Assessing the Mediating Role of Safety Communication Between Safety Culture and Employees Safety Performance

Abstract

The main purpose of this research was to investigate the mediating role of safety communication (SCO) in the relationship between safety culture (SC) and safety performance (SP) amongst employees in the petrochemical industry. Safety communication methods not only enhance working conditions but also have a positive impact on employee's behaviors and attitudes toward safety leading toward reduced incidents in the workplace environment. A stratified sampling method was followed to collect data in the petrochemical industry in Malaysia. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was utilized to analyze the hypothesized model, using data from 320 participants. The findings reveal that safety communication partially mediates the association between safety culture and safety performance. Further, safety culture was found to have a significant and positive effect on safety performance. This -study makes a significant theoretical contribution by providing empirical evidence on the direct and indirect relationship between safety culture and safety performance in the petrochemical industry.

Full text

ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 10 March 2022
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.840281
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 1March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281
Edited by:
Alberto Modenese,
University of Modena and Reggio
Emilia, Italy
Reviewed by:
Erman Çakıt
˛,
Gazi University, Turkey
Mohammed Aboramadan,
University of Insubria, Italy
Madeeha Samma,
Shanghai University, China
Samma Faiz Rasool,
Zhejiang University of
Technology, China
*Correspondence:
Gehad Mohammed Ahmed Naji
gehadnaji.utp@gmail.com
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Occupational Health and Safety,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Public Health
Received: 20 December 2021
Accepted: 31 January 2022
Published: 10 March 2022
Citation:
Naji GMA, Isha ASN, Alazzani A,
Saleem MS and Alzoraiki M (2022)
Assessing the Mediating Role of
Safety Communication Between
Safety Culture and Employees Safety
Performance.
Front. Public Health 10:840281.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.840281
Assessing the Mediating Role of
Safety Communication Between
Safety Culture and Employees Safety
Performance
Gehad Mohammed Ahmed Naji 1
*, Ahmad Shahrul Nizam Isha 1, Abdulsamad Alazzani 2,
Muhammad Shoaib Saleem 1and Mohammed Alzoraiki 3
1Department of Management and Humanities, University of Technology Petronas, Tronoh, Malaysia, 2Department of HRM,
College of Administrative and Financial Science, Qatar University, Doha, Qatar, 3Gulf University, Sanad, Bahrain
The main purpose of this research was to investigate the mediating role of
safety communication (SCO) in the relationship between safety culture (SC) and
safety performance (SP) amongst employees in the petrochemical industry. Safety
communication methods not only enhance working conditions but also have a positive
impact on employee’s behaviors and attitudes toward safety leading toward reduced
incidents in the workplace environment. A stratified sampling method was followed to
collect data in the petrochemical industry in Malaysia. Structural equation modeling (SEM)
was utilized to analyze the hypothesized model, using data from 320 participants. The
findings reveal that safety communication partially mediates the association between
safety culture and safety performance. Further, safety culture was found to have a
significant and positive effect on safety performance. This -study makes a significant
theoretical contribution by providing empirical evidence on the direct and indirect
relationship between safety culture and safety performance in the petrochemical industry.
Keywords: safety culture, safety communication, safety performance, petrochemical sector, Malaysia
INTRODUCTION
Despite a wide variety of approaches and ideas throughout the years to enhance safety culture
and occupational health and safety in the workplace, the petrochemical oil and gas industry has
faced difficulties to diminish a high rate of fatalities and injuries amongst working staff (1,2). In
the United States alone there were 138 deaths, due to of the nature of work in the petrochemical
industry (3), and this regrettable trend extended throughout the sector’s operations around the
world. By comparison, the industry’s on-the-job fatality rate in the United States was ∼7.6 times
higher than the national average (4).
Many previous studies have examined the link between safety culture and safety outcomes (5–9).
However, there is a lack of evidence in the literature on the essential role of safety communication
in the relationship between safety culture and safety performance. Effective safety communication
plays a vital role in reducing incidents of employees at the workplace. Safety communication is not
only about the exchange of information on safety in the workplace; it is also about influencing staff
behavior and attitudes toward safety (10). According to Noort, Reader, Shorrock, and Kirwan (11)
effective safety communication positively affects safety performance. On the other hand, Mullen
(12,13), identified that poor communication often occurs among workers, particularly among

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
employees and senior management, and may be due to
a neglect of constructive communication and feedback
regarding workplace safety. One of the reasons for poor
safety communication is the lack of a positive safety culture
(14). Therefore, the current study aims to fill this gap and
contribute to safety literature, by investigating the role of safety
communication as a mediating factor in the relationship between
safety culture and employee safety performance.
This study focuses on the petrochemical and oil and gas
industry since this entails high risks related to health and safety.
The oil and gas sector is under public scrutiny like never
before on a host of health, safety, and environmental problems
(15). These concerns are already impacting how companies
operate and interact with the public. A pilot program with
nine companies called the SafeOCS Industry Safety Database
managed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics in the U.S,
has selected three potential next steps for the use of this industry
wide safety database. One of the main steps is: “Develop effective
communication processes, including dashboards, to share lessons
learned, review aggregated results, assess causal factors, network,
and discuss potential actions to prevent recurrence and thereby
improve safety” (16). According to Curlee et al. (17), all the
petrochemical and oil and gas production and exploration
activities, typically experience the highest fatality rates of all
the major industries. In the same line, Cloughley and Thomas
(18), stated thatpetrochemical activities tend to be harsh and
hazardous as they take place within ahigh pressure and high
temperature (HPHT) environment.
Based on the aforementioned argument, we hypothesize that
safety communication will mediate the relationship between
safety culture and employee safety performance. Safety culture,
by reducing accidents, allows employers to invest their resources
in obtaining and enhancing safety performance (19–21). The rest
of the paper is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a review
of the literature and develops the study hypotheses; Section 3
presents the methods and materials; Section 4 presents the data
analysis and results, Sections 5 and 6 present the discussion
and conclusion.
All in all, this study aims to provide new theoretical and
practical insights in the relationship between safety culture
and safety performance by exploring the key role of safety
communication as a mediating variable. It also does so in a newly
industrialized country context.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Personnel in the field have to deal with the instability
of the drilling and production process. Activities such
as overbalanced wells, gas leakages, and generally, the
reactive nature of hydrocarbon resources tend to create
life-threatening situations if not monitored well (22). That
is why much of the literature has focused on the health
safety environment (HSE) in the petrochemical, oil and
gas sector.
Employers paid around “1 billion USD per week” for direct
staff compensation costs according to National Safety Council
statistics in 2010. The economic influence of workplace injuries
in the U.S. were nearly 142 billion USD every year and the
production loss because of accidents and injuries was equal
to 80 million days lost every year (23). While deaths and
injuries are irreversible effects, there are several financial and
environmental effects involved as well. Indeed, if everybody
behaved and performed safely, the production would certainly
increase, or at least there would be no drop in production. A
survey conducted by Liberty Mutual and cited by (24) found out
amongst executives that:
❖9% indicated that a company’s financial performance is
greatly influenced by a safe workplace.
❖61% assumed that for each $1 for safety invested, a $3 or more
return was observed.
❖13% stated that in each $1 invested in safety, $10 would
be reimbursed.
❖And 40% expected indirect costs between $3 and $5, for every
$1 in direct costs of injuries or incidents.
From the devastating impact of the Bhopal tragedy in 1984 to
the Macondo accident in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010, accidents
have been proven to affect individuals, the environment, and the
company’s brand, as well as result in additional legal concerns
such as criminal charges (25). The adverse effects of industrial
incidents on societal loss have been evaluated in numerous
studies (26).
There are three sectors in the petrochemical industry:
upstream, midstream, and downstream. Employees in all three
industries operate in high-risk conditions (Figure 1). The
upstream sector is responsible for the production of fundamental
raw materials, the midstream sector is for intermediates, and the
downstream sector is in charge of the process and production of
diverse byproducts (20).
Upstream Operations
The upstream operation is the initial step in the oil and gas
production process, and it includes searching for crude oil and
natural gas deposits, as well as recovering and producing them
(27). Within the oil and gas industry, this stage is known as the
E&P (exploration and production) stage (28). Searching for oil
reserves, either underground or underwater, drilling exploratory
wells, and, if deposits are discovered, operating these wells to
bring found deposits to the surface are all common areas in the
upstream process.
Midstream Operations
The natural gas and oil industry’s midstream operation makes a
significant contribution to everything needed to transport and
store crude oil and natural gas before they are refined and
processed into fuels and critical components for a long list of
products used every day. Pipelines and all the infrastructure
required to transport these resources over far distances,
such as pumping stations, tank trucks, rail tank cars, and
transcontinental tankers, are all part of the midstream industry
(29,30).
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 2March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
FIGURE 1 | Upstream, midstream, and downstream operations in the oil and gas sector. Source (82).
Downstream Operations
The final and most diversified stage of the oil and gas industry
is downstream operations. This could include everything from
crude oil refining to natural gas processing and purification,
as well as sales, marketing, product distribution, and retail.
The production of petrochemicals and plastics is also included.
During the downstream stage, many products derived from crude
oil are produced, including diesel oil, liquefied petroleum gas
(LPG), petrol, fertilizers, antifreeze, pharmaceuticals, and even
cosmetics (31). Downstream is without a doubt the part of the
oil and gas business that has the most direct relationship to daily
consumers, which means that jobs in this sector are in high
demand and diverse (32,33).
Safety Culture
Many companies throughout the world are becoming more
interested in the concept of “safety culture” as a way
to reduce the risk of large-scale disasters and accidents
that occur during ordinary work. Its expanding relevance
is evidenced by publicly declared goals in the offshore,
shipping, and nuclear industries to achieve consistent global
safety cultures (34–37). Companies are motivated to find
solutions to prevent workplace injuries because of the costs
connected with them and the time necessary for accident
investigations (38,39).
Improved culture and behaviors of operating personnel play a
vital role in safe operations (40,41). Visible leadership motivates
personnel and enhances the performance of the company. It
also enhances the commitment of the operating personnel. It
has been observed that people are poor in assessing risks whilst
performing operations as people tend to become acclimated
to risk, i.e., “Used to Risk.” They unconsciously adjust their
definition of acceptable risk. E.g., NASA Officials got used to
living with small failures, the result-the catastrophic failure
of the challenger. Overconfidence is also one of the main
reasons for accidents–exposure to fairly fixed and no risk over
a long period results in the underestimation of risk (42,43).
People have trouble imagining how small failings can lead
to catastrophic disasters (Dominos Effect). Ignorance supplies
fuel for accidents to happen. No matter how well defined
a system is, someone will find a way to defeat the pro-
active measures. A large number of cases are available in the
industry (44). Many previous studies (45,46), mentioned that
there is a significant relationship between safety culture and
safety communication.
As a result, the organizational culture, specifically the
safety culture, is predicted to play a critical role in the
mitigation of safety communication, hence hypothesis 1 was
developed to investigate the link between safety culture and
safety communication.
Hypothesis 1: Safety culture has a positive impact on
safety communication.
Factors of Safety Cultures
Work Environment
Workplace environment (WE) refers to the procedures and
policies that must be implemented to ensure the health and
safety of employees. The first policy entails accident detection
and control based on regulatory regulations, as well as staff
safety training and education (47). The immediate context
in which an individual conducts his task is referred to as
the workplace environment. The setting in which employees
work has a significant effect on the quality of their work
and their performance. Improper surroundings present dangers,
making the workplace environment dangerous and slowing
the employee’s production rate (48,49). Furthermore, health
and safety at work have professionals and legal obligations
to provide employees with a workplace free of hazards that
could result in significant physical injury or death. In addition,
they must provide a safe and healthy working environment for
their employees.
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 3March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
Organization Communication
Organizational communication (OC): is known as a productive
relationship with others, understanding and listening to each
other. Conveying ideas and communications obviously and
consistently; expressing things comprehensibly and simply, in
ways that others can understand, and showing sincere knowledge,
interest, and concern; bringing these features together to
make variation happen. Communication effectively sustains the
development of optimistic relationships with all investors and
can impact attitudes and behaviors regarding safety and health
issues (50).
Leadership
Leadership (LS) is related to the process of social influence,
which maximizes the effects of others, toward the achievement
of a goal. Leaders are individuals who have great influence
attitudes and behaviors of others. Usually, they do this through
their normal character and by their influence. Leaders can be
assigned at any position in an organization from the board and
senior executives, through middle-level managers such as site
managers, to front-line supervisors (19,51–53). Safety and health
improvement in an organization depends on positive leadership
and competent management.
Safety Performance
Kucherov et al. (54), mentioned that safety performance occurs
when front-line individuals improve their behaviors, however,
behaviors on the front line will only change if there is a great
leader to monitor their behaviors, make a different feeling
of belonging in the teamwork. With this regard, oil and gas
companies are increasingly developing and implementing safety
leadership training programs. It aims to help leaders to create
a personal and organizational safety imperative to be apart
from their daily personnel behavior, provide Leaders to deliver
the cultural and behavioral changes on the front line, and
make safety leadership self-sustaining with the organization
(55,56). People, processes, tasks, and systems can interact
purposefully and cooperatively to achieve health, safety, and
environmental (HSE) goals through communication. The way
we communicate with safety will have an impact on whether or
not people accept and engage in the process, and the language
we use will frequently indicate whether or not the method is
accepted (9). Graphs representing lost time, medical procedures,
employee’s compensation rates, intensity and accident rates, and
good performance measures can be used to communicate an
organization’s performance. These are used to enable continuous
improvement and increase line employee’s responsibilities for
meeting an organization’s HSE goals (57).
Safety incidents data have been collected and categorized by
Oil and Gas Producers (OGP) and the international association
of oil and gas producers since 1985. (IOGP) obtained the largest
database of safety performance in the exploration and production
industry. Around fifty participant organizations of the oil and
gas industry contribute to annual benchmarking processes that
focus mainly on incidents, accidents, and injuries in the oil and
gas companies (58,59).
According to Coday et al. (60), the process of extracting
hydrocarbons in remote geographical locations and harsh
environmental conditions is drastically increasing worldwide.
Combined associations and established partnerships between
giant oil producers on risky international projects are common.
Sharing contracts with several investors must be managed
properly. There is a high rate of non-productive time that
requires swift and decisive action, and the overall equipment
efficiency needs to grow (61,62).
Human and environmental safety and health protection
remain the number one priority for the oil and gas industry.
These companies are used to dealing with stringent EHS
regulations across the entire span of their activities, from
exploration and production, to pipeline management and
marketing (63,64). These regulations are not only stringent but
also constantly revised to take into consideration technological
development and the more extreme conditions in which
oil and gas companies operate (65). Previous research
(9,66,67), hasrevealed that positive safety culture and safety
communication were essential to enhanced safety performance.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are established based on the
preceding discussion.
Hypothesis 2: Safety communication has a positive impact on
safety performance.
Hypothesis 3: Safety culture factors has a positive impact on
safety performance.
Safety Communication
Today, a growing number of businesses are prioritizing safety
communications as a key value. This emphasis on safe workplace
benefits not only employee morale as well as the business
line. According to the “Liberty Mutual Workplace Safety Index
(68),” a company may expect a $4 return on investment for
every $1 invested in workplace safety. Safety communication
is the most influencing tool in all aspects of business, and the
workplace is no exception. Safety hazards, regulations, goals,
warnings, area guidelines, rules, and progress reports should be
communicated to employees via a variety of media for a truly
protected workplace to be implemented (69). Organizational
safety culture, leadership, and group climates are all part of
the bigger picture when it comes to safety communication
(70). The use of researcher-based evaluation and feedback to
operational and production workers to improve their daily oral
safety communication with employees resulted in considerably
higher levels of safety performance in the workplace environment
(71,72). In their conceptualizations and evaluations of the
safety culture in various industries, several scholars have added
safety communication (73–75). The term “safety culture” refers
to a set of shared organizational ideals aimed at reducing
risk. This is when most people in an organization, from
top leadership to temporary workers, place high importance
on ensuring a safe workplace (76). Poor safety culture and
communication have been linked to infamous and large-scale
health and safety catastrophes in the past, demonstrating why
encouraging improved safer practices is a powerful strategy
(77). Employee errors, however, are not the main source of
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 4March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
FIGURE 2 | Safety performance hypothesis model.
blame. Poor management actions, such as ignoring the need to
develop channels of communication with employees or ignoring
employee feedback, can result in large financial losses (78).
Improving health and safety communication systems, such as
the channels you use, how you record essential information,
and employee feedback techniques has the potential to improve
your company’s safety culture. You will encourage greater self-
responsibility in your employees as a result of this, and health
and safety will become a shared obligation rather than a separated
one (79). According to the finding of earlier studies (80,81),
when operational workers in the petrochemical oil and gas
exploration sector in Malaysia detect a positive safety culture at
the workplace, they must concentrate their efforts on performing
the project rather than on safety measures, as they risk being laid
off. Thus, it hypothesized that:
Hypothesis 4: Safety communication mediates the
relationship between safety culture and safety performance.
As illustrated in Figure 2, a framework was constructed
in this study to clarify that good safety performance, safety
communication, and safety are all related to safety culture.
This framework has highlighted three key variables that the
researcher is examining (safety culture, safety communication,
and safety performance).
In this study, safety culture will be an independent
variable and assumed to influence safety performance
(dependent variable). The connection between safety culture
and safety performance will be mediated through safety
communication. This research will examine the importance
of safety communication in mediating the link between safety
culture and safety performance in Malaysian petrochemical and
oil and gas industries. By verifying the framework elements in
the context of Malaysia, this study will also look at several ways
for safety reducing risk, and accident prevention. The finding
of this study will target to contribute to a better understanding
of the factors that affect an employee’s safety performance and
how to increase positive safety behaviors. As a result, the model
of employee safety performance will aid in the improvement
of the worker’s productivity and well-being, as well as ensuring
his or her safety at work in general. Exchanges and protection
Questionnaires based on “social exchange theory” (SET) and
measuring the efficiency of exchanges have been utilized in the
areas of communication, safety culture, and safety performance
(83,84).
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Procedure
The surveys were delivered to Malaysian employees working
in the petrochemical, oil, and gas industries. The principal
investigator remained in the workplace throughout the
questionnaire’s completion to answer any queries that
respondents might have. Employees in the petrochemical
oil and gas sector responded with a total of 320 replies. As
a result, the total sample size was set at N=320. Therefore,
the sample size is sufficient for 95% CI with a 5% margin of
error (85).
Measures Used
The WE, OC, LS, SCO, and SP research instruments were adapted
from well-known and widely used measures by researchers
in this area (attached as Appendix A). Cronbach Alpha was
evaluated for all factors in a pilot test involving 60 employees.
The statement was declared suitable for usage because it
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 5March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
TABLE 1 | Instrument structure.
Constructs Dimensions No. of items References
Safety culture
Work environment (WE)
Organizational
communication (OC)
Leadership (LS)
16
6
5
5
(86,87)
Safety
performance
(SP)
9 (89)
Safety
communication
(SCO)
5 (88)
was over 0.70 for all the variables. The following are the
instrument’s specifications.
Safety Culture
For measuring (SC), the 16-items scale was adopted by (86,87).
It has three dimensions: work environment (WE), (6 items),
organization communication (OC), (5 items), and leadership
(LS), (5 items). For each factor of the safety culture scale,
the reliability values were determined to be as follows: work
environment (0.896), organization communication (0.872), and
leadership (0.922). As a result, the items are measured using a
five-point Likert scale (1 =Strongly Disagree; 2 =Disagree; 3 =
Neutral; 4 =Agree; 5 =Strongly Agree).
Safety Communication
SCO was designed by Vinodkumar and Bhasi (88), to examine
the level of safety communication. Comprised of five items and
was used to measure safety communication at the workplace
environment and enhanced the connection between safety
culture and safety performance, where the reliability value was
discovered (0.864). Each items were respondents answered on a
five-points Likert scale (1 =Strongly Disagree; 2 =Disagree; 3 =
Neutral; 4 =Agree; 5 =Strongly Agree).
Safety Performance
For measuring (SP), the 9-item scale was adopted by Wu et
al. (89). For each dimension of the safety performance scale,
we tested the reliability, and the result was (0.907). Items are
measured using a five-point Likert scale (1 =Strongly Disagree;
2=Disagree; 3 =Neutral; 4 =Agree; 5 =Strongly Agree).
Sampling and Data Collection Procedures
This research used a five-point Likert scale with 30 items
as the survey questionnaire (90–92), which has been used in
previous investigations (93,94). Table 1 shows the structure of
the research instruments.
The sample for this study was chosen using a stratified random
sampling procedure from the study’s population. “Stratified
random sampling” is defined as a stratification or segregation
procedure is followed by the selection of participants at random
in every stratum (95). Total numbers of 423 questionnaires
were distributed through the petrochemical oil and gas company
TABLE 2 | Demographic information of the respondents (n=320).
Main categories Sub-categories Frequencies Percentages %
Gender Male 318 99.4%
Female 2 0.6%
Age 20–29 Years 41 12.81%
30–39 Years 157 49.06%
40–49 Years 79 24.69%
50–59 Years 35 10.94%
60 years and above 8 2.50%
Marital status Single 42 13.13%
Married 265 82.81%
Divorced 13 4.06%
Education Graduate/Postgraduate 4 1.25%
College 44 13.75%
Secondary 263 82.19%
Primary 9 2.81%
in Malaysia. After invalid surveys were removed, 320 genuine
questionnaires were obtained, with an 86.89 % response rate.
Table 2 shows the percentage of males and females as 318
(99.4%) and 2 (0.6%), respectively; the gender structure of the
survey revealed a higher ratio of men than women, which is
consistent with the following features of the petrochemical oil
and gas companies in Malaysia.
Based on marital status, respondents were married at 82.81,
13.13 % were single, and 4.06% were divorced. In terms of
educational background, 82.19% of respondents had completed
secondary school. Furthermore, 13.75% of the respondents had
completed a college degree. In addition, 2.81% of respondents
had finished their primary education, and 1.25% had a degree of
graduate or postgraduate. As a result, the proportion of people
with secondary education was relatively high, which corresponds
to the requirements for employment in petrochemical oil & gas
companies in Malaysia.
According to the frequency of the age groups in the sample,
12.81% of the total respondents are between the age of 20–29
years, 49.06% are between the age of 30–39 years, and 24.69%
are between the ages of 40–49 years, and 10.94% are between
the ages of 50–59 years, and 2.50% are between the ages of 60
years and above. As a result, the age composition of the sample
was predominantly middle-aged and younger, which is consistent
with the age requirements for employees in the petrochemical oil
and gas sector.
Structural Equation Modeling Using Partial
Least Squares (PLS-SEM)
Structural equation modeling (SEM) is a multivariate method
for assessing the validity of competing hypotheses and obtained
samples in the context of a concept or theory (96,97). “Partial
Least Squares” & “Structural Equation Modeling” (PLS-SEM) and
covariance-based structural equation modeling are the two main
techniques to SEM (CB-SEM) (96,98).
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 6March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
When it comes to defining the link between items and
constructs for researchers, PLS-SEM is more versatile than CB-
SEM (99,100). In any sample size, PLS-SEM performswell, but it
must meet the sample size’s minimum criteria, which allows for
the generation of variables having complex effects on particular
model components. The constructs or latent variables that can
be employed with both reflective and non-reflective (formative)
measurement models are the focus of PLS-SEM (101).
SEM is useful in a variety of situations, including models with
a large number of hidden variables and indicators. As a result,
it strives for the most sparse models feasible (102,103). SEM
has been successfully applied in a variety of social science fields,
including construction, industry, hotel management, competitive
performance [93, 94], the environment, and organization (39).
Lastly, the four hypotheses provided in this study were
evaluated using the PLS-SEM approach. Variance inflation factor
(VIF) was utilized to investigate multicollinearity challenges to
evaluate multi-collinearity, according to Bauer and Baumeister
(104). This was performed by evaluating the measurement
model’s fitting and path analysis using the Smart-PLS v3.2.1 tool
(105). To test common technique bias, Harman’s single factor was
tested using SPSS version 25.0 software.
Normality Test
To examine the normality of the data set, a skewness and kurtosis
test was carried out for all study variables. It is recommended
that skewness and kurtosis range values of the variables must fall
between ±1.96 (106). Both positive and negative deviations from
these values are the causes of non-normality. Therefore, data (n=
320) was estimated for the assessment of normality assumption.
It was noted that the value of Skewness and Kurtosis of all scale
items was within the range of ±1.96, which is significant at
0.05. So, these results explain that data is normally distributed
as shown in the table below.
Results of normality test.
Variables Skewness Kurtosis
Safety culture −1.116 1.841
Safety communication −0.865 0.128
Safety performance −0.853 1.788
RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
The suggested model was evaluated using the “Partial Least
Square technique (Smart-PLS 3.2.7) software” (107). We used
the recommended two-staged analytical approach to evaluate the
measurement and structural models (108). “G∗Power version
3.1.9.2” was used to calculate the suitable sample size (109).
The study’s total sample size of 320 employees, comfortably
exceeded the minimal sample size requirement. The number of
participants in this study exceeded the recommended sample size
for (PLS-SEM) analysis, which is 100 (110).
TABLE 3 | Discriminant validity outcomes.
LS OC SCO SC SP WE
LS 0.872
OC 0.241 0.814
SCO 0.608 0.429 0.805
SC 0.538 0.729 0.598 0.852
SP 0.208 0.381 0.441 0.399 0.757
WE 0.227 0.754 0.432 0.785 0.334 0.812
LS, Leadership; OC, Organization Communication; SCO, Safety Communication; SC,
Safety Culture; SP, Safety Performance; WE, Work Environment.
Common Method Variance
When data is collected from a single source, it is referred to as
“single-source data,” there is a possibility of common method
variance (111), or if the study utilized a cross-sectional research
approach (112). There is a problem with common method
variance when a single component describes most of the variance
in a set of data (113). Harmans’ one-factor test was utilized to
assess the probability of common method variance (CMV). A
total of 33.54% was accounted for the single factor, showing that
common factors such as technique (testing time, single sources)
is not a concern for these data set. Bagozzi et al. (114) propose
another method for assessing common method variance. They
stated that, if the inter-correlations in a correlation matrix are
much more than 0.90, there could be a problem with common
method variance. Table 3 shows that the correlation matrix’s
values are all <0.90. As a result, both techniques confirm that in
this study, there is not a severe issue of common method variance.
Multicollinearity
According to Hair et al. (115), multicollinearity refers to whether
independent variables (IV) in a regression model are significantly
associated with each other or with the dependent variable (DV).
Before hypothesis testing, multicollinearity must be established.
The multicollinearity of the current investigation was confirmed
using variance inflation factor (VIF) (116). There is a possibility
of multicollinearity if the VIF value is larger than 3.33 (117).
To investigate the issue of multicollinearity, VIF was calculated.
The VIF values for safety culture and safety communication were
1.32 and 1.314, respectively, which were significantly lower than
the 3.33 threshold values (117). This shows that there are no
difficulties with multicellularity in the research.
Measurement Model and Validity
There are two types of validity in the measuring model:
convergent validity (CV) and discriminant validity (DV).
Convergent validity describes how elements that are conceptually
related are converging on the structure with which they are
linked (118). Items loadings, average variance extracted (AVE),
composite reliability(CR), Cronbach’s alpha(CA), standardized
factor loadings (SFL) are all part of the convergent validity (115).
If an item’s loading is equal to or >0.7 the validity of items
is accepted. But, if the items loading is <0.4 the item should
be eliminated (115,119). The items loadings (0.699–0.905) were
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 7March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
TABLE 4 | Validity, reliability and R2values.
Construct. Items relation .SFL .α.CR .AVE Value R2LEP”
SC 0.906 0.920 0.725 - -
WE1←SC 0.824
WE2←SC 0.865
WE3←SC 0.818
WE4 ←SC 0.832
WE5←SC 0.803
WE6←SC 0.703
OC1 ←SC 0.805
OC2 ←SC 0.810
OC3 ←SC 0.813
OC4 ←SC 0.849
OC5 ←SC 0.788
LS1 ←SC 0.847
LS2←SC 0.861
LS3←SC 0.891
LS4 ←SC 0.871
LS5 ←SC 0.876
SCO 0.873 0.920 0.637 0.358 Medium
SCO1←SCO 0.799
SCO2←SCO 0.815
SCO3←SCO 0.794
SCO4←SCO 0.806
SCO5←SCO 0.791
SP 0.909 0.923 0.574 0.227 Substantial’
SP1←SP 0.700
SP2←SP 0.776
SP3←SP 0.765
SP4←SP 0.795
SP5←SP 0.811
SP6←SP 0.792
SP7←SP 0.725
SP8←SP 0.716
SP9←SP 0.722
SFL, Standardized Factor Loadings; α, Cronbach’s Values; CR, Composite Reliability;
AVE, Average Variance Extracted; LEP, Level Explanatory Power.
within the permissible range. The AVE was larger than 0.5,
which is consistent with the literature’s indicated threshold value
(115,120–122). Where the values of SIL, CA, CR should be >
0.70 (121,123–125). The determination coefficient R2represents
the degree of endogenous variable explained variance (99). R2can
be used to determine a structural model’s explanatory capacity
(126). for the development of target structures, the R2must be
acceptable, with this rage (“weak 0.25, medium 0.50, substantial
0.75”). The reliability and R2test results are shown in Table 4.
According to the table above, SIL values varied from (0.700 to
0.894) which are (>0.650), and CA values ranged from (0.863 to
0.908) above 0.700, CR values ranged from 0.901 to 0.924 which
are (>0.650), and AVE value ranged from 0.573 to 0.726 (>0.50)
(127). According to Falk and Miller (128), the R2value ranged
from 0.222 to 0.359 (≥0.10).
The degree to which constructs are different from each other
is explained by discriminant validity. We used the “Fornell and
Larcker”(129) criterion to determine discriminant validity. The
AVE square root for all constructs must be bigger than the
correlation among all other constructs (130). Table 3 reveals that
all numerical values were bigger than the correlation values of all
other variables, indicating that the model is discriminately valid.
Structural Model
According to the previous research (98,131) mentioned that,
R2values (predictive power), t-values and β- values using a
“bootstrapping technique of 5,000 samples” to evaluate the
structural model. The effect size f2 and Q2 values should also be
reported, based on Kaufmann and Gaeckler (132). While a “p-
value” can inform the reader whether an important impact exists,
the “p-value” will not reveal the extent of the impact as mentioned
by Sullivan and Feinn (133). Both statistically significant (p-
value) and substantive significance (effect size) are important
results to report and understand in investigations. We also used a
blindfolding test to look at the model’s predictive relevance (Q2),
which is exclusively computed for dependence variables (DV). Q2
confirms that the observed associations are not only statistically
significant but also practical, and it is only used on endogenous
(dependent) construct with one or more components (134).
Safety communication showed mediate predictive power (R2
=0.358). safety performance (R2=0.223), work environment
(R2=0.801), organization communication (R2=0.532), and
leadership (R2=0.290). For the predictive relevance (Q2) for
safety communication (0.102), safety performance (0.112), work
environment (0.631), organization communication (0.347), and
leadership (0.028), all of the variables were higher than zero,
showing that the model is predictive (115). Table 5 demonstrates
the size of the effect f2for safety culture with significant
safety performance and safety communication. SC with SCO
is small to mediate. The effect size for other two associations,
namely safety communication and safety culture and safety
performance was found small to medium (135). Three constructs
were identified as independent variables (IV) under safety
culture, work environment (WE), organization communication
(OC), and leadership (LS), and safety performance (SP), and
safety communication was the mediating variable in the final
structural model. The latent variables for all of these higher-
order structures were determined using a redundant indicator
technique (work environment, organization communication,
leadership, and safety performance) as shown in Figure 3.
Hypothesis Results
We anticipated a positive relationship between safety culture and
safety communication. Therefore, hypothesis 1 was supported
by the results (β=0.598, p<0.001). hypothesis 2 predicated
that safety communication would be positively correlated with
safety performance. Hypothesis 2 was supported by the results
(β=0.315, p<0.001). hypothesis 3 predicted a positive
relationship between safety culture and safety performance (β
=0.210, p<0.001), which was supported as shown in Table 5.
We used the approach given by Preacher et al. (136), to
conduct the mediation analysis. According to their perspective,
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 8March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
FIGURE 3 | Final structural model (PLS results).
TABLE 5 | Findings of hypothesis testing.
Hypothesizes H1 H2 H3
Items relations SC →SCO SCO →SP SC →SP
Path coefficients β0.598 0.315 0.210
STDEV 0.041 0.070 0.066
T values 14.434 4.496 3.196
P-values 000 000 0.002
R20.358 0.223 —
f20.557 0.082 0.037
Q2 0.332 0.227 —
Significance level *** *** ***
Results Supported Supported Supported
the indirect effect should be prioritized to achieve mediation;
if it is significant, the mediation is achieved; otherwise,
there is no mediation (116). Hypothesis 4 predicted that
safety communication would mediate the association between
safety culture and safety performance as shown in Table 6 of
mediation analysis.
Analysis of Mediation Effect
The bootstrapping method was present in this investigation
to confirm the mediating impact (137). Previous research had
TABLE 6 | Mediation analysis for directs and indirects effect.
Mediation
impact
Path coeff STDEV t-Value 95% LL 95% UL Results
H4.
SC-SCO-SP
0.166** 0.167 4.798 0.087 0.239 Partial
mediation
If **P<0.01; STDEV, Standard Deviation; LL, Lower Level; UL, Upper Level;
H4, Hypotheses.
analyzed such indirect impacts, also various researchers have
used and advised this study approach (138–140). Furthermore,
due to this method’s aids in overcoming mediation difficulties
and the lack of confidence interval of mediator and outcome
variables, bootstrap findings are said to have more accurate
probability estimations (141). As a result, there are two reasons
why this strategy should be used. The first is that it provides
a useful tool for determining the significance and confidence
intervals (CI) in a variety of scenarios. When a 95% of confidence
interval excludes zero, there is evidence of an indirect impact
linking X to Y via a mediator, and the mediation is established.
Another argument is that this method does not require a
lot of assumptions. As a result, the results acquired using
this method are more precise. Based on Table 6, presents the
indirect effect data, which reveal that mediating hypotheses
was supported.
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 9March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
DISCUSSION
The main purpose of this research was to determine the
impacts of safety culture on employee’s safety performance
via safety communication. Based on, Social Exchange Theory
(SET) (142), we examined the effect of safety communication
on safety performance after developing a direct hypothesis
linking safety culture to employee safety communication. It
was proposed that higher levels of safety culture would allow
sufficient sources to be allocated to enhancing safety performance
by reducing employee accidents and fatalities. As predicted,
safety communication mediated the connection between safety
culture and safety performance. Safety culture, by reducing
accidents, allows workers to invest their saved resources in
obtaining and enhancing safety performance. Our research
makes a substantial contribution to the field of theory. Firstly,
it advances SC theory in the literature on occupational safety
(143,144). By demonstrating that it improves individual safety
performance by reducing workplace accidents and fatalities
(145). Secondly, the findings highlight the importance of
enhancing the overall safety culture rather than focusing on
physical safety to encourage employee’s safety performance (146).
It has been recommended that future research should include
both safety cultures measures to enhance our understanding of
their roles in workplace safety environment (147,148), and the
findings of our study recommend that future researches may
require both safety culture and safety performance measures to
enhance our understanding of their safety rules and regulations
in the workplace place safety. Safety culture and employee safety
performance were found to minimize accidents and fatalities
considerably, which is consistent with previous findings (38,61,
149,150).
Our research adds to the safety culture literature by
demonstrating that a psychosocially safe culture can prevent
psychological distress and fatality even in unsafe working
environments. Only a few research have looked at this association
in risky conditions such as accidents and fatalities (6,151–
153). In addition, most previous research on injuries served
as a measure of workplace safety, and little research has been
done on how safety communication affects safety performance
between workers. Our research addresses a significant gap in
the literature on occupational safety and health. Based on the
safety performance concept (154,155) our research found that
employees’ safety performance and safety culture improves when
they are improving with safety communication. Although the
assessment was focused on safety leadership, it emphasized the
importance of addressing the context requirements of various
businesses when it came to workplace safety. Our findings
revealed that in high-risk oil and gas businesses, focusing on
psychological issues is just as crucial as focusing on physical
factors to enhance worker safety performance. It adds to the body
of knowledge in the field of occupational safety by emphasizing
the significance of taking a more holistic approach. In industries
where working circumstances are stressful, such as the oil and
gas sector, businesses need to focus on safety cultures variables
to enhance employee’s safety performance. Further research
into strategies to increase safety should take into account both
psychosocial and physical safety. The current research examined
the impact of safety culture on safety performance as a result of
safety communication. The study produced numerous significant
additions to the literature on safety culture in general and
safety culture in particular. The study’s significant theoretical
achievements are listed below.
By exploring the importance of safety culture on workplace
safety, the current study added to the existing body of knowledge.
A theoretically recognized and recommended role (9,156),
however, little empirical work had been done to test the
theoretical assumptions. Therefore, the study made a significant
addition by not only experimentally proving the relevance of
safety culture in safety-critical businesses like the petrochemical
oil and gas industry but also establishing that it has a greater
impact than safety performance. Previous studies on safety
culture have usually labeled it as having a relational meaning
or combining it with safety outcome behaviors (157). Because
of the lack of clarity surrounding leaders’ safety culture actions,
many people believe that this form of leadership is useless or
even harmful.
As a result, the current work contributes significantly to the
literature in this area. The study’s findings revealed that the
effectiveness of safety culture is influenced by the context of the
organization. The findings demonstrated that the impact of safety
culture was much bigger than the impact of safety outcomes. The
study’s findings confirm that the general adoption of effective
development should be approached with caution. The study
contributes to the body of knowledge and lays the groundwork
for future research in this area, examining the effectiveness
of management communication in various organizations and
cultural settings to see whether the claim of universal applicability
has any validity.
The theoretical approaches of this study will serve to
expand existing research and aid in the exploration of various
organizational cultural situations. The research backs up the
theory that learning is a social process in which employees
develop behaviors dependent on how rewarding those behaviors
are. The current findings show that future research into different
leadership styles depending on how acceptable certain proactive
behavior are in a national or corporate environment could aid in
the advancement of organization theory considerably.
CONCLUSION
Employee safety performances are influenced by the company’s
safety culture. This study verifies our assumptions that safety
culture has a favorable impact on safety performance through
safety communication, based on SET. The outcomes of this
research add to the body of the knowledge not just in terms
of the direct relationships between safety culture and safety
communication, but also in terms of the indirect impact of
safety culture and safety performance. This research is the first
study to conceptualize and empirically examine the mediating
role of safety communication between safety culture and safety
performance. Furthermore, research on safety culture in Asian
settings, especially in Southeast Asian countries i.e., Malaysia, is
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 10 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
limited. This research provides strong guiding’s that may be used
by practitioners and academicians. These findings are explored in
terms of safety interventions and future studies.
The findings have substantial consequences for professionals.
Previously, positive safety culture was thought to be essential
for maintaining workplace safety environments (45). However,
the findings of our study suggest that to increase workplace
safety organizations should focus on safety culture in addition
to physical safety. Establishing a high level of safety culture at
the managerial level is vital not only for psychosocial health but
also for enhancing member safety performance. Constructing
a work environment where workers feel their managements
are committed to their psychological wellbeing, they are not
overburdened with work requirements, and they are in a
psychosocially safe environment reduces employee accidents,
fatalities, and also stress and allows them to be more constructive
inability to absorb safety information, participating in safety
procedures, and putting them into action.
The safety culture literature (158,159) explains the practical
steps that must be taken to implement safety culture in
organizations. Using legislation to ensure the proper application
of safety culture in high-risk sectors like in oil and gas
can be an efficient strategy to put safety culture rules into
implementation (160). Other effective practices include safety
culture in management performance appraisals and appointing
people to senior roles based on their adherence to safety culture
policy (161).
Finally, our findings show that high-risk companies such as oil
and gas must prioritize workers’ mental health such as accidents
and fatalities over competing needs (such as production) to
positively affect their safety performance.
The Study Implications
The main objective of this study was to assess the impact of
safety culture on the workplace safety performance indicators,
i.e., leading and lagging indicators with the mediation of
psychosocial hazards. We investigated the impact of the
psychosocial hazard on safety performance after developing
direct hypotheses concerning safety culture and psychosocial
hazard. It was proposed that a high level of safety culture would
enable the provision of sufficient resources to contribute toward
ensuring good safety performance by reducing employees’
psychosocial hazard, based on the social exchange theory (162).
As expected, psychosocial hazard mediated the relationship
between safety culture and safety performance. It was obvious to
find psychosocial hazard’s interplay between safety culture and
safety performance based on conservation of resources theory
(163). In doing so, by reducing psychosocial hazards for the
workforce, organizations will allow their workers to invest their
saved resources in learning and improving their safety habits.
Our research contributes to the field of theory in a significant
way. First, it confirmed that safety culture theory promotes
individual safety performance by decreasing the psychosocial
hazard (164,165). In harmony with prior literature, safety
culture dimensions such as management commitment, work
environment, and involvement of workers collectively and
positively impact safety performance (166). Second, the findings
emphasize the need to enhance the entire safety culture to
promote safety performance among employees (167). Finally,
safety performance was improved by reducing their indicators
(leading and lagging), which can prevent any accident occurring
during the workplace environment (145,168).
In the current study, four hypotheses were tested, three
hypotheses were direct predictors, and the rest utilized safety
communication as a mediating relationship between safety
culture and safety performance.
Study Limitation
Because of the cross-sectional nature of our study, we must
proceed with caution when interpreting our findings. A cross-
sectional design was chosen for two reasons. To begin with,
gathering data from the petrochemical oil and gas business was
extremely challenging due to the process and time required
to gain access to the local Malaysian industries. The second
issue is Malaysia’s lack of support for researchers prevented us
from collecting data many times (169). While cross-sectional
research can be useful in the early stages of a project (170),
a longitudinal layout is essential to prove the causal flow and
mediation. Other culture measures (particularly, safety culture)
should be included in future studies to further understand their
unique and comparative impacts on workplace injuries. A study
on psychological wellbeing was undertaken similarly (171). The
data for our analysis came from Malaysia’s oil and gas industry.
As a result, caution should be used when extrapolating these
findings to other areas. It must be fascinating to discover if
people in other industries and occupations with different levels
of job requirements are affected in the same way by unsafe act
unsafe conditions (UAUS). Our research did not directly assess
employee resources, but it did test a theoretical framework based
on the social exchange theory’s premise. We suggest that a clear
measure of personal resources maintained in a psychosocially
and socially safe culture would contribute significantly to the
safety literature and assist develop an understanding of SET.
A comparative of safety performance in a safety culture “vs.”
an unsafe culture could enhance safety theory while also having
practical consequences for managers and organizations.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
The original contributions presented in the study are included
in the article/supplementary materials, further inquiries can be
directed to the corresponding author/s.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
All authors involved in the methodology design, data analysis,
literature review, manuscript preparation, and have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank Universiti Teknologi
PETRONAS & Centre For Graduate Studies (CGS) for
supporting this study.
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 11 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
REFERENCES
1. Langley GJ, Moen RD, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP.
The Improvement Guide: A Practical Approach to Enhancing Organizational
Performance. Massachusetts, MA: John Wiley and Sons (2009).
2. Mariana M, Sahroni TR, Gustiyana T. Fatigue and human errors analysis
in petrochemical and oil and gas plant’s operation. In: Proceedings of
the International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Operations
Management, Bandung, Indonesia (2018).
3. Perrons RK. How Innovation and Research and Development Happen in the
Upstream Oil and Gas Industry: Insights from a Global Survey. (2018). p.
41–73. doi: 10.1201/b22353-3
4. Commission P. Review of Regulatory Burden On The Upstream Petroleum (oil
and gas) Sector. Productivity Commission. Melbourne, NSW: Government of
Australia Research Reports (2009).
5. Brondino M, Silva SA, Pasini M. Multilevel approach to organizational and
group safety climate and safety performance: co-workers as the missing link.
Saf Sci. (2012) 50:1847–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.04.010
6. Feng Y, Teo EAL, Ling FYY, Low SP. Exploring the interactive effects
of safety investments, safety culture and project hazard on safety
performance: an empirical analysis. Int J Proj Manag. (2014) 32:932–
43. doi: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.10.016
7. Hon CK, Chan AP, Yam MC. Determining safety climate factors in the repair,
maintenance, minor alteration, and addition sector of Hong Kong. J Constr
Eng Manag. (2013) 139:519–28. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000588
8. Hsiang C. Safety culture, safety behavior and safety performance in railway
companies In: Paper presented at the 9th World Congress on Railway
Research. Lille (2011).
9. Kalteh HO, Mortazavi SB, Mohammadi E, Salesi M. The
relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety
performance: a systematic review. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. (2021)
27:206–16. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2018.1556976
10. Shuen YS, Wahab SRA. The mediating effect of safety culture on safety
communication and human factor accident at the workplace. Asian Soc Sci.
(2016) 12:127–141. doi: 10.5539/ass.v12n12p127
11. Noort MC, Reader TW, Shorrock S, Kirwan B. The relationship
between national culture and safety culture: implications for international
safety culture assessments. J Occup Organ Psychol. (2016) 89:515–
38. doi: 10.1111/joop.12139
12. Saleem MS, Isha ASNB, Yusop YM, Awan MI, Naji GMA. The role of
psychological capital and work engagement in enhancing construction
workers’ safety behavior. Front Public Health. 91.
13. Rodríguez-Sánchez AM, Schaufeli W, Salanova M, Cifre E, Sonnenschein M.
Enjoyment and absorption: an electronic diary study on daily flow patterns.
Work Stress. (2011) 25:75–92. doi: 10.1080/02678373.2011.565619
14. Conchie SM, Moon S, Duncan M. Supervisors’ engagement in safety
leadership: Factors that help and hinder. Saf Sci. (2013) 51:109–
17. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.05.020
15. EPA U. Deepwater Horizon–BP Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill. In (2017).
16. Collina DV, Moreau RL. SafeOCS industry safety data: the value proposition
for the oil and gas industry In: Paper presented at the Mary K O’Connor
Process Safety Symposium Proceedings. Texas, TX (2019).
17. Curlee CK, Brouillard SJ, Marshall ML, Knode TL, Smith SL. Upstream
onshore oil and gas fatalities: A review of OSHA’s database and
strategic direction for reducing fatal incidents. In: Paper presented at
the SPE/EPA/DOE Exploration and Production Environmental Conference.
(2005). doi: 10.2118/94416-MS
18. Cloughley T, Thomas I. Accident data for the upstream oil and gas industry.
In: Paper presented at the SPE Health, Safety and Environment in Oil and Gas
Exploration and Production Conference. (1996). doi: 10.2118/35904-MS
19. Aboramadan M, Dahleez KA. The impact of perceived servant leadership
traits and safety climate on task performance and risk-taking behavior in
times of crisis. Leadersh Health Serv. (2021). doi: 10.1108/LHS-05-2021-0049.
[Epub ahead of print].
20. Çakit E, Jan Olak A, Murata A, Karwowski W, Alrehaili O, Marek
T. Assessment of the perceived safety culture in the petrochemical
industry in Japan: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE. (2019)
14:e0226416. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226416
21. Zhou X, Rasool SF, Ma D. The relationship between workplace violence
and innovative work behavior: the mediating roles of employee wellbeing.
Healthcare. (2020) 8:332. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8030332
22. Davies HW, Gorman-Ng M. Development of a Web-based tool for
risk assessment and exposure control planning of silica-producing
tasks in the construction sector. Front Public Health. (2020)
8:371. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.0.2020.00371
23. Zhong Z, Zhu L, Young S. Approximation framework of
embodied energy of safety: insights and analysis. Energies. (2020)
13:4230. doi: 10.3390/en13164230
24. Cramton CD. The mutual knowledge problem and its
consequences for dispersed collaboration. Organ Sci. (2001)
12:346–71. doi: 10.1287/orsc.12.3.346.10098
25. Investigation BJB. Deepwater Horizon Accident Investigation Report (2010).
26. Kim BK, Krams J, Krug E, Leaseburge M, Lemley J,Alkhawaldeh A, et al. Case
study analysis of the financial impact of catastrophic safety events. (2012)
25:780–7. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2012.05.006
27. Zhan M, Yang W, Zhang F, Luo C, Wu H, Guo P, et al. Experimental
investigation on the separation performance for a new oil-water
separator. Front Energy Res. (2021) 8:409. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2020.
608586
28. He J, Zhong C, Yao Y, Yan P, Wang Y, Wan Z, et al. The exploration and
production test of gas hydrate and its research progress and exploration
prospect in the northern South China Sea. Mar Geol Front. (2020) 36:1–
14. doi: 10.16028/j.1009-2722.2020.127
29. Fu J, Liu Y, Sun F. Identifying and regulating the environmental risks
in the development and utilization of natural gas as a low-carbon
energy source. Front Energy Res. (2021) 9:28. doi: 10.3389/fenrg.2021.
638105
30. Mosly I, Makki AA. Safety climate perceptions in the construction industry
of Saudi Arabia: the current situation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020)
17:6717. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186717
31. Al-Samhan M, Al-Fadhli J, Al-Otaibi AM, Al-Attar F, Bouresli R, Rana
MS. Prospects of refinery switching from conventional to integrated: an
opportunity for sustainable investment in the petrochemical industry. Fuel.
(2022) 310:122161. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122161
32. Mailan Arachchige Don RK, Hong S-C. Sri Lankan migrant worker
perceptions of workplace hazard and safety awareness: case of the
manufacturing industry in Korea. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. (2021) 1–
7. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1992158
33. Rahim KA, Liwan A. Oil and gas trends and implications in Malaysia. Energy
Policy. (2012) 50:262–71. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2012.07.013
34. Payer H. ISM code: the future impact. Safety At Sea. (1998) 350:12–4.
35. Rosen M. Towards a global nuclear safety culture. Nucl Energy.
(1997) 36:287–9.
36. Seddon J. A Passion For Quality. The TQM Magazine
(1989). doi: 10.1108/EUM0000000003004
37. Yovi EY, Abbas D, Takahashi T. Safety climate and risk perception of
forestry workers: a case study of motor-manual tree felling in Indonesia.
Int J Occup Safety Ergon. (2021) 1–9. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.19
86306
38. Al-Bayati AJ. Impact of construction safety culture and construction
safety climate on safety behavior and safety motivation. Safety. (2021)
7:41. doi: 10.3390/safety7020041
39. Naji GMA, Isha ASN, Mohyaldinn ME, Leka S, Saleem MS, Rahman
SMNBSA, et al. Impact of safety culture on safety performance; mediating
role of psychosocial hazard: an integrated modelling approach. Int J Environ
Res Public Health. (2021) 18:8568. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18168568
40. Waterson P. Patient safety culture and organisational behaviour. Patient Saf
Culture. (2018). p. 70-93. doi: 10.1201/9781315599717
41. Zwetsloot G, Leka S. Corporate culture, health, and well-being. In: Leka
S, Houdmondt J, editors. A Text Book for Occupational Health Psychology.
Chicester: Wiley-Blackwell (2010). 250–68.
42. Leka S, Van Wassenhove W, Jain A. Is psychosocial risk prevention
possible? deconstructing common presumptions. Saf Sci. (2015) 71:61–
7. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.03.014
43. Verdoes JC, Punt PJ, Stouthamer AH, van den Hondel CAJG. The
effect of multiple copies of the upstream region on expression of the
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 12 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
aspergillus niger glucoamylase-encoding gene. Gene. (1994) 145:179–
87. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(94)90003-5
44. Binz C, Razavian NB, Kiparsky MJ. Of dreamliners and drinking water:
developing risk regulation and a safety culture for direct potable reuse. Water
Resour Manag. (2018) 32:511–25. doi: 10.1007/s11269-017-1824-1
45. He C, Jia G, McCabe B, Sun J. Relationship between leader–member
exchange and construction worker safety behavior: the mediating role
of communication competence. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. (2021) 27:371–
83. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2019.1579484
46. Kao CS, Lai WH, Chuang TF,Lee JC. Safety culture factors, group differences,
and risk perception in five petrochemical plants. Process Saf Prog. (2008)
27:145–52. doi: 10.1002/prs.10246
47. Kirwan M, Matthews A, Scott PA. The impact of the work environment of
nurses on patient safety outcomes: a multi-level modelling approach. Int J
Nurs Stud. (2013) 50:253–63. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.08.020
48. Kodarlikar M, Umale V. A Healthy Workplace Environment: Impact on
Employee and Organizational Performance (2020).
49. Rasool SF, Wang M, Tang M, Saeed A, Iqbal J. How toxic workplace
environment effects the employee engagement: the mediating role of
organizational support and employee wellbeing. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. (2021) 18:2294. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18052294
50. Barbour JB, Gill R, Barge JKJCT. Organizational communication
design logics: a theory of communicative intervention and
collective communication design. Commun Theory. (2018)
28:332–53. doi: 10.1093/ct/qtx005
51. Stebbins P, Lees D, Ham D, Karabitsios J. Supportive leadership: Improving
organisational health and preventing burnout in pastoral care managers and
staff. Aust J Rehabil Couns. (2010) 16:99–118. doi: 10.1375/jrc.16.2.99
52. Wang B, Rasool SF, Zhao Y, Samma M, Iqbal J. Investigating the
nexus between critical success factors, despotic leadership, and success
of renewable energy projects. Environ Sci Pollut Res. (2021) 29:10388–
98. doi: 10.1007/s11356-021-16441-6
53. Zhou X, Rasool SF, Yang J, Asghar MZ. Exploring the relationship
between despotic leadership and job satisfaction: the role of self efficacy
and leader–member exchange. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021)
18:5307. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18105307
54. Kucherov V, McDonald A, Ivanov I, Rose J. The application of the
accelerative learning cycle to the design and delivery of safety leadership
programs for personnel of onshore and offshore upstream oil assets. In: Paper
presented at the SPE Annual Caspian Technical Conference and Exhibition
Baku (2015).
55. Ajmal M, Isha ASN, Nordin SM, Kanwal N, Al-Mekhlafi A-BA, Naji GMA.
A conceptual framework for the determinants of organizational agility: does
safety commitment matters? Solid State Technol. (2020) 63:4112–9.
56. Naji GMA, Isha AN, Abd SMNBS. The role of HR strategy on safety
culture and psychological stress among employees in the upstream oil
and gas companies: a conceptual review. Solid State Technol. (2020) 63:
9118–28.
57. Geordy R, Sridhar M, Sudhakumar J. Effect of communication patterns
in safety performance of construction workers. In: Paper Presented
at the National Conference on Structural Engineering and Construction
Management. Cham (2020). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-55115-5_72
58. Ajmal M, Isha ASN, Nordin SM, Sabir AA, Munir A, Al-Mekhlafi A-BA, et al.
Safety management paradigms: COVID-19 employee well-being impact on
occupational health and safety performance. J Hunan Univ Nat Sci. (2021)
48:128–142.
59. Penkey SP, Siddiqui NA. A Review on Accident Pyramid and its Empirical
Interpretation in Oil and Gas Industry (Upstream). Pasel (2015). p. 1–3.
60. Coday BD, Almaraz N, Cath TY. Forward osmosis desalination
of oil and gas wastewater: Impacts of membrane selection and
operating conditions on process performance.J Membr Sci. (2015)
488:40–55. doi: 10.1016/j.memsci.2015.03.059
61. Maliha MN, Abu Aisheh YI, Tayeh BA, Almalki A. Safety barriers
identification, classification, and ways to improve safety performance in the
architecture, engineering, and construction (AEC) industry: review study.
Sustainability. (2021) 13:3316. doi: 10.3390/su13063316
62. Ajmal M, Isha ASN, Nordin SM, Rasheed S, Al?Mekhlafi ABA, Naji
GMA. Safety management and safety outcomes in oil and gas industry
in Malaysia: Safety compliance as a mediator. Process Safety Prog. e12345.
doi: 10.1002/prs.12345
63. Isha ASN. Occupational Health And Safety Practices In The Petrochemical
Industries of Malaysia. Nottingham, UK: University of Nottingham (2012).
64. Shaikh SA. Impact of internal marketing and human resource
management to foster customer oriented behavior among employees:
a study on mega retail stores in Karachi. NICE Res J. (2018)
183–199. doi: 10.51239/nrjss.v0i0.11
65. Bigliani RJ. Reducing Risk in Oil and Gas Operations. White papers.
66. Keffane S. Communication’s role in safety management and performance
of the road safety practices. Jordan J Civ Eng. (2015) 9:79–94.
doi: 10.1260/2046-0430.3.1.79
67. Wadsworth E, Smith A. Safety culture, advice and performance. Policy Pract
Health Saf. (2009) 7:5–31. doi: 10.1080/14774003.2009.11667726
68. Liberty Manual Insurance. Workplace Safety Index: Healthcare And Social
Assistance (2019).
69. Alcantara J, Whetten A, Alcantara J. Towards a safety culture in chiropractic:
The use of the safety, communication, Operational Reliability, and
engagement (SCORE) questionnaire. Complement Ther Clin Pract. (2021)
42:101266. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101266
70. Paolucci A, Sangiorgi S, Mariani MG. Non-technical skills in social networks:
the spread of safety communication and teamwork in a warehouse. Int J
Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18:467. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18020467
71. Mambwe M, Mwanaumo EM, Thwala WD, Aigbavboa CO. Evaluating
occupational health and safety management strategy success
factors for small-scale contractors in Zambia. Sustainability. (2021)
13:4696. doi: 10.3390/su13094696
72. Rasool SF, Samma M, Wang M, Zhao Y, Zhang Y. How human resource
management practices translate into sustainable organizational performance:
the mediating role of product, process and knowledge innovation. Psychol
Res Behav Manag. (2019) 12:1009. doi: 10.2147/PRBM.S204662
73. Cigularov KP, Chen PY, Rosecrance J. The effects of error management
climate and safety communication on safety: a multi-level study. Accid Anal
Prev. (2010) 42:1498–506. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.01.003
74. Kim NK, Rahim NFA, Iranmanesh M, Foroughi B. The role of the safety
climate in the successful implementation of safety management systems. Saf
Sci. (2019) 118:48–56. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.05.008
75. Pinto A, Nunes IL, Ribeiro RA. Occupational risk assessment in
construction industry–Overview and reflection. Saf Sci. (2011) 49:616–
24. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.003
76. Lyndon A, Johnson MC, Bingham D, Napolitano PG, Joseph G, Maxfield
DG, et al. Transforming communication and safety culture in intrapartum
care: a multi-organization blueprint. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs. (2015)
44:341–9. doi: 10.1111/1552-6909.12575
77. Vecchio-Sadus AM. Enhancing safety culture through effective
communication. Saf Sci Monit. (2007) 11:1–10.
78. Johnsen S, Bakken T, Transeth A, Holmstrøm S, Merz M, Grøtli E,
et al. Safety and security of drones in the oil and gas industry.In:
Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 30th European Safety and
Reliability Conference and the 15th Probabilistic Safety Assessment and
Management Conference, Edited by Piero Baraldi, Francesco Di Maio
and Enrico Zio, ESREL2020-PSAM15. Singapore: Research Publishing
(2020). doi: 10.3850/978-981-14-8593-0_3924-cd
79. Boadu EF, Wang CC, Sunindijo RY. Characteristics of the construction
industry in developing countries and its implications for health and safety:
an exploratory study in Ghana. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020)
17:4110. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17114110
80. Abuashour AMB, Hassan Z. A Conceptual framework for enhancing safety
performance by impact cooperation facilitation, safety communication
and work environment: jordanian hospitals. Sains Humanika. (2019)
11:2. doi: 10.11113/sh.v11n2-2.1659
81. Haas EJ, Yorio PL. Behavioral safety compliance in an interdependent
mining environment: supervisor communication, procedural justice and the
mediating role of coworker communication. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. (2021)
1–13. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1896140
82. Lu H, Huang K, Azimi M, Guo LJIA. Blockchain technology in the oil and
gas industry: a review of applications, opportunities, challenges, and risks.
(2019) 7:41426–44. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2907695
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 13 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
83. Hofmann DA, Morgeson FP. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange:
the role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J
Appl Psychol. (1999) 84:286. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.84.2.286
84. Hofmann DA, Morgeson FP, Gerras SJ. Climate as a moderator of
the relationship between leader-member exchange and content specific
citizenship: safety climate as an exemplar. J Appl Psychol. (2003)
88:170. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.170
85. Suursalu S. Predictive Maintenance Using Machine Learning Methods In
Petrochemical Refineries (2017).
86. Cox S, Cheyne A. Assessing safety culture in offshore environments. Saf Sci.
(2000) 34:111–29. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6
87. Lu C-S, Yang C-S. Safety leadership and safety behavior in container
terminal operations. Saf Sci. (2010) 48:123–34. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2009.
05.003
88. Vinodkumar M, Bhasi M. Safety management practices and safety behaviour:
Assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid Anal
Prev. (2010) 42:2082–93. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2010.06.021
89. Wu T-C, Chen C-H, Li C-C. A correlation among safety leadership, safety
climate and safety performance. J Loss Prev Process Ind. (2008) 21:307–
18. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2007.11.001
90. Ali F, Rasoolimanesh SM, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Ryu K. An assessment
of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS-
SEM) in hospitality research. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag. (2018) 30:514–
38. doi: 10.1108/IJCHM-10-2016-0568
91. Astrachan CB, Patel VK, Wanzenried G. A comparative study of CB-SEM
and PLS-SEM for theory development in family firm research. J Fam Bus
Strategy. (2014) 5:116–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jfbs.2013.12.002
92. Savic M, Ogeil RP, Sechtig MJ, Lee-Tobin P, Ferguson N, Lubman DI.
How do nurses cope with shift work? a qualitative analysis of open-ended
responses from a survey of nurses. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019)
16:3821. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16203821
93. Lei PW, Wu Q. Introduction to structural equation modeling:
Issues and practical considerations. Edu Meas. (2007) 26:33–
43. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00099.x
94. Williams LJ, Vandenberg RJ, Edwards JR. 12 structural equation modeling
in management research: a guide for improved analysis. Acad Manag Ann.
(2009) 3:543–604. doi: 10.5465/19416520903065683
95. Aibinu AA, Al-Lawati AM. Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction
organizations’ willingness to participate in e-bidding. Autom Constr. (2010)
19:714–24. doi: 10.1016/j.autcon.2010.02.016
96. Kecklund L, Ingre M, Kecklund G, Söderström M, Åkerstedt T, Lindberg E,
et al. The TRAIN-project: Railway safety and the train driver information
environment and work situation-a summary of the main results. In: Paper
presented at Signalling Safety 2001, (2001).
97. Reimer B, D’Ambrosio LA, Coughlin JF, Fried R, Biederman J. Task-induced
fatigue and collisions in adult drivers with attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder. Traffic Inj Prev. (2007) 8:290–9. doi: 10.1080/15389580701257842
98. Ghaleb EA, Dominic P, Fati SM, Muneer A, Ali RF. The assessment of
big data adoption readiness with a technology–organization–environment
framework: a perspective towards healthcare employees. Sustainability.
(2021) 13:8379. doi: 10.3390/su13158379
99. MacKinnon DP. Integrating mediators and moderators in research design.
Res Soc Work Pract. (2011) 21:675–81. doi: 10.1177/1049731511414148
100. Samma M, Zhao Y, Rasool SF, Han X, Ali S. Exploring the
relationship between innovative work behavior, job anxiety, workplace
ostracism, and workplace incivility: empirical evidence from
small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Healthcare. (2020)
8:508. doi: 10.3390/healthcare8040508
101. Hamidun R, Hoong AW, Roslan A, Shabadin A, Jamil H. Characteristics
of heavy goods vehicles (HGV) accidents in Malaysia. In: Paper
Presented at the IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering.
(2019). doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/512/1/012021
102. Bergh LIV, Leka S, Zwetsloot GI. Tailoring psychosocial risk assessment in
the oil and gas industry by exploring specific and common psychosocial risks.
Saf Health Work. (2018) 9:63–70. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2017.05.001
103. Saleem MS, Isha ASN, Mohd Yusop Y, Awan MI, Naji GMA. Agility and
safety performance among nurses: the mediating role of mindful organizing.
Nursing Rep. (2021) 11:666–79. doi: 10.3390/nursrep11030063
104. Vohs KD, Baumeister RF. Handbook of Self-Regulation: Research, Theory, and
Applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press (2011).
105. Saleem MS, Isha ASN, Yusop YM, Awan MI, Naji GMA. The whole nine
yards of safety climate research. J Hunan Univ Nat Sci. (2021) 48:486–503.
106. Kim H-Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: assessing normal
distribution (2) using skewness and kurtosis. Restor Dent Endod. (2013)
38:52–4. doi: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.52
107. Ringle CM, Wende S, Becker J-M. SmartPLS 3. SmartPLS GmbH,
Boenningstedt. J Serv Sci Manag. (2015) 10. Available online at: http://www.
smartpls.com
108. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice:
a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. (1988)
103:411. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411
109. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Buchner A, Lang A-G. G∗Power Version 3.1. 7 [Computer
Software]. Uiversität Kiel, Germany (2013).
110. Reinartz W, Haenlein M, Henseler J. An empirical comparison of the efficacy
of covariance-based and variance-based SEM. Int J Res Market. (2009)
26:332–44. doi: 10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001
111. Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee J-Y, Podsakoff NP. Common
method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. (2003)
88:879. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
112. Audenaert M, Decramer A, Lange T, Vanderstraeten A. Setting high
expectations is not enough: linkages between expectation climate strength,
trust, and employee performance. Int J Manpower. (2016) 37:1024–
41. doi: 10.1108/IJM-12-2015-0201
113. Podsakoff PM, Organ DW. Self-reports in organizational
research: problems and prospects. J Manage. (1986) 12:531–
44. doi: 10.1177/014920638601200408
114. Bagozzi RP, Yi Y, Phillips LW. Assessing construct validity in organizational
research. Adm Sci Quart. (1991) 363:421–58. doi: 10.2307/2393203
115. Hair JF, Hult GTM, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A Primer On Partial
Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage Publications
(2021). doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-80519-7
116. Ramayah T, Cheah J, Chuah F, Ting H, Memon MA. Partial Least
Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM) Using SmartPLS 3.0. Kuala
Lumpur: Pearson (2018).
117. Kock N, Lynn G. Lateral collinearity and misleading results in variance-
based SEM: An illustration and recommendations. J Assoc inf Syst. (2012)
13:546–80. doi: 10.17705/1jais.00302
118. Urbach N, Ahlemann F. Structural equation modeling in information
systems research using partial least squares. J Inf Technol Theory Appl.
(2010) 11:5–40.
119. Kock N. Advanced mediating effects tests, multi-group analyses, and
measurement model assessments in PLS-based SEM. Int J e-Collab. (2014)
10:1–13. doi: 10.4018/ijec.2014010101
120. Alarcón D, Sánchez JA, De Olavide U. Assessing convergent and
discriminant validity in the ADHD-R IV rating scale: User-written
commands for Average Variance Extracted (AVE), Composite Reliability
(CR), and Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT). In: Paper
Presented At The Spanish STATA Meeting. Seville (2015).
121. Chin WW. How To Write Up And Report PLS Analyses.
In Handbook of Partial Least Squares. Springer (2010). p.
655–90. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-32827-8_29
122. Henseler J, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. J Acad Market Sci.
(2015) 43:115–35. doi: 10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
123. Aboelmaged M. The drivers of sustainable manufacturing practices in
Egyptian SMEs and their impact on competitive capabilities: a PLS-SEM
model. J Clean Prod. (2018) 175:207–21. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.12.053
124. Mikalef P, Pateli A. Information technology-enabled dynamic
capabilities and their indirect effect on competitive performance:
findings from PLS-SEM and fsQCA. J Bus Res. (2017) 70:1–
16. doi: 10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.09.004
125. Zeng F,Huang W- C, Hueng J. On Chinese government’s stock market rescue
efforts in 2015. Modern Econ. (2016) 7:411–8. doi: 10.4236/me.2016.74045
126. Barger LK, Cade BE, Ayas NT, Cronin JW, Rosner B, Speizer FE,
et al. Extended work shifts and the risk of motor vehicle crashes
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 14 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
among interns. N Eng J Med. (2005) 352:125–34. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0
41401
127. Love PE, Davis PR, Chevis R, Edwards DJ. Risk/reward compensation model
for civil engineering infrastructure alliance projects. J Constr Eng Manag.
(2011) 137:127–36. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000263
128. Falk RF, Miller NB. A Primer For Soft Modeling. Ohio, University of Akron
Press (1992).
129. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with
unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res. (1981) 18:39–
50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
130. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Structural Equation Models With Unobservable
Variables And Measurement Error: Algebra And Statistics. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage Publications Sage CA (1981). doi: 10.2307/3150980
131. Henseler J, Dijkstra TK, Sarstedt M, Ringle CM, Diamantopoulos A,
Straub DW, et al. Common beliefs and reality about PLS: comments
on rönkkö and evermann (2013). Organ Res Methods. (2014) 17:182–
209. doi: 10.1177/1094428114526928
132. Kaufmann L, Gaeckler J. A structured review of partial least squares in supply
chain management research. J Purchas Supply Manage. (2015) 21:259–
72. doi: 10.1016/j.pursup.2015.04.005
133. Sullivan GM, Feinn R. Using effect size—or why the P value is not enough. J
Grad Med Educ. (2012) 4:279–82. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-12-00156.1
134. Geisser S. The predictive sample reuse method with applications. J Am Stat
Assoc. (1975) 70:320–8. doi: 10.1080/01621459.1975.10479865
135. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis For The Social Sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum (1988).
136. Preacher KJ, Rucker DD, Hayes AF. Addressing moderated mediation
hypotheses: theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behav Res.
(2007) 42:185–227. doi: 10.1080/00273170701341316
137. Mooney CZ, Mooney CF, Mooney CL, Duval RD, Duvall R.
Bootstrapping: A Nonparametric Approach To Statistical Inference. Sage
(1993). doi: 10.4135/9781412983532
138. Al-Mekhlafi A-BA, Isha ASN, Naji GMA. The relationship between fatigue
and driving performance: a review and directions for future research. J Crit
Rev. (2020) 7:134–41. doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.14.24
139. Cheung GW, Lau RS. Testing mediation and suppression effects
of latent variables: Bootstrapping with structural equation models.
Organ Res Methods. (2008) 11:296–325. doi: 10.1177/10944281073
00343
140. Preacher KJ, Hayes AF. SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect
effects in simple mediation models. Behav Res Method Instrum Computers.
(2004) 36:717–31. doi: 10.3758/BF03206553
141. Ortiz C, Castro JJ, Alarcón A, Soler M, Anera RG. Quantifying
age-related differences in visual-discrimination capacity: drivers
with and without visual impairment. Appl Ergon. (2013)
44:523–31. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2012.11.006
142. Cropanzano R, Mitchell MS. Social exchange theory: an interdisciplinary
review. J Manage. (2005) 31:874–900. doi: 10.1177/0149206305279602
143. Kortum E, Leka S, Cox T. Psychosocial risks and work-
related stress in developing countries: health impact, priorities,
barriers and solutions. Int J Occup Med Environ Health. (2010)
23:225–38. doi: 10.2478/v10001-010-0024-5
144. Wagner A, Schöne L, Rieger MA. Determinants of occupational
safety culture in hospitals and other workplaces—results from an
integrative literature review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020)
17:6588. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17186588
145. Naji GMA, Isha ASN, Al-Mekhlafi A-BA, Sharafaddin O, Ajmal M.
Implementation of leading and lagging indicators to improve safety
performance in the upstream oil and gas industry. J Critic Rev. (2020)
7:265–9. doi: 10.31838/jcr.07.14.45
146. Naji GMA, Isha ASN, Alzoraiki M, Al-Mekhlafi A-BA, Sharafaddin O,
Saleem MS. Impact of safety culture and psychosocial hazard on safety
performance among upstream employees in malaysia at oil and gas industry.
Solid State Technol. (2020) 63:4120–6.
147. Leka S, Jain A, Iavicoli S, Vartia M, Ertel M. The role of policy for the
management of psychosocial risks at the workplace in the European Union.
Saf Sci. (2011) 49:558–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2010.02.002
148. Tetzlaff EJ, Goggins KA, Pegoraro AL, Dorman SC, Pakalnis V,
Eger TR. Safety culture: a retrospective analysis of occupational
health and safety mining reports. Saf Health Work. (2021)
12:201–8. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2020.12.001
149. Arezes PM, Miguel AS. The role of safety culture in safety
performance measurement. Meas Bus Excell. (2003) 7:20–
8. doi: 10.1108/13683040310509287
150. Çakit E, Karwowski W, Murata A, Olak AJ. Application of structural
equation modeling (SEM) and an adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system
(ANFIS) for assessment of safety culture: an integrated modeling approach.
Safety. (2020) 6:14. doi: 10.3390/safety6010014
151. Mirza MZ, Isha ASN, Memon MA, Azeem S, Zahid M. Psychosocial
safety climate, safety compliance and safety participation: The
mediating role of psychological distress. J Manag Organ. (2019)
1–16. doi: 10.1017/jmo.2019.35
152. Rasool SF, Wang M, Zhang Y, Samma M. Sustainable work performance: the
roles of workplace violence and occupational stress. Int J Environ Res Public
Health. (2020) 17:912. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17030912
153. Zadow A, Dollard MF. Psychosocial safety climate. In: Clarke S, Probst TM,
Guldenmund F, Passmore J, editors. The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of the
Psychology of Occupational Safety and Workplace Health. 1st ed. John Wiley
& Sons Ltd.
154. Stemn E, Bofinger C, Cliff D, Hassall ME. Examining the relationship
between safety culture maturity and safety performance of the mining
industry. Saf Sci. (2019) 113:345–55. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.008
155. Yang C-C, Wang Y-S, Chang S-T, Guo S-E, Huang M-F. A study on the
leadership behavior, safety culture, and safety performance of the healthcare
industry. World Acad Sci Eng Technol. (2009) 53:1148–55.
156. Weaver MD, Wang HE, Fairbanks RJ, Patterson D. The association between
EMS workplace safety culture and safety outcomes. Prehosp Emerg Care.
(2012) 16:43–52. doi: 10.3109/10903127.2011.614048
157. Tong R, Yang X, Parker T, Zhang B, Wang Q. Exploration of relationships
between safety performance and unsafe behavior in the Chinese oil industry.
J Loss Prev Proc Indus. (2020) 66:104167. doi: 10.1016/j.jlp.2020.104167
158. Cooper MD. Towards a model of safety culture. Saf Sci. (2000) 36:111–
36. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00035-7
159. Cox S, Flin R. Safety culture. Taylor Francis. (1998)
12:187. doi: 10.1080/02678379808256860
160. Petitta L, Probst TM, Barbaranelli C, Ghezzi V. Disentangling the roles
of safety climate and safety culture: Multi-level effects on the relationship
between supervisor enforcement and safety compliance. Accid Anal Prev.
(2017) 99:77–89. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2016.11.012
161. Selvapatt N, Ward T, Bailey H, Bennett H, Thorne C, See L-M,
et al. Is antenatal screening for hepatitis C virus cost-effective? A
decade’s experience at a London centre. J Hepatol. (2015) 63:797–
804. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2015.05.015
162. Emerson RM. Social Exchange Theory. Annu Rev Sociol. (1976) 2:335–62.
163. Hobfoll SE. Conservation of resources: a new attempt at conceptualizing
stress. Am Psychol. (1989) 44:513. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.
44.3.513
164. Guldenmund FW. The nature of safety culture: a review of theory
and research. Saf Sci. (2000) 34:215–57. doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)0
0014-X
165. Zadow AJ, Dollard MF, Mclinton SS, Lawrence P, Tuckey MR.
Psychosocial safety climate, emotional exhaustion, and work injuries
in healthcare workplaces. Stress Health. (2017) 33:558–69. doi: 10.1002/
smi.2740
166. Tang DKH, Leiliabadi F, Olugu EU. Factors affecting safety of
processes in the Malaysian oil and gas industry. Saf Sci. (2017)
92:44–52. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2016.09.017
167. Zohar D. Thirty years of safety climate research: Reflections
and future directions. Accid Anal Prev. (2010) 42:1517–
22. doi: 10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019
168. Yang R. Safety in Construction: Connecting Safety Climate, Safety
Performance, and Leading Indicators. University of Toronto (2021).
169. Ali H, Abdullah NAC, Subramaniam C. Management practice in safety
culture and its influence on workplace injury: an industrial study in
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 15 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
Malaysia. Disaster Prev Manag. (2009) 18:470. doi: 10.1108/0965356091
1003660
170. Barling J, Loughlin C, Kelloway EK. Development and test of
a model linking safety-specific transformational leadership and
occupational safety. J Appl Psychol. (2002) 87:488. doi: 10.1037/0021-
9010.87.3.488
171. Idris MA, Dollard MF, Coward J, Dormann C. Psychosocial safety
climate: Conceptual distinctiveness and effect on job demands and worker
psychological health. Saf Sci. (2012) 50:19–28. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2011.06.005
Conflict of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the
absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a
potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of
the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in
this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or
endorsed by the publisher.
Copyright © 2022 Naji, Isha, Alazzani, Saleem and Alzoraiki. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC
BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided
the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice.
No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these
terms.
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 16 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281

Naji et al. Safety Communication Interplay Between Safety-Culture
APPENDIX
TABLE A1 | Research instrument.
Constructs Items
code
Items References
Safety culture
Work
environment
WE1 “Operational targets often
conflict with safety measures.”
(86)
WE2 “Sometimes I am not given
enough time to get the job done
safely.”
WE3 “Sometimes conditions here
hinder my ability to work safely.”
WE4 “There are always enough
people beside me to get the job
done safely.”
WE5 “I cannot always get the
equipment I need to do the job
safely.”
WE6 “I feel safer in this place to work.”
Organization
communication
OC1 “There is good communication
here about safety issues which
affects me.”
(86)
OC2 “Safety information is always
brought to my attention by my
line manager/supervisor.”
OC3 “My line manager/supervisor
does not always inform me of
current concerns issues.”
OC4 “Management operates an
open-door policy on safety
issues.”
OC5 “I do not receive praise for
working safely.”
Leadership LS1 “My senior managers/ leaders
have established a safety
responsibility system.”
(87)
LS2 “My senior managers/ leaders
express an interest in acting on
safety policies.”
LS3 “My senior managers/ leaders
are concerned about safety
improvement.”
LS4 “My senior managers/leaders
establish clear safety goals.”
LS5 “My senior managers/ leaders
coordinate with other
departments to solve safety
issues.”
Safety
Communication
SCO1 “My company doesn’t have a
hazard reporting system where
employees can communicate
hazard information before
incidents occur.”
(88)
(Continued)
Continued
Constructs Items
code
Items References
SCO2 “When it comes to safety issues
management has an open door
approach.”
SCO3 “There is sufficient opportunity to
discuss deal with safety issues in
meetings.”
SCO4 “The target goals for safety
performance in my organization
are not clear to the workers.”
SCO5 “There is open communications
about safety issues in this
workplace.”
Safety
Performance
SP1 “He/she helps employees to
recognize the importance of
safety.”
(89)
SP2 “He/she encourages employees
to participate safety activities.”
SP3 “He/she studies new knowledge
regarding safety continuously.”
SP4 “He/she is trying to solve the
conflicts among employees.”
SP5 “He/she frequently
communicates safety issues to
employees.”
SP6 “He/she regularly provides
employees with safety
information.”
SP7 “You are willing to maintain the
function of safety facilities.”
SP8 “While working it is very unlikely
for you to get in contact with
hazardous materials.”
SP9 “You clearly know the proper
procedures when fire break out.”
Frontiers in Public Health | www.frontiersin.org 17 March 2022 | Volume 10 | Article 840281