Muhammad Kashif Hassan, Amjad Hussain, Third C…………..Fourth D……….Fifth E…………
Organizational Safety
Sixth F. WaqarClimate - A Case Study of
Hassan, Keith Case

Comparing Two OHSAS Certified Food
Processing Plants

however there is no regulatory body that can ensure their
Abstract— Like developed countries, ‘Occupational Health implementation. Many multinational and local organizations
and Safety’ is a growing field in the developing. The aim of in Oil and Gas, Chemical, Food and Manufacturing sectors
current study is to determine the level of safety climate in food have implemented OHSAS 18001:2007 (Occupational Health
sector of Pakistan. This study has been conducted at two & Safety Management System) for ensuring health, safety and
different milk processing plants of the same organization, with wellbeing of workers; however, there are still many which are
different management and locations. Perception of production not certified and have not healthy working conditions. Food
line workers was captured through survey using questionnaire. sector of is one of the sectors in which safety awareness is
A pilot study has been carried out and data collection growing and firms are acquiring OHSAS 18001 certification.
instrument was redesigned to increase reliability of the OHSAS 18001:2007 Standard is an Occupational Health and
instrument. Response rate of the respondents was quite Safety Assessment Series for Health and Safety Management
encouraging as 226 out of 300 respondents replied back. Mean System in organizations [2]. OHSAS guidelines can be applied
scores of safety climate dimensions at plant A is 4.16 and plant for promoting safety culture and improving social image of the
B is 4.19 out of 5, which indicates good safety climate at both organization by adopting OHSAS certification, where ultimate
plants.Out of eight safety climate dimensions ‘safety training’ objective is to ensure human wellbeing by promoting safe and
and ‘safety priority over production’have low mean scores risk free work practices so that organizations can utilize their
which indicates need for improvement in these areas .Results human capital optimally. This standard provides complete
of independent sample t-test show that two dimensions guideline procedures for implementing safety in any
‘management commitment to safety’ and ‘safety priority over organization. It involves policy making, hazards identification
production’ differ significantly between two plants.Results and risk assessment, training, documentation, emergency
further conclude that out of 226 respondents only 01 preparedness, corrective and preventive actions [2].
respondent reported an accident during period of twelve Safety at work is determined through the assessment of
months, which was also an indication of good safety climate at ‘Safety Climate’ in that area. Safety Climate is defined as
both plants. ‘perceptions of employees about safety of their area’ [3].
Dedobbler and Blend (1991) have also defined safety as
‘perceptions of people about management actions regarding
Index Terms— OHSAS (Occupational health & safety assessment safety’ [4].Safety Climate measures attitude and perceptions of
series), Safety Climate, Occupational Health, Workplace Safety employees about safety in their work place and helps
management to design and improve their Occupational Health
I. INTRODUCTION Safety program. So through improvement in the attitude of
management and employees, safety climate can be improved.
ccupational Health & Safety is not only the concern of
developed countries but growing in developing countries Safety Climate includes areas as work practices, work style,
as well. Industrialized countries have much better operator training, and industrial hygiene, priority of safety
Occupational Health & Safety awareness than developing over pressure for production. [5][6].
countries [1]. Pakistan is also a developing country where In previous researches many dimensions of safety climate has
education and workforce unions are considered as barriers in been defined, such as management commitment, safety
promoting a true safety culture. FactoryAct1934 clearly training, safety communication, safety participation behavior
defines rules and regulations regarding workplace safety; etc. However, there is no consensus on which dimensions to
be included in safety climate study. [7][8][9][10]

First A. Muhammad Kashif Hassan, is post graduate student in UET Zohar (1980) who is considered as the major contributor, in
Lahore, Pakistan. the area of occupational safety research, concluded that
Second B. (Corresponding Author). Amjad Hussain, Assistant Professor,
Department of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering
‘management commitment’ is the major contributor in
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan occupational safety. Management Commitment includes role
(chamjad@gmail.com) of the organizational management in different aspects of safety
Third C such as safety policy, safety objectives, safety training, and
Fourth D
Fifth E
safety audits. This dimension is the key in studying safety
Sixth F. Waqar Hassan, BSc Chemical Engineering from climate in any organization and considered in multiple
UET Lahore, researches of safety climate. [10][12]
Seventh G. Keith Case, Professor, Wolfson School of Mechanical and Safety training is also one of the major factors which are
Manufacturing Engineering, Loughborough University, UK.
considered important for improving workplace safety. Safety
. training changes the behavior of people about safety. This

This aspect includes communication about hazards. . safety committee. however. Also there is need to explore the fact that what is selected for the final data collection. supervisor’s commitment has been given the statement it was given score of 5 and if he ticks on prime importance in previous researches [10].reported accidents. If in charge for implementing safety procedures at workplace. questionnaire which was tested in the pilot study.overall education level of workers communication’ has been used to measure safety climate of at both plants is same. disagree. 49 questions were organization. key contributor in measuring safety climate [8]. 2 includes the training of workforce regarding the use of safety equipment. safety climate. In the light of pilot study results. questionnaire was Accident rates in the organizations have been measured translated into local language (Urdu). complete disagree) was ‘Supervisor commitment’ to safety is also one of the prominent used to record extent of their agreement or disagreement of facts that influences safety climate. and safety climate dimensions in data file and required analysis of manufacturing and at offshore environments. final questionnaire was organization is assessed through the measurement of safety designed and distributed among production line workers of behaviors which are estimated quantitatively (using two different food processing plants. Initially.reliability. and production supervisors ignore safety as they want to meet their production commitments at any cost and for that purpose 2. safety performance (self-reported accidents).. climate dimensions.3 were dropped. Table 1 shows results of reliability testing of workers about safety. risks.Also plant B workers have more work with their safety environment which includes having experience than plant A.mean scores sector of Pakistan and limited dimensions (management calculation. whereas. Keeping in view the questionnaire) or by self. 3 questions which were the impact of adopting safety management certification having inter item correlations below 0. In current study statistical [16] has been done on occupational health and safety in food analysis of reliability. To find relationship between safety climate and behaviors towards safe work. ‘Safety communication’ plays a key role in the improvement of safety climate in organizations.So workers at both plantsA&B differ knowledge about hazards. ‘safety of theses were graduate also. Keeping in view previous researches a [8] [9]. measure of organizational safety climate and measured quantitatively by using questionnaire and multiple researches 3. construction. and safety practices. emergency procedures. The following objectives were set for this study Safety and Production are two key aspects that run parallel in 1. To compare the difference in safety climate in they usually violate safety procedures. Safety training has been used as a factor to assess safety climate of II. policies and objectives In order to achieve above mentioned objectives study was etc.Recruitment citeria at both communication about incidents.independent sample t-test have been done using commitment.OBJECTIVES AND METHODOLOGY organizations [5] [11]. which (OHSAS18001:2007) on different plants in terms of also improved cronbach’s alpha values of safety climate improving safety culture. research was done using analyze command.In this of safety climate which have been done internationally [4] [8] software data file was prepared by entering mean scores of [9][12] [15] are mostly done on chemical. near misses are given from plants(A&B) is DAE(Diplmoa of associate engineers) but few workers to management.SPSS V20 is a statistical software package used for It is clear from the literature review. Previously. ‘completely disagree’ with the statement it was given score of It is evident from the literature that safety performance of any 1. [8][10][12] software.correlation.[8] [10] [12] education level of production line workers. questionnaire was developed and a pilot study (on 38 workers) ‘Safeness of work environment’ involves the level of risk and was conducted to check reliability of the data collection hazards and their impact on workers and has been used as a instrument.mean scores calculation and difference to explore food sectors safety climate. Like other dimensions.Most of the workers in Plant B are in the organizations [7] [13]. as supervisor is the direct worker’s perceptions about safety in the organization. To find out the correlations among different safety [12][13] have explored the role of work pressure on safety.George and . Communication about hazards. linked with the perception of dimensions. so that they can through self-reported accidents using questionnaire rather than understand and conveniently reply to the questions. respondent ticks on ‘completely agree’ with the question Like others. Five point likert scale (complete agree. agree. [8][11]. risks and use of safety equipment in age and experience. 52 questions were designed and management) have been explored with in a single distributed in the pilot study. Relaibility data collected from organizations or regulatory authorities testing of questionnaire was done using SPPS V20 because of reliability factor. policies and objectives is carrired out on two milk processing plants at different initiated by management and delivered to workers. province of the country. To develop an instrument to measure safety climate industries as in order to achieve production targets workers in food industry and to check it’s reliability. nether agree/nor disagree. ‘Workers attitude towards safety’ is the feelings of workers about necessity of safety at their work which drives their 4. age of 30-35 years while in Plant A most of the workers are ‘Safety Knowledge’ involves the level of awareness of workers with in the age of 18-25. In multiple studies “Safety priority over production” has also been used as a different food processing plants. risk this software. so there is need correlation. those previous researches data analysis in social science and natural sciences.

signatures etc. response of the workers has been priority over production’ have cronbach’s alpha value of 0. TABLE1 SHOWING RESULTS OF RELIABLITY ANALYSIS OF INSTRUMENT TABLE2 S.912 so according to above III. Table 2 shows mean values of the reliable. shows that workers have more difference of opinion about this factor.3597 0.68031 Safety Good Safety priority over A 121 4. plants and 226 responses were received (121 from plant A and The highest agreement is seen in factors like management 105 from plant B).Table 1 shows that Supervisor Excellent most of the dimesnsions of questionnaire have cronbach’s 8 7 0. 3 Merly(2003) defined the rule of thumb to determine reliability environment of questionnaire[17]. which show that workers at plant B have more diversified opinion about safety climate in the organization.720 knowledge towards safety B 105 4.624 recorded by using a five point likert scale (strongly agree.7 so their reliability is ‘Good’. one value which is less than 4 at plant B is ‘safety priority there were no questions about personal information like name. there is only (Plant B) respondents.55428 5 6 0.1132 0. Total Cronbach Reliability SHOWING MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF SAFETY Dimension CLIMATE DIMENSIONS OF PLANT A&B NO items ’s alpha Management Good Sample 1 commitment to 12 0.6 so questionnaire is strongly disagreement.57714 7 Work 4 0. over production’.86. that standard deviation values for plant B data are on the higher side as compared with plant A.624 B 105 4. their organization gives analysis purpose. which shows that workers at plant B feel designation.899 Standard Dimensions Plant Size Mean safety Deviation (N) 2 Safety training 4 0. relatively less priority to safety.805 towards safety B 105 4.63606 over production safety Workers attitude Good Safety training A 121 4. neither agree nor disagree. and it’s relability stands in acceptable range.46104 6 6 0.Questions in ‘safety As mentioned previously.912 commitment alpha value greater than 0.763 Good A 121 4. .58849 4 6 0. The highest variation has been seen in ‘supervisors commitment’. which show that over all workplace improvement and finally how to record their safety climate is good at both plants – means worker’s response. how this can be used for dimensions are near or above 4.2835 0. However.3104 0. it can be noted from table 2. environment safeness also worker’s perception about safety is out of which we have collected data of 121 (plant A) and 105 comparatively more positive at plant B. disagree and strongly reliability testing in table 1 shows that no dimension has disagree) where 5 shows strongly agreement and 1 shows cronbach alpha value below 0.0612 0. Total 300 questionnaires were distributed at both perception about workplace safety is significantly positive. Interestingly.52293 .8643 0.0967 0.716 communication production B 105 3. workers attitude towards safety and work 75%.0333 0. To maintain confidentiality of the data. where overall response rate was about commitment. SPSS V20 has been used for data that during high production load.75402 Safety Good Workers attitude A 121 4. RESULTS mentioned rule it’s reliability is excellent.Questions included in ‘supervisor commitment’ have cronbach’s alpha value of 0. Plant A and B have 310 and 210 workers respectively.746 Good Management A 121 4.56774 Safety priority Acceptable commitment to 3 4 0.After finalizing questionnaire final study was carried responses against all eight dimensions of safety climate out at both plants and questionnaires were personally included in this research at plant A (121 respondents) and distributed among the workers where they were briefed about plant B (105 respondents). which still shows an inclination towards positive agreement. and on the basis of this rule of thumb safeness results of reliability have shown in table 1.1231 0.these results of agree. As the value is 3. Mean value of all the eight the objectives of this research.

042. Highest positive correlation exists between ‘safety comparisons of both plants (A&B).086.05) management and through supervisors changes ‘workers .711.safety training’( exist between ‘workers attitude towards safety’ and ‘safety t  0.workers knowledge (t  0.645.743. t  0.Data gathered through questionnaire was also compared with the accident log book of both plants.05) .696. Out of eight safety ‘safety communication’ in these plants has increased ‘workers climate dimensions ‘Management commitment to safety’( knowledge’ about safety.54702 B 105 4. 207.2174 0.No respondent from sample of 105 respondents of plantB reported even a single accident.279  0.In this analysis mean scores of the safety climate dimensions are put in data file and pearson’s correlation command is run.safety priority over communication’ (r  0.442. p  0.01) (t  0.798  0.59240 Supervisor A 121 4.Table 3 shows correlation among variables and shows that all the variables have positive correlation with each with in the significance level of 0.345.299  0.259.05 ).750  0. In order to determine the safety performance of two plants question about self reported accidents was added in the questionnaire.1298 0.000  0. priority over production’ have p-value less than 0. p  0.safety communication (t  1.01) which indicates that good dimensions at 95% confidence interval.000  0. p  0. 028  0 .05 which means these SAFETY CLIMATE six dimensions do not differ significantly among two plants(Plant A & Plant B).50511 safeness B 105 4.65286 Work environment A 121 4. Results from Table 4 communication’ and ‘workers knowledge’ shows that significance values (p values) of safety climate ( r  0.supervisor which indicates that ‘management commitment to safety’ has commitment (t  0.015  0.0968 0. p  0.01.05) between ‘management commitment to safety’ and ‘workers .05) two least positive impact on ‘workers attitude towards safety’ as dimensions ‘Management commitment to safety’ & ‘safety compared other dimensions.This positive correlation among these eight dimensions is An independent sample t-test was performed to compare the indication that all these eight dimensions are interrelated to whether mean values of all eight dimensions of both plants each other and are measuring safety climate in similar (A&B) differs significantly or not? Table 3 shows results of direction.workers indicates that good ‘safety communication’ from top attitude towards safety (t  1. p  0.wheteher respondent has suffered an accidents during period of one year or not?and what is the time lost during this accident? From the data gathered only one repondent from sample of 121 respondents of plantA reported an accident.1612 0.05 which means ‘Management commitment to safety’ and ‘Safety priority over production’ differs significantly among two TABLE 3 plants(Plant A & Plant B) other six dimensions have SHOWING CORRELATIONS AMONG EIGHT DIMENSIONS OF significant value(p-value) greater than 0. p  0.425  0.05) attitude towards safety’ Weak positive correlation exist . Second strong positive correlation t  2. p  0. p  0.01) which production (t  2 .000  0. p  0.89831 Pearson’s correlations were dertmined using SPSS V20 statistical software package in order to find out the impact of safety climate dimensions on each other. 05) . TABLE4 .As mentioned earlier that SPSS V20 is a statistical package that is used in this study for data analysis.320.work environment safeness attitude towards safety’ ( r  0.487  0.2031 0.05 ). p  0. 4 Safety B 105 4.61804 communication Workers knowledge A 121 4.59912 commitment B 105 4.3619 0.3430 0.

Journal of Safety Research. (2005.org/professionalsafety/pastissues/050/04/0104 Comparison of the mean values of safety climate dimensions 05as. vol 26. safety climate has been measured by capturing workers response over eight factors. that safety climate at both plants is good as the mean score of still there is a need to explore how workplace safety at safety climate is 4. and different factors of safety climate measurement are linked Available: with each other. vol 55.self-reported accidents. for plant A and B developing countries can be improved by exploring the respectively. Furthermore. pp 745-758. However. 1980 plants are at two different locations. chemical processing industries. PP 96-102. Journal of Applied ‘safety priority over production’ are different. are Requirements.N and Blend. There are two at their workplace’ was measured by using a five point likert factors that are needed further improvement. “Safety climate in force their workforce to adopt such procedures that can lead OHSAS 18001 certified organizations: antecedents and towards injuries. This further indicates the predictive validity of the instrument as good safety climate score means good safety performance which is indicated by self-reported accidents. further studies can be carried out to validate the reliability of instrument and measurement of safety climate in different industries like oil and gas.. pp 256-264. illnesses and accidents during and after their consequences of safety behavior”. As this research is limited to food industry. That 103.05 are marked with “*” indicating the diffrence between two Pakistan. Journal of Safety Research. It has been noted commitment’ and ‘safety priority over production’. These correlations also indicate [01] Micheal Findley and June Gorski.Zohar. Professional Safety. positive perception about safety practices at their workplace. they have different construction sites”.Fernandez and Joe.”Safety climate in industrial organizations: at two plants about ‘management commitment to safety’ and theoretical and applied implications”. As these two Psychology. in many organizations. shows a similar kind of worker’s perception. “Safety climate”. however. “management [02] Occupational health and safety management systems- commitment to safety & safety priority over production”. and manufacturing etc. The instrument developed for this research. The same instrument can be used in variety of industrial applications. validates the above statement as safety climate scores of both plants are good so very little IV. pp 97- management and producing different variety of products. For maintaining a good safety climate. These statistics are an indication of workers underlying factors associated with this. where relatively less committed Accident Analysis and Prevention. [06] Bosak Janine and Coetsee WJ and Cullinane Sarah-Jane. vol 45. This research has some limitations as well.19 and 4. management Prevention. 2013 supervisors can go for such practices that are less safe and [07] Beatirz. We may further [05] Coyel Ian R. “A safety climate measure of belong to the same company. http://www. all other six dimensions do not differ from each other. pp 247- however. ‘management scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree. REFERENCES where it has been found that all the factors are positively correlated with each other. although both plants [04] Dedobleer. Vol 22. say that although the safety climate overall score is fine. CONCLUSIONS number of ‘self-reported accidents’ has been found at both plants. 5 SHOWING RESULTS OF INDEPENDENT SAMPLES t-test must have to place ‘safety’ as the top priority in any kind of circumstances.OSH that good safety climate improves overall safety performance Disparities in developing countries. 2012 . industries of P<0.pdf for both plants shows that two dimensions. July 2007 different at two plants that indicates that workers perceptions [03] D. safety climate has a As mentioned earlier that ‘perception of workers about safety direct relationship with safety performance. Moreover.16 out of 5. Accident and Analysis work. these two factors should be taken up critically for 254. April).Manuel. ‘Safety priority over production’ is a quite common problem “Safety climate dimensions as predictor of risk behavior”. 1991 might be a possible cause for this difference.Stuart and David Sleeman and Neil Adams.asse. 1995 further improving the safety climate of the organization. Lesser number of accidents is an indication that safety procedures are practically followed during work. BSI standard. plants(A&B) is significant It can be concluded that workers of both the plants have positive perception about safety at their work. There is only one self-reported accident on plant A and no accident on plant B during period of previous one year which is the indication of the fact that good safety climate which is reflected in safety climate scores and also reflected through dependent variable . As we know that in this research. Vol 65(1).

Management continually reacts and takes actions on 26-Workers feel that complete knowledge of safety is outcomes of safety (accident rate). pp 659-667. pp 9-53 to workers. compulsory for them. 6 [08]Vindokumar N and Bhasi M. 239. 646. about safety. 2009 7.Management regularly conducts audits and climate practice in Korean manufacturing industry”. vol 7(3). chemical industry”. vol 159. management certification on safety management”.M. pp 634. complete disagree) has been used in the 21-Workers feel that safety is first priority for them and for questionnaire. Safety Science.Management continually assesses safety hazards and 25-Workers feel that to participate in safety training is risks in the organization.Management encourages suggestions of workers safety Climate perspective”. “A study of impact of safety accidents in their accident log books. Health & Safety Executive. Following are the for them. Vol 49. culture”. Safety Science. 2008 12. Management Commitment 24-Workers feel the responsibility to inform management about hazards and risks in their work area.In case of any accident management listens and its relationship with accidents and personal attributes in the investigates workers carefully. Journal of inspections in production areas. 2003. pp 233. agree. pp716-722. 1994 Safety priority over production [16] Saeed Rashid and Javeed Sara and Noor Nabeela and Ahamd Wasim and Hafiza Mubeen Muneer. Safety communication 4. 28-Workers are regularly informed about equipment and new hazards in their work area. journal of Loss Prevention in process industries. 1. vol 47. complete safety training. “Safety climate factors and 6. evidence from food industry”.Management provides complete equipment of safety edition.0 update”.Management encourages workers to register [12] Vindokumar. pp 49-52. urgent for them. their agreement or disagreement with the safety measures 22-Workers feel that to act upon safety rules is compulsory given below about each safety dimension. pp 498-507.Management takes effective countermeasures to about hazards and risks present in work environment. vol 34.Management rewards workers who are excellent in implementation of safety rules. Workers are instructed to record the extent of coworkers.“SPSS for windows step by step: workers to complete production by ignoring safety A simple guide and reference 11. “Evaluating 17-In safety training workers are trained to give priority occupational safety & health performance in Pakistan: to safety in every circumstance. pp 193-214. 27-Supervisors gives complete information to management 5. 2013 9. safeness of work environment in Korean manufacturing: The 8. vol 41. Items used in the questionnaire are given below and five point Worker’s attitude towards safety likert scale (complete agree. vol 30(6).IST 10. “Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire Intervals. disagree. pp 203-208. 20-Workers are advised to keep safety first daily before APPENDIX start of work. measures.4th edition. “Perspectives on safety regular intervals of time. . “Employee attitudes and safety in hazards and risks of working area. after regular intervals. Hazardous Materials. “Human and organizational factors in off shore safety”. “Safety 11. World Applied Science Journal. avoid repeating of accidents. “An analysis of do not save cost for betterment of safety. 3.Management continually uses better technology and [09] Know Oh Jun and Sun Kim Young. chemical industry”. 2. Boston: Allan & Bacon 19-Management punishes workers who ignore safety in order to complete production targets.Management guides workers about implementation of action plans on safety problems. items used in the questionnaire to assess safety climate 23-Workers help their coworkers to improve safety in their work area. 1997. 2011 Safety Training [13] Kines Pete and Lappalainen Jorma and Mikkelsen 13-Every worker is given safety training after regular Lyngby Kim. 2000 16-Safety training has complete information about [15] Donald I Canter D.Management reviews injury and accident records [10] Mearns K and Flin R and Fleming M and Gordon R. Safety Science. 14-New workers are not allowed to work without International Journal of industrial Ergonomics. [11] Bae Baek Jong and Bae Sejong and Singh Karan. nether agree/nor disagree. 2014 18-Management or supervisor do not put pressure on [17] George D and Mallery P. vol 53. 2011 15-Safety expertise of every worker is checked after [14] Glendon A I and Stanton N A.N and Bhasi. Safety Science. (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing safety climate”.

32-Workers completely shares better suggestions of safety with their top management.goggles . 48-Supervisor encourages suggestion of workers for betterment of safety. Safety Knowledge 33-Workers have complete knowledge of about use of safety equipment (gloves . 30-Workers inform each other about benefits of safety How much is your work experience? measures. 41-Workers feel safe about use of machines during work. Safeness of work environment 39-Machines and work environment have complete equipment (control switches. 40-Preventive maintenance of machines are done regularly to maintain their safety. 37-Workers have complete understanding of safety policy of the company. gloves. 36-Workers have complete knowledge about use of fire equipment in case of emergency. 34-Workers know complete procedure of emergency exit in work area. 35-Workers have complete knowledge of hazards and risks in their work place. 46-Supervisor guides workers in safety issues.helmets )in production area. Respondent’s information Have you suffered an accident during period of last twelve months? Yes No What was the absence time as a result of that accident/injury? a)One shift b) More than one day c)More than three days What is your age? . Supervisor commitment 43-Supervisor daily inspects safety of work area. . 7 29-Workers give complete information to management about hazards and risks in their work area. 31-Management informs workers about good practices of safety measures taken by other departments. 42-Complete safety equipment (shoes. 38-Workers know about safety targets of the company. safety dress) is present in work area. sensors. alarms) to control hazards in work place. 47-Supervisor regularly attends health and safety meetings. 44-Supervisor regularly assesses hazards and risks present in the work area. 49-Supervisor listens problems of safety and makes efforts for solutions. 45-Supercisor takes workers suggestions in hazards and risk assessment.