Integrated Approach for Safety Culture Factor Evaluation from a Sustainability Perspective
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Identification of the safety culture factors in a thorough literature survey.
- Developing the structural relationship framework among SCFs using the interpretive structural modelling (ISM) approach.
- Classification of the SCFs based on their driving power and dependence using MICMAC analysis.
- Ranking of the SCFs based on their importance using the fuzzy technique for order preferences by similarity of an ideal solution (F-TOPSIS) approach from the sustainability perspective.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Safety Culture
References | Safety Culture Definitions |
---|---|
[39] | “the product of individual and group values, attitudes, competencies, and patterns of behaviour that determine the commitment to, and the style and proficiency of, an organisation’s health & safety programs” |
[40] | “those aspects of the organisational culture which will impact on attitudes and behaviour related to increasing or decreasing risk” |
[41] | “social construct used by industry and academe to describe the way that safety is being managed in organizations to avoid catastrophes and personal injuries” |
[42] | “a set of organizational processes and professional practices, written rules and informal prevention, and ways of thinking, perceiving, and representing risk in organizations” |
[10] | “Safety culture is a relatively stable construct consisting of collective norms, values, and assumptions that are shaped gradually over time by multilevel influences.” |
[43] | “Safety culture means all material and non-material elements of a person’s well-established achievements for cultivating, recovering (when lost) and raising the level of safety of certain entities” |
References | Industry | Safety Culture Definitions |
---|---|---|
[44] | Nuclear | “the assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals that establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance” |
[45] | Maritime | “culture in which there is considerable informed endeavour to reduce risks to the individual, ships and the marine environment to a level that is as low as is reasonably practicable” |
[46] | Railway | “refers to the interaction between the requirements of the Safety Management System (SMS), how people make sense of them, based on their attitudes, values and beliefs, and what they actually do, as seen in decisions and behaviours” |
2.2. Safety Culture Factors
3. Research Methodology
3.1. ISM-MICMAC Analysis
3.2. Fuzzy Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to the Ideal Solution (F-TOPSIS)
4. Results and Analysis
4.1. Identification Factors Affecting Safety Culture
4.2. ISM-MICMAC Analysis
- (1)
- ISM analysis, and
- (2)
- MICMAC analysis.
- (1)
- Factor F1 (Management commitment) would augment factor F3 (Rewards and Recognition). When there is a lack of commitment from top management towards safety culture, the money required to implement such programmes will be hard to come by and thus the relationship is V.
- (2)
- Factor F2 (Communication) is augmented by factor F8 (Attitudes towards OHS regulations, so the relationship is A.
- (3)
- Factor F2 (Communication) and factor F4 (Trust between managers and employees) augment each other, so the relationship is X.
- (4)
- No direct relationship appears to exist between factor F8 (Attitudes towards OHS regulations) and factor F10 (Monitoring employees behavior), so the relationship is O.
- V, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry becomes 0.
- A, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry becomes 1.
- X, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 1 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 1.
- O, then the (i, j) entry in the reachability matrix becomes 0 and the (j, i) entry also becomes 0.
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
F2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
F3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
F4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
F5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
F6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
F7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
F8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
F9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
F10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
4.3. Ranking of the Most Important Safety Culture Factors (F—TOPSIS)
4.4. Sensitivity Analysis
5. Conclusions
Limitation and Future Research
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- World Commission on Environment and Development (WCED). Our Common Future; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK; New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Schaltegger, S.; Harms, D.; Windolph, S.E.; Hörisch, J. Involving Corporate Functions: Who Contributes to Sustainable Development? Sustainability 2014, 6, 3064–3085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clauß, T.; Kraus, S.; Jones, P. Sustainability in family business: Mechanisms, technologies and business models for achieving economic prosperity, environmental quality and social equity. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2022, 176, 121450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marhavilas, P.; Koulouriotis, D.; Nikolaou, I.; Tsotoulidou, S. International occupational health and safety management-systems standards as a frame for the sustainability: Mapping the territory. Sustainability 2018, 10, 3663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fonseca, L.; Carvalho, F. The reporting of SDGs by quality, environmental, and occupational health and safety-certified organizations. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mcquaid, J. The application of risk control concepts and experience to sustainable development. Process Safe Environ. Protect. 2000, 78, 262–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nawaz, W.; Linke, P.; Koc, M. Safety and sustainability nexus: A review and appraisal. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 216, 74–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shad, M.K.; Lai, F.W.; Fatt, C.L.; Klemeš, J.J.; Bokhari, A. Integrating sustainability reporting into enterprise risk management and its relationship with business performance: A conceptual framework. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 208, 415–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chavez, R.; Yu, W.; Jajja, M.S.S.; Song, Y.; Nakara, W. The relationship between internal lean practices and sustainable performance: Exploring the mediating role of social performance. Prod. Plan. Control 2022, 33, 1025–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisbey, T.M.; Kilcullen, M.P.; Thomas, E.J.; Ottosen, M.J.; Tsao, K.; Salas, E. Safety culture: An integration of existing models and a framework for understanding its development. Hum. Factors 2021, 63, 88–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gilding, P.; Hogarth, M.; Humphries, R. Safe companies: An alternative approach to operationalizing sustainability. Corp. Environ. Strat. 2002, 9, 390–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spencer-Oatey, H. Rapport Management: A Framework for Analysis. In Culturally Speaking: Managing Rapport through Talk across Cultures; A&C Black: London, UK, 2004; pp. 11–46. [Google Scholar]
- Lazar, N.; Chithra, K. Role of culture in sustainable development and sustainable built environment: A review. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2022, 24, 5991–6031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srathongkhruen, S.; Fraszczyk, A. Safety Culture in a Railway Maintenance Environment: A Case Study of Bangkok Metro Network. In Urban Rail Transit; Springer: Singapore, 2021; pp. 41–59. [Google Scholar]
- Sorensen, J.N. Safety culture: A survey of the state-of-the-art. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safe 2002, 76, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nordlöf, H.; Wiitavaara, B.; Högberg, H.; Westerling, R. A cross-sectional study of factors influencing occupational health and safety management practices in companies. Safe Sci. 2017, 95, 92–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, J.; Goerlandt, F.; Van Nunen, K.; Ponnet, K.; Reniers, G. Conceptualizing the contextual dynamics of safety climate and safety culture research: A comparative scientometric analysis. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahamad, M.A.; Arifin, K.; Abas, A.; Mahfudz, M.; Cyio, M.B.; Khairil, M.; Ali, M.N.; Lampe, I.; Samad, M.A. Systematic Literature Review on Variables Impacting Organization’s Zero Accident Vision in Occupational Safety and Health Perspectives. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le Coze, J.C. How safety culture can make us think. Safe Sci. 2019, 118, 221–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Qayoom, A.; Hadikusumo, B.H. Multilevel safety culture affecting organization safety performance: A system dynamic approach. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 2326–2346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cebernik, K.P.; Gazdecka, A.; Piosik, K.; Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M.; Wyczółkowski, R. Development of framework for safety culture improvement by an ISM approach—Pilot survey. In Proceedings of the 35th International Business Information Management Association Conference (IBIMA), Seville, Spain, 1–2 April 2020; pp. 5412–5424. [Google Scholar]
- Su, W.J. The effects of safety management systems, attitude and commitment on safety behaviors and performance. Int. J. Appl. Inf. Manag. 2021, 1, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirali, G.A.; Afshin, D.K.; Angali, K.A.; Kalhori, S.; Niakan, R. Modelling and assessing the influence of organizational culture norms on safety culture using Bayesian networks approach: The case of an oil industry. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2022, 13, 304–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Asatiani, A.; Hämäläinen, J.; Penttinen, E.; Rossi, M. Constructing continuity across the organisational culture boundary in a highly virtual work environment. Inf. Syst. J. 2021, 31, 62–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adebayo, O.P.; Worlu, R.E.; Moses, C.L.; Ogunnaike, O.O. An integrated organisational culture for sustainable environmental performance in the Nigerian Context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kuo, T.; Tsai, G.Y. The effects of employee perceived organisational culture on performance: The moderating effects of management maturity. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excell. 2019, 30, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Caro, E.; Cegarra-Navarro, J.G.; Alfonso-Ruiz, F.J. Digital technologies and firm performance: The role of digital organisational culture. Technol. Forecast. Soc. Chang. 2020, 154, 119962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çıdık, M.S.; Phillips, S. Buildings as complex systems: The impact of organisational culture on building safety. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2021, 39, 972–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Herrero, S.; Mariscal, M.A.; Gutiérrez, J.M.; Toca-Otero, A. Bayesian network analysis of safety culture and organizational culture in a nuclear power plant. Safe Sci. 2013, 53, 82–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vierendeels, G.; Reniers, G.; van Nunen, K.; Ponnet, K. An integrative conceptual framework for safety culture: The Egg Aggregated Model (TEAM) of safety culture. Safe Sci. 2018, 103, 323–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- INSAG. Sumary Report on the Post-Accident Review Meeting on the Chernobyl Accident. (Safety Series No. 75-INSAG-1); International Nuclear Safety Advisory Group: Vienna, Austria, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Bieder, C. Safety Culture in a Complex Mix of Safety Models: Are We Missing the Point? In Safety Cultures, Safety Models; Gilbert, C., Journe, B., Laroche, H., Bieder, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Van Nunen, K.; Li, J.; Reniers, G.; Ponnet, K. Bibliometric analysis of safety culture research. Safe Sci. 2018, 108, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tear, M.J.; Reader, T.W.; Sharrock, S.; Kirwan, B. Safety culture and power: Interactions between perceptions of safety culture, organizational hierarchy, and national culture. Safe Sci. 2020, 121, 550–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tharaldsen, J.E.; Haukelid, K. Culture and behavioral perspectives on safety—Towards a balanced approach. J. Risk Res. 2009, 12, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalteh, H.O.; Mortazavi, S.B.; Mohammadi, E.; Salesi, M. The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance: A systematic review. Int. J. Occup. Safe Ergon. 2021, 27, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Claxton, G.; Hosie, P.; Sharma, P. Toward an effective occupational health and safety culture: A multiple stakeholder perspective. J. Safe Res. 2022, 82, 57–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Leaver, M.P.; Reader, T.W. Safety culture in financial trading: An analysis of trading misconduct investigations. J. Bus. Ethics. 2019, 154, 461–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- HSC. ACSNI Study Group on Human Factors. 3rd Report: Organising for Safety; HMSO: London, UK, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Guldenmund, F.W. The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Safe Sci. 2000, 34, 215–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cooper, M.D. The Safety Culture Construct: Theory and Practice. In Safety Cultures, Safety Models; Gilbert, C., Journe, B., Laroche, H., Bieder, C., Eds.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Galanti, T.; Di Fiore, T.; Fantinelli, S.; Cortini, M. The Role of Organizational Support in Non-Technical Dimensions of Safety: A Case Study in the Automotive Sector. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jabłoński, M.; Jabłoński, A. Shaping the safety culture of high reliability organizations through digital transformation. Energies 2021, 14, 4721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IAEA. Safety Culture (No. 75-INSAG-4), Safety Series; International Atomic Energy Agency: Vienna, Austria, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- International Maritime Organization. MSC 77/17—Role of the Human Element; International Maritime Organization: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- European Union Agency for Railways. Introduction to the European Railway Safety Culture Model. Available online: https://www.era.europa.eu/sites/default/files/activities/docs/introduction_to_european_railway_safety_culture_model_en.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Staniškienė, E.; Stankevičiūtė, Ž. Social sustainability measurement framework: The case of employee perspective in a CSR-committed organisation. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 188, 708–719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elkington, J. Enter the triple bottom line. In The Triple Bottom Line: Does It All Add Up? Routledge: London, UK, 2013; pp. 1–16. [Google Scholar]
- Khan, I.S.; Ahmad, M.O.; Majava, J. Industry 4.0 and sustainable development: A systematic mapping of triple bottom line, Circular Economy and Sustainable Business Models perspectives. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 297, 126655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dessein, J.; Soini, K.; Fairclough, G.; Horlings, L. (Eds.) Culture in, for and as Sustainable Development: Conclusions from the COST Action IS1007 Investigating Cultural Sustainability; University of Jyväskylä: Jyväskylä, Finland, 2015; Available online: http://www.culturalsustainability.eu/conclusions.pdf (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Tetzlaff, E.J.; Goggins, K.A.; Pegoraro, A.L.; Dorman, S.C.; Pakalnis, V.; Eger, T.R. Safety Culture: A Retrospective Analysis of Occupational Health and Safety Mining Reports. Safe Health Work 2020, 12, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naji, G.M.A.; Isha, A.S.N.; Mohyaldinn, M.E.; Leka, S.; Saleem, M.S.; Rahman, S.M.N.B.S.A.; Alzoraiki, M. Impact of safety culture on safety performance; mediating role of psychosocial hazard: An integrated modelling approach. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 8568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Otitolaiye, V.O.; Abd Aziz, F.S.; Munauwar, M.; Omer, F. The Relationship Between Organizational Safety Culture and Organization Safety Performance. The Mediating Role of Safety Management System. Int. J. Occup. Safe Health 2021, 11, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Naji, G.M.A.; Isha, A.S.N.; Alazzani, A.; Saleem, M.S.; Alzoraiki, M. Assessment of the mediating role of safety communication between the safety culture and the safety level of employees. Front. Public Health 2022, 10, 840281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mavroulidis, M.; Vouros, P.; Fotiadis, S.; Konstantakopoulou, F.; Fountoulakis, G.; Nikolaou, I.; Evangelinos, K. Occupational health and safety of multinational construction companies through evaluation of corporate social responsibility reports. J. Safe Res. 2022, 81, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Hajmohammad, S.; Vachon, S. Safety culture: A catalyst for sustainable development. J. Bus. Ethics 2014, 123, 263–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, R.; Mishra, D.K. An analysis of thematic structure of research trends in occupational health and safety concerning safety culture and environmental management. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 281, 125346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.K.; Park, S. An analysis of the effects of occupational accidents on corporate management performance. Safe Sci. 2020, 138, 105228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, C.H.; Liu, Y.J. Omnidirectional safety culture analysis and discussion for railway industry. Safe Sci. 2012, 50, 1196–1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gembalska-Kwiecień, A. Fundamentals of an effective corporate safety culture. Ekonomia i Prawo. Econ. Law 2017, 16, 401–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ismail, S.N.; Ramli, A.; Aziz, H.A. Influencing factors on safety culture in mining industry: A systematic literature review approach. Resour. Policy 2021, 74, 102250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, Q.; Jin, R. Multilevel safety culture and climate survey for assessing new safety program. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 139, 805–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boughaba, A.; Hassane, C.; Roukia, O. Safety Culture Assessment in Petro-chemical Industry: A Comparative Study of Two Algerian Plants. Safe Health Work. 2014, 5, 60–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sukadarin, E.H.; Suhaimi, N.S.; Abdull, N. Preliminary study of the safety culture in a manufacturing industry. Int. J. Hum. Soc. Sci. 2012, 2, 176–183. [Google Scholar]
- Goodarzi, R.; Arghami, S.; Pouyakian, M. Identification of factors affecting safety culture in Iranian thermal power plants. J. Occup. Hyg. Eng. 2016, 3, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mazloumi, A.; Toori, G.; Garosi, E.; Jalaldehi, P.A. Proposing a customized model of safety culture and behavior in a car manufacturing company. Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 2018, 10, 165–171. [Google Scholar]
- Derqui, B. Towards sustainable development: Evolution of corporate sustainability in multinational firms. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 2712–2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Warfield, J.N. Toward Interpretation of Complex Structural Models. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 1974, SMC-4, 405–417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, R.; Goel, P. Exploring the domain of interpretive structural modelling (ISM) for sustainable future panorama: A bibliometric and content analysis. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2022, 29, 2781–2810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ai, X.; Hu, Y.; Chen, G. A systematic approach to identifying the hierarchical structure of accident factors with gray relations. Safe Sci. 2014, 63, 83–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, P.; Li, Q.; Bian, J.; Song, L.; Xiahou, X. Using interpretative structural modeling to identify critical success factors for safety management in subway construction: A China study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.; Liu, X.; Qin, Y.; Huang, J.; Liu, Y. Assessing contributory factors in potential systemic accidents using AcciMap and integrated fuzzy ISM–MICMAC approach. Int. J. Ind. Ergon 2018, 68, 311–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xu, X.; Shi, J. Research on the factors affecting safety behavior based on interpretative structural modeling. Clust. Comput. 2019, 22, 5315–5322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, X.; Zhang, C.; Deng, J.; Su, C.; Gao, Z. Analysis of Factors Influencing Miners’ Unsafe Behaviors in Intelligent Mines using a Novel Hybrid MCDM Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 7368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sushil, S. Interpreting the Interpretive Structural Model. Glob. J. Flex. Syst. Manag. 2012, 13, 87–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agrawal, N.M. Modeling Deming’s quality principles to improve performance using interpretive structural modeling and MICMAC analysis. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manag. 2019, 36, 1159–1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godet, M. From Anticipation to Action: A Handbook of Strategic Prospective; UNESCO Publishing: Paris, France, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- Jiang, X.; Lu, K.; Xia, B.; Liu, Y.; Cui, C. Using Integrated FISM-MICMAC Approach. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salih, M.M.; Zaidan, B.B.; Zaidan, A.A.; Ahmed, M.A. Survey on fuzzy TOPSIS state-of-the-art between 2007 and 2017. Comput. Oper. Res. 2019, 104, 207–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Çelikbilek, Y.; Tüysüz, F. An in-depth review of theory of the TOPSIS method: An experimental analysis. J. Manag. Anal. 2020, 7, 281–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.T. Extensions of the TOPSIS for group decision-making under fuzzy environment. Fuzzy Sets Syst. 2000, 114, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Awasthi, A.; Chauhan, S.S.; Omrani, H. Application of fuzzy TOPSIS in evaluating sustainable transportation systems. Expert Syst. Appl. 2011, 38, 12270–12280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mohsin, M.; Zhang, J.; Saidur, R.; Sun, H.; Sait, S.M. Economic assessment and ranking of wind power potential using fuzzy-TOPSIS approach. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2019, 26, 22494–22511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moslehpour, M.; Chau, K.Y.; Tu, Y.T.; Nguyen, K.L.; Barry, M.; Reddy, K.D. Impact of corporate sustainable practices, government initiative, technology usage, and organizational culture on automobile industry sustainable performance. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 2022, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IFC/World Bank Group. Environmental and Social Risk by Industry Sector. Available online: https://firstforsustainability.org/risk-management/risk-by-industry-sector/ (accessed on 1 July 2022).
- Stryjakiewicz, T.; Kudłak, R.; Gadziński, J.; Kołsut, B.; Dyba, W.; Kisiała, W. Czasoprzestrzenna analiza rynku nowych samochodów osobowych w Polsce. Pract. Kom. Geogr. Przemysłu Pol. Tow. Geogr. 2017, 31, 64–79. (In Polish) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nunes, B.; Bennett, D. Green operations initiatives in the automotive industry: An environmental reports analysis and benchmarking study. Benchmark. Int. J. 2010, 17, 396–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders UK Automotive Sustainability Report, 2018. Available online: https://www.smmt.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/SMMT-Sustainability-Report-2018-1.pdf (accessed on 5 October 2018).
- Cioca, L.I.; Ivascu, L.; Turi, A.; Artene, A.; Găman, G.A. Sustainable development model for the automotive industry. Sustainability 2019, 11, 6447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szász, L.; Csíki, O.; Rácz, B.G. Sustainability management in the global automotive industry: A theoretical model and survey study. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2021, 235, 108085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lukin, E.; Krajnović, A.; Bosna, J. Sustainability Strategies and Achieving SDGs: A Comparative Analysis of Leading Companies in the Automotive Industry. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, J.D. Automotive System Safety: Critical Considerations for Engineering and Effective Management; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Petruni, A.; Giagloglou, E.; Douglas, E.; Geng, J.; Leva, M.C.; Demichela, M. Applying Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to choose a human factors technique: Choosing the suitable Human Reliability Analysis technique for the automotive industry. Safe Sci. 2019, 119, 229–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajpradeesh, T.; Saravanamani, M.; Manikandan, R.; Venkumar, P. Risk Assessment of Machining and Assembly Line in Automotive Industry. In Advances in Materials Research; Kumaresan, G., Shanmugam, N.S., Dhinakaran, V., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 5, pp. 263–275. [Google Scholar]
- Ismail, F.; Ahmad, N.; Janipha, N.A.I.; Ismail, R. The behavioural factors’ characteristics of safety culture. J. Asian Behav. Stud. 2017, 2, 91–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tappura, S.; Jääskeläinen, A.; Pirhonen, J. Creation of satisfactory safety culture by developing its key dimensions. Safe Sci. 2022, 154, 105849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al-Bayati, A.J. Impact of Construction Safety Culture and Construction Safety Climate on Safety Behavior and Safety Motivation. Safety 2021, 7, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Castro, B.L.; Gracia, F.J.; Tomás, I.; Peiró, J.M. The Safety Culture Enactment Questionnaire (SCEQ): Theoretical model and empirical validation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 103, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fleming, M.; Harvey, K.; Bowers, K.C. Development and testing of a nuclear regulator safety culture perception survey. Safe Sci. 2022, 153, 105792. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Corrigan, S.; Kay, A.; Ryan, M.; Ward, M.E.; Brazil, B. Human factors and safety culture: Challenges and opportunities for the port environment. Safe Sci. 2019, 119, 252–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, N.; Ahmad, I.; Ilyas, M. Impact of Ethical Leadership on Organizational Safety Performance: The Mediating Role of Safety Culture and Safety Consciousness. Ethics Behav. 2018, 289, 628–643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shuen, Y.S.; Wahab, S.R.A. The mediating effect of safety culture on safety communication and human factor accident at the workplace. Asian Soc. Sci. 2016, 12, 127–141. [Google Scholar]
- Lomonaco, G.; Mainardi, E.; Marková, T.; Mazzini, G. Approaching Nuclear Safety Culture in Fission and Fusion Technology. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 4511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suprapto, V.H.; Pujawan, I.N.; Dewi, R.S. Effects of human performance improvement and operational learning on organizational safety culture and occupational safety and health management performance. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kirkegaard, M.L.; Kines, P.; Jeschke, K.; Jensen, K.A. Risk Perceptions and Safety Cultures in the Handling of Nanomaterials in Academia and Industry. Ann. Work. Expo. Health 2020, 64, 479–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Noort, M.C.; Reader, T.W.; Shorrock, S.; Kirwan, B. The relationship between national culture and safety culture: Implications for international safety culture assessments. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2016, 89, 515–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rajaram, S.; Sivakumar, G.D. Assessment of safety culture in fireworks industry. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2022, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zwetsloot, G.; Leka, S.; Kines, P. Vision zero: From accident prevention to the promotion of health, safety and well-being at work. Policy Pract. Health Saf. 2017, 15, 88–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kiyantaj, R.; Ramezani, A.; Amrolahi, N. The Correlation Relationship between Concepts of Learning Organization and Safety Culture in Iran’s Nuclear and Radiological Industries. J. Health Saf. Work. 2022, 12, 160–175. [Google Scholar]
- Christian, M.S.; Bradley, J.C.; Wallace, J.C.; Burke, M.J. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1103–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biddison, E.L.; Paine, L.; Murakami, P.; Herzke, C.; Weaver, S.J. Associations between safety culture and employee engagement over time: A retrospective analysis. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2016, 25, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Job, A.; Silva, I.; Moreira, T. Test of a safety culture model from a management perspective. Rev. Bras. Gestão Negócios 2020, 22, 250–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Biggs, S.E.; Banks, T.D.; Davey, J.D.; Freeman, J.E. Safety leaders’ perceptions of safety culture in a large Australasian construction organisation. Safe Sci. 2013, 52, 3–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deepak, M.D.; Mahesh, G. Developing a knowledge-based safety culture instrument for construction industry: Reliability and validity assessment in Indian context. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2019, 26, 2597–2613. [Google Scholar]
- Deepak, M.D.; Mahesh, G. A framework for enhancing construction safety through knowledge-based safety culture indicators. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2022, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berglund, J. After Fukushima: Safety culture and fostering critical thinking. Safe Sci. 2020, 124, 104613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Viitanen, K.; Airola, M.; Gotcheva, N. Effective Improvement of Leadership and Safety Culture–Intermediate Report; VTT Research Report No. VTT-R-00545-22; VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland: Espoo, Finland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- Marquardt, N.; Hoebel, M.; Lud, D. Safety culture transformation—The impact of training on explicit and implicit safety attitudes. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2021, 31, 191–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phusavat, K.; Vongvitayapirom, B.; Kess, P.; Lin, B. Safety management system in automotive and energy industries. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. 2017, 34, 569–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meng, Q.; Liu, W.; Li, Z.; Hu, X. Influencing Factors, Mechanism and Prevention of Construction Workers’ Unsafe Behaviors: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 2644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Osman, A.; Khalid, K.; AlFqeeh, F.M. Exploring the role of safety culture factors towards safety behaviour in small-medium enterprise. Int. J. Entrep. 2019, 23, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
- Staehle, I.O.; Chung, T.S.; Stopin, A.; Vadehra, G.S.; Hsieh, S.I.; Gibson, J.H.; Garcia-Garibay, M.A. An approach to enhance the safety culture of an academic chemistry research laboratory by addressing behavioral factors. J. Chem. Educ. 2016, 93, 217–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aburumman, M.; Newnam, S.; Fildes, B. Evaluating the effectiveness of workplace interventions in improving safety culture: A systematic review. Safe Sci. 2019, 115, 376–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Godet, M.; Durance, P. Strategic Foresight for Corporate and Regional Development; DUNOD–UNESCO–Fondation Prospective et Innovation: Paris, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, S.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, U. Modelling factors affecting human operator failure probability in railway maintenance tasks: An ISM-based analysis. Int. J. Syst. Assur. Eng. Manag. 2015, 6, 129–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Srisathan, W.A.; Ketkaew, C.; Naruetharadhol, P. The intervention of organizational sustainability in the effect of organizational culture on open innovation performance: A case of thai and chinese SMEs. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2020, 7, 1717408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Linnenluecke, M.K.; Griffiths, A. Corporate sustainability and organizational culture. J. World Bus. 2020, 45, 357–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Najjar, R. Four dimensional spatial sustainability (4DSS): A revolutionary approach toward utopian sustainability. Discov. Sustain. 2022, 3, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soini, K.; Dessein, J. Culture-sustainability relation: Towards a conceptual framework. Sustainability 2016, 8, 167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Froner, Y.-A. International policies for sustainable development from cultural empowerment. J. Cult. Herit. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2017, 7, 208–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gitelman, L.D.; Kozhevnikov, M.V.; Chebotareva, G.S. Strategic intelligence of an organization amid uncertainty. Int. J. Energy Prod. Manag. 2021, 6, 294–305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Siuta, D.; Kukfisz, B.; Kuczyńska, A.; Mitkowski, P.T. Methodology for the Determination of a Process Safety Culture Index and Safety Culture Maturity Level in Industries. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 2668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Safety Culture Factors/Aspects | Author/s |
---|---|
(1) Top management commitment; (2) safety manager commitment; (3) worker commitment; (4) safety supervisor competence; (5) worker knowledge and experience; (6) worker empowerment; (7) safety communication; (8) safety incentive program; (9) incident reporting system; (10) housekeeping | [20] |
(1) Management commitment; (2) communication; (3) rewards and recognition; (4) trust between managers and employees; (5) employee engagement; (6) education on OHS; (7) employees’ competences; (8) attitudes towards OHS regulations; (9) analysis of accidents; (10) monitoring employees’ behavior | [21] |
(1) Psychological: safety attitude, peer influence, safety knowledge, perception of risk; (2) situational: safety rules, accident and incident, reporting, working environment, job satisfaction; (3) behavioral: management commitment, safety commitment, ownership of safety, safety training, safety communication, reward and recognition, safety investment, worker’s competencies | [61] |
(1) Workplace safety perception; (2) safety implementation; (3) status of safety committee; (4) accountability of work; (5) worker involvement; (6) workers’ safety perception; (7) safety priority over other goals; (8) safety investigation; (9) safety policy; (10) rules and procedures; (11) risk assessment; (12) employee attitude toward safety; (13) safety communication; (14) safety training; (15) safety compliance and management commitment. | [62] |
(1) Safety communication; (2) safety incentives; (3) safety manager’s attitude; (3) safety manager’s behavior; (4) safety compliance; (5) safety policy; (6) safety participation; (7) safety rules and procedures; (8) safety training; (9) safety worker’s involvement | [63] |
(1) Safety management system and procedure; (2) management commitment; (3) safety attitudes; (4) workmate’s influences; (5) employee’s involvement; (6) safety knowledge; (7) safety behavior | [64] |
(1) Training, briefing and competency; (2) vision, leadership and commitment; (3) law, rules and work procedures; (4) safety and crisis management; (5) individual agents; (6) management style and organizational communication; (7) participation and commitment of personnel, supervisors and middle management; (8) non-organizational agents; (9) making available foundations and source management. | [65] |
(1) Management system: participation, safety mind, communication and information exchange, leadership, safety education, safety laws and regulations; (2) individual factors: knowledge, motivation, attitude, lifestyle, competence, responsibility, expert knowledge and skill; (3) organizational factors: production speed and timing, equipment, facilities, and technology, sources. | [66] |
Linguistic Terms | Abbreviation | TFN |
---|---|---|
Very low important | VL | (0, 0, 0.1) |
Low important | L | (0, 0.1, 0.3) |
Medium low | ML | (0.1, 0.3, 0.5) |
Medium Important | M | (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) |
Medium high | MH | (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) |
High important | H | (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) |
Very high important | VH | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) |
Linguistic Terms | Abbreviation | TFN |
---|---|---|
Very poor | VP | (0, 0, 1) |
Poor | P | (0, 1, 3) |
Medium poor | MP | (1, 3, 5) |
Fair | F | (3, 5, 7) |
Medium good | MG | (5, 7, 9) |
Good | G | (7, 9, 10) |
Very good | VG | (9, 10, 10) |
Sustainability Issues | Automotive | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Metal Products and Machinery | Related Sectors | ||||
Iron, Steel and Other Metals | Electronic Products | Precision Instruments | |||
Energy | M | H | M | M | |
Water use | M | M | M | M | |
Emission to water | H | M | H | H | |
Waste | H | H | M | M | |
Emission to Air | M | H | M | M | |
Ecosystems | L | L | L | L | |
Workplace health and safety | M | H | L | L | |
Disaster risk | M | M | L | L | |
Scoring rating: | High risk issue | Medium risk issue | Low risk issue |
No. | Name of the Factor | Description | References |
---|---|---|---|
F1 | Management commitment | This commitment can be manifested in the positive attitudes toward the activities relating to safety management and in the behaviours visible to the workers | [14,20,21,43,51,52,61,64,95,96,97,98,99,100,101] |
F2 | Communication | Transfer of information to employees about the possible risks in the workplace and the correct way to combat them. | [10,20,21,61,62,63,96,102,103,104] |
F3 | Rewards and Recognition | Fair incentive and feedback system that encourages employees to work safely | [20,21,38,51,61,97,104,105,106] |
F4 | Trust between managers and employees | Managers treat employees with respect, keep their promises and encourage mutual trust and support. Employees respect the orders of their superiors and follow their recommendations | [21,51,107,108] |
F5 | Employee engagement | Orientation towards active participation in safety. The workforce is engaged when individuals promote safe behaviors and actively reduce workplace hazards | [52,63,96,104,109,110,111,112] |
F6 | Education on OHS | Health and safety training, which are adapted to the specifics of the work (on-the-job training) and hazards occurring at the workplace. In addition, promoting safe behaviour through educational campaigns, posters and practical exercises | [20,52,63,65,66,95,97,113,114,115,116] |
F7 | Employees’ competences | Competence refers to the knowledge, skills and attitudes that are essential to the successful completion of a task. | [20,21,51,61,65,66,96,106,117,118] |
F8 | Attitudes towards OHS regulations | A sense of personal responsibility for the safety of each employee, attitude to health and safety regulations and compliance with them. | [14,20,21,62,63,66,95,112,115] |
F9 | Reporting and analysis of accidents | Reporting accidents and near misses and their analysis, taking into account the causes and effects of accidents, initiating corrective and preventive actions. | [20,21,38,61,97,99,113,119] |
F10 | Monitoring employees’ behavior | Monitoring the state of safety and supervision over the way work is performed (e.g., the use of protection measures and detection of potential problems). | [21,64,95,97,102,113,120,121,122,123] |
F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V | V |
F2 | - | V | X | X | X | V | A | A | X |
F3 | - | - | V | O | X | V | X | O | O |
F4 | - | - | - | V | V | X | X | X | O |
F5 | - | - | - | - | O | X | O | O | V |
F6 | - | - | - | - | - | V | V | V | V |
F7 | - | - | - | - | - | - | V | O | V |
F8 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | O | O |
F9 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | V |
Factors | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | Driving Power |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 |
F2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 | 9 |
F3 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 0 | 6 |
F4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 * | 8 |
F5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 * | 1 * | 1 * | 6 |
F6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 |
F7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 |
F8 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
F9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 |
F10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Dependence | 1 | 7 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 5 | 7 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 61 |
Factors | R(ti)—Reachability Set | A(ti)—Antecedent Set | R(ti) ∩ A(ti) | Level |
---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | 1 | 1 | VII |
F2 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 | VII |
F3 | 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 | 1, 2, 3, 6, 8 | 3, 6, 8 | VI |
F4 | 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 | 2, 4, 7, 8, 9 | V |
F5 | 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 | 2, 5, 7 | IV |
F6 | 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 | 2, 3, 6 | III |
F7 | 4, 5, 7, 8, 10 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 | 4, 5, 7 | II |
F8 | 3, 4, 8 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 | 3, 4, 8 | I |
F9 | 2, 4, 9, 10 | 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9 | 2, 4, 9 | II |
F10 | 2, 10 | 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 | 2, 10 | I |
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
F2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
F3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
F4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
F5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
F6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 |
F7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
F8 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
F9 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
F10 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | F6 | F7 | F8 | F9 | F10 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | 0 | 2947 | 2959 | 4051 | 2603 | 1876 | 3770 | 6007 | 5319 | 6727 |
F2 | 0 | 2544 | 2530 | 3451 | 2205 | 1586 | 3190 | 5144 | 4515 | 5748 |
F3 | 0 | 1805 | 1761 | 2433 | 1570 | 1176 | 2364 | 3660 | 3301 | 3914 |
F4 | 0 | 1843 | 1772 | 2457 | 1593 | 1135 | 2359 | 3717 | 3296 | 4171 |
F5 | 0 | 1508 | 1407 | 1934 | 1278 | 911 | 1831 | 2931 | 2546 | 3215 |
F6 | 0 | 1829 | 1736 | 2350 | 1533 | 1109 | 2212 | 3570 | 3105 | 3872 |
F7 | 0 | 948 | 921 | 1246 | 841 | 591 | 1163 | 1898 | 1647 | 2121 |
F8 | 0 | 787 | 835 | 1078 | 707 | 530 | 1003 | 1595 | 1433 | 1705 |
F9 | 0 | 783 | 771 | 1022 | 716 | 524 | 1032 | 1584 | 1444 | 1695 |
F10 | 0 | 507 | 478 | 624 | 422 | 319 | 650 | 1016 | 922 | 1044 |
No | Criteria |
---|---|
C1 | Decries risk in the workplace |
C2 | Safety consciousness |
C3 | Pro-environmental—behavior |
C4 | Waste reduction |
C5 | Productivity |
DM | Criteria | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | |
DM1 | VH | VH | VH | MH | M |
DM2 | H | VH | VH | VH | M |
DM3 | VH | VH | VH | H | VH |
DM | Criteria | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | |
DM1 | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.5, 0.7, 0.9) | (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) |
DM2 | (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.3, 0.5, 0.7) |
DM3 | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) | (0.7, 0.9, 1.0) | (0.9, 1.0, 1.0) |
Weight | (0.83, 0.97, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.7, 0.87, 0.97) | (0.5, 0.67, 0.8) |
DM | Factor | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | Factor | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
DM1 | F1 | G | VG | VG | G | G | F1 | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) |
F2 | VG | G | VG | G | G | F3 | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | |
F3 | F | F | G | VG | VG | F2 | (3, 5, 7) | (3, 5, 7) | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | |
F4 | G | G | F | F | G | F4 | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (3, 5, 7) | (3, 5, 7) | (7, 9, 10) | |
F6 | VG | VG | G | G | MG | F6 | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (5, 7, 9) | |
DM2 | F1 | G | VG | VG | G | G | F1 | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) |
F2 | VG | G | VG | G | G | F3 | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | |
F3 | G | VG | VG | VG | VG | F2 | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | |
F4 | G | G | G | F | G | F4 | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (3, 5, 7) | (7, 9, 10) | |
F6 | VG | VG | G | G | MG | F6 | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (5, 7, 9) | |
DM3 | F1 | VG | VG | VG | G | G | F1 | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) |
F2 | VG | G | VG | G | VG | F3 | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | |
F3 | VG | VG | VG | VG | VG | F2 | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | |
F4 | G | G | G | G | G | F4 | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | |
F6 | VG | VG | VG | G | G | F6 | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) |
Factor | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | (7.67, 9.33, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) |
F2 | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (7.67, 9.33, 10) |
F3 | (6.33, 8, 9) | (7, 8.33, 9) | (8.33, 9.67, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) |
F4 | (7, 9, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (5.67, 7.67, 9) | (4.33, 6.33, 8) | (7, 9, 10) |
F6 | (9, 10, 10) | (9, 10, 10) | (7.67, 9.33, 10) | (7, 9, 10) | (5.67, 7.67, 9.33) |
weight | (0.83, 0.97, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.7, 0.87, 0.97) | (0.5, 0.67, 0.8) |
Factor | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | (0.77, 0.93, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) |
F2 | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) | (0.77, 0.93, 1) |
F3 | (0.63, 0.8, 0.9) | (0.7, 0.83, 0.9) | (0.83, 0.97, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) |
F4 | (0.7, 0.9, 1) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) | (0.57, 0.77, 0.9) | (0.43, 0.63, 0.8) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) |
F6 | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.9, 1, 1) | (0.77, 0.93, 1) | (0.7, 0.9, 1) | (0.57, 0.77, 0.93) |
Factor | C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
F1 | (0.64, 0.9, 1) | (0.81, 1, 1) | (0.81, 1, 1) | (0.49, 0.78, 0.97) | (0.35, 0.6, 0.8) |
F2 | (0.75, 0.97, 1) | (0.63, 0.9, 1) | (0.81, 1, 1) | (0.49, 0.78, 0.97) | (0.38, 0.62, 0.8) |
F3 | (0.53, 0.77, 0.9) | (0.63, 0.83, 0.9) | (0.75, 0.97, 1) | (0.63, 0.87, 0.97) | (0.45, 0.67, 0.8) |
F4 | (0.58, 0.87, 1) | (0.63, 0.9, 1) | (0.51, 0.77, 0.9) | (0.3, 0.55, 0.77) | (0.35, 0.6, 0.8) |
F6 | (0.75, 0.97, 1) | (0.81, 1, 1) | (0.69, 0.93, 1) | (0.49, 0.78, 0.97) | (0.28, 0.51, 0.75) |
F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F6 | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1.21216 | 1.23105 | 1.31153 | 1.74415 | 1.28143 | |
4.12514 | 4.10746 | 3.94634 | 3.62371 | 4.05613 | |
0.77289 | 0.76940 | 0.75056 | 0.67508 | 0.75992 | |
Ranking | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 3 |
Rank | Original Rank | F1− | F1+ | F2− | F2+ | F3− | F3+ | F4− | F4+ | F5− | F5+ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | F1 | F2 | F1 | F1 | F2 | F1 | F3 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F6 |
2 | F2 | F6 | F2 | F6 | F1 | F2 | F1 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F1 |
3 | F6 | F3 | F6 | F3 | F6 | F6 | F2 | F6 | F6 | F3 | F2 |
4 | F3 | F1 | F3 | F2 | F3 | F3 | F6 | F3 | F3 | F6 | F3 |
5 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 |
Rank | Original Rank | C1− | C1+ | C2− | C2+ | C3− | C3+ | C4− | C4+ | C5− | C5+ |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 | F6 |
2 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 | F1 |
3 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 | F2 |
4 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 | F3 |
5 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 | F4 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, M.; Antosz, K.; Wyczółkowski, R.; Sławińska, M. Integrated Approach for Safety Culture Factor Evaluation from a Sustainability Perspective. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 11869. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph191911869
Jasiulewicz-Kaczmarek M, Antosz K, Wyczółkowski R, Sławińska M. Integrated Approach for Safety Culture Factor Evaluation from a Sustainability Perspective. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(19):11869. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph191911869
Chicago/Turabian StyleJasiulewicz-Kaczmarek, Małgorzata, Katarzyna Antosz, Ryszard Wyczółkowski, and Małgorzata Sławińska. 2022. "Integrated Approach for Safety Culture Factor Evaluation from a Sustainability Perspective" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 19: 11869. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/ijerph191911869