Employees continuously observe their work environment and the actions of their fellow workers and superiors, and they use such observations as a basis for the creation of cognitive models associated with safety. These models regulate their actions in the workplace and thus have an influence on safety. This study attempts to define the structure of the safety climate as perceived by workers and the correlations between the safety climate, on the one hand, and the safety practices of the company, the safety level of the work environment and occupational accidents on the other. The variables used in this study were the same as those employed in two previous Finnish safety climate studies carried out in the plywood industry, shipyards, the forestry industry, building construction and stevedoring. The safety climate was measured by means of a questionnaire. Workers from four sawmills, two plywood factories and two parquet plants participated. The total number of participants was 508 in 1990 and 548 in 1993. The variables formed four factors, whose contents and reliabilities closely resembled the results obtained in the earlier studies. These results indicate that the structure of the safety climate among Finnish workers is quite stable. The safety climate correlated both with the safety level of the work environment and with the safety practices of the company, but the correlation between the safety climate and the safety of the work environment was stronger. This result differs from those of the previous studies, in which the safety climate was defined specifically in terms of an individual's perceptions of the safety practices of the company and of the behavior of other employees. The two safety climate factors that described a company's attitudes to safety and its safety precautions correlated with the accident rates. The better the safety climate of the company was, the lower was the accident rate. Four companies with an accident rate below the average for the wood-processing industry had a better safety climate than four similar companies with an accident rate above the average.
[1]
Markku Mattila,et al.
The quality of work environment, supervision and safety in building construction
,
1994
.
[2]
D. Zohar.
Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications.
,
1980,
The Journal of applied psychology.
[3]
E. B. Andersen,et al.
Modern factor analysis
,
1961
.
[4]
J. Komaki,et al.
A behavioral approach to occupational safety: pinpointing and reinforcing safe performance in a food manufacturing plant.
,
1978,
The Journal of applied psychology.
[5]
E. M. Hugh-Jones.
Human relations and modern management
,
1960
.
[6]
J. Komaki,et al.
Effect of training and feedback: component analysis of a behavioral safety program.
,
1980,
The Journal of applied psychology.
[7]
Wilson H. Guertin,et al.
Introduction to modern factor analysis
,
1970
.
[8]
R. Rummel.
Applied Factor Analysis
,
1970
.
[9]
J. Komaki.
Toward effective supervision: An operant analysis and comparison of managers at work.
,
1986
.
[10]
M K Lindell,et al.
Motivational and organizational factors affecting implementation of worker safety training.
,
1994,
Occupational medicine.
[11]
H. Kaiser.
An index of factorial simplicity
,
1974
.
[12]
R L Brown,et al.
The use of a factor-analytic procedure for assessing the validity of an employee safety climate model.
,
1986,
Accident; analysis and prevention.