Optimization of Tools for Assessment of the State of the Working Conditions for the Small and Medium-sized Enterprises based on the Efficiency Parameter Calculation


Often, the employers allocate funds for occupational safety on the residual principle without considering the real needs in creating safe working conditions for the employees. This is especially topical for the small and medium-sized enterprises, whose budget, as a rule, does not allow to allocate sufficient funds for occupational safety. The substantiation is given concerning the need to improve modern systems for assessing the state of working conditions by integrating the missing elements, which are part of similar systems, selected during the analysis of domestic and foreign studies. In the critical review of foreign publications in the field of assessing the state of working conditions, the tools developed over the past 15 years are considered. The lines of business are selected related to the improvement of system for assessing the state of working conditions at the small and medium-sized Russian enterprises.

To determine the most optimal methods, an algorithm is proposed for selecting the tools to assess the state of working conditions based on determining the efficiency parameter corresponding to each tool. Modern Russian methods are assessed in a similar way.

As a result of the study, two tools for assessing the state of working conditions that are most optimal for small and medium-sized enterprises are selected. The analysis showed that the first selected method allows to assess the state of the personnel working conditions, i.e., gives a subjective assessment. The second method serves for an objective study of the estimated parameters, as well as for assessing the level of occupational hazard. Combined use of both tools can become the basis for the formation of a methodology for a comprehensive assessment of the state of working conditions at the small and medium-sized enterprises.

1. Results of the year: the sphere of occupational safety. Available at: https://mintrud.gov.ru/labour/safety/321 (accessed: November 10, 2020). (In Russ.).
2. GOST—2018. Occupational safety standards system. Нealth management systems. Risk assessment methods to ensure the safety of work. Available at: http://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200160465 (accessed: November 10, 2020).
3. Kaverzneva T.T., Rumyantseva N.V. Estimation of efficiency of labour safety actions at the small-scale business enterprises. Bezopasnost v tekhnosfere = Safety in Technosphere. 2010. № 3. pp. 27–31. (In Russ.).
4. Small and medium enterprises in Russia of 2019. Available at: https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/Mal-pred_2019.pdf (accessed: November 10, 2020). (In Russ.).
5. Wright M., Doyle J.N., Marsden S., Bendig M., Shaw J. Development of a SME Version of the Corporate Health and Safety Performance Index. Available at: https://www.hse.gov.uk/Research/rrpdf/rr393.pdf (accessed: November 10, 2020).
6. Roy M., Cadieux J., Fortier L., Leclerc L. Validation d’un outil d’autodiagnosticet d’un modèle de progression de la mesure en santé et en sécurité du travail. Available at: https://www.irsst.qc.ca/media/documents/PubIRSST/R-584.pdf (accessed: November 10, 2020).
7. Lingard H., Wakefield R., Cashin P. The development and testing of a hierarchical measure of project OHS performance. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. 2011. Vol. 18. № 1. pp. 30–49. DOI: 10.1108/09699981111098676
8. Benchmarking Organizational Leading Indicators for the Prevention and Management of Injuries and Illnesses. Available at: https://iwh.on.ca/sites/iwh/files/iwh/reports/iwh_report_benchmarking_organizational_leading_indicators_2011.pdf (accessed: November 10, 2020).
9. Walker D., Tait R. Health and safety management in small enterprises: an effective low cost approach. Safety Science.  2004. Vol. 42. № 1. pp. 69–83. DOI: 10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00068-1
10. Eastman C.M., Teicholz P.M., Sacks R., Liston K. BIM handbook: a guide to building information modeling for owners, managers, designers, engineers and contractors. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, 2011. 650 p.
11. Zhang S., Boukamp F., Teizer J. Ontology-based semantic modeling of construction safety knowledge: Towards automated safety planning for job hazard analysis (JHA). Automation in Construction. 2015. Vol. 52. pp. 29–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.autcon.2015.02.005
12. Reiman T., Pietikäinen E. Leading indicators of system safety — monitoring and driving the organizational safety potential. Safety Science. 2012. Vol. 50. Iss. 10. pp. 93–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.07.015
13. On special assessment of the working conditions: Federal Law of December 28, 2013 № 426-FZ. Available at: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/499067392 (accessed: November 10, 2020). (In Russ.).
14. Krasnoshchekova E.A. Methods of appreciating the state of accident prevention and of efficiency of its improvement at agricultural enterprises. Vestnik SGTU = Bulletin of SSTU. 2011. Vol. 2. № 1 (55). pp. 279–283. (In Russ.).
DOI: 10.24000/0409-2961-2021-7-24-28
Year: 2021
Issue num: July
Keywords : occupational safety occupational risk methodology working conditions algorithm small and medium-sized enterprises tool fatigability
  • Svetlakova A.Yu.
    Svetlakova A.Yu.
    Candidate, 89027910153@mail.ru Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia
  • Kaverzneva T.T.
    Kaverzneva T.T.
    Cand. Sci. (Eng.), Assoc. Prof. Peter the Great St.Petersburg Polytechnic University, Saint-Petersburg, Russia