4.4 Article

Safety Climate in MT Mining: A Case Study

Journal

MINING METALLURGY & EXPLORATION
Volume 38, Issue 5, Pages 1861-1875

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s42461-021-00472-1

Keywords

Safety climate; Safety culture; Mining

Funding

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Training Project Grant [T03OH008630]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The safety climate study conducted at a surface metal mine showed significant improvement in safety leadership scores among management employees after training, but overall safety climate evaluation did not show significant improvement. Variations in safety climate between different divisions were attributed to differences in work environments.
A safety climate case study was carried out at a surface metal mine where investigators administered the Liberty Mutual Short Scale Safety Climate Survey to 365-368 miners to measure safety climate in consecutive years. Following the baseline safety climate survey in 2019, Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) training was conducted with 81 middle to upper management employees at the mine site. Investigators found statistically significant differences in the pre vs. posttraining FSL assessment scores of the middle to upper management employees who attended the training. The follow-up safety climate evaluation was compared to baseline scores and revealed no significant improvement. The overall baseline company safety climate score of 76.38 increased minimally to 76.50 (p-value = 0.616). Investigators also evaluated differences in safety climate between the company's three major divisions (operations, maintenance, and administration). Both years administration had the highest mean score and operations had the lowest mean score. The authors attributed the statistically significant differences found among the three major divisions to various dissimilarities in their work environments.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available