Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Exploring the Differences in Safety Climate Among Mining Sectors

  • Published:
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Currently, the US mining industry is encouraged, but not required to adopt a formal health and safety management system. Previous research has shown that the adoption of such systems has been more difficult in some subsectors of the mining industry than others. Given the interdependencies between management systems and safety climate in addition to their predictive utility of incidents, it is important to assess differences in the perceptions of safety climate among mining subsectors in the USA. If significant differences exist, then mining subsectors may not necessarily be able to adopt a one-size approach to system implementation. To that end, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health assessed mineworkers’ perceptions of several individual and organizational safety climate constructs. Participants consisted of 2945 mineworkers at coal, industrial mineral, and stone/sand/gravel mine sites throughout 18 states. Linear regressions were used to answer the research question. The results suggest that coal miners, in comparison to those miners in industrial mineral and stone/sand/gravel sectors, had significantly less favorable perceptions on each of the organizational climate constructs measured (i.e., organizational support, supervisor support and communication, coworker communication, engagement/involvement, and training) (p < 0.001 in all cases). Importantly, these results parse out organizational indicators to show that perceptions are not only lower in one area of organizational or supervisor support. Rather, engagement, training, and communication practices were all significantly lower among coal miners, prompting considerations for these significant differences and actions that can be taken to improve system practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Not available for public dissemination due to consent agreements with participating sites.

References

  1. International Labour Office [ILO] (2001). Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. MEOSH/2001/2(Rev.).

    Google Scholar 

  2. Duzgun HSB, Einstein HH (2004) Assessment and management of roof fall risks in underground coal mines. Saf Sci 42(1):23–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00067-X

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Joy J (2004) Occupational safety risk management in Australian mining. Occup Med 54:311–315

    Google Scholar 

  4. Grayson RL, Kinilakodi H, Kecojevic V (2009) Pilot sample risk analysis for underground coal mine fires and explosions using MSHA citation data. Saf Sci 47(10):1371–1378

    Google Scholar 

  5. Paul PS (2009) Predictors of work injury in underground mines—an application of a logistic regression model. Min Sci Technol 19(3):282–289

    Google Scholar 

  6. Khanzode VV, Maiti J, Ray PK (2001) A methodology for evaluation and monitoring of recurring hazards in underground coal mining. Saf Sci 49:1172–1179

    Google Scholar 

  7. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2010. Available online: U.S. Department of Labor, http://www.bls.gov. (accessed 1 April 2020).

  8. Mahdevari S, Shahriar K, Esfahanipour A (2014) Human health and safety risks management in underground coal mines using fuzzy TOPSIS. In: Science of the Total Environment, vol 488. International Labour Office, Geneva, pp 85–99

    Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou L, Cao Q, Yu K, Wang L, Wang H (2018) Research on occupational safety, health management and risk control technology in coal mines. Int J Environ Res Public Health 15:686. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph1505086

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Alford JR (1980) Can government regulate safety? The coal mine example. Am Polit Sci Rev 74:745–756

    Google Scholar 

  11. MSHA. Mine Improvement and New Emergency Response Act of 2006. Available online: https://www.msha.gov/MinerAct/MineActAmmendmentSummary.asp ().

  12. Vinodkumar MN, Bhasi M (2010) Safety management practices and safety behavior: assessing the mediating role of safety knowledge and motivation. Accid Anal Prev 42:2082–2093

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kirwan B (1998) Safety management assessment and task analysis–a missing link? In: Hale A, Baram M (eds) Safety management: the challenge of change. Elsevier, Oxford, p 1998

    Google Scholar 

  14. ISO (International Organization for Standardization) ISO 45001 (2018) Occupational health and safety management systems—requirements with guidance for use. ISO, Geneva, p 2018. Available at: https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html

  15. Labodova A (2004) Implementing integrated management systems using a risk analysis-based approach. J Clean Prod 12:571–580

    Google Scholar 

  16. National Mining Association [NMA] (2014). CORESafety, “CORESafety framework handbook.” Available at: http://www.coresafety.org/coresafety-framework/handbook/.

  17. BS OHSAS 18001 (2007) Occupational health and safety management systems—requirements. BSI Global, London, p 2007

    Google Scholar 

  18. ANSI. American National Standards Institute [ANSI/AIHA Z-10:2005] (2005). American National Standard for Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems. American National Standards Institute, Washington, DC, 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Voluntary Protection Programs. Available at: https://www.osha.gov/vpp (accessed 1 April 2020).

  20. Yang B (2012) Regulatory governance and risk management: occupational health and safety in the coal mining industry. Routledge, New York, p 2012

    Google Scholar 

  21. Plc AA (2010) Detailed Journey Workbook, part of the A3 Safety Risk Management Process Training Material. London, Anglo American Plc, p 2010

    Google Scholar 

  22. Schulte PA, Whittaker C, Curran CP (2015) Considerations for using genetic and epigenetic information in occupational health risk assessment and standard setting. J Occup Environ Hyg 12(sup1):S69–S81

    Google Scholar 

  23. Zohar D, Luria G (2005) A multilevel model of safety climate: cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. J Appl Psychol 90:616–628

    Google Scholar 

  24. Beus JM, McCord MA, Zohar D (2016) Workplace safety: a review and research synthesis. Organ Psychol Rev 6(4):352–381

    Google Scholar 

  25. Christian MS, Bradley JC, Wallace JC, Burke MJ (2009) Workplace safety: a meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J Appl Psychol 94(5):1103–1127

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cox S, Flin R (1998) Safety culture: philosopher’s stone or man of straw? Work Stress 12(3):189–201

    Google Scholar 

  27. Guldenmund FW (2000) The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research. Saf Sci 34(1-3):215–257

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hoffman DA, Burke MJ, Zohar D (2017) 100 years of occupational safety research: from basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. J Appl Psychol 102(3):375–388

    Google Scholar 

  29. Mearns K, Whitaker SJ, Flin R (2003) Safety climate, safety management practice and safety performance in offshore environments. Saf Sci 41:641–680

    Google Scholar 

  30. Zohar D (1980) Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. J Appl Psychol 65(1):96–102

    Google Scholar 

  31. Probst TM, Goldenhar LM, Byrd JL, Betit E (2019) The safety climate assessment tool (S-CAT): a rubric-based approach to measuring construction safety climate. J Saf Res 69:43–51

    Google Scholar 

  32. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) (2011) Final safety culture policy statement. Federal Register 2011 76(114):34773–34778 [NRC–2010–0282]

    Google Scholar 

  33. Vogus TJ, Sutcliffe KM, Weick KE (2010) Doing no harm: enabling, enacting, and elaborating a culture of safety in health care. Acad Manag Perspect 24(4):60–77

    Google Scholar 

  34. Joint Commission (2019) Eleven tenets of a safety culture, p 2018. Available at: https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/Sentinel_Events_11_tenets_of_a_safety_culture_infographic_2018.pdf

  35. Haas EJ, Yorio P (2016) Exploring the state of health and safety management system performance measurement in mining organizations. Saf Sci 83:48–58

    Google Scholar 

  36. Gordon R, Kirwan B, Perrin E (2007) Measuring safety culture in a research & development center: a comparison of two methods in the air traffic management domain. Saf Sci 45:669–695

    Google Scholar 

  37. Foster P, Hoult S (2013) The safety journey: using a safety maturity model for safety planning and assurance in the UK coal mining industry. Minerals 3(1):59–72

    Google Scholar 

  38. Cornelissen PA, Van Hoof JJ, De Jong MD (2017) Determinants of safety outcomes and performance: a systematic literature review of research in four high-risk industries. J Saf Res 62:127–141

    Google Scholar 

  39. Laurence DC (2005) Safety rules and regulations on mine sites–the problem and solution. J Saf Res 36:39–50

    Google Scholar 

  40. Zohar D (2014) Safety climate: conceptualization, measurement, and improvement. In: Schneider B, Barbera KM (eds) The Oxford handbook of organizational climate and culture. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 317–334

    Google Scholar 

  41. NIOSH (2020). Assessing the impact of safety climate constructs on worker performance in the mining industry. By [blinded]. Pittsburgh PA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2020-120, RI 9704.

  42. Aiken L (2002) Attitudes and related psychosocial constructs: theories, assessment, and research. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  43. Griffin MA, Neal A (2000) Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J Occup Health Psychol 5(3):347–358

    Google Scholar 

  44. Neal A, Griffin MA (2006) A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J Appl Psychol 91(4):946–953

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mearns K, Whitaker SM, Flin R (2001a) Benchmarking safety climate in hazardous environments: a longitudinal, interorganizational approach. Risk Anal 21(4):771–786

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mearns K, Flin R, Gordon R, Fleming M (2001b) Human and organizational factors in offshore safety. Work Stress 15(2):144–160

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zacharatos A, Barling J, Iverson RD (2005) High-performance work systems and occupational safety. J Appl Psychol 90(1):77–93

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jiang L, Lavaysse LM, Probst TM (2019) Safety climate and safety outcomes: a meta-analytic comparison of universal vs. industry-specific safety climate predictive validity. Work Stress 33:41–57

    Google Scholar 

  49. Johns R (2005) One size doesn’t fit all: selecting response scales for attitude items. J Elect Publ Opin Part 15(2):237–264

    Google Scholar 

  50. Allen M (2017) Scales, Likert statement. In: The SAGE encyclopedia of communication research methods. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, pp 1555–1557. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781483381411

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  51. Yong AG, Pearce S (2013) A beginner’s guide to factor analysis: focusing on exploratory factor analysis. Tutor Quant Methods Psychol 9(2):79–94

    Google Scholar 

  52. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ (1999) Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 4:272–299

    Google Scholar 

  53. Hinkin TR (1998) A brief tutorial on the development of measures for use in survey questionnaires. Organ Res Methods 1:104–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442819800100106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Hinkin TR (1995) A review of scale development practices in the study of organizations. J Manag 21:967–988. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639502100509

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  56. SPSS, IBM Corp (2018) IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, IBM Corp, p 2018

  57. Haas EJ, Yorio P (2019) The role of risk avoidance and locus of control in workers’ near miss experiences: implications for improving safety management systems. J Loss Prev Process Ind 59:91–99

    Google Scholar 

  58. Haas EJ, Connor BP, Vendetti J, Heiser R (2017) A case study exploring field-level risk assessments as a leading safety indicator. Trans Soc Min Metall Explor 342:22

    Google Scholar 

  59. Robson LS, Clarke JA, Cullen K, Bielecky A, Severin C, Bigelow PL, Irvin E, Culyer A, Mahood Q (2007) The effectiveness of occupational health and safety management system interventions: a systematic review. Saf Sci 45(3):329–353

    Google Scholar 

  60. Yorio PL, Willmer DR, Moore SM (2015) Health and safety management systems through a multilevel and strategic management perspective: theoretical and empirical considerations. Saf Sci 72:221–228

    Google Scholar 

  61. Brooks B (2008) The natural selection of organizational and safety culture within a small to medium sized enterprise (SME). J Saf Res 39(1):73–85

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  62. SAFEmap (1999) Safety culture survey report of the Australian minerals industry. In: Minerals Council of Australia, vol 1999, p 54 http://158.132.155.107/posh97/private/culture/safety_survey_report_jul99.pdf. (

  63. Parker AW, Jones MJ, Ritchie GE (2017) Development of a multilevel health and safety climate survey tool within a mining setting. J Saf Res 62:173–180

    Google Scholar 

  64. Page K (2009) Blood on the coal: the effect of organizational size and differentiation on coal mine accidents. J Saf Res 40(2):85–95

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  65. Wachter JK, Yorio PL (2014) A system of safety management practices and worker engagement for reducing and preventing accidents: an empirical and theoretical investigation. Accid Anal Prev 68:117–130

    Google Scholar 

  66. Committee on Safety and Health at Work (1972) Safety and health at work: report of the committee 1970–72, Chairman Lord Robens. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO), London

    Google Scholar 

  67. Sirrs C (2015) Accidents and apathy: the construction of the ‘Robens Philosophy’ of occupational safety and health regulation in Britain, 1961–1974. Soc Hist Med 29(1):66–88

    Google Scholar 

  68. Gunningham N (2007) Mine safety: law regulation policy, 2007. Federation Press, Leichhardt

    Google Scholar 

  69. Stemn E, Bofinger C, Cliff D, Hassall ME (2019) Examining the relationship between safety culture maturity and safety performance of the mining industry. Saf Sci 113:345–355

    Google Scholar 

  70. Branch MS (2011) MDG 1010 Minerals Industry Safety and Health Risk Management Guideline. NSW Department of Industry and Investment, Sydney, p 2011

    Google Scholar 

  71. OSHA (2016). Recommended practices for safety and health programs. Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/Publications/OSHA3885.pdf ().

  72. Fleming M, Lardner R (1999) Safety culture—the way forward. Chem Eng 689:16–18

    Google Scholar 

  73. Martin M (2010). Former miner explains culture of mining. National Public Radio, Tell Me More. Radio show broadcast on April 7, 2010. Accessed on April 25, 2020 from https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125676950.

  74. Brown KA, Willis PG, Prussia GE (2008) Predicting safe employee behaviour in the steel industry: development and test of a sociotechnical model. J Oper Manag 18(4):445–465

    Google Scholar 

  75. Department of Mineral Resources (2000) In: Pitzer CJ (ed) A study of the risky positioning behavior of operators of remote control mining equipment (Report no. 5004). Department of Mineral Resources, Sydney, p 2000

    Google Scholar 

  76. Gowrisankaran G, He C, Lutz EA, Burgess JL (2015) Productivity, safety, and regulation in underground coal mining: evidence from disasters and fatalities (No. w21129). National Bureau of Economic Research, New York

    Google Scholar 

  77. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2019). Annual coal report. Release date: October 3, 2019. Available at https://www.eia.gov/coal/annual/ (accessed 11 November 2019).

  78. Haight JM, Yorio P, Rost KA, Willmer DR (2014) Safety management systems: comparing content & impact. Prof Saf 59(5):44–51

    Google Scholar 

  79. Haas EJ, Ryan M, Hoebbel CL (2018) Job autonomy and safety climate: examining associations in the mining industry. In: Professional Safety, pp 30–34

    Google Scholar 

  80. Williams JH (2008) Employee engagement improving participation in safety. Prof Saf 53(12):40–45

    Google Scholar 

  81. Haslam C, O’Hara J, Kazi A, Twumasi R, Haslam R (2016) Proactive occupational safety and health management: promoting good health and good business. Saf Sci 81:99–108

    Google Scholar 

  82. Tong R, Zhan Y, Yang Y, Jie Q, Ma X, Shao G (2019) Evaluating targeted interventions on coal miners’ unsafe behavior. Int J Environ Publ Health Res 16(3):422

    Google Scholar 

  83. Qing-gui C, Kai L, Ye-jiao L, Qi-hua S, Jian Z (2012) Risk management and workers’ safety behavior control in coal mine. Saf Sci 50(4):909–913

    Google Scholar 

  84. Kosmoski CL (2014) Assessing the safety culture of underground coal mining: results and recommendations. In: 2014 SME Annual Meeting, February 23-26, Salt Lake City, Utah, Preprint 14-029. Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration Inc, 2014. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/atsco.pdf, Englewood

  85. De Maio TJ (1984) Social desirability in survey measurement: a review. In: Turner CF, Martin E (eds) Surveying subjective phenomena, vol 2. Russell Sage, New York, pp 257–282

    Google Scholar 

  86. Cui Q, Li Y (2015) The change trend and influencing factors of civil aviation safety efficiency: the case of Chinese airline companies. Saf Sci 75:56–63

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ghosh AK, Bhattacherjee A, Chau N (2004) Relationships of working conditions and individual characteristics to occupational injuries: a case-control study in coal miners. J Occup Health 46(6):470–480

    Google Scholar 

  88. Taylor J (2015) Competing models linking safety climate to safety management systems. Presentation. In: Safety Climate and Culture: A brief tutorial and review of the current state of the research, with an emphasis on the inter-relationships with Safety Management Systems, National Occupational Injury Research Symposium, 2015. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/noirs/2015/about2015.html, Prepared and presented by the NIOSH Safety Climate / Safety Culture Working Group, Kingwood

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, 626 Cochrans Mill Rd., Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA

    Emily J. Haas

  2. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, National Personal Protective Technology Laboratory, 626 Cochrans Mill Rd., Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA

    Patrick L. Yorio

Authors
  1. Emily J. Haas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Patrick L. Yorio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization, E.H.; methodology, P.Y. and E.H.; software, P.Y. and E.H.; validation, P.Y.; formal analysis, P.Y. and E.H.; investigation, E.H.; resources, E.H.; data curation, E.H.; writing—original draft preparation, E.H.; writing—review and editing, E.H. and P.Y.; visualization, E.H. and P.Y.; supervision, E.H..; project administration, E.H.; funding acquisition, E.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Emily J. Haas.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by NIOSH.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Haas, E.J., Yorio, P.L. Exploring the Differences in Safety Climate Among Mining Sectors. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 38, 655–668 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00364-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00364-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation