There is a lack of data on the state of safety practices in Europe's manufacturing industry. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has completed a survey of industrial accident and occupational disease statistics. The focus of this report was a comparison of features and trends common to all OECD countries. It points out differences in the criteria and compilation of national accident statistics, however, little attempt was made to standardize these beyond removing accidents that occurred while traveling to and from work.

The UK Health and Safety Executives therefore undertook its own analysis of accident statistics from the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy and Spain. This study adjusted for the differences between the way these countries define and record work accidents and examined how far differences in the composition of employment might be responsible for differences in national accident rates. This proved a complex and difficult task-data was supplied for all five countries for fatal accident rates, but non-fatal accidents were recorded for France and Germany only.

What this research proved is that stark statistical comparisons of a non-specific nature are dangerous tools. Used unwisely they will only serve to antagonize and divert us from more useful activities. For instance, the reports may indicate that one country has a better safety record than another but they do not explain why, nor do they indicate if that country is a safer place in which to work. They do, however, tell us that long-established safety systems and active regulatory authorities make a significant contribution to the safety record of those countries.

Different national systems will distort figures in different ways. In France, Germany, Italy and Spain, the main sources of data on work accidents are insurance and social security claims; in the United Kingdom the main sources are reports submitted to enforcement authorities. Commuting and traffic accidents are recorded in the four continental European countries but not in the United Kingdom. Countries have different rules for employees and the self-employed. Undoubtedly, the link between accidents and insurance arrangements is a powerful incentive to ensure that all accidents are reported. Where there are no financial incentives to report and all reporting is made to enforcing authorities, under-reporting is an acknowledged fact of life. Does either system help our safety awareness or make comparisons any more valid?

Another area considered by the studies was the effect of social and economic influences upon accident rates. The OECD comparison noted the high plateaux of occupational fatality and injury rates and overall numbers in the mid-1950s and early 1960s. It suggested that this reflected the post-war rebuilding of productive apparatus, rapid economic growth and increasing emphasis upon the service sector and "intensive" rather than "extensive" growth of the industrial sector. In other words, more growth achieved by additional or more advanced capital being applied to the existing workforce rather, than increases in all factors of production-land, labor and capital. This is particularly so because:

* A larger proportion of the industrial workforce and managers will be experienced

* There will be an increased emphasis upon training

* Individual workers will become more difficult and expensive to replace if injured, encouraging managers to devote more attention to safety in the interests of production

* there is likely to be increasing social and political emphasis upon safety as real incomes rise, and

* regulatory authorities are likely to be more experienced and become relatively better resources.

While in most cases, these studies point to improvements in the field of safety in Europe and in developed, western society, different pressures have brought these changes about. Some advances have been universally welcomed, while others have not, but most have been for the benefit of society as a whole. Those who have been involved with expansion into Central and Eastern Europe have found that the old systems bred some practices and attitudes that were not in harmony with Western European companies' safety policies.

A Healthy Attitude If we have the wrong attitude we will not run a safe industry, a safe plant or a safe piece of machinery. We as an industry have advanced in this respect over the last few years as more and more organizations have come to realize that safety is not an expensive luxury that has an adverse effect on the bottom line. Safety is very much a part of Total Quality. A properly managed organization will have a clear understanding that safety is an important issue for everyone in that organization, and that it makes a vital contribution to efficiency and effectiveness. Senior management needs to set the example that no short cuts can be taken, and the message must be consistent. Accidents affect production and can be costly both in human and financial terms, but safety is not just the concern of those who operate the machinery or who work in the production area. It takes a lot of effort to establish the correct attitude toward safety, and continuous effort thereafter to maintain it.

The increasing number of large multi-national businesses has probably made a significant contribution in this regard as they adopt modern management techniques and best practices from sister plants in different countries. They also have a useful built-in benchmarking tool against which they can compare the safety records across their plants. This highlights areas of improvement for management and gives individual plants incentive to improve performance and not to stand out as an under-achiever.

In the United Kingdom, the National Association produces annual accident statistics giving our members valuable information by which they can compare their own safety record with others in the industry. The organization also works hard to improve safety standards in the industry.

We also have a Corrugated Industry Safety Competition, now in its 16th year, which has done a great deal to improve our overall safety record. Some question the need for such a competition wondering if it might encourage people to hide mistakes for which they might be penalized. However, the competition improves the standards of plants that aim to receive a higher award than last year or to win first place. The competition involves a full safety audit of every plant that enters. This audit is made without prior warning by the judges who then give the plant a detailed report of their findings. The judges also make an overall report on the competition that highlights the good points and the areas of concern throughout the industry. It is up to the organizers to make the competition more difficult each year to improve standards and to prevent complacency.

Eye-Opening Concepts Some who think they have an excellent attitude toward safety in their organizations are shocked and stunned when an employee willfully disregards or disables safety-devices on a piece of machinery, and goes inside it to rectify a problem while it is running. The individual concerned may already have done it several times before with management knowing nothing about the incidents. This time, though, he or she might be killed or severely injured. Now everyone in the industry wants to know why the organization is so poorly managed.

We now have European Safety Regulations and national health and safety rules. We carry out risk assessments, issue safety warnings and put great stress on making our machinery safe to operate. But does all this regulation engender some form of complacency and make people think that the responsibility has in some way been removed from their shoulders?

For example, if someone is working on an unguarded, fast-running piece of machinery that has exposed moving parts and is making a deafening noise, there is little doubt that this machine is dangerous. If it has a problem or becomes jammed, its operator can probably see where the fault has occurred. It is also probable that no one would enter the machine until it was switched off. If, on the other hand, the machine is completely enclosed, noise-proofed and its operator is wearing earplugs, does the operator have the same awareness of danger? If the machine stops, does he know why? Can he see where the problem is? Isn't there more of a temptation in the latter case to enter the machine to find out what the problem is and where it lies?

We also need to look at the pressures on that operator. We need to understand not only what we see as pressures but also what he or she sees as pressures-the two may not be the same. The senior manager's instructions may not have been transmitted to all parts of the factory floor exactly as intended. The operator, knowing the importance of a particular order, may have taken an unnecessary risk in the hope that he could fix a problem without interrupting production. The manager may never have imposed these pressures, but can the manager be certain that the shift supervisor didn't, or that an individual hasn't exerted self-imposed pressures?

The attitude of the operators is important here but so is self-awareness, individual responsibility, supervision and training. As we reduce the workforce and become more reliant on automation, we see more often that operators are working alone. There will also be fewer maintenance people and they might well be multi-skilled and possibly be busy elsewhere rectifying a fault on another machine. This places a greater load on the supervisor, makes self discipline more important and emphasizes the importance of training. An operator with little or no training will not have the knowledge or awareness that he should about the machinery on which he is working. If he is also intent on proving himself, he may well not give due consideration to the risks he might be about to take. And whether he is experienced or not, if he has taken risks without being detected and without incurring injury, will he be tempted to do it again?

What We Can Do We have legislation, rules and regulations, training and company policy. But accidents still happen and we must do more to prevent them. Sadly, I do not believe we can ever expect to eliminate them.

This doesn't mean returning to unguarded machines run by unprotected operators. Regulations will always have a proper place in raising safety standards. There is a very important role for official health and safety bodies to enforce legislation. But these should only be regarded as useful umbrellas under which to get down to the real business of safety.

The safety of the people in our industry and the record of safety in our industry is very much our own responsibility. It is up to individual companies to develop and nurture the total safety awareness of their workforce and to ensure that their people have the correct health and safety training and the correct level of technical training to do their jobs with the machinery they operate.

As is the case with all of the national associations, we are probably well aware of what is going on in our own countries, what the safety issues are and what our own statistics reveal. We are, I think, rather ignorant of the safety statistics in other countries or how we compare with each other. Figures are available from government sources, but these are not specific or detailed. Safety is a subject we do not like to be public about-we are generally reluctant to reveal our failings and our mistakes.

This is not a phenomenon that affects only the corrugated industry, nor is it a criticism aimed directly at our industry-it is a universal problem. But the great disadvantage of this secrecy is that we only learn from our own mistakes and never give others the chance to avoid a similar accident which, had they known about ours, they might have prevented. We need to share our good ideas and our bad experiences.

In the United Kingdom, our association publishes a variety of technical and safety documents. Other national associations might do the same. We should share these. Perhaps the European Union should work more to harmonize the way in which all member states report their accidents and work to produce useful, accurate, industry-specific statistics that we could all use to measure our own performance and make valid comparisons.

Safety is a vital part of our industry and our everyday activity. We are badly served with statistical data with which we can compare our own industry with those in other countries. We could do more to help each other by sharing our experiences and our knowledge. We can never eradicate accidents, but we can all do more to reduce these, and this must be a continuous activity-it is an attitude. We must always be imaginative in our approach, and we must never be complacent about safety.

The above article was adapted from a speech presented by D. Henderson at FEFCO's 9th annual technical seminar, Nice, France.