7.3. Implications for further study
From the case studies, it has been shown that several occupational factors are related to health, safety and ergonomic problems. Heavy physical workload along with heat stress or thermal discomfort, psychosocial imbalance, and individual factors contribute to the development of WRPs. These problems have their origin in exposure to particular hazardous agents, mostly health, hygiene, safety and ergonomic problems. In DCs like Bangladesh, individual workers’ characteristics as well as working conditions and environments are more important than social and organisational factors at work. Therefore, three scientific disciplines can be involved in the assessment of physical exposure measures, these being biomechanics, work physiology, and psychophysics. There is, however, a need to investigate ergonomic factors according the specific tasks, jobs and activities with the aim of improving health and safety. Internal exposures are usually estimated with bio-mechanical modelling to achieve exposure profiles of occupational tasks in SMEs, mostly in the consideration of lower-back or upper limb disorders. It requires information on postures of different body segments and exerted forces, completed with movement data in case of dynamic models. Both biomechanical and electromygraphic measurements are useful methods to assess internal exposure but these are rarely used in DCs.
There is a little opportunity to conduct empirical studies and in-depth research on OHS in DCs like Bangladesh but the involvement of professionals, academicians and practitioners will fill this gap. All they need to work together for discovering satisfactory solutions which, however, might not be found even after a detailed analysis. Therefore, conducting work-related research is vital, collaborating with universities, LGA, industrial entrepreneurs and NGOs (Fig. 14). Research and educational institutes located in each divisional and district head quarters (HQs) should therefore launch effective programs (Ahasan et al. 1998c) to conduct field studies, not only in terms of increasing awareness, but also in terms of increasing self-responsibility, knowledge and academic or research skills. Nevertheless, implications for future study must deal with specific conditions that should involve ergonomic measurement when exposure is real, unavoidable and serious. All types of SMEs should therefore be included in routine inspection (Fig. 11) with the support of the national budget, however limited, and with the support of workers, UL, FO, EA, and other concerned parties.
Figure 11. Ergonomic studies and applied human factors research in different levels through workplace survey, field inspection and walt-thorough investigation.
7.3.1. Importance of workplace investigation
Inspection, analysis and evaluation of work-related factors have potential use in SMEs for a better harmonization of work content, health, hygiene and safety. Walk-thorough surveys are also important especially in changing or modifying workplace situations, and for implementing a correct (locally adjustable) measure to reduce work-related diseases in SMEs. Workplace assessment may be looked at as practical fact-finding at the shop-floor or grass roots level since OHS and ergonomic issues have roots relating to the quest for optimum adaptation and performance from the local workers (Ahasan et al. 2001, 2002b). Many researchers (Phoon 1976, Sen 1965, 1979, Tornberg 1996, Kogi 1985, 1991, 1996, 1997) argued that low-cost ergonomic measures should be implemented through proper assessment of workplace and environmental variables. Other scientists (Rantanen 1989, 1994, Cullen & Harri 1995, Partanen 1996) emphasized the needs of work-related research not only for exposure-disease association but also for reducing WRPs. Tornberg et al. (1996) illustrated some follow up case studies especially for WISE (workplace improvement in small-scale enterprises) projects in Africa—that can be helpful resources for investigating work related data in other DCs. Regular inspections and workplace visits also contribute in building awareness on OHS/ergonomics requirements among the workers, UL, FO, EA, civil society and others (Fig. 12).
Figure 12. Workplace improvement cycle through investigation of workplaces, assessment of workload, provision of job training and implementation of work-regulation.
To make an exact evaluation, epidemiological surveys with realistic data on workers" employment, local situation and cumulative exposure records are of vital importance. Further, work analysis can be used to clarify or make decisions to improve worker’s efficiency and safety. However the methodology to be used, the measurements to make, and the evaluation to perform will be largely depending upon the contributing and confounding factors because of various problems existing in the workplaces of SMEs, in particular. In this context, field studies and walk-through investigations need to be designed in the direction of application-oriented research. Work survey can be based on the experience of effective planning, group discussion, self-care and self-help basis. Work related surveys should be carried out not only to investigate WRPs but also to improve the adaptation of work (Ahasan 2001b) in the context of a worker’s ageing, gender, culture and other socio-economic characteristics (Ahasan & Benincasa 1999a). Periodical evaluations are also important for continued improvement and adaptation to changing needs, especially on the work abilities of the various team members that need to be matched well. In many studies, ergonomists found large variations in anthropological, cultural and physical factors among the working people in DCs—those are rarely considered by the investors, producers or exporters (Abeysekera 1997b).
The nature and content of workplace investigation should be considered, as part of an economic reflection on the means required enriching effective intervention strategies for workplace improvement. In this regard, workplace investigation should focus on ergonomic intervention practice, as well as restore links between research, practice and job training. Optimal solutions are to be designed through health, safety and ergonomics research based on local needs so that immediate action can be taken place in time, and in order. It is also believed that work-related research in Bangladesh is an evident stimulant for controlling hazards, accidents and injuries for which OHS/ergonomics must be addressed. In many instances, health, safety and ergonomic measures can be found to be cost-effective due to many of these reasons. And because, the evaluation of work hazards requires substantial evidence obtained by means of extensive research (Kogi & Kawakami 1997). The majority of the risk factors (determinants) at different workplaces in Bangladesh have to be detected, however difficult is, in order to get a primary overview of the working conditions. Otherwise, the country will suffer due to other pressure in paying injury cost and production loss.
7.3.2. Systematic methods of workplace survey
The key to dealing with workplace improvement should include systematic methods of work-thorough investigation, routine inspection, and recognition, classification and assessment of jobs, tasks and activity. There may be realistic alternatives from which choices can be made by future endeavours in the way of workplace improvement. For this, a national policy and plan for health and safety programs should be developed in such a way that it includes identification, evaluation, assessment, prevention, protection and control strategies. The first step that should be taken is to develop a method for the collection of work-related data mainly for the implementation of comprehensive and multidisciplinary solutions. Correct data and information should be disseminated from the results of qualitative research and field studies. Therefore, identification and assessment of potential problems at workplace is more important than just visiting a factory which is very important for workplace intervention strategy (Westlander 1993). For determining how health, safety and production are affected by WRPs, workplace improvement procedure must be translated into pragmatic control solutions in the local context through the procurement, compilation and recording of work-related data. A model (Fig. 13) is therefore devised for systematic inspection and regular investigation of workplaces, sector or zone wise monitoring, and implementation of work-regulation (e.g., WRLL).
Figure 13. An improved model for systematic workplace survey and inspection for implementing work regulation and labour legislation.
As far as DCs are concerned, low-cost methods (Kogi 1997, 1998) are to be advised for the assessment of work-related factors, however, these methods should not result in biased exposure estimates. It is, because low-cost method can have serious consequences for risk estimates in the measuring of more aspects of risk factors. Accurate measurement and empirical analysis should however be carried out with simple instruments (see study I–III). These must be done for the sake of workplace intervention (enterprise level) as well as the prevention and control of work exposures at national level. For this, a safety climate is to be implement in practice (Zohar 1980) synchronising workers shared responsibility and FO/EA’s joint collaboration.
A systematic workplace investigation must also take into account of the socio-technical process (Saarela 1983). It helps to characterise job tasks and the possibilities of control measures to identify the local reasons why the working condition deviates from the optimum (ergonomic) ways of correcting work tasks. A systematic workplace survey is needed to carry out with the help of local experts (BUET, BIT, NIPSOM, IEB) and other institutes (BCSIR, BIRPERT, ICDDRB) who should be able to decide the best procedure to collect the data and information necessary to solve the problem. This sort of investigation may be one of the best initiatives for researchers and professionals that would find some possibilities for compliance with OHS.
The methods of a systematic workplace survey must be designed in such a way that its analysis can be used by officials, that is, by occupational physicians, hygienists, ergonomists and safety engineers with a general training in the management of work-related exposures. Whatever the case, job stresses or illness symptoms may remain after such inspection mainly due to various contributing and confounding factors locally exist those can not be minimized or removed easily. In this case, further assistance of an expert will be required for corrective short-term protection measures. An example of systematic workplace investigation is illustrated in table 6.
Table 6. Characteristics of systematic workplace investigation and participatory strategy.
| Stage I Preliminary visit | Stage II Observation | Stage III Analysis | Stage IV Expert’s views | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| When? | Regular, routine wise and systematic | When a specific problem is identified or known | When a complex situation is identified | In a very complex situation |
| How? | Joint and share responsibility of worker, FO & EA | Qualitative observation | Ordinary test and measurements | Specialized test and measurements |
| By whom? | Workers, linemen, foreman, and/or managers. | FO/EA, investors, new entrepreneurs, and others | Local experts: DIFE/DOE/BSTI | BUET, BARDEM, NIPSOM, IPGMR |
| Duration? | Minimum 1 hour | Minimum 2 hours | One day | Few days |
| Cost? | Low-cost | Low-cost | Affordable | Expensive |
In many DCs, assessment of external exposures are also done by subjective judgement but on site video recordings as observational methods (i.e., direct measurements) can be useful to investigate the dimension of the level, duration and frequency of work exposure. Extensive survey and investigation (stage IV) will obviously be costly, and it will take a longer time and require sophisticated instruments and competencies. It is also better to avoid complex methods since concerned Departments (DIFE, DOE, BSTI) or Ministries (e.g., Ministry of Industry, Ministry of Health, Ministry of Manpower & Employment) may not have enough resources. It is worth insisting on the fact that not all stages are systematically performed because the procedure of systematic workplace investigation actually stops when adequate solutions have been implemented. However it has to be practical and fact-inding methods as with advisory inspections that should start from the grass roots level (Zalk 2001). The Information Booklet Series (1996) also tells about the EU practice for assessing working conditions. The European Commission (1995) published the “Self Audit Handbook” for systematic workplace surveys in SMEs. However, the aim of this handbook is to do much more than the procedure described. The Finnish Institute of Occupational Health (Ahonen et al. 1989) also developed a systematic workplace survey procedure. But it is believed that local methods are always better to study basic information about job tasks, work culture, individual’s postural technique, task characteristics, workers’ behaviour, and other factors such as thermal discomfort, clothing, factory climate, etc. Analysis of such work-related data must use research concepts but with observational techniques commonly used in many work studies. An observation method should be applied in such research which can best be combined with direct measurements of exposure to posture, movement and exerted forces, for instance.
Local procedures, priorities and options can also be used extensively for more realistic purposes in the context of time, money and other resources available in DCs. It must cover briefly the majority of the contributing and confounding factors related to workers’ health, safety and well-being, indicating whether there are complaints related to the factory environment (heat, humidity, smoke, noise, vibration), non-ergonomic conditions, or other regional problems. Clearly, this can be done by or with the help of local people and FO/EA who should have a thorough knowledge of local working conditions.
Easy and readily available methods can be used rather systematically, because simple measurement methods can make it possible to best identify the causes of the job stress symptoms, and the means to solve them properly. An expert judgement and self-report can give only limited insight into the occurrence of tasks and activities.