DETERMINANTS OF SAFE
ORGANIZATIONAL CLIMATE AND ITS IMPACT ON EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE: A CASE OF MARBLE
INDUSTRIES KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA, PAKISTAN
Shahid Jan Kakakhel,
Associate Professor, Islamia College, Peshawar. Email: shahidjan@icp.edu.pk
Kashif Ahmad, MS Scholar,
Abdul Wali Khan University, Mardan
Muhammad Tariq, Assistant
Professor, Abdul Wali Khan University Mardan. Email: tariq_noor@awkum.edu.pk
Abstract. The purpose
of this research paper was to discover different problems and disseminate
solutions for creating a safety climate in an organization by minimizing
accidents at the workplace through increasing safety awareness among employees.
For this purpose, a survey was carried out to collect the data by means of
questionnaires from different marble factories situated in industrial areas of
Mardan and Nowshera Districts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. Total one
hundred questionnaires were distributed among the employees, out of which
eighty five were returned, which were considered enough for analyzing the data.
Data were analyzed though SPSS version 20. The empirical results showed that
environmental conditions, safety related policies and programs, organizational
climates, and safety communications were significantly affecting safety
climate, and safety climate was highly related to the employee’s performance.
On the basis of empirical findings of this study, it is concluded that better
environmental conditions, safety related policies, organizational climates and
safety communications should be ensured and practiced in marble factories
situated in industrial zones of Mardan and Nowshera Districts of Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan for creating the safety climate in order to enhance the
safety related performance of the employees.
Key words: Safety performance; Safety climate;
Organization climate; Environmental condition; Safety policy and program; Safety
communication
Introduction
Due to globalization, occupational health and safety
related interest is increasing; to know better management practices and
supplementary managerial factors. Prior researchers found that most of the
accidents and injuries occur at workplaces due to hazardous activities of the
employees; rather than hazardous work surroundings (Mullen, 2004).
But the environment also has its influence on the behavior of employees.
Therefore, organizational safety climate affects the safety performance of the
employees (Seo, 2005; Zhou et al., 2008).
In this study, the primary focus is on safety
climate at workplace. Although the concepts of safety climate and safety
culture are mostly considered to be interchangeable, but there is a sharp difference
between them. Safety culture focuses more on the core values of the
organization regarding safety at workplace (Mearns & Flin, 1999), While
safety climate emphasizes more on the perception of workers concerning the
significance of safety at workplaces in an organization (Zohar, 1980). Prior
researchers found that culture is basically the personality of the organization
and climate is the mood of the organization. Moreover, Cooper (2000) proposed
three interdependent dimensions of safety culture which are (Environment,
Person and Behavior), and the safety climate is the shared perceptions and
attitudes of the employees about safety at a workplace. In prior researches
safety climate is related to diverse safety interrelated outcomes which are:
§ Safe working practices
§ Safety
related programs effectiveness
§ Workplace
accidents and
§ Other
safety-related events etc.
But there is less concentration on the determinants of
safety climate. However, Dejoy (2004)
specified three sets of factors related to safety climate that are
(Environmental conditions, Safety related policies and programs, organizational
climate). Thus, the present study more elaborates the factors of safety climate
within developing countries. This study is generally concerned with the safety
climate and its determinants in the Pakistan marble industry. More explicitly,
this study examines the safety perceptions, attitudes, and behavior of workers
in marble industry of Pakistan.
As occupational health and safety problems
continue to remain common in Pakistan. Therefore, huge economic and personnel
cost faced by industries, especially in developing countries arises as a result
of work-related injuries and diseases (Seo, 2005). In Pakistan occupational
health and safety have become serious issues after consecutive accidents in
Lahore and Karachi. In those accidents
more than 325 workers lost their lives on September 2012 (OSH report, 2013).
Hence, workplace accidents occur more often due to poor safety measures within
an organization.
The literature review reveals that majority of the
researchers studied safety climate with respect to its outcomes, and some of
them are associated with the determinants of safety climate. However, hardly
researchers made any attempt to study the effect of safety climate on
employees’ performance in the marble industry. This insufficiency is the main
reason behind the conducting of this study to investigate determinants of
safety climate within an organization. Furthermore, the safety climate is
mostly studied in developed economies and less attention is given to the
concept of safety climate in developing economies like Pakistan. Thus, the
recent study was conducted in an environment of developing economic state of
Pakistan.
The
objectives of this research are:
v To
determine the determinants of the safety climate that influence employees’
performance at the workplace.
v To
provide a better understanding of the safety climate and the factors that
impact employees’ attitudes and perceptions regarding safety at workplace.
H1: Environmental conditions
are negatively related to safety climate.
H2: Safety-related policies
and programs have positive and significant impact on safety climate.
H3: Organizational climate has
positive and significant impact on safety climate.
H4: Safety communication has
positive and significant impact on safety climate.
H5: Safety climate has
positive and significant impact on employee’s performance.
The primary aim of this study is to determine factors
which are essential to build a safety climate at workplace within an
organization. The objectives of occupational health and safety cannot be
achieved without the endeavor of personnel as well as the organization. Many
developing countries like Pakistan are in a transitional phase in their
economy. The field of occupational health and safety are facing new challenges
due to World Trade Globalization (WTG). Most of the workers are not well
equipped to handle the hazards as the result of modern technologies (Malik,
2010). The labor has unproved occupational health and safety facilities because
the country lacks fundamental connections and capable personnel. Occupational
health and safety services are the major deficiencies in developing countries
like Pakistan. Hence, personnel are at high risk of occupational disease
(Malik, 2010). At the present it is essential to give attention to this area
for attaining high levels of occupational health and safety in developing
countries like other developed countries.
The literature reviewed organizational safety
climate. First, it covers literature
related to the origin of safety climate then it covers benefit of it and later
on explains the determinants of safety climate on the basis of previous
studies.
The notion of organizational culture was actually
developed in 1970’s, whereas the ideas of organizational culture were already
existed; but, yet there is no standard and acceptable definition of
organizational culture. Still, there is controversy among scholars that
organizational culture is somewhat an organization “is” or “has” (Bergh, M.,
2011). Therefore, formally considers that the way of describing organization is
called organizational culture; this approach is acceptable academically and
socially. The other approach is that culture is inconsistent which can be
altered; it is accepted by managers and management consultants (Bergh, 2011).
The concept of organizational culture is important to
understand because the thought of safety culture is originated from
organizational culture (Bergh, M., 2011). Safety culture is investigated within
the broader context of organiza-tional culture. According to Cole, Adams, and
Wenner (2013), Safety culture was not a subculture of organizational culture
but they were related concepts and developed separately (Cole et al., 2013).
In 1986, International Nuclear Safety Group (INSAG)
introduced the term safety culture. The term of safety culture was the
accidental term; it is traced back to nuclear explosion at Chernobyl, which was
one of the worst commercial accidents in the history of nuclear power
generations (Weighmann et al., 2002). The main reason of that accident was “Poor
safety culture” found by the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency).
Safety culture literature is not formerly developed
theoretically from organizational culture (Cole et al., 2013). Cole et al.(2013),
further identified two major points from safety culture definition, and the
definition was defined by the International Safety Advisory Group (the
definition is mentioned in Table 3); First point, excellent safety attitudes as
well as better safety management that established by the organization, concerned
to safety culture; and second point is the highest priority to safety is the
basic assignment of good safety culture (Cole et al., 2013). The INSAG
(International Nuclear Safety Group) statement offered the concept of safety
culture and it was correlated to persons as well as organizations, but not link
between safety culture and safety performance (Weighmann et al., 2002).
Wiegmann et al. (2002) reviewed safety culture
and safety climate literature. They found the subsequent familiar attributes
correlated to safety culture across the different definitions:
·
The term safety
culture refers to common values among the group.
·
Organization formal
issues are concerned to safety culture which is strongly correlated but not
limited to, the management and supervisory systems.
·
The contributions
of everyone, at all levels are emphasized by safety culture.
·
It impacts the
behavior of members of the workplace.
·
The contingency
between reward systems and safety performance is reflected.
·
Organization’s
willingness is reflected to learn from mistake, incidents, and accidents.
·
It is relatively
ending, constant and resistant to change.
Cole et al. (2013) compared various definitions of safety
culture and they concluded that peoples’ belief, thinking and their behavior
towards the safety perspective are relatively most common factors of safety
culture. The definitions of safety culture reflect the view that safety culture
is something that an organization ‘is’ rather than ‘has’ (Cole et al. 2013).
Safety climate has been often studied and its different
definitions are developed from past few decades, but there is no standard
definition of safety climate that exists same as organizational culture and
safety culture (Bergh, 2011). Therefore, here is still puzzlement between the
concept of safety culture and safety climate. The phrase safety climate is
sometime used as interchangeable with the phrase of safety culture (Bergh, 2011).
But, Guldenmun (2010) simply explained that safety climate is not safety
culture. However, Cooper (2000) says that culture refers to the profound
configuration of organization which is associated with the values, ethics and
assumptions amongst the members, on the other hand climate usually refers to
the workers’ perceptions and therefore it is correlated to the facade of the
organizational life and culture. (Denison, 1996) Perceptions are affected by, for
instance, mood and therefore climate can be said to be more unsound than
culture. Safety climate may be considered as the psychological feature of
safety culture, including how people see and experience about their safety
culture. Safety climate can therefore be seen as a gauge of the organization’s
safety culture at a specific time and place. Because of this reason, the main
difference between two concepts is that climate refers to a circumstance while
culture refers to an evolved situation.
Zohar
(1980) introduced the idea of safety climate in the literature. Neal et al.
(2000) define safety climate as a definite shape of organization climate that
describes the individual perceptions of the workers related to safety in the
work setting. Neal (2000) also identified the important factors of safety
climate that include management values, safety communication, safety training,
and safety systems. Zohar (2000) proposed a multilevel model of safety climate,
in which the author stated that policies define strategic goals, while
procedures present strategic course of action interrelated to these goals; His
model specified two levels of analysis, policies and procedures.
The safety climate standard and acceptable definition
does not exist yet. There is still puzzlement between the association of safety
culture and safety climate. However, some scholars used the term safety climate
and culture interchangeably, and some accepted that there is a difference
between the two concepts due to its essential dimensions (Cole et al., 2013).
According to Cooper (Cooper, 2002) Culture is the deep structure of the
organization which is concerned with the beliefs, values and assumptions among
the members, while climate is concerned with perceptions of the members,
therefore it is related to the surface of the organizational life and
culture. That is why, Safety climate is
the psychosomatic feature of the safety culture that how people see and
experience about safety culture within their organization (Cooper, 2002).
As
long-standing view point, attitudes and the unvarying way in which people
behave represents safety culture and picture of the existing situation
represents safety climate, on this based Cole, Adams, and Wenner (2013)
concluded that safety climate is somewhat an organization ‘has’ at a particular
time (Cole et al., 2013). Cole et al. (2013) cited Flin et al. (2000)
identified most commonly dimensions of safety climate that are safety
management, safety arrangements, training, procedures, risk and work pressure
and also cited Clarke (2000) that she reviewed sixteen experiential studies of
safety climate and identified five common themes that are work surroundings,
personal liability and participation, administration attitudes, safety system,
and Safety action.
There is
puzzlement that still exists in the literature between the concept of safety
climate and safety culture. While some researchers differentiated the concepts
of safety culture and safety climate in order to relate them with personality
and mood respectively (Cole et al., 2013; Wiegmannet et al., 2002).
Furthermore, Cole et al. (2013) defined that personality is stable and
difficult to change whereas mood is sensitive to situations and external
environment (Cole et al., 2013). On these bases they concluded that safety
climate is the ‘snapshot’ of the culture at a specific time. According to Cole,
Adams, and Wenner (2013), safety climate focuses on employees’ current
perceptions and attitudes towards safety, it is the temporal phenomenon, that
changes frequently which is related to environmental and situational factors,
and is closely concerned to safety perceptions at a particular time (Cole et
al., 2013).
As researchers defined safety climate is the employees’
shared perception and attitude about safety at work. Whereas, different
researchers found out different safety climate factors but Fu, Zhang, Xi, and
Zhang (2006) in safety climate surveys identified nine mostly common safety
climate factors which are.
·
Belief and value
·
Management commitment
·
Hazards identify and Risk Level
Management
·
Safety education and training
·
Worker involvement and Commitment
·
Safety institutes and specialists
·
Site management, and
·
Standardization
Fu et al. (2006) observed that safety climate main
factors are
·
Management commitment
·
Worker involvement
·
Safety education and training, and
·
Beliefs and perceptions
But in this study the main focus is on four factors of
safety climate which are:
·
Environmental Conditions
·
Safety related policies and programs
·
Organization Climate
·
Safety Communication
The safety interrelated policies and programs of the
organization have been viewed as outside manifestation of the morals and
viewpoint of the organization regarding workplace safety (Dejoy et al., 2004).
The policies associated with the organizational safety are the strongest
indicators of safety climate (Diaz & Cabrera, 1997). It consists of safety standards, safety
guidance, the accessibility to resources for safety (Personal Protective
Equipment), and safety performance feedback, as specified by Dejoy et al.
(2004). However, studies related to safety related policies and programs have
highlighted that these are vital ingredients of successful programs (Cohen,
1997; Shannon, 1997). It significantly influences the employees’ perception
regarding safety at workplace (Barling & Hutchinison, 2000; Dejoy et al.,
2004). On this basis, it is expected that safety related policies and programs
have significant contribution in creating safety climate.
In 1970-80 the concepts of organizational climate and
culture got much attention. Climate is a set of perceptually and
psychologically attributes; climate refers to attributes of people,
organizational climate refers to organization attributes and psychological
climate refers to individual attributes (James and Jones, 1974). James and
James (1989) specified that organizational climate consists of different
evaluations of the work environments; whereas Dejoy (2004) indicated these
evaluations are the characteristics of the workplace e.g. management,
involvement, modernism, and communication. These assessments highly influence
employees’ behaviors and prospect inside an organization (Schneider, 1975).
Environmental and workplace situations like high
temperature, dust, noise, chemicals, substantial workload, and hazardous tools
have been connected to workplace illnesses and injuries (Baker, 1992).
Employees’ perceptions concerning the level of risk faced at the workplace have
been a prominent aspect in studies of safety climate (Flin et al., 2000). Due
to this reason, it is probable that environmental conditions contribute to
workers’ perceptions of safety climate.
Social exchange theory suggests that one party behaves in
ways that benefit another party (Blau, 1964). These beneficial actions are
created in organizational citizenship behaviors, to improve system, and do
better (Eisenberger et al., 1990).
Hofmann and Morgeson (1999) concluded that Perceive organization support
(POS) is positively linked to safety communication and it is ultimately
beneficial to the organization. On the basis of this, it is expected that
safety communication major role concerns safety climate.
After reviewing the literature about safety climate at
the workplace, it is concluded that the current study will be an important
significant contribution to the literature regarding safety climate. Moreover,
this study will also be useful for raising safety awareness among employees at
workplace within an organization.
Most of the studies proved that excellent safety culture
and climate have an affirmative influence on safety and minimizes accidents
rates, and also increases productivity and reduced costs (Bergh, 2011). Bergh,
(20ll) cited Florczak (2002) that the undeviating expenses and causes of an
accident can be compared to the tip of an iceberg, and the meandering costs and
causes of accidents can be compared to the iceberg thrashing under the surface
(Florczak, 2002).
The workers’ health status directly affects the economy
of a country (Malik, 2010). In marble factories exposure of marble dirt causes
severe health problems, and working in dirt surroundings is a severe hazard to
get a stern disease of the lungs, which is known as Byssinosis and brown lung
disease. Most of the people are killed during the work rather than wars, and
two hundred and seventy million accidents are recorded each year out of which
350,000 are deadly (Demaretet at al., 2004; Malik, 2010).
In developing nations like Pakistan, many factors affect
the occupational health and safety, such as insufficient medical services and
uneducated labor force. There are no trustworthy data on hand on occupational
accidents, deaths, diseases and injuries (Malik, 2010). Due to occupational
illnesses and injuries the total economic losses are enormous (Hogstedt, 2000).
In Pakistan, reliable data related to occupational health
and safety is unavailable due to reason that most of the accidents are not
reported to the labor department. Although, workers routinely face hazards due
to hazardous technologies in the workplace which are the cause of high accident
rate and occupational diseases. Similarly, harmful working environment as well
as the illiteracy and unawareness of the majority of workforce to use personal
protection equipment at work is also a great cause of high rate of accidents
and health hazards (Pasha, 2003). Therefore, occupational injuries and disease
rate are very high in Pakistan, (Malik, 2010). The country is unable to provide
the basic infrastructure and qualified personnel to work force; for this
reason, the employees at the workplace will be in danger if no serious measures
are taken to improve occupational health and safety (Ahsan & Pertanen,
2001). Leamon (2011) predicted a rapid
change in working life wherein demand flexibility at different workplaces
regarding occupational health and safety would be necessities.
Workers face many diseases of eyes, nose, ears, skin, and
throat at the workplace. In Mardan and Nowshera regions marble factories are in
large number, so dust and noise are enormous in an environment, which impact
workers’ eyes, ears and nose, and also causing different injurious diseases
like lung cancer, skin, and eye allergies. Even most of the employees do not
have the awareness of the workplace hazards present in their work environment
specially dust and noise, which caused the health problems. Noise induced
hearing loss, which frequently exists among workers in noisy workplaces.
Hazards are frequently occurring in the workplace due to materials used, tools
and machinery. The detection and management of health hazards on workplaces,
including not only of physical, chemical and biological but also psycho-social
factors that affect health and efficiency of workers (Malik, 2010).
The accidents and diseases at work place can be prevented
by following and implementing the World Health Organization’s (WHO)
guidelines. Further-more, the workplace
can be made to provide safer work surrounding for improving the health of work
force. Healthy worker play a vital role
to increase productivity of their organizations, thus healthy workers are the
most productive workers (Malik, 2010). The sustainable development of the
country is possible through high productivity of industries which can be made
possible through a healthy work force. Hence, it is the way to protect
personnel, communities and the environments for future generations as scheming
toxic waste and exposure decrease. Industrial processes generate pollution and
many exposures harm the environment, and also such processes affect
occupational health and safety programs. Occupational safety and health can be
supportive in humanizing the employees’ employability with the healthier
workplace plan, stipulation of a healthy and safe work setting, preparation and
evaluation of work demands, medical checkup, health program and assessment of
realistic capacities (Malik, 2010).
The social and economic development of a country can be
improved through healthy worker force. Therefore, to up hold healthiness and
protection at the workplace, the primary focus should been the enforcement of
legislation and assessment of workplaces to improve healthiness and protection
standards. This approach initially has been useful to overcome the occupational
hazards during the industrial revolution. In major industries, health and
safety standards do not exist at the workplaces as mentioned in the factory
act.
In Pakistan, poor occupational health and safety
legislation and communication are needed to be improved. Furthermore, there is
no specific inclusive law that covers occupational health and safety aspects of
the industries in Pakistan. There are different laws associated with health and
safety in various sectors. Legislation diverse portions are concerned with a
variety of aspects of occupational health and safety in Pakistan. Occupational
health and safety enhancement can be productive in enhanced capitulate, extra
happiness in work routine, and better financial improvement.
In Pakistan, the main training institution regarding
health and safety for the enhancement of working circumstances and surroundings
is established in Lahore to address diverse dimensions of occupational health
and safety. Since, it is operationalized, it has organized 135 training courses
to improve work place safety and health.
In Pakistan, the term “enterprise safety managers” is not
familiar, therefore majority of the workforce at the work place do their work
in the absence of safety manager. For the time being, the idea of employees’
safety virtually does not exist in Pakistan. Therefore, health, safety and
environment departments in Pakistani industries are primarily interested in the
protection of their site machines rather than their employees (Pasha, 2003).
Pakistan is the home of premium and purest grades of
marble in the world, and has huge marble reservoirs especially in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa (Hadi, 2014). Therefore, Marble and Granite are emerging and
promising sectors of Pakistan because they have huge potential of investment,
expert and livelihood. Moreover, the marble industry can bring prosperity and
development in a country (Khan, 2009). According to Pakistan Stone Development
Company (Pasdec), Pakistan has roughly three hundred billion tons of marble
assets spread mostly in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, the tribal belt, Balochistan and
Sindh. Approximately, ninety eight percent marble assets are assumed to be in
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA. However, high potential areas for huge and quality
marble reservoirs are situated in Buner, Chitral, Hazara, Kohistan, Nowshera,
Mardan, Swat and Kohat, Bajaur, Kurram, Khyber, Mohmand and Orakzai Agencies
from Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) (Khan, 2009; Hadi, 2014).
The marble industry has potential in export sector.
Therefore, some of the valuable marble is exported to European countries. While
the estimated worldwide buy and sell in marble and granite is round about forty
five dollar billion a year (Hadi, 2014). But unfortunately, marble exported
from Pakistan was just of $33 million last year (Khan, 2009). Recently,
Pakistan offered big investment opportunities in mining. Therefore, Saudi
Arabia has given away its attention to buy Pakistani marble products of around
$260 billion to build its new cities (Khan, 2009).
Pakistan Stone Development Company (PASDEC) is dedicated
to convert the current Pakistani marble sector in to a globally competitive and
socially responsible industry in Pakistan. The modern techniques will convert
the existing marble industry of Pakistan in to a globally competitive industry
which in turn will enhance the economic growth of the country.
Thirty different types of marble exist in Khyber
Pakhtunkhwa province and the adjacent tribal strap which are Badal,
Bampokha, golden marble, Nowshera
Jet-black, off-white, pink, super-white,
Zebra and Ziarat marble (Khan, 2009).
The present section
presents the data and methodology of the study. The details are as follows:
Data
The universe of the present study was the Marble
industries in two purposively selected districts namely Mardan and Nowshera of
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. For this purpose data has been collected from 81 employees
from 10 Marble industries in both the area.
Environmental Conditions Safety Policies and Programs Safety Safety Organizational Employee
Climate
Communication
Climate
Performance
Independent Variables
Mediating Variable Dependent Variable
The
following section shows the results of the study. First survey results have
been given. Then results for testing of the various hypothesis of the study
have been presented.
Survey Results
The
table below presented the alpha scores and result indicated that the items are
reliable. Thus, the study findings are ready for further analysis.
Table 1: Scales and Reliability Test
|
Subscales: |
Cronbach’s Alpah Reliability
(α) |
N of Items |
|
Environmental
Condition |
.88 |
5 |
|
Safety Policy and
Program |
.90 |
5 |
|
Organizational
Climate |
.90 |
5 |
|
Safety
Communication |
.92 |
5 |
|
Safety Climate |
.86 |
5 |
|
Safety Performance |
.86 |
5 |
The above table shows that, Cronbach’s Alphas are high,
which indicate high level of internal consistency for scale of Environmental
condition, Safety policies and programs, Organization climate, Safety
communication, Safety climate, and Safety performance.
Table 2: Selected Personal Characteristics
|
Variables |
Options |
Percentage % |
|
Gender |
Male Female |
100 0 |
|
Age |
Less than 20 years 20 to less than 30
years 30 to less than 40
years 40 years or more |
7 56.4 25.8 10.5 |
|
Marital Status |
Single Married |
18.8 81.1 |
|
Experience in the
current organization |
Below 1 years 1 to less than 3
years Above 3 years |
12.9 22.3 64.7 |
|
Salary |
Below 10,000 10,000 to less than
15,000 Above 15,000 |
71.7 15.2 12.9 |
|
Designation |
Manager Worker |
14.1 85.8 |
|
Qualification |
Primary Secondary High Secondary Graduate Post Graduate Illiterate |
24.7 10.5 7 4.7 4.7 48.2 |
|
Resident |
City Village |
16.4 83.5 |
|
Smoking/Snap habit |
Smoke/Snap even at
work time Smoke, but not at
work time Do not smoke/snap
used |
89.4 5.8 4.7 |
Table 2 showed the personal characteristics of persons
The demographic analysis showed that 57% of workers age between 20 -30, 26% of
workers age between 30-40, 7% of workers age under 20 and 10% of workers cross
40 year. The analysis found that majority of workers are Illiterate almost 57%,
26% left out at primary, 10% reach to matric and only 7% done graduate. Most of
workers are less than 30 years old (they are relatively young), married, have
spend time above 3 years in current organization, their salary are less than
10,000 which is actually less in present era, smoke/snap even at work time,
belong to villages. It is found that
majority of them are illiterate or hardly get primary level education.
Table 3: Descriptive
Statistics
|
|
Statistic |
Skewness |
Kurtosis |
||||
|
N |
Mean |
Std. Dev. |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
Statistic |
Std. Error |
|
|
Environmental Conditions |
85 |
15.51 |
6.43 |
0.07 |
0.26 |
-1.22 |
.517 |
|
Safety Policies and Programs |
85 |
9.02 |
5.41 |
1.16 |
0.26 |
0.72 |
.517 |
|
Organizational Climate |
85 |
11.05 |
6.50 |
1.09 |
0.26 |
-0.36 |
.517 |
|
Safety Communication |
85 |
15.77 |
6.94 |
-0.34 |
0.26 |
-1.03 |
.517 |
|
Safety Climate |
85 |
12.10 |
6.32 |
0.82 |
0.26 |
-0.89 |
.517 |
|
Safety Performance |
85 |
11.53 |
6.13 |
0.97 |
0.26 |
-0.34 |
.517 |
In table 3 all the values are within the acceptable
level.
H1: Environmental Conditions
(Working Conditions) are negatively related to safety climate.
Table 5: Model
Summary
|
Model |
R |
R
Square |
Adjusted
R Square |
Std.
Error of the Estimate |
|
1 |
.874a |
.764 |
.761 |
3.115 |
a.
Predictors: (Constant), working condition
The above
table provides information of R and R Square. The value of R is 0.874 which
represent the strong correlation. This means that variables environmental
conditions and safety climate varies together 87% of the time. The value of R
Square 0.764, this means that 76% of the total variation in the safety climate
is accounted for by the variation in the environmental conditions.
Table 6 ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
2604.36 |
1 |
2604.36 |
268.45 |
.000b |
|
Rersidual |
805.22 |
83 |
9.70 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
3409.58 |
84 |
|
|
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable: Safety climate
b.
Predictors: (Constant), working
condition
Output of
table 6 that shows ANOVA statistics includes F statistics value is 268 and it
is significant at 5%. This means that model is statistically reliable.
Table 7 Coefficientsa
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
-1.12 |
.88 |
|
-1.35 |
.180 |
|
working condition |
.83 |
.05 |
.87 |
16.39 |
.000 |
|
a. Dependent
Variable: Safety climate
Since the
above table shows that t value = 16.385 which is beyond the tabulated value of
t=2.000 for the five percent of level of significance with degree of freedom
(df). Therefore, environmental condition has positive and significant impact on
safety climate, and there is significant relationship between environmental
condition and safety climate at 5% level of significant mean that we are 95%
confident that this relationship exists. Thus, we reject H1 that environmental
conditions are negatively related to safety climate.
H2: Safety Policies and Programs have positive and
significant impact on safety climate.
Table
8 Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the
Estimate |
|
1 |
.665a |
.443 |
.436 |
4.784 |
a. Predictors: (Constant), Safety policies
& programs
The above
table provides information of R and R Square. The value of R is 0.665 which
represent the strong correlation. This means that variables safety policy and
program and safety climate varies together 94% of the time. The value of R
Square 0.443, this means that 44% of the total variation in the safety climate
is accounted for by the variation in the safety policies and programs.
Table 9 ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
1509.66 |
1 |
1509.66 |
65.95 |
.000b |
|
Residual |
1899.92 |
83 |
22.89 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
3409.58 |
84 |
|
|
|
|
a. Dependent
Variable: Safety climate
b.
b. Predictors: (Constant), Safety
policies and programs
Output of
table 9 that shows ANOVA statistics includes F statistics value as 65.951 and
significant at 5%. This means that model is statistically applicable.
Table 10 Coefficientsa
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
5.01 |
1.01 |
|
4.94 |
.000 |
|
Safety pp |
.78 |
.10 |
.665 |
8.12 |
.000 |
|
a.
Dependent Variable: Safety climate
The above
table shows that t value = 8.121 which is beyond the tabulated value of t=2.000
for the five percent level of significance with degree of freedom (df), we
accept the H2 that (safety policy and program have positive and major effect on
safety climate) there is significant relationship between safety policy and
program and safety climate at 5% level of significant mean that we are 95%
confident that this relationship exists.
H3: Organizational climate has
positive and significant impact on safety climate.
Table 11 Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the
Estimate |
|
1 |
.948a |
.898 |
.897 |
2.045 |
a.
Predictors: (Constant), Organizational climate
The above
table provides information of R and R Square. The value of R is 0.948 which
represent the strong correlation. This means that variables organizational
climate and safety climate varies together 94% of the time. The value of R
Square 0.898, this means that 89% of the total variation in the safety climate
is accounted for by the variation in the organizational climate.
Table 12 ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
3062.46 |
1 |
3062.46 |
732.26 |
.000b |
|
Residual |
347.12 |
83 |
4.18 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
3409.58 |
84 |
|
|
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable: Safety climate
b.
Predictors: (Constant), Organizational
climate
Output of
table 12 that shows ANOVA statistics includes F statistics value as 732.2 and
significant at 5%. This means that the model is statistically applicable.
Table 13 Coefficientsa
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
2.28 |
.42 |
|
5.38 |
.000 |
|
Org. climate |
.87 |
.03 |
.948 |
27.06 |
.000 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Safety climate
The above
table shows that t value = 27.060 which is beyond the tabulated value of
t=2.000 for the five percent level of significance with degree of freedom (df),
we accept the H3 that (organizational climate has positive and major effect on
safety climate) there is significant correlation between organizational climate
and safety climate at 5% level of significant mean that we are 95% confident
that this relationship exists.
H4: Safety communication has positive and
significant impact on safety climate.
Table
14 Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the
Estimate |
|
1 |
.863a |
.744 |
.741 |
3.24 |
a.
Predictors: (Constant), Safety communication
The above
table provides information of R and R Square. The value of R is 0.863 which
represent the strong correlation. This means that variables safety
communication and safety climate varies together 86% of the time. The value of
R Square 0.744, this means that 74% of the total variation in the safety
climate is accounted for by the variation in the safety communication.
Table 15 ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
2536.41 |
1 |
2536.41 |
241.101 |
.000b |
|
Residual |
873.17 |
83 |
10.52 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
3409.58 |
84 |
|
|
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable: Safety climate
Predictors:
(Constant), Organizational climate
Output of
table 15 that shows ANOVA statistics includes F statistics value as 241.1 and
significant at 5%. This means that the model is statistically reliable.
Table 16 Coefficientsa
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
-.416 |
.878 |
|
-.473 |
.637 |
|
Org. climate |
.79 |
.051 |
.863 |
15.53 |
.000 |
|
a. Dependent Variable: Safety climate
The above
table shows t value = 15.527 which is beyond the tabulated value of t=2.000 for
the five percent level of significance with degree of freedom (df), we accept
the H4 that (safety communication has positive and significant impact on safety
climate) there is significant relationship between environmental condition and
safety climate at 5% level of significant mean that we are 95% confident that
this relationship exists.
H5: Safety climate has positive and significant impact on safety
performance.
Table
17 Model Summary
|
Model |
R |
R Square |
Adjusted R Square |
Std. Error of the
Estimate |
|
1 |
.936a |
.876 |
.875 |
2.164 |
a.
Predictors: (Constant), Safety climate
The above
table provides information of R and R Square. The value of R is 0.936 which
represent the strong correlation. This means that variables safety climate and
safety performance varies together 93% of the time. The value of R Square
0.876, this means that 87% of the total variation in the safety performance is
accounted for by the variation in the safety climate.
Table 18 ANOVAa
|
Model |
Sum of Squares |
Df |
Mean Square |
F |
Sig. |
|
|
1 |
Regression |
2758.145 |
1 |
2758.145 |
588.879 |
.000b |
|
Residual |
388.749 |
83 |
4.684 |
|
|
|
|
Total |
3146.894 |
84 |
|
|
|
|
a.
Dependent Variable: safety performance
Output of
table 18 that shows ANOVA statistics includes F statistics value as 588.879 and
significant at 5%. This means that the model is statistically applicable.
Table 19 Coefficientsa
|
Model |
Unstandardized Coefficients |
Standardized Coefficients |
t |
Sig. |
||
|
B |
Std. Error |
Beta |
||||
|
1 |
(Constant) |
.708 |
.505 |
|
1.402 |
.165 |
|
Org. climate |
.899 |
.037 |
.936 |
24.267 |
.000 |
|
a.
Dependent Variable: Safety performance
The above
table shows the t value = 24.267 which is beyond the tabulated value of t=2.000
for the five percent level of significance with degree of freedom (df), we
accept the H5 that (safety climate has positive and significant impact on
safety performance) there is significant relationship between safety climate
and safety performance at 5% level of significant mean that we are 95%
confident that this relationship exists.
In this study safety climate and its impact on employees’
performance was investigated. In this research, four factors are examined, i.e.
environmental conditions, safety related policy and program, organizational
climate, and safety communication. The tests have proven that all the factors
have a positive and significant impact on safety climate, and safety climate is
positively linked with employees’ performance.
Finally, the study found that environmental conditions,
safety related policy and program, organizational climate, and safety
communication have a significant impact on safety climate. Thus, safety
performance of employees depends on safety climate provided by the organization
to minimize accidents at the workplace.
In order to keep workers safe from accidents, the
following recommendations are made;
·
First aid box must be available.
·
There should be PPE (personal
protective equipment) available for workers; it includes gloves, mask,
protective clothes, shoes, and goggles.
·
Helmets and gloves should be used by
workers, while loading and unloading truck, leather gloves rather than rubber
gloves should be used because marble pieces are sharp and cut rubber easily
·
Provide health insurance to workers.
·
The minimum wage law provided by the
government of Pakistan should be enforced in marble sector to ensure the fair
distribution of rewards among employees.
·
Filter drinking water are compulsory
to have at workplace.
·
Organization must provide necessary
safety training to its workers regularly.
·
There is need for hospital near
industry site.
References
Ahasan, M. R., &
Partanen, T. (2001). Occupational health and safety in the least developed
countries: A simple case of neglect. J.
Epidemiol, 11(2), 74-80.
Ali, T. H. (2006). Influence of National Culture on
Construction Safety Climate in Pakistan. Retrieved from Griffith University
website: https://www120.
secure.griffith.edu.au/rch/file/caf59f70-9fa3-433c-e07c-ac41e57827c2/
1/02Whole.pdf
Awan, S. (2002). The Development Trends of Occupational
Health Services in Pakistan-Current Status and Future Perspective. World
Health Organization, Eastern
Mediterranean Regional Office, Cairo, Egypt.
Baker, S. P.,
O’Neill, B., Ginsburg, M. J., & Li, G. (1992). The Injury Fact Book. London: Oxford University Press.
Barling, J., & Hutchinson, I. (2000). Commitment versus
control-oriented safety practices, safety reputation, and perceived safety
climate. Canadian Journal of
Administrative Sciences, 17(1), 76– 84.
Bergh, M. (2011). An Evaluation of the Safety Climate at
AkzoNobel Site Stenungsund. Retrieved from:
http://www.ips.se/files/pages/27/basta-exjobb-2012-2-klimatundersokn-142447.pdf
Blau, P. (1964). Exchange and Power in Social Life. New
York: Wiley.
Clarke, S. (2000). Safety culture: Under-specified and
Overrated? International Journal of Management Review, 2, 65-90.
Cohen, A. (1977). Factors in successful occupational safety programs. Journal of Safety Research, 9(4), 168–178.
Cole, K. S., Stevens-Adams, S. M., & Wenner, C. A.
(2013). A Literature Review of Safety
Culture. Retrieved from http://prod.sandia.gov/techlib/ access-control.cgi/2013/132754.pdf
Cooper, M. D. (2000).
Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36, 111-136.
Dejoy, D. M., Schaffer, B. S., Wilson, M. G., Vandenberg, R. J., &
Butts, M. M. (2004). Creating safer workplaces: assessing the determinants and
role of safety climate. Journal of Safety
Research, 35, 81– 90.
Demaret, L., Khalef, A. (2004). Worker’s Memorial Day 2204. Safety Net Journal, 6, 23-30.
Denison, D. R.
(1996). What is the difference between organizational culture and
organizational climate? A native's point of view on a decade of paradigm wars. The
Academy of Management Review, 21 (3),
619-654.
Diaz, R. I., & Cabrera, D. D. (1997). Safety climate and attitude as
evaluation measures of organizational safety. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 29(5), 643–650.
Eisenberger, R.,
Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). perceived organizational support
and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51-59.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P., & Bryden, R. (2000). Measuring
safety climate: identifying the common features. Safety Science, 34, 177–192.
Florczak, C. M.
(2002). Maximizing Profitability with Safety Culture Development. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Fu, G., Zhang, J., Xie, X. & Zhang, Z. (2006). Design for safety
climate questionnaire framework. National Science Foundation of China.
Guldenmund, F. W.
(2010). Understanding and Exploring Safety Culture. Oisterwijk:
Uitgeverij BOX Press.
Hadi,
T.
(2014). Pre-feasibility Study Report
Marble/GraniteQuarrying/ Processing Plant. Retrieved from http://www.sbi.gos.pk/pdf/Marble-Feasibility-report.pdf
Haukelid, K. (2008).
Theories of (safety) culture revisited—An anthropological approach. Safety
Science, 46(3), 413–426.
Hofmann, D. A., & Morgeson, F. P. (1999).
Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: the role of perceived
organizational support and leader-member exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(2), 286-296.
Hogstedt, C. &
Pieris, B. (2000). Occupational Health
and Safety in Developing Countries: Review of Strategies, case studies and a
bibliography. Retrieved from http://nile.lub.lu.se/arbarch/arb/2000/.
Ibrahim, M. E., Alhallaq, K. A. M., & Enshassi, A. A.
(2012). Safety Climate in Construction Industry the Case of Gaza Strip. Retrieved from IUG website:http://research.iugaza.edu.ps/files/2146.PDF
International Atomic Energy Agency. (1991). Safety Culture. Retrieved from
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub882_web.pdf
James, L. A., & James, L. R. (1989). Integrating work environment
perceptions: Explorations into the measurement of meaning. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(5), 739–751.
James, L. R., Jones, A.P., (1974). Organizational climate: A review of
theory and research. Psychological
Bulletin, 81(12), 1096-1112.
Khalil, M. I. K. (2013). job satisfaction and work morale among PhD’s a study of public and
private sector universities of Peshawar, Pakistan. International Review of Management & Business Research, 2(2), 362-370.
Khan, A.T. (2009,
October).
Marble resources in Pakistan. The
News. Retrieved from
https://tahirkatlang.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/marble-resouces-in-pakistan/
Malik, N. (2010). Perspectives of Occupational Health and
Safety in Textile Industry. Retrieved from
http://prr.hec.gov.pk/Thesis/614S.pdf
Mearns, K. J., &
Flin, R. (1999). Assessing the State of Occupational Safety Culture or Climate?
Current Psychology: Developmental,
Learning, Personality, Social, 18, 5-17.
Mosher, G. A. (2011).
Measurement and Analysis of the
Relationship between Employee Perceptions and Safety and Quality
Decision-Making in the Country Grain Elevator. Retrieved from http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/ cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3045&context=etd
Mullen, J. (2004).
Investigating Factors that Influence Individual Safety Behavior at Work. Journal of Safety Research, 35, 275–
285.
National Workshop Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) in Pakistan.
(2013, January 27). Retrieved from http://www.anroev.org/wp-content/ uploads/2013/05/OSH-Workshop-Pakistan.pdf
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A.,
& Hart, P.M. (2000). The impact of organizational climate on safety climate
& individual behavior. Safety Science,
34, 99-109.
Pasha, T. S. (2003). Occupational health and safety profiles of
Punjab, Pakistan and strategies for its improvement. Retrieved from http://epublications.
uef.fi/pub/urn_isbn_951-781-256-6/urn_isbn_951-781-256-6.pdf
Schneider, B. (1975). Organizational climates: An essay. Personnel Psychology, 28, 447-479.
Seo, D. C. (2005). An explicative model of unsafe work
behavior. Safety Science, 43,187–211.
Shannon, H. S., Mayr, J., & Haines, T. (1997). Overview of the
relationship between organizational and workplace factors and injury rates. Safety Science, 26(3), 201–217.
Verbeke, W.,
Volgering, M., & Hessels, M. (1998). Exploring the conceptual expansion
within the field of organizational behaviour: organizational climate and
organizational culture. Journal of Management Studies, 35 (3), 303-329.
Wiegmann, D. A., Zhang, H., Thaden, T. V.,
Sharma, G., & Mitchell, A. (2002). A
Synthesis of Safety Culture and Safety Climate Research. Retrieved from Aviation Research Lab Institute of Aviation website: http://www.aviation.
Yule, S., Flin, R. (2007).The
role of management and safety climate in preventing risk-taking at work. Int.
J. Risk Assessment and Management, 7(2), 137-150.
Zhou, Q., Fang, D. & Wang, X. (2008). A method to
identify strategies for the improvement of human safety behavior by considering
safety climate and personal experience. Safety
Science, 46, 1406–1419.
Zohar, D. (1980).
Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied
implications. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 65, 96–102.
Zohar, D. (2000). A
group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on
micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 85(4), 587-596.