Effect
of health, safety, and environment management system training on safety climate
in a mine in Yazd Province, Iran
Firoozi Chahak A, MSc1, Beheshti MH, MSc1*, Poursadeghiyan M, PhD2
1- Faculty Member, Dept. of Occupational Health,
Faculty of Health, Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran. 2- Faculty
Member, Dept. of Ergonomics, School of Rehabilitation, University of Social
Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
Received: February
2016, Accepted:
July
2016
Background: Today,
with the development of technology, the presence and role of human resources
has been highlighted in industrial environments. Hence, the importance of
safety culture is growing. Mining is
the one of the most dangerous occupations. Therefore, this study was
performed to determine the effect of health, safety, and environment
management system (HSE-MS) on safety climate in one of the mines in Yazd
Province, Iran, in 2014. Materials
and Methods: The study population consisted of 32 employees of the
operations unit working in one of the mines in Yazd Province. The standard 20-item Safety
Climate Questionnaire (α
= 0.77) which was valid and reliable was used to evaluate the safety culture at the unit. In this questionnaire, the
items were scored based on a 5-point Likert scale. Data were collected before
and 2 months
after the HSE-MS training courses.
The inclusion and exclusion criteria were willingness to participate in the
project, at least 1 year of work experience, and the lack of specific and
neurological diseases.
The collected data were entered into SPSS statistical software. Results: In this
study, 28.1% of the study population was single and 71.9% married. The
average score of the safety climate dimensions of managerial commitment,
safety communications, safe environment, responsibility of managers,
perception of risk, job satisfaction, and knowledge and awareness of safety
issues was 11.09 ± 2.66, 7.50 ± 2.36, 8.09 ± 1.92, 6.56 ± 1.58, 8.43 ± 1.56,
4.59 ± 1.58, and 4.25 ± 1.27, respectively. The dimension of understanding of risk and knowledge
and awareness of safety issues were predictors of job satisfaction in
workers. Conclusions: It can be
concluded that attitudes of the examined miners toward safety climate were at
a moderate level, and that the level of their attitudes increased after the
HSE-MS training course.
Therefore, safety climate can be greatly improved with HSE-MS training
course. |
Keywords: Safety, Climate,
Mining, Occupational Health
Introduction
Today, with the development of technology and the extensive use of
hazardous materials, the presence and role of human resources has been
highlighted in industrial environments (1(.
Presence of human in the workplace has caused disasters that have had
destructive results for humans, and the economy and environment (2). In other words, the industry is
like a double-edged sword, one edge helps in the promotion of the economy, and
health and well-being, and the other edge leads to disability or death. This issue is more evident in
developing countries that exert enormous pressure on workers in order to
increase production, regardless of preventive safety principles, standards,
working hours, training of workers, the use of suitable personal protective
equipment (PPE), and etc.
For example, the International Labour Organization (ILO), in 2009, reported
an annual global incidence of 270 million occupational accidents leading to the
loss of more than 3* working days. Moreover, Iran is a developing country, and thus, is not
exempt from this rule (3).
Therefore safety culture in Iran should be increased and a good safety
culture is the demand of all organizations and humane societies. The planning and
implementation of cultural programs must comply with the requirements, and lack of attention to these
requirements will result in wasting of resources, frustration of staff, and
lack of motivation in authorities.
Changing a culture is a long-term and time-consuming process and if issues such as behavior change are not
considered during this process, the community or organization will pay the cost
of the consequences of the establishment of this culture for a long time. Scientists believe that
individual behaviors are derived from the structure in which an individual is
located; thus, providing an adequate infrastructure, in addition to creating an
appropriate culture,
requires measures to improve the safety culture (4). Various definitions have been
provided for safety culture. According to the British Health and Safety Executive (HSE),
safety culture is the ideas and beliefs that all organizations have about an
accident and sickness (5).
In another definition of this term, culture is described as a set of
beliefs, ideas, and values of a group that is manifested in the behavior of
that group (6). The
study by Beriha et al. showed that the prediction of various types of accidents
helps the managers to formulate organizational policies for improving safety
performance (7).
Another study was
conducted by Beriha et al. on safety performance evaluation of Indian
organizations using data envelopment analysis (8). In this study, a total of 30
Indian organizations under the 3 industrial categories of construction,
refractory, and steel were compared. They observed that safety performance of
construction industries was consistently low compared to other industrial
categories (8).
Safety culture is a psychological phenomenon and indicates employees’
perceptions of the safety condition in a given time period. The importance of
safety culture is its ability to predict safety behavior. According to this feature the impact of safety culture on
various events such as perceived safety
risks, accidents, and damage, has been observed (9, 10). In recent years, there has been
a movement away from safety measures purely based on retrospective data or
‘lagging indicators’ such as fatalities, lost time and accident rates, towards
so called ‘leading indicators’ such as safety audits or measurements of safety
climate. It can be argued that these are predictive measures of accdent which
enable safety condition monitoring (11).
The concept of safety climate that is a subset of a safety culture is
concerned with the perceptions and inferences of employees of a workplace, the interest of managers in
safety and safety measures and their participation in risk control (12). The
concept of safety climate was introduced for the first time in 1980 as a
multi-dimensional factor that plays a role in workplace safety. Since then, many
studies have been conducted to evaluate safety climate and its related factors,
especially after the occurrence of the Chernobyl accident. These studies found
that safety climate can be
effective in detecting potential problems and can evaluate the employees' work
environment, increase efficiency, and reduce the rate of accidents in the event
that safety culture is considered sufficiently. In other words, safety climate attempts to identify
weaknesses regarding safety and opportunities for their modification. In recent years, the use of
preventive measures (protective
approach) such as safety climate and observing of unsafe behaviors have
been considered along with reaction indices (reactive approach) such as incident
indicators. Through the combination of preventive and reactive approaches, the
implementation of safety programs can be achieved to help organizations. Thus,
the assessment of safety climate, as an important indicator of health and
safety in the workplace, has been proposed and implemented. Follow-up corrective actions
resulting from it have significant impact on enhancement of employee efficiency
and successful control of injuries caused by accidents and can be used as a
guide to safety policy in organizations (13). Attitude and culture in mines are among the main causes
of unsafe behaviors that can lead to accidents. Safety climate in mines, which
is considered as an important indicator of safety, illustrates employees’
shared perceptions toward safety.
Moreover, mining is acknowledged as a hazardous occupation; thus, this
study aimed to assess the safety climate in one of the mines in Yazd Province,
Iran, in 2014.
Materials
and Methods
The present study was a cross-sectional descriptive study. The research population comprised all
employees of one of the mines in Yazd Province. In this study, 32 individuals
were studied through census method. The inclusion and exclusion
criteria for this study were willingness to participate in the project, lack of
disease and musculoskeletal disorders, and at least 1 year of work experience. The data
collection tool was
a 2-part questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire was the 20-item
standardized Safety Climate Questionnaire that was designed By Mohammad Zaidi (14). The validity and
reliability of this questionnaire were confirmed through calculating Cronbach's
alpha coefficient (α
= 0.77). The
questionnaire has 7 dimensions, including managerial commitment (4 items) (α = 0.8), safety
communication (3 items) (α
= 0.83), secure environment (3 items) (α
= 0.77), responsibility of managers (3 items) (α = 0.75), perception of risk (3 items) (α = 0.64), job
satisfaction (2 items) (α
= 0.71), and knowledge and awareness of safety issues (2 items) (α = 0.84). In this questionnaire, items
were scored based on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from completely disagree (1
point) to strongly agree.
The second part of the questionnaire contained demographic questions on
age, marital status (single or married), work experience, monthly income,
education (illiterate, primary and secondary, diploma, associate degree, or
bachelor's degree and higher), working time, and shift work. In addition to leveling the
scope, earning of 33.3% scores was considered as poor rating, 33.4-66.6% as
average, and 66.7-100% as good rating (5).
In this study, the Safety Climate Questionnaire was distributed among the
participants and, during a 16-hour health, safety, and environment management
system (HSE-MS) training program,
participants received theoretical and practical training on HSE procedures and requirements. After 2 months, the subjects completed the
questionnaire once more and the results were analyzed.
The HSE-MS is a management tool that evaluates a company’s commitment to
conduct its business in a way that protects the health and safety of its
employees, contractors, and the public and is environmentally responsible. In
this study, data were collected before the intervention and 2 months after the
HSE-MS course. It should be
noted that the questionnaires were completed through interviews by the Mine
Safety and Environment officers who had been trained in this regard. The collected data were
analyzed using descriptive statistics and analytical tests such as Pearson
correlation coefficient, ANOVA, independent t-test, and linear regression in
SPSS software (version 16, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). It should be noted that before
the start of the project, all participants were informed of study results and
assured of the confidentiality of results.
Results
In this study, 9 (28.1%) subjects were single and 23 (71.9 %) were married.
In general, 13 (40.6%) had elementary and Junior education, 7 (21.9%) had a
diploma, and 9 (28.1%) had undergraduate degrees or higher. The demographic
data of study population is presented in table 1.
Table 1: Demographic information of the participants in the study
N (%) |
In
terms of |
Variable |
9
(28.1%) |
Single |
Marriage |
23
(71.9%) |
Married |
|
13
(40.6%) |
Elementary
and Junior |
Education |
7
(21.9%) |
Diploma |
|
3
(9.4%) |
Associate
degree |
|
9
(28.1%) |
Bachelor's
degree or higher |
|
8 (25%) |
Morning |
Shift
work |
11
(34.4%) |
Morning
and evening |
|
4
(12.5%) |
Morning
and night |
|
5
(15.6%) |
Evening
and night |
|
4
(12.5%) |
Morning,
afternoon, and night |
The average total score achieved by participants was equal to 46.88 ± 8.32.
Moreover, scores in the dimensions of managerial commitment and safety
communication were 11.09 ± 2.66 and 7.50 ± 2.36, respectively. The average scores in each of
the dimensions before and after training are presented in table 2.
Table 2: Relationship
between the average score of each safety climate dimension before and after
training according to one-way ANOVA
P-Value |
df |
t |
After the intervention |
Before the intervention |
Dimension |
Mean ± SD |
Mean ± SD |
||||
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-7.83 |
2.79 ± 13.25 |
11.09 ± 2.66 |
Managerial commitment |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-12.66 |
1.53 ± 10.90 |
7.50 ± 2.36 |
Safety communications |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-8.61 |
1.66 ± 10.87 |
8.09 ± 1.92 |
Safe environment |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-13.41 |
1.32 ± 9.9 |
6.56 ± 1.58 |
Responsibility of managers |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-10.22 |
1.56 ± 11.21 |
8.43 ± 1.56 |
Perception of risk |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-13.75 |
1.41 ± 7.75 |
4.59 ± 1.58 |
Job satisfaction |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-11.81 |
1.24 ± 7.53 |
4.25 ± 1.27 |
Awareness about safety |
< 0.0001 |
31 |
-76.50 |
5.47 ± 73.41 |
46.88 ± 8.32 |
Total safety climate |
*The significance level = 0.05
After HSE-MS training, the safety climate score was equal
to 73.41 ± 5.47; there was a significant change compared to before the training. Table 2 shows the relationship between the dimensions
before and after the intervention.
According to Pearson correlation coefficient, there was a significant
correlation between average age and the dimensions of management commitment (P
= 0.008) (r = -0.458**), safety communication (P = 0.027) (r =
-0.390**), safe environment (P = 0.032) (r = -0.281**),
responsibility of managers (P = 0.042) (r = -0.383**), and safety
climate (P = 0.022) (r = -0.451**).
In addition, linear regression analysis showed that the
dimensions of perception of risk and awareness of safety issues were predictors
of job satisfaction in workers.
Level of understanding of 11 (34.4%), 16 (50%), and 5
(15.6%) participants in the dimension of managerial commitment was,
respectively, poor, average, and good.
Table 3: Frequency of understanding of participants in relation to each of the
dimensions of safety climate
Level
of dimensions |
Managerial commitment |
Safety
communications |
Safe environment |
Responsibility of
managers |
Perception of
risk |
Job
satisfaction |
Awareness about safety |
N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
N (%) |
|
Weak |
11 (34.4%) |
19 (59.4%) |
9 (28.1%) |
23
(71.9%) |
7 (21.9%) |
20 (62.5%) |
22 (8.68%) |
Average |
16 (50%) |
12 (37.5%) |
20 (62.5%) |
9 (28.1%) |
23 (71.9%) |
10 (31.3%) |
10 (3.31%) |
Good |
5 (15.6%) |
1 (3.1%) |
3 (9.4%) |
---- |
2 (6.3%) |
2 (6.3%) |
--- |
N: Number
Discussion
Attitude of workers towards safety is affected by their
perception of risk, management, rules, and safety procedures. Several studies have proposed
the use of safety climate score for the comparison of different industries (15-18).
In
the past decades, safety climate has been recognized as the fundamental and
ultimate solution for improving workplace safety in various industries (11). A
substantial number of researches have shown that lower workplace accident rates
were associated with improved safety climates (19, 20).
According to the results of this study, in general,
attitudes of the studied miners toward safety climate was at an average level.
However, the level of their attitude increased after HSE-MS training courses. The results of the present
study showed a poor safety climate among Mine workers that is in conflict with
the results of the study performed by Mortazavi et al. (9).
The study of Adel et al. in the steel industry showed
that safety climate was at an average level that is similar to the results of
this study (13). Furthermore,
the study by Roseanne showed a low level of safety climate (21). The study of Tabibi showed
that, in hospital, attitude toward safety climate was at a lower level than
other Dimensions of safety attitudes (22),
which corresponds with the results of other studies (18). In the present
study, there was no statistically significant relationship between any
dimension of safety climate and level of education. This finding is in
agreement with the results of the study by Adel et al. (13). In the present study, based on
the results presented in table 2, the average score of each of the 7 dimensions
studied are at moderate to high levels.
Nevertheless, in the study by Adel et al. (13), from the 17 fields
examined, only 5 fields, including managerial commitment, were at an acceptable
level.
In this study, the scores of managerial commitment,
safety communication, safe environment, and responsibility of managers,
perception of risk, job satisfaction, and awareness of safety issues were
differed significantly after the intervention compared to before the
intervention. Generally, this study showed significant differences before and
after the intervention in the safety climate score. The results of this study
were consistent with several previous studies (24-26).
The study conducted by Glendon et al. showed that
participants were weak in the area of communication (27). This finding was not
in accordance with the results of the present study. The results of this study
showed that the score of attitude towards safety climate has a significant
inverse correlation with the work experience and age of the participants. This is in conflict with the
findings of Heidari et al. (12) that showed no correlation between safety
climate and work experience.
The results of this study showed that
the status of different dimensions of safety climate in the examined miners was
at a medium level. Thus, the safety climate score can be used as a preventive
indicator to develop safety policies and evaluate safety performance of
organizations and the results
can be used to improve safety.
Conclusion
It can be concluded that attitudes of the examined miners toward safety
climate was at a moderate level, and that its level increased after the HSE-MS
training course. Therefore,
safety culture can be greatly improved with HSE-MS training course. Thus, it is
suggested that managers pay more attention to safety training and management
support to improve the safety climate.
Improving workers’ safety training is of paramount importance. Therefore,
safety training should focus on the reduction of industry injuries. Management
support is another vital factor in manufacturing enterprises. We hope that these findings can
be helpful in the improvement of safety and health in the workplace.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to faculty members of the Department of
Occupational Health in Gonabad University of Medical Sciences and all managers
and staff of mines in Yazd Province who helped us in this project.
Conflict of Interest: None declared
References
1- Sepehr P, Mohammad Fam I, Ketabi D, Sepehr N. Effect of
engineering and management interventions on promoting safety culture indicators
among workers of Iranian pipe rolling factory. The Journal of Toloo-e-behdasht
2014; 13(3):11-20.
2- Kirchsteiger C. Trends in accidents, disasters and risk sources in
Europe. J Loss Prev process Ind 1999; 12(1):7-17.
3- Parker D, Lawrie M, Hudson P. A framework for understanding the development of
organization safety culture. Saf Sci 2006; 44(6):551-62.
4- Guldenmund FW. The use of
questionnaires in safety culture research-an evaluation. Saf Sci 2007;
45(6):723-43.
5- Dedobbeleer N, Beland F. A safety climate measure for
construction sites. J Safety Res 1991; 22(2):97-103.
6- Feng X, Bobay K, Weiss M. patient safety culture in nursing:
a dimensional concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2008; 63(3):310-19.
7-
Beriha GS,
Patnaik B, Mahapatra SS, Padhee S. Assessment of safety performance in Indian
industries using fuzzy approach. Expert Syst Appl 2012; 39(3):3311-23.
8-
Beriha GS,
Patnaik B, Mahapatra SS. Safety performance evaluation of Indian organizations
using data envelopment analysis. Benchmarking: An International Journal 2011;
18(2):197-220.
9- Mortazavi
SB, Asilian H, Avestakhan M. Relationship between safety climate factors and
the risk of dangerous situations in height among construction workers. Iran
Occupational Health Journal 2011; 8(1):51-60.
10- Cooper MD, Phillhps RA. Exploratory analaysis of the safety
climate and safety behavior relation. J Safety Res 2004; 35(5):497-512.
11-
Flin R, Mearns K,
O'Connor P, Bryden R. Measuring safety climate: identifying the common
features. Saf Sci 2000; 34(1):177-92.
12- Heidari
MH, Farshad AA, Arghami Sh. A study on relationship between production link
worker's safety attitude and their safe act in of Arak metal industry. Iran
Occupational Health Journal 2007; 4(3 and 4):1-9.
13- Adl J, Jahangiri M, Rismanchian M, Mary Oriad H, Karimi A,
Ghaderi MR. Safety climate in a steel-manufacturing plant. Journal of School of
Public Health and Institue of Public Health Research 2011; 9(1):23-34.
14- Mohammadi Zeadi E, Heidarinia AR, Neaknami Sh. Measure the safety climate at the
workplace: the design, Validity and reliability of questionnaires. Payesh Journal 2011;10(2):157-66.
15- Zohar D, Luria G. A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships between
organization and group-level climates. J Appl Psychol 2005; 90(4):616-28.
16- Ma Q, Yuan J. Exploratory study on safety climate in Chinese
manufacturing enterprises. Saf Sci 2009; 47(7):1043-6.
17-
Niskanen T.
Assessing the safety environment in the work organization of road maintenance
jobs. Accid Anal Prev 1994; 26(1):27-39.
18-
Lindell MK,
Brandt CJ. Climate quality and climate consensus as mediators of the
relationship between organizational antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol
2000; 85(3):331-48.
19-
Smith GS, Huang
YH, Ho M, Chen PY. The relationship between safety climate and injury rates
across industries: the need to adjust for injury hazards. Accid Anal Prev 2006;
38(3):556-62.
20-
Arezes PM, Miguel
AS. Risk perception and safety behavior: a study in an occupational
environment. Saf Sci 2008; 46(6):900-7.
21-
Fairchild RM,
Pesut DJ, Harrington CF. Creating safety culture on nursing units: human
performance and organizational system factors that make a difference. J Patient
Saf 2006; 2(4):198-206.
22-
Tabibei J,
Nasireipour AA, Maleki MR, Raessi P, Mahmmoudi M, Azimi L. Survey of employees'
safety attitude in a teaching hospital Tehran 2010. Iran Occupational Health
Journal 2011; 7(4):25-31.
23-
Zaravshani V, Sheykhi S, Amini M, Mohamadizeydi E.
Investigation of safety attitude among operating room staff of of educational
hospital of Qazvin university of
medical sciences. Paper presented at: 2nd Conference in Tehran Safe Community;
2009 October 7-8; Tahran,
Iran.
24-
Zohar D. The
effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate, and assigned priorities on
minor injuries in work groups. J Organ Behav 2002; 23(1):75-92.
25-
Basen-Engquist K,
Hudmon KS,
Tripp M,
Chamberlain R.
Worksite health and safety climate: scale development and effects of a health
promotion intervention. Prev Med 1998; 27(1):111-9.
26-
Cooper MD,
Phillips RA. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior
relationship. J Safety Res 2004; 35(5):497-512.
27-
Glendon AI,
Litherland DK. Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behavior in road construction. Saf Sci 2001; 39(3):157-88.
* Corresponding author:
Mohammad hossein beheshti, Dept. of Occupational Health, Faculty of Health,
Gonabad University of Medical Sciences, Gonabad, Iran.
Email: beheshtihasan8@gmail.com