Occupational Ergonomics 5 (2005) 99–110 99

IOS Press

Industrial production of food: Risk surveys

of three manufacturing systems from an
occupational safety perspective

Petra Willquist∗ and Roland Örtengren

Department of Product and Production Development, Production Systems, Chalmers University of
Technology, SE-412 96 G öteborg, Sweden

Abstract. Industrial production of food is a branch of industry suffering from many occupational accidents. This paper aims
at identifying risks and safety measures in three production systems within this industrial sector. A qualitative exploratory case
study with three embedded sub cases was performed. Methods for safety analysis were utilized for data collection and analysis.
Risks were mostly handled by reactive technical solutions such as physical barriers and organization of working methods,
separation in time and preventive maintenance. Still, relying on human conduct was customary. It was found that there was a
lack of overview of the system which gave rise to safety problems. Furthermore, the focus was on product and not production,
meaning that production development is handled on operational level, leading to ad-hoc solutions. Safety of machines and
automated systems are still not satisfactory when it comes to tasks outside the planned work such as production disturbance
handling and cleaning. Documentation, education and information are not used as much as one could expect to improve safety.
The results are compiled in a table showing sources of accident risk, exposure control and control of human conduct.

Keywords: Occupational safety, accidents, risk, safety analysis, food industry, manufacturing, production

1. Introduction

Industrial production of food is a branch of industry suffering from many occupational accidents.
Swedish accident data from 2003 showed an occupational accident rate of 17,5 accidents per 1000
employees in the food industry [14]. The corresponding number for the whole manufacturing industry
was 11.8. The risk of accidents leading to long-term sick leave (> 30 days) or permanent disability
has been around 7 per 1000 employees since 1997 [6]. Although also dairy workers and bakers are
represented among the accidents, focus seems to have been on butchers and the meat preparing industry.
A literature review done to identify methods used for safety analysis in manufacturing industry supports
this impression [19]. In the review special attention was given to studies performed in food industry,
but very few studies were found on this sector. The studies that were found focused on butchers and the
meat preparing industry while none were related to bakeries or dairy industry. The review also showed
that most of the relevant studies relied entirely on analyses of accident statistics at the factory meaning
that any particular method for safety analysis prior to an accident had not been utilised.

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 31 772 3686; Fax: +46 31 772 3660; E-mail: wipe@chalmers.se.

1359-9364/05/$17.00 © 2005 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved
100 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry

Presentation of three perspectives from which the risks in a system can be examined [9]
Energies/sources of accident risk
Pressing or compressing e.g. presses,
clamping tools and machines
Cutting or dividing
e.g. sharp objects as knives, saws and
other edged tools
Energy exposing the body to excessive
stress
e.g. in moving heavy loads or twisting
the body
Conversion of potential energy in a per-
son into kinetic energy
e.g. falls from one level to another
Conversion of kinetic energy into po-
tential energy
e.g. an object hitting or falling against
a person
Heat and cold, electricity, sound, light,
radiation and vibration
Table 1
Exposure control
Elimination or substitution safety mea-
sures
– substituting or eliminating dangerous
material Technical safety measures
– encapsulating the harmful elements
– installing barriers between workers
and the risk sources (e.g. automation,
remote control, use of ancillary equip-
ment and machine protection/guarding)
Organizational safety measures
– changing working methods or prac-
tices
– separation in time or space e.g. re-
duced exposure time
– preventive maintenance programmes
– encapsulation of the individual worker
– use of personal protective equipment
– expedient organization of work
Control of human conduct
Knowledge – do the workers know
when they are in a risk situation and
what consequences their actions might
have?
– education
– training
– job experience
– identification, analysis, recording and
description of risks in an understand-
able manner.
The opportunity to act – possibility for
the operator to act safely
– design
– instruction
– regulations
The will to act safely – is safe conduct
difficult or time consuming?
– social and cultural factors
– management’s interest in prioritising
safety

Willquist and Törner [18] have studied courses of accident events in the food industry. Their results
showed that the course of accident events often comprised a loss of control, which was often caused by
unsafe handling of machines, tools or equipment. The analysis also pointed at the importance taking
into account the conditions making the accident possible to occur. These are often made up from
combinations of human actions, deficiencies in safety organizations, technical deficiencies and poor
ergonomics [12]. Applying a systems approach when analysing the accidents would emphasize the links
between the human, the technical and the organizational elements [7].
Jørgensen [10] described three perspectives from which the risks in a system can be examined: 1.)
energies and other sources of risk, 2.) control of exposure and 3.) control of human conduct. These
perspectives are described in Table 1. For analysis at organization-wide level contextual knowledge
is important, e.g. regarding work processes, the technology that characterises the work and general
conditions at the work place and the work situation [10].

1.1. Aim

This survey is undertaken within a larger research project with the purpose to analyse how and why
accidents resulting in hand injuries occur in food industry. The aim of the survey was to study production
systems in the food industry from a risk perspective, work processes, environment and other factors
with influence on the work situation in which accidents may have or have occurred. With this aim, the
following research questions were formulated:
– What energies and sources of risk, which could be associated to the occurrence of accidents resulting
in hand injuries, are present at the work place?
– In what ways have the operators’ exposure to these energies and sources of risk been subject to
control?
– In what ways has the human conduct been subject to control concerning these energies and sources
of risk?
 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry 101

Table 2
The type of industry and some characteristics of the three companies
Production system Company A Company B Company C
Type of industry Red meat industry (slaugh- Baking industry (biscuits and Dairy industry (milk, cream,
ter, meat cutting and meat wafers) sour cream and fruit yoghurt)
processing)
Studied departments Beef cutting Packaging sections of produc- Distribution
Packaging of pork tion of wafers and two biscuit Packaging hall
Minced meat production types Yoghurt production
Characteristics – approx 1300 employees – approx 700 employees – approx 450 employees
– situated in a medium-sized – situated in a medium-sized – situated in a larger Swedish
Swedish city Swedish city city
– part of a group of compa- – owned by a large group of – part of a group of companies
nies belonging to an economic companies belonging to an economic asso-
association owned by Swedish ciation owned by Swedish and
farmers Danish farmers

2. Materials and method

An explorative case study with three embedded sub cases was performed. Case studies are appropriate
when studying contemporary phenomena in its natural context over which the investigator has little
control [20]. The three sub cases were companies from three different branches of food industry (red
meat, baking and dairy industry). The companies were selected previously in the project as suitable for
study based on their high accident frequency. In each company a certain production department was
selected which was studied during approximately two and one half days each. A short presentation of
the companies A, B and C is given in Table 2. All of the studied companies were part of larger groups of
companies. In general, men dominated the early parts of the production processes, such as slaughtering
and meat cutting, while women worked at packaging departments. The educational level among machine
operators was low except for slaughter and meat cutters who took part in an education program of up to
40 weeks. The salary was fixed but could also involve a bonus based on performance related parameters.
At the pork cutting department at Company A the bonus was individual, i.e. very similar to piece work.
The types and location of accidents were quite distributed at the companies, with some exceptions. At
Company A the main problem was cutting injuries, due to knives. Company B had experienced an
increase in accidents which was assumed to be due to a large amount of recently employed. At many
production sites it was cramped for space due to the fact that other factories had closed down and moved
to the plant.

2.1. Company A – A company in the red meat industry

Beef cutters work on a line and in one shift. The cutting starts with whole quarter parts from which
pieces are cut out and put on a table where they are cut up further. The finished parts are then put on
a conveyor belt and transported to the packaging department. Other work activities are sharpening the
knife, which is done by using a stick or whetstone, or done on a machine in a separate room nearby.
Meat cutters wear mail aprons and mail gloves on the left hand. Other side activities at the department
are e.g. bone cutting and transportation of materials and products. At the pork packaging department
the work is performed in teams, rotating between the stations sorting of parts, packaging machines and
loading into cardboard boxes. The work mainly comprises manual work activities, such as loading parts
into packaging machines or cardboard boxes. At the packaging department of minced meat production
the work is performed in teams and two shifts. Compared to the pork packaging department the degree
of manual work is lower, although some packaging is performed manually.
102 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry

2.2. Company B – A company in the baking industry

In the plant products are baked continuously in batches in process controlled oven lines. The production
flow has to stay running to prevent biscuits from being burnt in the ovens. There are buffer systems to
handle production stops, both automated and systems involving extra manual work. Since the products
may be kept in stock, the production is planned on prognosis. The packaging is mainly performed
automatically. In the packaging departments the work is performed in teams of 5–8 people, who rotate
between different stations. The working times differ between the departments and involve daytime, two-
shift, three-shift and night-shift. Preventive maintenance operators work in the teams but at emergency
maintenance they work alone. Oven operators work alone. The work in the packaging departments
mainly consists of controlling product quality (removing defective products and making random samples)
and maintaining a steady flow (by manually stack products to and from crates). Furthermore, paper rolls
in packaging machines are changed and the production line is kept clean from crumbs and dust, using
compressed air, sticks or vacuum cleaners.

2.3. Company C – A company in the dairy industry

The production, which is of both continuous and batch type, has short lead-time, meaning that they
receive orders up to three times per day. In general, it is not possible to influence the speed of the
machines since the steps of the production line are dependent on each other. The conveyors transporting
ready products, as well as the warehouse, function as buffer systems. The drivers at the distribution
department spend about half of the working time on loading or unloading goods. Different aids are
available to facilitate the lifting and loading but many problems arise due to the fact that the loading
facilities and environment at the customers vary. The work in the production is organised with a foreman,
chief operator and machine operators. Machine operators in the packaging hall work in two shifts and
rotate between different stations. The tasks comprise e.g. checking packages, controlling the flow
of packages and moving loaded and unloaded rolling pallets. At the yoghurt packaging department
operators also load machines with paper. The maintenance department, which consists of 12 persons,
work with both preventive and emergency maintenance.

2.4. Method

For the data collection a selection of safety analysis methods was made, based on a literature review
of safety analysis methods used in manufacturing industry [19]. In order to cover all aspects that needed
to be studied three different analysis methods were selected and combined into a modified method. The
three analysis methods were Deviation Analysis [8] – identifies technical, human and organizational
deviations, Work Safety Analysis [8,17] – identifies hazards associated with different work tasks and
Riv-Risk inventory [5] – a method designed for analysis of automated production consisting of questions
concerning safety arrangements in different situations e.g. machine in automatic operation, machine
closed down etc. The modified method consisted of the steps of problem definition, information gathering
and hazard identification and the checklists that were provided with the methods. Normally, when
performing safety analysis, risk assessment and proposal of safety measures are performed. However,
this study aimed at identifying hazards and exploring in what ways the companies had addressed these,
and not at generating suggestions for new safety measures. Therefore, those two parts were omitted.
In addition to the safety analyses an overview of the work place, the work and the different situations that
could arise was achieved through observations of the work at the selected departments or production lines.
 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry 103

Informal discussions were held with operators which gave additional information about the work situation,
problems and what solutions that had been undertaken. Through interviews with technical managers
information was obtained concerning production characteristics and management and organization of
change and development. Background information as well as formal information complementary to data
collected by other means was obtained by collecting documents such as work descriptions, layouts, risk
analyses and accident statistics.
The analysis was performed with a qualitative approach which Dubois and Gadde [3] describe as
“systematic combining”. This is characterized by a continuous interplay between parts and whole, be-
tween specific and general, between theory and empirical data. Qualitative descriptions of the production
systems and production environment were performed. Work procedures were described and divided into
smaller elements, and compared to work descriptions from other documents. The Deviation Analysis
checklist was used to identify possible deviations from the planned work procedures and these were in
turn compared to the companies’ own risk analysis. These risk analyses also were studied together with
accident statistics which in turn was compared to information acquired from discussions with operators
and observations at the sites. In addition, available theories, frameworks and other cases were stud-
ied, meaning that there was a continuous movement between the empirical world and “model” world.
The iterative process made it possible to reduce the volume of raw information and identify significant
patterns.

3. Results

3.1. Identified risks and safety measures

Table 3 presents a compilation of the results from the study. Energy that involves pressing was present
at all the studied companies, e.g. pressing tools that shape the packages, machines for rolling the dough
and pistons driven by compressed air. Edged tools were a source of risk at all companies. The dominant
work tool for a butcher or meat cutter is the knife, which is used during the whole day. Even small
variations in the conditions, e.g. the meat quality or the sharpness of the knife, can imply a risk. In
the baking industry saws were used for sawing of wafers. Manual lifting of material was common at
all companies. The loading and moving of crates and pallets may expose the body to excessive stress.
Table 3 also includes risks for slipping. At all the studied companies falling accidents were common. The
floors were often covered with tiles or similar kinds of material to allow easy cleaning which increased
the risk for slipping. Furthermore, spill (e.g. fat, blood, crumbs or water) increased the slipperiness.
Heat was used e.g. for sealing plastic packages or when gluing packages. Hot machine parts or products
was mostly encapsulated in the machine, meaning that exposure to the operator would not occur until
the operator needs to interfere with the production process or open the machine for example for cleaning
purposes.
As the middle column of Table 3 shows, exposure was mostly controlled by technical safety measures
and to some extent also by organizational measures such as preventive maintenance, working methods, or
separation in time. The technical safety measures comprised installation of material barriers or machine
guarding. Too often preventive measures were only undertaken when an accident had already occurred.
Safety protections, such as lids, were often prolonged or changed from the original design, and often
personnel seemed surprised that something they considered safe turned out not to be. Sometimes also
the technical safety measures in themselves induced risks, e.g. lids that fell down. Most machines
were equipped with safety guards so that in order to open the machine it had to be stopped. Hazardous
104 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry

Table 3
Compilation of risks and safety measures at the studied production sites. The left column presents identified sources of accident
risks, the middle column shows the attempted control of exposure to these sources and the right column how human conduct is
dealt with
Energies/sources of accident risk Exposure control Control of human conduct
Pressing or compressing Technical Knowledge
Machine use Material barriers on machines Warning signs on machines
Rolling machines
Pistons in machines
Transition between different conveyors
Cutting, dividing or planing (edged tools) Technical Knowledge
Knife use Physical barriers on machines Warning signs on machines
Saws Organizational
Edged tools in machines Personal protective equipment (mail apron,
Tape holders mail glove)
Energy exposing the body to excessive stress Elimination/Substitution
Lifting material, changing paper rolls Lifting equipment
Moving material Organizational
Working in pairs
Conversion of potential energy in a person Technical Knowledge
into kinetic energy Bars on floor where meat cutter or operator Warning signs
Spill from products stands
Fat spill
Wet floor
Floors tiled-person falling
Conversion of kinetic energy into potential Technical Knowledge
energy Fences Black/yellow tape
Cramped for space – objects hitting person
Heat and cold, electricity, sound, light, radi- Technical Knowledge
ation and vibration Gloves Warning signs
Dry ice for storage – cold Physical barriers on machines/encapsulating
Cold products Personal protective equipment – ear protec-
Machine use – heat tors
Tiled walls – noise Fans
Noise from machines
Ovens – heat
Preventive maintenance
Machines instead of manual work
Change of products

situations also occurred when the technical safety measures did not function satisfactorily. It was difficult
for e.g. technical departments to keep control of all machines, and risk analyses were not performed as
often as desirable. Going through all machines thoroughly is a time consuming and extensive work, as
some representatives at the companies pointed out. Personal protection was compulsory when working
with knife, and also when operating certain machines.
The right column in Table 3 presents in what ways human conduct was handled. Designated safety
education was not common. Instead the operators learnt from experienced colleagues. Often risk
analyses resulted in suggestions such as “be careful”. A frequent comment from personnel when talking
about accidents was that they occur when people did not adhere to rules. Operators sometimes cleaned
machinery during operation, which was associated with risks. The reasons behind this may be that it
is difficult to reach the whole conveyor belt if the machine is standing still. The machine then has to
be turned on and off, which may be a complicated and time consuming procedure. It may also be that
the operator is unaware of the risks that are associated with cleaning the machine while it is running.
Stressful situations or pressure from colleagues may affect the possibility and wish to act safely. There
 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry 105

were also situations when the operator was unable to act safely. One example was from the packaging
hall in the dairy industry, at a machine for loading of rolling pallets. The products are loaded in layers
with plastic mats in between. Sometimes the mats get stuck and a door to the machine must then be
opened in order to fix the problem. The system consists of pushers driven by compressed air to which
the hands are exposed when fixing the problem. If the compressed air is closed the problem can not be
solved since it is too strenuous to fix it manually. The company’s investigators concluded that the level
of safety was not satisfactory and they believed that the solution is to fully automate the system.
Preventive maintenance was applied in most departments. Risk analyses were performed regularly at
the companies. However, often the work tasks that were included in the risk analyses only covered the
normal working procedures and not procedures such as fixing, adjusting or cleaning. Falling accidents
and slipping risks were seldom pointed out as severe risks, although they were a large problem according
to the personnel. Some of the people involved in the work with risk analyses also pointed out that the
methods for risk analyses are resource- and time demanding. Another issue pointed out as problematic
was procurement of new equipment. Risk analyses must be performed on new machines by the company
if they are not performed by the vendor. However, whether safety is actually assured when the machine
is put into the system, with surrounding activities, machines and equipment, is not clear. When problems
arise, they are solved at the place, and safety measures are often ad hoc and sometimes also temporary.
Hence, there seem to be a lack of routines for handling safety issues when making changes in the
production.
Both preventive maintenance and risk analyses may be considered as measures to increase safety but
differ from the measures presented in Table 3 in that they are not directed towards a certain source
of risk. Risk analyses are performed to identify risks and establish safety measures, while preventive
maintenance aim at being proactive instead of reactive concerning for example production disturbances.
Another part of safety work includes the use of accident and incident statistics. All companies stated
that they produced statistical compilation of accidents at the plants. However, only one of the three
companies studied actually had a system for saving and retrieving information about the accidents in the
company, where information was collected concerning time, place, consequences etc. Another company
had statistical compilations in the form of bar charts, which did not allow for comparison over time.
The third company reported that they had problems in obtaining useful statistics from their database and
neither statistics nor risk analyses were provided during the data collection of the project.
Figure 1 illustrates the relation between exposure control and control of human conduct, based on the
compilation of identified risks and safety measures in Table 3. As the figure shows the efforts directed
to control of human conduct are much smaller compared to efforts directed towards exposure control of
technical and/or organizational nature.

3.2. Emerging factors

Four factors, with negative influence safety on a more general level, were found in the empirical
material.
– The organizations seem to have a lack of overview of the system, a holistic perspective. Safety is
considered at “component level”, e.g. safety of each machine and providing personal protective
equipment but accidents continue to occur to the organizations’ surprise. The companies often state
that they have a problem with accidents, but also admit that they cannot see patterns around them or
understand why they occur. At the same time it is difficult to find someone in the organization with
an overall control or view of safety and what affects it. Furthermore, corporate decisions are often
106 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry

Exposure control
Lifting equipment
Bars on floors
Physical barriers on
Source of risk machines
Control of human Machine use Encapsulation of energy
conduct Use of knives Personal protective
Warning signs Movements equipment (mail apron,
black/yellow tape Manual handling of mail glove, ear protectors)
products and tools Working in pairs
Preventive maintenance

Fig. 1. The identified risks and safety measures at the studied production sites. The identified sources of accident risks are
presented in the middle column while the column to the right presents ways in which control of these sources was attempted.
The left column presents how human conduct is dealt with.

out of control at each industrial site, which may limit their possibilities to control work environment
related activities.
– The focus is on the product and not on production, the design of the production process is mainly
based on hygienic demands. This has consequences on safety and work environment which can
only be solved within what is acceptable from a hygienic point of view. The companies seem to
acquaint themselves with research and development mainly concerning products, not production.
Production development is handled more on operational level, meaning that the focus is on solving
the problems of today, which leads to ad hoc-solutions.
– The technology seems to develop towards large-scale production with higher degree of automation,
especially at the late parts of the production process. A future vision for production is greater
demands for flexibility but with standardised, modular systems. When it comes to automation
two concerns should be pointed out. Firstly, safety of machines and automated systems is still not
satisfactory when it comes to tasks outside the planned work. Secondly, higher degree of automation
may lead to discrepancies in that operators are left to supervise and control the process, while it
requires complex cognitive skills in the event of production disturbances [1].
– Documentation, education and information are not used as much as one could expect to improve
safety. Documentation is generally not used as feedback. Education and introduction of new
employees is done by working with someone experienced, while safety education almost never even
exists.

4. Discussion

4.1. The results of the study

One factor identified in the empirical material concerned the high hygienic demands. Materials are
chosen to facilitate cleaning which create risks for slipping and difficulties in reducing the noise level.
The indoor temperature is kept low in order to impede development of bacteria. Ventilation, cold storage-
rooms and warehouses create draught into other working areas, and cold products are strenuous to work
with. The low temperature is mainly a problem in dairy and meat production, while at bakeries instead
 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry 107

the heat from the ovens is a problem. However, all studied production systems had in common that
the hygienic demands had been solved in ways which often led to poor possibilities of creating a good
physical work environment.
Another factor concerned risks originating in production disturbances, due to for example wear and tear
on material. The relation between safety and production disturbances has been pointed out many times,
see e.g. [4,9]. One reason why production disturbances can be an accident risk is that, when production
disturbances occur, operators are often obliged to enter areas where dangerous machine movements may
occur [4]. The operator does not perceive entering such areas as dangerous, but as a normal procedure.
The results of the present study indicate that this does not only apply to production disturbances. Other
tasks outside normal machine operation, e.g. changing package paper or cleaning, are often difficult to
perform with an adequate level of safety. It is almost impossible to clean a conveyor belt thoroughly
without keeping it running, and it is difficult to adjust the paper to the proper position without crossing
safety barriers.
Even though risk analyses are performed regularly, it may be questioned whether they are performed
frequently enough, since equipment, tools and machines often change. It may not be practically possible
to perform the risk analyses more often than they are, however, since they may be too resource- and time
demanding. Another issue is whether the analyses address the actual problems or not, since many risks
were not graded as serious nor even included in the analysis even though the accident statistics showed
that accidents corresponding to these risks occurred, sometimes with serious consequences.
Both Table 3 and Fig. 1 show that several different kinds of technological and organizational exposure
control are undertaken while it is fairly uncommon to address operators’ knowledge, opportunity and
will to act safely. One way to ascertain knowledge on hazardous conditions would be by safety education
but at the studied companies new operators learnt from experienced colleagues. Moreover, when the
risk analyses did not result in a technical solution, the suggestion was to be careful, but how does one
act carefully? Obviously it is so that safety is viewed as a technical issue, which is dealt with through
technical measures. Results from other parts of this research project, show that this view is spread
through all the way to the accident reporting form [15]. The reporting form is constructed in such
a way that it brings focus on problems with machines, tools and material. The work with technical
improvements should continue, however, since there still are technical and physical problems, but it
should be supplemented with an improved systems view which includes preconditions embedded in the
organization [15].

4.2. Discussion of the method

Three safety analysis methods were combined and used for data collection and part of the analysis.
Ideally, safety analyses should be performed by an analysis team consisting of participants well acquainted
with the work environment under study. This was not possible to organise in this study which could lead
to validity problems. However, these problems were addressed in different ways. For data collection
several operators were consulted, and it was considered that their answers, together with observations,
gave a good picture of the conditions at the work places. The collected data and results were compared
to risk analyses performed by companies’ own professionals. Furthermore, work descriptions and other
information gathered were sent to the companies to read through and comment.
The study relies to a large extent on the degree of participation of the companies and their representa-
tives. Thus, the researchers’ understanding of the work situations is higher in departments and sections
where representatives were devoted and interested of the project than in those where representatives were
108 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry

not. Furthermore, the same kind of material was asked for at all participating companies, but not received
from all. Pure accident statistics was only received from company B, whereas company C delivered
diagrams from different years, which were not possible to compare, and company A neither delivered
statistics nor risk analyses. This does not influence the observations made in these companies, but it
reduces the possibility to make comparisons, and thus it affects the validity judgement. The reasons why
the material was not delivered is not clear, but the fact that there were problems in retrieving statistics
indicates that the handling of statistics does not work well.
The selection of companies was based on their willingness to participate in the study. This may indicate
that safety is relatively highly prioritized, compared to companies that were unwilling to participate. The
three participating companies all have a large share of the market and compared to small or medium
sized companies their safety management may be different. Large companies more likely have more
resources in terms of knowledge and economy. The results of this study do, however, agree with work
environment conditions and problems presented by Steen and Ullmark [16]. They found e.g. problems
due to high hygienic demands, problems due to a left-over approach where whatever the machine cannot
do is left over to the operator, resulting in monotonous supervisory work. This indicates that the results
are generalisable within the food industry sector. Since the food industry is not considered to be at the
cutting edge of production development among manufacturing industries, the applicability of the results
to other industrial sectors which may have a larger focus on production development, may however be
affected.

4.3. General discussion

Changes in food industry have resulted in large company groups and more automated production [16].
One disadvantage of belonging to a large group of companies is that, as presented in this study, corporate
decisions become outside the industrial sites’ control, which may limit the control of work related
activities. Rasmussen [11] has pointed out that industrial installations are steadily increasing, compared
to the steady conditions of the past, leading to an increased complexity. Information within and between
companies and communication technology development also integrates and couples systems which
means that a single decision can propagate and give effects at several sites through the system.
During the past years the degree of manual work has decreased for the benefit of automation. Such
changes at operative level must be followed with corresponding changes in management structures e.g.
work organization and establishment of competency and educational levels [11]. Otherwise it may
result in situations where monotonous, supervisory work where the hand is disconnected from the mind
suddenly requires high technological knowledge and complex cognitive skills [1].
In terms of work content and qualification demands there are often clear differences between the early
and late parts of the production process [16], which we have also seen in this study. In the processing
and preparation of food, i.e. the early parts of the process, there is a sense of craftsmanship while the
late parts of the process is concentrated around avoiding faults and mistakes, resulting in high demands
on accurateness and attention. Team work and rotation between work stations is one way of reducing the
effects of this, but it merely leads to work enlargement since the rotation takes place between stations that
are not very different. A factor hindering the possibilities of work enrichment (i.e. vertical development
of work, e.g. [13]) may be the physical layout of the production which makes it difficult to rotate between
both early and late parts of the process. However, such improvements require changes on long term
perspective but we have seen that companies dealt with production development on operative levels.
The fact that companies face fierce competition which encourages short term financial and survival
perspective rather than long term perspective may be contributing factors [11].
 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry 109

The results of this study indicate the companies do not succeed in dealing with safety in other ways
than with technical and to some extent organizational measures. One way a technical approach to safety
becomes manifest is through work procedures. Work procedures, which represent the best thought out
way of performing a task, may be compared to the concept of practice. There is however, according to
Dekker [2], no direct causality between procedure-following and safe situations, procedure-following
may even be antithetical to safety. He means that while failure to follow procedures may lead to unsafe
situations, safe situations may also be a result of procedural deviations. Consequently, safety procedures
alone will not guarantee safety but should be seen as a resource for action. He concludes that is essential
for companies to recognise when and why there is a gap between procedures and practice and help
operators to know when to follow or disregard procedures. This means that organizations must be aware
of and communicate the boundaries of acceptable performance, not just fight the deviations from the
planned path [11].
Rasmussen [11] has put focus on the dynamics of society and means that this has effects on industrial
risk management. Furthermore, he stresses that hazardous processes are affected by activities on higher
levels in the system. Therefore safety work can not only consist of control of exposure to sources of
energy but must also include higher levels, and it is necessary to understand the underlying conditions
which shape conditions for safety. The present survey has shown that companies’ safety management to a
large extent focuses on exposure control and technical safety measures which may limit its effectiveness.

5. Conclusion

The results presented risks originating in different energy forms which mainly were controlled by
technical solutions. Operators’ knowledge, opportunity and will to act safely were almost never taken
into account. Companies should therefore aim to achieve a balance between these different types of
solutions. There were factors that negatively influenced safety. Companies lacked an overview of the
system, utilized documentation poorly and had a low prioritization of information and education. A
product focus led to a concentration on hygienic demands and neglect of occupational risks. Finally,
technological changes seemed not always to correspond to changes in operators’ knowledge. These
factors limit the effectiveness of companies’ safety management.

References
[1] L. Bainbridge, Ironies of automation, Automatica 19(6) (1983), 775–779.
[2] S. Dekker, Failure to adapt or adaptations that fail: contrasting models on procedures and safety, Applied Ergonomics 34
(2003), 233–238.
[3] A. Dubois and L.E. Gadde, Systematic combining: an abductive approach to case research, Journal of Business Research
55 (2002), 553–560.
[4] M. Döös and T. Backström, Production disturbances as an accident risk, Proceedings of the Fourth International
Conference on Human Aspects of Advanced Manufacturing and Hybrid Automation, Manchester, England, 1994, 375–
378.
[5] M. Döös and T. Backström, The Riv method: a participative risk analysis method and its application, New Solutions
Spring (1997), 53–60.
[6] M. Forsblom, E. Klaesson, T.J. Larsson and M. Normark, Severe occupational injuries and long-term sick listing in
Sweden 2004 (in Swedish), AFA, Stockholm, 2004.
[7] A.R. Hale and A.I. Glendon, Individual Behaviour in the Control of Danger, Industrial Safety Series 2, Elsevier,
Amsterdam, 1987.
[8] L. Harms-Ringdahl, Safety Analysis: Principles and Practice in Occupational Safety, Elsevier Applied Science, London,
1993.
110 P. Willquist and R. Örtengren / Risk surveys in the food industry

[9] J. Järvinen, V. Vannas, M. Mattila and W. Karwowski, Causes and Safety Effects of Production Disturbances in FMS
Installations: A Comparison of Field Survey Studies in the USA and Finland, The International Journal of Human
Factors in Manufacturing 6(1) (1996), 57–72.
[10] K. Jørgensen, Concepts of Accident Analysis, in: Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, (Chapter 56), J.M.
Stellman, ed., International Labour Office: Geneva, 1998, pp. 3–6.
[11] J. Rasmussen, Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem, Safety Science 27(2/3) (1997), 183–213.
[12] C. Rollenhagen, MTO – an introduction. The relation Human, Technology and Organization (in Swedish), Studentlitter-
atur, Lund, 1995.
[13] N. Slack, S. Chambers, C. Harland, A. Harrison and R. Johnston, Operations Management, (2 ed.), Financial Times
Management, London, 1998.
[14] Statistics Sweden, Occupational Accidents and Work-Related Diseases 2003, Swedish Work Environment Authority,
Official Statistics of Sweden, 2004.
[15] C. Stave, Every Injured has a Story to Tell – Analysing Organizational Preconditions for Occupational Accidents in the
Swedish Food Industry, Licentiate thesis, Department of Product and Production Development, report No. 23. Chalmers
University of Technology, Göteborg, 2004.
[16] J. Steen and P. Ullmark, Your Work in the Food Industry (in Swedish), Utbildningsförlaget Brevskolan & Livsmedels-
branschernas arbetsmiljökommitté, Eskilstuna, 1990.
[17] A. Wallberg, L. Abrahamsson and L. Hallgren, Work Safety Analysis (in Swedish), Ifa, Institutet för produktions &
arbetsplatsutveckling och Arbetarskyddsnämnden, 1994.
[18] P. Willquist and M. Törner, Accident analysis in food industry, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Congress of the Nordic
Ergonomics Society, Tampere, Finland, 2001.
[19] P. Willquist and M. Törner, Identifying and analysing hazards in manufacturing industry – A review of selected methods
and development of a framework for method applicability, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 32(3) (2003),
139–214.
[20] R.K. Yin, Case Study Research: Design and Methods, (2nd ed.), Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA, 1994.