Organizational Trust and the Limits of Management-Based Regulation

Abstract

This article examines the relationship between management-based regulation and occupational health and safety through two case studies. The first describes how corporate occupational health and safety systems and standards were interpreted and implemented differently at different mine sites within the same company and examines the particular role of trust between workers and management in explaining variations in occupational health and safety performance. The second explores the difficulties of moving from a highly devolved system of responsibility to a more centralized approach, and the incapacity of externally mandated management-based regulation to change behavior at site level in the absence of a supportive workplace culture. The article argues that notwithstanding the heavy emphasis currently being placed on both internal (company-driven) and external (government-driven) management-based regulation, a commitment at corporate level does not necessarily percolate down to individual facilities where ritualistic responses or resistant subcultures may thwart effective change. The findings have important implications for the effectiveness of management-based regulation and meta-regulation more broadly.Formor e than a decade, private enterprise and governments in North America, Western Europe, and Australasia have been experimenting with an innovative approach to standard-setting variously termed process-based, systems-based, or management-based regulation (Coglianese & Lazar 2003; Gunningham & Johnstone 1999: Ch. 2). In contrast to traditional prescriptive standards (which tell duty holders precisely what measures to take) or performance standards (which specify outcomes or the desired level of performance), this approach involves firms developing their own process and management system standards, and developing internal planning and management practices designed to achieve regulatory or corporate goals. Such standards, whether they are

Corporate Monitorships and New Governance Regulation: In Theory, in Practice, and in Context

“…There is more to creating deep systemic change than building a system that has the potential to do so. No matter how promising that system in theory, resistant subcultures can thwart effective change (Gunningham and Sinclair 2009). This is as true of regulators, and of monitorships, as it is of corporate ethical cultures.…”

The regulatory state and beyond

“…There is, of course, a significant concern that only the state is well equipped to deliver the public interest in public policy. Such concerns require a careful inquiry into the extent to which public and private interests are or can be aligned within a regulatory or metaregulatory context (Gunningham and Sinclair 2009). …”

Regulatory Theory

“…And what is the relationship between managementbased regulation and organisational trust? Is it the case, as some have claimed (Gunningham and Sinclair 2009), that 'culture eats systems for breakfast'? These and related questions will be addressed below.…”