Federal agencies

‘Regulation by Shaming’: Study explores impact of OSHA press releases

DOL
Photo: OSHA

A single OSHA press release about fines levied against a company can have the same effect as 200-plus agency inspections when it comes to future compliance by the offending employer, as well as those nearby in the same industry, a Duke University researcher recently concluded.

Matthew Johnson, a labor economist at Duke’s Sanford School of Public Policy, based his analysis – “Regulation by Shaming: Deterrence Effects of Publicizing Violations of Workplace Safety and Health Laws” – on a 2009 policy OSHA rolled out agencywide that required press releases be issued for any safety and health violation that resulted in a fine of at least $40,000. The releases were sent to targeted local media outlets and industry trade publications, with the intent to increase publicity.

Associate Editor Barry Bottino discusses this article in the July 2020 episode of Safety+Health's “On the Safe Side” podcast.

To arrive at his conclusion, “there were some assumptions that went into it,” Johnson said. After an OSHA press release is issued, “there are about 311 inspections of other facilities in the same industry in a [31-mile] radius” during a subsequent three-year period, Johnson told Safety+Health. For the typical press release, a 30% decrease in violations was observed. He also cited a 2010 study published in the journal Regulation & Governance that showed a typical OSHA inspection leads to 48% fewer violations after a later inspection at the same facility.

Using a ratio of these data, he determined that one press release has the same impact as 210 OSHA inspections. The policy “significantly changed the frequency of media coverage” of OSHA, Johnson notes in the study.

“That’s a very powerful finding,” David Michaels, who headed the agency from 2009 to 2017, told S+H. “We know that different employers react differently. By reading about an OSHA press release, some may take it as a reminder to do the right thing. Some may be concerned and might want to avoid an OSHA inspection. Whatever the motive, the outcome is the same.”

Along with the negative impact to the employer who was fined, Johnson’s research showed 73% fewer violations among employers in the same industry within about 3 miles of the offending employer’s location.

“The main thing it did was [raise] OSHA’s visibility,” said Michaels, who provided his own quotes for national press releases and encouraged area and regional directors to provide quotes and do TV interviews about employers who received large penalties. “OSHA is badly under-resourced. Given that, we looked at how we address the problem wholesale rather than retail. We realized that by issuing press releases where we found serious violations, it would nudge other employers to abate hazards without OSHA having to do additional inspections.”

According to Johnson’s report, the Trump administration discontinued the policy. Edwin Foulke Jr., former OSHA administrator from April 2006 to November 2008, told S+H it’s a certainty that employers mentioned in the agency’s press releases are impacted, but he’s not sure a press release can be as far-reaching as Johnson suggests.

“They don’t like press releases,” Foulke said. “There’s no doubt about that. But you can’t just say a press release caused injuries and fatalities to go down in this area or this industry. There are too many variables with respect to safety. You can’t just look at this in a vacuum.”

OSHA did not respond to questions from S+H.

“We were issuing more (detailed) press releases and less cookie-cutter press releases,” Michaels said. “This is clearly a very powerful tool, and OSHA should utilize it.”

For example, Michaels provided stern comments for a July 9, 2015, press release announcing proposed OSHA fines of $273,000 for DuPont after four workers were killed at the company’s chemical plant in La Porte, TX.

“By issuing a press release where I personally described the failure of DuPont’s safety systems, I was sending a message,” Michaels said. “The CEO actually came to see me as a result of that press release.”

To Foulke, however, issuing press releases about one large fine may have a short-term impact, but “I don’t necessarily see it in the long term.” In addition, Foulke said employers who have numerous smaller violations rather than one willful violation weren’t affected by the policy.

“What it comes down to is you have to get a big penalty to get a press release,” Foulke said. “If you had 100 other-than-serious violations with a $5,000 penalty, there’s no press release. Who has the biggest problems with safety?”

The study is scheduled for publication in the June edition of the American Economic Review.

Editor’s Note: In a 2015 “What’s Your Opinion?” poll, S+H asked, “Is OSHA's ‘shaming’ of employers who violate safety rules an effective deterrent?” Help restart the conversation by submitting a comment.

Post a comment to this article

Safety+Health welcomes comments that promote respectful dialogue. Please stay on topic. Comments that contain personal attacks, profanity or abusive language – or those aggressively promoting products or services – will be removed. We reserve the right to determine which comments violate our comment policy. (Anonymous comments are welcome; merely skip the “name” field in the comment box. An email address is required but will not be included with your comment.)

Title

James
June 30, 2020
OSHA's "Shame Campaign" in the David Michaels and Jordan Barab era seems to go right along with the subtle moves towards promoting enforcement and silently ended cooperative programs. The policy to send out press releases for citations over $40k were predicated on the idea that the site is guilty without trial. Meaning, OSHA could publicly shame the company before they have had their time to formally contest the citations and penalties. This doesn't seem to follow the format of our current legal system and never should have been implemented by Perez and the Obama Administration. David Michaels (and current OSHA officials) always seem to complain of being understaffed yet they are slowly ending the great cooperative programs such as their Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Michaels once suggested a "pay to play" approach to VPP sites at the National VPPPPA Conference where he was overwhelmingly booed by the crowd. VPP is a great program made up of sites that are voluntarily asking to partner with OSHA in order to make their facilities safer. Volunteering to have OSHA review their site and programs at their own expense. In addition, the sites commit their employees to mentor others in the area or industry so that they too will move towards a partnership with OSHA. At the least, the VPP sites are working towards helping their location(s) lower injury and illness rates. So VPP is voluntary and costs OSHA minimal dollars yet the overall numbers of VPP sites has been going down since the Michaels and Barab OSHA Administration. If you could ever get them on the record, they would choose enforcement over cooperative programs every single opportunity. There are certainly bad offenders and they should be held accountable but shaming will never be enough. OSHA should push for stronger partnerships with industry to promote safety versus regulations by shaming.

Title

Brian
June 30, 2020
Can you imagine if Employers used this tactic on employees to get them to follow safety rules.....OSHA would throw the book at them however it is perfectly acceptable for them to shame employers.

Title

P
June 30, 2020
Why don't they check out the dental facilities as they have public health at their finger tips - they need to be checked for sterilization violations and need much improvement - this service is direct to the public. They don't update their OSHA training. Infection prevention is so important today's world.

Title

Michael
July 10, 2020
This is interesting how there could be such differing of opinion about this study. It would be really interesting to see a study on the long-term value of Voluntary Compliance and Recognition Programs such as SHARP and VPP. This might support Foulke's claims that shaming does not work long-term or provide the alternative solution.