Safety climate

Coyle, Ian R.; Sleeman, Stuart David; Adams, Neil

doi:10.1016/0022-4375(95)00020-q

Cited by 210 publications

(135 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

118

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…A longitudinal assessment would provide further validation of the found relationships and also test for causation. In addition, we advise researchers to investigate if the results of this study hold for all types of industries (Coyle et al, 1995;Cooper and Philips, 2004;). Finally, in contrast to Naveh et al (2005) the present study focused on employees' perceptions of senior management rather than direct supervisor commitment to safety.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

Safety climate dimensions as predictors for risk behavior

Bosak

Coetsee

Cullinane

2013

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the interactive relationship between three dimensions of safety climate (management commitment to safety, priority of safety, and pressure for production), and their impact on risk behavior reported by employees. The sample consisted of 623 employees from a chemical manufacturing organization in South Africa. Hierarchical regression analyses were carried out to test the direct effects and the interaction effect of the three safety climate dimensions on risk behavior. The results showed that, as expected, employees' risk behavior was negatively related to management commitment to safety and priority of safety and positively related to pressure for production. Moreover, as expected, the three-way interaction between management commitment to safety, priority of safety and pressure for production was significant. When pressure for production was high, management commitment to safety was positively related to risk behavior, regardless of level of priority of safety on plant. When pressure for production was low, the effect of management commitment to safety on risk behavior was nullified under conditions of high, as compared to low priority of safety on plant. These findings highlight the importance of managerial commitment to safety in contexts where employees experience tensions between production deadlines and safety procedures.

show abstract

Section: Limitations and Future Researchmentioning

confidence: 94%

Safety climate dimensions as predictors for risk behavior

Bosak

Coetsee

Cullinane

2013

Accident Analysis & Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Often ignored are the attitudes and perceptions of workers in this process, an essential component of a healthy and safe work climate. Harnessing workers' input and involvement in OHSMS development can be a powerful management tool 27) . Worker attitudes toward accident prevention in relation to management commitment and level of involvement are important for promoting safe workplaces.…”

Section: Participatory Approachmentioning

confidence: 99%

Risk Level Based Management System: A Control Banding Model for Occupational Health and Safety Risk Management in a Highly Regulated Environment

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a Department and Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) research and development (R&D) facility that is operated by the Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC. What makes LLNL unique from a majority of organizations with over 6,000 employees is its primary R&D focus, rather than a traditional production or manufacturing working environment. Most large-scale enterprises worldwide with ORM models within occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) are focused on a finite number of uniform activities.LLNL's R&D focus breaks away from traditional systems by consistently performing unique work. Therefore, the creation of new and potentially hazardous operations and related occupational exposures is standard. Perhaps an expected outcome of this large-scale R&D work is a pervasive regulatory oversight.Though based in California, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not oversee LLNL's activities. Instead, Federal OSHA (FedOSHA) has jurisdiction. In addition, as LLNL is run by LLNS for the DOE, additional contractual requirements are in place to ensure workers performing the tasks that benefit national R&D are well protected. For industrial hygiene (IH), the contract requires the lowest established occupational exposure limit (OEL) for a given chemical, physical, or biological exposure. Therefore, the ACGIH ® Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) often meet this specification and therefore

show abstract

“…This was found to be positively related (r = 0.463) to the overall satisfaction and could explain 21.4% of the variation in the overall satisfaction (F=43.131).Safety climate within an organisation refers to anenvironment of physical health and safety, which is observed to predict individual safety behaviour [81], industrial accidents and injury to physical health [82]. Thus, it relates to how the employees perceive the commitment of the management in terms of safety policy, procedures, and practicetowards employees" wellbeing.…”

Section: Hypotheses Testingmentioning

confidence: 98%