. The degree of
these will, no doubt, depend on the sector and context of the industry concerned. For example, industries such as
accommodation and food services, agriculture, construction, healthcare and social assistance, manufacturing, road
transport, and public administration have been considered as higher risks in Australia [5]. Reducing accidents and
arresting the rising economic and social costs of occupational accidents and diseases is a continued test for
academics, policy makers, practitioners and researchers. This necessitates the need for more innovation strategies
and solutions. However, before this can be done, it is useful to have a nuanced understanding of how (i) accidents
are caused (and therefore prevented); and (ii) safety managed in organizations. This paper attempts to do this
through a state-of-the-art review of these two streams of research.
In the ensuing sections, a theoretical framework based on the evolution of safety management is introduced. This
is followed by a review of published papers in accident causation and safety management, which are thematically
analysed using the scheme introduced. The paper concludes by proposing research questions that academics, policy
makers, practitioners and researchers may wish to think about in seeking to advance the accident prevention and
safety management agenda.

2. Theoretical framework

Safety management is a multidisciplinary area which draws heavily from fields as diverse as economics,
engineering, industrial relations, law, management, occupational hygiene, occupational medicine, psychology and
sociology [6, 7]. Different academic and professional communities, including engineers, managers, psychologists
and sociologists, have often grappled with the multi-disciplinary issues that inform accident causation and safety [8].
This, in the authors view, is because while there is a wide range of research being published from many disciplines,
industries and regions, what appears to be missing from these disparate pieces of research is a unifying theoretical
framework which integrates the multidisciplinary nature of safety management. One line of thinking which has been
useful in this regard involves those studies that suggest that our understanding of how accidents are caused (and
therefore how they can be prevented) has evolved over different five ages [9, 10]. The first age is closely associated
with technological; the second with behaviours and human error, the third with socio-technical, the fourth with
culture and the fifth with resilience.
In the first (technological) age, accidents were largely attributed to mechanical and structural failures, and these
were suggested to be prevented by following technical standards and guidelines issued by professional engineers,
architects and designers. The predominant causes of accidents were explained through Heinrich’s dominos [11, 12];
and safety management initiatives were predominantly based on rules and regulations reminiscent of the industrial
age, drawn primarily from engineering and law disciplines. The second age represented human behaviours and
human errors, and theories with these and accidents/incidents were most commonly used to understand accident
causation [11, 12]. Safety management initiatives were based on behaviour-based safety and human error
management controls, the knowledge bases for which were consistent with fields such as sociology, psychology and
industrial relations. The third age was marked by the realisation that humans were rarely the sole cause of accidents
or error, and that human performance was based on a complex interactions of the socio-technical system that
constitute an organisation [13, 14]. These were consistent with disciplines such as ergonomics, human factors and
engineering; and approaches for managing safety included design of work stations and controls to find an optimal
man-machine fit, management systems and safety cases. The fourth age recognized poor organisational and cultural
factors played a key role in most accidents; and that major accidents were likely to be normal in organisations which
1840 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845

HIGH

First era
Technological

Behavioral and Human error

Accidents, Incidents, Mishaps and

Second era
Socio-technical

Cultural

H ES Third era
AC
Disasters

Resilience

P RO
AP
Y
R AR
PO ES
M CH
TE ACH
ES PROA
N D AP
CO A P PRO ISTICATE
ED SOPH
ANC
ADV

LOW 1940s 1960s 1980s 2000s

Fig. 1. Five ages and three eras safety [12].

were technologically advanced due the elements in such system were becoming more complex and tightly coupled
[15]. These drew on research from engineering, management, psychology and sociology; and leadership, culture and
collective mindfulness were suggested to be more advanced strategies for managing safety [14, 16]. The fifth age is
represented by complexity and uncertainty, with safety and accidents seen as complements, and people playing a key
role in the proper functioning of modern technological systems because of their ability to adapt. Effective safety
management strategies in this age involve organizational learning [17] from both failures and successes as people
adapted to create safety well before failure and harm occur [18]; cognitive systems [19, 20] and resilience
engineering [21]. These strategies drew from disciplines such as ecology, human factors, management and
psychology. Technological and behavioural strategies represent contemporary approaches; socio-technical and
cultural are more advanced approaches, while resilience involves a more sophisticated approach [12]. Hence the five
age of safety can be further condensed into three broad eras of safety management strategies, illustrated in Figure 1.
The above discussion illustrates that the scheme as presented has included some level integration of a number of
disciplines that informs the current practice of safety management. Hence it serves as a suitable theoretical
framework for informing further research, education and practice in accident causation, prevention and safety
management. This includes conducting a state-of-the-art review.

3. Methodology

The EBSCOHost platform was used to search using the phrases ‘accident causation’ and ‘safety management’ on
Academic Search Complete. The search was restricted to the full articles, published in English, in Academic
Journals between 2012 and 2014.
In order to categorise the reviews within the five age/ three era framework, a three-step iterative process was
used. First, the title and abstracts were briefly scanned, and an appropriate era of safety allocated against it. Next,
each article was critically reviewed in terms of keywords used the specific disciplines of knowledge which informed
the review; and this was used to either confirm the original selection, or move it to another era in the framework.
Where an article did not appear to neatly fit in any of the era classifications, the discussion and conclusions were
reviewed; this final stage either confirmed the choice, or re-classify to a different era. This third stage of review was
also used to place the article in a particular strategy of safety management. The process is illustrated in Figure 2.
 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845 1841

Title and abstract scan

Review discussion and

Era of safety

conclusion

Confirm
Re-classify
Review of keywords and body of
knowledge

Strategy of safety management

Fig. 2. Iterative process classifying research under eras and strategies of safety management.

4. Results and analysis

The search for literature on resulted in over 102 research articles; for the purpose of this paper twenty (20) of
these were selectively sampled, analysed and classified. Nine (9) of these were from accident causation and eleven
(11) from safety management. The industries represented are those that are generally regarded as high risk in most
countries.

4.1. Analysis of accident causation articles

The results of 9 articles reviewed for accident causation are summarised in Table 1. Four of these are from
construction, two from nuclear, one from aviation and oil and gas, and two which focussed on multiple industries.
Three of these were published in 2012, four in 2013 and two in 2014. 3/9 articles were published from construction,
while the remaining ones from healthcare, manufacturing, mining, outdoor activities, railways and multiple
industries. A brief examination of the results suggest that 1/9 of the articles were based on the contemporary, 7/9 on
advanced and 1/9 on sophisticated eras of safety.
In terms of industry, all three articles published from construction were based on the advanced era, and
predominantly utilized a socio-technical strategy for safety management. These were very similar to the articles
published from healthcare, mining, outdoor works and railways which also utilized the same safety management
strategies. The article published from manufacturing was based on the contemporary era, and the safety management
strategies investigated were based a mix of behavioral and technological approaches. One article was based on the
sophisticated approach which utilized a socio-technical strategy for managing safety.

4.2. Analysis of safety management articles

The results of 11 articles reviewed for safety management are summarized in Table 2. Four of these are from
construction, two from nuclear, oil and gas and multiple industries, and one from aviation. Three of these were
published in 2012, four each in 2013 and 2014. A brief examination of the results suggest that 6/11 of the articles
were based on the contemporary, 5/11 on advanced and 1/11 on a combination of contemporary and sophisticated
eras of safety.
1842 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845

Table 1. Results of nine accident causation articles applied to analysis of eras and safety management strategy framework.
Industry Year References Framework and focus Era of safety Strategy of safety
management
Construction 2012 [22] Ergonomic work analysis Advanced Socio-technical
Organizational factors
Mining 2012 [23] Human factors analysis and Advanced Socio-technical
classification system
Behavioral
Human error
Unsafe acts
Underlying conditions
Healthcare 2012 [24] Errors and violation Advanced Socio-technical
Adverse events
Organizational / system
factors
Construction 2013 [25] Loughbrough construction Advanced Socio-technical
accident causation model
Organizational learning
Project management
Risk management
Culture
Manufacturing 2013 [26] Bow-tie Contemporary Technological
Unsafe acts Behavioral
Unsafe conditions
Mental and physical
conditions of worker
Railway 2013 [27] Organizational factors Advanced Socio-technical
Local factors
Occurrences, interventions
and outcomes
Multiple 2013 [28] Systemic accident analysis Sophisticated Socio-technical
Accident causation models
Construction 2014 [29] Fault tree analysis Advanced Behavioral
Unsafe behavior Socio-technical
Unsafe machines and tools
Unsafe environments
Outdoor 2014 [30] Multi-level systems Advanced Socio-technical
Outdoor injury incidents

In terms of industry, 2/4 construction research were based on contemporary era and the remaining 2/4 on
advanced era. The most common strategies investigated in this industry involved behavioral and socio-technical
ones. The two nuclear industry sectors investigated were based on the contemporary era, and the main strategies
investigated were based across a span of behavioral, technical and socio-technical strategies. The two oil and gas
industries were based on advanced era, and utilized a combination of technological and cultural strategies. In one of
this high-reliability theory was used. The aviation industry article was based on advanced era, with socio-technical
strategies being utilized as the main strategy for managing safety.
 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845 1843

Table 2. Results of 11 safety management articles applied to analysis of eras and safety management strategy framework.
Industry Year References Focus Era of safety Strategy(ies) of
safety management
Aviation 2012 [31] Safety Advanced Socio-technical
management systems
systems
Nuclear 2012 [32] Emergency Contemporary Behavioral
program
Socio-technical
Nuclear 2012 [33] Regulations Contemporary Technological
Probabilistic risk Socio-technical
assessment
Multiple 2013 [34] Safety rules and Contemporary Technological
procedures
Behavioral
Socio-technical
Sophisticated Cultural
Resilience
Construction 2013 [35] Collision Advanced Behavioral
warning systems
Socio-technical
Construction 2013 [36] Technology Advanced Socio-technical
utilization
Construction 2013 [37] Accidents, Contemporary Technological
analysis and
modelling
OHS risk
criteria and
limits
Oil and gas 2014 [38] Sense-making Advanced Cultural
and risk controls
Road transport 2014 [39] Safety Contemporary Behavioral
management
practices,
culture and risk
management
Oil and gas 2014 [40] European Union Advanced Technological
Directives
Cultural
Legislation
Collaborations
Construction 2014 [41] Safety attitudes Contemporary Behavioral
and behaviors Socio-technical
Modelling

The article published from the road transport industry suggests it was based on the contemporary era, with
behavioral approach used as the main strategy for managing risks.

5. Discussion and concluding remarks

Reducing the number accidents and more effective management of safety continues to challenge academics,
policy makers, practitioners and researchers; for this reason both these areas continue to receive significant
attention. Being multi-disciplinary in nature means research and practice articles are published from many domains
1844 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845

and disciplines. However, as has been discussed earlier, a unifying theoretical framework which integrates the multi-
disciplinary nature of accident causation and safety management appears is missing from the body of knowledge.
Why is such a framework important? From a pragmatic point of view, there is an abundance of research on accident
causation and safety management, and most of these can be useful in informing practice at workplace level.
However, the effectiveness of many of these strategies continues to remains questionable. Moreover, there has been
a suggestion that current strategies aimed at improving safety management may have been outpaced by the rapid
technological advancements; because “[the existing approaches, methods and strategies] are from 20 to 40 years
old” and “while they may have been adequate for [the time] they were developed, they are inadequate for present
day systems” [42]. Hollnagel’s solution to this is resilience engineering, which in the main is about using existing
methods and strategies in new and innovative ways; adaptation of strategies according to Borys et al. [9]. On a
pragmatic level, this raises the question of whether we can still achieve improvements in safety in the fifth age using
first, even second age of technology? For this appears to be the very thing many practitioners are trying to push, if
not regulate! This sets an agenda for re-thinking accident causation and safety management; including an integrative
theoretical framework which takes into account the multi-disciplinary nature of safety management.
This paper presented a theoretical framework on evolution of safety management which was then applied to a
selected number of published work on accident causation and safety management. The preliminary results of twenty
articles reviewed suggest that, in the high hazard industries such as construction, mining and healthcare, some
degree of advances are being made in understanding the causation of accidents and how they could be prevented.
There is also some evidence that some of the strategies being utilized are reflective of the evolving nature of safety
management across the different eras. It is acknowledged the theoretical framework has been applied to a very small
number of papers, and further work is required to test its efficacy (or otherwise). Some example of research
questions that could be explored include its usefulness (or otherwise) in understanding accident management and/or
safety management in specific industries, specific types of hazards and/or risks, developments/progress across
regions, and developed/underdeveloped countries, and for educating and training safety professionals of the future.
Future works will examine these

References

[1] J. Takala, P. Hamalainen, K. L. Saarela, L. Y. Yun, K. Manickam, T. W. Jin, et al., "Global estimates of the burden of injury and illness at
work in 2012," Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, vol. 11, pp. 326-337, 2014.
[2] J. Takala, "Introductory report: decent work–safe work," in XVIIIth World Congress on safety and Health at Work, 18-22 September,
Orlando, 2005.
[3] E. Hollnagel, "The Changing Nature of Risks," Ergonomics Australia, vol. 22, pp. 33-46, 2008.
[4] N. G. Leveson, "A new accident model for engineering safer systems," Safety Science, vol. 42, pp. 237-270, 4 2004.
[5] Safe Work Australia, "Australian work health and safety strategy 2012-2022: Healthy, safe and productive working lives," S. W. Australia,
Ed., Canberra: Safe Work Australia, 2012.
[6] S. Bahn, OHS management: Contemporary issues in Australia. Prahran: Tilde University Press, 2014.
[7] M. Quinlan, P. Bohle, and F. Lamm, Managing occupational health in safety: a multidisciplinary approach, 3rd ed. South Melbourne:
Macmillam, 2010.
[8] J. H. Saleh, K. B. Marais, E. Bakolas, and R. V. Cowlagi, "Highlights from the literature on accident causation and system safety: Review of
major ideas, recent contributions, and challenges," Reliability Engineering & System Safety, vol. 95, pp. 1105-1116, 2010.
[9] D. M. Borys, D. Else, and S. Leggett, "The fifth age of safety: The adaptive age," J Health & Safety Research & Practice, vol. 1, pp. 19-27,
2009.
[10] A. R. Hale and J. Hovden, "Management and culture: The third age of safety," in Occupational injury: Risk, Prevention and Intervention, M.
Feyer and A. Williamson, Eds., ed London: Taylor and Francis, 1998, pp. 129-165.
[11] H. W. Heinrich, D. Petersen, and N. R. Roos, Industrial Accident Prevention: a Safety Management Approach 5th ed. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1980.
[12] M. Pillay, "Taking stock of hero harm: a review of theory on contemporary health and safety management in construction," in CIB W099
International Health and Safety Conference, Lund, Sweden, 2014, pp. 75-85.
[13] E. L. Trist and K. W. Bamforth, "Some social and psychological consequences of the longwall method of mining," Human Relations, vol. 4,
pp. 13-38, 1951.
[14] M. Pillay, "Progressing zero harm: a review of theory and applications for advancing health and safety management in construction," in CIB
W099 International Health and Safety Conference, Lund, Sweden, 2014, pp. 86-97.
[15] C. Perrow, Normal Accidents. Living With High Risk Technology, 2 ed. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 1999.
 Manikam Pillay / Procedia Manufacturing 3 (2015) 1838 – 1845 1845

[16] M. Pillay and M. Tuck, "Revisiting occupational health and safety management in mining: towards new ways of thinking," presented at the
The AusIMM New Leaders Conference, 2-3 October, Ballarat, 2012.
[17] E. H. Schein. (1996, Organizational Learning: What is new? Working paper 3912.
[18] D. D. Woods and E. Hollnagel, "Prologue: Resilience Engineering Concepts," in Resilience Engineering Concepts and Precepts, E.
Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, and N. G. Leveson, Eds., Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006, pp. 1-6.
[19] E. Hollnagel and D. D. Woods, "Cognitive systems engineering: new wine in new bottles," International Journal of Man-Machine Studies,
vol. 18, pp. 583-600, 1983.
[20] J. Rasmussen, A. Petersen, and L. Goodstein, Cognitive systems engineering. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994.
[21] E. Hollnagel, D. D. Woods, and N. G. Leveson, Resilience Engineering Concepts and Precepts. Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006.
[22] J. M. J. Filho, E. D. Fonseca, F. P. A. Lima, and F. J. C. M. Duarte, "Organizational factors related to occupational accidents in
construction," Work, vol. 41, pp. 4130-4136, 2012.
[23] M. G. Lenne, P. A. Salmon, C. C. Liu, and M. Trotter, "A systems approach to accident causation in mining: an application of the HFACS
method," Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol. 48, pp. 111-117, 2012.
[24] M. Elliott, k. Page, and L. Worall-carter, "Reason's accident causation model: Application to adverse events in acure care," Contemporary
Nurse, vol. 43, pp. 22-28, 2012.
[25] M. Behm and A. Schneller, "Application of the Loughborough Construction Accident Causation Model: a Framework for Organizational
Learning," Construction Management and Economics, vol. 31, pp. 580-595, 2013.
[26] J. A. Carrillo-Castrillo, J. C. Rubio-Romero, and L. Onieva, "Causation of severe and fatal accidents in the manufacturing sector,"
International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, vol. 19, pp. 423-434, 2013.
[27] D. S. Kim and W. C. Yoon, "An accident causation model for the railway industry: Application of the model to 80 rail accident investigation
reports from the UK," Safety Science, vol. 60, pp. 57-68, 2013.
[28] P. Underwood and P. Waterson, "Systemic accident analysis: Examining the gap between research and practice," Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol. 55, pp. 154-164, 2013.
[29] C.-F. Chi, S. Z. Lin, and R. S. Dewi, "Graphical fault tree analysis for fatal falls in the construction industry," Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol. 72, pp. 359-369, 2014.
[30] P. M. Salmon, N. Goode, M. G. Lenne, C. Finch, and E. Cassell, "Injury causation in the great outdoors: A systems analysis of led outdoor
activity injury incidents," Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 63, pp. 111-120, 2014.
[31] C.-F. Chen and S.-C. Chen, "Scale development of safety management system evaluation for the airline industry," Accident Analysis &
Prevention, vol. 47, pp. 177-181, 2012.
[32] M. E. Cournoyer, J. J. Miller, D. C. Stafford, and R. A. Norman, "Safety observations: how a national laboratory uses bbs to improve its
emergency program," Professional Safety, vol. October, pp. 62-68, 2012.
[33] R. Himanen, A. Julin, K. Jankala, J.-E. Holmberg, and R. Virolainen, "Risk-informed regulation and safety management of nuclear power
plants: on the prevention of severe accidents," Risk Analysis, vol. 32, pp. 1978-1993, 2012.
[34] A. R. Hale and D. Borys, "Working to Rule, or Working Safely? Part 1: a State of the art Review," Safety Science, 2013.
[35] H. Wu, J. Tao, X. Li, X. Chi, H. Li, X. Hua, et al., "A location based service approach for collision warning systems in concrete dam
construction," Safety Science, vol. 51, pp. 338-346, 2013.
[36] Z. Zhou, J. Irizarry, and Q. Li, "Applying advanced technology to improve safety management in construction: a literature review,"
Construction Management and Economics, vol. 31, pp. 606-622, 2013.
[37] V. Sousa, N. M. Almeida, and L. A. Dias, "Risk-based management of occupational safety and health in the construction industry - Part 1:
Background knowledge," Safety Science, vol. 66, pp. 75-86, 2013.
[38] J. S. Busby and A. M. Collins, "Organizational sensemaking about risk controls: The case of offshore hydrocarbons production," Risk
Analysis, vol. 34, pp. 1738-1752, 2014.
[39] L. Mooren, R. Grzebieta, A. Williamson, J. Olivier, and R. Friswell, "Safety management for heavy vehicle transport: a review," Safety
Science, vol. 62, pp. 79-89, 2014.
[40] T. Niskanen, K. Louhelainen, and M. L. Hirvonen, "Results of a Finnish national survey investigating management commitment,
collaboration and work environment in the chemical industry," Safety Science, vol. 70, pp. 233-245, 2014.
[41] M. Shin, H.-S. Lee, M. Park, M. Moon, and S. Han, "A system dynamics approach for modelling construction workers' safety attitudes and
behaviors," Accident Analysis & Prevention, vol. 68, pp. 95-105, 2014.
[42] E. Hollnagel. (2007, 29 July 2009). Why do we Need Resilience Engineering. Available:
<http://sites.google.com/site/erikhollnagel2/whatisresilienceengineering%3F