Journal Search Engine
Search Advanced Search Adode Reader(link)
Download PDF Export Citaion korean bibliography PMC previewer
ISSN : 1598-7248 (Print)
ISSN : 2234-6473 (Online)
Industrial Engineering & Management Systems Vol.17 No.1 pp.128-135
DOI : https://doi.org/10.7232/iems.2018.17.1.128

Safety Climate, Safety Behavior, and Accident Experience:Case of Indonesian Oil and Gas Company

Ari Widyanti*, Irna Octaviana, Putra Yamin
Department of Industrial Engineering, Bandung Institute of Technology (ITB), Indonesia
Corresponding Author, widyanti@mail.ti.itb.ac.id
December 7, 2016 May 23, 2017 October 8, 2017

ABSTRACT


Safety in oil and gas companies is a critical issue. Common approaches such as engineering approach and written system have been applied in order to minimize accident in this kind of industry. However, accidents still happen, attracting different approach to minimize accident. This study is intended to analyze different approaches in safety – that is safety climate and safety behavior – in relation with accident in an Indonesian oil and gas company. Thirty three workers of an oil and gas company participate voluntarily in this study by filling out safety climate questionnaire. Result shows that there was a significant negative correlation between age and worker safety commitment, worker safety priority and risk non-acceptance. Workers having accident experience perceive safety climate and safety behavior slightly worse than workers having no accident experience. Demographic data of workers such as age and work experience showed critical role in accident. Implication of the result is further discussed.



초록


    1. INTRODUCTION

    The death toll in the oil and gas industry is higher than in any other industry in all over the world. For example in the US, the fatality rate in the industry is extremely high – seven times as high as the rate for all U.S. workers. Moreover, the U.S. Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics counted 142 oil and gas industry fatalities in all of 2014 (http://www.bls.gov). Similar pictures have been found in Indonesian oil and gas companies. Indonesia own first rank in occupational accident in South East Asia countries in oil and gas companies. The most recent data reported that can be assessed in 2014 mentioned 159 accidents occurred in Indonesian oil and gas company (cnnindonesia.com). As in many countries, the major issue and problem of safety in Indonesia has been gaining attention recently.

    In general, occupational accidents results in human suffering as well as high cost for society, companies, and individuals. To battle the occupational accidents, many organizations have invested resource and effort in order to gain safety performance in two common areas, which are engineering controls (include design, installation, inspection, and repair; e.g., Sutalaksana and Widyanti, 2016) and written systems (include policies, procedures, rules, and audit programs; Sellers and Eyre, 2006). Although these two approaches have been successfully improving safety, accidents still happened. Moreover, in recent years, there has been a realization that complexity in the workplace needs an understanding of more than engineering aspect and written system of the accident.

    To complement engineering approach and written system, a new approach is needed (Christian et al., 2009). One approach that is gaining attention recently is safety climate, which offers a different perspective of safety. Safety climate is defined as shared perceptions among the members of a social unit regarding policies, procedures, and practices related to safety in the organization (Neal and Griffin, 2002; Zohar, 1980). Furthermore, Seo et al. (2004) stated that safety climate assessments are more sensitive and proactive than reactive information from accident reports for developing safety. Cox and Flin (1998) also stated that safety climate is manifestation of safety culture in the behavior and expressed attitude of employee. In short, safety climate reflects workers’ perception of the true value of safety in an organization - as a contributing factor towards the reduction of accidental injuries.

    It is important to note the conceptual difference between safety culture and safety climate. Kennedy and Kirwan (1998) stated that “safety climate and the safety management are at lower levels of abstraction (although not necessarily at the same lower level) and are considered to be a manifestation of the overall safety culture” (p. 251). Based on the statement, safety culture is reflected in the strength of the safety management system and the safety climate.

    There is a variety of dimensions that develop safety climate, although in general, themes across safety climate include management commitment, supervisor competence, and priority of safety over production (Flin et al., 2000). Other dimensions of safety climate have been reviewed by Mearns et al. (2003) who stated that elements of safety climate among other things are supervisor role model and safety training. These dimensions have been used as predictors of unsafe behavior or accidents in many models, both structural models (e.g., Brown et al., 2000) and non-linear models (Guastello et al., 1999).

    Manifestation of safety in individual level can be referred as safety behavior. Wirth and Sirgudsson (2008) stated that safety behavior is an approach designed to change safety-related behaviors directly through the application of behavioral principles and multiple strategies such as peer observations of safe behaviors, goal setting, and performance feedback. Safety behavior has been proven in preventing accident in European and American countries since 1980s. Safety behavior approach has been applied in many industries such as construction, petroleum, machinery, nuclear, and mining.

    There is a growing research on safety climate as a predictor of safety performance (e.g., Clarke, 2010; Pousette et al., 2008; Kuenzi and Schminke, 2009; Nielsen and Mikkelsen, 2007) or that safety climate correlate with accident rate (Varonen and Mattila, 2000). However, no consensus has yet been reached on the safety climate dimensions that correlates directly with safety behavior, accidents, and injuries. In addition, Cooper and Phillips (2004) mentioned that researchers have struggled over the last 25 years to find empirical evidence to demonstrate actual links between safety climate and safety performance Moreover, no such research has been reported in Indonesian oil and gas companies.

    Due to its complexity and high accident rate, safety issue in the oil and gas industry is unique, thus require more attention. Limited research has been done in identifying best practice in this kind of industry, such as Sykes et al. (1997) and Mearns et al. (2003). Indeed, more research is needed in order to enrich the result and to draw conclusion about safety in the oil and gas industry.

    In Indonesia, research about safety in oil and gas company has been conducted recently, but is very limited, gaining mixed results. Therefore, considering the high accident rate in Indonesian oil and gas companies, and also the fact that the approach of safety climate and safety behavior works quite well in other countries, the present study is conducted. To be more specific, the aim of this present study is to observe relation between demographic data, safety climate, safety behavior and accident in Indonesian oil and gas industry. The demographic data include years of working experience, work position, number of accidents, accident category, and risk category (Table 1 in section 3, results). Based on literature description above (e.g., Cooper and Phillips, 2004), it is hypothesized that safety climate and safety behavior will influence accident in the company. Due to restricted data of the accident rate in the company level, the term “accident” in the following sections refers to accident experience that is self-reported by each individual in the company.

    2. METHOD

    2.1 Participants

    Thirty three employees (mean age = 38 years old, SD = 7 years old, all male) of an oil and gas company in Indonesia participated in this study voluntarily. All employees have been working in the company for at least 1 year. The employees were informed about the aim of the study in a cover letter and were also told that their participation was encouraged by upper management. The employees were also ensured about anonymity of participating in this research.

    2.2 Measures

    2.2.1 Questionnaire

    To assess safety behavior, Nordic Occupational Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50; Kines et al., 2011) developed by the Nordic Research Network of Occupational Safety Research was used. NOSACQ-50 is a tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate and evaluating safety climate interventions. NOSACQ-50 is a questionnaire that has been standardized and has 25 language translations, including Indonesian (Kines et al., 2011). Therefore reliability and validity of the Indonesian version of NOSACQ-50 has been tested before and not necessarily tested in this present study. The NOSACQ-50 consists of 50 items with 22 items evaluating management policies, procedures, and practices; and 28 items evaluating safety behavior. The NOSACQ-50 consists of three parts, namely:

    • The first part contains the demographic of the respondents which include age as measured by year of birth, gender, years of working experience, and job position

    • The second part contains questions about the attitude of management-related aspects of safety as measured by three-dimensions. These three dimensions are

      • ∘ Management safety priority, commitment, and competence (9 items)

      • ∘ Management safety empowerment (7 items)

      • ∘ Management safety justice (6 items)

    • The third section contains questions about worker safety behavior as measured through four dimensions. These four dimensions are:

      • ∘ Worker’s safety commitment (6 items)

      • ∘ Worker’s safety priority and risk non-acceptance (7 items)

      • ∘ Peer learning, safety communication, and trust in safety ability (8 items)

      • ∘ Worker’s trust in the efficacy of the safety system (7 items)

    Likert scale is used for responding to the items, ranging from 1 (very disagree) to 4 (very agree). Some items use reverse scale so that necessary adjustment during scoring is a must. In general, the high score refers to good condition of dimensions of safety commitment and safety behavior.

    3. RESULTS

    Demographic data of the respondents can be seen in Table 1 Dimensions of safety climate (i.e., managementrelated dimensions) and safety behavior was analyzed based on the demographic data of respondents as can be seen in Table 2.

    ANOVA was applied to observe role of work experience in safety climate and safety behavior. Significant difference was found for “worker’ safety commitment (F (2, 32) = 5.54, ρ < 0.003). Post-hoc analysis using Least Square Difference (LSD) method shows that workers work experience more than 10 years has significant lower safety commitment compare to workers with work experience less than 5 year or workers with work experience between 6 to 10 years.

    In relation with managerial position, independent ttest was applied to observe role of the managerial position in differences of safety climate and safety behavior. As expected, almost all dimensions of safety climate reveal significant differences due to managerial position (i.e., workers in managerial position have better safety behavior and climate, than workers in non-managerial position) except for management safety priority, commitment, and competence. The t-test results are: management safety priority, commitment, and competence (t(31) = -1.79, ρ = 0.084), management safety empowerment (t(31) = -2.33, ρ = 0.026), management safety justice (t(31) = -2.51, ρ = 0.018), worker’s safety commitment (t(31) = -2.32, ρ = 0.027), worker’s safety priority and risk non-acceptance (t(31) = -2.95, ρ = 0.006), peer learning, safety communication, and trust in safety ability (t(31) = -3.47, ρ = 0.002), worker's trust in the efficacy of the safety system (t(31) = -2.00, ρ = 0.055) for workers in managerial and nonmanagerial position respectively.

    In relation with accident experience, t-test was applied to observe such differences. Result shows that there is no significant difference on safety climate and safety behavior between participants having accident experience and no accident experience. However, as expected, most of safety climate and safety behavior of participants having no accident experience is slightly better than participant having accident experience, except for management safety priority, commitment, and competence and management safety empowerment.

    ANOVA was applied to observe role of accident number (i.e., 0, 1, and 2) as well as risk categories (i.e., 0, near miss accident, medical treatment, restricted work, days away from work) in safety behavior and safety climate. Mixed result has found in safety behavior, climate, and culture based on accident number and risk category. In addition, a new variable was generated by multiplying number of accident and accident categories and classifying the variable into high risk category if > 5 and low risk category if < 5. Independent t-test shows that there is no significant difference between high and low risk category in safety climate. However, as expected, worker with high risk category shows less score of safety climate compare to worker with low risk category.

    Furthermore, spearman rho correlation analysis was conducted between demographic data and safety behavior as well as safety climate. Spearman rho analysis was used because the data does not have a normal distribution. The result of the correlation analysis can be seen in Table 3.

    From Table 3, it can be seen that age has significant negative correlation with management safety commitment and worker’s safety commitment.

    4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

    This study observes the relation between demographic data, safety climate, safety behavior, and accident in an Indonesian oil and gas company as an effort to minimize accident. The research is particularly important since common method in reducing accident in industry, which are engineering approach and written system, is not enough so that a new approach is needed (Christian et al., 2009).

    Different demographic data reveals different role in the safety climate and safety behavior. In relation with work experience, worker with work experience more than 10 years has significant lower safety commitment compare to worker with work experience less than 5 year or range of 6 to 10 year. Contradicting to Wilson (1989) who stated that experience provides options in safety behavior, result of this study supports the result of a study conducted by Gherardi and Nicolini (2002) in Italian construction industry. According to Gherardi and Nicolini, experience reduces carefulness since it increase confidence in one’s ability to cope with any situation. Specifically based on the result of this study, reduction of the carefulness starts at number of 10 years.

    In relation with managerial position, the fact that workers with managerial position have better safety behavior is expected. This result is in line with result of a study conducted by Wachter and Yorio (2014) who explain that worker with managerial position have higher level of safety engagement, therefore result in higher or better safety behavior.

    Insignificant differences on safety behavior between participants having accident experience and no accident experience is expected, in which participants having no accident experience shows slightly better safety behavior than participants having accident experience. It is very obvious that concern and commitment with safety will result in good safety performance. This result is in line with many previous studies such as Smith et al. (2006), Siu et al. (2004), and Neal and Griffin (2006). Result of the study in relation with variation of safety climate scores among employee based on their accident history is in line with other previous study. Williamson et al. (1997) found that workers group having accident experience scored lower on safety climate factors than workers group having no accident experience. Sherry (1991) reveals similar results. Furthermore, Varonen and Mattila (2000) and Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2009) also pointed out differences among companies, in which company with higher accident rates scores lower in safety climate than company with lower accident rates.

    Score of safety climate between participants having no accident experience and participants having accident experience is slightly different. It can be understood since the safety climate that has been assessed here is the perceived safety climate. The word “perceived” indicates that safety climate will vary among individuals depending on their perception of safety in the workplace. In addition, some researchers also identified safety climate differences among different groups and individuals in organizations (e.g., Cox and Cheyne, 2000; Glendon and Litherland, 2001).

    There was significant negative correlation between age and worker safety commitment, worker safety priority, and risk non-acceptance. The older the worker, the less they engaged to safety commitment and the lower the score of safety priority and risk non-acceptance. It is worth noting that previous studies in age and safety reveal mixed result.

    On one hand, some studies stated that younger people tend to be more careless and involve in more accidents than the older people (e.g., Shinar et al., 2001; Laurence et al., 2008). Furthermore, Laurence et al. (2008) explain the age differences in safety behavior are in relation with sensation seeking and impulsivity. However it should be noted that participants in this study are in mature age-mean age is 37 years and range of age is 26-57 year. It is likely that old workers (i.e., almost retired age) lose their motivation to work safely due to approaching retirement time.

    On the other hand, Gherardi and Nicolini (2002) explained that age does not necessarily influence safety. Siu et al. (2003) also found no correlation between age and safety in Hong Kong construction site. The relatively fewer investigations on age differences in safety attitudes and safety performance makes this issue become even more important and needs more research to draw the further conclusion.

    In relation with effort to reduce accident based on result of this study, company must underline the importance of giving attention to the older workers and workers with experience more than 10 years since the carefulness of these workers has declined. Attention can be given through refresher training for example. In relation with managerial position, workers in managerial position - who show better safety behavior than workers in non-managerial positions- is expected to share their engagement and experience with safety to workers in nonmanagerial position. The sharing process is expected to increase safety behavior and climate of workers in nonmanagerial position.

    In relation with safety behavior and accident experience, as stated by Siu et al. (2004), safety behavior can predict accident in the future, therefore improving safety behavior seems promising in reducing accident in the future. The company can improve safety behavior for example by means of adequacy of safety training, provision of safety equipment, communication, and employee involvement in safety (Neal et al., 2000). Apart from the behavior approach in safety, in particular in Indonesia, behavior approach has been proven to be success in other different field (see Widyanti et al., 2013a; Widyanti et al., 2013b; Widyanti et al., 2014 for examples).

    Self-report of accident described in the NOSAC-50 is used in this study rather than company’s accident report. The reason of using self-report accident form is because self-report accident form is commonly used in measuring safety performance (e.g., Mearns et al., 2003; Vinodkumar and Bhasi, 2009) since accident report maintained by companies have been proved to be unreliable for many reasons. One common reason of the unreliability of the company accident report is the high degree of underreporting (e.g., Witt et al., 1994; Cooper, 2000), and attributes to incentive schemes (see Cooper, 2000; Promfet, 1994 for examples).

    NOSACQ-50 is used in this study since Törner et al. (2008) says that it is a well-known valid questionnaire to measure self-rated safety behavior and safety performance. This questionnaire has been pilot tested in various industries in all the Nordic countries, and the results confirm the reliability and validity of the questionnaire. Furthermore, in general, questionnaire is a widely accepted method to assess safety climate (Guldenmund, 2000).

    This study has several limitations that should be acknowledged. First, there is unbalance number between participants having accident experience with participants having no accident. The balance number will strengthen the result. However, since the data collection method is a field study method, the number of participants is uncontrollable. Second limitation is that the accident data is obtained from self-report. Since the self-reported accident rate data is for the last 5 years, there is likely a bias of data concerning with inability to correctly recall safety accident (Landen and Hendricks, 1995; Probst and Estrada, 2010). However, since management accident data is absent, the self-reported data is considered to be adequate. As stated by Probst and Estrada (2010), the number of unreported accidents was significantly higher than the number of reported accidents, due to improper safety communication and consequences of reporting. The third limitation is that the survey cannot differentiate injuries that had occurred long ago from those that had occurred recently. Therefore, it was not possible to observe whether the accident directly relates with safety climate observed recently in this study, or whether the accident has been caused by something else. It will be better if frequency and severity of the injuries is observed as well to enrich the analysis.

    Despite these limitations, this study remains a fruitful base for future research. For example, research on the differences between self-report accident and companies’ accident rate in Indonesia should be conducted to assess the reliability of both data. In-depth research considering the level of fatality accident will enrich the knowledge about safety accident as well. Future research in the context of intervention to improve safety climate and safety behavior in order to minimize incident and accident rate in industries is worth noting.

    In conclusion, this present study reveals that safety behavior and safety climate approach influence accident in the studied participants. It is worth noting that application of behavior and culture approach in Indonesia, in particular in the field other than oil and gas has demonstrated expected results (Widyanti et al., 2013a; Widyanti et al., 2013b; Widyanti et al., 2014). Demographic data of workers such as age and work experience showed critical role in accident. Result of this study can be seen as a first step in the safety climate and safety behavior approach in achieving safety in Indonesian industries, complementing engineering and written system approach.

    Figure

    Table

    Demographic data of respondents

    *number of accident x accident category, classified as low if < 5, high if > 5.

    Safety climate and behavior as a function of demographic data

    Correlation between safety climate, safety behavior, and demographic data

    *Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
    **Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

    REFERENCES

    1. K.A. Brown , P.G. Willis , G.E. Prussia (2000) Predicting safe employee behavior in the steel industry: Development and test of a sociotechnical model., J. Oper. Manage., Vol.18 (4) ; pp.445-465
    2. M.S. Christian , J.C. Bradley , J.C. Wallace , M.J. Burke (2009) Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors., J. Appl. Psychol., Vol.94 (5) ; pp.1103-1127
    3. S. Clarke (2010) An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis., J. Occup. Organ. Psychol., Vol.83 (3) ; pp.553-578
    4. M.D. Cooper (2000) Towards a model of safety culture., Saf. Sci., Vol.36 (2) ; pp.111-136
    5. M.D. Cooper , R.A. Phillips (2004) Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship., J. Safety Res., Vol.35 (5) ; pp.497-512
    6. S.J. Cox , A.J.T. Cheyne (2000) Assessing safety culture in offshore environments., Saf. Sci., Vol.34 (1-3) ; pp.111-129
    7. S.J. Cox , R. Flin (1998) Safety culture: Philosopher ?(tm)s stone or man of straw?, Work Stress, Vol.12 (3) ; pp.189-201
    8. R. Flin , K. Mearns , P. O ?(tm)Connor , R. Bryden (2000) Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features., Saf. Sci., Vol.34 (1-3) ; pp.177-192
    9. S. Gherardi , D. Nicolini (2002) Learning the trade: A culture of safety in practice., Organization, Vol.9 (2) ; pp.191-223
    10. A.I. Glendon , D.K. Litherland (2001) Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behavior in road construction., Saf. Sci., Vol.39 (3) ; pp.157-188
    11. S.J. Guastello , R.R.M. Gershon , L.R. Murphy (1999) Catastrophe model for the exposure to blood-borne pathogens and other accidents in health care settings., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.31 (6) ; pp.739-749
    12. F.W. Guldenmund (2000) The nature of safety culture: A review of heory and research., Saf. Sci., Vol.34 (1-3) ; pp.215-257
    13. R. Kennedy , B. Kirwan (1998) Development of a hazard and operability-based method for identifying safety management vulnerability in high risk systems., Saf. Sci., Vol.30 (3) ; pp.249-274
    14. P. Kines , J. Lappalainen , K.L. Mikkelsen , E. Olsen , A. Pousette , J. Tharaldsen , K. TA3masson , M. Törner (2011) Nordic safety climate questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate., Int. J. Ind. Ergon., Vol.41 (6) ; pp.634-646
    15. M. Kuenzi , M. Schminke (2009) Assembling fragments into a lens: A review, critique, and proposed research agenda for the organizational work climate literature., J. Manage., Vol.35 (3) ; pp.634-717
    16. D.D. Landen , S. Hendricks (1995) Effects of recall on reporting of at-work injuries., Public Health Rep., Vol.110 (3) ; pp.350-354
    17. S. Laurence , A. Dustin , C. Elizabeth , B. Marie , G. Sandra , W. Jennifer (2008) Age differences in sensation seeking and impulsivity as indexed by behavior and self-report: Evidence for a dual systems model., Dev. Psychol., Vol.44 (6) ; pp.1764-1778
    18. K. Mearns , S.M. Whitaker , R. Flin (2003) Safety climate, safety management practice, and safety perA formance in offshore environments., Saf. Sci., Vol.41 (8) ; pp.641-680
    19. A. Neal , M.A. Griffin (2002) Safety climate and safety behavior., Aust. J. Manag., Vol.27 ; pp.67-76
    20. A. Neal , M.A. Griffin (2006) A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels., J. Appl. Psychol., Vol.91 ; pp.946-953
    21. A. Neal , M.A. Griffin , P.M. Hart (2000) The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior., Saf. Sci., Vol.34 (1-3) ; pp.99-109
    22. K. Nielsen , K.L. Mikkelsen (2007) Predictive factors for self-reported occupational injuries at 3 manufacturing plants., Safety Science Monitor, Vol.11 (2) ; pp.1-9
    23. A. Pousette , S. Larsson , M. Törner (2008) Safety culture-cross validation, strength, and prediction of safety behavior., Saf. Sci., Vol.46 (3) ; pp.398-404
    24. T.M. Probst , A.X. Estrada (2010) Accident under-reporting among employees: Testing the moderating influence of psychological safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety practices., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.42 (5) ; pp.1438-1444
    25. B. Promfet (1994) Developing a safety culture based on quality., Safety Management, Vol.33 ; pp.17-20
    26. G. Sellers , P. Eyre (2000) The behavior-based approach to safety., IChemE Symposium Series, Vol.147 ; pp.1-11
    27. G. Sellers , P. Eyre (1998) The behavior-based ap-proach to safety, Proceeding of IChemE Symposium Series, ; pp.1-11
    28. D.C. Seo , M.R. Torabi , E.H. Blair , N.T. Ellis (2004) A cross-validation of safety climate scale using confirmatory factor analytic approach., J. Safety Res., Vol.35 (4) ; pp.427-445
    29. P. Sherry (1991) Person-environment fit and accident prediction., J. Bus. Psychol., Vol.5 (3) ; pp.411-416
    30. D. Shinar , E. Schechtman , R. Compton (2001) Self-reports of safe driving behaviors in relationship to sex, age, education and income in the US adult driving population., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.33 (1) ; pp.111-116
    31. O. Siu , D.R. Philips , T. Leung (2003) Age differences in safety attitudes and safety performance in Hong Kong construction workers., J. Safety Res., Vol.34 (2) ; pp.199-205
    32. O. Siu , D.R. Philips , T. Leung (2004) Safety climate and safety performance among construction workers in Hong Kong The role of psychological strains as mediators., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.36 (3) ; pp.359-366
    33. G.S. Smith , Y.H. Huang , M. Ho , P.Y. Chen (2006) The relationship between safety climate and injury rates across industries: The need to adjust for injury hazards., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.38 ; pp.556-562
    34. I.Z. Sutalaksana , A. Widyanti (2016) Anthropometry approach in workplace redesign in Indonesian Sundanese roof tile industries., Source of the Document International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol.53 ; pp.299-305
    35. R. M. Sykes , J. F. Paxman , T. L. Thoem (1997) Benchmarking of HSE performance and practice in the worldwide upstream operations of British Petroleum, Conoco and the Royal Dutch/Shell Group, Volume 1-Text and data, SIEP 97-0585,
    36. M. Törner , A. Pousette , P. Kines , K.L. Mikkelsen , J. Lappalainen , J. Tharaldsen , K. Tómasson (2008) A Nordic Questionnaire for Assessing Safety Climate (NOSACQ, Proceedings of the Working on Safety,
    37. U. Varonen , M. Mattila (2000) The safety climate and it ?(tm)s relationship to safety practices, safety of work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing companies., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.32 (6) ; pp.761-769
    38. M.N. Vinodkumar , M. Bhasi (2009) Safety climate factors and its relationship with accidents and personal attributes in the chemical industry., Saf. Sci., Vol.47 (5) ; pp.659-667
    39. J.K. Wachter , P.L. Yorio (2014) A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: An empirical and theoretical investigation., Accid. Anal. Prev., Vol.68 ; pp.117-130
    40. A. Widyanti , D. de Waard , A. Johnson , B. Mulder (2013) National culture moderates the influence of mental effort on subjective and cardiovascular measures., Ergonomics, Vol.56 (2) ; pp.182-194a
    41. A. Widyanti , A. Johnson , D. de Waard (2013) Adaptation of rating scale mental effort for use in indonesia., Int. J. Ind. Ergon., Vol.43 (1) ; pp.70-76b
    42. A. Widyanti , I. Sunaryo , A.D. Kumalasari (2014) Reducing dependency on rice as staple food in Indonesia: A behavior intervention approach., Journal of International Society of South East Asian Agricultural Science, Vol.20 (1) ; pp.93-103
    43. A.M. Williamson , A.A. Feyer , D. Cairns , D. Biancotti (1997) The developments of a measure of safety climate: The role of safety perceptions and attitudes., Saf. Sci., Vol.25 (1-3) ; pp.15-27
    44. H.A. Wilson (1989) Organizational behavior and safety management in the construction industry., Construct. Manag. Econ., Vol.7 (4) ; pp.303-319
    45. O. Wirth , S.O. Sigurdsson (2008) When workplace safety depends on behavior change: Topics for behavioral safety research., J. Safety Res., Vol.39 (6) ; pp.589-598
    46. L.A. Witt , C. Hellman , T.F. Hilton (1994) annual meeting of the American Psychological Society,
    47. D. Zohar (1980) Safety climate in industrial organization: Theoretical and applied implications., J. Appl. Psychol., Vol.65 (1) ; pp.96-102
    오늘하루 팝업창 안보기 닫기