Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes: SAF€RA STARS Final report

Marja Ylönen, Ole Andreas Engen, Jean-Christophe Le Coze, Jouko Heikkilä, Ruth Skotnes, Kenneth Pettersen, Claudia Morsut

Research output: Book/ReportReport

Abstract

This final report summarises the main results of the research project on Sociotechnical Safety Assessment within three regulatory regimes (SAFERA STARS). The objectives of the project were the following: 1) Explore what the shift towards a sociotechnical approach entails from a scientific viewpoint and how it affects safety management, 2) Compare practices in risk regulatory regimes - Norwegian oil and gas, hazardous use of chemicals in Finland and France - with sociotechnical approaches, 3) Clarify the regulation (limits and possibilities) in ensuring sociotechnical safety 4) Develop an evidence-based guide on how to develop regulatory practices towards taking better into account the sociotechnical safety. It's a question of pioneer study in the sense that there is no comparison between these regimes made before, and not in terms of sociotechnical safety. Findings show strengths and vulnerabilities of all three regimes. Norway appears to be the most advanced with regard to sociotechnical aspects. The strength of Norwegian regime is large stakeholder involvement and adopted capability building among the industry and the regulatory body. However, vulnerabilities in the Norwegian regime relate to political and economic issues, which can easily weaken the existing trust between the parties and undermine the climate of cooperation. The strength of the Finnish regime is in its emphasis on proactively preventive communication, meaning providing information, guidelines and training to the operators. However, the heterogeneity and large number of supervised plants and the small number of inspectors is a clear challenge with regard to the development of sociotechnical safety assessment. The strength of the French regime is in the development of a dialogue-based approach with civil society, operators and other stakeholders. Weak points are the command and control type of regulation and the fact that inspectors need to change their position every second or third year. Development of sociotechnical safety assessment would require a broad discussion about the role of regulation in society.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationEspoo
PublisherVTT Technical Research Centre of Finland
Number of pages60
ISBN (Electronic)978-951-38-8527-4
ISBN (Print)978-951-38-8528-1
Publication statusPublished - 2017
MoE publication typeNot Eligible

Publication series

SeriesVTT Technology
Number295
ISSN2242-1211

Fingerprint

regime
regulation
vulnerability
stakeholder
Finland
Norway
civil society
research project
dialogue
climate
France
industry
communication
management
evidence
economics

Keywords

  • sociotechnical
  • safety
  • risk regulation regime
  • compliance

Cite this

Ylönen, M., Engen, O. A., Le Coze, J-C., Heikkilä, J., Skotnes, R., Pettersen, K., & Morsut, C. (2017). Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes: SAF€RA STARS Final report. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland. VTT Technology, No. 295
Ylönen, Marja ; Engen, Ole Andreas ; Le Coze, Jean-Christophe ; Heikkilä, Jouko ; Skotnes, Ruth ; Pettersen, Kenneth ; Morsut, Claudia. / Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes : SAF€RA STARS Final report. Espoo : VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2017. 60 p. (VTT Technology; No. 295).
@book{8624c5d4ae5d4b2b9cf90da2d5b3a547,
title = "Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes: SAF€RA STARS Final report",
abstract = "This final report summarises the main results of the research project on Sociotechnical Safety Assessment within three regulatory regimes (SAFERA STARS). The objectives of the project were the following: 1) Explore what the shift towards a sociotechnical approach entails from a scientific viewpoint and how it affects safety management, 2) Compare practices in risk regulatory regimes - Norwegian oil and gas, hazardous use of chemicals in Finland and France - with sociotechnical approaches, 3) Clarify the regulation (limits and possibilities) in ensuring sociotechnical safety 4) Develop an evidence-based guide on how to develop regulatory practices towards taking better into account the sociotechnical safety. It's a question of pioneer study in the sense that there is no comparison between these regimes made before, and not in terms of sociotechnical safety. Findings show strengths and vulnerabilities of all three regimes. Norway appears to be the most advanced with regard to sociotechnical aspects. The strength of Norwegian regime is large stakeholder involvement and adopted capability building among the industry and the regulatory body. However, vulnerabilities in the Norwegian regime relate to political and economic issues, which can easily weaken the existing trust between the parties and undermine the climate of cooperation. The strength of the Finnish regime is in its emphasis on proactively preventive communication, meaning providing information, guidelines and training to the operators. However, the heterogeneity and large number of supervised plants and the small number of inspectors is a clear challenge with regard to the development of sociotechnical safety assessment. The strength of the French regime is in the development of a dialogue-based approach with civil society, operators and other stakeholders. Weak points are the command and control type of regulation and the fact that inspectors need to change their position every second or third year. Development of sociotechnical safety assessment would require a broad discussion about the role of regulation in society.",
keywords = "sociotechnical, safety, risk regulation regime, compliance",
author = "Marja Yl{\"o}nen and Engen, {Ole Andreas} and {Le Coze}, Jean-Christophe and Jouko Heikkil{\"a} and Ruth Skotnes and Kenneth Pettersen and Claudia Morsut",
note = "CA2: BA2802 CA2: BA2804 PGN: 56 p. AU2: Yl{\"o}nen, Marja AU2: Heikkil{\"a}, Jouko",
year = "2017",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-951-38-8528-1",
series = "VTT Technology",
publisher = "VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland",
number = "295",
address = "Finland",

}

Ylönen, M, Engen, OA, Le Coze, J-C, Heikkilä, J, Skotnes, R, Pettersen, K & Morsut, C 2017, Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes: SAF€RA STARS Final report. VTT Technology, no. 295, VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo.

Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes : SAF€RA STARS Final report. / Ylönen, Marja; Engen, Ole Andreas; Le Coze, Jean-Christophe; Heikkilä, Jouko; Skotnes, Ruth; Pettersen, Kenneth; Morsut, Claudia.

Espoo : VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2017. 60 p. (VTT Technology; No. 295).

Research output: Book/ReportReport

TY - BOOK

T1 - Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes

T2 - SAF€RA STARS Final report

AU - Ylönen, Marja

AU - Engen, Ole Andreas

AU - Le Coze, Jean-Christophe

AU - Heikkilä, Jouko

AU - Skotnes, Ruth

AU - Pettersen, Kenneth

AU - Morsut, Claudia

N1 - CA2: BA2802 CA2: BA2804 PGN: 56 p. AU2: Ylönen, Marja AU2: Heikkilä, Jouko

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This final report summarises the main results of the research project on Sociotechnical Safety Assessment within three regulatory regimes (SAFERA STARS). The objectives of the project were the following: 1) Explore what the shift towards a sociotechnical approach entails from a scientific viewpoint and how it affects safety management, 2) Compare practices in risk regulatory regimes - Norwegian oil and gas, hazardous use of chemicals in Finland and France - with sociotechnical approaches, 3) Clarify the regulation (limits and possibilities) in ensuring sociotechnical safety 4) Develop an evidence-based guide on how to develop regulatory practices towards taking better into account the sociotechnical safety. It's a question of pioneer study in the sense that there is no comparison between these regimes made before, and not in terms of sociotechnical safety. Findings show strengths and vulnerabilities of all three regimes. Norway appears to be the most advanced with regard to sociotechnical aspects. The strength of Norwegian regime is large stakeholder involvement and adopted capability building among the industry and the regulatory body. However, vulnerabilities in the Norwegian regime relate to political and economic issues, which can easily weaken the existing trust between the parties and undermine the climate of cooperation. The strength of the Finnish regime is in its emphasis on proactively preventive communication, meaning providing information, guidelines and training to the operators. However, the heterogeneity and large number of supervised plants and the small number of inspectors is a clear challenge with regard to the development of sociotechnical safety assessment. The strength of the French regime is in the development of a dialogue-based approach with civil society, operators and other stakeholders. Weak points are the command and control type of regulation and the fact that inspectors need to change their position every second or third year. Development of sociotechnical safety assessment would require a broad discussion about the role of regulation in society.

AB - This final report summarises the main results of the research project on Sociotechnical Safety Assessment within three regulatory regimes (SAFERA STARS). The objectives of the project were the following: 1) Explore what the shift towards a sociotechnical approach entails from a scientific viewpoint and how it affects safety management, 2) Compare practices in risk regulatory regimes - Norwegian oil and gas, hazardous use of chemicals in Finland and France - with sociotechnical approaches, 3) Clarify the regulation (limits and possibilities) in ensuring sociotechnical safety 4) Develop an evidence-based guide on how to develop regulatory practices towards taking better into account the sociotechnical safety. It's a question of pioneer study in the sense that there is no comparison between these regimes made before, and not in terms of sociotechnical safety. Findings show strengths and vulnerabilities of all three regimes. Norway appears to be the most advanced with regard to sociotechnical aspects. The strength of Norwegian regime is large stakeholder involvement and adopted capability building among the industry and the regulatory body. However, vulnerabilities in the Norwegian regime relate to political and economic issues, which can easily weaken the existing trust between the parties and undermine the climate of cooperation. The strength of the Finnish regime is in its emphasis on proactively preventive communication, meaning providing information, guidelines and training to the operators. However, the heterogeneity and large number of supervised plants and the small number of inspectors is a clear challenge with regard to the development of sociotechnical safety assessment. The strength of the French regime is in the development of a dialogue-based approach with civil society, operators and other stakeholders. Weak points are the command and control type of regulation and the fact that inspectors need to change their position every second or third year. Development of sociotechnical safety assessment would require a broad discussion about the role of regulation in society.

KW - sociotechnical

KW - safety

KW - risk regulation regime

KW - compliance

M3 - Report

SN - 978-951-38-8528-1

T3 - VTT Technology

BT - Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes

PB - VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland

CY - Espoo

ER -

Ylönen M, Engen OA, Le Coze J-C, Heikkilä J, Skotnes R, Pettersen K et al. Sociotechnical safety assessment within three risk regulation regimes: SAF€RA STARS Final report. Espoo: VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, 2017. 60 p. (VTT Technology; No. 295).