Psy/460 - Risk Perception at the Work Environment

Risk Perception at the Work Environment

Risk perception can be defined as a subjective judgment individuals make of the severity of risks. Environmental risk is a subject that creates debate and animosity between people with different beliefs, since most individuals have a different perception regarding the extent of issues around the world (Steg, 2013). Steg (2013) explains that an environmental risk is any situation, activity, or event that may possibly bring negative consequences and affect human values. The last decade saw an increased popularity of environmental risk discussions about problems like climate change, air pollution, noise pollution, sustainability, the use of pesticides, among other issues. Most environmental issues being discussed nowadays were created by men. Large corporations play an important role in the current situation of the world environment. Because of their constant search for higher profits, large organizations often disregard the environment, either by sending pollution into the air, extracting too much out of the nature, or submitting its employees to an unsafe work environment, that will be detrimental not only to the employee personally, but also to the world. This paper will analyze two articles that explained how unsafe work conditions can be detrimental to workers’ health as well as to the environment.

Article One

The first article to be analyzed is the one written by Kelly A. Scanlon, and is entitled “The work environment disability-adjusted life year for use with life cycle assessment; a methodological approach”. Written in 2012, this research article explains that the LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) is a method used to evaluate how workers’ health and the environment are affected by the usage, emissions, and extractions throughout the life cycle of a determined product (Scanlon, 2012). The purpose of this methodology is to find ways for products to have less of an impact on the environment, by determining how much that product is affecting the workers who produced it and the environment around it (Scanlon, 2012). The article also presents the term WE-DALY (Work Environment – Disability Adjusted Life Year). By using this concept, corporations are able to lessen the negative and harmful impact that they are likely to make on the environment, both globally, locally, and within the corporation itself. Both the LCA and the WE-DALY methods can help find ways to make products in a less harming way, as well as finding alternative products that are not so harmful to the environment. The main purpose of this research is to find strategies to lessen the damage that large production companies can inflict on their workers and on the environment (Scanlon, 2012).

Article Two

The second article to be analyzed is the one written by Dr. Jagdish C. Hundekari for the International Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research, also in 2012. This study had the purpose of evaluating and understanding how workers in the Thermal Power station were exposed to stressful stimuli (heat) and how that exposure affected their levels of hypertension (Hundekari, 2012). To perform the research, two hundred male workers from the Thermal Power station were selected and divided in groups according to their age. A control group of one hundred men was not exposed to any extreme heat, while the other one hundred workers were exposed to heat for eight hours a day, six days a week (Hundekari, 2012). At the end of the study, scientists were able to conclude that the workers who were exposed to the heat had higher levels of the factors that cause hypertension and heart disease. “We observed a significant increase in serum lipoproteins and atherogenic index in workers of thermal power station those who are exposed to heat when compared with controls. This suggests that the workers are at higher risk of hypertension and CHD which is also dependent on age and duration of exposure” (Hundekari, 2012, p. 2). The study found that although young individuals were able to support the heat for longer periods of time without so many negative consequences, the older workers could not (Hundekari, 2012).

Comparison and Interpretation

Both articles mentioned in this paper focused on the many ways that the work environment can be detrimental to the employees’ health, as well as its effects on the global environment. Dr. Hundekari’s studies focused more on the effects of the work environment on a more personal level, showing how an employee’s health can be in serious danger because of his work conditions. This article was a case study showing a practical view of the situation, without necessarily presenting alternative ideas. The article written by Scanlon, on the other hand, exposed methods and techniques that if applied responsibly and correctly, can allow corporations to implement production ways that are less harming to both the environment and the workers. It is important for organizations to understand the risks that their products present to both the world and their staff. Although most industries will most likely leave a harmful footprint on earth, minimizing the damages is crucial. It is obvious that the world has changed in the past few decades. The planet is warmer, and climate change affects not only individuals but also animals and ecosystems in general. For employees who have to work every day in a harmful environment, understanding the risks is even more important. In the case of the Thermal Power station, for example, individuals who have high blood pressure would not be good candidates to work there, as well as older people.

Conclusion

Psychologists have shown that individual perception regarding risks at work is most likely influenced by pre-existing, recent or readily experiences (Drakopoulos & Theodossiou, 2011). My personal opinion of the matter is that I understand that people have to work, and corporations need to make money to stimulate the economy. If an unemployed, older man is offered a job at a place that is not necessarily the safest option for him (like the Thermal Power station, for example), but he has a family to feed, he still needs to be aware of the risks that the job represents to him, and make a conscious decision about what is worth doing and what is not. When it comes to corporations, however, I do believe in laws and enforcements to guarantee that that company represents the least possible amount of damage to the environment. Corporations are known for doing whatever it takes to make a profit, showing little respect for the planet. By enforcing rules about work safety and sustainability, corporations can still run their normal activities, but without further damaging the environment. 

References

Drakopoulos, S. A., & Theodossiou, I. (2011, March). Workers' risk underestimation and occupational health and safety regulation. European Journal of Law and Economics.

Hundekari, J. C. (2012). Prolonged Occupational Exposure to Stressful Stimuli(Heat) as a Cause of raised Atherogenic Index in Thermal Power Station Workers. International Journal of      Scientific & Engineering Research .

Kelly A Scanlon, G. M. (2012). The Work Environment Disability-Adjusted Life Year for use with Life Cycle Assessment: A Methodological Approach. Environmental Health.

Steg, L. (2013). Environmental psychology: An introduction. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.