مهندسی بهای تمام شده ایمنی در محیط کار از دیدگاه حسابداری مدیریت و استفاده از روش‌های نوین ارزیابی عملکرد

نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم تحقیقات تهران

2 دانشجوی دکتری حسابداری دانشگاه آزاد واحد علوم تحقیقات، مدرس دانشگاه و موسسات آموزش عالی

چکیده

تمرکز بر مهندسی هزینه از طریق محاسبه دقیق و مربوط بهای تمام شده در بخش ایمنی محیط کار بر اساس اصل هزینه – فایده و به تبع آن سنجش عملکرد منطقی و کارآمد از اهمیت زیادی برخوردار است، زیرا در حال حاضر با ارزش­ترین منابع هر سازمانی، نیروی انسانی متخصص و ماهر آن سازمان بوده و تامین شرایط مناسب و ایمن در محیط کار برای آن از اهمیت و جایگاه ویژه ای برخوردار است. در همین راستا هدف این مقاله حاضر تمرکز بر شیوه­های اندازه‌گیری بهای تمام شده ایمنی و طراحی الگوی­های بهای تمام شده و استفاده از این اطلاعات در تصمیم­گیری­های سازمانی و ارزیابی عملکرد سازمان می­باشد.
 روش­های غالب برای محاسبه هزینه­های مربوط به ایمنی در محیط کار، براساس برآورد بهای تمام شده استوار بوده و در این رابطه  اقدامات معمول شامل محاسبه بهای هر آسیب و یا بهای تمام شده کلی حوادث می­شود. حسابداری مدیریت همچنین باید بر جنبه­های غیر مالی مانند میزان احساس امنیت کارکنان و روش­های افزایش ایمنی تمرکز داشته باشد. در سرمایه­گذاری­های مسائل ایمنی،اگرچه هزینه­ها مشخص هستند، ولی محاسبه ارزش مزایای حاصل از این مخارج دشوار است و باید از روش­های نوین ارزیابی عملکرد مانند کارت ارزیابی متوازن استفاده کرد.
علاوه بر این، درباره قابلیت اجرای روش­های خاص حسابداری مدیریت برای تصمیم گیری در ارتباط با ایمنی در محیط کار و چگونگی استفاده از آنها در جهت بهبود شیوه­های فعلی بحث می­شود. این روش­ها شامل  کارت ارزیابی متوازن، دوره بازپرداخت و تحلیل هزینه - فایده است. تعیین ارزش ایمنی نیروی انسانی نیز در آنالیزهای هزینه-فایده نیز مورد بحث قرار می­گیرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

The safety-related cost engineering in work environments from the management accounting approach and using modern performance measurement Systems

نویسندگان [English]

  • Roya Monem 1
  • Mozhgan Saeidi 2
چکیده [English]

Recently, professional and highly skilled man power is the most valuable possession in any given organization, and that is why it is so essential to prepare a suitable and safe work environment .Then it is most of the importance to be focused on cost engineering in safety aspects, through benefit-to-cost opinion and consequently a logic and effective measurement of performance .
Accordingly, this article is focused on safety cost measuring systems and designing cost evaluating routines, also how to use these kinds of information in decision- making and performance measurement system in organizations .
Cost evaluating, is the main method uses to assessment the safety related costs in work environment, which calculate the cost of every single damage (cost per injury) or an overall cost of an accident. However, management accounting must treat some non-monetory aspects as well, the concepts like how much safe the staff do feel and how to increase the safety in general. In safety related investments, although the costs are known, the assessment of monetary value of the benefits is too difficult, and then using the modern performance measurement methods like Balanced Scorecard approach is necessary .
The article also has a glance on the ability of commencing the peculiar management accounting methods oriented in safety decision making and using them in improvement the conventional routines. These methods are Balanced Scorecard approach the payback period and benefit-to-cost analysis. The valuing of human life also argues with in benefit-to-cost analysis .

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • management accounting
  • Cost Engineering
  • Safety in work environment
  • Safety related costs
  • Value of Human Life
  • Benefit-to-Cost analysis
*      Amador-Rodezno, R., 2005. An overview to CERSSO’s self evaluation of the cost–benefit on the investment in occupational safety and health in the textile factories: ‘‘A step by step methodology’’. J. Safe. Res., ECON Proc. 36, 215–229.

*      Bhattacharya, C. B.; Korschun, D.; and S. Sen (2009). “Strengthening Stakeholder-Company Relationships throughMutuallyBeneficial Corporate Social Responsibility Initiatives”, Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 85, No. 1, pp. 257-272.

*      Bolton, L.E. and Mattila, A.S., 2015. How does corporate social responsibility affect consumer response to service failure in buyer–seller relationships?. Journal of Retailing, 91(1), pp.140-153.

*      Bouten, L. and Hoozée, S., 2016. Let's do it safely: how Altrad Balliauw configured a package of control systems. Journal of Cleaner Production.

*      Brief, A., o f Conduct, C., Bribery, A., Mix, P., Plagiarism, C., Chart, P.F., Form, I., Flowchart, P.C., Form, P.V., Form, C.A. and Agreement, S.I., 2015. Corporate Social Responsibility. Issues.

*      Cheng, M.M. and Humphreys, K.A., 2016. Managing strategic uncertainty: The diversity and use of performance measures in the balanced scorecard. Managerial Auditing Journal, 31(4/5).

*      Danziger, S.K., Danziger, S., Seefeldt, K.S. and Shaefer, H.L., 2016. From Welfare To A Work‐Based Safety Net: An Incomplete Transition. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 35(1), pp.231-238.

*      Fox-Rushby, J.A., Hanson, K., 2001. Calculating and presenting disability adjusted life years (DALYs) in cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Policy Plan. 16 (3), 326–331.

*      Gavious, A., Mizrahi, S., Shani, Y., Minchuk, Y., 2009. The costs of industrial accidents for the organization: developing methods and tools for evaluation and cost–benefit analysis of investment in safety. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22, 434–438.

*      Haas, E.J. and Yorio, P., 2016. Exploring the state of health and safety management system performance measurement in mining organizations. Safety Science, 83, pp.48-58.

*      Hale, A., 2009. Why safety performance indicators? Safe. Sci. 47, 479–480. Hale, A.R., Guldenmund, F.W., van Loenhout, P.L.C.H., Oh, J.I.H., 2010. Evaluating  safety management and culture interventions to improve safety: effective intervention strategies. Safe. Sci. 48, 1026–1035.

*      Karahalios, H., 2014. The contribution of risk management in ship management: the case of ship collision. Safe. Sci. 63, 104–114.

*      Jallon, R., Imbeau, D., de Marcellis-Warin, N., 2011a. A process mapping model for calculating indirect costs of workplace accidents. J. Safe. Res. 42, 333–344.

*      Jallon, R., Imbeau, D., de Marcellis-Warin, N., 2011b. Development of an indirectcost calculation model suitable for workplace use. J. Safe. Res. 42, 149–164

*      Mansour, M., 2016. Quantifying the intangible costs related to non-ergonomic work conditions and work injuries based on the stress level among employees. Safety science, 82, pp.283-288.

*      Nielsen, M.B., Hystad, S.W. and Eid, J., 2016. The Brief Norwegian Safety Climate Inventory (Brief NORSCI)–Psychometric properties and relationships with shift work, sleep, and health. Safety Science, 83, pp.23-30.

*      Oddone, E. and Imbriani, M., 2016. Pleural mesothelioma: Case-report of uncommon occupational asbestos exposure in a small furniture industry. International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health, 29(3).

*      Peloza, J. and L. Falkenberg (2009). “The Role of Collaboration in Achieving Corporate Social Responsibility Objectives”, California Management Review, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 95-113.

*      Rikhardsson, P.M., Impgaard, M., 2004. Corporate cost of occupational accidents: an activity-based analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 36, 173–182.

*      Ronza, A., Lazaro-Touza, L., Carol, S., Casal, J., 2009. Economic valuation of damages originated by major accidents in port areas. J. Loss Prev. Process Ind. 22, 639–648.

*      Shackleton, R., 2016. An Examination of Different Measures of Work Experience, and the Relationship between Previous Experience and Safety.

*      Straker, L., 2016. Sedentary work. Evidence on an emergent work health and safety issue.

*      Sun, L., Paez, O., Lee, D., Salem, S., Daraiseh, N., 2006. Estimating the uninsured costs of work-related accidents, part I: a systematic review. Theor. Issues Ergon. Sci.7, 227–245.

*      Tappura, S., Sievänen, M., Heikkilä, J., Jussila, A. and Nenonen, N., 2015. A management accounting perspective on safety. Safety science, 71, pp.151-159.

*      Turker, D., 2016. Islamic Roots of Corporate Social Responsibility. In Cultural Roots of Sustainable Management (pp. 133-144). Springer International Publishing.

*      Uegaki, K., de Bruijne, M.C., Lambeek, L., Anema, J.R., van der Beek, A.J., van Mechelen, W., van Tulder, M.W., 2010. Economic evaluations of occupational health interventions from a corporate perspective – a systematic review of methodological quality. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 36, 273–288.

*      Verbeek, J., Pulliainen, M., Kankaanpää, E., 2009. A systematic review of occupational safety and health business cases. Scand. J. Work Environ. Health 35, 403–412.

*      Whitehouse, L. (2003). “Corporate Social Responsibility, Corporate Citizenship and the Global Compact: A New Approach to Regulating Corporate Social Power?”, GlobalSocial Policy, Vol. 3, No. 3, pp. 299-318