IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jrpoli/v77y2022ics0301420722002227.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An integrated 4Cs safety framework for the diamond industry of Southern Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Govender, Urishanie
  • van Eck, Gary
  • Genc, Bekir

Abstract

The integrated safety framework offers the diamond industry a novel and innovative approach to pioneer safety maturity that embraces four Cs viz. Culture; Competence; Cultivate and Connectedness. This integrated 4Cs approach brings new knowledge around these linkages to drive a maturity journey to inherent and thereby improve safety. The approach differs from previous work as it focuses beyond cultural maturity and embraces proactive hazard identification, systemic analysis and managing leading metrics based on people being the strongest link. Previous approaches generally focussed on culture, reactive accidents and incident investigations and lagging human factors analysis. This Integrated 4Cs Safety Framework was fully introduced in January 2021, amid the COVID 19 pandemic, starting with the onboarding of the leadership and the development of integrated work programmes. There was a high focus on including 100% of the frontline personnel. The scope of the work was nine active diamond mines in Southern Africa in three countries viz. South Africa, Botswana and Namibia. This work brings new knowledge, based on recent developments and industry applications. Five months of data related to identified leading and lagging metrics was collated and trended in 2021. The current performance was compared to the previous period. The safety maturity showed evidence of improvement, including improved competency to identify hazards and respond to risks. Lagging indicators also showed improvements as risks were better understood and more in control. The analysis of High Potential Hazards, a leading indicator, revealed a four-fold improvement in reporting. The results indicated that focussing on the 4Cs of the Integrated Safety Framework does shift the organisation towards brilliant safety performance. A similar approach can be taken by other mines. Further research is underway as new insights are discovered.

Suggested Citation

  • Govender, Urishanie & van Eck, Gary & Genc, Bekir, 2022. "An integrated 4Cs safety framework for the diamond industry of Southern Africa," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:77:y:2022:i:c:s0301420722002227
    DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102774
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301420722002227
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.resourpol.2022.102774?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hood, Christopher & Rothstein, Henry & Baldwin, Robert, 2004. "The Government of Risk: Understanding Risk Regulation Regimes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199270019, Decembrie.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Coetzee, Elonya & Govender, Urishanie & Ndeunyema, Pombili & Genc, Bekir & Maré, Yuzanne & Roux, Johann & Nel, Jan & van Eck, Gary, 2023. "An integrated safety framework for the diamond mines: A case study from Namibia," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Julien Etienne, 2015. "Different ways of blowing the whistle: Explaining variations in decentralized enforcement in the UK and France," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 9(4), pages 309-324, December.
    2. Jeroen van der Heijden & Jitske de Jong, 2009. "Towards a Better Understanding of Building Regulation," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 36(6), pages 1038-1052, December.
    3. Anaïs Valiquette L’Heureux, 2022. "The Case Study of Los Angeles City & County Fraud, Embezzlement and Corruption Safeguards during times of pandemic," Public Organization Review, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 593-610, September.
    4. Julia Black & Robert Baldwin, 2012. "When risk‐based regulation aims low: Approaches and challenges," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 2-22, March.
    5. Mathias Ericson, 2018. "“Sweden Has Been Naïve”: Nationalism, Protectionism and Securitisation in Response to the Refugee Crisis of 2015," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 6(4), pages 95-102.
    6. Rudolf URBAN, & Roman URBAN, & Lukáš ŠTĚPà NEK, 2016. "A New Approach To Risk Assessment Based On The Semantic Value Of Expressions," EcoForum, "Stefan cel Mare" University of Suceava, Romania, Faculty of Economics and Public Administration - Economy, Business Administration and Tourism Department., vol. 5(1), pages 1-30, January.
    7. Peter Taylor-Gooby, 2008. "Sociological approaches to risk: strong in analysis but weak in policy influence in recent UK developments," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(7), pages 863-876, October.
    8. Jamie K. Wardman, 2008. "The Constitution of Risk Communication in Advanced Liberal Societies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(6), pages 1619-1637, December.
    9. David Demeritt & Henry Rothstein & Anne-Laure Beaussier & Michael Howard, 2015. "Mobilizing Risk: Explaining Policy Transfer in Food and Occupational Safety Regulation in the UK," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 47(2), pages 373-391, February.
    10. Sander C. S. Clahsen & Irene van Kamp & Betty C. Hakkert & Theo G. Vermeire & Aldert H. Piersma & Erik Lebret, 2019. "Why Do Countries Regulate Environmental Health Risks Differently? A Theoretical Perspective," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(2), pages 439-461, February.
    11. Andreas Klinke & Ortwin Renn, 2021. "The Coming of Age of Risk Governance," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(3), pages 544-557, March.
    12. Jerry Busby & Melissa Sedmak, 2011. "Practices and problems in the management of risk redistributions," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 259-279, February.
    13. Eyert, Florian & Irgmaier, Florian & Ulbricht, Lena, 2022. "Extending the framework of algorithmic regulation. The Uber case," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 16(1), pages 23-44.
    14. Karen Yeung, 2018. "Algorithmic regulation: A critical interrogation," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 12(4), pages 505-523, December.
    15. Manuela Moschella & Eleni Tsingou, 2013. "Regulating finance after the crisis: Unveiling the different dynamics of the regulatory process," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 7(4), pages 407-416, December.
    16. Dibb, Sally & Ball, Kirstie & Canhoto, Ana & Daniel, Elizabeth M. & Meadows, Maureen & Spiller, Keith, 2014. "Taking responsibility for border security: Commercial interests in the face of e-borders," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 50-61.
    17. Bogna Janik & Katarzyna Maruszewska, 2020. "Valuation of the Environmental Effects of Socially Responsible Investments in Europe," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Hiriart, Yolande & Martimort, David & Pouyet, Jerome, 2010. "The public management of risk: Separating ex ante and ex post monitors," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(11-12), pages 1008-1019, December.
    19. Elizabeth Fisher, 2008. "The 'perfect storm' of REACH: charting regulatory controversy in the age of information, sustainable development, and globalization," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(4), pages 541-563, June.
    20. Lennart Sjöberg & Britt-Marie Drottz-Sjöberg, 2008. "Risk Perception by Politicians and the Public," Energy & Environment, , vol. 19(3-4), pages 455-483, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jrpoli:v:77:y:2022:i:c:s0301420722002227. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/30467 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.