Dr. Valéry Karl Wöll
In order to explain the causes of occupational accidents, the model of the interaction of causes and hazardous conditions is chosen in parts of the literature. The directly acting factors are counted as causes, while the hazardous conditions enable the causes to act in the first place (Bördlein, 2015). Accordingly, in the case of an occupational accident involving electricity, the defective power cable on the equipment would be the dangerous condition, while the worker's touching of the cable would be the cause. Other publications (BG ETEM, 2020) choose terms such as hazard and hazard source, according to which a hazard is a spatio-temporal encounter of people with a hazard source (as a synonym for hazardous condition). Hazard factors are then listed by way of example as possible sources of danger. The different hazard factors are published in various publications as a non-exhaustive list (BG ETEM, 2020) and are intended to serve experts in the detection of possible sources of danger. There is no generally valid definition of the different terms. For example, in currently valid standards the hazard factors are referred to as hazards (DIN Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V., 2010), or in other legally binding documents they are referred to as stress factors (Ausschuss für Betriebssicherheit, 2018). Other literature also cites "favourable conditions” (Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, 2013), which are added as a further factor in the cause of accidents. This then refers to factors that are not necessarily foreseeable, such as excessive fatigue of an insured person at the time of the event. A reduced ability to react due to alcohol or drug consumption could also be described as such a favourable condition.
Figure 3 – The origin of occupational accidents
The flow chart is shown in Figure 3 shows the occurrence of a health damage. The theory here is that a hazard exists due to a cause, is amplified by additional hazardous conditions and coincides with the human and his extra-occupational influences, which then leads to a danger with a health or accident risk. Favourable conditions can increase the possibility of the harm occurring and damage to health or an accident occurs.
Nowadays, only human error is cited in the literature as the main cause, in the sense of a directly acting factor for occupational accidents. According to a meta-analysis by Bördlein (Bördlein, 2015), the proportion of human error as the main cause of an occupational accident is 76% to 96%. However, the cited studies also did not use standardised categories, so that a uniform assessment cannot be assumed. In a study by the Federal Ministry of Transport, for example, three different categories were used to assess the causes of road accidents. Here, a distinction was made between "human error", "general causes of accidents" (road conditions, weather conditions, obstacles, wildlife accidents) and "technical defects" (Bundesministerium für Digitales und Verkehr, 2022). The study found that 90.7% of all road accidents in the Federal Republic of Germany were due to human error. An investigation of fatal occupational accidents from the years 1990-1995 in Berlin shows that in approx. 44.8% of all cases, occupational safety regulations were also obviously violated (Schieche et al., 2000).
However, the report on occupational accidents by the DGUV (Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung, 2019b) never refers to "human error" or behavior in general as the cause of occupational accidents. Causes given here are, for example, "fall accident" or "trip and fall accident". The accident report forms of the employers' liability insurance associations do not provide for accident cause categories either. Here, rather, different types of accidents are differentiated as causes and named as "causes" of the accidents. Fahlbruch and Mayer (2013) distinguish between the categories "technology", "organisation" and "person/behavior" in their guide to investigating occupational accidents. Paffrath and Manfred (2005) also distinguish between the categories of technical (22%), organisational (33%) and personal (45%) causes of accidents.
Organisational failure is also ultimately the misconduct of individual persons in their function, so that 78% human misconduct can also be inferred here. In its official investigation report on fatal occupational accidents, the BAUA (Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin, 2019) distinguishes between the four categories of technology, organisation, personnel and other and thus categorises them similarly to Fahlbruch and Mayer (2013). External environmental influences such as weather conditions are named under "other”. In the investigation reports, up to three interacting different causes for an accident can be defined.
The so-called T-O-P principle can be described as a defined model for categorising occupational accident causes (BG Verkehr, 2019). In the T-O-P principle, technology, organisation, and person are distinguished as causes of accidents and the category other is eliminated as negligible. The T-O-P principle can thus be described as an available standard in occupational safety for defining the causes of occupational accidents. However this standard is not used by all actors, it is used by approx. 76% of the companies in Germany (Wöll; Sulíková, 2022a). In conclusion, it can be stated that all the texts examined define human error as the main cause of occupational accidents.
This article is part of a Dissertation Thesis
DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.16114.11209
