Organizational Safety Culture and Sustainability Ildikó Kertai-Kiss Abstract Sustainabilityandsecurityarenotionsthatareinseparablefromeachother.Asa result of cultural changes generated by technological advancement, analogous processes appear at societal, organizational, and individual levels. The new risk factorsareglobalandunpredictableandcanbeforecastonly toalimitedextent and change quickly and constantly. In this context, the extent and number of uncertainties are on the increase. Organizational cultures, rooted in societal culture, are playing an increasingly important role in sustainable development. Atthesametime,securityisapivotalissueformoderncompanies.Itisconsid- ered to be a focal issue, albeit with different approaches on different organiza- tionallevels.Organizationalprocesses,however,arepeopledriven;thereforethe humanfactorhasacrucialroleintheinterdisciplinaryresearchofsafetyscience. Thesafety-focusedapproachinorganizationalbehaviorandtheenhancementof safety awareness have become indispensable. Sustainable development is not plausiblewithoutasafetyconsciousbehavior. Keywords Global risk (cid:129) Socio-technical system (cid:129) Human error (cid:129) CSR (cid:129) Organizational behavior Contents Introduction:TheTopicalityandImportanceoftheSafetyScienceApproach.................. 2 TheKeyConceptsofSafetyandSecurity:RiskandUncertainty................................ 3 OrganizationalandGlobalSustainability.......................................................... 5 GlobalRisksVersusSafetyandSustainability................................................ 6 I.Kertai-Kiss(*) DepartmentofBusinessandManagement,ÓbudaUniversity,DoctoralSchoolonSafetyand SecuritySciences,Budapest,Hungary e-mail:[email protected] #SpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd.2017 1 M.Yülek(ed.),IndustrialPolicyandSustainableGrowth, SustainableDevelopment,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-3964-5_2-1 2 I.Kertai-Kiss InternationalDocumentsandOrganizationalSafety......................................... 7 ProtectiveTools:Standards,SpecializedSystems,andDirectives.......................... 8 DifferentApproachestoOrganizationalSafetyandSecurityCulture,BasedontheInternational AcademicLiterature.............................................................................. 10 TheDefinitionandCharacteristicsoftheOrganizationalSafetyCulture................... 11 TheRelationshipBetweenProduction,Quality,andSafety................................. 13 SafetyandDigitalTechnology................................................................ 14 SustainableOrganizationalStrategiesandSafety................................................ 15 NewRisk-ResilienceStrategies............................................................... 16 KnowledgeManagementStrategiesandSafety.............................................. 16 AFitBetweenCulturesandSafety.............................................................. 19 SafetyCultureinLightofSustainabilityandCSRReports..................................... 20 Conclusions....................................................................................... 21 References........................................................................................ 23 Introduction:TheTopicalityandImportanceoftheSafetyScience Approach Placingtheaspectsofsafetyandsecurityintothecontextofthedigitaleraisoneof the most topical research areas at the moment. The social, economic, and techno- logicalchanges ofourtime notonly affectbutalsocontinuouslyshape thecharac- teristics of human thinking and behavior (Adler 1986). Due to the various threats, crisis situations, and unprecedented complex risks and events, safety awareness is becomingincreasingly important on theglobal, social, organizational, andindivid- uallevelsalike. Regarding the concept of safety and security culture, the responsibility of orga- nizations is particularly great, because they have an impact on all the aspects of sustainable development, including social processes and environmental protection. The safe operation of companies is closely related to our quality of life, the sustainable utilization of natural resources, and the protection of the environment. This,however,requiresorganizationswhichconsidersafetyasapriorityandavalue. Thecomplexapproachtoorganizationalsafetyandsecuritycultureincludessuch attributesasreporting,just,flexible,andlearningcultures(Reason1994).Acrucial aspect in the analysis of a company’s safety and security culture is whether the organizational culture is embedded in the national (societal) culture and whether it can be regarded as a subculture within the organizational structure, where the employeeshaveahighlevelofsafetyawareness(Vasvári2009).Theinterdisciplin- arynatureoftheareaunderreviewalsoincludesthestudyoftheinteractionbetween humans and theworking environment, as well asthe interconnections between the scienceofergonomics(IzsóandAntalovits2000)andorganizationalbehavior. Not all organizations do the maximum within these areas, although companies can do a lot not only for their own safety but also for global security, which encompassessustainability.Someofthereasonsforthisareasfollows:nosystem- aticapproachtosafetymanagement;noopportunityisprovidedtolearnfromsafety incidents and identify safety measures; organizations tend to invest in production OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 3 processes,ratherthanineffectivesafetycontrols;tendencytothinkintheshortterm, which means that some companies prefer to pay a fine rather than consider the implementationofaproactivepreventionsystem;etc. Thischapterdiscussesthekeyorganizationalandsustainability-relatedaspectsof thesafetyscienceapproachandhighlightstheinterconnectionswhichcaninfluence thelinksbetweenthesafetyandsecuritycultureandsustainability. The study is structured along three main concepts. The first part (sections “The Key Concepts of Safety and Security: Risk and Uncertainty” and “Organizational andGlobalSustainability”)discussesthefundamentalconceptsofthedisciplineand the risk factors of global sustainability. It also points out that specialized safety systems, international standards, quality assurance systems, and directives are not enoughontheirownifthereisnoinclusiveorganizationalculturetosupportthem. Inotherwords,themainobstacletotheeffectiveimplementationofcorporatesafety policy is the company’s corporate culture itself (norms, values, beliefs, etc.). The next part (sections “Different Approaches to Organizational Safety and Security Culture, Based on the International Academic Literature,” “Sustainable Organiza- tionalStrategiesandSafety”and“AFitBetweenCulturesandSafety”)presentsthe latest aspects of the organizational safety and security culture: the dilemmas of digitaltechnology,organizationallearning,risk-resilientstrategies,aswellassafety expendituresandinvestments.Finallythethirdpart(section“SafetyCultureinLight of Sustainability and CSR Reports”) analyzes the increased responsibility of orga- nizationstowardsustainability.Oneofthemostpressingissuesinthisrespectisto examine the ways the safe operation of high-risk socio-technical systems and companiesusinghazardoustechnologies(powerplants,oilrefineries,criticalinfra- structures)cancontributetoglobalsustainability. The Key Concepts of Safety and Security: Risk and Uncertainty Themostimportantelementsofestablishingasafetyandsecuritycultureincludethe identification and analysis of the hazards and vulnerabilities, the definition of the safetysystems,andthecontinuousdevelopmentofsafetyconsciousbehaviors.Risk management and decision-making processes are always accompanied by uncer- tainties which need to be considered consistently (Krómer 2011). The conceptual frameworkofriskanduncertaintyisdescribedinthefollowingTable1. Afundamentaldilemmaofdecision-makingonsocietalandorganizationallevel ishowtoadjustthecostsofrisk-mitigatingearlywarningsorpreventiontothecosts of potential damage control. Decision makers are often reluctant to accept that the costs of prevention are demonstrably and substantially smaller than the costs of damagecontrol. During risk management decision makers do not know which of the probable events might happen, but they know the probability of it happening. Uncertainties are the consequences of risk-mitigating decisions, and their management may generate additional strategic measures. This way the quality and the level of 4 I.Kertai-Kiss Table1 Theconceptualframeworkofriskanduncertainty(ownedition,basedonPokrádi2008; Krómer2011) Risk Uncertainty Knight(1921) Quantifiable(quantitativemeasure), Notquantifiable,canbegeneratedby thepossibleoutcomesandtheir data,models,statistics,etc.,the probabilitydistributioncanbe probabilitydistributionofthe predicted;thereforeitcanbe outcomesisnotknown;thereforeit prevented cannotbeprevented Current Possibleoutcomesmayinclude Complex,withdifferentsources, interpretation losses,damages,orotherhazards thereforeitsimpacthastobeanalyzed anduse ineveryphase Scientific Thecombinedextentofthe Possibleoutcomesareunknown,e.g.: approach probabilityofanadverseeventand Stochastic>>thevariabilityof theseverityofitsconsequences eventscannotbereduced Epistemic>>limitedknowledge inagivendecision-makingmoment Categories, Technological Complex,notlimitedtoagivenarea areas Economic Psychological Sociological etc. Management, Proactive(avoidance) Decision-makingstrategies(e.g., methods Active(mitigation) flexiblyresistant,adaptive, “cautious,”knowledgegap Reactive(acknowledgement) management) Pass-on Qualityassurance Methods,e.g.,expertopinion,safety Expertpredictions audit,questionnairesurvey, Scenarioanalysis,etc. estimatingtheseverityand probabilityofbreakdowns,“faulttree analysis,”statisticalanalysisofpast events,hazardanalysis,exposure assessment,etc. developmentofthesafetyandsecurityculturehaveanimpactonthedecisionsmade as a result of a safety conscious behavior, which in return affect the safety and securityculture. When making risk management decisions, the functioning of hard elements embeddedintotheorganizationalsafetyandsecurityculture(e.g.,regulatoryframe- work,laws,guidelines,statutes,ISOstandards,auditstrategies,safetymanagement, methods,ITsystems,expertsystems,BCP,etc.)largelydependsontheattitudesand behaviors related to the management of risks and uncertainties. Companies, how- ever,havetobemadeawarethateffectiveriskmanagementandahighlevelofsafety andsecurityculturenotonlyprotectsthembutalsomayincreasetheirvalueinthe longterm.Thesafetyscienceapproachofthisstudyisaimedatexploringtheways safetyculturecancontributetosustainability. OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 5 Organizational and Global Sustainability The long-term operation of companies and the issue of sustainability are closely related to the notion of safety. Sustainability and safety strategies appear together withincreasedemphasiswithinindustrialpolicies.Corporatesafetyandsecurity,as the“normal”stateofaffairswithinorganizationalprocesses,however,areinsepara- blefromsustainabilityalsointhesensethatacompanycannotendangeritssocial, economic, and natural environment during its operation. The analytical aspects of corporatebehavior,responsiblefortheundisturbedoperation(safety)andtheenvi- ronment (sustainability), include, for example, legal compliance; ethical behavior; relationshipwiththe environment (e.g., theexistenceorabsence of theISO 14001 environmentalmanagementsystem);thepoliticalstance(e.g.,cooperationwiththe administration, with NGOs); operations that not only focus on maximizing profits but are also beneficial for the society; mindfulness of social issues (Angyal 2008), whichisthetotality;andinterconnectionsofstandardizableandnon-standardizable corporateprocesses.Thestudysetsouttohighlightthesesynergies. According to the UN’s definition (1987), sustainable development is a form of developmentthatmeetstheneedsofthepresentwithoutcompromisingtheabilityof future generations. This is manifested within an organization as corporate sustain- ability, which includes the triple bottom line. These are environmental, economic, andsocialsustainability(“People,Planet,Profit”)(Elkington1997). When establishing corporate sustainability, environmental sustainability is usu- ally identified with ecological efficiency, social sustainability is identified with applying certain basic norms (such as improving working conditions, not using childlabor),aswellasfinancialdonations,andeconomicsustainabilityisidentified with a profitable operation that is competitive in the long term. These endeavors, however,donotnecessarilyleadtoriskmitigationandlong-termsafety. Inordertoestablishsustainability,companiesneedtoassumesocialresponsibil- ity,whichmeansthattheybuildsocialandenvironmentalaspectsintotheirbusiness activities and stakeholder relations on a voluntary basis (Mullerat 2013). In other words,corporatesocialresponsibilitycanbedefinedas“acommitmenttoimprove communitywellbeingthroughdiscretionarybusinesspracticesandcontributionsof corporate resources” (Kotler and Lee 2007). According to the EU Commission’s definition,CSRisa“concept,wherebycompaniesintegratesocialandenvironmen- tal concerns in their business operations and in their interaction with their stake- holders on a voluntary basis” (EC 2006). On this basis, the only acceptable behaviors,decisions,andglobalandlocalactivitiesaretheonesthatregardsustain- abilityeffortsasbeneficialinanormativeway–thatisbeneficialinthemselves. Organizations,however,define sustainabilitydifferently. Companies, which use the basic concept to define sustainable development and incorporate it into their organizationalstructure,areabletopursueresponsibleandsustainableoperationsby realizing their goals even at the expense of their profits. There are even examples where non-sustainable companies transform into ecologically and socially efficient organizations, or there are corporate models which even make a higher level of organizationalformspossible(e.g.,socialentrepreneurs,alternativecapitalists,etc.) 6 I.Kertai-Kiss (Hassard 1993). Others, on the other hand, interpret sustainability instrumentally, ratherthannormatively.TheirprimarygoalisprofitmaximizationandCSRisonly themeansforit.Itshouldbenotedthattheextensiveuseofthenormativeapproach requires a high level of safety and security culture, which includes the ability to recognizeglobalrisksandestablishsafetystrategiesresponsibly. Global Risks Versus Safety and Sustainability Indevelopedcountries,themostsignificantenvironmentalproblemsappear onthe global, instead of the local level (Fleishman-Hillard 2007) A global risk is “an uncertaineventorconditionthat,ifitoccurs,cancausesignificantnegativeimpact for several countries or industries within the next 10 years” (The Global Risks Report,11thEdition2017). The Global Risks Perception Survey involved almost 750 experts and decision makersfromtheWorldEconomicForum’smulti-stakeholdercommunities.Respon- dentswerefrombusiness,academia,civilsociety,andthepublicsector.Thesurvey askedthemtoconsiderthemostimportantglobalrisksovera10-yeartimehorizon (categorizedassocietal,technological,economic,environmental,andgeopolitical). Accordingtotheresultofthesurvey,thetopfivemostimpactfulrisksare:thefirstis the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation, the second is weapons of massdestruction,andthethirdiswatercrises.Thetopfiverisksalsoincludelarge- scale involuntary migration and energy price shock (increase or decrease). The psychological background of risk perception shows that when it comes to risks, the topical events of our era have a large impact on the perception and way of thinking. For example, large-scale involuntary migration, interstate conflict, and cyberattacks are now perceived as short-term risks, instead of their previous posi- tioningamongtherisksofthenext10years. In the digital era, risks assume a very complex nature. By analyzing the inter- connections,theGlobalRisksReport(2017)establishedthreeriskclusters: (cid:129) The cluster linking the failure of climate change mitigation and adaptation with watercrisesandlarge-scaleinvoluntarymigration (cid:129) Theclusterlinkinglarge-scaleinvoluntarymigrationwitharangeofrisksrelated tosocialandeconomicstability (cid:129) Theclusterlinkingeconomicglobalriskswithuncertaintyaroundtheimpactsof theFourth IndustrialRevolution. The year 2016 hasbeenprofoundshiftsinthe way global risks are wiewed. “Societal polarisation, income inequality and the inward orientation of countries are spilling over into real-world politics.” (The Global Risks Report, 2017) Due torecent developments (e.g., Brexit, US presi- dential election), in 2017 geopolitical and societal risks are becoming increas- ingly pronounced among the most prominent global risks (economic risks, enviromental risks, geopolitical risks, societal risks, technological risks). They include:thethefailureofregionalorglobalgovernance,thestateofcollapse or crisis, the failure of national governance, the large-scale involuntary migration, OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 7 the profound social instability. Consequently, 2017 could be the start of crucial periodfortheglobalcommunity.Societalphenomena,suchasthethreatofaless cooperative and more inward-looking world will render the development of safetyandsecuritycultureinsupportofsustainabilityindispensable. The report states that in order to have long-term sustainability, a new type of culture needs to be established within the domain of global safety and security, which also results in system-level changes in the operation of organizations. The currentriskmanagementpracticemustbereplacedbythecultureofintegratedrisk management (beliefs, norms, and values that underpin daily actions) and multi- stakeholder partnerships. Accordingly, companies should discontinue the current practice:tohavedifferenttypesofrisksmanagedbydifferentpoliciesandoperating proceduresandbydifferentofficials,executives,andagencies.Thereisaneedfora much larger integration within the organizational safety and security culture. All partsofanorganizationmustcollaboratetransparentlyonriskmanagementthrough integratedplanning.Inthisregard,communicationandorganizationallearningplay animportantroleinthetransformationofthesafetyculture. However, the safe operation of an organization in itself does not necessarily supportsustainability.Thatiswhymeasuresforthemitigation ofglobalrisksneed tobeincorporatedintoasophisticatedorganizationalsafetyandsecurityculture:the hardelements(standards,rules,laws)andsoftelements(competencies,setofvalues, behavior)ofthesafetyandsecurityculturemustbedevelopedcontinuously(Peters and Waterman 1982). Responsibly operating organizations reduce the global risks. The joint management of organizational and global security and safety risks there- foreisacrucialaspectintheoperationoforganizationalprocesses. International Documents and Organizational Safety Globalchangesresultingfrominnovativetechnologicalsolutionsmadeitnecessary toreconsidertheconceptofsafetyculture.Documentsfrominternationalorganiza- tions and legislation emphasize the role of three fundamental factors in the new conceptual framework: systematic approach, safety awareness, and cooperation (Nagy 2008). Collaboration and cooperation have recently become particularly important. Regarding the safety and security culture at the societal level, “interna- tionalsecurityreferstothemeasurestakenbystateornon-stateactors,individually orcollectively,toensuretheirsurvivalandintegrityagainsttransboundarythreats.” The Security Outlook 2030 survey states that the significance of understanding geopolitical and international security in order to mitigate global risks has gained unprecedented importance. Getting to know the characteristics of various national and organizational cultures and adapting them to the safety and security strategies, however, are key factors in the planning and implementation of specific, practical, andoperationalsolutions. Apart from the elements, included in the guidelines and international docu- ments,thepracticaldimensionofthefunctionalframeworkswithinorganizational 8 I.Kertai-Kiss safety and security has also expanded. Safety processes on the different levels of corporate hierarchy are performed with different roles and responsibilities and according to different rules, but in terms of the underlying content, the highest priorityistoimplementsafetyawarenessonawiderscale.Anotherimportantshift in focus has also taken place recently: instead of risk avoidance, proactive risk management has come to the forefront. It should be noted, however, thatsystem- level risk management issues can only be resolved by operating proactive (e.g., risk analysis) and reactive (e.g., case analysis, improved regulations) organiza- tional processes together. This argument is also supported by international docu- ments,e.g.: (cid:129) OECD“Guidelines,”approvedattheOECD’s1037thmeetingin25June2002, withinwhich,e.g.,theup-to-dateCOBIT(ControlObjectivesforInformationand Related Technology) framework and maturity model, can be used to define the levelsofsafetyandsecurityculture (cid:129) Resolution A/RES 57/239, adopted at the 57th session of the UN’s General Assembly(26November2002) (cid:129) “TheCyberSecurityEnhancementAct”approvedbytheUSlegislationin2002 Shortly afterward the UN’s Commission on Sustainable Development adopted itsworkingplanforthenext14yearsatitsApril/May2003session,whichstates that the Commission shall consider such cross-cutting issues in all cycles, as changing unsustainable production methods and consumer habits, managing nat- ural resources, globalization, health, poverty, gender equality, and education. However, apart from complying with and improving legal and economic regula- tionsandstandards,aradicalchangeinattitudeisalsorequired.Manycompanies regard the sustainable use of natural resources as a disincentive, which deepens globalrisksandcrises. Protective Tools: Standards, Specialized Systems, and Directives As previously mentioned, companies usually identify social responsibility with environmental protection, economic indicators, sponsorship, quality assurance, as well as occupational health and safety. There is an increasing number of standards and directives for this. First came ISO 9001, followed by the ISO 14001 environ- mentalmanagementsystemandEMAS,itsEuropeancounterpart.Theseareaimed, amongothers,atmitigatingenvironmentalburdensandpromotingenvironmentally conscious behavior. Since the system is primarily based on ethical considerations, integrating it into a company’s management system depends on the value systems and behavioral norms of the decision makers, inother words on the organizational culturetheyestablishedandrepresent.Withalsosustainabilityinmind,standardizers recently started to focus on occupational health and safety management (OHSAS 18001), the affected party theory (AA 1000, SA 8000), and the quality of sustain- abilityreports(GRI). OrganizationalSafetyCultureandSustainability 9 The standard issued by SAI (Social Accountability International, 1998) was established for suppliers and subcontractors of international companies. It deals with issues such as child labor, forced labor, occupational health and safety, dis- crimination, and fair wages and working hours. The above standards and recom- mendations primarily define organizational tasks related to sustainability, thus enhancing safety. The European Commission and the UN also take on an active role in this regard (e.g., Global Compact, Cleaner Production Initiative), coupled with the involvement of researchers, e.g., the Factor 4 or the zero-emission pro- grams. In addition to these framework systems, there are numerous national and otherqualificationsystemsforenvironmentallyfriendlyproducts. Theassumptionofresponsibilitiesbythepolicymakersplaysacrucialroleinthe choice of strategic goals and the protection that is based on risk analysis. This primarilymeansorganizationalstability,aswellastheuseofstandardsandspecial- ized systems that provides business continuity. Policy makers, responsible for organizational safety and security, however, are often “spoilt for choice” and are facedwithexcessive“redtape”generatedbytheuseofstandardswhichcanexhaust company resources and endanger smooth operations. The problem of multiple, overlapping regulations is eliminated by using integrated management and control systems.ThecommonfeatureoftheISO9001qualitymanagement,theISO14001 environmental management, and the ISO 27001 information security management systems is their process-oriented approach. In 2012 the BPM-GOSPEL (Business Process Modelling for Governance SPICE and Internal Financial Control) consor- tium,withtheinvolvementofHungarianexperts,establishedthegovernancemodel for trusted businesses based on the COSO and CObIT 4.1 et al. (2008) models, as wellastheISO/IEC15504setofstandards.Byusingthismodel,companiesareable toestablishsustainable,regulated,andcontrolledbusinessprocesses(Michelberger 2013). Wemustconsider,however,thatestablishingtheseregulationsandmethodsdoes not always guarantee sufficient protection within the organization’s processes. The choice of values, applied by the management within the organizational culture in order to achieve safety and security, is also a key factor. The establishment and development ofthe non-standardizableelements oforganizational safety andsecu- rity(norms,behavioralpatterns,values,etc.),togetherwithsafetyawareness,there- foremustalwaysbekeptontheagenda,whichrequiresthecommitment,exemplary behavior, and activity of managers and policy makers. They must realize that the effectiveness of professional specialized systems greatly depends on the organiza- tions’safetyculture.Managers,however,oftenthinkthattheculturecanbechanged by changing the visible elements (such as policies, processes, rules of procedure, regulations). This is rarely the case if the underlying values and fundamental assumptions or beliefs remain unchanged. That is why often the emphasis within the existing safety culture must be placed on improving the safety performance (Fichtinger2015). Additional questions are raised by the fact that the experts and managers, responsible for organizational safety and security, tend to overlook the industry policy aspects of global sustainability when making their decisions. The 10 I.Kertai-Kiss harmonization and joint implementation of an organization’s safety policy and sustainability strategies are aimed at mitigating and preventing global risks; it falls withinthecompetenceoftopmanagement,anditiscloselylinkedwiththelevelof theorganization’ssafetyculture. Different Approaches to Organizational Safety and Security Culture, Based on the International Academic Literature Culture is a broad concept for which many different definitions are used by the variousareasofscience,whichmeansthatthereisnogenerallyaccepteddefinition forit. Theconceptofsafetyculturedoesnothaveaconsistentdefinition,andtheterm may refer to completely different theoretical approaches (Amalberti 2013). Out of thewide-ranginganalyticalandconceptualoptions,approachesthatarerelevantto ourtopicincludetheconceptofhumanerror(Reason1994)andtheinterpretationof high-level safety and security culture in organizations which use hazardous technologies. Westrum(2004)definesgoodsafetyculturebyfocusingonhowmiddleandtop managers deal with business process incidents/accidents. In such interpretations researchers stress theneed for an in-depth analysis and insist that sanctions should be connected to the adverse events. At the same time, they maintain that there is a need for a sustainable system which helps to avoid legal consequences, as long as there is evidence that the human error/omission was unintentional (“just culture”). BasedonWestrum’stypology(pathological,bureaucratic,andgenerativecultures), itisclearthatorganizationswithtechnologiesthatposeaparticularlylargedangerto sustainabilitybelong tothegenerative type ofculture. Thoseworking here haveto manage the issue of safety and security with the necessary focus and proactive attitude at all levels of the hierarchy. They actively search for safety-related infor- mation, share, and are committed to responsibilities; their failures lead to far- reaching,comprehensivereforms.Theyalsowelcomeandencouragenewideas. BasedonReason’s(1994)definition,anorganization’ssafetycultureisthesum total of individual and group values, attitudes, relations, competences, and behav- iors. Similarly to Westrum’s typology, Reason’s findings also confirm that the key characteristicsoforganizationswithahighlevelofsafetyculturearecommunication basedonmutualtrust,attachingthesamegreatimportancetosafetyissues,andtrust intheeffectivenessofprevention.Inthisconceptsafetycultureischaracterizedby thejointmanifestationofallfourtypesoforganizationalcultures: (cid:129) Reportingculture,whereincidentsarereportedtothecompetentpeople (cid:129) Justculture,whereunsafeactsareinvestigatedandsanctioned (cid:129) Flexibleculture,whichiscapableofadaptingtoquickchangesflexibly (cid:129) Learningculture,whichischaracterizedbytheabilitytolearnfromincidents