Determining hazard management changes in workplaces following workplace safety inspections by WorkSafeBC in British Columbia, Canada

(1)

Safety Science 140 (2021) 105298

Determining hazard management changes in workplaces following

workplace safety inspections by WorkSafeBC in British Columbia, Canada

Robert A. Macpherson

^a^,^*

, Masoud Yousefi

^a

, Christopher B. McLeod

^a^,^b

aSchool of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

bInstitute for Work & Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

A R T I C L E I N F O Keywords:

Occupational health and safety Workplace inspections Regulation British Columbia Canada

A B S T R A C T

Workplace safety inspections are an important tool for occupational health and safety agencies to ensure compliance with regulation and promote safer workplaces. While several studies have examined how inspections can improve compliance and reduce workplace injuries, less is known about the role they play in promoting changes in workplace hazard management. The objective of this study is to identify what factors best determine hazard management changes in workplaces following workplace safety inspections in British Columbia, Canada.

Using data from the WorkSafeBC Inspection Experience and Impact telephone survey, descriptive statistics and multinomial logistic regression models were used to identify what individual, employer, inspection and survey- related variables best determined hazard management changes following workplace inspections. Among the 1,578 participants with valid responses, over 70% reported that the inspection led to changes in how hazards were managed at their workplace. Factors that best determined the variability in changes of workplace hazard management included the rating of the officer’s ability to explain ways to manage hazards and changes needed to be compliant with regulation, respondents’ job role, type of inspection, whether the inspection included orders, and whether or not a post-inspection discussion took place. The findings suggest that workplace inspections can be a useful tool in promoting changes in how hazards are managed at workplaces. Furthermore, the findings highlight areas in which inspections and the inspection experience can be improved, such as targeting key industry sectors and focusing on improved communication between officers and workplace representatives.

1. Introduction

In Canadian workplaces in 2019, there were 335 injury fatalities, 590 disease fatalities, and 271,806 injuries resulting in compensated lost- time (Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada, 2021).

Workplace incidents have a large burden on workers’ families, employers, workers’ compensation systems, healthcare systems, and soci- ety as a whole. Workplace inspections are an important prevention tool that aid firms with their health and safety programs (WorkSafeBC, 2020a). Systematic reviews rate evidence of the effectiveness of workplace inspections in reducing injuries as low to very low (Mischke et al., 2013), moderately strong (Andersen et al., 2019), to strong (specifically for inspections with penalties) (Tompa et al., 2016). However, research on what factors best determine whether inspections are effective or ineffective in preventing injuries is still underdeveloped (Haviland et al., 2012b). Similarly, there is limited research on the inspection experience

among of representatives at the workplace and the role inspections can have in promoting changes in how workplace hazards are managed (Niskanen et al., 2014; Weissbrodt et al., 2018).

In the Canadian province of British Columbia (BC), the organization responsible for workplace safety regulation and workers’ compensation is WorkSafeBC (the Workers’ Compensation Board of British Columbia).

Under the legislative mandate of the Workers Compensation Act, Work- SafeBC implements the Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OHS Regulation) and sets the accompanying standards and guidelines to promote occupational health and safety (OHS). To encourage compliance with OHS Regulation, WorkSafeBC prevention officers conduct a variety of enforcement activities ranging from consultations, educational meetings, to investigations and routine inspections. In 2019, a total of 300,364 hours were spent on prevention activities by Work- SafeBC prevention officers, 72% of which were specific to inspections (WorkSafeBC, 2020b). During the same year, a total of 44,361

* Corresponding author at: Partnership for Work, Health and Safety, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, 2206 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada.

E-mail address: robert.macpherson@ubc.ca (R.A. Macpherson).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Safety Science

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/safety

(2)

inspection reports were written and 34,137 orders were issued for employers failing to comply with OHS Regulation.

High-quality inspections not only focus on ensuring employers meet legislative requirements (i.e., the Workers Compensation Act), but also include relationship building or partnerships between the employers and the prevention officers to successfully promote adequate risk and safety management. Good communication and collaboration between officers and workplace representatives can raise awareness on approaches to prevent and maintain hazard free workplaces. Inspections can only be effective if the various inspection characteristics (e.g., the inspecting officer and employer engagement) allow for a change that improves workplace health and safety. Officers can have different approaches to conducting inspections and this may affect the inspection experience and how individuals within an organization respond in making changes to hazard management and bring their workplace into compliance with regulation. A study in the province of Alberta found that, relative to inspectors who used coercive tactics (e.g., deadlines, pressure), inspectors who used autonomy supportive tactics (e.g., providing rationale, choices) issued fewer severe compliance orders and achieved compliance after fewer worksite visits (Burstyn et al., 2010).

Similarly, a study in the state of California found that there was sub- stantial variation among inspectors, even when the type of inspection was the same, that the inspector explained about 3% of variation in injury rate changes subsequent to the inspections, and that inspections by inspectors with more experience tended to reduce injury rates more than inspections by others with less experience (Haviland et al., 2012b).

Building on prior theoretical frameworks (McLeod, 2019; Weissbrodt and Giauque, 2017), for inspections to lead to increased compliance and reduced workplace injuries they should be built on a foundation of legitimate and effective regulation and implemented via a responsive regulation approach. Inspections should target firms that need improvement and be able to identify relevant safety infractions. Firms need to have the motivation and the ability to achieve compliance with regulation. (McLeod, 2019). Prevention officers must be able to moti- vate firms through a responsive regulation approach in which both deterrence and persuasive enforcement approaches are used (Braithwaite, 2011).

Research examining the experience of inspectors or workplace representatives offers insight into what makes an inspection successful. In a systematic review of qualitative literature on OHS legislation and regulatory enforcement planning and implementation, MacEachen et al.

(2016) reference an Australian study which found that OHS inspectors required considerable self-confidence and negotiation skills in order to move from advice to an enforcement position in workplaces (Gunning- ham, 2012). MacEachen et al. (2016) also identified worker represen- tation in OHS as an important theme in the literature and that OHS inspectors do not always consult workers during workplace visits, which can lead to under-informed inspector assessments. For example, one study found that OHS representatives in the UK rarely had the opportunity to talk to inspectors during workplace visits (Gr¨abe, 1991).

Similarly, another study described how Australian miners and their trade unions identified a lack of contact with inspectors (Gunningham, 2012).

Few studies have surveyed workplace representatives about their experience of inspections. A study from Switzerland conducted a survey with inspected and non-inspected companies with regards to the OHS management practices and perceived workplace ability with a focus on prevention of psychosocial risks (Weissbrodt et al., 2018). The authors

found that inspected companies improved their management of health and safety, increased their ability in psychosocial issues, and demonstrated a stronger willingness to act. A study from Finland surveyed OHS managers and worker representatives to find that general OHS enforcement operations were positively related to the effects of current OHS inspections for workers’ representatives but not OHS managers, whereas the professional competence inspectors was positively related to the effects of the current inspection for managers but not worker representatives (Niskanen et al., 2014).

A measure of the changes in knowledge, attitude, and behavior of workers and employers following an inspection can determine how effectively officers are able to communicate and collaborate with employers to achieve sustained compliance in workplaces. In order to achieve compliance with regulation, an inspected workplace may be required to make changes, such as changing how hazards are managed.

It may also be that irrespective of whether a workplace is in compliance or not with regulation, an inspection may promote changes in workplace hazard management. However, beyond the two studies previously mentioned (Niskanen et al., 2014; Weissbrodt et al., 2018) there appears to be no research that has been conducted on measures to assess worker or employer experiences and predictors of officer’s performance following a workplace inspection. More specifically, there is a need for better understanding on what factors of an inspection experience contribute to changes in workplace hazard management. In light of these gaps in literature, the objective of this study is to identify what factors best determine hazard management changes in workplaces following workplace safety inspections in BC, Canada.

2. Methods 2.1. Data

This study used data from the Inspection Experience and Impact (IEI) survey, a bi-annual telephone survey conducted by Ipsos (an independent market research company) on behalf of WorkSafeBC. The survey is randomized from all inspection reports submitted to WorkSafeBC in the previous six months, excluding inspections that resulted in a penalty and firms with fatalities. The purpose of the survey is to ask employer and worker representatives about their experiences with WorkSafeBC OHS inspections, as part of WorkSafeBC’s Accident and Injury Prevention Services, and how they can be improved. This study used the fourth quarter of the 2018 survey (n =722) and the first and second quarters of the 2019 survey (n =1,077), and specifically two revised questions and one new question that the research team developed in partnership with WorkSafeBC in 2017–2018:

• “How would you rate the officer’s ability to explain ways that your firm/your employer can manage hazards at the workplace?” Re- sponses could include very poor, poor, average, good, or very good;

• “How would you rate the officer’s ability to explain changes that need to be made by your firm/your employer in order to be compliant with regulation?” Responses could include “very poor, poor, average, good, or very good;

• “Did the inspection lead to changes in how hazards are managed at your workplace?” Responses could include no changes, minor changes, moderate changes, or major changes;

The first of these questions included 1,695 (94.2%) valid answers,

(3)

whereas the second question included 1,696 (94.3%) valid answers. The third survey question included 1,723 (95.6%) valid answers. Restricting the sample to respondents with valid answers for these three key variables yielded a sample size of 1,578 (87.7% of the full sample). Other variables used in this study included the job role of the respondent (owner, manager, supervisor or worker), industry sector of the workplace (based on WorkSafeBC classification units), union status (non- unionized versus unionized), officer type during the inspection (occupational safety officer, occupational hygiene officer, senior regional officer), inspection type (planned inspection versus response inspection), if and what type of orders were issued during the inspection (no orders, initiating orders, order follow-up), whether a post-inspection discussion took place, and which quarter the survey took place.

2.2. Analytical approach

To examine the variation in responses among the revised/new questions, frequency tables were run for each variable. To identify what factors best determined hazard management changes in the workplaces following workplace safety inspections, cross-tabulations with chi- squared tests were run for the revised survey questions (officer’s ability to explain ways to manage hazards in the workplace, officer’s ability to explain changes needed to be made in order to be made to be compliant with regulation), individual (job role), employer (sector, union status), inspection-based variables (inspection type, officer type, order type, post-inspection discussion), and whether the inspection led to changes in how hazards were managed at their workplace.

In addition to the descriptive analysis, unadjusted and adjusted multinomial logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of key predictors and whether the inspection led to minor, moderate or major changes in how hazards were managed at the workplace, relative to there being no

changes. Variables with likelihood ratio chi-squared statistics of less than 0.15 in the unadjusted regression models were included in the adjusted regression models. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted for respondents employed in the construction sector, respondents of workplaces where inspections included orders, and respondents of workplaces where inspections excluded orders.

3. Results

3.1. Descriptive analysis

The distributions of the revised/new survey questions are displayed in Fig. 1. Over 90% of respondents rated the officer’s ability as either good or very good in terms of explaining ways to manage hazards at the workplace and explain changes required to be compliant with regulation. In terms of whether the inspections changed how hazards were managed at workplaces, over 70% of respondents reported there to be some form of change with similar proportions of minor changes (29.0%), moderate changes (32.0%), and a smaller proportion reporting major changes (9.4%).

Characteristics most evident with associations in changes in how workplace hazards were managed are presented in Figs. 2-4 (results from all the cross-tabulations and chi-squared tests are available in Appendix A). When officers were rated as very poor/poor/average in terms of explaining ways to be manage hazards, or explaining changes required be compliant with regulation, respondents were less likely to report changes, albeit to a greater extent with regards to explaining ways to manage hazards (44.4% versus 37.1%) (Fig. 2). Minor or moderate changes were more likely to be reported when the officers were rated as being very good for both questions.

More senior job roles (owners and managers) were associated with greater proportions of respondents reporting no hazard management

Fig. 1.Survey responses related to inspection experience and subsequent workplace changes. Note: The original wordings of the questions are listed in the section 2.1.

(4)

Fig. 2. Distribution of officer’s communication rating with level of change in how hazards were managed at workplaces as a result of inspections. Note: V. poor- average =very poor/poor average responses.

Fig. 3. Distribution of work characteristics with level of change in how hazards were managed at workplaces as a result of inspections. Note: Transportation = transportation and warehousing.

Fig. 4. Distribution of inspection related characteristics with level of change in how hazards were managed at workplaces as a result of inspections.

(5)

changes (31.2% and 31.9%, respectively) compared to less senior job roles (supervisors and workers with 27.0% and 27.8%, respectively).

Workers represented the group with the highest proportions reporting moderate and major changes in hazard management (33.6% and 12.1%, respectively) (Fig. 3). The primary resources sector was associated with the highest proportion of respondents reporting no changes in hazard management, whereas the trade sector was associated with the lowest proportion (20.0%). The construction and trade sectors were most likely to report minor changes (30.6% and 30.0%, respectively), whereas trade and transportation and warehousing were most likely to report moderate changes (39.3% and 37.0%). Major changes were most commonly reported among respondents in the public sector (11.4%) and manufacturing sector (11.1%).

In terms of inspection type, compared to planned inspections, response inspections were associated with a smaller proportion of no hazard management changes (26.8% versus 32.0%), and higher proportions of moderate and major changes (35.9% and 11.0% versus 28.6% and 7.9%, respectively) (Fig. 4). A higher proportion of respondents where inspections did not include orders reported no changes (41.1%), followed by initiating orders (23.4%) and order follow-ups (15.8%). A similar gradient was observed for moderate and major changes.

Among the other descriptive results, the most noteworthy finding was a difference of more than 10 percentage points between respondents who reported not having had a post-inspection discussion with the officer and reporting no changes in how hazards were managed at their workplaces (37.3% versus 26.2%). Those that did report having had a post-inspection discussion were more likely to report all three types of changes.

3.2. Multinomial logistic regression

The unadjusted multinomial logistic regression models present similar patterns of results, albeit with reference to a specific outcome (e.

g., minor/moderate/major changes relative to no changes) and specific group (e.g., managers/workers/supervisors, relative to owners), therefore they are not presented in the main text but are included in Appendix B. Estimates from the adjusted model are presented in Table 1. Similar to the unadjusted model, when officers were rated as very good at explaining ways to manage hazards, this resulted in higher odds of minor (OR 2.27; 95% CI 1.23–4.18) moderate (OR 2.14; 95% CI 1.14–4.01) and major changes (OR 3.20; 95% CI 1.26–8.13) in how workplace hazards were managed. However, the only difference with regards to how officers were rated at explaining changes needed in order to be complaint with regulation, was those rating them as good as having lower odds of reporting a major change (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14–0.79).

The association between job seniority and different odds of reporting workplace changes was only observed with regards to major changes, with higher odds for managers (OR 2.04; 95% CI 1.04–4.02), supervisors (OR 2.59; 95% CI 1.23–5.46), and workers (OR 2.93; 95% CI 1.48–5.81).

A higher odds of reporting workplace changes for response inspections, relative to planned inspections, was only observed for moderate (OR 1.59; 95% CI 1.22–2.07) and major changes (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.21–2.63). The effect of inspections with orders persisted for all forms of changes in how workplace hazards were managed, with highest odds for order follow-ups for minor (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.56–3.86), moderate (OR 4.95; 95% CI 3.20–7.66), and major changes (OR 5.56; 95% CI 3.08–10.05). Respondents having had post-inspection discussions only had higher odds of reporting minor (OR 1.37; 95% CI 1.02–1.82) and moderate changes (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.14–2.05) in workplace hazard management, relative to those who had not had post-inspection

Table 1

Multivariable multinomial regression estimating the likelihood of respondents reporting changes in how hazards were managed at their workplaces as a result of inspections (n =1,578).

Minor changes Moderate changes Major changes

OR 95% CI OR 95% CI OR 95% CI

Officer’s ability to explain ways to manage workplace hazards

Very poor/poor/average (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Good 1.83 (1.01–3.30) 2.13 (1.16–3.91) 1.86 (0.74–4.67)

Very good 2.27 (1.23–4.18) 2.14 (1.14–4.01) 3.20 (1.26–8.13)

Officer’s ability to explain changes required to be compliant with regulation

Good 0.68 (0.37–1.24) 0.97 (0.51–1.84) 0.33 (0.14–0.79)

Very good 0.83 (0.44–1.55) 1.42 (0.73–2.74) 0.63 (0.27–1.49)

Job role

Owner (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Manager 0.89 (0.61–1.31) 0.94 (0.64–1.39) 2.04 (1.04–4.02)

Supervisor 1.36 (0.89–2.10) 1.46 (0.94–2.27) 2.59 (1.23–5.46)

Worker 0.95 (0.63–1.43) 1.22 (0.81–1.82) 2.93 (1.48–5.81)

Inspection type

Planned (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Response 1.00 (0.77–1.31) 1.59 (1.22–2.07) 1.78 (1.21–2.63)

Order type

No orders (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Initiating 1.87 (1.41–2.49) 2.75 (2.06–3.67) 3.16 (2.04–4.90)

Order follow-up 2.45 (1.56–3.86) 4.95 (3.20–7.66) 5.56 (3.08–10.05)

Post-inspection discussion

No (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Yes 1.37 (1.02–1.82) 1.53 (1.14–2.05) 1.35 (0.88–2.08)

Constant 0.36 (0.20–0.67) 0.12 (0.06–0.25) 0.03 (0.01–0.09)

Note: CI =confidence interval; OR =odds ratio.

(6)

discussions.

Sensitivity analyses of respondents in the construction sector show that the rating of how well the officer explained ways to manage hazards was less important than it was in the overall model. Indeed, there were no statistically significant differences in the fully adjusted model (Ap- pendix D). Another notable difference to the main findings was the larger effect size for inspections with orders. For example, the odds of reporting a major change in workplace hazard management was tenfold higher for order follow-ups than no orders, albeit with wide confidence intervals (OR 10.73, 95% CI 2.65–43.52). The most notable difference in results when stratifying the sample by inspections with and without orders was that, the effect size of job role was larger for workplace inspections with orders. Conversely, for inspections without orders, factors such as union status, officer type and survey quarter presented more differences in hazard management changes, however few of the differences were statistically significant in the adjusted model (Appendix H).

4. Discussion

4.1. Summary of key findings

The overall objective of this study was to identify what factors best determined hazard management changes in workplaces following workplace safety inspections in BC, Canada. This was achieved through examining responses to revised and newly introduced questions in the IEI survey conducted on behalf of WorkSafeBC. Of the 1,578 survey respondents, over 90% rated their officer’s ability to explain ways to manage hazards and explain changes required to be complaint with regulation as either good or very good. Over two thirds reported their workplace as having made some form of change in how hazards were managed as a result of having an inspection, with just under a third reporting moderate changes and just under 10% reporting major changes.

An association between job role and the degree of change in workplace hazard management was observed in both the descriptive statistics and regression models. Sectoral differences were observed descriptively, with fewer changes reported for primary resources, transportation and warehousing. However, the role of sector was not considered as important as other characteristics, such as how the respondent rated the officer’s ability to explain things, whether a post-inspection discussion took place, whether the inspection was a response inspection and, most importantly, whether the inspection included orders.

4.2. Comparisons with previous research

Over two thirds of the respondents reported the inspection to result in some level of workplace change, suggesting that inspected workplaces do respond in a meaningful way to inspections. This supports previous research that found that an association between inspections and improved management of health and safety (Weissbrodt et al., 2018).

The fact that just under a third of respondents reported no changes in the present study may be due to a combination of reasons ranging from no changes being identified, to an inability or unwillingness for changes to be made.

An explanation behind job role and different likelihoods of reporting workplace changes could be that those with greater seniority are less exposed to OHS hazards and therefore less aware of workplace changes

that may be reducing them (MacEachen et al., 2016). It may also be that management and owners place an emphasis on costs or other organi- zational considerations in responding to an inspection, in addition to actions that would bring the firm into compliance (Fernandez-Mu´ ˜niz et al., 2009). Previous research has also found that the worker and manager representatives have different experiences of inspections, such as whether they felt the professional competencies of inspectors were positively associated other measures of inspection effectiveness (Nis- kanen et al., 2014).

Sectoral differences in the findings are likely explained by the different nature of work taking place across sectors. For example, it is easier to facilitate workplace changes in sectors where workplaces are in fixed locations, such as manufacturing, compared to dynamic and changing workplaces typically found in the construction sector (Weil, 2001). While previous research has found that planned inspections can be more effective than response inspections in reducing firm-level injury rates (Haviland et al., 2012a), this study found both effective in promoting changes in hazard management, with the latter being more effective. This is intuitive given that response inspections are more likely to identify compliance issues and therefore require changes in hazard management. This demonstrates the importance of prevention officers having a choice of different regulatory mechanisms in which to enforce compliance with regulation (Weissbrodt and Giauque, 2017).

The finding that orders and follow-up orders were more strongly associated with moderate and major changes in workplace hazard management indicates that the formal signal that a firm is not in compliance, and in subsequent follow-up, leads to change. This finding is significant given that previous research in BC found that inspections with orders did not appear to reduce injuries significantly (McLeod, 2019). However, this does support findings outside of BC whereby inspections with citations were shown to be more effective in reducing firm-level injuries than inspections without citations (Foley et al., 2012).

Furthermore, it appears that orders influenced the degree to which other factors were associated with changes in workplace hazard management.

For example, the rating of the officer’s ability to explain ways to manage hazards and explain changes required to be compliant, as well as the effect of job role, was greatest among inspections with orders and smallest among inspections without orders. An interpretation of this is that orders are a key determinant in inducing change and that this is further influenced by the officer’s ability to communicate and other respondent or workplace factors. This finding corresponds with the theory of responsive regulation and how officers must be able to balance approaches of deterrence (e.g., orders) with persuasion (e.g., education) (Braithwaite, 2011).

Survey responses specific to the officer suggest that not only does having an inspection lead to changes in workplace hazard management, and that specific types of inspections are more likely to lead to changes, but that interactions between the officer and workplace parties are just as important too. Respondents who reported having had a post- inspection discussion reported higher likelihoods of having workplace changes. This finding corresponds with previous research on the important role that consultations have during the inspection process. For example, research in the United Kingdom observed that worker OHS representatives rarely had the opportunity to talk to inspectors during workplace visits (Gr¨abe, 1991). Similarly, research among Australian miners and their trade unions identified a problematic lack of contact with inspectors (Gunningham, 2012). While it is possible that

(7)

inspections with orders or response inspections are likely to require more time to explain the results of the inspection and ways to manage hazards than inspections without orders, both characteristics presented independent effects in the regression analysis. Generally speaking, respondents who rated the officer’s ability to explain ways to manage hazards and make changes needed to be compliant with regulation as good or very good were more likely to report changes in hazard management as a result of the inspection.

Effective communication is clearly an important aspect to whether an inspection is effective in determining workplace hazard management changes. Given that research elsewhere has shown that persuasive enforcement approaches can achieve greater levels of compliance with regulation than coercive approaches (Burstyn et al., 2010), a key part of communication between prevention officers and employer and worker representatives is convincing and motivating them to make changes without having to apply more coercive or punitive measures. The findings regarding post-inspection discussions also suggest that officers should make sure there are opportunities to summarize inspection results and discuss changes required in a manner that is less formal than the inspection itself.

5. Strengths and limitations

While there are many studies that have examined the effectiveness of inspections on reducing workplace injuries or achieving compliance (Andersen et al., 2019; Mischke et al., 2013; Tompa et al., 2016, 2007), this is one of the first studies to have examined factors of inspection experiences and how they are associated with changes in workplace hazard management (Weissbrodt et al., 2018). A strength of this study has been the ability to identify whether associations found in descriptive statistics persisted after adjusting for other characteristics in multivariable regression models. In doing so, this study has identified key areas where WorkSafeBC can focus on improving inspection experiences. For example, in terms of the effective communication of the officers as well as focusing in key sectors where fewer hazard management changes have been implemented, such as the primary sector. Furthermore, in validating modified/new survey questions, this study has demonstrated the value of researchers working in partnership with stakeholders to improve data collection and produce findings of relevance to both policy and practice.

The study is not without its limitations. The survey is not considered a true representative sample of all employers and employees of workplaces inspected by WorkSafeBC because it excludes inspections that resulted in penalties, workplaces with fatalities, and applies quotas by individual officers. However, penalties are a rare outcome with Work- SafeBC issuing approximately one per every 100 inspections (Work- SafeBC, 2020b), therefore this exclusion is unlikely to bias the survey sample. Furthermore, the stratified sampling of the survey does provide a proportionate cross-section of inspections across regions, sectors etc., which is a strength given that many studies on inspections effectiveness

focus on manufacturing sectors (Haviland et al., 2012a; Hogg-Johnson et al., 2012). The survey is also self-reported and therefore what is considered a minor, moderate or major change in workplace hazard management may vary significantly by characteristics of the respondents and their workplaces. The responses are also subject to recall bias given there may be a lag of as much as six months between the inspection and survey. If the survey had repeated waves of the same workplaces or individuals, it would offer greater insight into temporality of the impact of inspections on hazard management changes and compliance and whether it truly develops sustained compliance and long-term changes in attitudes and behavior towards safety. However, by linking the self-reported survey data with administrative employer and claim-level workers’ compensation data, future research could evaluate the relationship between the more subjective survey measures of inspections effectiveness (i.e., officer’s ability to explain ways to manage hazards) are with more objective measures of inspections effectiveness such as claim counts and costs.

Overall, the survey showed meaningful results with regards to how the characteristics and experience of workplace inspections in BC were associated with subsequent changes in how workplace hazards were managed. The findings of this study highlight two areas in which WorkSafeBC can focus their efforts to improve the effectiveness of inspections. Firstly, there should be focused efforts in sectors where fewer changes in workplace hazard management were reported. Secondly, there should be a greater emphasis on the communication of officers during the inspection, not only in terms of explaining ways to manage workplace hazards and make changes to be compliant with regulation, but in terms of post-inspection discussions with a wide variety of workplace representatives of different levels of seniority. Lastly, in addition to future research that can overcome some of the limitations previously mentioned, additional waves of the survey can be used to capture a full calendar year to better understand how the timing of the inspection may also lead to different outcomes.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by WorkSafeBC (the workers’ compensation board of British Columbia) through a research contribution agree- ment with the University of British Columbia. All inferences, opinions, and conclusions drawn in this manuscript are those of the authors, and do not reflect the opinions or policies of the Data Steward(s). Christo- pher McLeod is supported, in part, via a Michael Smith Health Research Foundation Scholar Award.

Appendix

Appendix A Cross-tabulation of respondents’ survey response, work, and inspection characteristics with level of change in how hazards were managed at workplaces as a result of an inspection

(8)

No changes (n =

467) Minor changes (n =

458) Moderate changes (n

=505) Major changes (n =

148) Total (n =

1,578) P-

value

Total 29.6 29.0 32.0 9.4 1,578

Officer’s ability to explain ways to manage

workplace hazards 0.00

Very poor/poor/average 44.4 25.6 21.8 8.3 133

Good 33.3 27.6 32.7 6.3 510

Very good 25.5 30.3 33.0 11.2 935

Officer’s ability to explain ways to be compliant

with regulation 0.00

Very poor/poor/average 37.1 29.0 21.8 12.1 124

Good 36.0 28.1 30.1 5.8 481

Very good 25.5 29.5 34.2 10.8 973

Job role 0.07

Owner 31.2 31.6 32.3 4.9 263

Manager 31.9 28.1 30.2 9.8 540

Supervisor 27.0 32.0 32.6 8.4 322

Worker 27.8 26.5 33.6 12.1 453

Sector 0.23

Primary resources 36.4 27.3 30.3 6.1 99

Manufacturing 24.6 29.8 34.5 11.1 252

Construction 32.0 30.6 28.2 9.2 628

Transportation and warehousing 32.6 26.1 37.0 4.3 46

Trade 20.0 30.0 39.3 10.7 150

Public sector 31.8 27.3 29.5 11.4 44

Service sector 30.4 26.5 34.0 9.2 359

Union status 0.28

Non-unionized 29.3 29.5 31.7 9.4 1,494

Unionized 34.5 20.2 36.9 8.3 84

Inspection type 0.00

Planned 32.0 31.4 28.6 7.9 843

Response 26.8 26.3 35.9 11.0 735

Officer type 0.24

Occupational safety officer 29.6 30.5 31.1 8.8 1,184

Occupational hygiene officer 30.0 24.4 34.3 11.3 373

Senior regional officer 19.0 28.6 42.9 9.5 21

Order type 0.00

No orders 41.1 29.0 23.7 6.3 655

Initiating order 23.4 29.8 36.0 10.9 689

Order follow-up 15.8 26.9 43.6 13.7 234

Post-inspection discussion 0.00

No 37.3 27.3 26.9 8.5 480

Yes 26.2 29.8 34.2 9.7 1,098

Survey quarter 0.39

2018 Q4 32.0 26.9 32.8 8.2 631

2019 Q1 27.1 30.2 31.6 11.1 414

2019 Q2 28.7 30.6 31.3 9.4 533

Note: Row percentages shown.

Appendix B Unadjusted multinomial logistic regression estimating the likelihood of respondents reporting changes in how hazards were managed in their workplaces as a result of inspections (n =1,578)

Good 1.44 (0.89–2.32) 2.00 (1.22–3.27) 1.01 (0.48–2.13)

Very good 2.06 (1.31–3.26) 2.64 (1.64–4.25) 2.37 (1.19–4.69)

Constant 0.98 (0.86–1.12) 1.08 (0.95–1.23) 0.32 (0.26–0.38)

Good 1.00 (0.61–1.63) 1.43 (0.85–2.41) 0.50 (0.24–1.01)

Very good 1.48 (0.93–2.36) 2.29 (1.38–3.78) 1.30 (0.69–2.43)

Constant 0.58 (0.38–0.88) 0.49 (0.32–0.77) 0.19 (0.10–0.35)

Job role

Owner (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Manager 0.87 (0.60–1.27) 0.91 (0.63–1.33) 1.94 (1.00–3.76)

Supervisor 1.17 (0.77–1.78) 1.16 (0.77–1.76) 1.96 (0.95–4.05)

Worker 0.94 (0.63–1.40) 1.16 (0.79–1.71) 2.75 (1.42–5.36)

Constant 0.78 (0.51–1.21) 0.59 (0.36–0.94) 0.33 (0.18–0.58)

Sector

(9)

(continued)

71 - Manufacturing 0.81 (0.46–1.43) 0.71 (0.41–1.23) 0.85 (0.40–1.80)

72 - Construction 0.64 (0.39–1.05) 0.45 (0.28–0.73) 0.54 (0.28–1.06)

73 - Transportation and warehousing 0.53 (0.22–1.30) 0.58 (0.25–1.31) 0.25 (0.05–1.23)

74 - Trade (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

75 - Public sector 0.57 (0.23–1.40) 0.47 (0.20–1.13) 0.67 (0.20–2.20)

76 - Service sector 0.58 (0.34–0.99) 0.57 (0.34–0.95) 0.57 (0.28–1.17)

Constant 1.50 (0.95–2.38) 1.97 (1.27–3.05) 0.53 (0.29–0.98)

Union status

Non-unionized (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Unionized 0.58 (0.32–1.07) 0.99 (0.59–1.67) 0.75 (0.32–1.75)

Constant 1.01 (0.88–1.15) 1.08 (0.95–1.23) 0.32 (0.27–0.39)

Inspection type

Planned (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Response 1.00 (0.77–1.30) 1.50 (1.17–1.93) 1.66 (1.14–2.40)

Constant 0.98 (0.83–1.16) 0.89 (0.75–1.06) 0.25 (0.19–0.32)

Officer type

Occupational safety officer (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Occupational hygiene officer 0.79 (0.58–1.08) 1.09 (0.81–1.46) 1.27 (0.83–1.92)

Senior regional officer 1.46 (0.41–5.21) 2.15 (0.65–7.03) 1.69 (0.30–9.34)

Constant 1.03 (0.89–1.19) 1.05 (0.91–1.21) 0.30 (0.24–0.37)

Order type

No orders (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Initiating order 1.80 (1.37–2.38) 2.67 (2.02–3.54) 3.06 (1.99–4.69)

Order follow-up 2.41 (1.54–3.77) 4.78 (3.13–7.32) 5.67 (3.19–10.09)

Constant 0.71 (0.59–0.85) 0.58 (0.47–0.70) 0.15 (0.11–0.21)

No (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Yes 1.55 (1.18–2.04) 1.81 (1.38–2.38) 1.62 (1.08–2.43)

Constant 0.98 (0.86–1.12) 1.08 (0.95–1.23) 0.32 (0.26–0.38)

Survey quarter

2018 Q4 (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

2019 Q1 1.33 (0.96–1.84) 1.14 (0.83–1.57) 1.60 (1.01–2.52)

2019 Q2 1.27 (0.94–1.71) 1.07 (0.79–1.43) 1.27 (0.82–1.97)

Constant 0.84 (0.69–1.03) 1.02 (0.84–1.24) 0.26 (0.19–0.35)

Note: CI =confidence interval; OR =odds ratio.

Appendix C Unadjusted multinomial logistic regressions estimating the likelihood of respondents reporting changes in how hazards were managed at their workplaces as a result of inspections in the construction sector (n =628)

Good 1.43 (0.64–3.22) 1.62 (0.73–3.64) 0.49 (0.16–1.48)

Very good 2.09 (0.96–4.57) 1.70 (0.77–3.72) 1.29 (0.48–3.44)

Constant 0.55 (0.26–1.15) 0.55 (0.26–1.15) 0.30 (0.12–0.75)

Good 1.12 (0.51–2.44) 1.07 (0.46–2.52) 0.63 (0.18–2.21)

Very good 1.67 (0.79–3.54) 2.22 (0.99–4.99) 1.97 (0.63–6.13)

Constant 0.68 (0.34–1.39) 0.53 (0.24–1.13) 0.21 (0.07–0.62)

Job role

Owner (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Manager 0.54 (0.31–0.94) 0.41 (0.23–0.74) 1.30 (0.47–3.63)

Supervisor 0.99 (0.56–1.77) 0.94 (0.52–1.70) 2.11 (0.74–6.05)

Worker 0.50 (0.27–0.92) 0.61 (0.34–1.12) 3.03 (1.12–8.20)

Constant 1.34 (0.88–2.04) 1.29 (0.84–1.97) 0.16 (0.07–0.37)

Subsector

7210 - General construction (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

7220 - Heavy construction 2.11 (0.19–23.47) 2.27 (0.20–25.28) 3.43 (0.21–55.69)

7230 - Road construction or maintenance 1.05 (0.39–2.87) 0.85 (0.29–2.51) 0.43 (0.05–3.50)

Constant 0.95 (0.77–1.16) 0.88 (0.72–1.08) 0.29 (0.22–0.39)

Subsector

General construction (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Heavy construction 1.17 (0.47–2.95) 1.01 (0.38–2.68) 0.76 (0.16–3.63)

Constant 0.95 (0.77–1.16) 0.88 (0.72–1.08) 0.29 (0.22–0.39)

(10)

(continued)

Inspection type

Planned (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Response 1.08 (0.73–1.62) 1.91 (1.27–2.87) 2.97 (1.59–5.54)

Constant 0.92 (0.71–1.20) 0.63 (0.47–0.85) 0.16 (0.10–0.26)

Officer type

Occupational safety officer (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Occupational hygiene officer 0.69 (0.39–1.19) 1.01 (0.60–1.71) 0.84 (0.38–1.86)

Senior regional officer 0.99 (0.06–15.93) 1.14 (0.07–18.37) 0.00 (0.00-.)

Constant 1.01 (0.82–1.26) 0.88 (0.70–1.10) 0.30 (0.22–0.41)

Order type

No orders (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Order follow-up 3.76 (1.18–12.01) 6.81 (2.22–20.94) 9.97 (2.59–38.46)

Constant 0.80 (0.62–1.19) 0.62 (0.47–0.82) 0.15 (0.09–0.24)

No (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Yes 1.19 (0.79–1.79) 1.88 (1.20–2.93) 2.15 (1.09–4.24)

Constant 0.86 (0.62–1.19) 0.57 (0.39–0.83) 0.17 (0.09–0.30)

Survey quarter

2018 Q4 (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

2019 Q1 1.26 (0.76–2.11) 0.96 (0.58–1.61) 2.00 (0.99–4.07)

2019 Q2 1.34 (0.85–2.12) 0.81 (0.51–1.30) 1.06 (0.51–2.20)

Constant 0.81 (0.59–1.11) 0.95 (0.70–1.30) 0.23 (0.14–0.38)

Note: CI =confidence interval; OR =odds ratio.

Appendix D Adjusted multinomial logistic regression estimating the likelihood of respondents reporting changers in how hazards were managed at their workplaces as a result of an inspection in the construction sector (n =628)

Good 1.68 (0.64–4.45) 1.49 (0.54–4.11) 0.43 (0.10–1.79)

Very good 2.17 (0.79–5.97) 0.79 (0.28–2.27) 0.59 (0.15–2.38)

Good 0.86 (0.33–2.19) 0.75 (0.27–2.13) 0.74 (0.15–3.59)

Very good 1.06 (0.40–2.78) 2.37 (0.83–6.80) 2.69 (0.58–12.61)

Job role

Owner (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Manager 0.56 (0.32–0.98) 0.42 (0.23–0.77) 1.36 (0.47–3.93)

Supervisor 1.13 (0.62–2.06) 1.21 (0.65–2.26) 3.13 (1.04–9.37)

Worker 0.56 (0.30–1.05) 0.85 (0.45–1.61) 5.58 (1.95–15.95)

Inspection type

Planned (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Response 1.06 (0.70–1.60) 2.10 (1.36–3.26) 3.45 (1.77–6.73)

Order type

No orders (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Order follow-up 3.63 (1.13–11.69) 6.46 (2.05–20.34) 10.73 (2.65–43.52)

No (ref) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00) 1.00 (1.00–1.00)

Yes 1.03 (0.66–1.60) 1.79 (1.10–2.91) 1.84 (0.88–3.87)

Constant 0.55 (0.21–1.42) 0.24 (0.08–0.66) 0.02 (0.00–0.11)

Note: CI =confidence interval; OR =odds ratio.

Appendix E Unadjusted multinomial logistic regressions estimating the likelihood of respondents reporting changes in how hazards were managed at their workplaces as a result of inspections with orders (n =923)

Good 1.75 (0.95–3.24) 2.79 (1.51–5.16) 1.62 (0.66–3.97)

Very good 2.47 (1.39–4.40) 3.47 (1.94–6.23) 3.35 (1.47–7.64)