Predicting the relationship between safety climate and safety performance in cement industry

1 Introduction

Safety climate is a specific feature of organizational climate affecting the workers’ safety behaviors in any organizational level [1]. The main purpose of evaluating safety climate is to create situations so as to improve the safety performance of organizations. It has been greatly identified as a leading indication in safety performance against dilatory indications [2, 3]. The concept of safety climate was first introduced in 1980 as a multi-dimensional factor which has an important role in the safety of working environment [4–6]. Neal and Griffin reported that safety climate is related to the individual perception of policies, procedures, and safety activities in a work environment [7]. Safety climate has been has been defined as a multi-dimensional factor that plays an important role in workplace safety [8, 9]. This concept of safety climate, which was introduced by Zoher in 1980 [10], includes several key factors: management safety commitment, social support, production pressure, safety knowledge, and motivation. The focus of safety performance is on the behavior of staff in a given safety management system. Studies indicate that safety climate and other factors like safety knowledge and motivation affect safety performance, and have considerable effect on the awareness of safety rules and regulations, as well as hazards and risks. Safety motivation affects individual voluntary participation in safety activities [11–13]. Studies of the relationship between various safety climatic aspects and the safety performance of maintenance operations in Iran’s aviation industry have found that safety performance is highly dependent on the management safety commitment, safety issues, safe environment, managers’ responsibilities, risk perception, job satisfaction, and safety awareness. As such, it is essential for airport managers and staff to promote a climate of safety [14]. Chen et al. investigated the influence of safety climate and individual resilience on the safety performance and psychological stresses of construction workers. The authors explored the impact of both individual and organizational factors on safety performance, psychological health, and practical applications. The results showed that to improve safety performance, construction companies should monitor the psychological well-being of their employees [2]. Mullen et al. investigated the effect of safety-specific transformational leadership on the employees’ understanding of safety priorities and their safety-performance behaviors and attitudes. The authors found that safety outcomes were stronger when the level of safety-specific transformational leadership was highest. When this is the case, the safety responsibilities of the workers and leaders play a key role in developing a safe work environment and can support the efforts of organizations to promote safety practices and interventions [15]. Zohar et al. conducted a randomly designed field study in which they promoted safety climate and safety performance by introducing changes to the daily messages shared in supervisor–member interactions [16]. Fugas et al. considered safety climate and planned behavior theory to determine the cognitive and social mechanism involved in the interaction between organizational safety climate, compliance, and proactive safety behaviors [17].

Based on the importance of the above factors, in this study, our objective was to explore the effect of these factors in the cement industry, which is a key aspect of Iran’s economy and where a primary concern is to avoid accidents and their related costs. We propose the following hypotheses for this research.

The organizational safety climate has a positive impact on safety performance.

2 Methodology

This research was conducted in an Iranian Cement factory in 2017 to investigate the company workplace safety climate and safety performance. Ethical approval of the study was obtained from the University Ethics Commission and Ethical considerations in this study were adhered based on the Helsinki guidelines.

The studied factory was launched in 1969. At present, the factory is one of the biggest cement factories in Iran with the production capacity of 13000 tons/day.

A questionnaire was designed in 5 structures, 9 dimensions and 41 questions to evaluate the relationship between safety climate and safety performance of the factory’s staff (Cronbach’s alpha of 0.86). It consists of safety climate (include management commitment to safety, social support, workplace safety, emergency preparation, and workplace environments); production pressure, safety knowledge, safety performance (include safety participation and safety consideration) (Fig. 2). In this study, 230 employees were evaluated with the sample quality test KMO of 0.86. The statistical methods applied in this research include inferential statistical and descriptive methods. Descriptive statistical methods practiced to assess and express the general characteristics of the samples (the average and frequency distribution tables). Also, the research hypotheses were contemplated using structural equation models (SEM).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 1

The Conceptual model.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 2

Study area.

The descriptive statistics of the variables are shown in Table 1.

The results of Table 1 imply that the highest average value belonged to safety motivation, safety knowledge and safety participation, respectively. The highest standard deviation goes to emergency preparation at workplace and safety consideration, respectively. It is worth nothing that all the average values were more than 3 (based on Likert scale).

The final structural model is employed to assess the relationships between the main structures of this research. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the model hypothesizes.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 3

The final model of the research main hypotheses.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 4

The structural equation model of the subsidiary hypotheses.

According to Figs. 3 and 4, the strength of the relationship between safety climate and safety performance is 0.38, indicating a suitable correlation. The T-test statistic was 5.80 which is more than the critical amount of “T” (>1.96) and it shows that the observed correlation is meaningful. However, the relationship between mentioned variables were 0.38, Fig. 4 showed that the intermediary variable increases the safety effect and confirmed the positive indirect effect of safety motivation and safety knowledge.

Moreover, according to the final model (Fig. 5) and research variables, management’s commitment to safety has a direct relationship with social support (λ: 0.74 and t-value: 10.17) and inverse relationship with production pressure (λ: –0.42 and t-value: –17.18), respectively. Also, the social support has a direct relationship with safety knowledge (λ: 0.78 and t-value: –10.37), and safety motivation (λ: 0.67 and t-value: –9.91). Production pressure has an inverse relationship with safety knowledge (λ: –0.70 and t-value: –10.05) and safety motivation (λ: –0.47 and t-value: –8.27). Safety knowledge is unrelated to safety participation (λ: 0.18 and t-value: 1.10), but has a direct relationship with safety compliance (λ: 0.32 and t-value: 6.06). Furthermore, safety motivation has a direct relationship with safety participation (λ: 0.43 and t-value: 7.98) and safety compliance (λ: 0.46 and t-value: 8.20).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Fig. 5

T-value statistic of the final model.

The results of the first hypotheses indicated a significant relationship between the main variables and showed the positive influence of safety climate on safety performance, a finding that is consistent with the results of previous studies [18–22]. In this regard it seems necessary to make a safety training time table including a comprehensive training course on safety issues. Regarding to the second hypotheses, safety motivation and safety knowledge can play an important intermediary role in the relationship between safety climate and safety performance. Thus it is essential to hold training courses and regular maneuvers to optimize the safety motivation and knowledge.

Management’s commitment to safety has a direct relationship with social support. Hence, management should establish clear policies on subjects related to safety and safety issues. However, there is an inverse relationship between management commitment and production pressure.

It is inferred that the employees valued the production increase more than safety. Conclusively, the unsafe activities of the staff are increased as the production capacity gets enhanced. Since there is a direct relationship between social support and safety motivation and knowledge, it is featured out that as the management performance and value gets more important from the view point of safety and related subjects, employees pay more attention to safety and become more motivated to consider safety issues. Production pressure reveals an inverse relationship with safety knowledge and safety motivation. Additionally, safety knowledge has no meaningful relationship with safety participation. Thus, it implied the lack of safety participation and safety knowledge in the organization. In contrast, safety knowledge reflected a direct and meaningful relationship with safety consideration. It is concluded that safety requirements are considered and obeyed by individual. Safety motivation has a direct and significant relationship with safety consideration and participation. In fact, the employees of the organization believe that if safety is obligatory and there is also enough motivation to promote safety and obey rules, undesirable events will be decreased. In consequence, employees will be eager to do voluntary activities so as to promote the safety of workplace.

In conclusion, safety knowledge and motivation play an intermediary role in the relation between safety climate and safety performance. Therefore, safety knowledge can affect safety performance through safety motivation [23]. Brian et al. showed that there is a significant interaction between management’s commitment to safety and production pressure as well as social support. Another critical factor was production pressure, which can directly affect safety motivation, safety participation, safety knowledge, and safety obedience. Remarkably, social support affects safety behavior in the same way as production pressure; however, safety participation was not as significant as expected. There was also a direct relationship between safety knowledge and safety motivation with safety participation [24]. Moreover the safety climate of co-workers highly influences safety behavior and safety participation in comparison to the safety climate of the supervisor at both group and individual levels [25]. Although the outcomes of this research are compatible with the above-mentioned studies, this study revealed no meaningful relationship of safety knowledge to safety participation. Adl et al, remarked that there is a relationship between safety climate and performance of the occupational health and safety management system. At Sarcheshmeh Copper Complex, the results indicated that safety climate can be regarded as an indicator to assess the performance of the occupational health and safety management system [26]. Furthermore, safety knowledge and motivation affect safety performance. As a result of this study, Lingard et al. concluded that management commitment to safety influences social support [27]. In contrast, Bahari demonstrated that safety training can improve safety climate. Also, safety climate can affect safety performance as a dependent variable [28]. Abdullah considered that safety management systems can create such a positive environment that all employees and other systems can contribute to improve the safety performance of employees [29]. Christian et al. indicated that there is a relationship between safety performance, safety motivation, and safety knowledge [30]. Moreover, safety climate and psychological aspects have a vital effect on safety performance. According to the positive interaction between safety knowledge and safety performance, employees with safety knowledge can work safer. Safety motivation can also contribute remarkably to reduce the number of undesirable accidents and both safety motivation and safety knowledge can predict safety consideration and participation [11]. Moreover social support, as an important factor, can directly affect safety behavior with no intermediate [31]. Furthermore, the development of an integrated model of “a safe organization”, “safe groups”, and “safe workers” can diminish unsafe behavior in the workplace. Safety participation has a positive interaction with safety knowledge and safety motivation. In contrast, safety motivation and knowledge have a direct effect on safety compliance. On the other hand, social support and production pressure directly influence safety compliance [24].

6 Research limitations

The authors acknowledge certain limitations of the study. First, due to financial and time limitations, only cross-sectional study was applicable and time order of events cannot be considered. Thus, associations tested in this research do not suggest causation.

7 Conclusion

The current study was a precise attempt to analyze all aspects and indications of safety performance, safety knowledge, and safety motivation and production pressure in a cement manufacturing facility.

Eventually, site safety relies considerably on employees’ compatible behavior. It is recommended to pay close attention to key factors including safety knowledge and safety motivation so as to make appropriate decisions. Training courses, toolbox meetings and random information should be also considered. The current integrative model develops a theoretical foundation for safety strategies and management. The outcomes have remarkable effects on the safety management of the cement industry. Furthermore, these findings contribute to dwindling on safe behavior at the workplace. Safety climate is identified as one of the main factors reducing unsafe behaviors because it can promote safety motivation and safety knowledge in employees. Holistically, it is vital to take safety knowledge seriously at all levels in organizations in order to develop safety, diminish the rate of accidents and achieve ultimate safety. In addition, the organization should pay more attention to individual priorities of safety in order to increase safety at work and to provide safety for other co-workers as well as safe production.

This research can pave the way for future studies on safety climate in organizations with a similar structure. It is also possible to scrutinize other management subjects (such as organizational efficiency, organizational performance, financial performance), and put the outcomes more reliably into practice.

Conflict of interest

None to report.