Accident Risk in the Production Sector of EU Countries—Cohort Studies
2. Methods and Research Results
3. Discussion of the Results
3.1. The Risk of an Accident at Work and the GDP of EU Countries
3.2. The Risk of an Accident at Work in the EU Countries in the Manufacturing Sector in 2008–2018
- lower than the EU’s RR (Ireland, Greece, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Sweden, and United Kingdom),
- similar to RR across the EU (Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, and Italy), and
- higher than the EU’s RR (Denmark, Germany, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Slovenia, and Finland).
3.3. The Risk of Fatal Accidents in the Industrial Sector of EU Countries
3.4. Limitations and Directions for Future Research
- in most EU countries, in the years 2008–2018 there was a decrease in the number of people injured in accidents at work and in fatal accidents,
- Sweden’s low RR in the industrial sector indicates a high safety culture in the sector, which should set standards for other countries,
- the value of the RR indicator increases with the increase in the country’s GDP, which can be explained by the increased reliability of the related data to the improvement of organisational culture and investments that are related to the implementation of Industry 4.0, and
- the RR in the manufacturing sector of the so-called “old” EU is higher than in the so-called “new” EU, which may result from the implementation of Industry 4.0 assumptions in the “old” EU countries, which, based on Big Data, collect all data on accidents at work. In countries where the industry is based on the principles of Industry 3.0, the collected accident data depend on the human factor.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
- Horizon 2020 Programme. Available online: ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020 (accessed on 10 March 2021).
- World Economic Outlook Database. Available online: https://www.imf.org (accessed on 20 October 2020).
- World Development Indicators Database. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org (accessed on 20 October 2020).
- Demographic Yearbook System. Available online: unstats.un.org (accessed on 20 October 2020).
- Population: Demography, Population Projections, Census, Asylum & Migration—Overview. Available online: ec.europa.eu/eurostat (accessed on 20 October 2020).
- Dos Santos, W.J.; Cêlho, V.M.D.S.; Santos, G.B.; Ceballos, A.G.D.C.D. Work overload and risk behaviors in motorcyclists. Rev. Bras. Enferm. 2019, 72, 1479–1484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Khlat, M.; Ravaud, J.-F.; Brouard, N.; Chau, N.; Lorhandicap Group. Occupational disparities in accidents and roles of lifestyle factors and disabilities: A population-based study in north-eastern France. Public Health 2008, 122, 771–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chau, N.; Mur, J.M.; Touron, C.; Benamghar, L.; Dehaene, D. Correlates of Occupational Injuries for Various Jobs in Railway Workers: A Case-Control Study. J Occup. Health 2004, 46, 272–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed][Green Version]
- Chau, N.; Bourgkard, E.; Bhattacherjee, A.; Ravaud, J.F.; Choquet, M.; Mur, J.M.; The Lorhandicap Group. Associations of job, living conditions and lifestyle with occupational injury in working population: A population-based study. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health 2008, 81, 379–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacherjee, A.; Chau, N.; Sierra, C.O.; Legras, B.; Benamghar, L.; Michaely, J.-P.; Ghosh, A.K.; Guillemin, F.; Ravaud, J.-F.; Mur, J.-M. Relationships of job and some individual characteristics to occupational injuries in employed people: A community-based study. J. Occup. Health 2003, 45, 382–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Peng, L.; Chan, A.H. Exerting Explanatory Accounts of Safety Behavior of Older Construction Workers within the Theory of Planned Behavior. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dieterich, C.; Herrmann, E.; Parzeller, M. Tod bei der Arbeit-eine Analyse tödlicher Arbeitsunfälle von 2005 bis 2016 im Obduktionsgut des Instituts für Rechtsmedizin in Frankfurt am Main. Rechtsmedizin 2020, 30, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Chau, N.; Wild, P.; Dehaene, D.; Benamghar, L.; Mur, J.M.; Touron, C. Roles of age, length of service and job in work-related injury: A prospective study of 446 120 person-years in railway workers. Occup. Environ. Med. 2009, 67, 147–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Hirschwald, B.; Nold, A.; Bochmann, F.; Heitmann, T.; Sun, Y. Chronotyp, Arbeitszeit und Arbeitssicherheit. Zent. Arb. Arb. Ergon. 2020, 70, 207–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Folkard, S. Shift work, safety and productivity. Occup. Med. 2003, 53, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Healthy Workplaces Campaigns. Available online: www.osha.eu (accessed on 12 November 2020).
- Yearbook of Labour Statistics 2019. Available online: www.stat.gov.pl (accessed on 12 November 2020).
- Małysa, T. Use of holt’s model for forecasting until 2023 occupational accidents in the metallurgical industry in Poland. Metalurgija 2020, 59, 578–580. [Google Scholar]
- Nævestad, T.-O.; Laiou, A.; Phillips, R.O.; Bjørnskau, T.; Yannis, G. Safety Culture among Private and Professional Drivers in Norway and Greece: Examining the Influence of National Road Safety Culture. Safety 2019, 5, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Rinne, J.; Lyytimäki, J.; Kautto, P. From sustainability to well-being: Lessons learned from the use of sustainable development indicators at national and EU level. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 35, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Supino, S.; Malandrino, O.; Testa, M.; Sica, D. Sustainability in the EU cement industry: The Italian and German experiences. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 430–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stock, T.; Seliger, G. Opportunities of Sustainable Manufacturing in Industry 4.0. Procedia CIRP 2016, 40, 536–541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Grabowska, S. Smart Factories in the Age of Industry 4.0. Manag. Syst. Prod. Eng. 2020, 28, 90–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Petrakos, G.; Psycharis, Y. The spatial aspects of economic crisis in Greece. Camb. J. Reg. Econ. Soc. 2016, 9, 137–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alassaf, D.; Dabić, M.; Shifrer, D.; Daim, T. The impact of open-border organization culture and employees’ knowledge, attitudes, and rewards with regards to open innovation: An empirical study. J. Knowl. Manag. 2020, 24, 2273–2297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papula, J.; Kohnova, L.; Papulova, Z.; Comenius University in Bratislava. Impact of national culture on innovation activities of companies: A case of Germany, Austria, Switzerland and the Czech Republic. Econ. Ann. XXI 2018, 169, 26–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bécue, A.; Praça, I.; Gama, J. Artificial intelligence, cyber-threats and Industry 4.0: Challenges and opportunities. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2021, 1–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zakoldaev, D.A.; Shukalov, A.V.; Zharinov, I.O. From Industry 3.0 to Industry 4.0: Production modernization and creation of innovative digital companies. IOP Conf. Series: Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 560, 012206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Pershagen, B.; Nilson, R. Nuclear safety in Sweden: Policy and practice. Nuclear Saf. 1984, 25, 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Ridelberg, M.; Roback, K.; Nilsen, P.; Carlfjord, S. Patient safety work in Sweden: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of annual patient safety reports. BMC Heal. Serv. Res. 2016, 16, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Larsson, M.; Grunnesjö, E.; Bergström, J. What counts as a reasonable extent?—A systems approach for understanding fire safety in Sweden. J. Risk Res. 2012, 15, 517–532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Clopper, C.J.; Pearson, E.S. The Use of Confidence or Fiducial Limits Illustrated in the Case of the Binomial. Biometrika 1934, 26, 404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Leeuwen, K.; De Vries, E.; Koop, S.; Roest, K. The Energy & Raw Materials Factory: Role and Potential Contribution to the Circular Economy of The Netherlands. Environ. Manag. 2018, 61, 786–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Country||Relative Risk (RR)||SE (ln)||−95%CI||+95%CI||p-Value|
|Positive Correlation||Negative Correlation|
|Country (r Spearman)||Country (r Spearman)|
|RR of an accident at work in the EU countries in relation to the risk in the EU in 2008–2018||Belgium (0.682); Croatia (0.886); Estonia (0.791); France (0.976); Germany (0.764); Hungary (0.755); Latvia (0.945); Lithuania (0.964); Portugal (0.903); Romania (0.764); Slovakia (0.627); Sweden (0.700)||Greece (−0.809); Italy (−0.664); |
The Netherlands (−0.645)
|RR of an accident at work in the production sector in EU countries in relation to the risk in the EU industrial sector in 2008–2018||Bulgaria (0.655); Croatia (0.986); Estonia (0.709); France (0.806); Germany (0.809); Hungary (0.836); Ireland (0.727); Latvia (0.964); Lithuania (0.973); Portugal (0.755); Slovakia (0.673); Sweden (0.973); UK (0.845)||Greece (−0.845); Italy (−0.718); |
|RR of an accident at work in the production sector of the EU countries in relation to the risk of an accident at work in the country in the years 2008–2018||Ireland (0.627); Latvia (0.882); Lithuania (0.673); Luxembourg (0.691); The Netherlands (0.664); UK (0.800)||Belgium (−0.736); Czechia (−0.891); |
Cyprus (−0.618); Denmark (−0.764);
Finland (−0.945); France (−0.976);
Germany (−0.627); Greece (−0.982);
Spain (−0.845); Poland (−0.918);
Portugal (−0.879); Romania (−0.827);
Slovakia (−0.773); Slovenia (−0.709);
|RR of a fatal accident at work in the production sector in the EU countries in relation to the risk of a fatal accident at work in the country in 2008–2018||The Netherlands (0.618)||Czechia (−0.691)|
Thousand USD 
|0.03–0.05||Bulgaria *, Romania *||9.3–12.3|
|0.12–0.15||Greece, Latvia *, Lithuania *||15–37 |
|0.26–0.34||Cyprus *, Hungary *, Poland *, Slovakia *, Sweden|
|0.50–0.66||Croatia *, Czechia *, Estonia *, Great Britain, Ireland, Malta * (0.86)||20–40 |
(without Great Britain)
|about 1||Austria, Belgium, Italy, The Netherlands, Slovenia *||27–50|
|1.26–1.38||Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Portugal, Spain||31–56|
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
© 2021 by the author. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Nowacki, K. Accident Risk in the Production Sector of EU Countries—Cohort Studies. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 3618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073618
Nowacki K. Accident Risk in the Production Sector of EU Countries—Cohort Studies. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021; 18(7):3618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073618Chicago/Turabian Style
Nowacki, Krzysztof. 2021. "Accident Risk in the Production Sector of EU Countries—Cohort Studies" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 7: 3618. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18073618