Enhancing Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration: A Commentary on OS and OHC Synergy

We are writing to offer a commentary on the study “Analyzing Occupational Safety Managers’ and Representatives’ Assessments of Collaboration with Occupational Health Care” by Nissinen et al. (2025). As faculties in the Department of Community Development at Bukidnon State University (BSU) in the Philippines, we find the study’s focus on the “perceived seamlessness” of collaboration between Occupational Safety (OS) actors and Occupational Health Care (OHC) providers to be both timely and cross-culturally relevant. In the field of community development, we view the workplace as a micro-community where the health of the workforce directly impacts the socio-economic resilience of the broader region.

The study presents three notable strengths. First, the methodological rigor in distinguishing between the perceptions of OS managers and OS representatives is vital. By identifying that OS managers generally perceive collaboration as more “seamless” than their representative counterparts the authors highlight a critical “perceptual gap.” This mirrors wider findings in organizational psychology where those in administrative roles often overestimate the efficacy of safety protocols compared to those on the “front line” (Aburumman et al., 2019). Second, the study effectively identifies specific drivers of collaboration, particularly the correlation between the availability of workload data and the quality of the partnership. By grounding “collaboration” in tangible data sharing rather than just abstract communication, the researchers provide a practical roadmap for organizations. Third, the focus on digital tools as a facilitator for collaboration is forward-thinking. In an era of increasing workplace digitalization, identifying how tech-enabled information flow can bridge the gap between OS and OHC is a significant contribution to modernizing safety management systems.

Despite these strengths, there are areas for further development. First, the study lacks the reciprocal perspective of OHC providers. Collaboration is a two-way street; understanding how OHC professionals view the quality of data provided by OS actors would have provided a more balanced 360-degree assessment. Second, the cultural and geographical specificity of the study (focused on Finland) limits its immediate generalizability to developing contexts. In the Philippines, for example, the primary barriers to collaboration in public institutions often involve deep-seated structural issues and resource limitations that have complicated the occupational health landscape for decades (Torres et al., 2002). Third, the study relies on cross-sectional survey data, which captures only a snapshot in time. A longitudinal approach would have been more effective in determining whether “jointly agreed procedures” actually lead to a measurable reduction in long-term occupational illnesses.

Relating these findings to our role at Bukidnon State University (BukSU), the study’s conclusions resonate deeply. As faculties in Community Development, we navigate a “hybrid” workplace—balancing classroom instruction, administrative duties, and field-based community extension. At BukSU, the collaboration between our safety officers and health services is paramount, particularly during the humid seasons in Malaybalay City where physical health risks and fieldwork hazards intersect. A critical oversight in many Western-centric occupational models is the exclusion of environmental and geographical stressors as variables in OS and OHC collaboration. For faculties in the Mindanao highlands, “workload data” must account for the high emotional and physical labor of community immersion. When OHC providers are disconnected from these field realities, “jointly agreed procedures” remain abstract and difficult to enforce during peak outreach seasons.

In our office, we have observed that when health protocols are strictly “top-down,” the faculty—who act as the “representatives” on the ground—often feel a disconnect. The study’s finding that representatives rate collaboration lower than managers reflects our local experience. Furthermore, the emphasis on workload data is crucial for preventing faculty burnout, a recognized challenge in Philippine higher education where emotional labor and “quiet quitting” have become significant silent struggles (Gomez et al., 2025).

We argue that OS-OHC synergy should not be viewed solely as an internal administrative goal but as a model for community resilience. Applying the authors' recommendations, our department could benefit from OHC professionals joining our field risk assessments for community outreach. This moves the university toward the “proactive and goal-oriented” synergy the authors advocate. By strengthening these internal links at BukSU, we not only protect our faculty but also model the community resilience we teach to our students.