A Safety Climate Framework for Improving Health and Safety in the Indonesian Construction Industry

Abstract

The Indonesian construction industry is the second largest in Asia and accounts for over 30% of all occupational injuries in the country. Despite the size of the industry, there is a lack of safety research in this context. This research, therefore, aims to assess safety climate and develop a framework to improve safety in the Indonesian construction industry. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 311 construction workers. The results show a moderately healthy safety climate but reflect numerous problems, particularly around perceived conflicts between production and safety logics, cost trade-offs being made against other competing project priorities, poor safety communication, poor working conditions, acceptance of poor safety as the norm, poor reporting and monitoring practices, poor training and a risky and unsupportive working environment which prevents workers from operating safely. Two new safety climate paradoxes are also revealed: contradictions between management communications and management practices; contradictions between worker concern for safety and their low sense of personal accountability and empowerment for acting to reduce these risks. A low locus of control over safety is also identified as a significant problem which is related to prevailing Indonesian cultural norms and poor safety policy implementation and potential conflicts between formal and informal safety norms, practices and procedures. Drawing on these findings, a new integrated framework of safety climate is presented to improve safety performance in the Indonesian construction industry.

NOSACQ-50 for Safety Climate Assessment in Agricultural Activities: A Case Study in Central Italy

“…As far as the practical assessment of the above items is concerned, the use of a Likert scale to state the level of agreement of the respondents was the common method in the selected studies, usually adopting a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (always) in case of direct questions or 1 (totally disagree) to 5 (totally agree) in case of statements. Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the analysis of psychological elements, such as the subjective assessment of safety that can be derived by the SC measurement, contributes to determine also the safety culture status among the interviewed workers [ 17 , 61 ]. Based on this, echoing Westaby and Lee [ 62 ], Arcury and colleagues [ 43 , 53 ] have investigated SC among different groups of farmers to understand their work safety culture level, which encompasses behavioral, situational, and psychological elements of safety.…”

Safety Climate and the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Investigation on Safety Perceptions among Farmers in Italy

“…The use of NOSACQ-50 allowed us to elicit information on the perceived safety level and self-rated safety behaviors of the interviewed sample, pointing out the discrepancies between managers and workers (employees). Such a tool confirmed its effectiveness in depicting the psychological dimension of safety culture [77] and its use can be foreseen to augment safety management within companies as it increases managers' and workers' safety awareness. In this light, it can be considered a proper tool to foster resilience safety culture by means of continuous improvement and learning [78].…”

An Assessment of Ergonomics Climate and Its Association with Self-Reported Pain, Organizational Performance and Employee Well-Being

“…These practices include more collaborative relationships between management and employees, employee involvement in the decision-making to address ergonomics and safety issues, and employees participantion in ergonomics training awareness. Previous studies have introduced management commitment as a factor that can influence the other dimensions of safety [ 39 , 40 , 41 ].…”