Explore the vast range of titles available.

When the OSH Act of 1970 was passed, Congress created the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to ensure safe and healthful working conditions for employees. OSHA did so by setting and enforcing standards and by providing training, outreach, and education.Early standard setting was aggressive and ambitious, with the incorporation of industry consensus standards and the promulgation of new standards. OSHA's standard setting and enforcement sparked increased membership in safety and health professional organizations, which in turn led to strong demand for obtaining safety or health certification. Additionally, this growth drove the development of a wide variety of safety and health products, in effect creating a new market. Vendors used OSHA standards and enforcement to motivate sales.

The passage of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 brought unprecedented changes in US workplaces, and the activities of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have contributed to a significant reduction in work-related deaths, injuries, and illnesses. Despite this, millions of workers are injured annually, and thousands killed. To reduce the toll, OSHA needs greater resources, a new standard-setting process, increased civil and criminal penalties, full coverage for all workers, and stronger whistleblower protections. Workers should not be injured or made sick by their jobs. To eliminate work injuries and illnesses, we must remake and modernize OSHA and restructure the relationship of employers and workers with the agency and each other. This includes changing the expectation of what employers must do to protect workers and implementing a requirement that firms have a “duty of care” to protect all people who may be harmed by their activities. Only by making major changes can we ensure that every worker leaves work as healthy as they were when their work shift began.

Controversy surrounds occupational health and safety regulators, with some observers claiming that workplace regulations damage firms' competitiveness and destroy jobs and others arguing that they make workplaces safer at little cost to employers and employees. We analyzed a natural field experiment to examine how workplace safety inspections affected injury rates and other outcomes. We compared 409 randomly inspected establishments in California with 409 matched-control establishments that were eligible, but not chosen, for inspection. Compared with controls, randomly inspected employers experienced a 9.4% decline in injury rates (95% confidence interval = -0.177 to -0.021) and a 26% reduction in injury cost (95% confidence interval = -0.513 to -0.083). We find no evidence that these improvements came at the expense of employment, sales, credit ratings, or firm survival.

Background State and Territorial Health Departments (SHDs) have a unique role in protecting and promoting workers’ health. This mixed-methods study presents the first systematic investigation of SHDs’ activities and capacity in both Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) and Workplace Health Promotion (WHP) in the United States (US). Methods National survey of OSH and WHP practitioners from each of 56 SHDs, followed by in-depth interviews with a subset of survey respondents. We calculated descriptive statistics for survey variables and conducted conventional content analysis of interviews. Results Seventy percent ( n  = 39) of OSH and 71% ( n  = 40) of WHP contacts responded to the survey. Twenty-seven ( n  = 14 OSH, n  = 13 WHP) participated in follow-up interviews. Despite limited funding, staffing, or organizational support, SHDs reported a wide array of activities. We assessed OSH and WHP surveillance activities, support that SHDs provided to employers to implement OSH and WHP interventions (implementation support), OSH and WHP services provided directly to workers, OSH follow-back investigations, and OSH standard and policy development. Each of the categories we asked about (excluding OSH standard and policy development) were performed by more than half of responding SHDs. Surveillance was the area of greatest OSH activity, while implementation support was the area of greatest WHP activity. Respondents characterized their overall capacity as low. Thirty percent ( n  = 9) of WHP and 19% ( n  = 6) of OSH respondents reported no funds at all for OSH/WHP work, and both groups reported a median 1.0 FTEs working on OSH/WHP at the SHD. Organizational support for OSH and WHP was characterized as “low” to “moderate”. To increase SHDs’ capacity for OSH and WHP, interview respondents recommended that OSH and WHP approaches be better integrated into other public health initiatives (e.g., infectious disease prevention), and that federal funding for OSH and WHP increase. They also discussed specific recommendations for improving the accessibility and utility of existing funding mechanisms, and the educational resources they desired from the CDC. Conclusions Results revealed current activities and specific strategies for increasing capacity of SHDs to promote the safety and health of workers and workplaces – an important public health setting for reducing acute injury and chronic disease.

The implementation of an international management system (IMS) in any organization (or part thereof) creates an efficient framework regarding the sustainable development and the review of processes required to manage occupational safety and health (OSH) efficaciously. Moreover, Occupational Safety and Health Management System (OSHMS) standards identify requirements regarding OSH management systems, with the aim of enabling an organization to adopt dynamic policy and objectives that take into consideration lawful requirements relating to OSH risks (e.g., safe and healthy workplaces, prevention of work-related injuries, etc.). This article extends the research and the results of a previous study of ours and comparatively presents (a) the main IMS standards concerning OSHMS and (b) the statistical results and new findings of an updated literature survey for additional time intervals (i.e., the years 1995–2005 and 2018–2020), ultimately covering the entire period of the years 1995–2020. Thus, the main targets of the study were (i) the implementation and comparative presentation of OSHMS standards, (ii) the reinforcement of their application at the worksites of any organization, and (iii) the development of a new ameliorated OSH management system model based on the knowledge from the literature review. On the other hand, some dominant results and findings are the following: (a) The industrial sector and construction sector demonstrate the highest percentage of OSHMS utilization. (b) The OHSAS 18001 standard remains the most frequent OSHMS standard even though, despite the fact that the ISO 45001:2018 is a recently developed OSHMS, it presents a considerable percentage distribution with reference to the total OSHMS articles despite its brief lifespan. (c) An effectual IMS OSHMS must merge various management systems, such as OSH (safety and health), QMS (quality), and EMS (environmental). (d) Organizations and businesses of any kind and any size can certainly develop and implement OSHMS standards. (e) Some substantial barriers to the implementation of an OSHMS standard are the high cost vis à vis implementation and management, the difficulty for the employees to realize its significance in OSH, and the complicatedness of combining different standards. (f) Occupational epidemiology must be one of the main features of an OSHMS standard. (g) Governments, employers, and employees admit day after day that the effectiveness of applying OSHMS standards at the organization level is considerable for decreasing the occupational hazards and risks and also for raising productivity.