UNCORRECTED PROOF 1 2 How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, 3 but not necessarily safety 4 Morel Gaël a, * , Amalberti René b , Chauvin Christine a 5 a University of South Brittany, Laboratory ‘‘Ergonomics and Safety of Maritime Activities”, Rue de Saint Maudé/F-56321 Lorient Cedex, France 6 b IMASSA (Aerospace Medical Center), Brétigny-sur-Orge, France 7 9 article info 10 Article history: 11 Received 7 September 2007 12 Received in revised form 31 January 2008 13 Accepted 11 March 2008 14 Available online xxxx 15 Keywords: 16 Assistance strategy 17 Risk reduction 18 Safety 19 Resilience 20 Micro and macro ergonomics 21 22 abstract 23 Context: Professional sea fishing is among the world’s most variable (non-standardized) and dangerous 24 sectors of activity. Because of this, it provides a remarkable model to study the complex links existing 25 between resilience and safety. Paradoxically, even if the huge risks being run cause many shipwrecks 26 (low safety level), studies show that these sailors avoid an even greater number of accidents thanks to 27 their exceptional skill and know-how (remarkable resilience level). This article examines several ways 28 of improving safety in an activity of this type. 29 Method: Two intervention strategies are tested: (i) a micro-ergonomics strategy offering conduct assis- 30 tance guidelines based on accident analyses of the most serious and frequent causes (collisions while 31 fishing); (ii) a macro-ergonomics strategy comparing the safety level of large firms having committed 32 to a Total Quality approach, to that of smaller companies, often privately owned. 33 Result: Neither of the two strategies works out as expected. The micro-ergonomics anti-collision assis- 34 tance strategy is misused towards an increase of the fishing objective; the macro-ergonomics strategy 35 is even more surprising: the largest firms suffer from a smaller number of shipwrecks, but a much greater 36 number of work-related injuries; the strategy simply results in a minor shift of the sacrificial decision 37 between performance and safety (loss of men vs. loss of vessels), while maintaining the same priority 38 for financial performance. 39 Discussion: The article submits a simple modeling of the relationship between resilience and safety, and 40 discusses the choice of strategies for safety-improving interventions, taking into account the system’s 41 financial performance and the legal pressure to which it is subjected. 42 Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. 43 44 45 1. Introduction 46 The maritime sector is generally known for its harsh profes- 47 sional conditions (state of the sea, state of the vessels, economic 48 competition, etc.). Over 80% of accidents and injuries are attribut- 49 able to the human factor (Hetherington et al., 2006). This observa- 50 tion is even more pronounced in the sea fishing sector, considered 51 to be the most dangerous in the world (Wang et al., 2005; Kaplan 52 and Kite-Powel, 2000; Marine Accident Investigation Branch 53 [MAIB], 1995; International Labour Office, 1999). Subjected to 54 great economic and competitive pressure, it encourages fishermen 55 to take risks. Paradoxically, even if this excessive risk-taking causes 56 too many shipwrecks, previous studies show that these sailors 57 show exceptional resilience skills which enable them to avoid 58 many accidents and injuries in hostile conditions (fishing in any 59 weather, exhausted crews, difficult financial conditions) (Morel 60 and Chauvin, 2006; Morel et al., in press). 61 Because of these factors, this human activity, professional fish- 62 ing, is a remarkable model for the study of the relationship be- 63 tween resilience and safety. This report can be apprehended in 64 two different ways, following the two visions of resilience de- 65 scribed in the specialized literature. The first, quite general, is clos- 66 est to Wreathall’s definition (2006) in which he considers 67 resilience to be an organization’s ability to retain or recover rapidly 68 a stable condition, enabling it to pursue its activities during and 69 after a major accident, or in the presence of great and ongoing 70 pressure (also see Hollnagel, 2006; Woods, 2006). The second vi- 71 sion focuses more on the question of arbitration between safety 72 and production. Several authors define resilience as the ability to 73 manage great pressure as well as conflicts between safety and pro- 74 duction objectives (Flin, 2006; Hale and Heijer, 2006). 75 The professional fishing activity is also an excellent model to 76 examine the safety-improving strategies which could be applied 77 in such a domain, and to draw conclusions applicable to every pro- 78 fessional sector which are the goals of this article. 0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.03.002 * Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 297874522; fax: +33 297876525. E-mail addresses: gael.morel@univ-ubs.fr, gmorel@univ-ubs.fr (M. Gaël), ramalberti@imassa.fr (A. René), christine.chauvin@univ-ubs.fr (C. Christine). Safety Science xxx (2008) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Safety Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci SAFETY 1646 No. of Pages 10, Model 5G 4 April 2008 Disk Used ARTICLE IN PRESS Please cite this article in press as: Gaël, M. et al., How good micro/macro ergonomics may improve resilience, ..., Safety Sci. (2008), doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2008.03.002