What do employers spend to protect the health of workers?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective This study aimed to estimate firm-level expenditures on occupational health and safety (OHS) for a representative sample of Canadian employers. Methods A cross-sectional survey of 334 employers with ≥20 employees in 18 economic sectors in the Ontario economy. Participants provided information on five dimensions of OHS expenditures: (i) organizational management and supervision; (ii) staff training in health and safety; (iii) personal protective equipment; (iv) professional services and, (v) estimates of the share of new capital investment that could be attributed to improved OHS performance. Expenditures for each of the five dimensions were summed for each organization and divided by the number of employees, resulting in an estimate of OHS expenditure per employee per year. Results The average OHS expenditure per worker per year was Can$1303 [95% confidence interval (CI) Can$1167-1454]. Expenditures were three times higher in the goods-producing sectors (Can$2417, 95% CI Can$2026-2809) relative to the service sectors (Can$847, 95% CI Can$777-915). The proportion of expenditures allocated to each of the five dimensions was generally consistent across economic sectors: 58% to organizational management and supervision, 22% to staff training in health and safety and 14% to personal protective equipment. On average, <5% of OHS expenditures per worker per year were allocated to professional services or estimated as the share of new capital investment attributed to OHS. Conclusions Employer expenditures on OHS are substantial. The results of this study are consistent with recent European estimates and strengthen understanding of the scale of employer financial expenditures to protect the health of workers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".