Next Article in Journal
Body Mass Index Trajectory–Specific Changes in Economic Circumstances: A Person-Oriented Approach Among Midlife and Ageing Finns
Next Article in Special Issue
Improving Working Conditions and Job Satisfaction in Healthcare: A Study Concept Design on a Participatory Organizational Level Intervention in Psychosocial Risks Management
Previous Article in Journal
Fetal Exposure to Chinese Famine Increases Obesity Risk in Adulthood
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Interplay among Age and Employment Status on the Perceptions of Psychosocial Risk Factors at Work
Open AccessArticle

Social Dialogue and Psychosocial Risk Management: Added Value of Manager and Employee Representative Agreement in Risk Perception and Awareness

1
TNO, Work Health Technology, 2301 DA Leiden, The Netherlands
2
Cork University Business School, University College Cork, T12 K8AF Cork, Ireland
3
Centre for Organizational Health and Development, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
4
Nottingham University Business School, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG8 1BB, UK
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17(10), 3672; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17103672
Received: 28 February 2020 / Revised: 15 May 2020 / Accepted: 20 May 2020 / Published: 22 May 2020
The present study aimed to explore the added value of managers’ and employee representatives’ agreement in risk perception and awareness in explaining the management of more ‘subjective’ psychosocial risks as compared to the more ‘objective’ traditional OSH risks. The general assumption tested was whether the added value of agreement in risk perception and awareness between these parties would be larger for psychosocial risk management as compared to traditional OSH risk management. European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-1) data were used from 7226 enterprises in which both managers and employee representatives were interviewed. Answers by employee representatives and managers to mirror questions on risk perception and awareness were used as independent variables, and answers to questions on risk management by the manager were used as dependent variables. Polynomial regression with response surface analysis was used. Differences in risk perception and awareness between managers and employee representatives explained more variance in psychosocial risk management as compared to more traditional OSH risk management. The implications of these findings and the importance of ‘social dialogue’ particularly in the case of psychosocial risk management as opposed to general OSH management are discussed. View Full-Text
Keywords: risk perception and awareness; psychosocial risk management; manager; employee representative; social dialogue; ESENER risk perception and awareness; psychosocial risk management; manager; employee representative; social dialogue; ESENER
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Houtman, I.; van Zwieten, M.; Leka, S.; Jain, A.; de Vroome, E. Social Dialogue and Psychosocial Risk Management: Added Value of Manager and Employee Representative Agreement in Risk Perception and Awareness. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 3672.

Show more citation formats Show less citations formats
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Search more from Scilit
 
Search
Back to TopTop