BACKGROUND: The recent COVID-19 pandemic has brought Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) to the forefront of governmental and organizational preoccupations. Empirical research has pointed that OHS responsibility is diffused within organizations, and there is no apparent reference on whom it falls upon; even the OHSAS 18001:2007 (OHSAS 18001, 2007) standard framework generates the same confusion among organizational stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: When constituting an internal chain of responsibility, which organizational stakeholder should be responsible for each item of the OHSAS 18001:2007? The article considers how OHS tasks can be addressed from the perspective of stakeholder management. The objective is to consider the internal division of OHS responsibility between the hierarchical strata and to introduce an OHS Responsibility Multilevel Model for an organization’s internal responsibility system for the implementation of the OHSAS 18001:2007 standard. METHODS: The paper presents a qualitative assessment of the literature on the concepts of responsibility and accountability regarding OHS. First method applied was the literature review on the concepts of responsibility and accountability regarding OHS, while briefly discussing their impacts on the voluntary implementation of OHSAS 18001:2007 standard. Second, the OHS and the conditions of the COVID-19 period were synthesised to underline the research motivation and importance. Further the conceptual framework for the internal division of OHS responsibility based on a Multilevel Model for OHS stakeholders was developed based on a creative designed approach considering recent conclusions on safety leadership (OHS being situated at the confluence of top-down and bottom-up approaches in organization). RESULTS: The research results underline the relative complexity of the items in the OHSAS 18001:2007 framework; from the 68 items that are comprised under the six themes, the authors have identified 304 distinct actions. The application of the proposed OHS Responsibility Multilevel Model to the OHSAS 18001:2007 supports the interest that research literature has had for the role of top management in OHS. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the research results propose a novel approach for improving stakeholders’ involvement (commitment) and responsibility regarding OHS practices in organization. The research findings highlight that the OHSAS 18001:2007 standard proposes the organization as primary repository of OHS responsibility.

No abstract

The three responsibilities of the environment, society, and economy are used to model how sustainability can be incorporated into an organization’s mission, goals, and practices. There are many worker problems embedded in the concept of sustainability. From the perspective of sustainable development, occupational health and safety (OSH) refers to promoting safety, security, health and welfare of workers. Using an integrated sustainability approach offers a way to rethink worker protection approaches and raises new exploration issues and innovation opportunities. This paper aims to present the connections between OSH and sustainable development taking into account the needs of the economic environment. It focuses on Safety and Health’s Core Role in Sustainability. Researchers have also tried to advance the road to sustainable development through innovation and improvement of occupational and health security.

The present research discusses through a theoretical lens, the influence of Knowledge Management (KM) on Intellectual Capital (IC). The research is structured as an analysis of how the repercussions of KM implementation errors can impact the IC building blocks of the Skandia Navigator Model. Firstly, KM implementation errors were identified in literature and followingly the authors attached them to one or several building blocks of IC. Followingly, the influence of the KM error on each building block was discussed. The theoretical results show that KM mainly influences human, innovation and process capital as KM through, among others, a clear definition of organizational knowledge focus. By answering How do knowledge management drawbacks translate into intellectual capital? The present research furthers current understanding of the underexplored links between KM and IC. Keywords Knowledge Management • Intellectual Capital • KM errors • Skandia Navigator building blocks IntroductionResearch on Intellectual Capital (IC) considers in the introductory lines the indissoluble link between Intellectual Capital and Knowledge [1,7,10,12]. The knowledge era has been a catalyst for the development of IC, parallelly to the idea of knowledge as a constitutive function [13] and intangible asset. Yet, the link between

No abstract