The Aspects of Psychosocial Risks Prevention in a Developing Country: Turkey

Abstract

Purpose: The aims of the study were determining the main psychosocial risks and identifying the role of workers’ representatives/unions, managers, and occupational health and safety OHS professionals to improve workers’ participation in the psychosocial risk prevention.Methods: This is a qualitative research. Three volunteering companies, those agreed to participate, were selected in Turkey. Interviews were conducted with workers’ /union reps and managers in each company, separately. The data were collected through semi-structured focus group interviews between 14th April-2nd May 2014. A total of 13 managers and 19 workers were interviewed in 3 workplaces. Interviews were carried out with tape-recording accompanied by note-taking. The content analysis method was evaluated by two researchers.Results: There is no policy or legislation about psychosocial risk evaluation and prevention in Turkey. Employers and employees were not aware of psychosocial risks. Job insecurity, high workload, low job control and the identification of economic problems are the priority problems to be assessed in this process. While the main barriers for the participative psychosocial risk prevention process were lack of laws and regulations, communication gaps, financial requirements, pressure associated with production and quotas, excessive monitoring of workers’ performance; the main drivers were management’s supportive approach, justice, role clarity, and rewards.Conclusion: Psychosocial risks must be assessed in all workplaces to change working conditions and the legal regulations should be done clearly on psychosocial risk prevention. The cooperation should be achieved with the union and workers’ representatives, and their support and experiences should be utilized

Keywords

• psychosocial,risk assessment,work,prevention,drivers,barriers

References

1. Costa G. [Changes in work organization and management of psychosocial risk factors]. G Ital Med Lav Ergon 2008;30:106–109.
2. Clarke M, Lewchuk W, de Wolff A, King A. ‘This just isn’t sustainable’: precarious employment, stress and workers’ health. I J Law Psychiatry 2007;30:311–326. [CrossRef]
3. Leka S, Kortum E. A European framework to address psychosocial hazards. J Occup Health 2008;50:294–296. [CrossRef]
4. Cox T, Griffiths A, Rial-González E, European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Research on work-related stress. Luxembourg, Lanham, Md.: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities; Bernan Associates Distributor; 2000. 167 p.
5. Demiral Y, Ünal B, Kılıç B, et al. İş stresi ölçeğinin İzmir Konak Belediyesi’nde çalışan erkek işçilerde geçerlik ve güvenilirliğinin incelenmesi. Toplum Hekimliği Bülteni 2007;26:11–18.
6. Leka S, Griffiths A, Cox T. Work Organization and stress: systematic problem approaches for employers, managers and trade union representatives. Geneva: WHO; 2004.
7. Dollard M, Skinner N, Tuckey MR, Bailey T. National surveillance of psychosocial risk factors in the workplace: An international overview. Work Stress 2007;21:1–29. [CrossRef]
8. Hämäläinen RM. The Europeanisation of occupational health services: a study of the impact of EU policies. Helsinki: Finnish Institute of Occupational Health; 2008.

9. Iavicoli S, Natali E, Deitinger P, et al. Occupational health and safety policy and psychosocial risks in Europe: the role of stakeholders’ perceptions. Health Policy 2011;101:87–94. [CrossRef]
10. Kortum E, Leka S, Cox T. Psychosocial risks and work-related stress in developing countries: health impact, priorities, barriers and solutions. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2010; 23(3):225-238. [CrossRef]
11. TURKSTAT. Labour Statistics 2017 Available from: [CrossRef]
12. Demiral Y, Sahan C. Drivers and Barriers for Participative Prevention Processes on Psychosocial Risks to Achieve Changes in Working Conditions Turkish Cases Report. ISTAS E-IMPRO; 2014. 26 p.
13. Gazete R. İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu. 2012 Available from: [CrossRef]
14. Worker representation and consultation on health and safety: An analysis of the findings of the European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA); 2012.
15. Zeytinoğlu E. İş Hukukunda Esneklik ve 4857 Sayılı Kanunu’na Çeşitli Yansımaları. İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi 2006;5:191–202.
16. ILO. Employment Relationship Recommendation, 2006 (No. 198) Available from: [CrossRef]
17. Dollard MF, Neser DY. Worker health is good for the economy: union density and psychosocial safety climate as determinants of country differences in worker health and productivity in 31 European countries. Soc Sci Med 2013;92:114–123. [CrossRef]
18. González E, Cockburn W, Irastorza X. ESENER - European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks. Luxembourg: European Agency for Safety and Health at Work; 2010.
19. Llorens C, Moncada S. E-IMPRO Report: Drivers and Barriers for Participative Psychosocial Risk Prevention Processes to Change Working Conditions. E-IMPRO Project; 2014. 34 p.
20. Zoorob M. Does ‘right to work’ imperil the right to health? The effect of labour unions on workplace fatalities. Occup Environ Med 2018;75:736–738. [CrossRef]
21. Yıldırım E, Uçkan B. İşverenlerin Sendikasızlaştırma Modelleri ve Türkiye Örneği. Çalışma ve Toplum 2010;2:163–184.
22. Heikkinen AM, Wickström GJ, Leino-Kilpi H, Katajisto J. Privacy and dual loyalties in occupational health practice. Nurs Ethics 2007;14:675–690. [CrossRef]
23. Higgins P, Orris P. Providing employer-arranged occupational medical care: conflicting interests. Occup Med 2002;17:601–606.