A human factors perspective on safety culture

1 Introduction

Although mortality rates for industry have declined greatly over the 20th century, the International Labor Organization still estimates over 6000 deaths every single day. It proclaims that there are around 340 million occupational accidents and 160 million victims of work-related illnesses annually [1]. We have to be also aware that sickness absence and worklessness associated with work-related ill health bring huge costs to industries, employers, government and the economy as a whole. According to statistics for Great Britain [2] 32.5 billion working days were lost due to work-related ill health during the 2019/20 period. Therefore, in the last decades an emphasis is put on the increase and faster development of awareness of work safety in enterprises. For this aim, a variety of occupational health and safety regulations, standards and guidelines was developed and implemented what led to the situation that they are recognizable worldwide nowadays [3–6]. The attention is also paid to new technology and automation as they are perceived as a solution to increase efficiency and safety, reduce workload, reduce human involvement and the effect of human error [7, 8]. However, a role of human factor is still indispensable as he has to be able to work safely, understand and be willing to build and maintain a durable, effective safety culture in the enterprise.

The objective of this paper is to report on an exploratory research study assessing awareness of safety and safety culture in three exemplary European industrial companies. We indicated some challenges and opportunities for the industrial environment in relation to safety culture. For this aim, we employed a multi-methods approach including survey and interviews with companies authorities. The results of the research showed that the awareness of human factors of safety and a positive safety culture influence directly safety good practices, hazard control, incident reporting and finally number and scope of accidents at work.

2 Safety culture

While there is no single definition of ‘safety culture,’ its simplest one can be as follows: “the product of individual and group behaviors, attitudes, norms and values, perceptions, and thoughts that determine the commitment to safety, style an proficiency, and the organization’s system; how workers act an react in terms of the company’s ongoing safety performance” [9]. However, it has to be underlined that this notion can be also difficult to define and measure. According to Antonsen [10], qualitative and quantitative descriptions of the safety culture can alter radically, what casts doubt on the predictive validity of safety culture assessments. It is claimed that a strong safety culture requires not only the involvement, commitment, but also the highest level of management in an organization, down through the organization. Moreover, the need of open communication is underlined at all levels of organization as well as responsibilities and accountabilities to safety are required to be clearly defined and understood. It is extremely vital that there is a zero tolerance for disregard of safety systems, procedures, and related technology. Nevertheless, in the organizations where the safety culture is leading, safety is a core value [11]. Thus, a positive safety culture should be seen as safety is perceived, valued and prioritized in an organization [12].

In order to build and maintain safety culture several steps have to be fulfilled and these include [13]:

articulate values,

Following these steps, it is important that the articulated values are stated and reinforced by top leadership. While establishing expected behavior, policies and procedures regarding how activities are to be conducted, have to be also defined. As far as addressing the factors that lead to safety incidents are concerned, systems thinking approach is advisable to be implemented. Resources should not only be understood as material ones but they have to also include sufficient time and internal staff support. Furthermore, the consequences for inappropriate safety actions should be enforced. For incentives it is needed to introduce recognitions, awards and promotion of safety norms. The continuous improvement leads to the improvement of every process in the company while focusing on enhancing the activities that generate the most value for your customer while removing as many waste activities as possible.

A safety culture is perceived as the final result of the safety management system and the other activities of the organization fitting together. It is the effect of fulfilling all organizational goals and objectives related to hazard control and its risk in the decision-making process [14].

Discussing safety culture, it is necessary to underline the difference between safety climate and safety culture as these notations have been debated over decades [15, 16]. Generally, safety culture refers to the underlying assumptions and values which reflect behaviour in organisations [16]. On the other hand, safety climate, is treated as the features of the safety culture reflecting the worker’s attitudes and perceptions [15].

3 Methods

In the research study we adopted multiple methods such as a safety culture assessment survey and research interviews with operational and management staff from two companies which produce metal products such as steel drills. We managed to invite two hundred forty eight workers from both companies to participate in this study. The questionnaire was filled in 243 times in electronic version. The research interviews were conducted with 5industrial authorities from these companies.

The questionnaire was designed and developed for data collections using Google Forms. It was distributed through a hyperlink sent directly to industry managers. The hyperlink was distributed through emails to contacts within the employees. The Google Forms system prevented us from collecting incomplete responses as a response was required before opening the next question. Moreover, it allowed to carry out research during COVID-19 pandemic avoiding direct contact with the respondents [17, 18]. Before the original version was carried out the survey was piloted to a representative group of operational staff to check for consistency of language and to check if the statements were relevant for of this group. After collecting basic information about the participants (etc. gender, age, education, contract and position) the study consisted of 25 statements which were allocated into 5 key concepts:

safety training,

The participants were asked to agree or disagree via a 5-point Likert type rating scale (i.e. strongly agree, agree, neutral, disagree or strongly disagree). It allowed us to measure their positive-to-negative strength of agreement referring the particular statement. In the questionnaire we also ensured an extra space for providing additional information upon individual decision.

4 Results and discussion

A total of 243 surveys was completed in two companies. The majority of participants (63%) were men. Only 37% of the respondents were women. In the collected questionnaires the most of the workers indicated that they work on operational level (71%), and only 29% assigned themselves to management. Almost all of the respondents (96%) were fully employed. The distribution of ages was the following:

18% of respondents were aged between 18 and 30 years old

The most of the respondents were positive towards safety training in their companies (Fig. 1). In the first company 73.3% of respondents agreed (32.9% agreed and 40.3% strongly agreed) that they had the right experience and qualifications to do their job safely. Moreover, a huge number of them (71.2%) claimed that they had the necessary safety training to perform their job and they agree and strongly agree (67.9%) that their trainings covered safety risks related to their work. However, more than 32.8% respondents claimed that they would appreciate more safety training and in the meantime, 75.3% stated that safety is priority. The situation was different in the second company while assessing safety training. The biggest discrepancy was visible in a statement regarding the amount of safety trainings and the willingness of the respondents to spend more time on trainings. Only 47.7% of the respondents agreed with this statement. Some workers commented that it as unnecessary activity and they claimed that their managers even did not focus on safety.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1

Safety trainings.

In the second part of the questionnaire the respondents focused on safety awareness (Fig. 2) and they started from focusing on assessing if safety or productivity is more important. This statement was almost fully agreed in the first company whereas in the second one the respondents more often paid attention to the productivity. In the first enterprise 80.7% of respondents agreed (29.6% agreed and 51.0% strongly agreed) that they were equipped with the right equipment to perform work safety, and used it when it was required. 86.8% claimed that safety signs played significant role in work performance and it is obligatory to follow safety rules even under pressure. The different results were achieved in the second company as 54.5% of the workers said that from time it happened to ignore them under pressure. The perception of responsibility was also diverse in both places, as in the first one everybody was responsible for safety matters, whereas in the second one it was clearly visible that managers indicated workers to be responsible for themselves and the whole system.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 2

Safety awareness.

The responses to the questions in the part of the survey called “Hazard identification and risk” were rather promising in both companies as it is indicated in Fig. 3. The most of the respondents agreed that they were aware of hazards and risks at their work (85.6% and 67.9%, respectively) and understood their impact (73.7% and 62.1%). However, the difference appeared within the statement referring to necessity of taking risks to do their job. People did not need and did not take risks consciously (75.0% and 54.3%) and try to do their job not endangering others (85.2% and 72.4%). In the last statement in the first company they were confident that the workers are not responsible for accidents and indicated the importance of the whole system in this aspect by proving a comment whereas in the second one mainly people an machinery were responsible for the situation.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 3

Hazard identification and risk.

The notion of safety culture was also investigated from the point of view of responding to the incidents (Fig. 4). In this part it was clearly visible that both companies and their workers had a different perception. 82.3% and 53.1% of the respondents respectively, accessed their company reporting system as a good one. It is interesting that 78.2% and 47.3% agreed that they would be treated in a fair manner if they reported an error. The most of the respondents complained that the problems were not solved on the spot and in order to get a feedback they had to wait for a long period. In the second company 25% of the respondents were even afraid of submitting a report as it might influence their future ability to work.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 4

Responding to incidents.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 5

Communication and safety.

The last part of the questionnaire allowed to investigate the issues related to communication between the employees. 85.6% and 79.0% of the respondents agreed that they knew who contact in a case of any questions about safety issues. However, the smaller amount of people agree or strongly agreed that they got the information about present safety requirements, and what is more, the obtained information was not always transparent and coherent. Generally, they were able to speak freely and perceived that everybody has a voice about safety. However, it happened that their voice was not put into practice.

During the interviews with the representatives of management staff the attitude to safety culture was accessed. In the first company the two respondents were very much involved in these issue, introducing a number of rules to maintain and develop it. Every change was made with great care and after the conversation with the interested parties. According to the three managers representing the second company, they were oriented on efficiency and productivity. They did not have time to study safety issues and the health and safety unit worked rather without collaboration fulfilling mandatory requirements.

The analysis of the results showed the close relation to the cultural safety maturity model proposed by Foster and Hoult [19]. They differentiated five stages: vulnerable, reactive, compliant, proactive and resistant. In each of these stages they described the culture referring to perception of incidents, near misses, training and communication. They showed the development of cultural safety from the starting point where the attention is not paid to training, accidents are hided, there is a lack or little communication up to the desired situation where leadership, personal involvement are visible.

The role of human in safety culture inevitably comes into the foreground. It is clearly visible when we perceive safety culture as a concept related to the links between organizational culture, prevention practices and safety performance. In order to achieve them there must be introduced continuous improvement leading to the enhancement of human capital engaged in every process in the company.

The findings of the research study confirm the inseparable role of humans in the safety culture. In our investigation we collected data about safety training, safety awareness, hazard identification and risk, responding to incidents, and communication and safety. Each of these areas consisted of five separate statements which were accessed in two industrial backgrounds. The research showed that the lack or insufficient performance in these aspects influences directly safety good practices, hazard control, incident reporting what finally can lead to the number and scope of accidents at work. The understanding of the significance of these aspects by both workers and managers showed us clearly their overall influence on the safety culture in the companies.