OCCUPATIONAL RANKING BASED ON PROFESSIONAL RISK LEVELS AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITY CHARACTERISTICS

Relevance. The transition toward risk-oriented occupational safety systems requires modernizing social protection mechanisms for employees exposed to hazardous working conditions. In Kazakhstan, social guarantees are traditionally based on occupational classifications that do not fully reflect actual workplace risk exposure or economic sector characteristics.

Objective. To develop and validate an integrated methodological approach for ranking occupations based on professional risk levels and economic activity characteristics.

Materials and Methods. This study, conducted in 2024-2025, included an analysis of occupational risk assessment data from pilot enterprises, an evaluation of national labor statistics, and findings from a sociological survey of 312 respondents. An integrated ranking index was developed by calculating a sectoral coefficient reflecting economic activity characteristics. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 27.0.

Results. Significant variability in occupational risk levels across economic sectors was identified. High and critical risk levels were predominantly observed in mining, metallurgical, and chemical industries, while lower risk levels were characteristic of service and administrative sectors. The proposed integrated ranking model demonstrated the ability to differentiate occupations with similar professional risk exposure by incorporating sector-specific economic indicators, thereby enabling a more precise distribution of social guarantees.

Conclusions. The developed model establishes a scientifically justified relationship between occupational risk level and allocation of social guarantees. Implementing the proposed methodology may enhance the effectiveness of occupational safety regulation and support the transition toward a preventive, risk-oriented social protection system in Kazakhstan.

1. Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2023). Concept of safe labor in the Republic of Kazakhstan for 2024-2030: Resolution No. 1182 dated December 28, 2023. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from https://adilet.zan.kz

2. European Commission. (1989). Council Directive 89/391/EEC on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work. Luxembourg: European Commission. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from http://data.europa.eu/eli/dir/1989/391/oj

3. International Labour Organization. (2024). Global strategy on occupational safety and health 2024–2030. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/safety-and-health-work

4. International Labour Organization. (1981). Occupational safety and health convention No. 155. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C155

5. International Labour Organization. (2006). Promotional framework for occupational safety and health convention No. 187. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from https://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO::P12100_ILO_CODE:C187

6. Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of the Population of the Republic of Kazakhstan. (2020). Rules for management of occupational risks: Order No. 363 dated September 11, 2020. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from https://law.gov.kz

7. Rushton, L. (2017). The global burden of occupational disease. Current Environmental Health Reports, 4(3), 340-348. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-017-0151-2

8. Takala, J., Hämäläinen, P., Sauni, R., Nygård, C. H., Gagliardi, D., & Neupane, S. (2024). Global-, regional- and country-level estimates of the work-related burden of diseases and accidents in 2019. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 50(2), 73-82. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.4132

9. International Labour Organization. (2011). Occupational safety and health management systems: A tool for continuous improvement. Geneva: ILO. Retrieved November 16, 2025, from https://www.ilo.org/publications/osh-management-system-tool-continual-improvement

10. Zhang, Q. Z., & Wang, L. (2026). Occupational health and safety risk assessment based on linguistic distribution preference relations. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 32(1), 112-125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2024.2336405

11. Tzeng, G.-H., & Huang, J.-J. (2011). Multiple attribute decision making: Methods and applications. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1201/b11032

12. Hsu, C.-C., & Sandford, B. A. (2007). The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 12(1), Article 10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7275/pdz9-th90