Introduction
Safety is a major concern for organizations, as it is a source of substantial direct and indirect prices. Traditionally, safety research has focused on identifying individual attributes, such as personality traits or attitudes that are associated with accident proneness (Hansen, 1989; Sutherland & Cooper, 1991). However, major disasters, such as Piper Alpha and Chernobyl, have illustrated the importance of work climates and management practices as contributors to system failure (Reason, 1990). Accordingly, increasing attention has been paid to the role of the work environment and management practices as determinants of safety in the workplace (Barling, Galloway, & Iverson, 2003; Cox & Cheyne, 2000; Hayes, Perander, Smecko, & Track, 1998; Parker, Axtell, & Turner, 2001). Much of this research has focused on the concept of safety climate. The safety climate literature has examined the link between safety climate and safety outcomes, such as compliance with safe working practices and chances. A large number of studies have demonstrated that perceptions of safety climate are positively correlated with self-reported safety behaviors and that both of these variables are negatively correlated with accidents (Griffin & Neal, 2000; Hayes et al., 1998; Hofmann & Stetzer, 1996; Neal, Griffin, & Hart, 2000). These findings are commonly taken to suggest that a poor safety climate produces a decrease in compliance with safety procedures and that this, in turn, causes an increase in chances. However, most of this research has been irritated sectional. Reverse causality is, therefore, a possible explanation for some of these relations. For example, accident involvement might bias an individual's perception of safety (Rundmo, 1997). Individuals who have accidents may feel less safe and, subsequently, report a poorer safety climate. In addition to the problem of reverse causality, relatively little is known about the mechanisms involved or the levels of analysis at which these effects operate. In the current study we address these limitations by examining relationships among these constructs setting, specifically in four cement factories over the last five years. We place the concepts of safety climate and safety behavior into the broader theoretical context of work performance and examine the way safety motivation is linked to safety climate and safety conduct. In the following sections, we define these terms and present a model of the relationships among these concepts.
Research Problem:
As mentioned in the research abstract, this study is attempting to measure perceptions of safety climate, motivation, and behavior at 2 time points and linked them to prior and subsequent levels of accidents. A series of analyses examined the effects of top-down and bottom-up processes operating simultaneously over period. In terms of top-down effects, average levels of safety climate within groups at 1 point in time predicted subsequent changes in individual safety incentive. Individual safety motivation, in turn, was associated with subsequent changes in self-reported safety conduct. In terms of bottom-up effects, improvements in the average level of safety behavior within groups were associated with a subsequent reduction in accidents at the group equal. This study taught to contribute to more understanding of the factors influencing workplace safety and the levels and lags at which these effects function. Safety climate in this study, the focus here is on safety behavior as the outcome variable of the integrative model. We focus on the behavior rather than the event as the outcome variable concentrate on two points. Firstly, the research objective is to identify the causal linkages among the three safety management mechanisms in organizations, rather than representing their effects on the safety events, which have been well searched and explained in prior educations.
In addition, Safety management is becoming increasingly important in the construction manufacturing. Effective safety management not only reduces contractors' incident rates and compensation costs, it also enhances productivity and efficiency in project implementation. Various safety management strategies and approaches have been implemented in construction to reduce fatal accidents, injuries, and unsafe does. Management commitment was considered as one of the strongest predictor of safety performance.
Research questions:
1 Does Group safety climate exert a lagged effect on individual safety incentive?
2 Does group safety climate has a significant influence on the employees' safety behavior?
3 Does Individual safety motivation exert a lagged effect on individual safety compliance and safety participation?
4 To which level does Safety behavior in work groups associate with a subsequent reduction in accidents at the group level of analysis?
5 To which extent does commitment of safety management improves safety climate?
The Aim of the study
The aim of this study was to examine the health and safety climate in the Libyan cement industry in relation to the company belonging and the local offshore connection. The findings will be of importance to future planning of the health and safety environment related work in the selected manufacturing.
Research objectives:
The objective of each study is to answer the research questions of that schoolwork. This study is not an exclusion. The objectives of the current study are as follow:
1. Identifying whether group safety climate exerts a lagged effect on individual safety motivation or not.
2. To measure the influence of safety climate on the employees' safety conduct.
3. Identifying whether Individual safety motivation exerts a lagged effect on individual safety compliance and safety participation or not.
4. To investigate whether Safety behavior in work groups associate with a subsequent reduction in accidents at the group level of study.
5. To identify the expected effect of safety management commitment that lead to improve safety climate.
Background of Study
Since 1950, the International Labour Organization (ILO) and the World Health Organization
(WHO) have shared a common definition of Occupational Health? It was adopted by the Joint
ILO/WHO Committee on Occupational Health at its first session in 1950 and revised at its twelfth session in 1994. The definition reads:
'Occupational Health should aim at: the promotion and maintenance of the highest degree of physical, mental and social well-being of workers in all occupations; the prevention amongst workers of departures from health caused by their working conditions; the protection of workers in their employment from risks resulting from factors adverse to health; the placing and maintenance of the worker in an occupational environment adapted to his physiological and psychological capabilities; and, to summarize, the adaptation of work to man and of each man to his job.'
The fundamental goal of all occupational safety and health programmers is to foster a safe work situation.
The Constitution of the WHO, the WHO Global Strategy on Health for All, plus the ILO
Conventions on Occupational Safety and Health and on Occupational Health Services stipulate, among other issues, the fundamental right of each worker to the highest attainable standard of fitness. Workers have the right to know the potential hazards and risks in their work and workplace and they should, through appropriate mechanisms, participate in planning and decision-making concerning occupational health and other aspects of their own work, safety and health.
Workers should be empowered to improve working conditions by their own action. They should be provided with information necessary to effectively participate and respond to occupational health subjects. Workers with individual susceptibilities, handicaps and other characteristics affecting their working capacity have a right to job adaptation that fits their particular state.
Workplaces are the focal point for practical occupational health activities; therefore employers are responsible for planning and designing a safe and healthy work environment as well as for maintaining and constantly improving health and safety at effort.
Workplace settings vary widely in size, sector, design, location, work processes, workplace culture, and capitals. In addition, workers themselves are different in terms of age, gender, training, education, cultural background, health practices, and access to preventive health upkeep.
This translates to great diversity in the safety and health risks for each sector and the need for tailored interferences.
Despite the introduction of effective occupational health and safety interventions; existing and emerging physical, chemical, biological and psychosocial hazards still threaten the health of workers and continue to cause occupational and work-related diseases and wounds.
These realities made it necessary for the Ministry of Health to develop this Management Policy aimed at protecting the health, safety and welfare of workers, visitors and users of its facilities and those of the Regional Health Establishments.
Policy Scope
This policy is applicable to all assets under the purview of the Ministry of Health and Regional Health Authorities as well as to all employees during the course of their duties, visitors, clients and service breadwinners.
Policy Outcomes
The expected outcomes of the Occupational Safety and Health Management Policy include the following:
1. Increased productivity at the Ministry of Health and Regional Health Authorities as a result of a structured approach to Management
2. Decreased accidents and incidents related to Occupational Safety and Health
3. Decreased absenteeism resulting from Occupational Safety and Health issues
4. Improved employee morale resulting from an improved working environment and safe systems of work
5. Increased level of compliance with the Act and all other relevant legislation and codes of practice
6. Improved workplace health and safety culture
7. A reduction in the incidence of occupational illnesses.
Key Performance Indicators
1. Decreased man hours lost due to occupational accidents and incidents .
2. A reduction in the number of sick days utilised by employees .
3. Decreased frequency of occupational accidents and incidents .
4. Increased job satisfaction .
5. Decreased number of citations and improvement notices .
6. Increased number of persons trained in safe work practices .
7. Reduced incidence of occupational disease.
Policy Characteristics
(Adapted from the International Occupational Health and Safety Management System specification; OHSAS 18001)
Development and Implementation of an OSH Policy
' The Executive Management of the Ministry of Health shall authorise the development and implementation of the OSH Management Policy.
' The OSH Management Policy will be developed and implemented through a collaborative process involving key stakeholders
' The MoH will provide the necessary resources for the development and implementation of the OSH Management Policy
' The MoH will ensure that the OSH Management Policy is communicated to all key stakeholders
' The Ministry of Health will utilize an OSH Management System to define the characteristics of the OSH Management Policy
' The Ministry of Health shall define and document the scope of the OSH Management System
OSH Planning
To facilitate a robust OSH planning process, the Ministry will develop the following:
' Procedure(s) for ongoing hazard identification, risk assessment, and determination of necessary control measures
' Documented health and safety objectives for each relevant function and at each level within the organization
' Programmes for setting and achieving OSH objectives and targets
' Procedures or processes for reporting incidents, accidents and near misses
' Procedures to audit all health and safety processes and to make the necessary corrections
' Research programmes to keep abreast of the latest innovations in occupational health and safety.
Implications for management Commitment
The three dimensions of safety climate have a direct influence on employee risk conduct. Therefore, activities which promote managerial commitment and priority of safety, and minimize pressure for production should be enacted and encouraged within organizations to reduce the occurrence of risk behavior by employees. More specifically for organizations the three-way interaction found between the three safety dimensions demonstrate that when employees experience tension between their production deadlines and safety procedures, they are less likely to engage in risk behavior when managerial commitment to safety is perceived to be high. In other words, senior management commitment to safety is particularly critical for minimizing employee risk behavior when there is perceived pressure to ignore or even break safety rules. Therefore from a practical perspective senior management may need to re-evaluate their role in the safety process and move beyond safety policy formulation to that of a safety change agent (Buchanan and Storey,1997). This may be especially relevant when trying to reduce risk behavior amongst blue collar workers who are subject to highly pressurized production quotas. Managers' discourse may appear insincere if employees perceive that the job duties do not allow for safe working (Morrow et al., 2010). Given the perceived differences in status, power and prestige between management and employees, employees scrutinize the behavior of senior management for evidence that management are not committed toward safety, that safety is not a priority, or that production targets should be met at all prices. This may impact on their levels of motivation to work safely or their willingness to engage in pro-active safety conduct. Zohar (2010) describes this as a social learning process whereby employees interpret the organizational environment by repeatedly observing (and exchanging information with) their leader (Dragoni, 2005). The extent to which employees' scrutinize managerial actions with regard to safety can be emphasized using managerial safety training, which emphasize the manager's role as a safety referent (Beus et al., 2010). As employees look to managerial behavior in situations of productivity-safety tensions, managers should demonstrate their commitment to safety through both communications and actions (i.e. regularly talk about safety, investment of resources in creating safe work environment, consideration in job design decisions, rewarding safe behavior etc.). In addition, the findings of our research suggest that managers who intend to design safety interventions should target all three safety climate dimensions in order to ensure care. As mentioned by Katz-Navon et al. (2005) interventions that aim to improve only part of the three dimensions are unlikely to be as effective, since the dimensions are interrelated and together they influence employees 'risk behavior and should be managed as such. Findings demonstrate the direct and interactive effects of safety climate dimensions on risk behavior which broaden understanding of safety climate as a multidimensional construct and (b) highlight the importance of examining higher-order interactions between dimensions of safety climate in predicting (un)safe employee conduct.
OSH Management Review
The Executive Management of the Ministry of Health shall periodically review the OSH Management System at pre-determined intervals and as needed, to ensure its continuing suitability, adequacy and effectiveness. Reviews shall include assessing opportunities for improvement and the need for changes to the OSH Management System following an accident or incident.
Conclusion
Through the Occupational Safety and Health Management Policy, the Ministry of Health is committed to the protection of persons from occupational or work related hazards and exposures. This policy seeks to provide the framework for the implementation of a robust OSH Management System to ensure a safe working environment for all employees as well as to inculcate a culture of safety within the Ministry of Health and Regional Health Authorities.