IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i2p470-d475839.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk-Based Thinking as a Basis for Efficient Occupational Safety Management in the Mining Industry

Author

Listed:
  • Marat Rudakov

    (Department of Industrial Safety, Saint Petersburg Mining University, 199106 Saint Petersburg, Russia)

  • Elena Gridina

    (Department of Industrial Safety, Saint Petersburg Mining University, 199106 Saint Petersburg, Russia)

  • Jürgen Kretschmann

    (Technische Hochschule Georg Agricola University, 44787 Bochum, Germany)

Abstract

This article deals with the role and the place of risk-based thinking in today’s occupational safety and health (OSH) systems used by mining companies. A brief survey on modern challenges and pressures affecting companies, as well as on the structure of supply chains, is given. It is demonstrated that, despite all measures and actions that are being taken, occupational injuries in the mining sector: (a) remain a matter of serious concern and (b) should be examined and investigated through the lens of the company’s complexity. The objective of the article is two-fold: to trace the evolution of risk-based thinking from quality management systems towards OSH management systems and to demonstrate how this approach can be implemented by a company performing open-pit mining operations. The matrix method along with the Fine and Kinney’s method was used in assessing OSH risks, and the checklist method along with a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT)analysis was used while assessing OSH opportunities. The results of the study make it possible to conclude that risk-based thinking incorporated into an OSH management system can be a robust and efficient instrument for OSH planning and implementation. This article contains an example of assessing OSH risks and opportunities for a dragline operator and also discusses the possible ways of using the data on the OSH risks and opportunities that were identified in OSH activities. The final part also contains comments and reflections on various risks mining companies are facing nowadays.

Suggested Citation

  • Marat Rudakov & Elena Gridina & Jürgen Kretschmann, 2021. "Risk-Based Thinking as a Basis for Efficient Occupational Safety Management in the Mining Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-14, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:470-:d:475839
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/470/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/2/470/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mats Alvesson & André Spicer, 2012. "A Stupidity-Based Theory of Organizations," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(7), pages 1194-1220, November.
    2. Julia Keenan & Deanna Kemp & John Owen, 2019. "Corporate responsibility and the social risk of new mining technologies," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 26(4), pages 752-760, July.
    3. Zio, Enrico, 2016. "Challenges in the vulnerability and risk analysis of critical infrastructures," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 137-150.
    4. Gilberto Montibeller & Detlof von Winterfeldt, 2015. "Cognitive and Motivational Biases in Decision and Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(7), pages 1230-1251, July.
    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. Tatyana Ponomarenko & Oksana Marinina & Marina Nevskaya & Kristina Kuryakova, 2021. "Developing Corporate Sustainability Assessment Methods for Oil and Gas Companies," Economies, MDPI, vol. 9(2), pages 1-21, April.
    2. Agnieszka Piotrowska-Kirschling & Katarzyna Szelągowska-Rudzka & Jakub Karczewski & Joanna Brzeska, 2021. "Application of Shrimp Waste for the Synthesis of Polyurethane–Chitosan Materials with Potential Use in Sorption of Oil Micro-Spills in Water Treatment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
    3. Alena Kuricová & Mária Hudáková & Samuel Kočkár & Katarína Hollá, 2025. "An Innovative Approach to Occupational Risk Assessment in OHS: A Case Study on the Verification of the ALrisk Model in Manufacturing Enterprises in Slovakia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 22(5), pages 1-26, May.

    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. F. Brocal & C. González & D. Komljenovic & P. F. Katina & Miguel A. Sebastián, 2019. "Emerging Risk Management in Industry 4.0: An Approach to Improve Organizational and Human Performance in the Complex Systems," Complexity, Hindawi, vol. 2019, pages 1-13, June.
    2. Feng, Jian Rui & Zhao, Meng-ke & Lu, Shou-xiang, 2024. "Accident spread and risk propagation mechanism in complex industrial system network," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 244(C).
    3. Thomas, Rhodri & Wood, Emma, 2015. "The absorptive capacity of tourism organisations," Annals of Tourism Research, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 84-99.
    4. Shuang Liu & Kirsten Maclean & Cathy Robinson, 2019. "A cost-effective framework to prioritise stakeholder participation options," EURO Journal on Decision Processes, Springer;EURO - The Association of European Operational Research Societies, vol. 7(3), pages 221-241, November.
    5. Tang, Daogui & Fang, Yi-Ping & Zio, Enrico, 2023. "Vulnerability analysis of demand-response with renewable energy integration in smart grids to cyber attacks and online detection methods," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 235(C).
    6. Santana, Monica & Cobo, Manuel J., 2020. "What is the future of work? A science mapping analysis," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 38(6), pages 846-862.
    7. Kristof Van Assche & Raoul Beunen & Stefan Verweij, 2020. "Learning from Other Places and Their Plans: Comparative Learning in and for Planning Systems," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 5(1), pages 1-5.
    8. Federico Antonello & Piero Baraldi & Enrico Zio & Luigi Serio, 2022. "A Novel Metric to Evaluate the Association Rules for Identification of Functional Dependencies in Complex Technical Infrastructures," Environment Systems and Decisions, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 436-449, September.
    9. Zhaoming Yang & Qi Xiang & Yuxuan He & Shiliang Peng & Michael Havbro Faber & Enrico Zio & Lili Zuo & Huai Su & Jinjun Zhang, 2023. "Resilience of Natural Gas Pipeline System: A Review and Outlook," Energies, MDPI, vol. 16(17), pages 1-19, August.
    10. Glory Esohe Okpiaifo & Bertille Dormoy-Smith & Bachir Kassas & Zhifeng Gao, 2023. "Perception and demand for healthy snacks/beverages among US consumers vary by product, health benefit, and color," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(6), pages 1-23, June.
    11. Luciano Cavalcante Siebert & Alexandre Rasi Aoki & Germano Lambert-Torres & Nelson Lambert-de-Andrade & Nikolaos G. Paterakis, 2020. "An Agent-Based Approach for the Planning of Distribution Grids as a Socio-Technical System," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(18), pages 1-13, September.
    12. Jin Tian & Yundou Wang & Shutian Gao, 2022. "Analysis of Mining-Related Injuries in Chinese Coal Mines and Related Risk Factors: A Statistical Research Study Based on a Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-16, December.
    13. Peter M. Bednar & Christine Welch, 0. "Socio-Technical Perspectives on Smart Working: Creating Meaningful and Sustainable Systems," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-18.
    14. Dimitrios Gouglas & Kendall Hoyt & Elizabeth Peacocke & Aristidis Kaloudis & Trygve Ottersen & John-Arne Røttingen, 2019. "Setting Strategic Objectives for the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations: An Exploratory Decision Analysis Process," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 49(6), pages 430-446, November.
    15. Zio, E., 2018. "The future of risk assessment," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 176-190.
    16. repec:hal:journl:hal-04699553 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Dubaniowski, Mateusz Iwo & Heinimann, Hans Rudolf, 2021. "Framework for modeling interdependencies between households, businesses, and infrastructure system, and their response to disruptions—application," Reliability Engineering and System Safety, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    18. David W. Shanafelt & Brian Danle & Jesse Caputo & Marielle Brunette, 2024. "More forest more problems? Understanding family forest owners’ concerns in the United States," Working Papers of BETA 2024-32, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Mohamed Gaha & Bilal Chabane & Dragan Komljenovic & Alain Côté & Claude Hébert & Olivier Blancke & Atieh Delavari & Georges Abdul-Nour, 2021. "Global Methodology for Electrical Utilities Maintenance Assessment Based on Risk-Informed Decision Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(16), pages 1-23, August.
    20. Daoust, Laurence, 2020. "Playing the Big Four recruitment game: The tension between illusio and reflexivity," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    21. Senderov, Sergey M. & Smirnova, Elena M. & Vorobev, Sergey V., 2020. "Analysis of vulnerability of fuel supply systems in gas-consuming regions due to failure of critical gas industry facilities," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:2:p:470-:d:475839. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.