Supermarket Checkouts and the Concept of Risk

3.1 Overview

In the world in which we live, every thing we do, or that is done by us, carries some ‘risk’. Most of us would agree that "There is no such thing as zero risk, absolute safety" (Henderson 1987 pp.vii). There are perhaps just those risks we find satisfactory, those we tolerate, and those we see as unacceptable.

From the array of studies, cited in the previous chapter, which have investigated checkout design, operation and health effects, there is a convincing argument that present designs are not satisfactory and that health effects experienced by some workers are unacceptable.

In the face of this evidence why are changes so slow? Why have retailers not moved more rapidly to improve checkout design? Why do workers continue to experience discomfort working at checkstands yet complain comparatively rarely? Why is this area not covered by specific regulation and being targeted by Health & Safety enforcers? The answer to these questions, at least in part, is that each group has a differing perception of risk.

This chapter now moves on to look at retailers, workers and enforcers perception of risk and how this influences their approach to checkout safety issues.

3.2 The Concept of Risk

The word ‘risk’ means different things to different people. It is a subjective criteria, which we all evaluate in different ways. Hale (1986) suggested that the importance which we place on a risk, which we can identify, depends upon:

• The nature of the hazard

• The extent to which exposure to the hazard and its potential for harm are controllable

• The time scale over which the harm may occur

• The assessor’s knowledge and understanding

• The magnitude of the imagined consequences

(as in Cox & Tait 1991 pp. 181)

Despite extensive study by groups such as the Royal Society commissioned in 1983, the term ‘risk’ remains somewhat abstract. Even amongst the scientific community, natural scientists continue to use the phrase differently than social scientists (The Royal Society 1992). Stranks (1996) contends that the assessment of ‘risks’: "could hardly be described as a precise science" (Stranks 1996 preface). Adams (1995) admits that "everyone is a true ‘risk’ expert in the original sense of the word; we have all been trained by practice and experience in the management of risks" (Adams 1995 p1)

Whilst we may all be risk experts, we are experts from our own perspective. It is these ‘cultural factors’ (Pidgeon et. al. 1992) which set our perception of risks.

3.3 The Retailers Perception of Risk

Retail managers may see checkouts purely as a necessary tool, an accepted technology which they see as commonplace. Many senior retail professionals may be from business management backgrounds. Many may have never experienced work on a supermarket checkout, and certainly not worked on a modern checkout for any length of time.

They see a relatively clean, well lit, warm workstation, and a seated operator. They do not have access to ergonomics research literature and they hear few complaints from workers. They perceive the task to be relatively low skilled and non stressful. They will be able to quote productivity figures, - how many items per hour a worker handles, the daily turnover through a checkout, the average time a customer stands in a queue, but they will not be able to identify how arduous workers find the task, nor evaluate the physical exertion they will have to put in to it. They are unable to quantify these items, and would have no use for the information if they could.

Whilst such managers, no doubt, believe that they may be championing the welfare of their staff, they have no detailed knowledge of ergonomics or biomechanics and are unable to fully understand the nature of the hazard, and unable to understand the magnitude of its consequences over time.

Change to workers hours or the design of checkstands is a matter for their head offices - not an issue which they can control locally. They belong to a culture which believes that all the necessary information for decision making will automatically be found in the upper levels of management. They are ‘binary’ thinkers (Garratt 1987), working within a classic ‘role culture’ (Harrison 1972).

At higher managerial levels, decisions are weighed against costs and benefits. These people will readily see the costs - such as new seating, new checkouts, or more staff if frequent rest breaks are provided - but may equate benefits to the organisation differently to benefits for the worker.

3.4 Workers Perception of Risk

Workers also, to some extent, may find it difficult to understand the possible risks associated with checkout work. They do not see that the task requires anything out of the ordinary - after all they are continually told by their employers that it is easy. Whist they can identify discomfort, such as back pain, they do not link it to possible incapacitating injury. They will not see long term implications of their current working practices and accordingly may not see the importance of following their training on reach distances, handling techniques and maintaining good posture. They become risk takers - reaching further, sitting in an awkward position, not correctly adjusting a chair, lifting badly, or perhaps scanning with a single hand.

Many may be affected by the culture in which they work, and be competitive, not wishing to show weakness. They may not report symptoms to employers for similar reasons, and may not have the support of a trade union to express concerns collectively.

Whistle blowing is something they would not consider except under extreme conditions.

Working in an organisation where more / faster / better is praised, and on occasions financially rewarded, they utilise any technique they can use to process goods quickly through the checkout and record a fast transaction time.

Whilst checkout workers would appear to tolerate such risks we must recognise that this does not mean that the risk no longer need to be controlled - for:

" ‘Tolerability’ does not mean ‘acceptability’. It refers to the willingness to live with risk to secure certain benefits and in the confidence that it is being properly controlled. To tolerate a risk means that we do not regard it as negligible or something we might ignore, but rather as something we need to keep under review and reduce still further if we can." (HSE 1988 p.1)

3.5 Enforcers Perception of Risk

Enforcers should have a totally different outlook on risk. They view it from a legalistic standpoint, and look at it in the context of a wide range of experiences.

They are charged with ensuring that employers identify risks and keep such risks as low as reasonably practicable by policing a number of legislative provisions - these provisions can be summarised as follows:

• The Health & Safety at Work (etc.) Act 1974

• This framework statute imposes a number of general duties - namely to provide:

• a safe system of work

• safe handling systems and practices

• the necessary information, instruction, training and supervision for employees

• a safe place of work

• a safe work environment with adequate welfare facilities

• The Act also gives effect to the following more specific regulations:

• The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992

• Regulation 3: employers must make a ‘suitable and sufficient assessment of the health and safety risks to employees and those not in his employment' and they must formulate and put in place 'appropriate control measures’

• Regulation 4: they must make appropriate arrangements for planning organising, controlling, monitoring and reviewing the preventative and protective measures which are to be put in place.

• Regulation 6: employers must appoint a competent person to assist with implementing their obligations under health and safety legislation.

• Regulation 8: employers must also provide adequate safety information to all concerned, detailing the safety risks which have been identified by the assessment.

• The Workplace (Health Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992

• Regulation 5: employers must ensure that the workplace is kept clean & maintained in a safe state.

• Regulation 8: makes a specific requirement that ‘suitable and sufficient lighting for the task’ be provided

• Regulation 11: requires that ‘All workstations to be suitable for any person who is likely to work there’ and ‘where a substantial part of the work must be done sitting, a suitable seat and footrest if required, to be supplied’.

• The Provision of Work Equipment Regulations 1992

• Regulation 5: requires that ‘Work equipment to be constructed or adapted to be suitable for the intended purpose’ and ‘selection of work equipment to have regard to working conditions’

• The Manual Handling Regulations 1992

• these require that ergonomics are considered to ensure that items are handled safely. The individuals capability, the characteristics of the task, the load and its physical properties and the working environment must all be scrutinised.

3.6 Risk Perception & The Actions of Environmental Health Officers

In researching this paper no information could be found which gave a specific insight into the hazards which enforcement Officers linked to checkout operations and accordingly the risks which they considered were posed by this task.

It is unclear how much information Officers have on which to base their judgements and how severe they weight the consequences of poor workstation design or inappropriate work practices. To make such deductions it would be necessary to investigate:

• Do Officers have access to sufficient technical information ?

• Are they aware of complaints and accidents relating to checkout use ?

• Can they accurately predict injuries which are likely to occur (i.e. do they understand the issues) ?

• How would they risk assess a checkout (i.e. what would they see as an appropriate risk rating) ?

Just as nothing appears to be published about their perceptions of checkout safety issues, no information could be traced relating to their actions for example:

• When would they thoroughly inspect a checkout ?

• Would they use a checklist ?

• What would they look for / evaluate the adequacy of ?

• Had they used formal Notice systems to encourage improvements ?

• Where did they see their key role in promoting checkout safety ?

• Did they find present controls sufficient ?

• Were they consistent in their approach ?

It would appear that these are fundamental questions which, potentially, have a major impact on how the health safety and welfare of checkout workers in the UK is perceived and how controls are identified and implemented to protect them. Accordingly it was decided that they were appropriate for further study.

The next Chapter details the methodological considerations for this study and Chapter Five details its results.