SAFETY CULTURE, ADVICE AND PERFORMANCE

Safety culture, advice and performance Emma J K Wadsworth BSc PhD, and Andy P Smith BSc PhD FBPsP C Psychol, Cardiff University, UK Abstract Preventing work-related injury and illness is of crucial importance to employees, industry and wider society. Corporate safety culture – which describes shared values in an organisation that influence its members’ attitudes, values and beliefs in relation to safety – is now generally accepted as having a strong influence over workplace accidents and injuries. Occupational safety and health practitioners also have a significant role to play in improving health and safety at work, yet their specific contribution to safety performance has rarely been studied. The aim of this study, therefore, was to consider associations between corporate safety performance and both safety culture and occupational safety and health advice. UK organisations from various sectors of industry were recruited to take part in three questionnaire surveys measuring: safety climate, to give a snapshot of underlying safety culture; occupational safety and health practitioners’ experiences; and safety performance. The results showed that the perception of organisational safety culture was consistently and independently associated with corporate safety performance. In addition, there were some independent associations between corporate safety performance and both the level of occupational safety and health practitioners’ training and qualifications, and organisational receptiveness to advice. Overall, the study suggests that corporate safety culture is independently associated with corporate safety performance, and this association is apparent among organisations from a variety of industrial sectors. In addition, it points to safety advice in relation to safety performance as an area for further study.

Key words Advice, climate, culture, performance, practitioner, safety

Introduction Health and Safety Executive (HSE) figures show that 36 million days (1.5 days per worker) were lost overall in the UK during 2005/2006; 30 million were due to work-related ill health and 6 million to workplace injury.1 The cost of this, at an individual, organisational and national level, is huge. Preventing work-related illness and injury through effective risk management is, therefore, crucially important for employees, industry and society. It is widely accepted that human factors are the main contributory factor in accidents.2 This human element, of course, extends beyond those personally involved in an incident. It also incorporates those who influence safety in a workplace, whether directly, consciously and immediately, or indirectly, unintentionally and perhaps with an extended time lag. Therefore, effective risk management depends, at least in part, on the behaviour of all those individuals who operate in a specific organisational context.

Safety culture The term ‘corporate culture’ describes shared values in an organisation that influence the attitudes and behaviour of its members, and ‘safety culture’ describes members’ attitudes,

Policy and Practice in Health and Safety 07.1 2009 © IOSH Services Limited

06 Wadsworth and Smith

values and beliefs in relation to safety.3 The term ‘safety culture’ has been widely used since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report into the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident,4 and the related term ‘safety climate’5 has been used over a similar period. However, over 20 years later, after many studies and reviews – including two special issues of journals (Work and Stress 1998 (volume 12, issue 3) and Safety Science 2000 (volume 34)) – there are still no universally accepted definitions of either term. Despite this, and the dearth of work focusing on defining ‘good’ and ‘bad’ safety cultures,6,7 safety culture has been identified as perhaps the main recent issue in organisational safety.8 In addition, it has become the focus of, and has been implicated in accident causation by, many large-scale industrial accident investigations (see for example 9–12). Succinctly put, the term safety culture is perhaps most often used to mean ‘the way we do things round here’,13 and although there is still considerable debate about definition, aetiology, causation and mechanism, it is generally accepted that organisations with a strong safety culture are more effective at preventing both large-scale industrial accidents and individual injuries at work.14 In the first empirical study that considered safety climate,5 it was defined as ‘a summary of molar perceptions that employees share about their work environments’. Although the term is sometimes used interchangeably with ‘safety culture’ to describe employees’ attitudes to safety,6 safety climate is often seen as a reflection of an organisation’s current underlying culture.4,15–20 Others, however, consider it a sub-component of safety culture,3,6,21–23 the role of which is to show the comparative priority of safety in an organisation.24 It is generally regarded as more superficial than safety culture,25 and more transient. It has been described as an indicator of an organisation’s overall safety culture,26 or a ‘snapshot of the state of safety’27 based on perceptions regarding safety rather than practices or attitudes.28 Safety climate and culture have recently been described as ‘not separate entities but rather different approaches towards the same goal of determining the importance of safety within an organisation’.15 This is consistent with the underlying premise that the safest organisations have a positive culture of safety, and that safety climate is an indirect measure of how close an organisation is to that.16 In the main, safety climate is assessed by carrying out a questionnaire survey among employees to measure perceptions of particular dimensions of safety. Indeed, employee perceptions are central to measuring safety climate.17 Although there are many models and scales for assessing safety climate, there is no universally accepted set of component dimensions or factors. Two recent reviews18,28 reflect the broad consensus that management support for, and commitment to, safety and the priority of safety in an organisation are key aspects of safety climate.5,18,19,25

Safety performance Safety performance, like safety culture and climate, is also difficult to define and measure. Performance has often traditionally been measured using self-reported and/or officially recorded accident statistics. However, this can be problematic: for example, because accidents can be relatively rare events, they may not be recorded accurately or routinely, and risk exposure may not be taken into account. Other measures, such as safety behaviour20,21 and minor injuries,24 have also been used, and more modern approaches tend to focus on current safety activities and systems to measure success as opposed to failure, perhaps in combination with the more traditional approach.22 This more predictive approach to safety measurement can also mean that organisations do not have to wait for a system failure before identifying and acting on problem areas.19

Safety culture, advice and performance 07

Safety culture and performance Poor safety culture has been implicated in many large-scale industrial accidents and disasters, including Chernobyl,11 the space shuttle Columbia9 and the Ladbroke Grove10 and Clapham Junction rail crashes.12 Similarly, researchers have reported an association between safety culture or climate and accidents on a smaller scale5,23,29 and both self-reported and officially recorded injury rates,13,16,23,30–36 as well as minor injuries24 and injury severity.23 Safety climate has also been linked to safety behaviour.21,37–40 This relationship between safety culture and safety performance has been reported across industry sectors, including those with high hazard levels (eg chemical),20 high accident rates (eg construction),23,24,41,42 and low accident rates (eg services).43 It has been been argued, therefore, that the principles of safety culture and climate, which have been developed primarily among the traditional high hazard industries, are applicable in other work settings.44 The increasingly accepted view is that a positive safety climate or culture is necessary for safe working.45

Safety advice and both culture and performance Occupational safety and health (OSH) practitioners are an integral part of effective OSH management systems, and have a significant role to play in improving health and safety at work.46 Although it has been suggested that the effectiveness and credibility of OSH practitioners may be influenced by corporate culture,26 there is much less research focused on the relationship between safety culture or climate and advice, or on the influence of competent safety advice on either safety culture (or climate) or performance. This is, perhaps, surprising given the position and role of the OSH practitioner. However, the difficult challenge for OSH practitioners – of translating what is known about safety culture into practical policies and procedures that will change behaviour and practice to improve safety performance – has been acknowledged.14 Early work suggested that more organisations with good safety performance records employed safety officers in high ranking positions (Cohen et al. 1975, Cohen 1977, both cited in Mearns et al.45). And more recently, the presence of a safety manager was one factor identified as affecting safety climate.31 The impact of how and by whom safety inductions among new employees are carried out has also been identified as having an influence over safety attitudes and behaviour.32 This implies that this somewhat neglected area is worthy of further consideration.

The current project It is increasingly clear that, while both corporate safety culture and OSH advice are integral to many aspects of safety behaviour, little is known about their relative contributions to safety performance, or indeed their relationship to each other. This project, therefore, was designed to measure safety performance, culture and advice in a group of participating organisations. The work was intended to extend previous research in the area by applying generic measures of safety culture and performance to organisations from different sectors of industry, and by assessing any association between safety culture and corporate safety performance across multiple organisations. As described below, a safety climate survey collected employees’ perceptions to give a measure of underlying safety culture. In this paper, therefore, measures of employees’ perceptions of safety climate have been used to infer underlying safety culture, and this should be borne in mind when the terms ‘safety culture’ and ‘safety climate’ are used. This is the first UK-based study to measure safety culture, advice and performance among a heterogeneous group of participating organisations, and this paper describes part of that wider study.47 The aims of the study are to:


• describe the experiences of health and safety practitioners from a cross-sectoral group of organisations • consider the association between advice (in terms of both OSH practitioners’ level of experience and organisational receptiveness to OSH advice) and the organisations’ safety climates (as a snapshot measure of their underlying safety cultures) • assess the associations between corporate safety performance and both advice and safety climate. The first aim is addressed by providing a descriptive account of practitioners’ responses to questions about their role and responsibility, as well as about safety management in their organisation. The second and third are addressed by considering independent associations between safety climate and advice, and between performance and advice and climate. The paper seeks to consider whether established associations between safety climate and performance are apparent among a heterogeneous sample of UK organisations, and to take some preliminary steps towards considering the role and relative contribution of OSH advice in this relationship.

Method Recruitment Several methods were used to advertise the study to organisations, including direct emails, entries in electronic and paper newsletters, personal contacts and word of mouth. All those who replied to the research team were sent more details about the study, including a letter, information sheet and single page summary describing what participation would involve. All contacts were also followed up by telephone. No exclusion criteria were used, and the only inclusion criterion was that participating organisations must have at least 50 employees. Larger organisations were also offered the opportunity to take part in the study as two or more separate ‘business units’ rather than as one large entity. This followed informal discussions with potential participants who felt that, in very large organisations, departments often had their own OSH management systems and teams, as well as very different OSH cultures. This is also consistent with the recent acknowledgement that potentially distinct cultures may exist in sub-sections of large organisations, which have their own history, management, approaches and aims.16

Surveys All the participating organisations’ business units took part in three questionnaire surveys: • climate survey – questionnaire completed by employees • advice survey – questionnaire completed by OSH practitioners* • performance survey – questionnaire completed by an individual on behalf of each business unit; this was often the person who completed the advice survey. Organisations were able to choose: • electronic questionnaires – supplied as email links to be forwarded to relevant groups of individuals * Advice surveys were completed by individuals designated by their organisations as ‘OSH practitioners’. This term, therefore, has been used to describe all respondents to this questionnaire, regardless of their reported level of formal qualification for this role.


• paper questionnaires – supplied packaged with covering letters and reply-paid envelopes to be distributed to relevant groups of individuals • a mixture of the two methods. In addition, paper versions of each questionnaire could be downloaded from the website for each survey. Organisations received telephone and email reminders until they had completed and supplied one performance and at least one advice questionnaire per participating business unit. In addition, they were regularly updated with the number of climate questionnaires that had been returned, and were asked to remind their staff and encourage participation as appropriate.

Main measures The main measures used in each of the questionnaires were identified following a literature review and were selected on the basis of being questionnaire-based and appropriate for use in any industry sector. This review process, and the detailed study methodology, are described in detail elsewhere.47 Climate survey

The HSE’s Climate Survey Tool48 measures 10 areas of health and safety climate, and also gives an indication of general job satisfaction. Each area is addressed using a number of statements to which participants indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree on a five-point scale. The percentage of favourable, neutral and unfavourable responses in an organisation’s respondents is calculated for each measure. The ‘permit to work measure’, which looks at views of the relevance of this system, was not used here because not all participating organisations operated it. The remaining 10 measures are summarised in Table 1. In addition, mean Measure

Outline description

Organisational commitment and communication

Organisational commitment to health and safety and some issues associated with communication and involvement

Line management commitment

Extent to which the immediate boss promotes health and safety and reacts to related issues

Supervisor’s role

Contribution and effectiveness of supervisors

Personal role

Individuals’ own contribution to health and safety and views on its relative importance

Workmates’ influence

Importance workmates give to health and safety

Competence

Health and safety training and level of understanding

Risk-taking behaviours and some contributory influence

Extent to which others take risks or behave unsafely, and reasons for this

Obstacles to safety

Relevance and practicality of health and safety rules and procedures, and ability and willingness to comply

Reporting of accidents and near misses

Reliability of the accident and near miss reporting systems

General job satisfaction

Job satisfaction

Table 1 HSE Climate Survey Tool measures used in the study


favourable, neutral and unfavourable response measures were calculated across the 10 areas for each participating organisation. Advice survey

The advice survey was adapted from the ‘Competency in health and safety advice’ questionnaire.49 Respondents, who were designated by their organisations as OSH practitioners, were asked about their role and responsibilities and about health and safety management in their organisation. A composite variable indicating ‘organisational receptiveness to OSH advice’ was created from four questionnaire items: • How supportive is your employer of your continuing (H&S) professional development? (‘not at all supportive’, ‘quite supportive’ and ‘moderately supportive’ were categorised as low receptiveness; ‘very supportive’ and ‘extremely supportive’ were categorised as high receptiveness) • I am able to influence the decision of directors on H&S issues (‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were categorised as high receptiveness; ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ were categorised as low receptiveness) • H&S is given equal priority with other aspects of the business (‘strongly agree’ and ‘agree’ were categorised as high receptiveness; ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ and ‘strongly disagree’ were categorised as low receptiveness) • Are you able to influence the level at which the H&S budget is set? (‘yes’ was categorised as high receptiveness; ‘no’ and ‘no H&S budget’ were categorised as low receptiveness). These four variables were summed and those scoring 3 or 4, indicating high receptiveness, were compared with those scoring 0 to 2, indicating low receptiveness. In addition, respondents were categorised into two groups according to their level of training and qualifications: • those who had no training, or who had completed an IOSH Managing safely course or the NEBOSH Certificate • those who had a NEBOSH Diploma, degree or other qualification in an OSH-related subject. Performance survey

The HSE’s Health and Safety Performance Indicator is a validated and widely used measure.50 It was developed as a self-assessment tool to give businesses, in particular small and mediumsized enterprises, an indication of their relative performance on handling health and safety issues. It consists of a series of questions in 10 areas, with a separate score given for each: • • • • • • • • • •

manual handling repetitive movement hazardous substances working at height dangerous machinery job stress vehicle handling slips and trips noise level handheld equipment.


For each area, respondents indicate how often their employees are exposed to the hazard (‘never/NA’, ‘rarely’, ‘monthly’, ‘weekly’, ‘daily’ or ‘constantly’). Those indicating any exposure (ie not responding ‘never/NA’) then answer a series of yes/no questions on risk control measures (eg Have you consulted your workers on handling heavy loads and identified ways to reduce the risk of injury?; Do you ask your workers to talk to their manager if they are finding their job stressful?). For these 10 areas, organisations reporting that employees are never exposed to the hazard are given the maximum score by the Indicator. These organisations were excluded from the analyses on a score-by-score basis, because it was not possible to distinguish successful hazard control from complete non-exposure. Therefore, a further mean hazard management score was also calculated after making these exclusions. In addition, the Indicator gives an overall incident score based on responses to 11 questions about accidents and incidents in each of the previous three years (eg How many employees were referred to a doctor due to a work-related injury or health problem in each year?; How many fires or leaks at the workplace were attended by the fire brigade in each year?). All scores for both hazard management and incidents were out of 10, with a higher score indicating better safety performance. Analyses

All analyses were carried out using SPSS version 12.0.2. Chi-square tests were used to assess differences in proportions, analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare group means, and linear regression modelling to consider associations while controlling for the influence of other potentially confounding factors. Ethical approval

The study was approved by the Cardiff University School of Psychology Ethics Committee.

Results Response rates In total, 79 organisations contacted the research team expressing serious interest in taking part in the study. Forty-five (57 per cent) subsequently chose not to take part. In almost all cases this was because a management committee felt the organisation was too busy to take part in the study’s timeframe, and in the remaining few it followed a change of personnel. Six of the remaining 34 organisations subsequently withdrew because they were unable to complete the surveys in the timeframe (n = 4) or because their employees were unwilling to complete the climate questionnaire (n = 2). The 28 participating organisations took part in the study as 33 business units and came from a variety of industrial sectors (see Table 2). In total, approximately 14,774 climate questionnaires were distributed in the 33 units, a coverage of 57 per cent of their employees. The total is approximate because some organisations were only able to estimate the number of email messages they had sent out. This has been acknowledged as a drawback of conducting surveys online51 or in this case via email to an online questionnaire. Overall, 1,752 completed questionnaires were returned, giving an approximate response rate of 12 per cent (see Table 2). There was, however, a wide variation in response rates, and when those units unable to estimate their questionnaire distribution were excluded (leaving 1,550 questionnaires returned from 6,224 distributed), the overall rate was 25 per cent (see Table 2). Each participating unit also completed and returned one performance questionnaire (n=33) and at least one advice questionnaire (n = 37).


Table 2 Climate survey distribution, returns and response rates in each business unit

Unit

Total employees n

Surveys distributed n

% of total workforce

Returns n

Response rate %

Retail 3

25

25

100

21

84

Science 4

25

25

100

21

84

Manufacturing 4

1,000

70

7

38

54

Health and safety 1

59

59

100

31

53

Manufacturing 1

500

120

24

61

51

Manufacturing 7

1,000

837

84

413

49

Manufacturing 3

3,500

164

5

77

47

Health 4

70

70

100

30

43

Retail 1

1,000

129

13

46

36

Retail 2

800

66

8

23

35

Manufacturing 6

500

130

26

42

32

Construction 2

130

130

100

39

30

Utilities 1

85

85

100

23

27

Health 5

50

50

100

12

24

Education 2

100

74

74

17

23

Finance 1

50

50

100

11

22

Manufacturing 8

1,000

837

84

174

21

Health 2

415

362

87

76

21

Science 1

100

100

100

20

20

Health 3

744

632

85

120

19

Science 3

350

350

100

62

18

Science 2

100

100

100

17

17

Education 1

100

100

100

16

16

Transport 2

500

230

46

35

15

Transport 1

500

100

20

13

13

Manufacturing 5

1,020

800

78

84

11

Construction 1

150

150

100

15

10

Communications 1

400

400

100

30

8*

Education 3

200

200

100

9

5*

Education 4

450

379

84

13

3


Unit

Total employees n

Surveys distributed n

% of total workforce

Returns n

Response rate %

Health 1

7,000

4,850

69

126

3*

Communications 2

400

400

100

11

3*

Manufacturing 2

3,600

2,700

75

26

1*

Total

25,923

14,774

57

1,752

12*

* Response rates for units unable to give accurate numbers are calculated from their estimates.

Climate survey Proportions of favourable, neutral and unfavourable responses to the individual climate measures varied widely, both in and between industry sectors (see Appendix, Table A1). Overall, the scores were: • favourable – 59.73 per cent (sd = 10.79, median 59.38, min 40.57, max 84.50) • neutral – 21.69 per cent (sd = 6.56, median 22.56, min 7.90, max 39.63) • unfavourable – 18.59 per cent (sd = 7.06, median 15.79, min 7.18, max 34.25). The numbers in each industrial sector were too small for formal comparison. However, splitting organisations into two groups indicating whether they operated in traditionally ‘riskier’ sectors (construction, transport, manufacturing, utilities and health, n = 18) or ‘less risky’ sectors (education, science, communications, health and safety, finance and retail, n = 15), showed that those from lower-risk sectors had lower mean proportions of favourable responses (see Table 3). Comparing smaller organisations (with fewer than 250 employees, (n = 12)) with larger organisations (with 250 or more employees, (n = 21)) showed no significant differences.

Advice survey* In total, 37 respondents completed the advice survey, 33 of whom described themselves as the main OSH practitioner for their participating business unit. This group of OSH practitioner respondents is the focus of this paper. Most were male (75 per cent, n = 24), their mean age was 46.06 years (sd = 9.41, min = 29, max = 60) and most were married or cohabiting (84 per cent, n = 26). The majority were educated in OSH to degree level or higher (73 per cent, n = 24), had been in post for a mean of 5.73 years (sd = 6.75, min < 1, max = 30), and worked an average of 41.21 hours per week (sd = 6.85, min = 20, max = 55). Most of the OSH practitioners (82 per cent, n = 27) had other functions as part of their roles (such as administration (49 per cent, n = 16), environment (52 per cent, n = 17) or security (27 per cent, n = 9)). However, most (67 per cent, n = 22) spent over 20 hours per week on health and safety issues. They felt they gave competent advice in a wide range of areas, from slips, trips and falls (91 per cent, n = 30) to ionising radiation (21 per cent, n = 7) (see Appendix, Table A2 for a full list).

* Not all of the respondents answered all the questions in this survey, therefore the proportions given in this section are based on the number who responded, rather than on the overall number who took part.

Table 2 Continued


The majority felt they had sufficient knowledge to give advice in the areas they were responsible for (88 per cent, n = 29) and had adequate training for their role (85 per cent, n = 28) (see Appendix, Table A3 for a full list of OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications). Most also described their organisation as very supportive (58 per cent, n = 19) or extremely supportive (21 per cent, n = 7) of their continuing professional development. Table 4 shows which safety systems and policies these respondents reported were in place in their organisations and how effective they felt each was. Considering each system or policy individually, most respondents reported having them in place. However, for several of the systems or policies, over one-third felt there was room for improvement, including: • • • • •

workforce involvement in proposing improvements risk assessments health and safety committee workforce involvement in identifying hazards audits and inspections.

Considering all the systems and policies together, a little under two-thirds (61 per cent, n = 20) of the OSH practitioner respondents reported that their business was ‘missing’ one or more of the policies and systems listed in Table 4. Among the policies and systems that were in place, just over three-quarters (76 per cent, n = 25) felt that at least one needed improvement. Most (73 per cent, n = 26) felt they had a good knowledge of all health and safety legislation and a good understanding of health and safety risks in their organisation (100 per cent, n = 31). The majority also felt they were aware of when they needed to seek additional support (94 per cent, n = 31). Similarly, most (9 per cent, n = 30) felt they were able to influence the decisions of directors on health and safety issues. However, nine (27 per cent) reported not being able to influence the level at which the health and safety budget was set, and a further eight (24 per cent) reported

Table 3 Mean proportions of favourable climate responses by industry sector

Safety climate response

Lower-risk sectors

Higher-risk sectors F (1, 31) p

Mean

se

Mean

se

Organisational commitment

56.10

2.71

64.33

3.28

3.55

0.07


53.52

3.06

64.90

3.29

6.21

0.02

Supervisor’s role

53.55

2.90

59.44

3.85

1.40

0.25

Personal role

60.61

2.57

73.09

2.43

12.34

0.001


57.97

2.30

67.39

3.17

5.39

0.03

Competence

71.25

2.35

78.17

2.10

4.83

0.04

Risk-taking behaviour

51.21

2.53

55.47

3.62

0.86

0.36

Obstacles to safety

44.61

2.33

50.81

3.16

2.32

0.14

Reporting accidents

40.24

4.06

56.06

2.82

10.78

0.003

Job satisfaction

65.75

4.21

63.09

2.84

0.29

0.59

Overall mean

55.48

2.26

63.27

2.65

4.77

0.04


working in organisations with no health and safety budget. In addition, only one-third (33 per cent, n = 11) felt that health and safety was given equal priority with other aspects of the business. OSH practitioner respondents were split into two groups according to their level of training and qualifications: • those with no training, or who had completed the IOSH Managing safely awareness training course or a NEBOSH Certificate (n = 12) • those with a NEBOSH Diploma, a degree or a higher degree in health and safety, or other qualification (n = 21). Aspect of safety system and policy

In place

Very effective

Adequate

Needs improvement

n

%

n

%

n

%

n

%

33

100

11

33

9

27

13

39

Documented health and safety 33 policy

100

15

46

11

33

7

21

Workforce involvement in identifying hazards

32

97

5

16

16

50

11

34

Senior management committed to health and safety

32

97

14

44

10

31

8

25

Health and safety information 31 easily available for workers

94

10

32

18

58

3

10

Health and safety committee

31

94

9

29

11

36

11

36

Health and safety reviews

31

94

7

23

16

52

8

26

Workforce involvement in proposing improvements

31

94

7

23

11

36

13

42

Clearly defined structure for 30 health and safety responsibility

91

15

50

8

27

7

23

Accident/incident analysis

29

88

10

35

17

59

2

7

Audits/inspections

29

88

10

35

9

31

10

35

Refresher training

28

85

8

29

11

39

9

32

Training

28

85

13

46

7

25

8

29

Documented, tested and reviewed emergency plans

28

85

8

29

13

46

7

25

Documented safe systems

26

79

5

19

13

50

8

31

Well-defined, reviewed and achieved health and safety targets

24

73

7

29

13

54

4

17

Risk assessments

Table 4 Safety systems and policies


A greater proportion of those in the higher qualification group were employed in business units operating in higher-risk sectors of industry (15 (71 per cent) compared with 6 (29 per cent), chi-square = 6.64, 1df, p = 0.01). Scores on the composite variable indicating organisational receptiveness to OSH advice ranged from 0 to 4 (mean = 2.52 (sd = 1.06), median = 3.00). Just over half fell into the high receptiveness group with a score of 3 or more (18, 55 per cent; compared to 15, 45 per cent in the low receptiveness group with a score of 2 or less). There was no significant association between receptiveness and either industry sector or the level of practitioners’ training and qualifications.

Climate and advice Mean favourable climate scores, both overall and for each measure separately, were compared with the level of OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications and level of receptiveness. The only significant difference was for ‘obstacles to behaviour’, where a higher proportion of favourable responses was associated with high receptiveness (51.79 (se = 2.27) compared with 43.43 (se = 3.35), F(1, 31) = 4.52, p = 0.04).

Performance survey The participating business units’ mean performance scores are shown in the Appendix, Table A4. Comparisons were made by both type of industry sector and organisation size. The overall measures suggested poorer performance among organisations operating in higher-risk sectors and among larger organisations, but there were no significant differences on the individual or mean hazard management measures (see Appendix, Tables A5 and A6 for full details).

Climate, advice and performance Finally, associations between performance and both climate and advice were assessed, controlling for industry sector and organisation size. Both overall hazard management and overall incident score were positively associated with overall favourable climate score, but there was no significant association with mean hazard management score. There were no associations between overall hazard management, overall incident or mean hazard management score and either receptiveness or level of OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications (see Table 5). These analyses were repeated for all measures of both performance and climate. Table 6 shows the significant associations between performance and climate, and suggests consistent associations. There were significant associations between performance and OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications for: • repetitive movement (B = –2.03 (se = 0.87) β = –0.59, p = 0.03 in the model, including overall favourable climate score*)

* This was also significant in the same direction in the models, including ‘organisational commitment’, ‘line management commitment’, ‘supervisor’s role’, ‘workmates’ influence’, ‘competence’, ‘risk-taking behaviour’ and ‘obstacles to safety’.


• hazardous substances (B = 1.16 (se = 0.51) β = 0.46, p = 0.03 in the model, including overall favourable climate*) • dangerous machinery (B = 2.64 (se = 0.89) β = 0.63, p = 0.009 in the model, including overall favourable climate†) • slips and trips (B = –2.19 (se = 1.06) β = –0.62, p = 0.05 in the model, including reporting accidents) • handheld equipment (B = 1.95 (se = 0.85) β = 0.50, p = 0.04 in the model, including obstacles to safety).

B

se B

β

p

Overall hazard management Overall favourable climate

0.05

0.02

0.38

0.04

Receptiveness to OSH advice

0.20

0.46

0.07

0.66

OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications

–0.57

0.52

–0.19

0.28

Industry sector

–1.46

0.54

–0.49

0.01

Organisation size

–0.25

0.52

–0.08

0.64

Overall incident Overall favourable climate

0.11

0.05

0.39

0.05


0.34

1.01

0.06

0.74


1.16

1.14

0.19

0.32

Industry sector

–3.61

1.19

–0.62

0.005

Organisation size

0.05

1.13

0.01

0.97

Mean hazard management score Overall favourable climate

0.03

0.03

0.23

0.28


0.09

0.48

0.04

0.86


–0.56

0.55

–0.22

0.31

Industry sector

–0.16

0.57

–0.06

0.79

Organisation size

–0.24

0.54

–0.09

0.66

* This was also significant in the same direction in the models, including ‘personal role’, ‘obstacles to safety’ and ‘reporting accidents’. †

This was also significant in the same direction in the models, including ‘organisational commitment’, ‘line management commitment’, ‘supervisor’s role’, ‘personal role’, ‘workmates’ influence’, ‘risk-taking behaviour’, ‘obstacles to safety’ and ‘reporting accidents’.

Table 5 Associations between overall climate, advice and overall performance


Table 6 Significant associations between specific areas of climate and performance

B

se B

β

p

Overall hazard management Risk-taking behaviour

0.05

0.02

0.45

0.009

Obstacles to safety

0.06

0.02

0.49

0.006

Reporting accidents

0.05

0.02

0.51

0.004

0.43

0.02

Overall incident Risk-taking behaviour

0.10

0.04

Manual handling Reporting accidents

0.06

0.02

0.53

0.01

Repetitive movement Organisational commitment 0.06

0.03

0.44

0.04

Obstacles to safety

0.03

0.50

0.02

0.07

Hazardous substances Organisational commitment 0.05

0.02

0.51

0.03


0.06

0.02

0.52

0.04

Personal role

0.08

0.02

0.71

0.003


0.06

0.03

0.56

0.04

Competence

0.12

0.03

0.68

0.001


0.08

0.02

0.76

0.001

Obstacles to safety

0.08

0.02

0.76

0.001

Reporting accidents

0.07

0.02

0.74

0.002

Overall mean favourable

0.09

0.03

0.72

0.002

Dangerous machinery Organisational commitment 0.08

0.03

0.60

0.01


0.09

0.04

0.59

0.03

Supervisor’s role

0.08

0.03

0.69

0.005

Personal role

0.12

0.04

0.75

0.006


0.12

0.04

0.78

0.007

Competence

0.12

0.06

0.48

0.04


0.08

0.03

0.61

0.01


B

se B

β

p

Obstacles to safety

0.11

0.03

0.71

0.003

Reporting accidents

0.10

0.04

0.69

0.01


0.14

0.04

0.75

0.003

Noise Organisational commitment 0.08

0.02

0.67

0.005


0.08

0.03

0.63

0.02

Supervisor’s role

0.07

0.02

0.66

0.01


0.10

0.03

0.77

0.008


0.08

0.02

0.68

0.006

Obstacles to safety

0.08

0.03

0.69

0.01

Reporting accidents

0.08

0.03

0.63

0.03


0.11

0.03

0.74

0.004

Handheld equipment Organisational commitment 0.11

0.02

0.78

<0.0001


0.08

0.04

0.53

0.05

Supervisor’s role

0.09

0.02

0.76

0.001


0.12

0.03

0.80

0.003

Competence

0.11

0.05

0.49

0.05


0.08

0.03

0.59

0.02

Obstacles to safety

0.11

0.03

0.80

0.001

Reporting accidents

0.10

0.03

0.76

0.009


0.13

0.04

0.78

0.002

In those business units that employ OSH practitioners with high levels of training and qualifications in health and safety, the findings suggest poorer ‘repetitive movement’ and ‘slips and trips’ performance scores, but better scores for ‘hazardous substances’, ‘dangerous machinery’ and ‘handheld equipment’. Similarly, the only significant associations between performance and organisational receptiveness to OSH advice were for:

Table 6 Continued


• dangerous machinery (B = 1.57 (se = 0.73) β = 0.44, p = 0.05 in the model, including overall favourable climate*) • noise (B = 1.41 (se = 0.64) β = 0.48, p = 0.05 in the model, including overall favourable climate)† • handheld equipment (B = 1.41 (se = 0.67) β = 0.41, p = 0.05 in the model, including workmates’ influence). These findings suggest better scores for dangerous machinery, noise and handheld equipment are associated with high organisational receptiveness to OSH advice.

Discussion Safety culture The findings show that perceptions of safety climate, as a snapshot measure of underlying safety culture, varied considerably between the participating organisations. Variation was also apparent across industrial sectors, with organisations operating in industry sectors that might be regarded as higher-risk (construction, transport, manufacturing, utilities and health) showing higher mean proportions of favourable responses. This may reflect a greater awareness and perhaps a more serious approach to safety among those working with greater levels of risk.

Safety advice Advice survey respondents were those designated by the organisations employing them as their OSH practitioner. These respondents had a variety of health and safety training and qualifications, although three had none. The level of qualification, experience and skills necessary for competent health and safety advice, of course, varies according to the type of advice an organisation needs. However, at the most basic level of advice, it has been suggested that OSH practitioners should be qualified to meet the national occupational standard level 3.52 Clearly, some of the levels of training and qualification reported by these respondents fell below this. Although most of the OSH practitioner respondents spent over half of their time on health and safety, the great majority also had other responsibilities. Most described themselves as having sufficient knowledge and adequate training for their health and safety role, a good knowledge of both health and safety legislation and risk in their organisation, and being aware of when they needed to seek support. In addition, most OSH practitioners described their organisation as supportive of their continuing professional development. However, most also felt that at least one of the safety systems or policies in place in their organisation needed improvement. In particular, this seemed to be in the area of workforce involvement. Almost all of the OSH practitioners felt they were able to influence management decisions on health and safety issues, but just over a quarter were not able to influence the level of the health and safety budget. A further quarter worked in organisations with no health and safety budget. Only one in three felt that health and safety was given equal priority with other aspects of the business. As with safety climate, industry sector was associated with OSH practitioners’ experience, with more of those with higher levels of training and qualifications employed in organisations operating in the higher-risk industry sectors.

* This was also significant in the same direction in the models, including ‘supervisor’s role’, ‘personal role’ and ‘workmates’ influence’. †

This was also significant in the same direction in the models, including ‘supervisor’s role’ and ‘workmates’ influence’.


These findings suggest that many of the participating organisations did not employ appropriately and sufficiently qualified OSH practitioners, and that these individuals were working in complex roles, often in a somewhat mixed context in terms of management support. The findings also point to the continuing need to ‘raise the profile’ of health and safety in some organisations, particularly in terms of employing fully trained and qualified health and safety practitioners, and involving the workforce in health and safety issues and decision-making.

Safety performance Safety performance also varied considerably among the participating organisations. Again, there was a limited association with industry sector, with poorer performance scores among those operating in higher-risk sectors of industries. Similarly, organisations with greater numbers of employees had poorer overall hazard management performance scores. This may, of course, reflect industry sector to some extent, since more of those with lower numbers of employees operated in the lower-risk sectors (8 (67 per cent) compared to 4 (33 per cent), p = 0.06).

Safety culture, advice and performance The analyses showed no significant association between perceptions of safety climate and OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications. However, it should be borne in mind that the OSH practitioners were employees of the participating organisations, and as such were inherently part of the existing safety culture. Similarly, the only significant association between perceptions of safety climate and organisational receptiveness to OSH advice was with obstacles to safety, suggesting that higher mean proportions of positive responses were associated with high receptiveness. Analyses considering the association between safety performance and both advice and climate suggested clear positive associations between performance and favourable climate. Both overall hazard and incident management were positively associated with overall favourable climate and with favourable perceptions in specific areas of climate, including risk-taking behaviour, obstacles to safety, and reporting accidents and near misses. Specific areas of safety performance were also associated with specific areas of safety climate. All these associations were independent of both industry sector and organisation size, as well as OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications and organisational receptiveness to OSH advice. This suggests a robust link between safety performance and perceptions of safety climate as a measure of underlying safety culture. There were significant associations between OSH practitioners’ training and qualifications and safety performance for the specific areas of: • • • • •

repetitive movement slips and trips hazardous substances dangerous machinery handheld equipment.

Of these, the first two suggested poorer performance scores among organisations employing OSH practitioners with higher levels of health and safety training and qualifications, while the remaining three suggested better performance scores. These findings are contradictory, and partly counter-intuitive. They may perhaps reflect the fact that organisations in riskier industrial sectors are more likely to make sure that they have more highly qualified OSH practitioners, and may have lower performance scores. It is also possible that poorer performance scores may reflect more accurate reporting of incident and hazard management by more highly qualified OSH


practitioners. In addition, there were significant associations between organisational receptiveness to OSH advice and dangerous machinery, noise and handheld equipment, all suggesting better performance scores associated with high receptiveness. Taken together, the findings suggest that safety culture (as measured by safety climate) is strongly linked to corporate safety performance, and that this association is not limited to particular sectors of industry. This is consistent with previous research.13,15,23,25,30–37,45 These associations were also independent of other factors, including industry sector, and were apparent across multiple organisations. This extends previous research, and adds weight to the argument that the principles of safety culture and climate, which have been developed primarily among the traditional high hazard industries, are applicable in other work settings.44 The preliminary considerations made here of the associations between advice and both climate and performance were intended as a first, exploratory step in this area. They point to some complex associations and suggest that this is worthy of further consideration. This will be a complex task, not least because OSH practitioners are inherently part of their organisation’s safety culture. Disentangling the precise, relative contributions of culture and advice will be problematic, and requires consideration of other potentially confounding factors such as the possibility that the contribution of advice may differ according to the industrial setting in which it is being applied, as well as with the receptiveness with which it is being received. Developing a measure or measures of advice, perhaps using a composite approach similar to the one outlined here, is an important next step. This study, however, has taken an important initial step by being the first to measure safety culture, advice and performance together in a sample of UK organisations from various sectors of industry. In addition, it has opened up a future area of research to clarify these relationships, in particular by considering the contribution of safety advice, as well as culture, to safety performance, independent of potential confounds and inter-relationships. The study had several limitations. In particular, response rates were low in some cases, and all data were cross-sectional, so no assessment of causality or underlying mechanisms could be considered. The climate questionnaires were also long, which may have contributed to the low response rates among some organisations. A recent paper has pointed out that much of the research linking safety culture or climate and safety performance has been crosssectional, and that, as a consequence, the possibility of reverse causality has not been ruled out.53 This work suggests that the findings may reflect, for example, the possibility that those who have accidents feel less safe and then report a poorer safety climate. In addition, little is known about the underlying mechanisms by which safety culture or climate affects safety performance.30,53 Further limitations were that all the data were self-reported, which introduces bias at individual and organisational levels, and that the advice and performance questionnaires were often completed by the same individual. The nature of the work also meant that the analyses are based on small numbers and so should be considered with appropriate caution. This problem was exacerbated, in part, by the need to exclude organisations reporting that their employees were never exposed to particular hazards from the relevant analyses. This decision was taken because it was not possible to accurately distinguish those organisations which were effectively controlling a hazard from those where employees were never exposed to it because of inherent operational circumstances. This, of course, means that the results reported here should be considered with caution, not just because of the small numbers involved in some analyses, but also because of this compromise. For example, the association between performance and industry sector reported above may reflect differences in exposure, control or indeed the perception of each


by the respondent, by industry sector risk level. Including a further question in the Performance Indicator to distinguish effective control of a hazard from non-exposure because of inherent operational circumstances would avoid this. More than this, though, this problem highlights the wider difficulty, referred to above, of health and safety performance measurement. The Indicator was chosen, after a literature search, as a validated tool which could be used in questionnaire form, but there is, as yet, no ‘gold standard’ measure, making progress in this area, and comparison between research findings, increasingly difficult. Participation at all levels was also, of course, voluntary, so it might be expected that only organisations with particularly favourable safety cultures would agree to take part, though the variation across climate measures suggests this may not have been the case. In addition, anecdotal reports from participants suggested that providing feedback offered the organisations which took part the opportunity to find out about their safety culture, and this was seen as an incentive to participation. Lastly, participating organisations were drawn from various sectors of industry. This proved to be both a limitation and an advantage. On the positive side it allowed the study, to some extent, to consider culture, advice and performance across industries. Applying generic measures of safety culture and performance to organisations from different sectors of industry made it possible for the study to extend previous work in the area by establishing the consistency of associations independent of industry sector. On the other hand, however, this also meant that it was not possible to disentangle confounds between industry sector, advice and safety performance. Overall, the study suggests that there is a continuing need to ‘raise the profile’ of OSH and of its practitioners. In addition, it suggests that corporate safety culture is independently associated with corporate safety performance, and this association is apparent among organisations from a variety of industrial sectors. By describing the experiences of OSH practitioners in the context of studying the relationship between safety culture and performance, and suggesting some complex associations between advice and performance, the study also points to the need for future work to consider OSH advice in investigating the relationship between safety culture and performance.

Acknowledgments The research described in this paper was supported by the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, and the project is described in the IOSH Research Report, Safety culture, advice and performance, available at www.iosh.co.uk/researchsummaries. We would like to thank all those individuals and organisations that took part in the research for their interest and invaluable contributions. Our thanks also go to those who facilitated our contact with organisations and individuals, and to the members of our steering committee. The views expressed here reflect those of the authors and should not be taken to represent the policy of the sponsors.

References 1. 2. 3. 4.

Health and Safety Commission. Health and safety statistics 2006/07. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2007. www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/overall/hssh0607.pdf. Wagenaar W and Groeneweg J. Accidents at sea: multiple causes and impossible consequences. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 1987; 27 (5–6): 587–598. Cooper M D. Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science 2000 Nov; 36 (2): 111–136. International Atomic Energy Agency. Summary report on the post-accident review meeting on the Chernobyl accident. Vienna: IAEA, 1986.

24 Safety culture, advice and performance

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

24.

25. 26.

27.

Zohar D. Safety climate in industrial organisations: theoretical and applied implications. Journal of Applied Psychology 1980; 65 (1): 96–102. Cox S and Cox T. Safety, systems and people. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1996. Lawrie M, Parker D and Hudson P. Investigating employee perceptions of a framework of safety culture maturity. Safety Science 2006; 44 (3): 259–276. Turner B A and Pidgeon N F. Man-made disasters. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1997. Columbia Accident Investigation Board. Columbia Accident Investigation Board report. Washington, DC: NASA, 2003. Cullen W D. The Ladbroke Grove Rail Inquiry part 2 report. London: HMSO, 2001. International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group. Safety culture. Safety series no. 75INSAG-4. Vienna: International Atomic Energy Agency, 1991. www-pub.iaea.org/ MTCD/publications/PDF/Pub882_web.pdf. Hidden A. Investigation into the Clapham Junction railway accident. London: HMSO, 1989. Confederation of British Industry. Developing a safety culture – business for safety. London: CBI, 1990. Baram M and Schoebel M. Safety culture and behavioral change at the workplace. Safety Science 2007; 45 (6): 631–636. Guldenmund F W. The use of questionnaires in safety culture research – an evaluation. Safety Science 2007; 45 (6): 723–743. Hudson P. Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. Safety Science 2007; 45 (6): 697–722. Griffin M A and Neal A. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2000; Jul; 5 (3): 347–358. Flin R, Mearns K, O’Connor P and Bryden R. Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features. Safety Science 2000; 34 (1–3): 177–192. Dedobbeleer N and Beland F. A safety climate measure for construction sites. Journal of Safety Research 1991; 22 (2): 97–103. Hofmann D A and Stetzer A. A cross-level investigation of factors influencing unsafe behaviours and accidents. Personnel Psychology 1996; 49 (2): 307–339. Glendon A I and Litherland D K. Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction. Safety Science 2001; Dec; 39 (3): 157–188. Cooper M D and Phillips R A. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. Journal of Safety Research 2004; 35 (5): 497–512. Gillen M, Baltz D, Gassel M, Kirsch L and Vaccaro D. Perceived safety climate, job demands, and co-worker support among union and non-union injured construction workers. Journal of Safety Research 2002; 33 (1): 33–51. Zohar D. A group-level model of safety climate: Testing the effect of group climate on micro-accidents in manufacturing jobs. Journal of Applied Psychology 2000; Aug; 85 (4): 587–596. Glendon A I and Stanton N A. Perspectives on safety culture. Safety Science 2000; 34 (1–3): 193–214. Gadd S and Collins A M. Safety culture: a review of the literature. HSL/2002/25. Sheffield: Health and Safety Laboratory, 2002. www.hse.gov.uk/research/hsl_pdf/ 2002/hsl02-25.pdf. Cox S and Flin R. Safety culture: philosopher’s stone or man of straw? Work and Stress 1998; 12 (3): 189–201.


28. Guldenmund F W. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Safety Science 2000; Feb–Apr; 34 (1–3): 215–257. 29. Clarke S. Safety climate in an automobile manufacturing plant. Personnel Review 2006; 35 (4): 413–430. 30. Sorensen J N. Safety culture: a survey of the state-of-the-art. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 2002; 76 (2): 189–204. 31. Wu T-C, Liu C-W and Lu M-C. Safety climate in university and college laboratories: impact of organisational and individual factors. Journal of Safety Research 2007; 38 (1): 91–102. 32. Mullen J. Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. Journal of Safety Research 2004; 35 (3): 275–285. 33. DeJoy D M. Behavior change versus culture change: divergent approaches to managing workplace safety. Safety Science 2005; 43 (2): 105–129. 34. Cox S, Thomas T M, Cheyne A J T and Oliver A. Safety culture: the prediction of commitment to safety in the manufacturing industry. British Journal of Management 1998; 9 (special issue): s3–s11. 35. Clarke S and Cooper C L. Managing the risk of workplace stress: health and safety hazards. London: Routledge, 2004. 36. Probst T M. Layoffs and tradeoffs: production, quality and safety demands under the threat of job loss. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2002 (3); 7: 211–220. 37. Clarke S and Ward K. The role of leader influence tactics and safety climate in engaging employees’ safety participation. Risk Analysis 2006; 26 (5): 1175–1185. 38. Probst T M. Safety and insecurity: exploring the moderating effect of organisational safety climate. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2004; 9 (1): 3–10. 39. Probst T M and Brubaker T L. The effects of job insecurity on employee safety outcomes: cross-sectional and longitudinal explorations. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 2001; 6 (2): 139–159. 40. Zacharatos A, Barling J and Iverson R D. High-performance work systems and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 2005; Jan; 90 (1): 77–93. 41. Brown R L and Holmes H. The use of a factor-analytic procedure for assessing the validity of an employee safety climate model. Accident Analysis and Prevention 1986; 18 (6): 455–470. 42. Zohar D. The effects of leadership dimensions, safety climate and assigned priorities on minor injuries in work groups. Journal of Organizational Behavior 2002; 23 (1): 75–92. 43. Barling J, Loughlin C and Kelloway E K. Development and test of a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and occupational safety. Journal of Applied Psychology 2002; 87 (3): 488–496. 44. McDiarmid M and Condon M. Organisational safety culture/climate and worker compliance with hazardous drug guidelines: lessons from the blood-borne pathogen experience. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine 2005; 47 (7): 740–749. 45. Mearns K, Whitaker S M and Flin R. Safety climate, safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Safety Science 2003; 41 (8): 641–680. 46. Walters D, Nichols T, Connor J, Tasiran A C and Cam S. The role and effectiveness of safety representatives in influencing workplace health and safety. Research Report No. 363. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2005. www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr363.pdf. 47. Smith A P and Wadsworth E J K. Safety culture, advice and performance: the associations between safety culture and safety performance, health and wellbeing at an individual level, and safety culture, competent occupational safety and health advice, and safety performance at a corporate level. Wigston: IOSH, 2009.


48. Health and Safety Executive. HSE Health and Safety Climate Survey Tool. Sudbury: HSE Books, 1997. 49. Hinde A and Ager R. Benchmarking the competent person in manufacturing and engineering sectors. Research Report No. 121. Sudbury: HSE Books, 2003. www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr121.pdf. 50. Health and Safety Executive. Health and Safety Performance Indicator. www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/haspi?furlname=healthsafetyindicator&furlparam= healthsafetyindicator&ref=http%3A//www.hse.gov.uk/press/2005/e05011.htm&domain= www.businesslink.gov.uk. 51. Rhodes S D, Bowie D A and Hergenrather K C. Collecting behavioural data using the World Wide Web: considerations for researchers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 2003; 57: 68–73. 52. Institution of Occupational Safety and Health. Get the best. 2007. Wigston: IOSH, www.iosh.co.uk/files/getthebest/Getthebest.pdf. 53. Neal A and Griffin M A. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behaviour and accidents at the individual and group levels. Journal of Applied Psychology 2006; 91 (4): 946–953.

56.8

57.7

64

52.9

43.9

75.1

55.5

42.5

44.9

74.9

83.8

Education 1

Education 2

Education 3

Education 4

Finance 1

Health and safety 1

Health 1

Health 2

Health 3

Health 4

Health 5 51 49.6 64.8

Manufacturing 1 52.1

Manufacturing 2 54

Manufacturing 3 65

91.7

65.2

55.2

48

60.8

73.2

22.7

53.8

63.9

53

46.9

65.3

69.7

Construction 2

45.5

47.1

45.7

79.5

62.2

48.2

41.4

53.4

60.5

45.5

50

66.7

47.1

54.7

80

86.2

73.5

67.1

54

83.8

69.7

67.9

62

69.3

80.5

40.9

73.1

64.8

53.5

59.4

75.8

81.1

64

50

52

94

71

58

58

57

73

55

57

67

56

60

83

87

67

74

75

97

85

69

71

79

85

47

80

76

67

70

77

85

58

39.7

49.3

43.5

84.8

53.8

39.9

40.8

47.2

63.3

50

51.5

61.9

47.8

42.1

51.2

67.6

35.2

38.4

52.5

39.8

70.9

56.5

28.3

36.1

33.6

59.7

42.4

40.2

50.6

32

41.3

53.5

59

28.3

80

44

39.3

45.9

52.4

81.8

70

58.6

36.4

52.2

69.4

45.5

42.3

50

20.6

34.4

57.9

58.6

18.2

75

65.3

32.3

78.3

74.6

60.3

49.3

71.3

83.9

54.5

26.9

88.9

84.4

71.9

73.7

53.3

50

51.7

83.4

57.6

40.7

Construction 1

29.5

47.1

43.2

68

Communications 41.7 2

57

47.6

68.9

45.8

Communications 53.1 1

40

Obstacles Reporting Job to safety accidents satisfaction

Industrial sector Organisational Line Supervisor’s Personal Workmates’ Competence Riskcommitment management role role influence taking commitment


APPENDIX

Table A1 Percentage of favourable responses on each climate measure (continued overleaf)

62.3 61.3 47.9 64.7 59.4





53.6

49.9

46.1

77.5

65.7

53.4

50.1

84.6

67.9

83.1

60.59

12.97

Retail 1

Retail 2

Retail 3

Science 1

Science 2

Science 3

Science 4

Transport 1

Transport 2

Utilities 1

Mean

sd

14.08

59.73

91.3

73.6

82.7

55.4

57.3

69.1

55

49.4

54.7

52.8


14.33

56.76

76.9

64.3

88.5

58.3

48.1

57.4

65

45.7

64.4

70.3

62.1

38.9

42.7

52

55.4

11.83

67.42

89.1

78.9

92.3

63.2

43.9

58.4

63

58.5

61.7

61.8

60.8

59.9

79.1

78.3

73.1

12.39

63.11

82

69

85

52

51

65

66

40

61

65

66

50

62

64

61

9.53

75.02

85

84

95

73

69

77

76

74

71

79

80

67

77

68

73

13.12

53.53

84.1

56.9

85.6

55.6

38.8

51.8

52.8

39.4

65.7

65.1

53.6

42

45

58.1

55.3

11.86

47.99

72.5

53.8

71.8

48.7

30

47.7

54.4

45.9

49

51.4

46

36.2

54.6

59.4

51.6

15.74

48.87

67.4

51.4

76.9

21.4

25.6

44.1

46.2

37.5

52.2

67

57.8

54.8

49.7

45.3

52.6

13.97

65.40

73.3

59.4

65.4

57.5

68.6

73.5

77.5

27.5

63.6

75

57.9

54.2

68.1

50

73.9


Table A1 Continued


Hazard

Advice given n

%

Slips, trips and falls

30

91

Display screen equipment

28

85

Maintenance or repair

26

79

Manual handling

25

76

Noise

25

76

Fire

23

70

Chemicals

22

67

Electrical hazards

22

67

Stress

20

61

Machinery

19

58

Transport

19

58

Thermal hazards

12

36

Non-ionising radiation

11

33

Biological agents

7

21

Ionising radiation

7

21

Other (eg vibration)

7

21

Table A2 Hazards on which health and safety practitioners provided competent advice


Table A3 Health and safety practitioners’ training and/or qualification level

Table A4 Business units’ mean performance scores

Training and qualification level

Held by n

%

None

3

9

Contractor’s passport

3

9

British Safety Council Certificate in Safety Management

1

3

British Safety Council Diploma in Safety Management

2

6

Managing safely (IOSH awareness training course)

11

33

S/NVQ level 3

1

3

S/NVQ level 4

8

24

NEBOSH Certificate

19

58

NEBOSH Diploma (awarded before 2000)

5

15

NEBOSH Diploma (part 1)

4

12

NEBOSH Diploma (part 2)

3

9

Degree or diploma of higher education in health and safety

7

21

Postgraduate diploma or master’s degree in health and safety

4

12

Area

Performance scores Mean

sd

Median

Min

Max

Number excluded

Overall incident

6.39

2.96

7.00

0

10.00

NA

Overall hazard management

6.64

1.49

6.7

3.85

9.30

NA

Manual handling

5.73

1.70

5.50

2.50

9.00

1

Repetitive movement

5.70

1.66

5.50

3.00

10.00

6

Hazardous substances

6.23

1.23

6.00

4.50

10.00

7

Working at height

6.25

1.48

6.00

3.50

9.00

7

Dangerous machinery

5.59

1.80

5.75

3.00

10.00

11

Job stress

6.02

1.65

6.00

3.00

10.00

2

Vehicle handling

4.55

1.21

5.00

2.50

6.50

12

Slips and trips

6.02

1.72

6.00

3.00

10.00

8

Noise

5.13

1.50

5.25

3.00

9.00

13

Handheld equipment

4.63

1.77

4.75

2.00

8.50

11

Mean overall hazard management

5.84

1.26

5.80

3.85

10.00

0


Lower-risk sectors

Higher-risk sectors F

df

p

Mean

se

Mean

se


7.41

0.31

6.00

0.34

9.26

1, 31

0.005

Overall incident

7.67

0.64

5.33

0.70

5.87

1, 31

0.02

Manual handling

5.54

0.47

5.89

0.40

0.33

1, 30

0.57

Repetitive movement

5.18

0.37

6.06

0.46

1.90

1, 25

0.18


6.56

0.37

6.06

0.31

0.96

1, 24

0.34

Working at height

6.25

0.56

6.25

0.34

0.00

1, 24

1.00

Dangerous machinery

5.92

0.71

5.47

0.47

0.26

1, 20

0.62

Job stress

6.36

0.41

5.74

0.42

1.09

1, 29

0.30

Vehicle handling

3.92

0.49

4.80

0.30

2.43

1, 19

0.14

Slips and trips

6.89

0.62

5.53

0.37

4.03

1, 23

0.06

Noise

4.88

0.52

5.19

0.41

0.13

1, 18

0.72

Handheld equipment

3.75

0.99

4.96

0.35

2.17

1, 20

0.16

Mean hazard management

6.00

0.39

5.71

0.24

0.40

1, 31

0.53

Organisation size 250 or under

Over 250

F

df

p

Mean

se

Mean

se


7.43

0.40

6.19

0.30

6.01

1, 31

0.02

Overall incident

7.25

0.91

5.90

0.61

1.61

1, 31

0.21

Manual handling

5.82

0.60

5.69

0.34

0.04

1, 30

0.84

Repetitive movement

5.21

0.36

5.88

0.41

0.82

1, 25

0.38


6.56

0.40

6.06

0.30

0.96

1, 24

0.34

Working at height

6.00

0.42

6.34

0.37

0.26

1, 24

0.61

Dangerous machinery

6.30

0.58

5.38

0.46

1.00

1, 20

0.33

Job stress

6.68

0.46

5.65

0.36

2.95

1, 29

0.10

Vehicle handling

4.50

0.87

4.56

0.27

0.01

1, 19

0.93

Slips and trips

6.50

0.74

5.75

0.34

1.10

1, 23

0.31

Noise

4.80

0.68

5.23

0.40

0.30

1, 18

0.59

Handheld equipment

4.00

0.65

4.82

0.45

0.82

1, 20

0.38

Mean hazard management

6.25

0.44

5.61

0.23

2.03

1, 31

0.16

Table A5 Comparison of the mean (se) performance scores of organisations from higher- and lower-risk sectors

Table A6 Comparison of the mean (se) performance scores of smaller and larger organisations

SAFETY CULTURE, ADVICE AND PERFORMANCE

Recommend Documents