Safety climate defined

Group cohesion is strongly linked to shared beliefs and values, and intensity of normative pressures to conform (Trice and Beyer 1993). Within the safety literature considerable attention has been devoted to safety climate (e.g., Bosak et al. 2013), which also has strong links to shared beliefs and values, but specific to safety issues, and also has a normative influence on group or team member s behavior. The factors which define safety climate are reasonably well understood (e.g., Clarke 2006), and it is also clear that a strong safety climate is positively associated... 

Organizations vary considerably in terms of how they manage safety. Thus, the expectations of management safety behavior formed from one workplace may have little basis in reality in another workplace. At this point, it is also worth noting the vast literature on safety culture and safety climate. Safety culture stems from the organization and is the top-down safety values, beliefs, and norms, while safety climate is more accurately defined as the employee s perceptions of how various aspects of the working environment impact on their safety (see Bjerkan 2010, for a... 

Safety climate can be defined as a snapshot" of employees perceptions of the current environment or prevailing conditions which impact upon safety and is viewed as a temporary state that is subject to change depending on current circumstance. 

Safety culture (and/or climate) measures may themselves be regarded as proxy measures of safety in the sense outlined above. However, few studies have found these measures to be strongly related to hard risk outcomes such as injuries and accidents (Guldemnund 2000 The Health Foundation 2011). There are several reasons for this apparent lack of correlation. Safety climate or culture is, by definition, shared within a social unit (a work group), but such units are usually ill defined and small. Safety climate or culmre is multi-faceted, and each facet is a constract, as described in the previous sections of this chapter, based on a few items from a questionnaire. Although the reliability and the intra-class correlation for the constructs can be acceptable, repeated measurements are typically infeasible, and when the questionnaire has been applied repeatedly, its responsiveness (the ability of the constract to reliable measure changes over time (de Vet et al. 2011)) is usually not reported but can be expected to be low. At the same time, since... 

A management system promotes safety and defines the route to it. But it is the culture of staff that determines whether or not the route is systematically taken. Methods of measuring an organisation s safety climate or safety culture, based on questionnaires that test the attitudes of members of the organisation, have been developed (e.g. Cooper and Phillips 1994, The Keil Centre 2001). It could be possible to reflect the results of such measurements as levels of risk, and research could be conducted into ways of doing so. This, however, is not within the objectives of this paper and will not be discussed further. 

Safety climate has been defined in slightly differently ways by different workers in the field. However, there does appear to be a general consensus as to its nature. The following definition will suffice as an example ... 

The US Department of Energy, Human Performance Improvement Handbook, Volume II, has several surveys and tools that can be used to aid in defining the organizational safety climate, human performance gap analysis tool, and a job site condihons self-assessment (Volume 2 Human performance tools for individuals, work teams, and management, human performance improvement handbook, 2009). 

The leader s role is to define the healthcare safety issue for the organization and the terms of the organization s engagement with it. The leader marshals the constituencies that must cooperate to create a strong safety climate and an organizational culture that supports safety. In subsequent chapters we address how this is done well, what it is made up of, and how such efforts are measured. 

What are the characteristics of your organization s culture that most support safety Where are its challenges What messages about your priorities define your current safety climate ... 

We can define the attributes of a healthy organizational culture and safety climate and specify how to measure them (to be discussed in chapter 3). 

Therefore, if the desired indoor air quality goals are clearly defined, they will benefit the designers, health and safety professionals, manufacturers of control technology equipment, end users, and other experts who are responsible for maintaining a safe and healthy indoor climate. In conclusion, introduction of the target level process for industrial air quality will benefit both the health sector and the production sector. 

Failures of category I having the most serious consequences for persons, assets and environment must be extremely improbable. The probability of failure occurrence Qi must be lower than 1.10 in all climatic (weather), mechanical and electrical environments, in all defined regimes of use (storing, transport, manipulation and shooting) as well as in the defined way of disposal (liquidation). This definition of the requirement for safety risk tolerates ammunition failure resulting in user s death not more than once in 100 milliard of shots. 

The revised structural safety parameters of existing structures help us assess their reliability indices, correct their technical service life and allow avoid both unexpected failures and unfounded premature repairs. When unfavorable service-proven action effects caused by extreme live or climate actions are defined and conformed by quality statistical information data, the revised reliability indices of members and their systems may be assessed and predicted fairly exactly by unsophisticated engineering probabilistic methods. 

Defining what we mean by safety culture has taken up many of the pages of scientific articles and books in the last few decades. A recent round table involving experts, organised by the Healthcare Foundation in Mareh 2013, touched upon one of the thornier issues which was raised by a number of these articles, namely the culture vs climate debate (e.g. Schein 1984 Meams and Flin 1999). The definitions provided by the round table (Healthcare Foundation 2013 3) attempted to distinguish between the two, whilst noting that definitions vary within the research literature ... 

PPE, as defined, includes all equipment (including clothing affording protection against the weather), which is intended to be worn or held by a person at work and which protects them against one or more risks to their health and safety. Waterproof, weatherproof or insulated clothing is covered only if its use is necessary to protect against adverse climatic conditions. 

---