THE LEVEL OF SAFETY CULTURE BELIEFS AND …ieomsociety.org/ieom_2016/pdfs/487.pdf · ... Safety and Health Officer ... president of NIOSH ... legislation regarding ergonomics and

Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations Management Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, March 8-10, 2016

THE LEVEL OF SAFETY CULTURE BELIEFS AND PRACTICES AMONGST SAFETY AND HEALTH

OFFICERS (SHOs) IN MALAYSIAN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES

1Rozlina Md Sirat, 2Jafri Mohd Rohani Faculty of Mechanical Engineering,

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, 81310 Skudai, Johor Bahru

[email protected],2 [email protected]

3Awaluddin Mohamed Shaharoun, 4Habibah Haron UTM Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology,

UTM KL [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract— The objectives of this study are to identify the level of safety culture in terms of the perceptions of the beliefs on the importance at workplace (SCB) and the existing safety culture practice (ESCP), to find out the level of SCB, and to identify to what extend safety is being closely practiced (ESCP) amongst Safety and Health Officers (SHOs). A questionnaire was sent to 173 SHOs in Malaysian manufacturing companies and 146 questionnaires were successfully returned. 22 questions related to self-regulations, commitment, motivation and communication which were identified through literature. Each respondent needs to rate his or her level of understanding of SCB and ESCP. Mean score analysis was used to determine the level of understanding of SCB and ESCP. Subsequently the differences between the two components are shown in a radar graph. The details of the items in identifying the levels of SCB and ESCP were analyzed. The study found the level of SCB is between medium high to high. However, the result of the ESCP shows they were in the range of medium low and high medium level. It is important to identify the level of safety practice in which it will portray the current safety culture in Malaysia especially when it involves ergonomics. This is to make a good strategy to implement ergonomics to inculcate safety culture.

Keywords— safety culture beliefs, safety culture practices, Safety and Health Officer (SHO)

I. INTRODUCTION

Malaysia aims to move towards preventive culture or safety culture in 2020. A master plan is introduced by Department of Occupational Safety and health (DOSH) under Ministry of Human resources, Malaysia. Even though the statistics of accident rate decreased year by year [1], it is a challenge when ergonomics an upward trend, with 161 cases on 2009, 238 in 2010, increase to 268 cases in 2011, 448 in 2012, 517 in 2013 and 675 in 2014 [1]. Lee Lam Thye, president of NIOSH mentioned that this is a jump of almost 18 times compared to 2006. The number of cases could be higher as he believed that many cases are under reported [2]. Thus it becomes important to study the level of Safety culture practice in Malaysia. In this paper, it is focusing on safety culture beliefs and practices. This is important to relate the ergonomics and safety culture in forms of the two situations mentioned above at the end of the authors’ whole study.

The study is to identify the extent of the practice of safety culture amongst SHOs in Malaysian manufacturing industries. At the same time their attitudes of how they consider the importance of the safety culture in their companies are also studied. Thus, safety culture in this study tried to compare the beliefs on the importance of the safety culture and the existing practices in their companies.

II. LITERATURE REVIEW

In general, culture comprises values and norms that guide individual’s behavior [3]. Safety culture (SC) may have some terminologies to portray the culture such as blame culture, normative culture, priority culture [4] and standardizing culture [5]. However, in this study we use the definition of safety culture in general as ‘a set of value, perceptions and attitudes and patterns of behaviour in safety [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]. It is a term with slight different definition in the academic and professional literature [4]. Other definition of safety culture that can be used is that safety culture is integration of safety thinking and practices into activities [11]. Safety culture reflects to organizational attitudes, values and behaviors concerning safety while safety management reflects to the formal safety practices and responsibilities documented in a safety management system [12].

1703© IEOM Society International


Safety culture was thought to shape many aspects of safety related performance, including behavior, communication, and the capacity for organization leaning [13]. Companies should have a strong safety culture to place high priority on safety related beliefs, values and attitudes [4] [14] [15] [16]. This can be done by implementing right management practice [3] in order to get positive outcome [4].

There are two perspectives of safety culture the researchers are looking at. First, every company or organizational has its own culture and the culture can be expected to impact the safety practice. Another perspective is that the company or organization target to inculcate a good safety culture and get the benefits of the implementation and at the same time, it is important to see to what extent their practice was. Thus it is in line with the statement from Corcoles (2011) [17] and Edwards et al. (2013) [4], safety culture is as a conceptualization that companies are looking at positive impact of safety culture Distinguishing these two perspective are important to get a correct idea..

By reminding the priority of strong and positive safety culture, it can achieve understanding of the necessity of the work to the organization, enhance motivation and ‘engagement’ or sense of belonging [18], subsequently may encompasses a good relationship between management and employees by providing adequate safety procedures and proper equipment [19]. It focused on preventive measures [20] in which reward will be given if comply and penalize if participate in unsafe practices [6]

Other benefits they gain for the implementation of safety culture such as [21]:

i) Leadership on safety and a commitment to safe working expressed visibly and in consistent fashion from seniormanagement to workers.

ii) Able to communicate within itself and its management team because they are well-trained to manage the risk

iii) Proactively intervening in unsafe situations

Without positive safety culture, it tends to cause accident due to unsafe act and unsafe condition [22]. This situation willalso as the resistance to the successful of company performance in which safety schemes and programs will be in failure at the outset [23]. Lower injuries mean lower medical and compensation costs, less loss of wages and workdays, and financial benefit to the company [24].

In this study, the authors used Eagly and Chaiken (1993) [25] approach in which attitudes can be described as cognitive and conative (behavioural), It is supported by some researchers [26] [27] [28]. Cognitive represents the beliefs or idea associated with a particular subject. Conative reflects actions or intentions directed towards action on objects. Shaftel and Shaftel (2005) [29] concluded that attitude also affects behavioral intentions, which represent ‘a plan of action that is arrived at throughconscious, deliberately processing. Davidson et al (1985) [30] found that ‘intention was better predictors of behavior’. Amongattitude theorist, it is commonly assumed that beliefs are in some sense the building blocks of attitudes [15]. Chang and Liao(2003) [28] called it as behavior intention and used this methodology in their research to measure attitude of their case studyobject in aviation field.

It is important to identify how awareness of the SHOs in terms of their attitudes based on their beliefs on the importance of the safety culture at workplace and how relate is the beliefs to their practice. Thus, the objective of the study is to identify to what extent the level of safety culture awareness which measured by their beliefs on the importance of Safety culture at workplace (SCB) and to assess to what extend SCB is being closely practiced (Existing safety culture practice -ESCP) amongst Safety and Health Officers (SHOs). The significant differences between SCB and ESCP will be evaluated to suggest improvement.

III. METHODOLOGY

In this study, the authors developed the questionnaire with the basis of cognitive components, representing the beliefs on importance of SC of respondents. It is used to measure attitudes of SHOs on the importance of SC on some issues. At the same time, the level existing safety culture practice (ESCP) is also being assessed. There were four main parts of the questionnaire. Part 1 was questionnaire regarding demographic of the respondents, Part 2 was regarding ergonomics in terms of EK, EB and EP mentioned above, Part 3a was about barriers of the ergonomics practice and 3b was the level of the understanding of the legislation regarding ergonomics and safety and health and Part 4 was on safety culture. This paper is focusing on Part 1 and Part 4 of the questionnaire for analysis. The demographic including their education level, past working experience (before involving in OSH), past working experience as OSH practitioner, and training hours obtained for ergonomics were used to identify the influence of SHOs individual factors in determining the level of knowledge and their beliefs on the importance of ergonomics implementation. The mean score and the Wilcoxon-T is used for each item to test the differences of the situation (SCB and ESC) as suggested by Field, 2005 [31].



The questionnaire has been developed at the end of 2009. List of SHO in 2009 was obtained from DOSH. Questionnaires have been distributed at the middle of 2010 and collected on early 2011. However, the result is still valid as there is no paper survey on safety culture in detail regarding their beliefs on the importance and practice in Malaysia.

Population of SHOs in Malaysia who registered under DOSH was 1722 in 2009 (based on the record and interview with DOSH Officer representative, 2009). From the numbers, they are located in the ten industrial sectors based on first schedule shown in OSHA (refer OSHA, 1994). The sectors were manufacturing, mining and quarrying; construction; agriculture, forestry and fishing; utilities (electricity, gas, water, sanitary); transport, storage and communication; wholesale and retail traders; hotels and restaurants; finance, insurance, real estate, business services; and public services and statutory authorities). 60% was from construction field, 30% from the other sectors mentioned above while 10% was allocated in the manufacturing field. This study focused on the manufacturing companies that has production line, and has fulfill the situation of fitting the job to the man. Normally, in manufacturing companies, there are 90% was SMIs and the others were from large manufacturing companies and multinational companies. Thus, most of the manufacturing companies are not required SHO in the company as mentioned in Regulation (18) Safety and Health Officer under OSHA 1994 (OSHA, 1994).Thus, in conclusion, the manufacturing field for the study was about 173 SHOs. According to Krejcie and Morgan (1970) [32], if the population is 173, 119 is minimum requirement to be representative in the field as sampling. In this study, 146 completed questionnaires have been returned and this is adequate [32].

IV. ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The demographic data of respondents in Table 1 shows that most of the respondents are from the electric and electronics (23%). The highest formal education level they obtained mostly were degree (45.9%, followed by diploma (29.5%) and PMR/ SPM (14.4%). More than 80% respondents have more than five years in working experience and almost 60 % of them have more than 5 year in OSH experience. For the ergonomics training, less than 40% choose training more than one day course. This is important to identify training hours for ergonomics. It is because SHO can choose whatever training regarding OSH to get Continuous Program (CEP) point. Under regulation of the Occupational Safety and Health (safety and Health Officer) Regulations 1997, SHO need to have 15 CEP in order to renew the SHO certificate. Yet it depends on awareness of SHO to determine what type of training that important to be taken in enhancing his/ her knowledge. Thus, ergonomics may or may not include in their application of training.

Table 2 illustrates the level of safety culture between the beliefs on the importance and the existing practice. Then, mean score is calculated. The gaps of level between each other is also illustrated in the same table using Wilcoxon -T test and significance value.

It shows the mean score and the Wilcoxon T-test result with the significance value for each item. There were four types of questions regarding self-regulation, commitment, motivation and communication. However, for analysis purpose, the discussion is done to all 29 items without categorizing them. The raw data is based on literature review and discussion with DOSH, NIOSH and some SHO representatives without going through exploratory factor analysis (EFA). This is important to see the beliefs and the practice of the activities in detail.

The highest mean score for SCB was item no. 20 (Consideration of employer to communicate actively to workers regarding safety and health issues (ex: email, bulletin board, morning briefing, tool box meeting) (µ = 6.18). While the highest means score for ESCP was from item no. 22 (Employer is responsible to attend in safety and health meeting periodically) (µ = 5.10).

The lowest mean score shows that item no. 4 fulfilled the lowest mean score for the two situation of SCB and ESCP (µ for SCB = 5.25; µ for ESCP = 3.68).



TABLE 1 DEMOGRAPHICS OF RESPONDENTS FROM MANUFACTURING COMPANIES (146 RESPONDENTS AS SHOS)

Variable Frequency Percentage (%)

Classification of industries Electrical and electronic 34 23.3

Chemical or apart, petroleum, coal 25 17.1

Metal, machine and equipment product 25 17.1

Rubber or plastic based 17 11.6

Automotive and accessories 13 8.9

Food/ drinks 13 8.9

Wooden product including furniture 7 4.8

Beverages and cigarettes 6 4.1

Others (printing and publishing; paper and paper based

product; textile, cloth and leather) 6 4.1

Highest Formal Education PMR/ SPM 21 14.4

Diploma 43 29.5

Degree 67 45.9

Post degree 15 10.3

Past work experience < 5 years 29 19.9

6 - 15 years 29 19.9

16 - 25 years 58 39.7

> 25 years 30 20.6

Experience with current job as OSH

practitioner

< 5 years 57 39.0

6 - 15 years 39 26.7

16 - 25 years 43 29.5

> 25 years 7 4.8

Average ergonomics training received

in past three years

< 1 hour 23 15.8

1 - 4 hours (half day course) 40 27.4

5 - 8 hours (one day course) 30 20.5

9 - 12 hours (one and half day course) 20 13.7

More than one and half day course 33 22.6

Based on the Wilcoxon T-test result, all 22 items have significant value of p (p<0.001). That means current practices in

safety culture have significant gaps to the level of their beliefs on the importance of safety culture at workplace. The biggest significant gaps between SCB and ESCP among all 22 items were item no. 8 regarding the use of technology for generating an ergonomics environment (workplace design/ equipment, workspace) (µ for SCB = 5.90 and µ for ESCP = 4.23; Z = -8.914, p < 0.001). The smallest gaps is item no. 5 (All organizational level allow comment on each other on safety and health issue to identify corrective action) ( µ for SCB = 5.95 and µ for ESCP = 4.86; Z = -7.975, p<0.001).

The result shows that SHOs believed that the important element in inculcating safety culture is the consideration of employer to communicate actively to workers regarding safety and health issues (ex: email, bulletin board, morning briefing, tool box meeting). While the SHOs agreed that in current practice in safety based on the highest score is that they always have meetings regularly. Nevertheless, the issue raise in the meetings normally focus on the safety. This result has been agreed by some SHOs through some interview done during the discussion on the result. This is due to the seriousness of the issue of safety compared to ergonomics. As mentioned by Punnet et al (2009) [33], safety is hazard that can be identified easily such as moving machine, breaking of ropes, height whereas ergonomics is hazard that difficult to be identified and need a proper method to identify. At the same time, ergonomics take a long period to see the effect while safety effect can be



seen right after the accident such as wounds, cuts, burns [33] [34]. That is possibly the reasons why ergonomics is not taken seriously compared to safety.

SHOs have less agreement for the issue to coordinate safety and health policy with human resource (HR) policy. Even though there is a literature [8] mentioned the advantage of the integration of safety and health with HR policy especially when it is involving ergonomics, yet in Malaysia, the culture is to split the OSH policy and HR policy. That means they have their own objectives, roles and responsibilities of each level in organization, signed by employer representative to show the seriousness of the OSH policy to be complied.

TABLE 2 MEAN SCORE OF SCB AND ESCP AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THEM

No.

Safety culture measurement

Mean score

Wilcoxon T test and significance

value SCB ESCP SCB vs ESCP

1 Ergonomics is given high priority (e.g: ergonomics is mentioned clearly in OSH policy) 5.85 4.61 *** -8.582

2 Top management take proper safety measure into consideration proactively. 5.82 4.58 *** -7.989

3 All organization levels are involved in continuous improvement at the workplace (discuss safety issues and propose improvement methods in meetings)

5.90 4.58 *** -8.165

4 Safety and health policy (including ergonomics ) is coordinated with HR policies.

5.25 3.68 *** -8.396

5 All organizational level allow comment on each other on safety and health issue to identify corrective action

5.95 4.86 *** -7.975

6 Teamwork spirit is developed (e.g: good teamwork and communication ) 6.05 4.76 *** -8.647

7 Consultation work is used to assist in analysis and ergonomics improvements. 5.58 4.09 *** -8.705

8 Top management approved the use of new technology for generating an ergonomics environment (workplace design, equipment, workspace)

5.90 4.23 ***-8.914

9 Standards of action or work procedures are elaborated on basis of risk evaluation. 5.97 4.73 *** -8.269

10 Each new employee is trained on the importance of safety at the workplace

5.81 4.27 *** -8.051

11 Top management consider to encourage staff to practise what they have learnt in training.

6.08 4.60 *** -8.803

12 All organization levels develop high level of trust in the employee/ employer relationship in the company.

5.93 4.59 *** -8.325

13 Top management considers to offer suitable rewards to workers for their participating in OSH activities and suggestion for improvements. 5.84 4.45 *** -8.554

14 Top management provides financial support for ergonomics issue 5.85 4.25 *** -8.585

15 Top management gives enough knowledge (training) to SHO in the organizations. 5.87 4.39 *** -8.334

16 Employees are both involved and empowered. 5.73 4.22 *** -8.543

17 Managers are personally involved in the safety activities and training 5.86 4.22 *** -8.679

18 Roles and responsibilities in OSH are clearly defined and understood 6.08 4.79 *** -8.279

19 Consideration of communication among top management and workers about issues related to safety aims to be achieved

6.17 4.91 *** -8.621

20 Consideration of employer to communicate actively to workers regarding safety and health issues (ex: email, bulletin board, morning briefing, tool box meeting)

6.18 4.98 *** -8.392

21 Sufficient opportunity to discuss and deal with safety issues in meetings 5.91 4.36 *** -8.512

22 Employer is responsible to attend in safety and health meeting periodically (e.g: show their high awareness on safety and health issue including ergonomics)

6.14 5.10 *** -7.973

Indicator: *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05



Figure 1. Comparison of mean score between safety culture beliefs and the current practices

Figure 1 shows the radar graph to illustrate the comparison of the two factors graphically. From no.1 to no. 22 represents

the number of question, while no.1 to no. 7 cross the line represents the likert number. Table 3 shows the range of the SCB and ESCP. All SCB and ESCP show significant difference and it can be seen from the radar graph in Figure 1, The lines for SCB compared to ESCP have significant difference gaps. The µ range for the SCB is between 5.25 and 6.18 which is in medium high and high level range. The µ range of ESCP between 3.68 and 5.10 and it is between medium low and medium high level range.

According to some researchers, the attitudes on how they look the importance of safety, may shape a behavior and subsequently a culture [14][29][38][39]. However in reality, the higher the score on the perceptions on the importance of some issues, the better the understanding but not necessarily the better the practice [40].

TABLE 3 COMPARISON ON THE LEVELS OF SHOS’S PERCEPTIONS ON THE IMPORTANCE OF SAFETY CULTURE AT THEIR WORKPLACE AND THEIR PRACTICES IN MALAYSIAN MANUFACTURING COMPANIES

Likert scale Low Medium low Medium high High Range SC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

SCB Medium high and high level

5.25-6.18

ESCP Medium low and medium high level

3.68 - 5.10

Based on the result from the survey, the current practice to inculcate safety culture is not as expected. The benchmark of the practice for the expert such as SHO should be at least at scale 6 in order to inculcate safety culture and to achieve government aspiration: to achieve preventive culture or safety culture in 2020. Yet the lack of safety culture practices would make the ergonomics to be difficult to be implemented. This is also to identify the possibility of ergonomics to be inculcated in safety culture.

V. CONCLUSIONS As a conclusion, there were some significant gaps between the perceptions of SHOs on the importance of safety culture at their workplace and the practice. This study reveals that even though SHOs has high level of SCB, they do not put safety culture into practice. In the future, safety culture is supposed to be a critical factor to the successfulness of ergonomics implementation. In order to ensure ergonomics can be inculcated in safety culture, it is believed that it is important to

01234567

12

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1213

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

2122

Beliefs

Practice



strengthen the current practice of safety culture. This is to make a good strategy to implement ergonomics within safety culture, not only safety issue.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT We are grateful for the UTM scholarship to Author 1.

REFERENCES [1] SOCSO, "Social Security Organization (SOCSO) Annual Report 2010," http://www.perkeso.gv.my/Jadual9.pdf 2010.

[Online]. [2] P. Boon, "Musculoskeletal Disease Increase for Concern," Borneo Post online, Malaysia, 2013. [3] J. K. Chen and D. Zorigt, "Managing Occupational Health and Safety in the Mining Industry," Journal of Business

Research, pp. 1-11, 2012. [4] J. R. Edwards , J. Davey and K. Armstrong , "Returning to the Roots of Culture: A review and Re-Conceptualisation

of Safety Culture," Safety Science, pp. 70-80, 2013. [5] L. Wang and R. Sun, "The Development of a New Safety Culture Evaluation Index System," in International

Symposium on Safety and Engineering in China, 2012 (ISSSE-2012), China, 2012. [6] N. F. Pidgeon, "safety culture and risk management in organizations," journal of cross-cultural psychology (22), pp.

129-140, 1991. [7] R. Ahasan and D. Imbeau, "Who belongs To Ergonomics?," Work Study, vol. 52, no. 3, pp. 123-128, 2003. [8] B. F. Muniz, J. M. Peon and C. V. Ordas, "Safety culture: analysis of the causal relationship between its key

dimensions," Journal of safety research. Vol 38, pp. 627-641, 2007b. [9] DOSH, "Occupational Safety and Health Master Plan 2015 (OSH-MP 15)," Ministry of Human Resources, Malaysia,

Putrajaya, 2010. [10] J. C. Pearson, P. E. Nelson, S. Titsworth and L. Harter, Introduction to Human Communication Eighth ed., Boston:

Mc Graw Hill Companies Inc., 2000. [11] A. Baumann, L. Holness, P. Norman, D. I. Wheeler and P. Boucher, "The ergonomics program implementation

continuum (EPIC): Integration of health and safety -a process evaluation in the health care sector," Journal of Safety Research. Vol. 43, pp. 205-213, 2012.

[12] A. Ek, M. Runefors and J. Borell, "Relationships between safety culture aspects- a work process to enable interpretation," Marine policy Vol. 44 , pp. 179-186, 2014 .

[13] H. F. G. ACSNI, Organizing for safety, Norwich: HSE Books, 1993. [14] M. Cooper, "Towards a Model of Safety Culture," Safety Science, vol. 36, pp. 111-136, 2000. [15] F. Guldenmund, "the nature of safety culture : a review of theory and research," Safety Science, pp. 215-257, 2000. [16] R. M. Choudhry, D. Fang and S. Mohamed, "The Nature of Safety Culture: A Survey of the State of The Art," Safety

Science, vol. 45, pp. 993-1012, 2007. [17] M. Martinez-Corcoles, F. Gracia, I. Tomas and J. Peiro, "Leadership and employees' perceived safety behaviors in a

nuclear power plant: A structural equation model," Safety Science Vol 49, pp. 1118-1129, 2011. [18] A. B. Bakker and W. B. Schaufeli, "positive organizational behavior. engaged employees in flourishing

organizations.," journal of organizational behavior (29), pp. 147-154, 2008. [19] C. Frazier, T. Ludwig, B. Whitaker and D. Roberts, "a hierarchical factor analysis of a safety culture survey," Journal

of Safety Research, pp. 15-28, 2013. [20] E. S. Geller, The psychology of Safety Handbook., Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press, 2001. [21] M. Fitzgerald, "Safety Performance Improvement Through Culture Change”. Part B. July 2005," Process Safety

Environmental Protection, vol. 83, no. B4, pp. 324-330, 2005. [22] D. Z. H. V. T. T. G. A. a. S. G. Wiegmann, "Safety Culture: An Integrative review," International Journal of Aviation

Psychology, (14(2)), pp. 117-134, 2004. [23] S. Russel, "logistic crime knowing and managing the risk.," Airforce Journal of Logistic, pp. 109-119, 2000. [24] A. A. Shikdar and N. M. Sawaqed, "Ergonomics and occupational health and safety in the oil industry: a managers'

response," computers and industrial Engineering vol 47, pp. 223-232, 2004. [25] A. H. Eagly and S. Chaiken, The Psychology of Attitudes, Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace, Jovanovich, 1993. [26] R. G. a. M. Wolf, Instrument Development in the Affective Domain: measuring Attitudes and Values in Corporate and

School settings: second Edition., Boston. M.A: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993. [27] P. Erwin, Attitude and Persuasion, Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis. Inc., 2001.



[28] Y. H. Chang and M. Y. Liao, "The Effect of Aviation Safety Education on Passenger Cabin Safety Awareness,"Safety Science, vol. 47, pp. 1337-1345, 2009.

[29] J. Shaftel and T. L. Shaftel, "The Influence of Effective Teaching in Accounting on Student Attitudes, Behavior, andPerformance," Accounting Education, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 231-246, 2005.

[30] A. R. Davidson, S. Yantis, M. Norwood and D. Montano, "Amount of Information about the Attitude Object andAttitude Attitude Behavior Consistency," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., vol. 49, pp. 1184-1198, 1985.

[31] A. Field, Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Second Edition, London: SAGE Publications Ltd., 2005.[32] R. Krejcie and D. Morgan, "Determining Sample Size for Research Activities," Educational and Psychological

measurement. Small Sample Techniques. The NEA Research Bulletin, Vol. 38., 1970.[33] L. Punnet, M. Cherniack, R. Henning, T. Morse and P. Faghri, "A Conceptual Framework for Integrating Workplace

Health Promotion and Occupational Ergonomics Programs," Public Health Reports., vol. 124, pp. 16-25, 2009.[34] W. T. Singleton, "The Nature and Aims of Ergonomics," in Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Fourth

Edition, Geneva, International Labour Office, 1998, pp. 29.2-29.5.[35] IAM, "Administrative management," 3 April 2013. [Online]. Available: www.instam.org/. [Accessed 26 June 2014].[36] S. Ahmed, M. H. Hassan and Z. Taha, "State of Implementation of TPM in SMIs: A Survey Study in Malaysia,"

Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 93-106, 2004.[37] OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994 (Act 514) & Regulations and Orders, Kuala Lumpur: International

Law Book Services (ILBS). , 2011.[38] M. Bhasi and M. N. Vinodkumar, "Safety climate factors and its relationship with accidents and personal attributes in

the chemical industry," Safety Science, vol. 47, no. 5, pp. 659-667, 2009.[39] K. Mearns, S. M. Whitaker and R. Flin, "Safety Climate, Safety Management Practice and Safety Performance in

Offshore Environment," Safety Science, vol. 41, pp. 641-680, 2003.

BIOGRAPHY

Rozlina Md Sirat is an Industrial Engineering lecturer at Department of Materials, Manufacturing and Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor. She is currently completing her PhD in safety culture and ergonomics.

Jafri Rohani is a Senior Quality and Statistical Engineering Lecturer. Dr Jafri is also Head of the Industrial Engineering Programme at the Department of Materials, Industrial and Manufacturing Engineering, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor. Currently, he is the President of Johor Cost and Quality Engineers Society. He is a member of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and Human Factor Society of Malaysia. He holds B. Sc (Industrial Engineering), B. Sc (Mathematical Statistics) from New Mexico State University, USA and holds a M. Sc. (Industrial and Systems Engineering ) from the Ohio University, USA. He obtained his Ph.D in Statistical Process Control at the Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Skudai, Johor.

Awaluddin Mohamed Shaharoun is a Dean of UTM Razak School of Engineering and Advanced Technology. His main research interest currently is in Remanufacturing and Manufacturing System Integration. He has published over 60 papers in international journals and conferences. Prof Awaluddin has been called on numerous occasions to serve as consultant in many locals and inetrnational organizations in the area of innovations, strategic management and human capital development.

Habibah Haron is a senior leturer at the Department of Engineering and Advanced Technology UTM. Currently, Dr Habibah is the Masters Project Coordinator for Razak School and also Engineering Education Programme Coordinator for UTM KL Campus. She is also a committee member of the Woman Engineering Section of Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM-WE) since 2005.


Documents

THE LEVEL OF SAFETY CULTURE BELIEFS AND …ieomsociety.org/ieom_2016/pdfs/487.pdf · ... Safety and Health Officer ... president of NIOSH ... legislation regarding ergonomics and