Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
Open Journal of Business and Management, 2019, 7, 1072-1087
http://www.scirp.org/journal/ojbm
ISSN Online: 2329-3292
ISSN Print: 2329-3284
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 Apr. 29, 2019 1072 Open Journal of Business and Management
The Impact of 5S Strategy on the Safety
Climate & Productivity at Egyptian
Garment Firms (Assembly Plants)
K. M. Seddik
Textile Division, National Research Centre, Giza, Egypt
Abstract
5S is one of the lean manufacturing tools that helps
organizations to improve
the work environment. The philosophy of 5S interesting on eliminating waste
and non-value activity which increases labour efficiency and work area safety.
Although many articles stated the significant impact of implementing lean
manufacturing in worker environment, non-quantifiable results were re
ported.
In this article, the impact of the 5S event on the safety climate and productiv-
ity at the assembly plant of Egyptian garment firms was studied. The sample
was divided into two groups based on 5S implementation. The Safety Climate
Assessment Tool survey (SCAT) was used in measuring the perceptions of
safety on a Likert-
scale while three productivity metric was calculated. The
result presented that 5S has a significant impact on 7 of 8 topics of safety cli-
mate. The management commitment & the priority of safety climate at Egyp-
tian garment firms need to be developed while usage a no-
blame approach to
persuade people acting safely has to be increased. In the same context, the
results assigned that productivity measures influenced by 5S event.
Keywords
Lean Manufacturing, 5S Event, Safety Climate, Productivity Measures, Egyptian
Garment
1. Introduction
Manufacturers face several challenges, e.g. rising costs, inefficiencies, and low of
quality and safety by implementing process improvement techniques. Lean is a
well-established set of principles which aim at reducing waste. It is used promi-
nently due to its effectiveness and simplicity.
How to cite this paper:
Seddik, K.M.
(201
9)
The Impact of 5S Strategy on the
Safety Climate
& Productivity at Egyptian
Garment Firms (Assembly Plants)
.
Open
Journal of Business and Management
,
7,
1072
-1087.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073
Received:
March 25, 2019
Accepted:
April 26, 2019
Published:
April 29, 2019
Copyright © 201
9 by author(s) and
Scientific
Research Publishing Inc.
This work is
licensed under the Creative
Commons Attribution International
License (CC BY
4.0).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Open Access
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1073 Open Journal of Business and Management
Lean, in theory, is supposed to improve the working conditions of the em-
ployees and eliminate the hazards in the workplace as well [1]. There are even a
few instances where researchers have shown improvements in occupational
safety through lean, but they are limited [2]. Basically due to other critical issues
like delivery, quality and customer satisfaction, occupational safety is lost. There-
fore provide evidence of lean affecting occupational safety is required.
The target of this study is to seek the potential relationship between lean
and safety climate of assembly workers. 5S is the lean technique investigated in
this study. The subject area is the assembly department at a manufacturing fa-
cility.
2. Literature Review
2.1. Lean Manufacturing
Although the origin of the lean manufacturing traced to the early days of Ford
Motor Company, the development came by the Japanese automobile industry
after World War II. Lean manufacturing defined by Toyota motor as a manage-
ment philosophy with a set of tools which attend to eliminate waste, reducing
costs and improving quality [3]. In addition, the lean methodology aims to im-
prove the value as perceived by customers by ensuring timely service or delivery.
Table 1 demonstrates the seven wastes which were mentioned in the Toyota
Production System (TPS) [4].
By the times, the application of lean principles from the Toyota Production
System has developed to a more customer value orientation. Definition of value
related to the capability of the organization to achieve customer requirements in
minimal time. In this respect, the value was divided into two sections as add-
ed-value and non added-value. Added-value identified as critical steps in serving
and delivering products to a customer while non added-value should be removed
Table 1. 7th wastes in manufacturing from TPS.
Wastes
Description
Overproduction
Producing too much or too soon, resulting in poor flow of information or goods
and excess inventory.
Inventory
Excessive storage and delay of information or products, resulting in excess
inventory and costs, leading to poor customer service.
Motion
Poor workplace organization, resulting in poor ergonomics, e.g., excessive
bending or stretching and frequently lost items.
Transportation
Excessive movement of people, information or goods, resulting in wasted time
and cost.
Inappropriate
processing
Going about work processes using the wrong set of tools, procedures or systems,
often when a simpler approach may be more effective.
Defects
Frequent errors in paperwork or material product quality problems resulting in
scrap and/or rework.
Wasting
Long periods of inactivity for people, information or goods, resulting in poor
flow and long lead-times.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1074 Open Journal of Business and Management
[5]. This results in placing customer value and waste reduction at the centre of
lean [6]. Lean in manufacturing facilitates streamline operations, decreasing the
lead time, inventory and eliminating wastes, in beside that its focus on increas-
ing financial savings and customer satisfaction [6] [7]. Recent researches have
cited that organizations have realized enormous achievements due to imple-
menting lean principles. Reference [8] stated that executing lean manufacturing
lead to improving performance in terms of productivity and quality. This clari-
fies the potential of improving quality while simultaneously decreasing the cost
of manufacturing facilities.
2.2. 5S Lean Manufacturing
5S is a powerful lean procedure which improves work environment through eli-
minating waste and non-value activities consequently, increase the product
quality and employees morals. Some researchers identify it as a system which
help workers to think differently, while others see it as an organizer tool, howev-
er they all agree that it’s an effective & simplest lean manufacture [9] [10].
5S translated from five Japanese principles that start with the letter “S” to five
equivalent English words as Sort, Set in order, Shine, Standardize, and Sustain
[9]. Figure 1 presents the principles of 5S.
Description of the 5S Program
According to [8], 5S is a technique where waste is eliminated as well as produc-
tivity and quality are improved through organizing the work area.
1S: Sort: Concentrates on segregated between necessary and unnecessary items
at work area.
2S: Set In Order: focuses on place the collected items from previous S “sort” in
its proper location which help in saving time (Lead Time).
3S: Shine: Interest in maintaining the production area. After implementing
Source: Redesign by author.
Figure 1. 5S principles.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1075 Open Journal of Business and Management
the first two elements eliminate waste and locate the needed items, the shine step
began to clean the work area.
4S: Standradize: Aim to allow employees to implement the best practices in
the entire organization by standardizing methods.
5S: Sustain: Sustain is almost considered as the most difficult “S” to imple-
ment, as many employees tendency to return to the old way of doing things.
Sustain step emphasis on maintaining the whole system by the meaning of ac-
countability, commitment and empowering.
Benefits of a 5S program
• Magnify visibility.
• Eliminate waste.
• Increase sense of ownership & morale.
• Improved productivity—minimizing the time spent searching for tools, ma-
terials, etc.
• Save time (Lead time).
• Improved quality, maintenance & safety.
• A better impression on customers.
2.3. Safety Climate
Several industries such as construction and aviation give careful consideration to
evaluating safety [11]. Basically, safety assessment had been based on reactive
measures (reported data on worker fatalities and injuries). However, human
factors & organizational are involved in different incidents. So currently, many
industries are interesting on predictive measures of safety [11]. Safety climate
regarded as a predictive measure of safety, than others traditional safety meas-
ures which are reactive [12].
Most of the researchers have been defined safety climate in terms of worker
attitudes towards safety. Reference [13] stated that safety climate returns to safe-
ty habitude of employees in a working plant, while according to [14], safety re-
lated to employees perceptions toward procedures and practices in an organiza-
tion (reflect the value of safety).
Generally, the term of safety culture utilized in an integrated way with safety
climate despite they have varied perceptions and have been studied individually
[12]. While security culture points to the general convictions existing in an estab-
lishment, safety climate is more identifying to attitudes and employees percep-
tions’ for both internal and external impacts [15]. Reference [16] signified that the
safety climate is a more proper term for the investigations from the surveys.
Safety Climate in Industrial
Safety climate is viewed as the best instrument for estimating work safety envi-
ronment in manufacturing facilities. Reference [17] referred to that the regular
strategies for estimating safety are incomplete and others different components
are wanted to genuinely comprehend the safety in a work environment. Em-
ployees’ perceptions, safe practices, management commitment are imperative
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1076 Open Journal of Business and Management
parts to be comprehended to understand the general significance of safety in the
manufacturing segment. Therefore, Safety climate measuring tool, which in-
cludes all these elements, acquires a great importance.
Safety climate measuring tool was evolved by several researchers in order to
include varied dimensions for measuring the employees’ perceptions of safety. In
fact, there is no particular safety survey, which is considered the most effective
measuring tool due to their relevant models which differ from manufacturer to
others [18] [19] [20] [21]. In this study dimensions like safety rules & proce-
dures, management role, worker empowering are extremely important due to
the fact that they may be impacted by implementing 5S. Therefore, according to
the prerequisites, the safety climate survey utilized in this article is the Safety
Climate Assessment Toolkit (SCAT) which was produced by the UK Health and
Safety Executive (HSE) [22]. This was initially produced for oil extraction or-
ganizations, but over time became one of the standout amongst the most ordi-
narily connected polls in the manufacturing industries too [23].
2.4. Safety & Lean
The lean concepts of eliminating waste, optimizing the process flow, and in-
creasing the quality lead to reduce work area hazard and improve safety [24].
Although several researchers presented the significant impact of implementing
lean manufacturing in worker safety, non-quantifiable results were reported.
This ultimately fails in substantiating the real relationship between lean and
worker safety.
3. Methodology
The research was performed in the assembly area at Egyptian garment estab-
lishments. The sample was divided into two groups based on 5S implementation
according to [25]. Group (A) (the most applicable to 5S event) represented
52.9% of the total sample while group (C) (the lowest applicable) 47.1%. The sta-
tistical analysis based on comparing collected data of the safety climate from two
groups while the productivity measures were calculated.
3.1. Safety Climate Survey
The Safety Climate Assessment Tool survey (Appendix) was used in this inves-
tigation. The SCAT contains 43 questions with 8 different topics (Table 2).
The perceptions of safety were measured on a Likert-scale (Table 3). T-tests
with a difference in the SCAT scores (Final Score & Section wise scores) were
analyzed with 0.05 level of significance.
3.2. Productivity Measures
The effectiveness of the 5S event was tested using three productivity measures.
3.2.1. Cycl Time
The cycle time in this study was estimated by time study, using a stopwatch (or a
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1077 Open Journal of Business and Management
Table 2. Different topics of SCAT.
Topics
Items
Management Commitment
7
Communication
5
Priority of Safety
7
Supportive Environment
6
Involvement
3
Personal Priorities and Need for Safety
5
Personal Appreciation of Risk
4
Work Environment
6
Table 3. Safety climate survey scale.
Rating
Scale
Strongly Disagree
1
Disagree
2
Neutral
3
Agree
4
phone). Using the accessible data, the actual number of cycles to be measured
was computed using Equation (1).
2
ZS
N
E
⋅
=
(1)
where,
N
= Final number of cycles to be observed.
Z
= Value from the Z table (Z = 1.96 for 95% confidence interval).
E
= Accuracy (±5%) × Average cycle.
S
= Standard Deviation of the cycle time.
3.2.2. Floor Space
A successful 5S event usually frees the available floor space previously held up by
unnecessary items. Increased floor space is one of the visual indicators of a suc-
cessful 5S event. The available floor space was measured.
3.2.3. Inventory
Inventory (parts ready to be assembled) in the assembly area, This measure was
monitored along with units produced on 6 particular day. A ratio between the in-
ventory and the number of units produced in the particular day was calculated.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Safety Climate
Based on t-test, the p-value of the total and individual scores of the safety cli-
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1078 Open Journal of Business and Management
mate (SCAT Tool) for the two groups was calculated as shown in the Table 4.
The total scores indicated a significant difference between the two groups. Fur-
thermore, the results pointed that communication was the only item which rea-
lized an insignificant level among other safety climate tools. The justification re-
turn that in fact, 5S event wasn’t directly influence on communication as it relied
on personal safety perception than management interaction. On beside that the
results defined that involvement was the most affected while the supportive en-
vironment was the lowest.
In order to demonstrate the impact of the 5S system on safety climate of as-
sembly workers in each group, the investigation rate of the SCAT items for every
topic was calculated and presented in a line chart as follows.
4.1.1. Management Commitment
As shown in (Figure 2) management commitment of safety is more effective at
group (A) than group (C). This could be attributed to the strict management
Table 4. Paired t-test result of the safety climate dimensions.
(SCAT) Dimensions
Group C
Group A
P Value
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
Management Commitment
2.312953
21.27586
1.863574
22.51724
0.022159922
Communication
1.784581
14.55172
1.162849
15.06897
0.161872768
Priority of Safety
1.378941
22.48276
1.901516
21.48276
0.024655982
Supportive Environment
1.645265
17.27586
1.162849
18.06897
0.049151554
Involvement
0.976321
8.896552
0.939028
9.896552
0.000387826
Personal Priorities and Need
for Safety
1.536902 16.82759 1.472239 17.89655 0.011217272
Personal Appreciation of Risk
1.323341
12.41379
1.212618
11.44828
0.015112675
Work Environment
1.038662
18.31034
0.902924
17.62069
0.017204833
Total
4.101243
132.0345
3.654743
134
0.048481282
Source Own Study.
Figure 2. Investigation of management commitment items in each group.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1079 Open Journal of Business and Management
standards which were set up as a part of 5S standardize phase to emphasize im-
proving work area and eliminating hazards which lead to reduce production
time.
In addition, the result presented that although the group (A) act decisively
and quickly to correct safety problems, the corrective actions are always taken
when management is told about unsafe practices. Furthermore, the result re-
vealed a contradictory situation at group (C) where, in spite of interesting in
safety, management acts only after accidents have occurred. This concludes that
management commitment to safety climate at Egyptian garment enterprises re-
quire a supporter system such as monitoring or alarming systems to detect the
safety hazards and assigned a proper solution as fast as it can.
4.1.2. Communication
The result in a Figure 3 reflects the influence of 5S implementation on the
communication topic of safety climate, where the group (A) (more 5S applica-
ble) achieving a higher implementation than the group (C) (less 5S applicable).
The explanation related to 5S philosophy which powers employees’ involvement
and enhances their responsibility toward work improvements
Moreover, the results demonstrated that the highest communication policy at
the group (A) traced to a continuous attention about safety information, while at
the group (C) linked to approach an open door policy on safety issues. In the
same vein the result clarified that the lowest policy at the two groups returned to
the praise for working safety, which refer that sensitivity of safety issue may be
decreased if the administration didn’t innovate a new procedures to empower
and encourage labors.
4.1.3. Priority of Safety
Figure 4 presents a magnitude effect of 5S event on the priority of safety, where
the group (A) are more considering to priority of safety than group (C). In addi-
tion, the results stated that although the group (A) following safety rules carefully
& regarding safety as important to production, some safety rules and procedures
Source: Own Study.
Figure 3. Investigation of communication items in each group.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1080 Open Journal of Business and Management
need to be developed in order to support occupational safety with respect to
productivity. On the other hand, the result illustrated that while, the manage-
ment of group (C) clearly considers the safety of employees of great importance,
sometimes its depart from safety requirements for production’s sake indicating
to necessary for carrying out more training and engagements.
4.1.4. Supportive Environment
The Scores in Figure 5 identify that group (A) conducts more concentrations on
three topics to improve the environment of safety. 1) Cooperation on how to
work safely, 2) encouraging to report unsafe conditions and 3) safety responsi-
bility. While on Group (C) the main item associated to interact employees for
safety work. On the other way, the result presented that the lowest item at the
two groups related to using a no-blame approach to persuade people acting un-
safely that their behavior is inappropriate which spotted to the possibility of de-
creasing on the supportive environment of safety with time. Generally, the chart
in Figure 4 demonstrates that the supportive environment of safety climate on a
group (A) is more investigated than group (C).
Source: Own Study.
Figure 4. Investigation of priority items in each group.
Source: Own Study.
Figure 5. Investigation of supportive environment items in each group.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1081 Open Journal of Business and Management
4.1.5. Involvement
Relying on the findings at Figure 6, group (A) accomplishes a higher execution
of involvement than group (C) which refers to a significant effect of 5S metho-
dology on administration visions. At the same time, the results refer to a contra-
dictory situation at the two groups as however involving employees with safety
issues attained the highest rating, the joining in the ongoing review achieved the
lowest, indicating to the necessity of building a strategy that increases the effec-
tiveness of staff’s involvement in safety climate to ensure sustainability.
4.1.6. Personal Priorities & Needs
The impact of 5S methodology on personal priorities and needs for safety is pre-
sented in Figure 7 where the results stated that the personal priorities of safety
are more increasing at the group (A) than group (C). Besides that, the results
pointed that understanding the safety rules for the job are the most varied be-
tween the two groups.
Moreover, the results clarified that in spite of decreasing on personal priorities
Source: Own Study.
Figure 6. Investigation of involvement items in each group.
Source: Own Study.
Figure 7. Investigation of personal priorities and needs items in each group.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1082 Open Journal of Business and Management
and needs for safety at the group (C), employees are more considering to emphasis
on safety than other group reflecting the potential of improvement can be in
sample manner.
4.1.7. Personal Appreciation of Risk
Figure 8 demonstrates the line chart for personal appreciation of risk. The re-
sults declared the magnitude of 5S event in appreciation of risk where the group
(A) achieved a higher scores (meaning a lower risk and more safety implementa-
tion) than group (B).
Furthermore, the scores showed that workers at the two groups were rarely
worried about being injured on the job, but at the same time they sure it’s only a
matter of time before involved in an accident, which identifies that sustaining 5S
practices need to be developed in a following manner:
1) Training should occur on a regular basis from top management to the labor
force.
2) Equipment & tools should be placed on their allocated point and the pieces
of the garment should be maintained in the defined area.
3) All procedures should be updated and adhered to on a daily basis.
4) An evaluation should be performed and kept as required for assessment at
the end of each month.
4.1.8. Work Environment
The effectiveness of 5S principles on the work environment of safety climate was
demonstrated in Figure 9, where the group (A) realized a higher implementa-
tion than group (C). In addition the results present that the highest investigation
of the two groups returned to availability of enough people to get the job done
safely while the lowest investigation connected to time reduction to get the job
done safely which refer that standardize of time at Egyptian garment enterprises
require more development and practicing in order to achieve target production
in a safe manner.
Source: Own Study.
Figure 8. Investigation of personal appreciation of risk items in each group.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1083 Open Journal of Business and Management
Source: Own Study.
Figure 9. Investigation of work environment items in each group.
4.2. Productivity Measures
4.2.1. Cycle Time
The cycle time was defined as the time it takes the assembly worker to assemble
a unit (T-shirt) with all the parts. All the parts were already available on the
workstation. The average of total time for group (C) to assemble T-shirt parts
was 46 minutes approximately (2.3) minutes per unit, as measured with 12 sam-
ples while The total time for group (A) to assemble was 42 minutes ~ (2.1) mi-
nutes/unit which is a 8.69% decrease. This showed that the 5S event effectively
reduced the cycle time of assembling a unit
4.2.2. Floor Space Utilization
The floor space utilized by the assembly for material storage, handling and aisles
were measured. In group (C) the average of the total area utilized by the assem-
bly was 41.5 m2 while the floor space utilized by the group (A) assembly was 52.7
m2, which is a 26.9 % increase. The explanation related to 5S attribution to re-
move unnecessary equipment and parts which took up space in the workplace
(the first stage: sort) and standardize of a pull concept as opposed to the tradi-
tional push concept which resulted in moving the units to the next step imme-
diately after completion. So, the units were never placed on the floor, which
freed up space (The fourth stage: standardization).
4.2.3. Inventory Held up
A ratio (inventory held up to the number of units finished) was calculated. Low-
er ratio equaled to better inventory management. A mean ratio of group (C) was
6.38 per unit ($146,866 in inventory held up to 23 units finished), while the
mean ratio of group (A) was 3.74 per unit ($119,833 in inventory held up to 32
units finished). The ratio decreased by 41.3%. This showed that the 5S event ef-
fectively reduced the inventory held up in the assembly area.
5. Conclusions
5S has a significant impact on 7 of 8 topics of safety climate. Communication was
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1084 Open Journal of Business and Management
the only item which realized insignificant level among other safety climate tools.
The results stated that the management commitment & the priority of safety
climate at Egyptian garment firms needs to be developed. As well as, increasing
usage of a no-blame approach to persuade people acting safely to support work
environment shall be magnified. Contradictory situations were observed, refer-
ring to the necessity for more empowering, practicing and accountability. The re-
sults assigned that productivity measures influenced by 5S event, where the pro-
duction cycle time decreased, the utilized floor space increased and the invento-
ry reduced.
On the other hand, the results presented the strong positive relation between
5S polices and safety climate where group A (the most applicable to 5S event)
achieved a higher investigation of the SCAT items than group C (the lowest ap-
plicable) which provide evidence of lean affecting occupational safety.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank the National Research Center for funding the
research and to all laborers, supervisors, and managers at Egyptian garment
firms for their response and interactions.
Conflicts of Interest
The author declares no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this paper.
References
[1] Ohno, T. (1978) Toyota Production System: Beyond Large-Scale Production. Di-
amond Inc., Tokyo.
[2] Rahman, M.N.A., Khamis, N.K., Zain, R.M., Deros, B.M. and Mahmood, W.H.W.
(2010) Implementation of 5S Practices in the Manufacturing Companies: A Case
Study.
American Journal of Applied Sciences
, 7, 1182-1189.
https://doi.org/10.3844/ajassp.2010.1182.1189
[3] De Koning, H., Verver, J.P.S., van den Heuvel, J., Bisgaard, S. and Does, R.J.M.M.
(2006) Lean Six Sigma in Healthcare.
Journal for Healthcare Quality
, 28, 4-11.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2006.tb00596.x
[4] Hines, P. and Taylor, D. (2000) Going Lean. Lean Enterprise Research Centre, Car-
diff.
[5] Womack, J. and Jones, D. (2003) Lean Thinking. Simon & Schuster, New York.
[6] Al-Araidah, O., Momani, A., Khasawneh, M. and Momani, M. (2010) Lead-Time
Reduction Utilizing Lean Tools Applied to Healthcare: The Inpatient Pharmacy at a
Local Hospital.
Journal for Healthcare Quality
, 32, 59-66.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1945-1474.2009.00065.x
[7] Melton, T. (2005) The Benefits of Lean Manufacturing: What Lean Thinking Has to
Offer the Process Industries.
Chemical Engineering Research and Design
, 83, 662-673.
https://doi.org/10.1205/cherd.04351
[8] Bayo-Moriones, A., Bello-Pintado, A. and Merino-Díaz de Cerio, J. (2010) 5S Use in
Manufacturing Plants: Contextual Factors and Impact on Operating Performance.
International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management
, 27, 217-230.
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1085 Open Journal of Business and Management
https://doi.org/10.1108/02656711011014320
[9] Becker, J.E. (2001) Implementing 5S to Promote Safety & Housekeeping.
Profes-
sional Safety
, 46, 29-31.
[10] Hill, A.V. (2010) Encyclopedia of Operations Management. Clamshell Beach Press,
Eden Prairie, MN.
[11] Colla, J.B., Bracken, A.C., Kinney, L.M. and Weeks, W.B. (2005) Measuring Patient
Safety Climate: A Review of Surveys.
Quality and Safety in Health Care
, 14, 364-366.
https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2005.014217
[12] Clarke, S. (2006) Contrasting Perceptual, Attitudinal and Dispositional Approaches
to Accident Involvement in the Workplace.
Safety Science
, 44, 537-550.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.12.001
[13] Donald, I. and Canter, D. (1993) Psychological Factors and the Accident Plateau.
Health and Safety Information Bulletin
, 215, 5-12.
[14] Neal, A. and Griffin, M.A. (2004) Safety Climate and Safety at Work. In: Barling, J.
and Frone, M.R., Eds.,
The Psychology of Workplace Safety
, American Psychologi-
cal Association, Washington DC, 15-34. https://doi.org/10.1037/10662-002
[15] Glendon, A.I. (2005) Safety Culture. In: Karwoski, W., Ed.,
International Encyclo-
pedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors
, Taylor and Francis, London.
[16] Mearns, K., Whitaker, S.M. and Flin, R. (2001) Benchmarking Safety Climate in
Hazardous Environments: A Longitudinal, Interorganizational Approach.
Risk
Analysis
, 21, 771-786. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.214149
[17] Baek, J.-B., Bae, S., Ham, B.-H. and Singh, K.P. (2008) Safety Climate Practice in
Korean Manufacturing Industry.
Journal of Hazardous Materials
, 159, 49-52.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2007.07.125
[18] Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L. and Vaccaro, D. (2002) Perceived Safety
Climate, Job Demands, and Coworker Support among Union and Non-Union In-
jured Construction Workers.
Journal of Safety Research
, 33, 33-51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00002-6
[19] Hayes, B.E., Perander, J., Smecko, T. and Trask, J. (1998) Measuring Perceptions of
Workplace Safety: Development and Validation of the Work Safety Scale.
Journal of
Safety Research
, 29, 145-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(98)00011-5
[20] Lee, T.R. and Harrison, K. (2000) Assessing Safety Culture in Nuclear Power Sta-
tions.
Safety Science
, 34, 61-97. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00007-2
[21] Zohar, D. (2002) The Effects of Leadership Dimensions, Safety Climate, and As-
signed Priorities on Minor Injuries in Work Groups.
Journal of Organizational Be-
havior
, 23, 75-92. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.130
[22] Cox, S.J. and Cheyne, A.J.T. (2000) Assessing Safety Culture in Offshore Environ-
ments.
Safety Science
, 34, 111-129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00009-6
[23] Tomás, J.M., Cheyne, A. and Oliver, A. (2011) The Relationship between Safety At-
titudes and Occupational Accidents: The Role of Safety Climate.
European Psy-
chologist
, 16, 209-219. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000036
[24] Ikuma, L.H., Nahmens, I. and James, J. (2011) Use of Safety and Lean Integrated
Kaizen to Improve Performance in Modular Home Building.
Journal of Construc-
tion Engineering & Management
, 137, 551-560.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000330
[25] Seddik, K.M. (2017) Studying the Implementation of 5S System in Egyptian Gar-
ment Enterprises.
International Journal of Industrial and Manufacturing Engineer-
ing
, 11, 1925-1928. https://waset.org/Publication/10008172
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1086 Open Journal of Business and Management
Appendix: Safety Climate Assessment Toolkit
Q No. Question
Strongly
disagree
disagree
Neither Agree
nor Disagree
Agree
Strongly
Agree
Management Commitment
X1
Management acts decisively when a safety concern is raised
X2
Management acts only after accidents have occurred
X3
Corrective actions are always taken when management is told about unsafe
practices
X4
In my workplace management acts quickly to correct safety problems
X5
In my workplace management turn a blind eye to safety issues
X6
In my workplace managers/supervisors show interest in my safety
X7
Managers and supervisors express concern if safety procedures are not adhered
to
Communication
X8
Management operates an open door policy on safety issues
X9
My supervisor does not always inform me of current concerns and issues
X10
I do not receive praise for working safely
X11
Safety information is always brought to my attention by my line
manager/supervisor
X12
There is good communication here about safety issues which affect me
Priority of Safety
X13
I believe that safety issues are not assigned a high priority
X14
Management clearly considers the safety of employees of great importance
X15
Safety rules and procedures are carefully followed
X16
Management considers safety to be equally as important as production Safety
Rules and Procedures
X17
Sometimes it is necessary to depart from safety requirements for production’s
sake
X18
Some health and safety rules and procedures are not really practical
X19
Some safety rules and procedures do not need to be followed to get the job done
safely
Supportive Environment
X20
Employees are not encouraged to raise safety concerns
X21
Co-workers often give tips to each other on how to work safely
X22
I am strongly encouraged to report unsafe conditions
X23
When people ignore safety procedures here, I feel it is none of my business
X24
A no-blame approach is used to persuade people acting unsafely that their
behavior is inappropriate
X25
I can influence health and safety performance here
Involvement
X26
I am involved in informing management of important safety issues
K. M. Seddik
DOI:
10.4236/ojbm.2019.72073 1087 Open Journal of Business and Management
Continued
X27
I am never involved in the ongoing review of safety
X28
I am involved with safety issues at work
Personal Priorities and Need for Safety
X29
Safety is the number one priority in my mind when completing a job
X30
Personally, I feel that safety issues are not the most important aspect of my job
X31
I understand the safety rules for my job
X32
It is important to me that there is a continuing emphasis on safety
X33
A safe place to work has a lot of personal meaning to me
Personal Appreciation of Risk
X34
I am rarely worried about being injured on the job
X35
In my workplace the chances of being involved in an accident are large
X36
I am sure it is only a matter of time before I am involved in an accident
X37
I am clear about what my responsibilities are for health and safety
Work Environment
X38
I cannot always get the equipment I need to do the job safely
X39
Operational targets often conflict with safety measures
X40
Sometimes conditions here hinder my ability to work safely
X41
Sometimes I am not given enough time to get the job done safely
X42
There are always enough people available to get the job done safely
X43
This is a safer place to work than other companies I have worked for
