72

CHAPTER 3

3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE

3.1 INTRODUCTION

Review of related literature is an important aspect of research.

Research takes advantage of the knowledge which has accumulated in the
past as a result of constant human endeavor. It can never be undertaken in
isolation of the work that has already been done on the problem which is
directly or indirectly related to the study proposed by the researcher.

Successful research can be carried out only through a process of

integration of past research and knowledge with current research. A careful
review of research journals, books, dissertations, thesis and other relevant
sources of information is one of the important steps in the planning of the
research study. The review provides evidence of the investigator‟s knowledge
of the field of investigation and also helps him in evolving new insights and
builds new approaches to the problem under study.

According to “Mouley (1964)”the survey of the literature is a

crucial aspect of the planning of the study and the time spent in such a survey
invariably is a wise investment.” Review of the related literature, besides
allowing the researcher to acquaint himself with current knowledge in the
 73

field or area in which he is conducting his research, serves the following

specific purpose:

i) It enables the researcher to define the limits of his area of research. It

helps the researcher to delimit and define the problem. The knowledge
of related literature brings the researcher up-to-date on the work which
others have done and state the objectives clearly.

ii) It enables the researcher to avoid unfruitful and useless problem areas.

iii) It enables the researcher to avoid un-international duplication of well-

established findings.

iv) It gives the researcher an understanding of the research methodology

which refers to the way the study is to be conducted. It also enables
the researcher to provide insight in to statistical methods through
which validity of results is to be established.

v) The final and important specific reason for reviewing the related
literature is to know about the recommendations of previous
researchers listed in their studies for further research.

The literatures surveyed by the researcher relevant to

Occupational safety, health and environment in small-scale foundries are
presented in this chapter.

3.2 ACCIDENT CAUSATION

An accident potential exists in almost every situation for the

people. Unsafe act and unsafe conditions are coupled with many other factors
for the causation of accident. Occupational accidents, work-related injuries
 74

and fatalities result from multiple causes. Many traditional theories about the
causes of occupational accidents focus on the worker. Many attempts have
been made to develop a prediction theory of accident causation, but so far
none was universally accepted. Researchers from different fields of science
and engineering have been trying to develop a theory of accident causation
which will help to identify, isolate and ultimately remove the factors that
contribute to or cause accidents.

Many models for accident causation have been proposed by

researchers and the simple model is shown in Figure 3.1. The causes of
accident are grouped into five categories, job, material, environment,
personal and management. This model of accident investigations provides a
guide for revealing all possible causes and reduces the likelihood of
causation.

JOB

MANAGEMENT MATERIAL

PERSONAL ENVIRONMENT

Figure 3.1 Accident causation model

 75

3.3 ACCIDENT CAUSATION THEORIES

3.3.1 The Domino Theory

According to W.H.Heinrich, who developed the so-called the

domino theory, 88% of all accidents are caused by unsafe acts of working
people, 10% by unsafe actions by the worker and 2% by "acts of God". A
“five-factor accident sequence” is proposed in which each factor would
actuate the next step in the manner of tumbling dominoes lined in a row. The
sequence of accident factors is as follows:

1. Ancestry and social environment

2. Worker‟s fault
3. Unsafe act together with mechanical and physical hazard
4. Accident
5. Damage or injury

In the same way, the removal of a single domino in the row

might interrupt the sequence to collapse. Removal of one of the factors would
prevent the accident and the resultant injury, with the key domino to be
removed from the sequence. Although the author provided no data for his
theory, it nonetheless represents a useful point to start discussion and a
foundation for future research.

3.3.2 Multiple Causation Theory

The multiple-causation theory is consequence of the domino

theory, but it suggest that for a single accident there may be many
contributory factors, causes and sub-causes, and that certain combinations of
 76

these give rise to accidents. According to this theory, the contributing factors
can be grouped into the following two categories:

1. Behavioral factors, which include factors pertaining to the worker,

such as inappropriate attitude, lack of knowledge, lack of skills and
inadequate physical and mental condition.
2. Environmental factors, which include improper guarding of other
hazardous work elements and degradation of equipment through use
and unsafe procedures. The major contribution of this theory is to
bring out the fact that rarely, if ever, an accident is the result of a
single cause or act.

3.3.3 The Pure Chance Theory

According to the pure-chance theory, every one of any given set

of workers has an equal chance of being involved in an accident. It further
implies that there is no single noticeable pattern of events that leads to an
accident. In this theory, all accidents are treated as acts of supernatural being,
and it is held that there exist no interventions to prevent them.

3.3.4 The Biased-Liability Theory

The biased-liability theory is based on the observation that once

a worker is involved in an accident, the probability of the same worker
becoming involved in future accidents either increase or decrease as
compared to the rest of workers. This theory contributes very little, if
anything at all, towards developing preventive actions for avoiding accidents.
 77

3.3.5 The Accident-Proneness Theory

The accident-proneness theory sustains that within a given set of

workers, there exists a subset of workers who are more liable to be involved
in accidents. Researchers have not been able to prove this theory decisively
because most of the research work was poorly conducted and most of the
findings are contradictory and inconclusive. This theory is not generally
accepted. It is felt that if indeed this theory is supported by any empirical
evidence at all, it probably accounts for only a very low proportion of
accidents without any statistical significance.

3.3.6 The Energy-Transfer Theory

The energy-transfer theory states that, those who accept this

theory put forward the claim that a worker sustains injury or equipment
suffers damage through a change of energy, and that for every change of
energy there is a source, a path and a receiver.

This theory is useful for determining injury causation and

evaluating energy hazards and control methodology. Strategies can be
developed which are preventive, limiting with respect to the energy transfer.
Control of energy transfer at the source can be achieved by the elimination of
the source, changes made to the design or specification of elements of the
work-station, by preventive maintenance. The receiver of energy transfer can
be assisted by limitation of exposure and use of personal protective
equipment.
 78

3.3.7 The "Symptoms Versus Causes" Theory

The "symptoms versus causes" theory is not so much a theory as

a caution to be heeded if accident causation is to be understood. Usually,
when investigating accidents, we are liable to close upon the evident caused
by the accident to neglect the root causes. Unsafe acts and unsafe conditions
are the symptoms, the proximate causes, and not the root causes of the
accident.

3.4 HYPOTHESIS FOR ACCIDENT CAUSATION

Heinrich (1920) proposed a theory of accident causation known

as „Dominos Theory‟ based on the examination of thousands of insurance
records of industrial accidents. His was the first comprehensive effort by
anyone to explain the industrial accident phenomena scientifically. Before
Heinrich, people believed that industrial accidents were a matter of fate. In
his first book, Industrial accident prevention, published in 1931, Heinrich
conceptualized a domino theory of accident causation states that injuries are
caused by accidents, unsafe act and unsafe conditions cause accidents.
Unsafe acts and conditions are caused by the faults of persons, which are in
turn caused by the social environment and ancestry.

Heinrich attempted to show that removing any one of these four

dominos in the sequence could interpret the accident sequence. Furthermore,
he stated that the bull‟s eye of the accident prevention target was the unsafe
act of a person or a mechanical or physical hazard. Many researchers felt that
Heinrich‟s theory attributed too much cause to factors internal to workers and
neglected the importance of external factors.
 79

Bird (1973), a researcher with the International Loss Control

Institute, revised Heinrich‟s Domino Theory “Bird &O‟Shell (1973)” Bird‟s
model was a straightforward revision, but it was a significant insight, because
it introduced the attention of managerial error into the accident causation
sequence. Bird‟s updated Domino Theory was not as widely accepted by the
industrialized managers as Heinrich‟s model, probably because Heinrich let-
them-off-the-catch. Blaming workers is easier and less costly than training
workers, changing how an operation is performed or making environmental
modifications.

Bird‟s updated Domino theory states that injuries are caused by

accident, and hazardous commitment. For every accident there are immediate
causes that are related to operational errors, Operational errors are not only
signs of deeper underlying or basic causes related to management errors, the
absence of a system of effective control permits the existence of the factors
referred to as basic causes.

Perrow (1999), developed a theoretical framework and

published the book "Normal accidents: Living with high-risk technologies”
based on his analysis of the Three Mile Island (TMI) nuclear reactor accident
documents in the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania areas of the USA in 1979. He was
encouraged to write the book to document his opposition to the Kemeny
report on TMI as the report primarily blamed the plant operators for the
accident.

He observed that accidents such as TML and number of others,

all began with a mechanical or other technical misfortune and then spun out
of control through a series of technical cause-effect chains, because the
operators involved could not stop the flow or without knowing did things that
 80

made it worse. Perrow's argument is that serious accidents and catastrophic

events similarly are the result of simultaneous and interactive failure among
various system components, including equipment, control, procedures,
process, operators and material, environment, and design.

Another researcher, Edward Adams provided a second update to

the Domino Theory. According to the Adams update, remarks sequence, the
domino „immediate cause‟ was retitled as „tactical errors” to draw attention to
the nature of unsafe acts and unsafe conditions within the management
system. The tactical errors in employee behavior and work conditions were
seen as arising from “operational errors” made by managers and supervisors.
These are administrative mistakes or omissions made by supervision or
decisions made wrong or not made by managers in critical managerial areas.

A third update of the Domino Theory was provided by D.A.

Weaver. Weaver explains about the concept of operational errors, and
symptoms in the working environment. “The operational errors which result
in accidents and injuries also produce the endless array of other unplanned
and undesired results which supervisory management contends with every
day. The unplanned and undesired result is merely a symptom. The accident
or injury is a symptom. So is the shipment that goes off course, the
contaminated batch, the customer badly served? All are symptoms of the
same underlying operational errors.” [Heinrich, Peterson and Roos, Industrial
Accident Prevention, 1980].

Michael Zabetakis of the Mines Safety and Health

Administration Academy presented the fourth update of the Domino Theory.
In his Safety Manual No. 4 – „Accident Prevention‟, he explains that the
majority of accidents are actually caused by the unintended or unwanted
 81

release of excessive amounts of energy from mechanical, electrical, chemical,

thermal, ionizing radiation or from hazardous substances, such as carbon-
monoxide, carbon-dioxide, hydrogen-sulphide, methane and water.

He further says that with few exceptions, these releases are in

turn caused by unsafe acts and unsafe conditions which in turn cause the
accident; and the selection, training and placement of each employee and the
purchase, inspection and maintenance of each piece of equipment are
considered as important to a successful accident prevention program.
[Heinrich, Peterson and Roos, Industrial Accident Prevention, 1980].

It is estimated that unsafe work conditions is one of the leading

causes of death and disability among India‟s working population. These
deaths are needless and preventable. Unlike growth rates and GDP figures
that are flaunted every quarter, the figures of dying and ailing workers who
are participants in India‟s growth story are never recorded or spoken about.
The only way to get an idea of the scale of the problem is from data released
by the ILO, which estimates that around 403,000 people in India die every
year due to work‐ related problems, that is, about 46 every hour [Pandita,
Sanjiv, “Status of occupational safety and health in India,” Infochange
Agenda.]

These entire theories take into account the need for educating
and training the workers in order avoid unsafe acts and unsafe conditions.
Safe and healthy conditions at work do not simply happen; they have to be
planned and managed. An essential part of this process is the education and
training of all concerned. Health and safety education aims to ensure that
everyone is fully aware of all the hazards they meet at work and the potential
consequences of hasty, ill-considered or thoughtless actions. The programs of
 82

education should be designed to make people behave in a safe way as a

matter of habit.

3.5 REVIEW OF ACCIDENT STATISTICS

Zakaria et al evaluated (2005) occupational hazards in four

foundries. The levels of total and respirable dust, free silica % in total dust
and lead concentration in total and respirable dust; Nitrogen-dioxide (NO2),
Sulphur-dioxide (SO2) and Carbon-monoxide (CO) concentrations; noise and
heat stress levels were determined in the work. Occupational injuries data
were analyzed in a three-year period, from 1998 to 2000.

The results of the work revealed, that the levels of total dust and
respirable dust exceeded the threshold limit values at knockout and cleaning
operations, and free silica percentage exceeded permissible levels in all
operations except pouring. The CO levels, noise levels in knockout and
cleaning operations exceeded the threshold limit values. The age group 31-40
years had recorded the highest average incidence rate of injuries.

Aas et al (2009) investigated how selected standards were applied

within an industrial context and suggested strategies to improve their
applications. His thesis focused on the human part of large and complex
systems. The author reported human beings are essential in any large and
complex system, but their complexity makes it virtually impossible to predict
their behavior and impact on such systems. The author further statement that
safety standards applications should aid to handle such complexity in a safe,
efficient and effective manner.
 83

Arularasu (2005) conducted a detailed research to establish the

personal attitude and habits of human resources, hazardous working
environment, lack of management commitment towards safety education and
training in the relevant field. It was reported that managers, supervisors and
workers‟ knowledge about safety and the consequences of hazard were not
enough and accidents occurred due to negligence. Under different parameters
he conducted survey for occupational safety, health and working environment
in the industries and concluded that there should be planned systematic
training in safety aspect and it must be strictly followed by the organization.

Woods et al (2010) observed that human error is the cause of

incidents and accidents. The authors strongly opined that the label "human
error" is prejudicial and unspecific, and leads to system failure and in turn
leads to accident. In his study he remarks that people in their different roles
are conscious of probable paths to failure, they develop failure sensitive
strategies to avoid these possibilities. When failures occurred, against this
background, are of usual success. In his statement, he says that, everyone
should decrease the human role with new automation, or separate human
behavior by strict monitoring, control, follow rules or procedures. But in
practice, things have proved not to be this simple. The label of „human error‟
is harmful and unspecific, and any serious examination of the human
contribution to safety and to system failure shows that the story of human
error is noticeably complex.

Feyer et al (1991) studied on the role of work practices in

occupational accidents and arrived that the relationships between human and
other factors provided insights about the causes of occupational accidents and
their prevention. Unsafe acts and unsafe conditions formed the basis and
these characteristics conditions are to be analyzed before executing the
 84

work.He designed a broad classification system for occupational accidents,

which would explain the array of fundamental factors, map their relative
chronological relationships, evaluate the relative significance of factors in
accident causation, and yet, be practically applicable.

Siegrist (1996), from the perspective in the psychosocial

domains, studied by occupational health researchers, commented that it
typically include psychological job demands, job control (decision latitude),
social support, and intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. These factors, reflecting
the organization of the work process, are often used to define the
“psychosocial work environment.” However, health and well-being are also
affected by other features of the psychosocial work climate, such as unfair or
inequitable treatment of employees, sexual harassment, and discrimination.

Kaila (2011) conducted a study covering multi-national

organizations such as petroleum, engineering, automobile, cement, power,
chemical, pharmaceutical companies etc.The author observed that
management have started believing that engineering and administrative
controls alone do not provide adequate safe workplaces unless Behavioral
Based Safety (BBS) is practiced and unsafe behavior of the workers is
controlled in order to ensure total safety at workplaces.

Mahadevan (2009) strongly believed that safety and health is

not just for specialists and professionals. It should become the concern of all
people at workplaces. In the name of global competition, measures like cost
cutting, quicker output, better profits etc. should not cause any hazard in the
work-place and surroundings. Intensifying the safety and health at work
involve that efficient and accessible services are made available to the
workers. It is necessary to eliminate the wrong belief that many occupational
 85

diseases are essential components and inevitable elements of their work; that
any solutions to these problems would involve high degree of technical
expertise and large financial investment. This negative view and unhealthy
attribution should be proved wrong and be totally altered by means of
appropriate training on OSHE and education at all levels.

Kurzman (1987) investigated on the Bhopal gas leak accident

due to the release of methyl isocyanate gas and found the safety problems for
this accident which killed around twenty-five hundred people and injured two
hundred thousand people. Bhopal disaster was an obvious case of a failure of
company‟s social conscientiousness in line with the industrialization in
developing nations. It demonstrated how industrial hazards and
environmental devastation are tied with the dynamics of globalization. From
a critical perspective, Multi-National companies profit from on exploiting
low-cost resources, labor, and operating expenses in the developing world to
derive maximum savings and to expand markets.

Lakshmanan (1989) had the objective of under the title

“Evaluation of hazards index in ferrous foundries – A new methodology”
with the objective of getting a clear picture of accident scene in industries by
the factors and the possibility of inductive indices from the potential hazards.
More than thousand accidents in the foundry industry were analyzed under
various categories and his findings were, judging the safety standard of a
factory will modify the consequences of accident rate. He revealed the hazard
potential also prompts the management to reduce the hazard potential and
improve the safety of employees.

Gurjar et al (1991) developed a mathematical model for

airborne accidental release of extremely hazardous substances for industrial
 86

location and emergency preparedness. The model used in the study was the
usual Gaussian equation applicable for dispersion of gaseous pollutants. The
site of the study happened to be a chemical industrial complex to address
general impact on environment prevailing at a time. Under normal
environment, temperature and pressure were observed. The data on SO2,
NOxand CO2 were collected and compiled by the consultant working for the
complex. The observation by the researcher helped to draw inferences for the
occurrence of hazards. However the model was not tested specifically for
LPG. But the study was the first of its kind in India.

More et al (2010) studied employees‟ work-physiology and

effects of stress for socioeconomic information. The study reported that most
of the workers were illiterates, had poor personal habits, which caused
accidents in the foundry section. The authors concluded that the working
environment was extremely adverse; noise level was non-standard, heat
stress, particulate matters and dusts are extremely high and not controlled. So
the physiological profile of workers must be developed for their well-being.

National occupational health and safety commission, Australia

(2000) reported that percentage of deaths due to fall from height is 12 percent
of all fatal accidents and 60 percent of the fall are involved with an height of
five metres or less between 1989 to 1982 in Australia.

Paswn et al (2008) observed that most of the accidents were

caused by the failure of people, equipment, materials or environments. The
author stated that the inspection team and safety officer should examine each
event as well as the sequence of events that led to the accident. Their study
concluded that the key element in developing safety culture is developing a
 87

rigorous safety discipline that only will make the industry a safe place to
work.

Saxena (1978) identified that accidents in industries are gaining

importance due to development of industries in India. His main objectives
were to study the importance of accidents and to estimate accident rate in
industries. In his study he pointed out that that the problem of accidents had
gained recognition due to the rapid development of Indian industries during
the past twenty years. Details pertaining the accidents under the factories Act
were collected and submitted to the Government.

The report of the 8th Annual Behavioral Based Safety (BBS)

Conference 2012, states that the grounds of most workplace accidents and
happenings is directly associated to human failures and mistakes. Behavioral
Based Safety is commonly geared to when businesses have reached a level in
their safety performance and the only rational step left in reducing the risk of
accidents is to encourage the more active involvement of worker themselves.
The aim of BBS in an organization is to get all employees to view safety in
the same way and in a continuous, unconscious manner. The report indicated
how to inculcate a culture of BBS throughout the workplace and how to
create safety a priority when recruiting, training and rewarding employees.

World Health Organization (1997) estimated that 10 to 30

percent of workers in developed countries and up to 30 percent of the
workers in developing countries are exposed to physical hazards, and found
that accidents in industries can be reduced by 50 percent with the adoption of
safety systems, and changes in behavioral, and management practices. It has
also estimated 250 million occupational injuries and 330,000 fatalities occur
each year.
 88

World disaster report (1997) estimated that industrial accidents had

resulted in an annual average of 616 fatal accidents and 5,593 non-fatal
injuries, and the industrial accidents are same in all regions of the world, and
reflected the same trend.

3.6 SUMMARY

The literature review reveals that extensive research work was

carried out in the industrial organization for occupational safety and health. It
gives more information related to hazards and occupational ill- health under
unsafe acts and unsafe conditions. Most research has focused on the
environmental working conditions and exposure to accidents. These early
studies made an attempt to understand why and how accidents and other
unwanted events occurred in the foundry industry.

The domino theory advocated by Heinrich, and the updated

domino theory advanced by Frank bird and the new safety philosophies put
forth by Peterson and other caught the attention of the industry. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) established the National
Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) which was responsible
for research and education in the field of Occupational safety and health.