safety

Article
Relationship between Safety Climate and Safety Behavior in
Company X in Indonesia
Arief Hertanto 1 , Dadan Erwandi 2, *, Baiduri Widanarko 2 and Mila Tejamaya 2

1 Master Program of Occupational Health and Safety, Faculty of Public Health, University of Indonesia,
Depok 16424, West Java, Indonesia; [email protected]
2 Department of Occupational Health and Safety, Faculty of Public Health, University of Indonesia,
Depok 16424, West Java, Indonesia; [email protected] (B.W.); [email protected] (M.T.)
* Correspondence: [email protected] or [email protected]

Abstract: Throughout 2019–2021, there was a considerable rise in total work accident cases in
Indonesia, increasing from 210,789 to 234,370. According to the location of the incident, accident cases
in the workplace also escalated from 139,999 to 144,929. The purpose of this study was to measure
the maturity level of the safety climate at Company X in Indonesia and analyze its relationship with
safety behavior. This was a quantitative study on a total of 200 respondents using a questionnaire as
the data collection method. A structured questionnaire was used to capture the socio-demographic
characteristics of respondents, the safety climate, and safety behavior. Respondents participated in
this study by responding to the items in the questionnaire distributed. The findings of this study
indicated that the maturity level of the safety climate at Company X was at the adequate level with a
very strong relationship between the sub-dimensional variables and safety climate. The relationship
between safety climate and safety behavior was quite strong. This study emphasized that an increase
in the level of safety climate could improve safety behavior. Therefore, increasing safety climate level
is effective to reduce the incidence of occupational accidents.

Keywords: manufacturing company; occupational accident; workers

Citation: Hertanto, A.; Erwandi, D.;

Widanarko, B.; Tejamaya, M.
1. Introduction
Relationship between Safety Climate
and Safety Behavior in Company X
1.1. Background
in Indonesia. Safety 2023, 9, 89. Since the occurrence of major and catastrophic accidents in several industries, the appli-
https://doi.org/10.3390/ cation of occupational safety in industry has developed rapidly. Workers in manufacturing
safety9040089 industries often become the victims of work accidents due to personal, organizational,
and job factors. Personal factors include alcohol and drug consumption habits, financial
Academic Editor: Raphael
Grzebieta
situation, self-efficacy, discipline, compliance to rules, and over-optimism. Organizational
factors include communication consistency, cultural and safety climate, participation in
Received: 7 October 2023 decision making, employment stability, employee attitudes towards safety, job satisfaction,
Revised: 2 December 2023 and safety programs. Job factors include the manager’s attitude towards safety, work
Accepted: 8 December 2023 environment, and workload [1].
Published: 12 December 2023
The stress experienced by workers can also lead to risky behaviors, so a high number
of manufacturing industry workers often ignore safety procedures and regulations [2].
Currently, the success of the implementation of safety management in the company is no
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
longer judged by the decrease in accidents. However, it is assessed by the effectiveness of
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. safety management implementation. Safety management is also measured by how good
This article is an open access article the efforts towards safety are according to the members of the organization.
distributed under the terms and According to the data from the Ministry of Manpower of the Republic Indonesia, there
conditions of the Creative Commons were 131.05 million workers in Indonesia in 2021 [3]. This large number of workers will
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// become a valuable asset for the country’s development if these workers are excellent in
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ quality and productivity [4]. However, the number of work accidents in Indonesia is still
4.0/). very high and keeps increasing. Throughout 2019–2021, there was a considerable rise in

Safety 2023, 9, 89. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety9040089 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/safety

Safety 2023, 9, 89 2 of 20

total work accident cases in Indonesia, increasing from 210,789 to 234,370. Concerning the
location of the incidents, workplace accident cases also escalated from 139,999 to 144,929 [5].
Occupational safety for employees is considered one of the main requirements in any
organization. A proper working environment cannot be ensured in any organization if the
workers are not safe physically and mentally. The purpose of an effective safety program
within an organization is to prevent work-related injuries and accidents in the factory area,
which can result in enormous human capital losses [6]. Therefore, effective occupational
health and safety training is essential to equip employees with the necessary knowledge
and skills to be able to work securely and safely [7]. Failure to provide effective training
leads to workplace accidents and loss of production, which have proven to be detrimental
to the business.
Experts and practitioners have suggested that the prevention of workplace accidents
and incidents cannot only be carried out through a management system and engineering
approach, but should also include aspects of safety behavior in the workplace. These
approaches must be balanced and applied to create a comprehensive and strong safety
culture within the organization [8]. Positive perceptions and health measures related to
occupational safety will create a feeling of well-being. It is one of the factors that can
improve performance. When employees do not feel safe at work, they will not be able to
perform their role properly [9].
In recent decades, it has been well documented that a safety climate is associated
with safety behavior and accidents in the workplace [10]. Safety climate is employees’
shared perception of policies, procedures, and practices related to safety in their work
environment [2,11]. Safety climate, according to Cooper and Phillips and Brondino, Silva,
and Pasini, is a shared perception of the values, norms, beliefs, practices, and principles of
the technical safety of workers in their work environment [4,12]. Safety climate can also
be defined as employees’ shared perception of safety policies, procedures, practices, and
overall safety interests and priorities in the workplace [13].
The purpose of measuring safety climate is to provide opportunities for improvement
of the safety performance in the organization being measured [12]. Measuring the safety
climate can be compared to taking the “safety temperature” of an organization, providing
an overview of the organization’s “state of safety systems” at different points in time [11].
Safety climate surveys have several benefits. Firstly, they play a role as a key indicator
of safety performance to assist in early identification of accidents, so they will reduce
the occurrence of accidents effectively. Secondly, they provide proactive information
about safety issues before they develop into accidents and injuries. The analysis of safety
perceptions has guided management in developing specific safety programs [14].
According to the performance report of the health and safety environment in Company
X from 2016 to 2019, there was a soar in safety observation reports from 292 to 2183. The
average number of reports was above 100 reports every month. Then, data on near-
miss reports also increased significantly from 7 reports in 2018 to 23 reports in 2019. The
significant increment in safety observation reports and near-miss data shows that awareness
and participation in worker safety reporting has increased. However, this also depicts a
high potential for accidents in Company X. The purpose of this study was to determine
the description of the work safety climate at Company X and its relationship with safety
behavior. This research focuses on identifying leading indicators to be used as references
by companies in planning work safety programs, so safety behavior can be improved. It is
also hoped that this research can become a reference for other future research related to
safety behavior.

1.2. Literature Review

1.2.1. Safety Climate
Safety climate is employees’ shared perception of policies, procedures, and practices
related to safety in their work environment [2,11]. Safety climate according to Cooper and
Phillips and Brondino, Silva, and Pasini is a shared perception of the values, norms, beliefs,
Safety 2023, 9, 89 3 of 20

practices, and principles of the technical safety of workers in their work environment [4,12].
Safety climate can also be defined as employees’ shared perception of safety policies,
procedures, practices, and overall safety interests and priorities in the workplace [13].
A good safety climate is characterized by a collective commitment of care, where all
employees share positive perceptions of the organization’s safety features. This collective
climate functions as a frame of reference that shapes employee attitudes and behavior.
Additionally, the prevailing safety climate influences the outcomes of all organizational
safety improvement initiatives [15]. Safety climate is socially constructed by the interaction
between people’s habits, prevailing practices, the risks associated with their work, and
their position and status in the organization.
Health and Safety Environment United Kingdom collaborated with Loughborough
University to develop a safety climate measurement method known as the Loughborough
Safety Climate Assessment Tools (LSCAST). LSCAST has nine safety climate variables
which are used to measure the safety climate in a company. These variables are grouped
into three perception contexts, namely perceptions of employees as individuals, members
of the organization, and the work environment regarding safety climate values [16].
Employee perceptions as individuals regarding safety values have two indicators,
namely individual perceptions of risk and personal priorities in safety. Individual per-
ception in assessing risks in their work environment means individuals have a shared
understanding and sense of responsibility in safety matters. Individuals also have beliefs
about the possibility of experiencing a work accident. Personal priority in safety means
individuals have the opinion that work safety is very important in carrying out work
activities. Individuals also understand about work safety related to their work.
Employees’ perceptions as members of the organization regarding safety values have
four indicators, namely management commitment, communication, safety priorities, and
safety procedures and regulations. Management commitment means that management
must be able to convince employees about the importance of work safety by creating work
safety programs in a sustainable, measurable, and targeted manner. Management should
also have a clear work safety policy. Communication means that management is ready to
receive opinions and suggestions from its employees. Management also invites employees
to make policies and decisions on work safety issues. Safety priority means employees’
safety is the main priority compared to production operations. Procedures and safety mean
the company has safety procedures and regulations that are easy to understand and very
important to implement even though production targets are very high.
Employee perceptions of their work environment regarding safety issues have three
indicators, namely co-worker support, physical conditions of the work environment, and
work environment involvement. Colleague support means good relationships between
individual employees in their work environment who always provide positive suggestions
related to safety behavior and working safely. The physical condition of the work envi-
ronment means management must be able to reassure employees regarding their work
environment by delivering a comprehensive safety program, so potential hazards and risks
can be identified and controlled. Involvement of work units and all parties in conveying
and reporting safety problems, such as reports of unsafe acts, unsafe conditions, near
misses, and work accidents, is very important.

1.2.2. Safety Behavior

According to Geller [17], behavior is an action that can be observed by other people.
Furthermore, safety behavior is a behavior carried out by individuals as an effort to avoid
danger [18]. Safety behavior consists of two components, namely safety compliance and
safety participation. Safety compliance is the main behavior that must be performed by
workers to maintain safety in the work environment [7]. An example of safety compliance
is wearing personal protective equipment while working [19]. Safety participation means
behavior that can indirectly enhance safety in the work environment, but can contribute
Safety 2023, 9, 89 4 of 20

to develop work safety. An example of safety participation is attending safety-related

meetings [7].

1.2.3. Relationship between Safety Climate and Safety Behavior

Several studies related to the relationship between safety climate and safety behavior
show different results. Research by Safitri et al. [20] on the drivers of integrated highway
buses stated that worker commitment was one of the predictors of safety behavior. In
addition, safety communication, learning, and trust in coworkers’ safety competence were
significantly related to safety behavior. Research by Lyu et al. [21] also found that the safety
climate had a positive correlation with safety compliance and safety participation in ethnic
minority groups. In addition, Chen et al. [18] reported that safety commitment, safety
attitudes, and communication also had a significant relationship with safety participation.
In contrast, research by Cooper and Philips [12] and Glendon and Litherland [22] did not
prove a significant relationship between safety climate and safety behavior.

2. Methods
This study was designed as a cross-sectional quantitative study. This research used
a questionnaire as the instrument in a survey to collect primary data. From a total of 220
questionnaires distributed to respondents, only 90.9%, or about 200 respondents finished
the filling of the questionnaire correctly and completely. This study was carried out in a
manufacturing company from 15 March to 31 June 2021. The population in this research
was all permanent workers, contract workers, and contractors who work in the company
environment with a minimum service period of six months.
This study used safety climate as the independent variable and safety behavior as the
dependent variable. The safety climate questionnaire used in this research was LSCAST
because this questionnaire was in line with the safety climate needs of Company X. This
questionnaire consisted of 43 questions from 9 measurement dimensions related to safety
climate. There were 4–6 question items for each dimension. Respondents were asked to
answer all the questions in the questionnaire. Then, the answers would be analyzed on
a 1–4 Likert scale (strongly disagree, disagree, agree and strongly agree). Meanwhile, the
safety behavior questionnaire consisted of 9 questions related to workers’ behavior in the
work environment, such as “I ignore safety rules to complete work”. This questionnaire
also used the Likert scale from 1 to 4. All items of questionnaire can be seen in Table A1
(Appendix A).
Data analysis was executed by univariate and bivariate tests. The results of the uni-
variate test were frequency distribution, mean, standard deviation, and normal distribution.
Bivariate analysis was performed using the Kruskal–Wallis test and Pearson correlation.
The Kruskal–Wallis test was carried out to see differences in average safety climate and
safety behavior based on demographic factors. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used because
the data were not normally distributed. The Pearson correlation test was carried out to de-
termine the strength of the relationship between safety climate and safety behavior. A very
strong, strong, and moderate relationship was found if the correlation values were 0.76–1.00;
0.51–0.75; and 0.26–0.50, respectively. Meanwhile, when the correlation value was <0.25,
there was no relationship. The significance level in this study was 95% and the α was 0.05.
The formulas of average and Pearson correlation test can be seen in Formulas (1) and (2),
respectively [23].
x1 + x2 + x3 + . . . xn
X= (1)
n

n(∑ XY) − (∑ X ∑ Y)
r = rh ih i (2)
n ∑ X2 − (∑ X)2 n ∑ Y2 − (∑ Y)2

A validity test was conducted to determine whether the measuring instrument had
performed its function properly. A measurement scale is said to be valid if it can accomplish
Safety 2023, 9, 89 5 of 20

what it should accomplish and measure what it should measure. A questionnaire item
will be considered valid if it has an r value that is greater than the r table. The number of
respondents in this study was 200 respondents, so the r table was 0.138 for the significance
level of 5%.
A reliability test was performed on the variables of the questionnaire distributed to
the respondents, who were Company X’s employees. The purpose of this reliability test
was to identify and measure the consistency and reliability of the items in the research
questionnaire by measuring the variables in question. A variable is measured for its level
of reliability based on the Cronbach alpha coefficient obtained. If the resulting Cronbach
alpha coefficient is greater than 0.6, it can be said that the items in the questionnaire are
reliable [24,25]. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 25.
Based on Table 1, it could be seen that of the 50 items on the questionnaire, 43 items
presented a Cronbach alpha value that was greater than 0.6; thus, the questionnaire was
considered to be valid and reliable. Seven items were dropped because their Cronbach
alpha was less than 0.6.

Table 1. Validity and reliability test results.

Number Cronbach Validity and Reliability Test Drop

Variables Dimensions
of Items Alpha Target Result Valid Reliable Number Item
Individual
Risk 4 0.6 0.608 3 3 1 X1·A2
Safety
4 0.6 0.650 4 4 0
attitude
Organization
Leadership
and 6 0.6 0.729 6 6 0
commitment
Safety Communication 4 0.6 0.643 4 4 0
climate Training 6 0.6 0.714 5 5 1 X2·C6
Procedure 4 0.6 0.692 4 4 0
Job
Co-worker 4 0.6 0.713 4 4 0
Cleanliness
and safety 4 0.6 0.708 4 4 0
tools
Safety
5 0.6 0.736 4 4 1 X3·C5
involvement
Safety Safety Y2, Y5,
9 6 0.924 5 5 4
behavior behavior Y7, Y8
Total 50 43 43 7

The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical guidelines and regulations
applicable and approved by the Ethical Commission for Research and Public Health Service,
Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, with the issuance of ethical clearance
number Ket-106/UN2.F10.D11/PPM.00.02/2021 (date of approval: 30 March 2021).

3. Results
3.1. Respondent Data
The profiles of respondents were characterized based on seven categories: gender, age,
education, department, position, employment status, and length of work (Table 2). Out
of 200 respondents, 193 were males (96.5%) and 7 were females (3.5%). The majority of
respondents were 31–40 years old (33%), followed by 21–30 years old (28%), 41–50 years old
(26.5%), less than 20 years (14.7%), and over 51 years old (5.5%). From the perspective of
education, it was identified that the educational background of the respondents ranges from
Safety 2023, 9, 89 6 of 20

junior high school to postgraduate. The majority of respondents graduated from senior
high school (76%). A total of 5% of respondents graduated from junior high school. These
workers generally served as implementers or operators in their respective departments.
Employees with higher education backgrounds consisted of 25 respondents with bachelor’s
degrees (12.5%), five with Diploma 3 degrees (10%), and three with master’s degrees (1.5%).

Table 2. Gender, age, and education of respondents.

Respondent N %
Gender
Male 193 96.5
Female 7 3.5
Age
<20 years old 14 7
21–30 years old 56 28
31–40 years old 66 33
41–50 years old 53 26.5
≥51 years old 11 5.5
Education
Junior high school 10 5
Senior high school 152 76
D3 (Diploma 3) 10 5
Bachelor degree 25 12.5
Master degree 3 1.5

Table 3 presents the distribution of respondents in the six departments in Company

X: general affairs, warehouse, engineering, quality, production, and HSE. The production
department was the department with the highest number of employees (58.5%), followed
by the GA department with 33 people (16.5%) and the warehouse with 32 people (16%).
The department with the least number of employees was HSE with only two employees
(1%). Meanwhile, the engineering department had ten employees (5%) with four additional
employees compared to the quality department, which only had six employees (3%). Most
employees of Company X who participated in this study were operators, with a total
of 124 employees (62%), followed by staff with 50 employees (25%), supervisors with
20 employees (10%), and managers (3%) as the position with the least number of people.
In terms of the employment status, the employees of Company X were categorized into
permanent employee, contract employee, and outsourced employee. Most of them were
contract employees (47.5%). A total of 34 people (17%) were outsourced employees and
71 (35.5%) were permanent employees.

Table 3. Department, position, and employment status of respondents.

Respondent N %
Department
GA 33 16.5
Warehouse 32 16
Engineering 10 5
Quality 6 3
Production 117 58.5
HSE 2 1
Position
Operator 124 62
Staff 50 25
Supervisor/team leader/engineer 20 10
Manager 6 3
Safety 2023, 9, 89 7 of 20

Table 3. Cont.

Respondent N %
Employment status
Permanent 71 35.5
Contract 95 47.5
Outsourced 34 17

3.2. Safety Climate Maturity Level

Table 4 describes the maturity level of the safety climate based on the distribution
of individual, organizational, and job dimensions. The average maturity level of the
safety climate for the company in the three dimensions was 2.78 and at an adequate level
(average value of 2.7–3.0). A more in-depth scrutiny of the dimension showed that the
average maturity level of the individual dimension was 2.72. Meanwhile, the levels for the
organizational dimension and job dimension were 2.73 and 2.70, respectively. According to
Hudson, organizations with a fair safety climate level already have a safety management
system and have a very high commitment to running the system. In addition, all potential
risks have been identified and can be controlled properly [8].

Table 4. Safety climate dimension average value.

No Dimension Code N Mean Median Std. Deviation Variance Level

1 Individual X1 200 2.720 3.29 0.320 0.104 Adequate
2 Organization X2 200 2.730 3.33 0.320 0.103 Adequate
3 Job X3 200 2.704 3.17 0.246 0.061 Adequate
4 Safety Climate Y 200 2.780 3.27 0.260 0.067 Adequate

Companies that already have implemented an OHS management system can identify
and control potential hazards or risks well, so the chance of a work accident is very
low [26,27]. The relationship between the three dimensions with safety climate in this
company, in general, was very strong, with a correlation value between 0.5 and 0.75, as
shown in Table 5. The three dimensions were the determining factors that shape the work
safety climate of an organization, including in Company X. The relationship between
variables is said to be strong if the Pearson correlation value for the variables is between
0.5 and 0.75 and very strong if the value is above 0.75 [24].

Table 5. Relationship between dimensions and safety climate.

Dimensions N Mean Standard Deviation Signification Pearson Correlation Remarks

Individual (X1)
Risk 200 3.40 0.408 0.000 0.741 Strong
Safety Attitude 200 3.33 0.325 0.000 0.790 Very Strong
Organization (X2)
Leadership and
200 3.42 0.390 0.000 0.752 Strong
Commitment
Communication 200 3.40 0.360 0.000 0.744 Strong
Training 200 3.33 0.370 0.000 0.780 Very Strong
Procedure 200 3.32 0.390 0.000 0.790 Very Strong
Job (X3)
Work Colleague 200 3.26 0.4 0.000 0.74 Strong
Cleanliness and
200 3.3 0.41 0.000 0.76 Very Strong
Safety Equipment
Safety Involvement 200 3.24 0.42 0.000 0.78 Very Strong
Safety 2023, 9, 89 8 of 20

Table 6 describes the safety climate by demographic composition of respondents in

Company X. The demographic aspects assessed in this study were education, department,
position, employment status, and length of work. A significant difference was identified in
the average work safety climate, which was apparent from the p-value (sig) of below 0.05.
However, no difference was seen in the length of work, meaning that the length of work
did not affect the work safety climate in Company X.

Table 6. Safety climate by demographic component.

No Demographic n df (n − 1) F Sig Remarks

1 Education 200 4 27.569 0.000 Different
2 Department 200 5 27.541 0.000 Different
3 Position 200 3 9.207 0.027 Different
4 Employee Status 200 2 9.835 0.007 Different
5 Length of Work 200 3 2.523 0.471 No Different

Table 7 demonstrates the mean value of the safety climate variables by demographic.
For respondents with a junior high school education, there were seven variables with below
target mean values (µ < 3.12). Out of these, three variables had the lowest mean values, i.e.,
risk perception (2.845), cleanliness and safety equipment (2.955), and safety involvement
variables (2.857).

Table 7. Average value of safety climate variables by demographic component.

Education Position Employee Status

JHS SHS D3 S1 S2 Opt Staff SPV Mgr Pmn Cont Outs
Variables
µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ= µ=
3.121 3.023 3.255 3.274 3.033 3.030 3.058 3.166 3.182 3.112 3.029 3.014
Individual
Risk 2.845 2.937 3.190 3.290 3.320 2.900 3.032 3.310 3.680 3.130 2.880 3.013
Safety Attitude 3.180 2.983 3.400 3.330 3.250 2.972 3.020 3.210 3.460 3.160 2.955 2.972
Organization
Leadership and
3.050 3.000 3.320 3.210 3.030 2.990 3.110 3.143 2.747 3.094 2.970 3.070
Commitment
Communication 3.245 3.000 3.190 3.200 3.250 3.030 2.970 3.156 3.320 3.080 3.050 2.990
Training 3.021 2.920 3.130 3.190 3.030 2.960 2.924 2.948 2.960 2.970 2.940 2.960
Procedure 3.083 2.886 3.246 3.125 2.817 2.921 2.929 2.970 2.9690 3.010 2.890 2.910
Job
Co-worker 3.040 2.833 3.017 2.990 2.500 2.855 2.880 2.929 2.630 2.870 2.8650 2.810
Cleanliness and
2.955 2.855 3.054 3.183 2.647 2.860 2.917 3.030 2.830 3.000 2.860 2.770
Safety Equipment
Safety Involvement 2.857 2.780 3.140 3.033 2.820 2.796 2.820 2.980 2.760 2.910 2.790 2.760
JHS = junior high school, SHS = senior high school, Opt = operation, SPV = supervisor, Mgr = manager,
Pmn = permanent, Cont = contract, Outs = outsourcing.

For respondents with senior high school education, the mean values of all safety
climate variables were below target (<3.023). Four variables had the lowest mean values:
safety involvement (2.78), co-worker (2.833), cleanliness and safety equipment (2.855), and
procedure (2.886). In general, those with junior high school, Diploma 3, bachelor, and
master education had a fairly good average value compared to those who were senior high
school graduates.
Respondents who were operators and staff members had a low average value (3.03) in
the safety climate, which was below the average value of the safety climate of supervisor
and manager. In this group, four variables presented low mean values: risk perception
(2.90), co-worker (2.85), cleanliness and safety equipment (2.86), and safety involvement
(2.79). Meanwhile, in the staff groups, the average value was 3.058, with three variables
having low mean values: co-worker (2.88), cleanliness and safety equipment (2.91), and
Safety 2023, 9, 89 9 of 20

safety involvement (2.82). For those in supervisor and manager positions, the average safety
climate values were better than those of other employees (3.166 and 3.182, respectively).
Permanent employees demonstrated the highest average value (3.112) among all
employment status groups, while the lowest average was observed among outsourced
employees (3.014). Respondents with contract employment status presented the lowest
values in four variables, namely procedure (2.89), risk (2.88), co-worker (2.86), and safety
involvement (2.79).

3.3. Safety Behavior

An overview of safety behavior in Company X is presented in Table 8. It shows that
the average value of safe behavior in Company X was 3.3. Variables with an average value
of above 3.3 were included in the category of safe behavior, whereas the values that were
below the average were categorized as risky behavior. A total of 117 (58.5%) respondents
adopted safe behaviors while 83 (41.5%) were still involved in risk behaviors. This shows
that the potential for accidents was still high for employees of Company X.

Table 8. Employee behavior of Company X.

Behavior Mean Frequency Percentage (%)

Safe Behavior >3.33 117 58.5
Risky Behavior <3.33 83 41.5

Table 9 describes which variables are included in the category of safe behaviors and
risk behaviors. Y1, Y3, and Y4 were deemed as the variables for safe behaviors, while
variables Y6 and Y9 were categorized as risk behavior variables. The highest mean value
was observed for variable Y3 (3.41), followed by variable Y1 (3.38) and variable Y4 (3.33).
In addition, it can be seen that there were several variables for which the average value
was below the average value of safe behavior or risk behavior, namely in variables Y6 (3.27)
and Y9 (3.28).

Table 9. Safety behavior in Company X.

No Dimension Variables Code Mean SD Variance Remarks

I ignored safety rules to get the job done. Y1 3.38 0.793 0.629 Safe Behavior
I violated safety work procedures. Y3 3.41 0.779 0.606 Safe Behavior
1 Safety Behavior I ignored the safety rules to reach the target. Y4 3.33 0.784 0.614 Safe Behavior
The conditions at work forced me to violate safety rules. Y6 3.27 0.728 0.530 Safe Behavior
I was under pressure at my job to break the rules Y9 3.28 0.751 0.564 Safe Behavior
Average Safety Behavior Y 3.33 0.67 0.451
SD = Standard Deviation.

Table 10 explains the magnitude of safety behavior based on the education. A total of
83 respondents with senior high school education (70.9%) adopted safe behavior, while the
remaining (83.1%) were still involved in risk behaviors. In addition, out of the respondents
with bachelor’s degrees, 17 (14.6%) had adopted safe behavior while the remaining (9.6%)
were still involved in risk behaviors. The number of junior high school graduates who
adopted safe behavior and risk behavior was six (5.1%) and four (4.9%), respectively.
Meanwhile, the number of Diploma 3 graduates who implemented safe behavior and risk
behavior was nine (7.7%) and one (1.2%), respectively. From the data analysis, it can be seen
that the senior high school education level had the lowest average value (3.30) compared to
respondents who were in other educational groups, although it was almost comparable
with the average value obtained by the junior high school group (3.38). The highest mean
score was obtained by respondents with Diploma 3 (3.80), followed by those with master’s
degrees (3.73).
Safety 2023, 9, 89 10 of 20

Table 10. Behaviors by education.

Behavior
Education N
Safe % Risky %
Junior High School 10 6 5.1 4 4.9
Senior High School 152 83 70.9 69 83.1
Diploma 3 10 9 7.7 1 1.2
Bachelor Degree 25 17 14.6 8 9.6
Master Degree 3 2 1.7 1 1.2

Table 11 describes safety behavior based on position in Company X. It is apparent that

75 (64.1%) respondents with operator positions behaved safely, while 49 (59%) respondents
were involved in risk behaviors. At the staff level, out of 50 respondents, 28 (23.9%) adopted
safe behaviors, while 22 (26.5%) were still involved in risk behaviors. The highest risk
behavior was found at the supervisor/engineer level (n = 11, 13.3%), with nine people
(7.7%) adopting safe behaviors.

Table 11. Behaviors by position.

Behavior
Position N
Safe % Risky %
Operator 124 75 64.1 49 59
Staff 50 28 23.9 22 26.5
Supervisor, Engineer, Team Leader 20 9 7.7 11 13.3
Manager 6 5 4.3 1 1.2

When observed from the perspective of employment status, 39 of 71 permanent

employees (33.3%) had practiced safe behaviors, while 32 (38.6%) were still involved in
risk behaviors. Among contract employees, 64 of 95 employees (54.7%) had behaved safely,
while the remaining 31 (33.7%) were still involved in risk behaviors. Furthermore, out of
the 34 outsourced employees, 14 (12%) adopted safe behaviors, while 20 (24.1%) were still
involved in risk behaviors (Table 12).

Table 12. Behaviors by employment status.

Behavior
Position N
Safe % Risky %
Permanent 71 39 33.3 32 38.6
Contract 95 64 54.7 31 37.3
Outsourcing 34 14 12 20 24.1

3.4. Relationship between Work Safety Climate and Safety Behavior

A positive relationship between work safety climate and safety behavior was observed
in Company X (Table 13). In general, the relationship between work safety climate and
safety behavior was quite strong, with a correlation value of 0.25–0.5. The procedure
variable had the highest correlation value (0.47) compared to other variables. Meanwhile,
the lowest correlation value was observed in the safety behavior variable (0.258). In
addition, it can also be seen that the co-worker variable had a positive and quite strong
relationship (0.37) with safety behavior compared to the leadership and commitment
variables (0.35).
Safety 2023, 9, 89 11 of 20

Table 13. Relationship between work safety climate and safety behavior.

Dimensions N Mean Signification Correlation Remarks

Individual
Risk 200 3.40 0.000 0.298 Quite Strong
Safety Attitude 200 3.33 0.000 0.258 Quite Strong
Organization
Leadership and Commitment 200 3.42 0.000 0.350 Quite Strong
Communication 200 3.40 0.000 0.318 Quite Strong
Training 200 3.33 0.000 0.324 Quite Strong
Procedure 200 3.32 0.000 0.470 Quite Strong
Job
Co-worker 200 3.26 0.000 0.370 Quite Strong
Cleanliness and Safety Equipment 200 3.30 0.000 0.267 Quite Strong
Safety Involvement 200 3.24 0.000 0.352 Quite Strong

According to Neal and Griffin, a large number of studies have shown that perceived
safety climate is positively correlated with self-reported safety behavior and that these two
variables are negatively correlated with accidents [28].

4. Discussion
4.1. Work Safety Climate
The results of this study show that the work safety climate at Company X was at
an adequate level. At this level, the company or organization must already have a good
OSH management system. Company X already has a HSE management system and has an
implemented (certified) OSH management system and ISO 45001. Companies that already
implement an OHS Management System have the ability to appropriately identify and
control potential hazards or risks, so the chance of a work accident is very low [26,27]. This
is evidenced by having an average value of risk perception variable of 2.98 and only 41.5%
respondents involved in risky behavior. Respondents were able to respond to the items
that link to good understanding on risk, such as: “I feel that injuries and accidents have
been investigated” (195 respondents or 97.5% answered agree and strongly agree and only
5 or 2.5% respondents disagree).
In managing and controlling risk, Company X has implemented MOC (management
of change), PRA (process risk assessment), WRA (workplace risk assessment), and PTW
(permit to work system). Furthermore, Company X already has adequate infrastructures
and has complied with regulations such as an interlock system for machines, noise control
to less than 85 dBa, LOTO implementation, and a continuous maintenance management
system. This is strengthened by the fact that 289 (94.5%) respondents are willing to report
unsafe acts or conditions, and only 11 (5.5%) respondents are unwilling to report. The
willingness of respondents to report unsafe conditions and unsafe acts shows that safety
culture has been formed in Company X and that a high level of awareness regarding work
safety is also established among its employees.
According to Curcuruto et al., a high level of reporting of near-miss, unsafe behaviors
and unsafe conditions indicate that the organization and management are very good and
focus on occupational safety and health [29]. Reports on near-miss, unsafe conditions and
unsafe behaviors are made using an application that can be accessed by all employees
via tablets or computer devices provided in all departments. All observations are then
compiled, analyzed, and communicated by the HSE section to all employees every month,
so that employees are aware about the potential risks in their workplace and well informed
about the progress of improvement.
Management of Company X has also shown good commitment and leadership for
OSH, evidenced by the mean value of 3.02 for that variable. The majority of respondents
(97.5%) thought that their superiors had good leadership behavior, and 96% agreed that
Safety 2023, 9, 89 12 of 20

their leaders had a high commitment to OSH. In addition, 98.5% of respondents also agreed
that their superiors led the investigation of work safety issues. If an accident occurs, then
the person in charge of the area will be responsible for making a work accident report
as well as being the head of the investigation in this case. An investigation team will be
formed where the members consist of the HSE, an engineer, and the area PIC. With the
formation of this team, it is expected that the root causes of work accidents can be identified
so that similar cases can be avoided in the future. In investigating accidents at work, what
the employees think about the commitment of their management to safety is as important
as how management views their own commitment [30].
Respondents’ perception of communication in the work environment was adequate
(3.04). This proves that Company X has good communication approaches in conveying
the OSH program and its achievements, as well as communicating accidents at work to
its employees. Work accident communication is executed through posters posted on each
information board in all work departments and distributed to employees via email.
The management of Company X has a long-term OSH program for the period of
five years and is reviewed annually to ensure its linearity to the company’s business
development. This reflects understanding of the correlation between business and OSH
among management of Company X. A monthly monitoring through the steering committee
for the OHS meeting forum was performed and an HSE meeting forum was also held to
discuss program implementation progress, barriers, achievements, and potential risks.
The management of Company X is very strict with its employees in terms of OSH
implementation and they apply a reward and punishment system. The majority of re-
spondents (98.5%) agreed that their superiors take firm actions against workers who do
not comply with the OSH regulations. According to the Health and Safety Executive,
reward and punishment system is a form of consequence received by workers because
of their behavior [27]. A reward is a form of positive reinforcement, while punishment
has undesirable consequences. Zohar has shown that work injuries and accidents can be
reduced by improving supervision practices and providing rewards [2]. Rewards given
by Company X to employees include compliments, shopping vouchers, certificates, and
job promotion. Examples of punishments are suspension, postponement of salary increase,
and postponement of bonuses. Cahyani stated that reward and punishment for workers
can encourage workers to perform safe behavior at work. This reward and punishment
program encourages workers to carry out BBS, raise awareness on OSH, and behave safely
at work [31].
Management invites and encourages all employees to always work according to
the safety regulations, use safety equipment that has been provided, and behave safely.
This makes employees perceive that management is very committed to safety issues and
prioritizes safety over the production process. When employees feel that management
supports their daily efforts and provides the resources and information needed to carry out
their jobs effectively and safely, the work safety climate is said to be good [32].
A good management system is also supported by leadership behavior and good
communication. According to De Koster, good leadership behavior towards subordinates
is very crucial and will affect work safety performance [33]. Leadership can motivate and
serve as role models and can help employees understand the importance of implementing
the OHS program [34,35]. Supervisors and managers in Company X have a regular schedule
and periodically conduct safety observations in the workplace; observe the work processes
of machines and employees; and observe existing facilities and infrastructure. In addition,
dialogues are held with employees regarding work behaviors, procedures, and potential
risks in carrying out their duties. This is conducted to discover to which extent workers
understand the hazards and risks around their location and how to control them. The
identification of potential risks and hazards is always included in the work safety program
which is discussed intensively in the Steering Committee of the OSH forum, involving
employees and management in decision making.
Safety 2023, 9, 89 13 of 20

Communication is very important in building work safety culture and climate. Lin
et al., in their study, mentioned that employee awareness, competence, and communication
on OSH are important factors in shaping the work safety climate [36]. In line with these
findings, a study conducted by de Castro Moura Duarte et al. revealed that communication
is an important element in building a work safety climate [37]. Employees’ perceptions of
safety communication in Company X are good, including open discussions on work safety
issues in respective workgroups and with the superiors. In addition, 98.5% of employees
mentioned a good perception. They also believed that management would take strict
action against employees if they violated safety regulations. In addition, management
always provides complete information if there is a change in work that has a higher risk
than before. Management will carry out risk analysis and assessment first to ensure the
new work process is safe and secure for employees. OSH communication is performed by
Company X through various approaches such as posting OSH signs, OSH posters, safety
talks, safety data sheets, BBS reports, OSH performance reports, work accident reports,
work accident investigations, and OSH training. Improved communication between line
workers and supervisors resulted in a decrease in micro-accidents and an increase in the
use of PPE [2].
OSH training is one of the important components in shaping the work safety climate.
Based on the measurement of the questionnaire, the average value of training in a work
safety climate is adequate (2.95). This shows that the management of Company X is also
focused on educating and fostering its employees. It is revealed that 98% of employees
perceived that safety training has been provided in their workgroup, and 95% of employees
admitted that they have received training if there is a change in work assignments and they
have sufficient time to receive this training. OSH training is given to employees to improve
and add to their knowledge and skills, and change their behavior when carrying out their
work so that they adopt safe behaviors to increase productivity [38]. The Health and Safety
Executive stated that providing training helps workers to work safely and does not pose a
risk to their health [27]. Company X provides safety training to its employees according
to their work assignments, matrix competencies, and skills. The majority of respondents
(98%) stated that they have received adequate safety training, such as basic safety training
(BST), first aid, firefighting, use of PPE, identification of hazards and risks, hazardous toxic
materials (hazmat), safety data sheets, risk assessments, LOTO, work permit system (PTW),
et cetera. Training is also provided if there is a change in work assignments or job rotation
because employees have to learn the processes and procedures for operating different
machines, different chemical usage, and different PPE according to the various levels of
hazards and risks. Leaders must ensure that their employees have received appropriate
training for their jobs and duties. In addition, 94.5% of employees thought that the training
is delivered in a clear and easy-to-understand manner, 97% of employees thought that they
have been trained and skilled in carrying out their duties according to the work procedures,
and only 3% of respondents answered that they do not know how to use safety equipment
according to procedures.
Complying with safety regulations and work procedures is one of the important factors
indicating the work safety climate that can prevent potential work accidents or injuries
in the workplace [39,40]. Based on the measurements obtained using the questionnaire,
the average work procedure (2.93) in the work safety climate in Company X was at an
adequate level. Work procedures and safety regulations in Company X are provided in
simple language and easy to understand by workers. The results of the questionnaire show
that 96.5% of respondents feel the work procedures are easy to understand, with 96% of
respondents having been trained to carry out their duties according to procedures and
97% knowing how to use safety equipment according to procedures. Meanwhile, 95.5% of
respondents obeyed safety procedures when performing their role.
From the average work safety climate in general, two variables have a low average
value, i.e., co-worker (2.86) and safety involvement (2.81) variables. There are still 7%
of respondents who feel that their co-workers have not been able to properly indicate
Safety 2023, 9, 89 14 of 20

unsafe conditions; 5% stated that their co-workers have not been able to take work safety
problems seriously and 3% of respondents showed a lack of commitment to improving
safety. This can be caused by workers’ education factors; a lack of knowledge in identifying
hazards and risks; a lack of experience and years of work; or a lack of concern for the work
environment. Racicot et al. argue that the support and guidance received from colleagues
helps in socialization, task development, and higher quality interpersonal relationships [32].
A higher level of co-worker support is more pleasant, leading to greater job satisfaction.
In addition, it is also important for supervisors to improve safety communication with
their team through safety talks and tier meetings to increase commitment, awareness, and
safe behavior at work [10]. A study in Italy conducted by Brondino, Silva, and Pasini
proved that the support of colleagues in a work safety climate can strongly influence the
safe behavior of workers around them [4].
Education is the basic foundation for a worker’s level of knowledge. Workers who
have higher education certainly have sufficient knowledge and have good safety behavior.
According to research results by Liang and Zhang [34] and Ruch [41], workers who have had
a higher education refuse to violate safety regulations even in limited conditions because
they understand the risks and dangers of violating them. The results show that workers
who have more knowledge about the product, organization, or company goals/targets
engage in safer work behavior [42]. On the other hand, workers with low education and
less work experience more often violate work safety regulations when performing routine
work [43]. They are very vulnerable to becoming victims of work accidents and injuries
due to their lack of skills and work experience.
Based on the results of the work safety climate questionnaire according to the position,
the lowest average score was for the operator position (3.03), while the average for other
positions was higher, such as staff (3.08), supervisor (3.166), and manager (3.182). This is in
line with the research of Findley et al. [30] and Pinion [44], which stated that there were
differences in work safety climate scores based on position. Foremen had the lowest work
safety climate perception scores, followed by operators, staff, supervisors, and managers.
The low average value of work safety climate for operator and staff employees was
found in the variables of co-worker support, procedures, training, lack of maintaining
cleanliness and work safety equipment, and safety involvement. Based on the observations
in the field, it can be seen that operators are very busy with their respective work routines,
pursuing set targets, so they pay little attention to the surrounding work environment.
Apart from that, there is a lack of awareness in maintaining the cleanliness of the work
area and checking personal protective equipment. This is related to the operator’s knowl-
edge, insight, and work discipline. Because they are tied to production targets and daily
work routines, operators also have minimal participation and involvement in work safety
activities.
Based on employee status, the average score of safety climate in permanent employees
(3.12) was higher than direct contract employee status (3.029) and outsourced employees
(3.014). This is because permanent employees have longer work experience, are familiar
with the work environment, receive more OHS training, and already understand the OHS
management system compared to other employee statuses. This finding is in line with the
argument from Hald [42] that workers who have a lot of knowledge about the company’s
product, organization, targets, and customers engage in safer work behavior.

4.2. Safety Behavior

In general, the safety behavior at Company X had a mean value of 3.31 and was
at a good level. Out of the five variables contained in the behavior of survivors, three
variables were above the average value (3.33): Y1 (3.38), Y3 (3.41), and Y4 (3.33) variables,
while the other two variables, Y6 (3.27) and Y9 (3.28), were below the average value (3.33).
Because the value of the two variables was below the average, they were referred to as
risk behaviors. Both variables were related to conditions in the workplace and working
under peer pressure. This is in agreement with a study from Hall, which suggested that
Safety 2023, 9, 89 15 of 20

organizations that can address work environment factors and individual problems (such as
work design and organizational climate) can create broader overall strategies to develop a
safer workplace [45]. Copper and Phillips stated that most of the causes of work accidents
were due to unsafe behavior with a percentage of 80–95% [12]. Unsafe behavior occurs
because of the perception and belief of workers. They feel they are experts in their fields.
They also feel that they have never had a work accident, so there is less concern for working
properly and correctly.
A poor safety climate results in decreased compliance with safety procedures and
leads to an increase in workplace accidents [10]. The majority of workers understand
that work accidents are the result of unsafe behavior such as not using PPE properly and
operating machines without proper procedures. Borman and Moto Widlo distinguish two
types of safety behavior: compliance and participation. Safety compliance refers to the core
activities that individuals need to perform to keep the workplace safe [46].
Educational factors influenced safety behavior at work. Employees who had low
education levels were very vulnerable to engaging in risky behavior compared to employees
who had higher education levels. These findings agree with the research by Gyekye and
Salminen [14], which showed a positive relationship between education and safety climate.
Highly educated workers had the best perceptions of safety, showed the highest levels
of job satisfaction, were the most compliant with safety procedures, and had the lowest
rates of accident involvement. The research by Liang and Zhang [34] stated that workers
with a low level of education were more likely to violate safety rules under situational
constraints. Meanwhile, workers with less work experience were more likely to commit
routine violations. Workers with a low level of education need to be informed about the
safety risks stemming from safety violations. Workers with less work experience can be
trained through an apprenticeship system. It could ensure they are able to balance the
relationship between safety and production.
In general, it could be seen that there were workers who carried out risky behavior in
almost all positions. The levels of positions that performed the most risk behavior were
operators (59%) and staff (26.5%). The risky behavior conducted by them stemmed from
working under pressure from colleagues and the conditions in the workplace which forced
them to violate safety regulations. This is because operators and staff are dealing directly
with sources of danger and are involved in high-risk activities. The sources of danger are
rotating machines with mechanical hazards, contact with chemicals, strong odors from
chemicals, ergonomic problems (lifting and carrying activities), and so on. Apart from that,
there are several old machines and infrastructure, so they cannot work normally. Recurring
problems (such as product seepage through pipes, nozzles, and hoses) are problems that
operators and staff always face. They have to operate the machine under these conditions
to achieve the targets. Based on our analysis, this is caused by a lack of knowledge and
unsafe work locations.
Based on data analysis, it can be seen that the highest contributing factor in carrying
out risky behavior was permanent employee status (38.6%) and direct contract employees
(37.3%). The majority of risky behavior performed was violating safety regulations to
achieve targets and violating safety rules related to unsafe conditions in the workplace.
Permanent and direct contract employees who commit violations are operators and some
supervisors. Operators, as the front guard in the manufacturing process, deal directly with
sources of danger and risk. Exposure to the risks faced and the demands of targets that
have been set force operators to commit violations, especially if there is pressure from their
supervisors.
The relationship between safety climate and safety behavior at Company X was
positive and quite strong. All variables from the safety climate dimension showed numbers
in the range of 0.25–0.5. A high safety climate is positively related to safety behavior among
workers, which can influence the adoption of safety behavior and safe practices as well
as employee job satisfaction and performance. The results of this study strengthen the
research by Liu et al. [10], which stated that safety climate predicted safety behavior. Safety
Safety 2023, 9, 89 16 of 20

behavior mediates the relationship between safety climate and work accidents. Safety
climate can influence workers’ behavior and reduce the risk of accidents. Research by
Tholén et al. [47] indicated that individual perceptions of safety climate exerted a causal
effect on individual safety behavior.

4.3. Practical Recommendations

To increase the safety behavior among workers, we should enhance the safety climate.
Safety climate improvement strategies can be carried out through individual dimensions,
for example, training related to identifying potential hazards, risks in the workplace, and
risk management. The audit reporting program can also be an effort to reinforce individual
dimensions.
Safety climate development strategies can also be executed through organizational
dimensions such as communication and procedures. Examples of enhancements in terms
of communication are routine safety talks at the beginning of each work shift and providing
special information boards for work safety issues. An example of improvement in terms of
procedures is ensuring that all safety and work procedures are up to date, documented, and
reflect actual work processes. In addition, reinforcement efforts can be made by providing
a place to store safety procedures so they can be easily obtained and searched by operators.
Safety climate improvement strategies can also be carried out through job dimensions
such as cleanliness and safety equipment and safety involvement. Examples of improve-
ments in terms of cleanliness and safety equipment are providing adequate PPE, providing
storage for PPE, training on the use of PPE, and improving the administration of recording
PPE use to find out how long PPE has been used. An example of improvement in terms of
safety involvement is increasing dialogue with operators regarding work safety to find out
the problems they face.

4.4. Limitation
The limitation of this research is only focusing on one company. However, the safety
climate is generic. Therefore, other companies that have the same business processes as
Company X can use this research as a reference for improving the safety climate. Apart
from that, this research can also be a guide for future research where it can be executed on
companies with many branches (both at the national and international levels).

5. Conclusions
The work safety climate at Company X was at an adequate level, while the safety
behavior at Company X was at good level. The relationship between safety climate and
safety behavior at Company X was positive and quite strong. To increase the safety behavior
among workers, we should enhance the safety climate. Safety climate improvement
strategies can be carried out through individual dimensions (such as training related to
identifying potential hazards), organizational dimensions (such as routine safety talks at
the beginning of each work shift), and job dimensions (providing adequate PPE).

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.H. and D.E.; data curation, A.H.; formal analysis, A.H.
and D.E.; investigation, A.H.; methodology, A.H.; project administration, A.H.; resources, A.H.;
software, A.H.; supervision, D.E.; validation, A.H.; visualization, A.H.; writing—original draft, A.H.
and D.E.; writing—review and editing, B.W. and M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the
published version of the manuscript.
Funding: Agreement on Funding for Research and Community Service University of Indonesia
NKB-620/UN2.RST/HKP.05.00/2022 Fiscal Year 2022–2023.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted in accordance with the ethical
guidelines and regulations applicable and approved by the Ethical Commission for Research and
Public Health Service, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Indonesia, with the issuance of ethical
clearance number Ket-106/UN2.F10.D11/PPM.00.02/2021 (date of approval: 30 March 2021).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Safety 2023, 9, 89 17 of 20

Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated and analyzed during the current study are
available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: The researchers would like to thank to all parties who provided support for the
implementation of this research.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A
Table A1 consists of 50 items used in this research to measure safety climate and safety
behavior.

Table A1. Items used to measure safety climate and safety behavior.

Response
No Question Items Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Disagree Agree
Part 1 (Individual)
1A (Risk)
1 I feel that work injuries and accidents have been investigated
2 Findings, issues, and improvements related to HSE are not followed up
Pausing and thinking about safety risks when making decisions at work is
3
not good practice
I am trained to report unsafe acts and/or conditions without fear of negative
4
consequences
1B (Safety Attitude)
1 Working safely is my responsibility
2 I don’t know how to access safety procedures to do the job safely
3 Hazard evaluation is executed before carrying out work
I understand the dangers of non-routine tasks before doing the work
“Non-routine tasks” means work activities that are generally not performed
4
on a regular basis (daily, weekly, monthly). These also do not have written
procedures for performing the work correctly and safely
Part 2 (Organization)
2A (Leadership and Commitment)
My supervisor does not implement work safety procedures in my
1
work group
2 My supervisor takes a proactive stance when it comes to safety
My supervisor shows leadership so that employees remain focused on
3
work safety
4 My supervisor leads an investigation regarding a safety issue
5 My supervisor is not committed to improve the workplace safety
6 My supervisor does not emphasize safety at work
2B (Communication)
Work safety issues are discussed openly between my supervisor and my
1
work group
2 My supervisor takes strict action when a worker does not follow safety rules
3 My supervisor does not inform my work group about work safety rules
My supervisor notifies my work group if there are changes to work
4
procedures that affect safety issues
2C (Training)
1 There is adequate safety training in my work group
Employees do not receive safety training when there is a change in
2
work assignments
3 Provide sufficient time for safety training
4 My supervisor ensures employees receive adequate safety training
5 Safety training is not delivered in a clear manner
6 I understand how to do the job safely
Safety 2023, 9, 89 18 of 20

Table A1. Cont.

Response
No Question Items Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
Disagree Agree
2D (Procedure)
1 Work safety procedures are difficult to understand
Employees are trained to carry out their duties safely according to
2
work procedures
I don’t know how to use safety equipment according to standard
3
work procedures
4 I follow safety rules and procedures properly when doing my job
Part 3 (Job)
3A (Co-workers)
1 My co-workers always follow work safety procedures correctly
2 My co-workers were unable to quickly pinpoint unsafe workplace conditions
3 My co-workers take safety issues very seriously
4 My co-workers are not committed to improve workplace safety
3B (Cleanliness and Safety Tools)
1 Employees in my work group are provided with adequate safety equipment
2 No efforts are made in my work group to create safe working conditions
3 Safety equipment in my work area is checked to ensure it is error-free
4 Unsafe conditions in my work area were not corrected
3C (Safety Involvement)
At my workplace, the people doing the work are involved in determining
1
corrective actions
My supervisor does not regularly discuss workplace safety issues
2
with employees
My supervisor promotes employee involvement in matters related to
3
work safety
My supervisor does not respect employees’ ideas regarding work
4
safety issues
5 My supervisor gets employees involved in safety issues
Part 4 (Safety Behavior)
1 I ignored safety rules to get the job done
2 I do not engage in prohibited activities
3 I violated safety work procedures
4 I broke safety rules to reach the target
5 I get the job done faster by not breaking some safety rules
6 Conditions at work forced me to violate safety rules
7 I take shortcuts with little to no risk
I do not violate work safety procedures even under pressure
8
from management
9 I am under pressure from my coworkers to break the rules

References
1. Alves, A.M.S.; Filho, C.G.; De Melo Santos, N.; Souki, G.Q. Factors Influencing Occupational Accidents: A Multidimensional
Analysis in the Electricity Sector. Gest. Prod. 2020, 27, 1–17. [CrossRef]
2. Zohar, D. The Effects of Leadership Dimensions, Safety Climate, and Assigned Priorities on Minor Injuries in Work Groups.
J. Organ. Behav. 2002, 23, 75–92. [CrossRef]
3. Ministry of Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia. Open Unemployment for the August 2021 Period in Indonesia. Available
online: https://satudata.kemnaker.go.id/data/kumpulan-data/402 (accessed on 12 November 2023).
4. Brondino, M.; Silva, S.A.; Pasini, M. Multilevel Approach to Organizational and Group Safety Climate and Safety Performance:
Co-Workers as the Missing Link. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1847–1856. [CrossRef]
5. Ministry of Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia. The Profile of Indonesian National Occupational Safety and Health 2022; Ministry
of Manpower of the Republic of Indonesia: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2022.
Safety 2023, 9, 89 19 of 20

6. Barpanda, S.; Unnithan, B.L. Relationship of Employee’s Perception on Health and Safety Measures and Job Performance: The
Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction. Int. J. Environ. Workplace Employ. 2019, 5, 107–127. [CrossRef]
7. Griffin, M.A.; Neal, A. Perceptions of Safety at Work: A Framework for Linking Safety Climate to Safety Performance, Knowledge,
and Motivation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 347–358. [CrossRef]
8. Hudson, P. Implementing a Safety Culture in a Major Multi-National. Saf. Sci. 2007, 45, 697–722. [CrossRef]
9. Atombo, C.; Wu, C.; Tettehfio, E.O.; Nyamuame, G.Y.; Agbo, A.A. Safety and Health Perceptions in Work-Related Transport
Activities in Ghanaian Industries. Saf. Health Work 2017, 8, 175–182. [CrossRef]
10. Liu, X.; Huang, G.; Huang, H.; Wang, S.; Xiao, Y.; Chen, W. Safety Climate, Safety Behavior, and Worker Injuries in the Chinese
Manufacturing Industry. Saf. Sci. 2015, 78, 173–178. [CrossRef]
11. Smith, G.S.; Huang, Y.H.; Ho, M.; Chen, P.Y. The Relationship between Safety Climate and Injury Rates across Industries: The
Need to Adjust for Injury Hazards. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2006, 38, 556–562. [CrossRef]
12. Cooper, M.D.; Phillips, R.A. Exploratory Analysis of the Safety Climate and Safety Behavior Relationship. J. Saf. Res. 2004, 35,
497–512. [CrossRef]
13. Vinodkumar, M.N.; Bhasi, M. Safety Climate Factors and Its Relationship with Accidents and Personal Attributes in the Chemical
Industry. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 659–667. [CrossRef]
14. Gyekye, S.A.; Salminen, S. Educational Status and Organizational Safety Climate: Does Educational Attainment Influence
Workers’ Perceptions of Workplace Safety? Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 20–28. [CrossRef]
15. Cooper, M.D. Towards a Model of Safety Culture. Saf. Sci. 2000, 36, 111–136. [CrossRef]
16. Davies, F.; Spencer, R.; Dooley, K. Summary Guide to Safety Tools; HSE Books: Norwich, UK, 2001.
17. Geller, E.S. The Psychology of Safety Handbook; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2001.
18. Chen, W.T.; Merrett, H.C.; Huang, Y.H.; Bria, T.A.; Lin, Y.H. Exploring the Relationship between Safety Climate and Worker
Safety Behavior on Building Construction Sites in Taiwan. Sustainability 2021, 13, 3326. [CrossRef]
19. He, C.; Hu, Z.; Shen, Y.; Wu, C. Effects of Demographic Characteristics on Safety Climate and Construction Worker Safety
Behavior. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10985. [CrossRef]
20. Safitri, D.M.; Mediana, A.; Septiani, W. Measuring Influence from Safety Climate to Safety Behavior in Bus Rapid Transit Drivers.
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 528, 012008. [CrossRef]
21. Lyu, S.; Hon, C.K.H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Javed, A.A. Relationships among Safety Climate, Safety Behavior, and Safety
Outcomes for Ethnic Minority Construction Workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 484. [CrossRef]
22. Glendon, A.I.; Litherland, D.K. Safety Climate Factors, Group Differences and Safety Behaviour in Road Construction. Saf. Sci.
2001, 39, 157–188. [CrossRef]
23. Sabri, L.; Hastono, S.P. Health Statistics; Rajawali Press: Jakarta, Indonesia, 2014.
24. Hastono, S.P. Data Analysis in the Health Sector; Faculty of Public Health University of Indonesia: Depok, Indonesia, 2006.
25. Cahyani, N.M.; Indriyanto, E.; Masripah, S. Validity and Reliability Test for the Implementation of the Application of Sales and
Purchase. Inf. Syst. Educ. Prof. 2016, 1, 21–34.
26. Li, Y.; Guldenmund, F.W. Safety Management Systems: A Broad Overview of the Literature. Saf. Sci. 2018, 103, 94–123. [CrossRef]
27. Health and Safety Executive. Managing for Health and Safety HSG65; Health and Safety Executive: Norwich, UK, 2013; Volume 1.
28. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. A Study of the Lagged Relationships among Safety Climate, Safety Motivation, Safety Behavior, and
Accidents at the Individual and Group Levels. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 946–953. [CrossRef]
29. Curcuruto, M.; Conchie, S.M.; Mariani, M.G.; Violante, F.S. The Role of Prosocial and Proactive Safety Behaviors in Predicting
Safety Performance. Saf. Sci. 2015, 80, 317–323. [CrossRef]
30. Findley, M.; Smith, S.; Gorski, J.; O’neil, M. Safety Climate Differences among Job Positions in a Nuclear Decommissioning and
Demolition Industry: Employees’ Self-Reported Safety Attitudes and Perceptions. Saf. Sci. 2007, 45, 875–889. [CrossRef]
31. Cahyani, F. Perilaku Aman Pada Pekerja Operator Loading Unloading Minyak Mentah. Indones. J. Occup. Saf. Health 2018, 7, 181.
[CrossRef]
32. Racicot, B.M.; Kernan, M.C.; Nicholls, E.D. Effects of Management Support, Team Member Support, and Job Status on Safety
Climate and Employee Attitudes. Organ. Manag. J. 2019, 16, 251–261. [CrossRef]
33. De Koster, R.B.M.; Stam, D.; Balk, B.M. Accidents Happen: The Influence of Safety-Specific Transformational Leadership, Safety
Consciousness, and Hazard Reducing Systems on Warehouse Accidents. J. Oper. Manag. 2011, 29, 753–765. [CrossRef]
34. Liang, H.; Zhang, S. Impact of Supervisors’ Safety Violations on an Individual Worker within a Construction Crew. Saf. Sci. 2019,
120, 679–691. [CrossRef]
35. Schwatka, N.V.; Goldenhar, L.M.; Johnson, S.K. Change in Frontline Supervisors’ Safety Leadership Practices after Participating
in a Leadership Training Program: Does Company Size Matter? J. Saf. Res. 2020, 74, 199–205. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Lin, S.H.; Tang, W.J.; Miao, J.Y.; Wang, Z.M.; Wang, P.X. Safety Climate Measurement at Workplace in China: A Validity and
Reliability Assessment. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1037–1046. [CrossRef]
37. de Castro Moura Duarte, F.J.; Alonso, C.M.d.C.; Gallier, U.; Mercado, M.P. Improvement of Safety Culture in Industry: A System-
atic Review. Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 2019, 791, 192–201.
38. Smith-Crowe, K.; Burke, M.J.; Landis, R.S. Organizational Climate as a Moderator of Safety Knowledge-Safety Performance
Relationships. J. Organ. Behav. 2003, 24, 861–876. [CrossRef]
Safety 2023, 9, 89 20 of 20

39. Vinodkumar, M.N.; Bhasi, M. Safety Management Practices and Safety Behaviour: Assessing the Mediating Role of Safety
Knowledge and Motivation. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 2082–2093. [CrossRef]
40. Hon, C.K.H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yam, M.C.H. Determining Safety Climate Factors in the Repair, Maintenance, Minor Alteration, and
Addition Sector of Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 519–528. [CrossRef]
41. Ruch, G. From Triangle to Spiral: Reflective Practice in Social Work Education, Practice and Research. Soc. Work Educ. 2002, 21,
199–216. [CrossRef]
42. Hald, K.S. Social Influence and Safe Behavior in Manufacturing. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 1–11. [CrossRef]
43. Seo, D.C. An Explicative Model of Unsafe Work Behavior. Saf. Sci. 2005, 43, 187–211. [CrossRef]
44. Pinion, C.; Klyza, J.; Brewer, S.; Douphrate, D. North American Engineering, Procurement, Fabrication and Construction Worker
Safety Climate Perception Affected by Job Position. Safety 2018, 4, 14. [CrossRef]
45. Hall, G.B.; Dollard, M.F.; Winefield, A.H.; Dormann, C.; Bakker, A.B. Psychosocial Safety Climate Buffers Effects of Job Demands
on Depression and Positive Organizational Behaviors. Anxiety Stress Coping 2013, 26, 355–377. [CrossRef]
46. Borman, W.C.; Motowidlo, S.J. Task Performance and Contextual Performance: The Meaning for Personnel Selection Research.
J. Comput. Syst. Sci. Int. 1997, 10, 99–109. [CrossRef]
47. Tholén, S.L.; Pousette, A.; Törner, M. Causal Relations between Psychosocial Conditions, Safety Climate and Safety Behaviour—A
Multi-Level Investigation. Saf. Sci. 2013, 55, 62–69. [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.