LEC 1 Flashcards
What are the three stages of safety and security management discussed in the lecture?
The three stages of safety and security management discussed are:
* Safety & Security management 1.0: Focuses on the production/organisation as the starting point, using risk analysis (probability x impact matrix), and involving hazard/risk analysis, mitigating measures, incident analysis, and learning/control. An example is a (petro)chemical/nuclear plant, construction, or aviation.
* Safety & Security management 2.0: Builds upon 1.0 by including human factors and leadership. An example is ‘just culture’ in organisations or a high reliability organisation.
* Safety & Security management 3.0: Expands on 2.0 by adding (1) interorganisation/network governance (high reliability network) and (2) institutional context.
This course will only focus on 3.0
In the context of Safety & Security management 3.0, what is meant by the ‘network context’?
The ‘network context’ in Safety & Security management 3.0 refers to the interorganisational governance involved in ensuring safety and security. It acknowledges that responsibility is often distributed across multiple actors in a network. Examples include:
* Food safety at the Turfmarkt: Involves actors like the local government (e.g., restaurant permits), national government (e.g., Competent Authority NVWA, RIVM, Warenwet), the private sector (e.g., food producers, retailers like AH, organisations like LTO, AVINED/OVONED/PLUIMNED, NGOs like animal protection), and the EU (e.g., General Food Law, EFSA).
* Safe civil aviation.
In the context of Safety & Security management 3.0, what is meant by the ‘institutional context’?
The ‘institutional context’ in Safety & Security management 3.0 refers to the broader institutional environment that influences safety and security governance. This can involve different institutional logics. An example provided is securing persons, referencing the Dutch Safety Board investigation into lessons learned from three security situations involving a clash between criminal law/criminal procedure versus security management.
According to the lecture, what are ‘institutions’?
According to the lecture, institutions are a social phenomenon that transcends individuals and their choices/preferences/behaviour. They include social structures, culture, etc.. They are displayed in the behaviour and values of individuals. Their existence, meaning, and functioning are fundamentally contested, and they ‘curb’ behaviour or represent ‘bounded rationality’. Organisations can also be considered as institutions.
According to the lecture, what are ‘institutional logics’?
Institutional logics are the prevailing cultural frameworks of values, beliefs, and norms that shape cognition and action. They influence organisational behaviour, such as risk attitude or safety routines (‘just culture’). Common examples include market, state, and social enterprises/community, as well as family, religion, and profession. Organisations operate within an institutional field that provides these logics.
Why do institutional logics matter in the context of safety and security governance?
Institutional logics matter because they:
* Shape/curb organisational behaviour, such as risk attitude and safety routines.
* Explain boundaries of organisations with regard to safety management, for example, considerations of cost-benefit proportionality.
* Explain institutional conflict and institutional alignment in safety governance networks.
According to Scott, what are the three pillars of institutions?
According to Scott, the three pillars of institutions are:
* Regulative: Based on rules, laws, and sanctions, leading to compliance through expedience and a basis of order through binding expectations. The logic is instrumentality, and legitimacy is legally sanctioned.
* Normative: Based on norms, leading to compliance through social obligation and a basis of order through constitutive schemes. The logic is appropriateness, and legitimacy is morally governed (e.g., through certification and accreditation).
* Cultural-cognitive: Based on common beliefs and shared logics, leading to compliance through being taken-for-granted and a basis of order through these shared understandings. The logic is orthodoxy, and legitimacy is comprehensible, recognisable, and culturally supported.
