SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Alınteri Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2

Assessment of Conceptual Consensus in Occupational Health and Safety in Türkiye

Türkiye’de İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Alanında Kavramsal Uyumun Değerlendirilmesi

Kaan Koçali(İSTANBUL GELİŞİM ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İSTANBUL GELİŞİM MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU, iŞ SAĞLIĞI VE GÜVENLİĞİ PROGRAMI)0000-0002-1329-6176
Pages
149–175
Publication Date
2026-06-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It has been concluded that the concepts of " prevention of occupational risks ," " risk avoidance ," " fighting risks at their source ," and " replacement of the hazardous with the less hazardous " need to be revised in terms of their conceptual framework in line with the terminological sensitivities of the new standards.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Conceptual consistency in occupational health and safety legislation is not only important in terms of its clarity but also in terms of its effectiveness in preventive systems, uniformity in application, and legal predictability.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the conceptual framework of Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety, which is the basic legal framework in the field of occupational health and safety in Türkiye, in line with international standards and main reference documents.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has been concluded that the concepts of " prevention of occupational risks ," " risk avoidance ," " fighting risks at their source ," and " replacement of the hazardous with the less hazardous " need to be revised in terms of their conceptual framework in line with the terminological sensitivities of the new standards.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği · 6331 Sayılı Kanun · Kavramsal Uyum

Abstract

Conceptual consistency in occupational health and safety legislation is not only important in terms of its clarity but also in terms of its effectiveness in preventive systems, uniformity in application, and legal predictability. The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the conceptual framework of Law No. 6331 on Occupational Health and Safety, which is the basic legal framework in the field of occupational health and safety in Türkiye, in line with international standards and main reference documents. In this sense, a comparative law approach and an interdisciplinary synthesis method are combined in the research process. The results of the analysis indicate that while there is a conceptual consistency in occupational health and safety legislation in Türkiye in line with international standards in terms of its preventive approach, there are some concepts to be revised in line with the new risk management approach, the difference between hazard and risk, and the hierarchy of prevention. It has been concluded that the concepts of " prevention of occupational risks ," " risk avoidance ," " fighting risks at their source ," and " replacement of the hazardous with the less hazardous " need to be revised in terms of their conceptual framework in line with the terminological sensitivities of the new standards. The originality of this study lies in the fact that the areas to be revised in the conceptual framework are brought to the forefront by not only analyzing the occupational health and safety legislation in Türkiye at the legislative text level but also in terms of its risk ontology and prevention approach. As a result, the enhancement of conceptual consistency in occupational health and safety not only strengthens the effectiveness of occupational health and safety practices but also provides a holistic approach to safety management by eliminating possible ambiguities in the application of occupational health and safety legislation.

Özet

İş sağlığı ve güvenliği mevzuatında kavramsal tutarlılık, yalnızca açıklık açısından değil, aynı zamanda önleyici sistemlerdeki etkinliği, uygulama birliği ve hukuki öngörülebilirlik açısından da önemlidir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye'de iş sağlığı ve güvenliği alanındaki temel yasal çerçeve olan 6331 sayılı İş Sağlığı ve Güvenliği Kanunu'nun kavramsal çerçevesini, uluslararası standartlar ve temel referans belgeleri doğrultusunda eleştirel bir şekilde değerlendirmektir. Bu bağlamda, araştırma sürecinde karşılaştırmalı hukuk yaklaşımı ve disiplinlerarası sentez yöntemi birleştirilmiştir. Analiz sonuçları, Türkiye'deki iş sağlığı ve güvenliği mevzuatında önleyici yaklaşım açısından uluslararası standartlara uygun kavramsal bir tutarlılık bulunmakla birlikte, yeni risk yönetimi yaklaşımı, tehlike ve risk arasındaki fark ve önleme hiyerarşisi doğrultusunda bazı kavramların revize edilmesi gerektiğini göstermektedir. " İş sağlığı ve güvenliği risklerinin önlenmesi ," " riskten kaçınma ," " risklerin kaynağında mücadele " ve " tehlikeli olanın daha az tehlikeli olanla değiştirilmesi " kavramlarının, yeni standartların terminolojik hassasiyetlerine uygun olarak kavramsal çerçeveleri açısından yeniden gözden geçirilmesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın özgünlüğü, kavramsal çerçevede gözden geçirilmesi gereken alanların, Türkiye'deki iş sağlığı ve güvenliği mevzuatının sadece yasal metin düzeyinde değil, aynı zamanda risk ontolojisi ve önleme yaklaşımı açısından da analiz edilmesiyle ön plana çıkarılmasında yatmaktadır. Sonuç olarak, iş sağlığı ve güvenliğinde kavramsal tutarlılığın artırılması, iş sağlığı ve güvenliği uygulamalarının etkinliğini güçlendirmekle kalmayıp, iş sağlığı ve güvenliği mevzuatının uygulanmasında olası belirsizlikleri ortadan kaldırarak bütüncül bir güvenlik yönetimi yaklaşımı da sağlamaktadır.

🔖

Cite This Article

Koçali, K. (2026). Assessment of Conceptual Consensus in Occupational Health and Safety in Türkiye. Alınteri Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 149–175. https://doi.org/10.30913/alinterisosbil.1865423

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (45)

  1. Yayımlanmış Eserler
  2. Anthony (Tony) Cox Jr, L. (2008). What's wrong with risk matrices? Risk Analysis, 28(2), 497-512. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01030.x
  3. Asiedu, E. A., Appiagyei, J. N., Amfo-Otu, R., Parku, K., & Obuobisa-Darko, T. (2025). Occupational health and safety, cost reduction in accident and employee task performance: Perspectives of selected service organizations. Journal of Public Health, 33(9), 2011-2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-023-02150-6
  4. Blanc, F., & Pereira, M. M. E. (2020). Risks, circumstances and regulation: Historical development, diversity of structures and practices in occupational safety and health inspections. Safety Science, 130, 104850. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104850
  5. Bondebjerg, A., Filges, T., Pejtersen, J. H., Kildemoes, M. W., Burr, H., Hasle, P., Tompa, E., & Bengtsen, E. (2023). Occupational health and safety regulatory interventions to improve the work environment: An evidence and gap map of effectiveness studies. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 19(4), e1371. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1371
  6. Börzel, T. A. (2016). Building member states: How the EU promotes political change in its new members, accession candidates, and eastern neighbors. Geopolitics, History, and International Relations, 8(1), 76-112. https://doi.org/10.22381/GHIR8120164
  7. Çabuk, A. (2025). Political parties’ occupational health and safety promises in Turkey: An analysis of the 2023 general election manifestos. WORK: A Journal of Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 83(2), 333-344. https://doi.org/10.1177/10519815251365917
  8. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı. (2013). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği kanunu ve uygulamaları. Çalışma ve Sosyal Güvenlik Bakanlığı Yayınları.
  9. Delogu, B. (2016). Risk analysis and governance in EU policy making and regulation: An introductory guide. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-30822-7
  10. Friend, M. A., & Kohn, J. P. (2023). Fundamentals of occupational safety and health. Bernan Press.
  11. Hale, A., Borys, D., & Adams, M. (2015). Safety regulation: The lessons of workplace safety rule management for managing the regulatory burden. Safety Science, 71(Part B), 112-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.012
  12. Hubbard, D. W. (2009). The failure of risk management: Why it’s broken and how to fix it. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119521914
  13. Isik, V. (2026). From worker health to occupational health and safety in Turkey: A history of paradigm change. Labor History, 67(1), 108-122. https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2025.2453051
  14. Johansen, I. L., & Rausand, M. (2014). Defining complexity for risk assessment of sociotechnical systems: A conceptual framework. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part O: Journal of Risk and Reliability, 228(3), 272-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748006X13517378
  15. Luther, B., Gunawan, I., & Nguyen, N. (2023). Identifying effective risk management frameworks for complex socio-technical systems. Safety Science, 158, 105989. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105989
  16. Marhavilas, P., Koulouriotis, D., Nikolaou, I., & Tsotoulidou, S. (2018). International occupational health and safety management-systems standards as a frame for the sustainability: Mapping the territory. Sustainability, 10(10), 3663. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103663
  17. Meyer, T., & Reniers, G. (2025). Engineering risk management: Optimizing operational risk decision-making, safety and reliability, risk assessment. De Gruyter Brill. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111493633
  18. Monateri, P. G. (2012). Methods of comparative law. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  19. Niu, S. (2010). Ergonomics and occupational safety and health: An ILO perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 41(6), 744-753. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2010.03.004
  20. Pimenova, O. I. (2019). Legal integration in the European Union and the Eurasian Economic Union: Comparative analysis. International Organisations Research Journal, 14(1), 76-93. https://doi.org/10.17323/1996-7845-2019-01-05
  21. 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/csr.2782
  22. Politakis, G. (2023). The recognition of occupational safety and health as a fundamental principle and right at work. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 72(1), 213-232. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589322000446
  23. Rasmussen, J. (1997). Risk management in a dynamic society: A modelling problem. Safety Science, 27(2-3), 183-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(97)00052-0
  24. Reason, J. (2000). Human error: Models and management. BMJ, 320(7237), 768-770. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  25. Reimann, M., & Zimmermann, R. (2006). The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199296064.001.0001
  26. Repko, A. F., Szostak, R., & Buchberger, M. P. (2017). Introduction to interdisciplinary studies. Sage Publications.
  27. Salvendy, G. (2006). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/0470048204
  28. Siems, M. (2018). Comparative law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316856505
  29. Vurgun, E. N. Ç., Akçaalan, G., Kızıltan, Ö., & Adıyaman, Z. (2023). Labour and employment compliance in Turkey. Kluwer Law International B.V.
  30. Walters, D. (2011). Regulating health and safety at work: An agenda for reform. Palgrave Macmillan.
  31. İnternet Kaynakları
  32. Council of the European Communities. (1989). COUNCIL DIRECTIVE of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (89/391/EEC) (OJ L 183, 29.6.1989, p. 1). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CONSLEG:1989L0391:20081211:EN:PDF
  33. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2012). Understanding workplace management of safety and health, psychosocial risks and worker participation through ESENER; A summary of four secondary analysis reports. https://osha.europa.eu/sites/default/files/TEAM11001ENC.pdf
  34. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. (2021). Directive 89/391/EEC – OSH “Framework Directive”. https://osha.europa.eu/en/legislation/directives/the-osh-framework-directive/1
  35. Frodeman, R., Klein, J. T., & Pacheco, R. C. dos S. (2017). The Oxford handbook of interdisciplinarity. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198733522.001.0001
  36. ILO. (1999). Report of the director-general: Decent work. https://webapps.ilo.org/public/english/standards/relm/ilc/ilc87/rep-i.htm
  37. ILO. (2001). Guidelines on occupational safety and health management systems (ILO-OSH 2001). https://www.ilo.org/publications/guidelines-occupational-safety-and-health-management-systems-ilo-osh-2001
  38. ILO. (2011). OSH management systems: A tool for continual improvement. https://www.ilo.org/publications/osh-management-system-tool-continual-improvement
  39. ISO. (2009). ISO Guide 73:2009: Risk management—Vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/standard/44651.html
  40. ISO. (2018a). ISO 31000:2018: Risk management—Guidelines. https://www.iso.org/standard/65694.html
  41. ISO. (2018b). ISO 45001:2018: Occupational health and safety management systems—Requirements with guidance for use. https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html
  42. ISO. (2022). ISO 31073:2022: Risk management—Vocabulary. https://www.iso.org/standard/79637.html
  43. OECD. (2012). Recommendation of the Council on regulatory policy and governance. https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2012/11/recommendation-of-the-council-on-regulatory-policy-and-governance_g1g3fce5/9789264209022-en.pdf
  44. TBMM. (2012). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği kanunu ile bazı kanun ve kanun hükmünde kararnamelerde değişiklik yapılmasına dair kanun tasarısı. https://cdn.tbmm.gov.tr/KKBSPublicFile/D24/Y5/T1/DosyaKomisyonRaporunuVerdi/37e3b9c2-8072-43a7-a32b-1f5f5cab6640.pdf
  45. United Nations. (2015). (A/RES/70/1)-Transforming our world: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/70/1