Asplund, L (2007). Systematic Work Environment Management: Key Informant Interviews about Apprehensions, Priorities and Profitability. Examination paper in Pedagogy, 15 hp. Master’s Programme. University College of Gävle. Department of Education, Curriculum Studies and Psychology.
Background
Every fourth Swedish employee has been found to suffer from some form of work-related ill-health. Legislation, termed Systematic Management of Workplace Environments (SAM), has been enacted to promote optimal physical and psychosocial workplace environments. Em-ployers are obliged to follow the regulations issued by the Swedish Work Environment Au-thority [Arbetetsmiljöverket] and are responsible for operating active workplace environ-ment management plans. Such plans can prevent ill-health and, in some cases, increase the company’s profitability.
Purpose
A medium-sized, retail trade company from in central Sweden was chosen in order to study and analyze how systematic workplace management environment practices were imple-mented in relation to other management priorities and company profitability.
Sample
The key informants were chosen out of the personal manager who was the first contact on the company. Seven key informants, selected on the basis of their knowledge of their com-pany's Systematic Work Environment Management, participated in the study. An additional key informant was later chosen to validate the results. The informant composition was: three informants from middle management, with 5 to 7 years experience of the company, one supervisor (1 year), and three other members of staff (2 and 3 years.) Six qualitative in-terviews were carried out, within the period of one week, in the interviewees' offices. The validating interview was undertaken 4 weeks later, also on the company’s premises.
Design and methods
The company specialized in retail furniture. Non-structured interviews, based on an inter-view guide with 11 open-ended questions, were used. The interviews, lasting about 30 mi-nutes each, were recorded and transcribed. Statements were analyzed for notable differ-ences, similarities, themes and patterns. The statements were then categorized and sub-jected to further analysis.
Results
All the informants felt that the company’s actual practice met the work environment stipula-tions and was on-going. They agreed that workplace environment in general is considered an important issue, but that the company could probably do more to meet the intentions of the work environment legislation. Two specific focal points appeared in the results: ergo-nomic improvement in the workplace and the informants’ aspiration to implement and de-velop a system of caring telephone calls to employees absent through illness.
Conclusions
Management was seen as giving contradictory signals. On the one hand they say that work environment is active and ongoing and on the other hand agree that not enough is being done. The expression of intent does not appear to be matched by actions. Improved educa-tion in systematic workplace environment management would give employees a better un-derstanding of work environment and how systematic workplace management is supposed to operate. The analysis of the informants' suggestions led to a series of proposals for im-provements in workplace environment management strategies. A new plan for employee participation would involve employees being more directly and actively involved with work environment and increase support for the work of the safety representatives.
Keywords:
Systematic Management of Workplace Environments, health and safety codes, profitability, employee participation, muscular-skeletal, psychosocial working envi-ronment, health promotion