한국산업보건학회지 (Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene)

  • 제29권3호
  • /
  • Pages.298-309
  • /
  • 2019
  • /
  • 2384-132X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0564(eISSN)
한국산업보건학회 (Korean Industrial Hygiene Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

일개 기업의 40년 소음으로 인한 청력 손실 예방 활동을 통해 본 청력보존문화의 변화 단계

Safety and Health Culture Change Stages: A Reflection on 40 years of Hearing Conservation History at a Multinational Company

  • 박미진 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 윤충식 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과) ;
  • 백도명 (서울대학교 보건대학원 환경보건학과)
  • Park, Mijin (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Yoon, Chungsik (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University) ;
  • Paek, Domyung (Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
  • 투고 : 2019.07.04
  • 심사 : 2019.09.04
  • 발행 : 2019.09.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: This study aimed to investigate stages of safety and health culture change through a reflection on 40 years of hearing conservation history at a multinational company. Methods: The target workplaces were multinational companies with more than 1,000 employees. The research used the clinical case study and system analysis methods based on direct observation of the research from 1994 to 2009. The latter method performed an analysis of the equilibrium state of the cross-section in the given period and the longitudinal profile of the change during the given period. Results: The stages of cultural change are divided into five stages and summarized as follows. In the first stage, workplace noise was not widely recognized as a hazard, while in the second stage, the measurement of noise levels and audiometric testing were conducted under the Korean Occupational Safety and Health Act (KOSHA). The driving force for change in the second stage was the amendment of the KOSHA. In the third stage, noise came to be recognized as a hazard factor through awareness training. The driving force of change during the third stage was the strong executive power exerted by the audit of the industrial hygiene program from the US head office. In the fourth step, there was a change to actually reduce noise. The driving force in this stage was a change in company executives' risk perception resulting from lawsuits over noise-induced hearing loss and the task force team activities for culture change based on the action learning protocol. At the fifth stage, a 'buy quiet policy' was institutionalized. The management's experience that noise reduction was difficult was the motivation to manage noise from the time of purchase of equipment. Conclusions: The activities of a hearing conservation program are determined by the improvement of the legal system and by the way it is enforced. Noise control activities to reduce noise areas may be possible through the shared risk perception of noise-induced hearing loss and by a change agent role as a facilitator to implement noise control.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Berger EH. Hearing protection devices in: Berger EH, et al, eds. Noise Manual.5th edition Fairfax, Virginia, USA: AIHA; 2000. P. 279-454
  2. Cho YH. Qualitative research: logics & techniques. Seoul; Education research Institute.; 2018.p.29
  3. Clarke, S. Perceptions of organizational safety: Implications for the development of safety culture. Journal of Organizational Behavior;1999. p.185-198. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1379(199903)20:2<185::AID-JOB892>3.0.CO;2-C
  4. Daniel WE, Swan SS, McDaniel MM, Stebbins JG, Seixas NS, Morgan MS. Noise exposure and hearing conservation practices in an industry with high incidence of workers' compensation claims for hearing loss. American Journal of Industrial Medicine; 2002: 42(4), 309-317. DOI: 10.1002/ajim.10124
  5. Daniel WE, Swan SS, McDaniel MM, Camp JE, Cohen MA, Stebbins JG. Noise exposure and hearing loss prevention programs after 20 years of regulations in the United States. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2006; 63(5):343-351. doi: 10.1136/oem.2005.024588
  6. Driscoll DP, Royster LH. Noise control engineering in: Berger EH, et al. Noise Manual. 5th edition. Fairfax, Virginia, USA: AIHA; 2000. p. 279-378
  7. Elgstrand K, Petersson NF. Occupational safety and health for development Sweden: Industrial Ecology, Royal Institute of Technology; 2009. p. 475-486
  8. Harrison RK. Hearing conservation: Implementing and evaluating a program. AAOHN 1989;37(4):107-111. https://search.proquest.com/docview/1012765929?accountid=6802 https://doi.org/10.1177/216507998903700402
  9. Kim et al. Creating a culture of prevention in occupational safety and health practice. Saf Health Work SH@W, 2016;7(2):89-96. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2016.02.002
  10. Kim SW, Yang SH, Beak, Chung TJ, Ryu HW, Kim EA. Estimated Exposure Population to Hazardous Workplace Noise among Korean Workers. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2018; 28(4): 416-424. https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2018.28.4.416
  11. Kwon M, Kim SL, Jung HS, Kim HG, Kim KL. The effect of Korean occupational health nurses' work conditions on their performance Korean Journal of Occupational Health Nursing 2011;20(1): 83-92. https://doi.org/10.5807/kjohn.2011.20.1.083
  12. Malchaire, J. Strategy for prevention and control of the risks due to noise. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 2000;57(6): 361-369. DOI:10.1136/oem.57.6.361
  13. Melnick, W Evaluation of industrial hearing conservation programs: A review and analysis. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 1984;45(7):459-467. DOI:10.1080/15298668491400106
  14. Ministry of Employment and Labor (MOEL). The analysis report on the occupational exposure assessments results in Korea in 2009. 2017
  15. MOEL. The annual report on the result of workers' health examination in Korea in 2014. 2015
  16. Morata TC, Themann CL, Randolph RF, Verbsky BL, Byrne DC, Reeves ER. Working in noise with a hearing loss: Perceptions from workers, supervisors, and hearing conservation program managers. Ear and Hearing 2005;26(6):529-545. DOI: 10.1097/01.aud.0000188148.97046.b8
  17. Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2005;48(6): 446-458. DOI:10.1002/ajim.20223
  18. Reynolds JL, Royster LH, Pearson RG. Hearing conservation programs (HCPs): The effectiveness of one company's HCP in a 12-hr work shift environment. AIHA 1990;51(8):437-446. DOI:10.1080/15298669091369907
  19. Rogers B, Meyer D, Summey C, Scheessele D, Atwell T, Ostendorf J, Buckheit K. What makes a successful hearing conservation program? AAOHN Journal 2009;57(8):321-35. DOI:10.3928/08910162-20090729-07
  20. Royster LH, Royster JD. Education and motivation. in: Berger EH, et al,(eds). Noise manual 5th edition. Fairfax Virginia USA: AIHA; 2000. P. 245-278
  21. Royster LH, Royster JD. Important elements and characteristics of hearing conservation programs and determination of their effectiveness. Environment International 1990; 16(4):339-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/0160-4120(90)90003-O
  22. Park JS, Kim HW, Kim CN, Sim SH, Lim JT, You SJ et al. Job analysis for the development of curriculum for education and training and guidelines for making questions in examinations of occupational environmental hygienist. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2004;14(2):181-196
  23. Schein EH. Models and tools for stability and change in human systems. Reflections 2002; 4(2):34-46. DOI: 10.1162/152417302762251327
  24. Verbeek JH, Kateman E, Morata TC, Dreschler WA, Mischke C. Cocherane_Interventions to prevent occupational noise induced hearing loss (Review) The Cochrane Library. 2012. DOI:10.3109/14992027.2013.857436
  25. WHO. World health report reducing risks, promoting healthy life. Geneva: World Health Organization. 2002