Lo, Pagell, Fan, Wiengarten and Yeung (2014) showed, for 211 U.S. listed manufacturing firms, that certification to the OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety management system standard raises abnormal safety, sales growth, labor productivity, and profitability performance, with benefits increasing as operational complexity and coupling increase. The paper itself left open the boundary conditions of this result: whether it holds outside the U.S. listed-manufacturer setting and for smaller firms, whether the complexity and coupling contingencies survive when measured directly rather than through proxies, whether adopter motivation (substantive improvement versus symbolic, customer-driven certification) changes the impact, and how the composition of benefits evolves as certification diffuses. Later literature has taken up parts of this agenda, but the extent to which these boundary conditions hold remains open and is the subject of ongoing research. The problem is to establish the boundary conditions and mechanisms of certified safety management systems' effect on operating performance.

Background

Occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) are formalized organizational systems of policies, procedures, and audits for managing workplace safety. OHSAS 18001 was a certifiable international OHSMS standard (assessed against by third-party auditors); it has since been superseded by ISO 45001, first published in 2018, but the empirical certification–performance literature remains largely about OHSAS 18001. Whether certification actually improves performance was contested. From an institutional-theory perspective, firms may adopt certification ceremonially to signal legitimacy to stakeholders without changing practice (so-called decoupling), which predicts weak or purely signaling benefits such as sales gains. Normal Accident Theory (NAT) holds that production systems that are complex (with many interacting, opaque causal chains) and tightly coupled (where a failure in one component propagates quickly to others) are intrinsically accident-prone, predicting that formal controls should matter most precisely in such settings. High Reliability Theory, in contrast, holds that organizations can sustain both safety and effectiveness through process discipline, continuous improvement, and safety-focused cognition, predicting no necessary trade-off between safety and financial performance. Prior evidence on OHSMS effectiveness was mixed and confounded by selection: safer, better-managed firms may simply be more likely to certify.

Lo et al. (2014, Journal of Operations Management 32(5):268–280) examined 211 U.S. listed manufacturing firms that publicly reported OHSAS 18001 certification, using event-study methods that measure abnormal performance — performance relative to matched control portfolios of uncertified firms around the certification date. Certification was followed by significant abnormal improvements in safety, sales growth, labor productivity, and profitability, and these benefits increased with operational complexity (proxied by R&D intensity and labor intensity) and coupling (proxied by inventory level and inventory volatility), supporting both the High Reliability view (no safety–profitability trade-off) and the NAT contingency view (controls help most in complex, tightly coupled systems). The authors themselves flagged four unresolved issues, which jointly define the problem: the single-country, listed-firm sample; proxy-based rather than direct measures of complexity and coupling; possible motivation heterogeneity among adopters, especially in export-oriented economies where certification may be sought mainly to satisfy customer requirements; and the likely evolution of the benefit mix as certification spreads, with signaling-driven sales gains expected to dissipate while process-driven safety and productivity gains persist.

Problem Statement

The problem is to establish the boundary conditions and mechanisms of the relationship between certified occupational health and safety (OHS) management systems and operating performance, extending Lo et al. (2014) beyond its U.S. listed-manufacturer, proxy-measure setting. Concretely, under what conditions does OHS certification improve operating performance (safety, sales growth, labor productivity, and profitability)? The question has four linked facets that share this single objective: (1) Context generality — do the certification–performance relationship and its contingency patterns hold in national, cultural, and regulatory contexts other than the United States, and for non-listed and smaller firms that may have weaker baseline OHS management capabilities? (2) Direct contingency measures — do more encompassing measures of complexity (such as product-design complexity) and coupling (such as work-in-progress inventory buffers between key operations) yield the same moderation patterns as the R&D-intensity, labor-intensity, and inventory proxies, confirming or revising the Normal Accident Theory account of when certification helps most? (3) Motivation heterogeneity — how do differences in adopter motivation, from substantive safety improvement to symbolic certification pursued mainly to satisfy customer requirements (as expected in export-oriented economies), affect the operating-performance impact of certification, and how can such motivational differences be identified and modeled in large samples rather than only through adoption-timing and institutional-pressure proxies? (4) Diffusion dynamics — as certification becomes more widespread, how do the magnitude and composition of certification benefits evolve; in particular, does the signaling-driven sales-growth benefit dissipate while process-driven safety and productivity benefits persist or grow? The boundary conditions of interest concern operating performance (safety, sales growth, labor productivity, and profitability), not accident outcomes alone. The four facets are logically linked: the boundary-condition claim concerns all four jointly, so evidence that speaks only to a subset leaves the joint claim unresolved. Absence of direct evidence on a facet leaves that facet's boundary condition unresolved, and no magnitude is to be inferred or estimated for it from adjacent domains.

References

  1. Lo, C.K.Y., Pagell, M., Fan, D., Wiengarten, F., Yeung, A.C.L. (2014). OHSAS 18001 certification and operating performance: The role of complexity and coupling. Journal of Operations Management 32(5):268–280. DOI 10.1016/j.jom.2014.04.004. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.04.004
  2. Yang, Y., Jia, F., Chen, L., Wang, Y., Xiong, Y. (2021). Adoption timing of OHSAS 18001 and firm performance: An institutional theory perspective. International Journal of Production Economics 231:107870. DOI 10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107870. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107870
  3. Heras-Saizarbitoria, I., Boiral, O., Arana, G., Allur, E. (2019). OHSAS 18001 certification and work accidents: Shedding light on the connection. Journal of Safety Research 68:33–40. DOI 10.1016/j.jsr.2018.11.003. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2018.11.003
  4. Lafuente, E., Abad, J. (2018). Analysis of the relationship between the adoption of the OHSAS 18001 and business performance in different organizational contexts. Safety Science 103:12–22. DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.002. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.11.002
  5. Madsen, C.U., Kirkegaard, M.L., Dyreborg, J., Hasle, P. (2020). Making occupational health and safety management systems 'work': A realist review of the OHSAS 18001 standard. Safety Science 129:104843. DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104843. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104843
  6. Madsen, C.U., Thorsen, S.V., Hasle, P., Laursen, L.L., Dyreborg, J. (2022). Differences in occupational health and safety efforts between adopters and non-adopters of certified occupational health and safety management systems. Safety Science 152:105794. DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105794
  7. Viswanathan, K., Johnson, M.S., Toffel, M.W. (2024). Do safety management system standards indicate safer operations? Evidence from the OHSAS 18001 occupational health and safety standard. Safety Science 171:106383. DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2023.106383
  8. Dyreborg, J., Thorsen, S.V., Madsen, C.U., Hasle, P. (2024). Effectiveness of OHSAS 18001 in reducing accidents at work. A follow-up study of 13,102 workplaces. Safety Science 177:106573. DOI 10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106573
  9. Podrecca, M., Molinaro, M., Sartor, M., Orzes, G. (2024). The impact of ISO 45001 on firms' performance: An empirical analysis. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management 31(5):4581–4595. DOI 10.1002/csr.2782. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2782
  10. Ye, Y., Jiang, S., Fan, D., Huo, B., Liu, M.W. (2025). Rigidity in Crisis: The Impact of OHSAS 18001 Certification on Production Repurposing During COVID-19. Production and Operations Management 35(1):105–121 (published online December 2025; print issue January 2026). DOI 10.1111/poms.14008. https://doi.org/10.1111/poms.14008
  11. Tong, X., Lai, K., Lo, C.K.Y., Cheng, T.C.E. (2022). Supply chain security certification and operational performance: The role of upstream complexity. International Journal of Production Economics 247:108433. DOI 10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108433