OSHA's Hazard Communication Standard and Small Business: A Survey
调查了小企业主和管理者对OSHA危害沟通标准的看法、该标准对小企业行政活动的影响以及企业为应对该标准所做的调整。
Worldwide, chemical substances and components are among the major causes of deaths, serious injuries, and other illnesses. In response to the need to lessen dangers of chemicals, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) decided to enforce a nationwide standard, i.e., Hazard Communication Standard (HCS), which preempted a wide variety of so-called Right-to-Know (RTK) schemes that had been adopted and enacted by different states. The main goal of HCS (issued November 22, 1983) is to ensure that employees of manufacturing and nonmanufacturing organizations receive needed information about hazardous materials to which they are exposed during their employment. Before May 23, 1988, only large manufacturing firms were subject to the OSHA ruling. Beginning on that date, all business firms, regardless of their size, became subject to HCS. The importance of this enactment is in its costs and coverage. The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) had estimated that in its first year the expanded standard would cost more than $1.8 billion (Reid 1987) and cover 32 million workers in 3.5 million locations (Shalowitz 1987). Methodology How do small business owners and managers perceive HCS? What has been the extent of HCS's impact on small businesses? How have these firms adjusted in response to implementation of the ruling? To address these questions, the study upon which this article is based was conducted. The main objectives of the study were: (1) to identify small businesses' perception of HCS, (2) to identify the effects of HCS on administrative activities of small business firms, and (3) to identify various adjustments that small businesses have made to cope with HCS. A questionnaire containing 16 questions was developed, including specific items requesting demographic information. Using Standard & Poor's Register of Corporations, Directors and Executives, the following criteria were applied for selection of the survey population: the targeted firms had to employ a maximum of 300 employees, and the targeted firms had to be involved in business activities that deal with chemical components in some way. Of the 2,100 potential respondents identified, 505 firms were randomly selected. These were located throughout the United States except for Hawaii. Questionnaires, cover letters, and self-addressed, stamped envelopes were mailed to the sample firms. The questionnaires were addressed to the company heads (variably titled chairmen, presidents, vice presidents, managing directors, or general managers). Within one month, the same package along with a new cover letter was sent as a follow-up. (Respondents were instructed to disregard the follow-up package if they had already responded.) Table 1 SURVEY RESPONDENTS Types of Industries Percentage Chemical, biological and pharmaceutical 28 Construction and construction material 15 Plastics 9 Electric/electronics 11 Heavy industrial production 7 Rubber and tire 5 All other 25 For data collection, a 5-point Likert Scale was used. The possible responses were: 5 = strongly agree, 4 = agree, 3 = no opinion (as an escape option), 2 = disagree, and 1 = strongly disagree. Analysis and Results In the analysis of this study, 176 questionnaires (representing a 35 percent response rate) were used. Respondents represented a wide range of business activities, as shown in table 1. The findings are divided into three sections: small businesses' perception of HCS; effects of HCS on the administrative activities of small business firms; and the various adjustments of the small business in response to HCS. How HCS is perceived by small businesses. Table 2 demonstrates the descriptive analysis used for this section. Respondents generally believe that HCS would help employers protect the safety of their employees. …