A new concept model of safety culture and its evaluation application

doi:10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2023.06.1915

Abstract

Abstract:

In order to improve the level of safety culture construction in the shipbuilding industry, based on the definition of safety culture and objective reality, a new concept model of safety culture (SV-MMEMS) was proposed by integrating safety values (SV) and man-machine-environment-management system (MMEMS) model. Based on the five dimensions of safety values, man, machine, environment, and management of this model, a survey was conducted on the W shipbuilding enterprise. After data processing, such as project analysis, reliability analysis, validity testing, and factor analysis, a safety culture evaluation index system for the shipbuilding industry was constructed, consisting of five dimensions, 14 first-level indicators, and 33 second-level indicators. A second-order confirmation factor analysis model for safety culture, as well as a causal path analysis model among safety culture influencing factors, was constructed using AMOS. The findings demonstrated a favorable interaction relationship between the five elements, with "SV" acting as the nucleus and the path conefficients of each element in "MMEM", which were, respectively, 0.766, 0.553, 0.720, and 0.839. The ratio is 26.6%, 19.2%, 25.0%, and 29.2% after standardization, and organizational management elements were determined to have the biggest influence on the development of W shipping enterprise's safety culture. SV-MMEMS has considerable development and application prospects in the construction and evaluation of safety culture in enterprises and organizations.

Key words: a new concept model of safety culture, safety culture evaluation, safety values-man-machine-environment-management system (SV-MMEMS), safety culture construction, shipbuilding industry

CHEN Weijiong, HAN Weijia, LI Xin, KANG Yutao, JIAO Yu, FENG Xiang. A new concept model of safety culture and its evaluation application[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2023, 33(6): 11-19.

Figures/Tables 9

Fig.1

Tab.1

Evaluation index system and project analysis results of safety culture in shipbuilding industry

维度	一级指标	二级指标	项目分析
维度	一级指标	二级指标	SV因素A	组织安全理念体系A₁	组织(企业、实体)具有良好的核心理念A₁₁	-9.989	0.000
组织具有完善的安全方针并且得到落实A₁₂	-9.727	0.000
组织具有卓越的安全目标,从而促进企业长远发展A₁₃	-9.816	0.000
组织员工和领导层具有共同的愿景A₁₄	-10.679	0.000
员工安全行为准则形成安全体系文件且通俗易懂,员工能够自觉遵守A₁₅	-11.911	0.000
价值引领A₂	组织的SV对安全文化建设工作起到很好的引领作用A₂₁	-11.015		0.000
价值引领A₂	员工认同组织的安全核心理念A₂₂	-10.293		0.000
人员因素B	员工安全意识及态度B₁	自我安全防护意识强,对危险保持时刻警惕B₁₁	-6.753	0.000
		具有良好安全习惯,能有效应对突发危险B₁₂	-6.816	0.000
		掌握作业岗位安全知识,能够规范正确地操作运行B₁₃	-6.807	0.000
	员工安全行为B₂	员工对存在的安全隐患及时发现并报告B₂₁	-10.986	0.000
		不触及安全底线,不违反安全规定B₂₂	-4.436	0.000
		员工对作业场所存在的安全问题做到及时改善B₂₃	-10.624	0.000
		在开展每项作业时,遵循STOP-5 s安全须知B₂₄	-6.039	0.000
		员工积极参与组织安全文化建设,在组织发展中建言献策B₂₅	-10.082	0.000
	个人防护与急救B₃	合理规范佩戴安全帽、工作服等个体防护用品B₃₁	-4.156	0.000
	个人防护与急救B₃	熟知急救知识和技能,在自己或同伴遇险时,能够及时采取有效急救措施B₃₂	-4.487	0.000
技术设备因素C	维保消除设备隐患C₁	设备从开始使用到寿命结束期间注重对设备的成本控制C₁₁	-5.524	0.000
		设备设施基本完好C₁₂	-8.370	0.000
		定期检查设备,消除安全隐患 $C 1 3$	-8.349	0.000
		定期维护保养设备设施C₁₄	-10.036	0.000
	设备安全操作管理C₂	设备使用时遵循一定的操作规范,严格执行规章制度C₂₁	-8.252	0.000
	智慧安全引进C₃	引进高科技先进设备改善安全生产活动C₃₁	-9.417	0.000
环境因素D	安全作业环境D₁	作业空间布局合理,员工工作环境安全、健康、舒适D₁₁	-8.820	0.000
		场内的警示标识简洁明了,并放在醒目位置D₁₂	-10.496	0.000
		员工都能做到“6S”管理,且实施效果显著D₁₃	-8.969	0.000
	职业安全健康环境D₂	将职业安全健康方针应用到日常管理中,逐步提升员工的职业安全健康,塑造良好的职业安全健康环境D₂₁	-10.958	0.000
组织管理因素E	领导与监管E₁	组织领导定期召开安全会议E₁₁	-8.788	0.000
	领导与监管E₁	在作业期间,领导定期巡回检查E₁₂	-8.312	0.000
	安全教育培训E₂	组织为员工制定安全培训计划并能够定期完成E₂₁	-10.676	0.000
		作业人员依法培训,取得资格证书上岗E₂₂	-6.693	0.000
		组织内部各班组安全文化形式多种多样E₂₃	-8.488	0.000
	部门体系安全管理E₃	组织严格按照SMS/健康安全安保环境管理体系(Health,Safe,Security,Environment,HSSE)进行管理,在健康、安全、安保与环境上采取系列管理措施,不断提高安全绩效E₃₁	-12.861	0.000
	部门体系安全管理E₃	组织严格按照行为安全管理(Behavior Based Safety,BBS)方法针对不安全行为进行现场观察、分析,通过激励方式使员工认识到不安全行为的危害,提高员工的安全意识和技能E₃₂	-11.650	0.000
	应急管理E₄	组织定期开展应急演练并取得一定的效果E₄₁	-11.052	0.000

Tab.1

Tab.2

Tab.3

Tab.4

Tab.5

Tab.6

Fig.2

References 20

[1]	AQ/T9004—2008,企业安全文化建设导则[S].
	AQ/T9004-2008,Directives for devoloping enterprise safety culture[S].
[2]	AQ/T9005—2008,企业安全文化建设评价准则[S].
	AQ/T9005-2008,Assessment standards of enterprise safety culture developing[S].
[3]	YOON Y S, HAM D H, YOON W C. Application of activity theory to analysis of human-related accidents: method and case studies[J]. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 2016, 150:22-34. doi: 10.1016/j.ress.2016.01.013
[4]	傅贵, 殷文韬, 董继业, 等. 行为安全“2-4”模型及其在煤矿安全管理中的应用[J]. 煤炭学报, 2013, 38(7):1123-1129.
	FU Gui, YIN Wentao, DONG Jiye, et al. Behavior-based accident causation:the”2-4” model and its safety implications in coal mines[J]. Journal of China Coal Society, 2013, 38(7):1123-1129.
[5]	郭海军, 唐寒露, 王凯, 等. 基于24Model的高校危化品实验室事故分析及对策[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(11):168-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2442
	GUO Haijun, TANG Hanlu, WANG Kai, et al. Accidents analysis and countermeasures of university hazardous chemical laboratory based on 24Model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(11):168-174. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.11.2442
[6]	王秉, 吴超. 安全文化建设原理研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2015, 11(12):26-32.
	WANG Bing, WU Chao. Research on construction principles of safety culture[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2015, 11(12):26-32.
[7]	陈伟炯. 海事预控的安全科学新理论探讨[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 1998, 8(6):8-12.
	CHEN Weijiong. Probe into the new theory of safety science on preventive control of marine accident[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 1998, 8(6):8-12.
[8]	陈信, 龙升照. 人-机-环境系统工程学概论[J]. 自然杂志, 1985, 8(1):36-38,80.
[9]	SMITH C H, GRAHAM G F. Relapsing fever in chitral[J]. Indian Medical Gazette, 1913, 48(10):381-382. pmid: 29005953
[10]	SUAN S S. Taming prometheus: talk about safety and culture[J]. Arts and Social Sciences, 2009, 35(1):341-369.
[11]	罗云, 裴晶晶, 许铭, 等. 我国安全软科学的发展历程、现状与未来趋势[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2022, 32(1):1-11. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.001
	LUO Yun, PEI Jingjing, XU Ming, et al. Development process, current situation and future trend of safety soft science in China[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2022, 32(1):1-11. doi: 10.16265/j.cnki.issn1003-3033.2022.01.001
[12]	YOUNG G K, SEUNG M L, POONG H S. A methodology for a quantitative assessment of safety culture in NPPs based on Bayesian networks[J]. Annals of Nuclear Energy, 2017, 102:23-36. doi: 10.1016/j.anucene.2016.08.023
[13]	王祥尧. 安全文化定量测量的理论与实证研究[D]. 北京: 中国矿业大学(北京), 2011.
	WANG Xiangyao. Theoretical and empirical research of safety culture quantitative measurement[D]. Beijing: China University of Mining and Technology-Beijing, 2011.
[14]	NETO H V, AREZES P, JUNIOR B B. Safety values, attitudes and behaviours in workers of a waste collection and sanitation company[J]. Safety Science, 2021, 144: DOI:10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105471. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105471
[15]	曹琦. 论安全文化场及其在企业的实现方法[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2009, 5(1):198-201.
	CAO Qi. Study on safest culture field and its implementation method[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2009, 5(1):198-201.
[16]	COLLEY S K, LINCOLNE J, NEAL A. An examination of the relationship amongst profiles of perceived organizational values,safety climate and safety outcomes[J]. Safety Science, 2013, 51(1) : 69-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2012.06.001
[17]	BENTLER P M, CHOU C P. Practical issues in structural equation modeling[J]. Sociological Methods & Research, 1987, 16(1):78-117.
[18]	傅贵, 王祥尧, 吉洪文, 等. 基于结构方程模型的安全文化影响因子分析[J]. 中国安全科学学报, 2011, 21(2):9-15.
	FU Gui, WANG Xiangyou, JI Hongwen, et al. Analysis of contributing factors to safety culture based on structural equation model[J]. China Safety Science Journal, 2011, 21(2):9-15.
[19]	黄思琦, 刘年平, 谢晓君, 等. 建筑企业韧性安全文化实证研究[J]. 中国安全生产科学技术, 2020, 16(1):111-117.
	HUANG Siqi, LIU Nianping, XIE Xiaojun, et al. Empirical study on resilience safety culture of construction enterprises[J]. Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2020, 16(1):111-117.
[20]	方叶祥, 秦龙, 张琳, 等. 安全文化、工作满意度对员工安全行为的影响:基于结构方程模型的实证研究[J]. 安全与环境学报, 2019, 19(6):2022-2032.
	FANG Yexiang, QIN Long, ZHANG Lin, et al. Influence of safety culture and the sense of job satisfaction on the safety behaviors of the employees:an empirical research on the structural equation model[J]. Journal of Safety and Environment, 2019, 19(6):2022-2032.

指标	修正后的项与总计相关性	项已删除的α 系数	分量表信度 Cronbach's α	项已删除的分量表信度
A₁₁	0.663	0.950	0.908	0.908
A₁₂	0.592	0.951
A₁₃	0.673	0.950
A₁₄	0.661	0.950
A₁₅	0.727	0.950
A₂₁	0.709	0.950
A₂₂	0.753	0.950
B₁₁	0.464	0.952	0.838	0.845
B₁₂	0.542	0.951
B₁₃	0.464	0.952
B₂₁	0.737	0.950
B₂₂	0.402	0.953
B₂₃	0.718	0.950
B₂₄	0.524	0.951
B₂₅	0.674	0.950
B₃₁	0.440	0.952
B₃₂	0.314	0.953
C₁₁	0.362	0.953	0.813	0.838
C₁₂	0.454	0.952
C₁₃	0.631	0.950
C₁₄	0.690	0.950
C₂₁	0.682	0.950
C₃₁	0.560	0.951

指标	修正后的项与总计相关性	项已删除的α 系数	分量表信度 Cronbach's α	项已删除的分量表信度
D₁₁	0.595	0.951	0.785	0.785
D₁₂	0.639	0.950
D₁₃	0.611	0.951
D₂₁	0.677	0.950
E₁₁	0.611	0.951	0.884	0.884
E₁₂	0.464	0.952
E₂₁	0.713	0.950
E₂₂	0.596	0.951
E₂₃	0.542	0.951
E₃₁	0.757	0.950
E₃₂	0.748	0.950
E₄₁	0.695	0.950
总体 Cronbach's α	—	—	0.956	0.957

KMO	Bartlett球形度检验
KMO	近似卡方	df	Sig.
0.934	5 582.695	528	0.000

指标	特征根 (旋转前)	方差解释率 (旋转前)	累积/% (旋转前)	特征根 (旋转后)	方差解释率 (旋转后)	累积/% (旋转后)
因子1	14.270	0.432	43.241	8.348	0.253	25.296
因子2	2.583	0.078	51.068	5.217	0.158	41.106
因子3	1.602	0.049	55.924	3.060	0.093	50.379
因子4	1.203	0.036	59.570	2.272	0.069	57.263
因子5	1.042	0.032	62.728	1.803	0.055	62.727

指标	标准	初始模型	是否拟合	修正模型	是否拟合
χ²	—	1 525.653	—	717.596	—
df	—	480	—	325	—
χ²/df	<3	3.178	否	2.208	是
GFI	>0.9	0.698	否	0.817	否
RMSEA	<0.08	0.093	否	0.070	是
RMR	<0.10	0.058	是	0.053	是
CFI	>0.9	0.793	否	0.902	是
NFI	>0.9	0.725	否	0.835	否
TLI	>0.9	0.786	否	0.902	是