Next Article in Journal
Electronic Commerce for Sustainable Rural Development: Exploring the Factors Influencing BoPs’ Entrepreneurial Intention
Next Article in Special Issue
A Study on the Status of Safety and Health for Golf Course Caddies and Improvement of Protective Measures in South Korea
Previous Article in Journal
A Method for Constructing Geographical Knowledge Graph from Multisource Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 13
Issue 19
10.3390/su131910603
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Measuring Safety Climate in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Bumjin Han
1,
Seunghyun Son
2 and
Sunkuk Kim
2,*
1
Department of Research and Development, Korea Construction and Transport Engineering Development Collaboratory Management Institute, Yongin-si 17058, Korea
2
Department of Architectural Engineering, Kyung Hee University, Yongin-si 17104, Korea
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2021, 13(19), 10603; https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910603
Submission received: 2 August 2021 / Revised: 18 September 2021 / Accepted: 20 September 2021 / Published: 24 September 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Safety Role and Contribution to Industrial Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Recent studies on safety in various fields use the concept of safety climate to explain the causes of safety accidents. Many studies attempt to measure the safety climates and identify the causes for accidents in the high-risk construction industry. Studies have shown that the higher the level of the safety climate, the lower the accident rate at construction sites. Methods of measuring safety climate, including the NOSACQ-50 survey, have been presented. Studies on the methodology of measuring safety climate should be continued to improve reliability and precision. Although many studies have been conducted to measure safety climate, such as questionnaires, regression analysis, and suggestions for safety climate measurement methods, there are few studies on a systematic literature review of them. This requires a systematic literature review (SLR) of the studies conducted so far. This study conducted an SLR on the definition and measurement methods of safety climate in the construction industry published since 2000, when safety climate’s impact on accidents began to be established. This review study utilized the PRISMA method, analyzed 735 studies, and selected 57 papers finally. SLR was carried out for selected research works, and the results were summarized. There are three methods to measure safety climate: literature survey, questionnaire, and data analysis. Factor analysis, development of measuring model, development of questionnaire, statistical analysis, and machine learning were investigated as their sub-methods. This study’s results can be used as fundamental sources for improving existing methods and developing new methods of measuring safety climate in the construction industry.

1. Introduction

The construction industry, in particular, goes through changes in the working environment and changes of managers and workers depending on the construction site. It is a high-risk industry with a high probability of fatal accidents, such as falls or being crushed by objects [1,2,3,4]. According to the data from the Ministry of Employment and Labor (2021), the analysis of the accident status in 10 industries in 2019 showed that the construction industry had the highest workplace accident rate with 25,298 (26.9%), as shown in Figure 1a, followed by 23,684 (25.18%) in manufacturing, and 5464 (5.8%) in transit, warehouse, and telecommunication. The industry-specific mortality rate was overwhelmingly high in the construction industry at 428 (50.1%). The mortality rate was 206 (24.1%) in manufacturing, 118 (13.8%) in others (service industry), and 59 (7.0%) in transit, warehouse, and telecommunication [5].
The death toll at construction sites worldwide is also at a serious level. According to the number of workers killed at construction sites in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (International Labor Organization, 2016; Figure 2), the largest number was from Israel, with 24.8 per 100,000, followed by Mexico (19.5), South Korea (17.6), Portugal (15.6), Estonia (13.8), Turkey (13.4), Slovenia (12.5), and the Czech Republic (12.4). The construction site death toll in Israel, which has the highest death toll, is more than 2000 a year, calculated by the total population [6].
Therefore, it is crucial to identify the underlying causes of such safety accidents and measure the safety climate to minimize accident rates in the construction industry [7,8,9,10].
Recent studies on safety in various fields have used the concept of “safety climate” to determine fundamental causes of safety accidents. This concept was first introduced by Zohar, and its impact on safety accidents was established by Clarke [11,12]. Safety climate has received much academic attention, and in recent years, safety climate has been actively studied in various industries [13], such as health [14,15,16,17,18], engineering [19,20,21,22,23,24,25], construction [26,27,28,29], social science [30,31,32,33], and business management [34,35,36,37].
Many researchers have also conducted research on safety climate to establish a relationship between safety climate and accidents. Fernández et al. [38] surveyed 455 Spanish companies to establish a relationship between safety culture and safety accidents and analyzed the results using statistical techniques. The role of managers in promoting the safety behaviors of workers based on the safety management system in an organization was found to be important in minimizing safety accidents.
Research on the safety climate was also conducted in the medical and nuclear fields, which are industrial fields where safety accidents can lead to serious accidents. Hessels et al. [39] defined safety climate in the medical field and established its relationship with medical accidents. Patient safety climate (PSC) is an important factor in reducing the rate of infection between patients and healthcare workers and that PSC and standard precaution are highly correlated statistically. Navarro et al. [40] created a method of measuring safety climate to establish a relationship between safety climate and safety accidents in the nuclear field. They developed “group safety climate” (GSC) by upgrading the ZGSC scale developed by Zohar and Luria. A survey of GSC with 566 nuclear plant employees in Spain found that safety climate is highly correlated with formalized procedure, safety behavior, and time pressure.
There are several methods of measuring the level of safety climate, among which the NOSACQ-50 survey is the representative one. Based on theories of psychology, safety culture, and safety climate, as well as accumulated databases and international research activities, the National Research Center for Work Environment developed a questionnaire, which was made available worldwide. NOSACQ-50 consists of 50 items across seven dimensions, i.e., shared perceptions of: (1) management safety priority, commitment, and competence; (2) management safety empowerment; and (3) management safety justice; as well as shared perceptions of (4) workers’ safety commitment; (5) workers’ safety priority and risk non-acceptance; (6) safety communication, learning, and trust in co-workers’ safety competence; and (7) workers’ trust in the efficacy of safety systems. NOSACQ-50 was found to be a reliable instrument for measuring safety climate, and valid for predicting safety motivation, perceived safety level, and self-rated safety behavior [41]. Studies measuring safety climate using NOSACQ-50 have been actively carried out. Marin et al. [42] divided 353 survey participants into three groups of workers, field supervisors, and field managers to measure safety climate in the construction industry and conducted a survey using NOSACQ-50. They found that the higher the level of awareness of safety climate in each group, the lower the accident rate at the construction site. A questionnaire is the most frequently used method to measure safety climate. In some cases, the NOSACQ-50 was used, or seven items of NOSACQ-50 were changed according to country and construction site characteristics. In other ways, many studies have been conducted to measure safety climate, such as regression analysis and the development of safety climate measurement methods. The details are described in Section 3.3.
Several studies measure safety climate and identify the cause and mechanism of safety accidents. Further, studies have shown that the higher the level of safety climate, the lower the accident rate at the construction site. Various methods of measuring safety climate, including the NOSACQ-50 survey, have been presented, and studies on the methods of measuring safety climate should be continued to improve reliability and precision. Although many studies have been conducted to measure safety climate, such as questionnaires, regression analysis, and suggestions for safety climate measurement methods, there are few studies on a systematic literature review of them. This requires a systematic literature review (SLR) of the studies that have been conducted so far. Therefore, this study conducted an SLR of research on the definition and measurement methods of safety climate in the construction industry that were published since 2000, when the safety climate’s impact on safety accidents began to be established. To this end, this study is structured as follows: analysis of trends in safety climate in all industries (i.e., keywords, industries, countries, years, and journals); review of definitions of safety climate in the construction field; and review of measurement methods of safety climate in the construction field. First, in order to analyze the research trend of safety climate, it should be analyzed for all industrial fields, and it can be more accurate to analyze the definition of safety climate in the construction industry. Finally, a review of safety climate measurement methods in the construction industry is conducted for the purpose of this study. The results of this study will be used as foundational data for developing new methods of measuring safety climate in the construction industry and improving existing ones; thus, it can aid in lowering the safety accident rate in the construction industry.

2. Data Sources and Methodology

2.1. Data Sources

First, data related to safety climate measurement were searched using Web of Science and Google Scholar, which are representative integrated search platforms. Then, articles were searched through related journals such as ASCE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, SpringerLink, Taylor & Francis, and Wiley Online Library. Google Scholar was used for some of the theses or documents published in journals that were not internationally accredited. As most of the materials searched in Web of Science and Google Scholar were overlapping, Google Scholar was used as a main research platform for this research.
The concept of safety climate was first introduced by Zohar in 1980, and the impact of safety climate on safety accidents was established by Clarke in 2006 [11,12]. The research on safety climate in the construction industry began 1991 by Dedobbeleer and Beland, but most of the literature on the impact of safety climate on safety accidents was after 2000 and more systematic. Therefore, this study searched the literature published after 2000, when research on the relationship between safety climate and safety accidents began in earnest.

2.2. Systematic Literature Review

Numerous studies on this topic have been published worldwide, and after the 1990s, with the development of computer science, it was possible to obtain these works in a short time using search tools on the internet. The use of the SLR as a research tool began in this context. SLR is a systematic way of collecting, critically evaluating, integrating, and presenting findings from across multiple research studies on a specific research question or topic of interest. SLR provides a way to assess the quality level and magnitude of existing evidence on a question or topic of interest. It offers a broader and more accurate level of understanding than a traditional literature review [43]. SLR is an exact and reproducible method for identification, evaluation, and interpretation of predefined fields of study [44].
Looking at the literature review articles published on the construction industry, most of the review articles published since 2010 were based on SLR [45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Since 2018, there have been a number of review articles using preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) [55,56,57,58]. This study also follows PRISMA for systematic review. PRISMA is a method that collects and analyzes data by employing systematic and explicit ways to identify, select, critically evaluate, and review relevant studies [43].

2.3. Methodology

In the aforementioned literature databases, the study sequentially searched the literature using the Boolean operator ‘AND’ with keywords such as safety climate or culture, safety climate or culture definition, measurement or measuring safety climate, safety climate factors, and safety climate indicators. As shown in Table 1, many documents were searched for safety climate as a keyword. However, many documents were about case studies of group or individual behavior, perceptions, and culture that are related to the safety climate, but are not related to the definition or measurement method of the safety climate. Therefore, if the search scope was narrowed down to ‘safety climate or safety culture definition’, ‘safety climate and safety culture definition’, ‘measurement or measuring safety climate’, the number of records was greatly reduced. Additionally then, records subject to this study were significantly reduced, except for documents that collect some construction site data and analyze the relationship between single factors and safety accidents or performance, such as worker’s behavior and manager’s acceptance.
As a result, since 2000, on Google Scholar, as shown in Table 1, about 1,250,000 studies related to safety climate in the construction field, 25,800 on safety climate definition, 17,800 on measurement or measuring safety climate, 667,000 on safety climate factors, and 166,000 on safety climate indicators were found. Google Scholar contains a variety of reports, including books, patents, and dissertations, and academic papers in most of the databases listed in Table 1. For example, if “measurement of safety climate” is searched as a keyword, multiple studies containing only the term “safety climate”, excluding “measurement” are found. Therefore, it is inefficient to search and review all relevant literature in Google Scholar. Since measuring safety climate in the construction field, which is covered in this review article, is a specific topic, most studies were retrieved from databases such as ScienceDirect, SpringerLink, and ASCE Library. However, Google Scholar was used when searching for specific sources such as books, magazines, and dissertations that were not easily found in databases such as ASCE Library and when the original text was not downloadable in other databases.
As shown in Table 1, many studies were searched in the selected databases in the following order after Google Scholar: Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect, and ASCE Library. In particular, since ASCE Library covers only the construction field, many studies related to this review paper were searched, while those in Scopus were searched relatively little. Additional search conditions were as follows: (1) published in English, from 1 January 2000, to 31 December 2020 and (2) the subject area was limited to engineering because of a large mix of safety climate-related literature in other fields, including agriculture, biology, medicine, and environment. Finally, gray literature with uncertain publishing information was excluded, and the search was based on data granted a digital object identifier.
Based on the literature retrieved on 1 July 2021, 735 records were finally identified, as shown in Figure 3, after excluding those unrelated to the topic of this study. Among them, 250 records unrelated to the construction industry were excluded after the screening process and the removal of 345 duplicates, and 140 full text articles were selected. Then, the full texts of 105 studies were reviewed, after excluding 35 papers that were unrelated to safety climate definition and measuring safety climate. Among them, the following studies were excluded: (1) analyzing the accidents with single factors, such as worker’s behavior, manager’s perception [59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82], and performance [83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91], (2) applying the safety climate to the construction industry and analyzing the effect [92,93,94,95,96,97,98], (3) comparing the safety climate of the nation or worker’s race [99,100,101,102].
Additionally, to evaluate the qualitative reliability of the finally selected 57 studies, a word cloud generator program was utilized to derive keywords and examine frequencies and relevance (Figure 4).

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Safety Climate Trend

The 390 studies on safety climate, published from 1 January 2000, to 31 December 2020, were analyzed by keyword, country, industry, year of publication, and publication journal. First, the frequency analysis of keywords showed that excluding safety climate, the keywords with the highest frequency were safety culture (n = 158, 17.7%), safety performance (n = 135, 15.2%), construction (n = 89, 10%), indicators (n = 58, 6.5%), safety management (n = 55, 6.2%), safety behavior (n = 53, 5.9%), structural equation (n = 35, 4.1%), occupational safety (n = 33, 3.9%), factors analysis (n = 30, 3.6%), patient safety (n = 28, 3.3%), construction site (n = 24, 2.8%), construction project (n = 22, 2.6%), workers safety, safety response (n = 18, 2.1%), and organizational climate (n = 17, 2.0%). Other keywords included occupational health, safety perception, safety attitude, and accident prevention (Figure 5).
Second, the analysis of the country of publication showed that the highest number of studies—approximately 21% (n = 84)—were conducted in the United States (Figure 6), followed by China (n = 63, 16.2%) and Australia (n = 62, 15.9%). The percentage of studies carried out in other countries is as follows: the United Kingdom (n = 25, 6.4%), Norway (n = 17, 4.4%), South Korea (n = 13, 3.3%), and Canada (n = 10, 2.6%).
Third, the analysis of industries with regard to safety climate literature showed that the highest proportion of studies—about 36% (n = 40)—was on the construction industry, followed by all industry (n = 102, 26.2%), medicine (n = 87, 22.3%), and manufacturing (n = 36, 9.2%) (Figure 7). Other industries included chemical (n = 12, 3.1%), transportation (n = 5, 1.3%), and aviation (n = 4, 1.0%). Studies without mention of specific industrial fields, such as construction, medicine, and manufacturing, were defined as all industries.
Fourth, as shown in Figure 8, the analysis of the publication years of safety climate literature from 2000 to 2020 showed that most studies were published in 2017 and 2018, at approximately 7.2% (n = 28) followed by 2016 and 2019 (n = 26, 6.7%), 2020 (n = 25, 6.4%), 2015 (n = 24, 6.2%), and 2010 (n = 22%, 5.6%). Since 2000, the number of safety climate publications has been increasing steadily.
Finally, as shown in Figure 9, the analysis of publication journals showed that ScienceDirect had the most literature, with approximately 28.7% (n = 112), followed by Google Scholar (n = 83, 21.3%), ASCE Library (n = 64, 16.4%), Taylor & Francis Online (n = 53, 13.6%), Wiley Online Library (n = 35, 9.0%), SpringerLink (n = 25, 6.4%), and Scopus (n = 18, 4.6%).

3.2. Safety Climate and Culture in the Construction Industry

The construction industry is considered the most dangerous industry [103]. In the United States, there are approximately 900 fatal injuries at construction sites each year. The mortality rate accounts for 4.4% of all industries, but it is the highest rate found in construction industries of other countries [104]. In the UK, about 2.9% of construction workers are injured each year, which is significantly higher than the average of all industries [105], and the industry with the highest mortality rate in South Korea among ten industries was found to be the construction industry (50.1%) [5].
As such, the construction industry of each country is a high-risk industry with high safety and fatal accidents rates, and many studies have been conducted by introducing the concept of safety climate to reduce the safety accident rate at construction sites. Several studies have demonstrated the value of safety climate and culture in reducing the safety accident rate at the sites [106,107,108]. Therefore, building a positive safety climate and culture is accepted as a fundamental strategy to effectively manage the safety of construction sites [109,110,111].
However, despite decades of research on safety climate and safety culture, there is still considerable ambiguity with respect to the definition and measurement methods [112]. There is a lack of clarity and existence of confusion about the definition and measurement of safety climate and safety culture [113]. Some researchers have strived to clearly distinguish the meaning of safety climate from safety culture, while some other researchers use the two terms interchangeably [114,115]. As a single example of this ambiguity, Al-Bayati et al. [104], as shown in Table 2, organized the concept of safety climate and safety culture defined in the NCA (National Construction Agenda, 2008), OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2000), NRC (US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2018), and CPWR (Center for Construction Research and Training, 2014). For safety climate, there is a difference in the meaning provided by NCA and CPWR. While the definition of safety climate presented by NCA is generally considered a common perception and attitude of employees in the workplace, CPWR focuses on consistency and adequacy with actual conditions compared to the organization’s safety policies. Moreover, OSHA and NRC do not even provide a definition of safety climate. For safety culture, NCA defines it to be the underlying organizational principles, norms, commitments, and values, while OSHA defines it to be beliefs, practices, and attitudes. NRC defines it as the core values and behaviors derived from leaders and individuals, and CPWR focuses on unspoken safety-related beliefs, attitudes, and values that interact with an organization’s systems.
Schwatka et al. [116] selected and analyzed 56 studies to investigate the definition of safety climate in the construction industry. The most frequent definition of safety climate was analyzed to be workers’ perception of safety at construction sites (n = 38, 68%), and in some studies, safety climate reflected workers’ attitudes (n = 5, 9%) or it was defined as safety indicators (n = 10, 18%). Li et al. [117] defined safety climate as workers’ attitudes at construction sites and as a belief in one’s ability to identify safety accidents. Marquardt et al. [118] defined safety climate as including safety culture that reflects implicit and explicit social perceptions.
Other definitions were also found: (a) safety climate is a sub-concept of safety culture [119,120,121,122] and reflects the actual safety culture [123,124,125,126]; (b) safety culture is a sub-facet of organizational culture that affects workers’ attitudes and behavior in relation to an organization’s ongoing safety performance [111]; (c) safety climate/culture have an impact on safety performance [127,128], and safety climate/culture will be influenced in multiple stages according to the position of workers at construction sites [129,130]; (d) safety culture is defined as those aspects of the organizational culture that will impact on attitudes and behavior related to increasing or decreasing risk [131]; and (e) safety culture is “that observable degree of effort by which all organizational members direct their attention and actions toward improving safety on a daily basis” [132]. The purpose of this section is to review the definitions of safety climate and culture, and their implications as described by various authors. The definitions for safety climate and safety culture are summarized as follows: Safety culture and safety climate can be seen similarly in that they describe an organization’s approach to safety, not only the visible efforts or attitudes its members chose to adopt, but also every mental function that defines their overall behavior. However, to be more specific, there are differences. “Safety culture” mostly refers to individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, and competencies regarding safety, while “safety climate” is mainly used to describe the expressed ideas, the tools, and techniques used in general by the organization in order to confirm its compliance to safety. In other words, the climate is an item which is easily perceived by others while culture is the basis that lies hidden under the surface.

3.3. Measuring Safety Climate

As shown in Figure 3, 57 studies were finally selected through the process of identification, screening, and eligibility. In Section 3.1 and Section 3.2, the trends and definitions of safety climate or culture were analyzed. In this section, the literature on safety climate measurement methods in the construction industry are analyzed. The result can be largely divided into three ways: literature survey, questionnaire, and data analysis. The measuring methods of these three methodologies included factor analysis, development of measuring model, and statistical analysis, and it can be seen that some measured safety climate using the methods of machine learning and development of a questionnaire. For example, when explaining the development of measuring model, the main factors suitable for the characteristics of the construction site are derived through a literature survey or a questionnaire. Development of individual indicators for main factors and development of safety climate measurement models is undertaken by applying measurement scales and weights to indicators. In addition, taking factor analysis through a questionnaire as an example, the researchers conduct a survey on construction site workers and derive the factors they consider most important to measure safety climate. The derived factors are used to measure the safety climate. The summary is shown in Table 3.
The methodology for measuring safety climate included literature survey (n = 19, 33%), questionnaire (n = 33, 58%), and data analysis (n = 5, 9%) (Figure 10). The most commonly used methodology for measuring safety climate was a questionnaire. Most of these studies carried out surveys with construction site workers and derived the most important factors for safety climate. Then, the derived factors were modified and used as a measurement tool for safety climate. The most frequently employed measuring method in the rest of the literature survey and data analysis was factor analysis, which suggests that many researchers use factors as a method to measure safety climate.
Looking at the details of the three methodologies for measuring safety climate, 19 literature survey studies were analyzed by factor analysis (n = 12, 63.1%), development of measuring model (n = 5, 26.3%), and development of questionnaire (n = 2, 10.6%), as shown in Figure 11. Factor analysis, which accounts for the highest frequency, was used to derive factors through consideration of previous studies and to measure safety climate by modifying the factors according to the characteristics of each country and construction sites.
Questionnaires were employed with the highest frequency among the three methodologies for measuring safety climate. Thirty-three studies were analyzed using factor analysis (n = 18, 54.6%), development of measuring model (n = 4, 12.1%), statistical analysis (n = 10, 30.3%), and machine learning (n = 1, 3.0), as shown in Figure 12.
Finally, five data analysis studies were analyzed by factor analysis (n = 4, 80%) and machine learning (n = 1, 20%) (Figure 13). In factor analysis, which accounts for the highest frequency, previous safety data from construction sites were collected and analyzed, and factors related to safety climate were derived. The derived factors were modified and used to measure safety climate.
Figure 14 shows the number of studies using the methods of literature survey, questionnaire, and data analysis for measuring safety climate.
Factor analysis (n = 34, 59.7%) had the highest frequency, followed by development of measuring model (n = 9, 15.8%), statistical analysis (n = 10, 17.5%), development of questionnaire (n = 2, 3.5%), and machine learning (n = 2, 3.5%).
Looking at the literature on factor analysis, which had the highest frequency, the factors for measuring safety climates include some similar items, but most of them are presented slightly differently by different authors. This is the result that reflects the characteristics and environment of each country and construction site. However, the upper categories of factors mentioned in each study can be divided into human and environmental factors. Human factors include belief and value, safety behavior, safety perception, safety attitude, and worker’s involvement and commitment and relationship. Environmental factors include rules and procedures, supervisory environment, and organizational management and training. The representative literature on these are shown in Table 4.

4. Conclusions

This study analyzed the safety climate/culture trends in research papers on all industries published since 2000 and carried out an SLR on the definition and measuring methods of safety climate in the construction industry. The findings identified through literature review are as follows.
(1) In this study, 390 studies on safety climate, published from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020, were analyzed by keyword, country, industry, year of publication, and publication journal. First, the analysis of keyword frequencies showed that excluding safety climate, the keyword with the highest frequency was safety culture (n = 158, 17.7%), followed by safety performance (n = 135, 15.2%), construction (n = 89, 10%), indicators (n = 58, 6.5%), safety management (n = 55, 6.2%), safety behavior (n = 53, 5.9%), structural equation (n = 35, 4.1%), occupational safety (n = 33, 3.9%), factors analysis (n = 30, 3.6%), patient safety (n = 28, 3.3%), construction site (n = 24, 2.8%), construction project (n = 22, 2.6%), workers safety, safety response (n = 18, 2.1%), and organizational climate (n = 17, 2.0%). Second, the analysis of the country of publication showed that the highest number of approximately 21% (n = 84) were conducted in the United States, followed by China (n = 63, 16.2%) and Australia (n = 62, 15.9%).
Third, the analysis of industries of safety climate literature showed that the highest proportion of about 36% (n = 40) was in the construction industry, followed by all industries (n = 102, 26.2%), medicine (n = 87, 22.3%), and manufacturing (n = 36, 9.2%). Fourth, the analysis of publication year of safety climate literature from 2000 to 2020 showed that the greatest number of studies were published in 2017 and 2018 at approximately 7.2% (n = 28), followed by 2016 and 2019 (n = 26, 6.7%), 2020 (n = 25, 6.4%), 2015 (n = 24, 6.2%), and 2010 (n = 22%, 5.6%). Finally, the analysis of publication journals showed that ScienceDirect had the greatest number of studies with approximately 28.7% (n = 112), followed by Google Scholar (n = 83, 21.3%), ASCE Library (n = 64, 16.4%), Taylor & Francis Online (n = 53, 13.6%), Wiley Online Library (n = 35, 9.0%), SpringerLink (n = 25, 6.4%), and Scopus (n = 18, 4.6%).
(2) The purpose of this section was to review the definitions of safety climate and culture, and their implications as described by various authors. The definitions for safety climate and safety culture are summarized as follows: Safety culture and safety climate can be seen similarly in that they describe an organization’s approach to safety, not only the visible efforts or attitudes its members chose to adopt, but also every mental function that defines their overall behavior. However, to be more specific, there are differences. “Safety culture” mostly refers to individual and group values, attitudes, perceptions, and competencies regarding safety, while “safety climate” is mainly used to describe the expressed ideas, the tools, and techniques used in general by the organization in order to confirm its compliance to safety. In other words, the climate is an item which is easily perceived by others, while culture is the basis that lies hidden under the surface.
(3) As a result of the analysis of measurement methods of safety climate/culture in the construction industry, the methods used could be divided into three: literature survey, questionnaire, and data analysis. The frequency analysis results of these three methodologies were as follows: literature survey (n = 19, 33%), questionnaire (n = 33, 58%), and data analysis (n = 5, 9%). Looking at the details of the methodologies, 19 with literature survey studies were analyzed by factor analysis (n = 12, 63.1%), development of measuring model (n = 5, 26.3%), and development of questionnaire (n = 2, 10.6%). Thirty-three studies with questionnaire were analyzed by factor analysis (n = 18, 54.6%), development of measuring model (n = 4, 12.1%), statistical analysis (n = 10, 30.3%), and machine learning (n = 1, 3.0%). Finally, five data analysis studies were analyzed by factor analysis (n = 4, 80%) and machine learning (n = 1, 20%).
The analysis of the measuring methods of literature survey, questionnaire, and data analysis for measuring safety climate showed that factor analysis (n = 34, 59.7%) was most frequently used, followed by the development of measuring model (n = 9, 15.8%), statistical analysis (n = 10, 17.5%), development of questionnaire (n = 2, 3.5%), and machine learning (n = 2, 3.5%).
The factors for measuring safety climates included some similar items, but most of them were presented slightly differently by different authors. This is believed to be the result that reflects the characteristics and environment of each country and construction site. However, the upper categories of factors mentioned in each study can be divided into human factors and environment factors. Human factors include belief and value, safety behavior, safety perception, safety attitude, worker’s involvement, and commitment and relationship, while environment factors include rules and procedures, supervisory environment, organization management, and training.
Many studies attempt to measure the safety climates and identify the causes for accidents in the high-risk construction industry. Studies have shown that the higher the level of the safety climate, the lower the accident rate at construction sites. Studies on the methodology of measuring safety climate should be continued to improve reliability and precision. Although many studies have been conducted to measure safety climate, such as questionnaires, regression analysis, and suggestions for safety climate measurement methods, there are few studies on a systematic literature review of them. This requires a systematic literature review (SLR) of the studies conducted so far. A construction site is the place where the most safety accidents occur. However, the characteristics of construction sites change according to many factors, such as country, site, and type of construction. Therefore, there will be various methods for measuring the safety climate and reducing safety accidents. To this end, this study provides summarized data to researchers who want to study the safety climate measurement method.
The results of this systematic literature review will be used as foundational data for improving existing methods and developing new methods of measuring safety climate in the construction industry, further contributing to lowering the safety accident rate in the construction industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.K. and B.H.; methodology, S.K.; formal analysis, B.H.; literature survey, B.H. and S.S.; data curation, B.H.; writing—original draft preparation, B.H. and S.S.; writing—review and editing, B.H. and S.K.; visualization, B.H.; supervision, S.K.; project administration, B.H.; funding acquisition, B.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by a grant (NRF-2021R1F1A1046321) from the National Research Foundation of Korea by Ministry of Science, ICT and Future Planning.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Lee, J.S.; Son, S.; Kim, S.; Son, K. Correlation analysis of safety climate and construction productivity in South Korea. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2020, 27, 589–596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Amiri, M.; Ardeshir, A.; Zarandi, M.H.F.; Soltanaghaei, E. Pattern extraction for high-risk accidents in the construction industry: A data-mining approach. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 2015, 23, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Mhetre, K.; Konnur, B.A.; Landage, A.B. Risk management in construction industry. Int. J. Eng. Sci. 2016, 5, 153–155. [Google Scholar]
  4. Pinto, A.; Nunes, I.L.; Ribeiro, R. Occupational risk assessment in construction industry—Overview and reflection. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 616–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Seoul (Korea): Ministry of Employment and Labor. Analysis of Industrial Accident Status in 2019. 2 June 2021. Available online: http://www.moel.go.kr/info/publict/publictDataView.do?bbs_seq=20210600255 (accessed on 25 June 2021). (In Korean)
  6. International Labour Organization. Analysis of Construction Site Death Tolls in OECD. 2016. Available online: https://ilostat.ilo.org/resources/concepts-and-definitions/description-occupational-injuries/ (accessed on 5 May 2021).
  7. Wu, C.; Song, X.; Wang, T.; Fang, D. Core dimensions of the construct ion safety climate for a standardized safety-climate measurement. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hofmann, D.A.; Stetzer, A. The role of safety climate and communication in accident interpretation: Implications for learning from negative events. Acad. Manag. J. 1998, 41, 644–657. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mearns, K.; Flin, R.; Gordon, R.; Fleming, M. Measuring safety climate on offshore installations. Work Stress 1998, 12, 238–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Shaikh, A.Y.; Osei-Kyei, R.; Hardie, M. A critical analysis of safety performance indicators in construction. Int. J. Build. Pathol. Adapt. 2020, 39, 547–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zohar, D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. J. Appl. Psychol. 1980, 65, 96–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Clarke, S. The relationship between safety climate and safety performance: A meta-analytic review. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2006, 11, 315–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bamel, U.K.; Pandey, R.; Gupta, A. Safety climate: Systematic literature network analysis of 38 years (1980–2018) of research. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 135, 105387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Nielsen, M.B.; Hystad, S.W.; Eid, J. The brief Norwegian safety climate inventory (Brief NORSCI)–Psychometric properties and relationships with shift work, sleep, and health. Saf. Sci. 2016, 83, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Nielsen, M.B.; Eid, J.; Hystad, S.W.; Sætrevik, B.; Saus, E.-R. A brief safety climate inventory for petro-maritime organizations. Saf. Sci. 2013, 58, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Nielsen, M.B.; Mearns, K.; Matthiesen, S.B.; Eid, J. Using the job demands-resources model to investigate risk perception, safety climate and job satisfaction in safety critical organizations. Scand. J. Psychol. 2011, 52, 465–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nielsen, M.B.; Eid, J.; Mearns, K.; Larsson, G. Authentic leadership and its relationship with risk perception and safety climate. Leadersh. Organ. Dev. J. 2013, 34, 308–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Bergheim, K.; Eid, J.; Hystad, S.W.; Nielsen, M.B.; Mearns, K.; Larsson, G.; Luthans, B. The role of psychological capital in perception of safety climate among air traffic Controllers. J. Leadersh. Organ. Stud. 2013, 20, 232–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Huang, H.Y.; Ho, M.; Smith, G.S.; Chen, Y.P. Safety climate and self-reported injury: Assessing the mediating role of employee safety control. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2006, 38, 425–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Huang, Y.-H.; Chen, P.Y.; Grosch, J.W. Safety climate: New developments in conceptualization, theory, and research. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1421–1422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Lee, J.; Huang, Y.-H.; Cheung, J.H.; Chen, Z.; Shaw, W.S. A systematic review of the safety climate intervention literature: Past trends and future directions. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 66–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Huang, Y.-H.; Robertson, M.M.; Lee, J.; Rineer, J.; Murphy, L.A.; Garabet, A.; Dainoff, M.J. Supervisory interpretation of safety climate versus employee safety climate perception: Association with safety behavior and outcomes for lone workers. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2014, 26, 348–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  23. Murphy, L.A.; Huang, Y.-H.; Robertson, M.M.; Jeffries, S.; Dainoff, M.J. A sociotechnical systems approach to enhance safety climate in the trucking industry: Results of an in-depth investigation. Appl. Ergon. 2018, 66, 70–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Huang, Y.-H.; Lee, J.; McFadden, A.C.; Rineer, J.; Robertson, M.M. Individual employee’s perceptions of “Group-level Safety Climate” (supervisor referenced) versus “Organization-level Safety Climate” (top management referenced): Associations with safety outcomes for lone workers. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2017, 98, 37–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Griffin, M.A.; Neal, A. Perceptions of safety at work: A framework for linking safety climate to safety performance, knowledge, and motivation. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2000, 5, 347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Zhang, R.P.; Lingard, H.; Nevin, S. Development and validation of a multilevel safety climate measurement tool in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2015, 33, 818–839. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhang, R.P.; Pirzadeh, P.; Lingard, H.; Nevin, S. Safety climate as a relative concept: Exploring variability and change in a dynamic construction project environment. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 25, 298–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Cheung, C.M.; Zhang, R.P. How organizational support can cultivate a multilevel safety climate in the construction industry. J. Manag. Eng. 2020, 36, 04020014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Lingard, H.; Zhang, R.P.; Oswald, D. Effect of leadership and communication practices on the safety climate and behaviour of construction workgroups. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 886–906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Beus, J.M.; Payne, S.C.; Bergman, M.E.; Arthur, W., Jr. Safety climate and injuries: An examination of theoretical and empirical relationships. J. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 95, 713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. Safety Climate and Safety Behaviour. Aust. J. Manag. 2002, 27, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yule, S.; Flin, R.; Murdy, A. The role of management and safety climate in preventing risk-taking at work. Int. J. Risk Assess. Manag. 2007, 7, 137–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. Safety Climate and Safety at Work. In The Psychology of Workplace Safety; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2004; pp. 15–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. Group leaders as gatekeepers: Testing safety climate variations across levels of analysis. Appl. Psychol. 2010, 59, 647–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. A multilevel model of safety climate: Cross-level relationships between organization and group-level climates. J. Appl. Psychol. 2005, 90, 616–628. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Leitão, S.; Greiner, B.A. Organisational safety climate and occupational accidents and injuries: An epidemiology-based systematic review. Work Stress 2016, 30, 71–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. The use of supervisory practices as leverage to improve safety behavior: A cross-level intervention model. J. Saf. Res. 2003, 34, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Safety culture: Analysis of the causal relationships between its key dimensions. J. Saf. Res. 2007, 38, 627–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hessels, A.J.; Larson, E.L. Relationship between patient safety climate and standard precaution adherence: A systematic review of the literature. J. Hosp. Infect. 2016, 92, 349–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Navarro, M.F.L.; Lerín, F.J.G.; Tomás, I.; Silla, J.M.P. Validation of the group nuclear safety climate questionnaire. J. Saf. Res. 2013, 46, 21–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kines, P.; Lappalainen, J.; Mikkelsen, K.L.; Olsen, E.; Pousette, A.; Tharaldsen, J.; Tómasson, K.; Törner, M. Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): A new tool for diagnosing occupational safety climate. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2011, 41, 634–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Marín, L.S.; Lipscomb, H.; Cifuentes, M.; Punnett, L. Perceptions of safety climate across construction personnel: Associations with injury rates. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 487–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pati, D.; Lorusso, L.N. How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature. HERD Health Environ. Res. Des. J. 2017, 11, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Wawak, S.; Ljevo, Ž.; Vukomanović, M. Understanding the key quality factors in construction projects—A systematic literature review. Sustainability 2020, 12, 10376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hanafi, A.G.; Nawi, M.N.M. Critical Success Factors for Competitiveness of Construction Companies: A Critical Review. In Proceedings of the 2016 International Conference on Applied Science and Technology (ICAST 2016), Kedah, Malaysia, 11–13 April 2016; AIP Publishing LLC: Melville, NY, USA, 2016; Volume 1761, p. 020042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Afzal, M.; Liu, Y.; Cheng, J.C.; Gan, V.J. Reinforced concrete structural design optimization: A critical review. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 260, 120623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wuni, I.Y.; Shen, G.Q. Barriers to the adoption of modular integrated construction: Systematic review and meta-analysis, integrated conceptual framework, and strategies. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 249, 119347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abdirad, H.; Dossick, C.S. BIM curriculum design in architecture, engineering, and construction education: A systematic review. J. Inf. Technol. Constr. (ITcon) 2016, 21, 250–271. [Google Scholar]
  49. Jamil, A.H.A.; Fathi, M.S. Contractual challenges for BIM-based construction projects: A systematic review. Built Environ. Proj. Asset Manag. 2018, 8, 372–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Marcher, C.; Giusti, A.; Matt, D.T. Decision support in building construction: A systematic review of methods and application areas. Buildings 2020, 10, 170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Babalola, O.; Ibem, E.O.; Ezema, I.C. Implementation of lean practices in the construction industry: A systematic review. Build. Environ. 2018, 148, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Saieg, P.; Sotelino, E.D.; Nascimento, D.L.D.M.; Caiado, R. Interactions of building information modeling, lean and sustainability on the architectural, engineering and construction industry: A systematic review. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 788–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Alencar, L.; Alencar, M.; Lima, L.; Trindade, E.; Silva, L. Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 289, 125730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Schwartz, Y.; Raslan, R.; Mumovic, D. The life cycle carbon footprint of refurbished and new buildings–A systematic review of case studies. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 231–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Charef, R.; Alaka, H.; Emmitt, S. Beyond the third dimension of BIM: A systematic review of literature and assessment of professional views. Renew. J. Buile Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 19, 242–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Martinez-Aires, M.; López-Alonso, M.; Rojas, M.M. Building information modeling and safety management: A systematic review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 101, 11–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Gharbia, M.; Chang-Richards, A.; Lu, Y.; Zhong, R.Y.; Li, H. Robotic technologies for on-site building construction: A systematic review. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Araújo, A.; Carneiro, A.M.P.; Palha, R.P. Sustainable construction management: A systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 256, 120350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zhou, Q.; Fang, D.; Wang, X. A method to identify strategies for the improvement of human safety behavior by considering safety climate and personal experience. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1406–1419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Hong, S.H.; Choi, J.W. A Study about circumstances and perception of construction accident compensation. J. Korea Inst. Build. Constr. 2010, 10, 69–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A. A study of the lagged relationships among safety climate, safety motivation, safety behavior, and accidents at the individual and group levels. J. Appl. Psychol. 2006, 91, 946–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  62. Choi, S.I.; Kim, H. A study on the safety climate and worker’s safe work behavior in construction site. J. Korean Soc. Saf. 2006, 21, 60–71. [Google Scholar]
  63. Clarke, S. An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta-analysis. J. Occup. Organ. Psychol. 2010, 83, 553–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chen, W.T.; Merrett, H.C.; Huang, Y.H.; Lu, S.T.; Sun, W.C.; Li, Y. Exploring the multilevel perception of safety climate on Taiwanese construction sites. Sustainability 2019, 11, 4596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Fang, D.; Wu, C.; Wu, H. Impact of the supervisor on worker safety behavior in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04015001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Kines, P.; Andersen, L.P.; Spangenberg, S.; Mikkelsen, K.L.; Dyreborg, J.; Zohar, D. Improving construction site safety through leader-based verbal safety communication. J. Saf. Res. 2010, 41, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Liao, P.-C.; Lei, G.; Xue, J.; Fang, D. Influence of Person-Organizational Fit on Construction Safety Climate. J. Manag. Eng. 2015, 31, 04014049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Shin, D.-P.; Gwak, H.-S.; Lee, D.-E. Modeling the predictors of safety behavior in construction workers. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2015, 21, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Kapp, E.A. The influence of supervisor leadership practices and perceived group safety climate on employee safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1119–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Fargnoli, M.; Lombardi, M. Preliminary Human Safety Assessment (PHSA) for the improvement of the behavioral aspects of safety climate in the construction industry. Buildings 2019, 9, 69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Stoilkovska, B.B.; Pančovska, V.; Mijoski, G. Relationship of safety climate perceptions and job satisfaction among employees in the construction industry: The moderating role of age. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2015, 21, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Shen, Y.; Ju, C.; Koh, T.Y.; Rowlinson, S.; Bridge, A.J. The impact of transformational leadership on safety climate and individual safety behavior on construction sites. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Arcury, T.A.; Mills, T.; Ma, A.J.M.; Summers, P.; Quandt, S.A.; Rushing, J.; Lang, W.; Grzywacz, J.G. Work safety climate and safety practices among immigrant Latino residential construction workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2012, 55, 736–745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kwon, Y.-T.; Son, S.; Kim, S.; Ha, S.-G.; Son, K. Worker safety perception analysis of South Korean construction sites. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2021, 27, 488–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Clarke, S.; Ward, K. The Role of Leader Influence Tactics and Safety Climate in Engaging Employees’ Safety Participation. Risk Anal. 2006, 26, 1175–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Panuwatwanich, K.; Al-Haadir, S.; Stewart, R. Influence of safety motivation and climate on safety behaviour and outcomes: Evidence from the Saudi Arabian construction industry. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2016, 23, 60–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. El Moujaddidi, F.; Bachir, A. Perceived risk, safety climate and safety behavior on Moroccan construction sites. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2019, 26, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Schwatka, N.V.; Rosecrance, J.C. Safety climate and safety behaviors in the construction industry: The importance of co-workers commitment to safety. Work 2016, 54, 401–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Morrow, S.L.; McGonagle, A.; Dove-Steinkamp, M.L.; Walker, C.T.; Marmet, M.; Barnes-Farrell, J.L. Relationships between psychological safety climate facets and safety behavior in the rail industry: A dominance analysis. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1460–1467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zohar, D.; Luria, G. Climate as a social-cognitive construction of supervisory safety practices: Scripts as proxy of behavior patterns. J. Appl. Psychol. 2004, 89, 322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Guo, B.H.; Yiu, T.W.; González, V.A. Predicting safety behavior in the construction industry: Development and test of an integrative model. Saf. Sci. 2016, 84, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Cigularov, K.P.; Chen, P.Y.; Rosecrance, J. The effects of error management climate and safety communication on safety: A multi-level study. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2010, 42, 1498–1506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Chen, Y.; McCabe, B.; Hyatt, D. A resilience safety climate model predicting construction safety performance. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 434–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Choudhry, R.M. Achieving safety and productivity in construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2017, 23, 311–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Cornelissen, P.A.; Van Hoof, J.J.; De Jong, M.D. Determinants of safety outcomes and performance: A systematic literature review of research in four high-risk industries. J. Saf. Res. 2017, 62, 127–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Lin, J.; Mills, A. Measuring the occupational health and safety performance of construction companies in Australia. Facilities 2001, 19, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Siu, O.L.; Phillips, D.R.; Leung, T.W. Safety climate and safety performance among construction workers in Hong Kong: The role of psychological strains as mediators. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2004, 36, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Li, X.; Li, H.; Skitmore, M.; Wang, F. Understanding the influence of safety climate and productivity pressure on non-helmet use behavior at construction sites: A case study. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28, 164–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Ghodrati, N.; Yiu, T.W.; Wilkinson, S. Unintended consequences of management strategies for improving labor productivity in construction industry. J. Saf. Res. 2018, 67, 107–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Teo, A.L.; Fang, D. Measurement of safety climate in construction industry: Studies in Singapore and Hong Kong. In Proceedings of the CIB W99 2006 International Conference on Global Unity for Safety and Health in Construction, Beijing, China, 28–30 June 2006; pp. 157–164. [Google Scholar]
  91. Patel, D.A.; Jha, K.N. Structural equation modeling for relationship-based determinants of safety performance in construction projects. J. Manag. Eng. 2016, 32, 05016017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. He, Q.; Dong, S.; Rose, T.; Li, H.; Yin, Q.; Cao, D. Systematic impact of institutional pressures on safety climate in the construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2019, 93, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Zou, P.X.; Sunindijo, R.Y. Skills for managing safety risk, implementing safety task, and developing positive safety climate in construction project. Autom. Constr. 2013, 34, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Hofmann, D.A.; Morgeson, F.P. Safety-related behavior as a social exchange: The role of perceived organizational support and leader–member exchange. J. Appl. Psychol. 1999, 84, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Teizer, J.; Allread, B.S.; Fullerton, C.E.; Hinze, J. Autonomous pro-active real-time construction worker and equipment operator proximity safety alert system. Autom. Constr. 2010, 19, 630–640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Melia, J.L.; Mearns, K.; Silva, S.; Lima, M.L. Safety climate responses and the perceived risk of accidents in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 949–958. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Xia, N.; Zou, P.X.; Griffin, M.A.; Wang, X.; Zhong, R. Towards integrating construction risk management and stakeholder management: A systematic literature review and future research agendas. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2018, 36, 701–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Newaz, M.T.; Davis, P.; Jefferies, M.; Pillay, M. Using a psychological contract of safety to predict safety climate on construction sites. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 68, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Loosemore, M.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Zhang, S. comparative analysis of safety climate in the Chinese, Australian, and Indonesian construction industries. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2020, 146, 04020129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Marin, L.S.; Cifuentes, M.; Roelofs, C. Results of a community-based survey of construction safety climate for Hispanic workers. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health 2015, 21, 223–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Lin, S.-H.; Tang, W.-J.; Miao, J.-Y.; Wang, Z.-M.; Wang, P.-X. Safety climate measurement at workplace in China: A validity and reliability assessment. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 1037–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Loosemore, M.; Sunindijo, R.Y.; Lestari, F.; Kusminanti, Y.; Widanarko, B. Comparing the safety climate of the Indonesian and Australian construction industries. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2019, 26, 2206–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Lingard, H.; Rowlinson, S. Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management, 1st ed.; Routledge: London, UK, 2004; ISBN 978-0203507919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Al-Bayati, A.J.; Albert, A.; Ford, G. Construction safety culture and climate: Satisfying necessity for an industry framework. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2019, 24, 04019028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Swingewood, S.; Burd, A. How Will ISO 45001 Change Health and Safety? CIOB. Available online: https://constructionmanagermagazine.com/how-will-iso-45001-change-health-and-safety/ (accessed on 27 April 2005).
  106. Christian, M.; Bradley, J.C.; Wallace, J.C.; Burke, M.J. Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94, 1103–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Hofmann, D.A.; Burke, M.J.; Zohar, D. 100 years of occupational safety research: From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. J. Appl. Psychol. 2017, 102, 375–388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Lingard, H. Occupational health and safety in the construction industry. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2013, 31, 505–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Gillen, M.; Goldenha, L.; Hecker, S.; Schneider, S. Safety culture and climate in construction: Bridging the gap between research and practice. In Proceedings of the a Joint CPWR and NIOSH Workshop, Washington, DC, USA, 11–12 June 2013; pp. 10–41. [Google Scholar]
  110. Strauch, B. Can we examine safety culture in accident investigations, or should we? Saf. Sci. 2015, 77, 102–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Marin, L.S.; Lipscomb, H.; Cifuentes, M.; Punnett, L. Associations between safety climate and safety management practices in the construction industry. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2017, 60, 557–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Mohamed, S. Scorecard approach to benchmarking organizational safety culture in construction. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2003, 129, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Zohar, D.; Hofmann, D.A. Organizational culture and climate. In The Oxford Handbook of Organizational Psychology; Oxford University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Volume 1, pp. 643–663. [Google Scholar]
  114. Casey, T.; Griffin, M.A.; Harrison, H.F.; Neal, A. Safety climate and culture: Integrating psychological and systems perspectives. J. Occup. Health Psychol. 2017, 22, 341–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Petitta, L.; Probst, T.; 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Schwatka, N.V.; Hecker, S.; Goldenhar, L.M. Defining and Measuring Safety Climate: A Review of the Construction Industry Literature. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2016, 60, 537–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Li, Q.; Ji, C.; Yuan, J.; Han, R. Developing dimensions and key indicators for the safety climate within China’s construction teams: A questionnaire survey on construction sites in Nanjing. Saf. Sci. 2017, 93, 266–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Marquardt, N.; Gades, R.; Robelski, S. Implicit social cognition and safety culture. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2012, 22, 213–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Cooper, M.; Phillips, R. Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behavior relationship. J. Saf. Res. 2004, 35, 497–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Glendon, A.; Stanton, N. Perspectives on safety culture. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 193–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  121. Neal, A.; Griffin, M.A.; Hart, P.M. The impact of organizational climate on safety climate and individual behavior. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Choudhry, R.M.; Fang, D.; Mohamed, S. Developing a model of construction safety culture. J. Manag. Eng. 2007, 23, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Lee, T.; Harrison, K. Assessing safety culture in nuclear power stations. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 61–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Flin, R.; Mearns, K.; Oconnor, P.; Bryden, R. Measuring safety climate: Identifying the common features. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 177–192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. O’Toole, M. The relationship between employees’ perceptions of safety and organizational culture. J. Saf. Res. 2002, 33, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Fang, D.; Chen, Y.; Wong, L. Safety climate in construction industry: A case study in Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2006, 132, 573–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Choudhry, R.M.; Fang, D.; Lingard, H. Measuring safety climate of a construction company. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 135, 890–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Newaz, M.T.; Davis, P.R.; Jefferies, M.; Pillay, M. Developing a safety climate factor model in construction research and practice: A systematic review identifying future directions for research. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2018, 28, 738–757. [Google Scholar]
  129. Grote, G.; Künzler, C. Diagnosis of safety culture in safety management audits. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 131–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Chen, Q.; Jin, R. Safety4Site commitment to enhance jobsite safety management and performance. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 509–519. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Guldenmund, F. The nature of safety culture: A review of theory and research. Saf. Sci. 2000, 34, 215–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Cooper, M.D. Towards a model of safety culture. Saf. Sci. 2000, 36, 111–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Niu, M.; Leicht, R.M.; Rowlinson, S. Developing safety climate indicators in a construction working environment. Pract. Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 2017, 22, 04017019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Niu, M.; Leicht, R.M.; Rowlinson, S. Overview and analysis of safety climate studies in the construction industry, American Society of Civil Engineers. In Proceedings of the Construction Research Congress 2016, San Juan, Puerto Rico, 31 May–2 June 2016; pp. 2926–2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Mosly, I. Factors influencing safety climate in the construction industry: A review. Int. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 8, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Zhou, Z.; Goh, Y.M.; Li, Q. Overview and analysis of safety management studies in the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2015, 72, 337–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Alruqi, W.M.; Hallowell, M.R.; Techera, U. Safety climate dimensions and their relationship to construction safety performance: A meta-analytic review. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Griffin, M.A.; Curcuruto, M. Safety climate in organizations. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 2016, 3, 191–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Pousette, A.; Larsson, S.; Törner, M. Safety climate cross-validation, strength and prediction of safety behaviour. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Oswald, D. Safety indicators: Questioning the quantitative dominance. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 38, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Hallowell, M.R.; Bhandari, S.; Alruqi, W. Methods of safety prediction: Analysis and integration of risk assessment, leading indicators, precursor analysis, and safety climate. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2019, 38, 308–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Alruqi, W.M.; Hallowell, M.R. Critical success factors for construction safety: Review and meta-analysis of safety leading Indicators. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2019, 145, 04019005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Chan, A.P.C.; Javed, A.A.; Wong, F.K.W.; Hon, C.K.H.; Lyu, S. Evaluating the safety climate of ethnic minority construction workers in Hong Kong. J. Prof. Issues Eng. Educ. Pract. 2017, 143, 04017006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Wardito, E.; Purba, H.H.; Purba, A. System dynamic modeling of risk management in construction projects: A systematic literature review. Oper. Res. Eng. Sci. Theory Appl. 2021, 4, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Shen, Y.; Tuuli, M.M.; Xia, B.; Koh, T.Y.; Rowlinson, S. Toward a model for forming psychological safety climate in construction project management. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 223–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  146. Saunders, L.W.; Kleiner, B.M.; McCoy, A.; Ellis, K.P.; Smith-Jackson, T.; Wernz, C. Developing an inter-organizational safety climate instrument for the construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2017, 98, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Gao, R.A.N.; Chan, A.P.; Utama, W.P.; Zahoor, H.A.F.I.Z. Review and adopt a tool for measuring safety climate in international construction projects. In Proceedings of the 8th International Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (ISEC-08), Sydney, Australia, 23 October 2015; pp. 23–28. Available online: https://repo.bunghatta.ac.id/id/eprint/2952 (accessed on 5 May 2021).
  148. Milijić, N.; Mihajlović, I.; Strbac, N.; Zivkovic, Z. Developing a questionnaire for measuring safety climate in the workplace in Serbia. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2013, 19, 631–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  149. Chan, A.P.; Wong, F.K.; Hon, C.K.; Lyu, S.; Javed, A.A. Investigating ethnic minorities’ perceptions of safety climate in the construction industry. J. Saf. Res. 2017, 63, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Wang, M.; Sun, J.; Du, H.; Wang, C. Relations between safety climate, awareness, and behavior in the Chinese construction industry: A hierarchical linear investigation. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 6580375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  151. Nadhim, E.A.; Hon, C.; Xia, B.; Stewart, I.; Fang, D. Investigating the relationships between safety climate and safety performance indicators in retrofitting works. Constr. Econ. Build. 2018, 18, 110–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Lingard, H.; Cooke, T.; Blismas, N. Do perceptions of supervisors’ safety responses mediate the relationship between perceptions of the organizational safety climate and incident rates in the construction supply chain? J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Dedobbeleer, N.; Béland, F. A safety climate measure for construction sites. J. Saf. Res. 1991, 22, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Jorgensen, E.; Sokas, R.K.; Nickels, L.; Gao, W.; Gittleman, J.L. An English/Spanish safety climate scale for construction workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2007, 50, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Hon, C.K.H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Yam, M.C.H. Determining safety climate factors in the repair, maintenance, minor alteration, and addition sector of Hong Kong. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2013, 139, 519–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Prasad, S.V.S.R.; Reghunath, K.P. Empirical analysis of construction safety climate—A study. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2010, 2, 1699–1707. [Google Scholar]
  157. Shen, Y.; Koh, T.Y.; Rowlinson, S.; Bridge, A. empirical investigation of factors contributing to the psychological safety climate on construction sites. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2015, 141, 04015038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  158. Gao, R.; Chan, A.P.; Utama, W.P.; Zahoor, H. Multilevel safety climate and safety performance in the construction industry: Development and validation of a top-down mechanism. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2016, 13, 1100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  159. Sunindijo, R.Y.; Zou, P. Political skill for developing construction safety climate. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2012, 138, 605–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Glendon, I.; Litherland, D. Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction. Saf. Sci. 2001, 39, 157–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Lingard, H.C.; Cooke, T.; Blismas, N. Safety climate in conditions of construction subcontracting: A multi-level analysis. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2010, 28, 813–825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  162. Mosly, I.; Makki, A.A. Safety Climate Perceptions in the Construction Industry of Saudi Arabia: The Current Situation. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Oswald, D.; Zhang, R.P.; Lingard, H.; Pirzadeh, P.; Le, T. The use and abuse of safety indicators in construction. Eng. Constr. Arch. Manag. 2018, 25, 1188–1209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Dov, Z. Safety climate and beyond: A multi-level multi-climate framework. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 376–387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Lyu, S.; Hon, C.K.H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Wong, F.K.W.; Javed, A.A. Relationships among safety climate, safety behavior, and safety outcomes for ethnic minority construction workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2018, 15, 484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  166. Mohamed, S. Safety climate in construction site environments. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2002, 128, 375–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Probst, T.M.; Goldenhar, L.M.; Byrd, J.L.; Betit, E. The Safety Climate Assessment Tool (S-CAT): A rubric-based approach to measuring construction safety climate. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 69, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Lingard, H.C.; Cooke, T.; Blismas, N. Group-level safety climate in the Australian construction industry: Within-group homogeneity and between-group differences in road construction and maintenance. Constr. Manag. Econ. 2009, 27, 419–432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Masood, R.; Choudhry, R.M. Measuring safety climate to enhance safety culture in the construction industry of Pakistan. In Proceedings of the CIB W099 Safety and Health in Construction Conference: Prevention: Means to the End of Construction Injuries, Illnesses, and Fatalities, Washington, DC, USA, 24 August 2011; pp. 1243–1249. [Google Scholar]
  170. Okolie, K.C.; Okoye, P.U. Assessment of national culture dimensions and construction health and safety climate in Nigeria. Sci. J. Environ. Eng. Res. 2012, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Sparer, E.H.; Murphy, L.A.; Taylor, K.M.; Dennerlein, J.T. Correlation between safety climate and contractor safety assessment programs in construction. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013, 56, 1463–1472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  172. Zhou, Q.; Fang, D.; Mohamed, S. Safety climate improvement: Case study in a Chinese construction company. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2011, 137, 86–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Jafari, M.J.; Gharari, M.; Ghafari, M.; Omidi, L.; Kalantari, S.; Asadolah-Fardi, G. The influence of safety training on safety climate factors in a construction site. Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 6, 81–87. [Google Scholar]
  174. Akroush, N.S.; El-Adaway, I.H. Utilizing construction leading safety indicators: Case study of Tennessee. J. Manag. Eng. 2017, 33, 06017002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Mortazavi, S.B.; Asilian, H.; Avestakhan, M. Relationship between safety climate factors and the risk of dangerous situations in height among construction workers. Iran Occup. Health J. 2011, 8, 51–60. [Google Scholar]
  176. Zahoor, H.; Chan, A.P.C.; Utama, W.P.; Gao, R.; Zafar, I. Modeling the relationship between safety climate and safety performance in a developing construction industry: A cross-cultural validation study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2017, 14, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  177. Versteeg, K.; Bigelow, P.; Dale, A.M.; Chaurasia, A. Utilizing construction safety leading and lagging indicators to measure project safety performance: A case study. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 411–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  178. Lingard, H.; Hallowell, M.; Salas, R.; Pirzadeh, P. Leading or lagging? Temporal analysis of safety indicators on a large infrastructure construction project. Saf. Sci. 2017, 91, 206–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Umar, T.; Wamuzir, S.; Egbu, C. Factors that influence safety climate in construction in Oman. In Proceedings of the Joint CIB W099 and TG59 International Safety, Health, and People in Construction Conference: Towards Better Safety, Health, Wellbeing, and Life in Construction, Cape Town, South Africa, 11–13 June 2017. [Google Scholar]
  180. Poh, C.Q.; Ubeynarayana, C.U.; Goh, Y.M. Safety leading indicators for construction sites: A machine learning approach. Autom. Constr. 2018, 93, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 13 10603 g001 550
Figure 1. Industry-specific distribution of accidents: (a) accident rate; (b) mortality rate.
Figure 1. Industry-specific distribution of accidents: (a) accident rate; (b) mortality rate.
Sustainability 13 10603 g001
Sustainability 13 10603 g002 550
Figure 2. Construction site death tolls in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (per 100,000 population).
Figure 2. Construction site death tolls in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries (per 100,000 population).
Sustainability 13 10603 g002
Sustainability 13 10603 g003 550
Figure 3. PRISMA flowchart.
Figure 3. PRISMA flowchart.
Sustainability 13 10603 g003
Sustainability 13 10603 g004 550
Figure 4. Frequency and relevance analysis.
Figure 4. Frequency and relevance analysis.
Sustainability 13 10603 g004
Sustainability 13 10603 g005 550
Figure 5. Keywords in safety climate literature.
Figure 5. Keywords in safety climate literature.
Sustainability 13 10603 g005
Sustainability 13 10603 g006 550
Figure 6. Number of safety climate studies by country.
Figure 6. Number of safety climate studies by country.
Sustainability 13 10603 g006
Sustainability 13 10603 g007 550
Figure 7. Safety climate literature by industry.
Figure 7. Safety climate literature by industry.
Sustainability 13 10603 g007
Sustainability 13 10603 g008 550
Figure 8. Publication years of safety climate studies.
Figure 8. Publication years of safety climate studies.
Sustainability 13 10603 g008
Sustainability 13 10603 g009 550
Figure 9. Search platforms and journals of safety climate studies.
Figure 9. Search platforms and journals of safety climate studies.
Sustainability 13 10603 g009
Sustainability 13 10603 g010 550
Figure 10. Measuring methods for safety climate.
Figure 10. Measuring methods for safety climate.
Sustainability 13 10603 g010
Sustainability 13 10603 g011 550
Figure 11. Measuring methods of literature survey.
Figure 11. Measuring methods of literature survey.
Sustainability 13 10603 g011
Sustainability 13 10603 g012 550
Figure 12. Measuring methods of questionnaires.
Figure 12. Measuring methods of questionnaires.
Sustainability 13 10603 g012
Sustainability 13 10603 g013 550
Figure 13. Measuring methods of data analysis.
Figure 13. Measuring methods of data analysis.
Sustainability 13 10603 g013
Sustainability 13 10603 g014 550
Figure 14. Analysis of measuring methods.
Figure 14. Analysis of measuring methods.
Sustainability 13 10603 g014
Table
Table 1. Search by keyword in literature databases.
Table 1. Search by keyword in literature databases.
Literature DatabaseLiterature Keywords
Safety ClimateSafety Climate DefinitionMeasurement or Measuring Safety ClimateSafety Climate FactorsSafety Climate Indicators
Google Scholar1,250,00025,80017,800667,000166,000
ScienceDirect73183082551664452605
SpringerLink38021674307831221305
ASCE Library47603334392039653588
Wiley Online Library76275005669262896285
Taylor & Francis Online 12761424131619051352
Scopus697511812496
Table
Table 2. Current proposed safety climate and safety culture definition [104].
Table 2. Current proposed safety climate and safety culture definition [104].
AgencySafety ClimateSafety Culture
NCA (2008)Safety climate is generally viewed as shared employee perceptions and attitudes about safety at a workplace. It reflects the safety culture at a particular point in timeIn general, safety culture is viewed as the underlying organizational principles, norms, commitments, and values that relate to how safety and health is operationalized and its relative importance in comparison with other workplace goals
OSHA (2000)-Safety cultures consist of shared beliefs, practices, and attitudes that exist at an establishment. Culture is the atmosphere created by those beliefs, attitudes, etc., which shape behavior.
NRC (2018)-The core values and behaviors resulting from a collective commitment by leaders and individuals to emphasize safety over competing goals to ensure the protection of people and the environment.
CPWR (2014)The shared perceptions of safety policies and procedures by workers of an organization at a given point in time, particularly regarding the adequacy of safety and consistency between actual conditions and espoused safety policies and procedures. Homogeneous subgroups tend to develop shared perceptions, while between-group differences are not uncommon within an organization.Deeply held but often unspoken safety-related beliefs, attitudes, and values that interact with an organization’s systems, practices, people, and leadership to establish norms about how things are done in the organization. Safety culture is a subset of organizational culture and is clearly influenced by it. Organizations often have multiple cultures or subcultures; this may be particularly true in the construction industry.
Table
Table 3. Summary of measuring methods of safety climate.
Table 3. Summary of measuring methods of safety climate.
ClassificationMeasuring MethodReferences
Literature surveyFactor analysis[116,133,134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143]
Development of measuring model[26,128,144,145,146]
Development of questionnaire[147,148]
QuestionnaireFactor analysis[117,126,149,150,151,152,153,154,155,156,157,158,159,160,161,162,163,164]
Development of measuring model[165,166,167,168]
Statistical analysis[7,40,104,127,169,170,171,172,173,174]
Machine learning[175]
Data analysisFactor analysis[176,177,178,179]
Machine learning[180]
Table
Table 4. Analysis of safety factors.
Table 4. Analysis of safety factors.
AuthorSafety Climate FactorsReferences
1Niu et al. (2016)Management commitment, rules and procedures, workers’ involvement, personal risk appreciation, communication, and supervisory environment[134]
2Chan et al. (2017)Safety climate commitment and concern for OSH by organization and management, resources for safety and its effectiveness, risk-taking behavior and perception of work risk, workers’ perception of safety rules and procedures, workers’ personal involvement in safety and health, safety working attitude and workmates’ influence, and safety promotion and communication[143]
3Wang et al. (2018)Individual safety awareness and safety behavior to examine multilevel relationships[150]
4Mosly et al. (2019)Organization management team, worker colleges, and worker background[135]
5Lingard et al. (2012)Top management commitment to safety, organizational priority placed on safety, supervisors’ safety actions, supervisors’ safety expectations, coworkers’ actual safety response, coworkers’ ideal safety response, and lost time/medical treatment injury rate[152]
6Zhou et al. (2015)Safety management process, worker behavior, worker perception, and accident/incident data[136]
7Alruqi et al. (2018)Supervisor’s safety role, management commitment to safety, safety rules and procedures, individual responsibility to health and safety, and training[137]
8Glendon et al. (2001)Communication and support, adequacy of procedures, work pressure, personal protective equipment, relationships, safety rules, and percent safe behavior[161]
9Fang et al. (2006)Safety attitude and management commitment, safety consultation and safety training, supervisor’s role and workmate’s role, risk-taking behavior, safety resources, appraisal of safety procedure and work risk, improper safety procedure, worker’s involvement, workmate’s influence, and competence[126]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Han, B.; Son, S.; Kim, S. Measuring Safety Climate in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910603

AMA Style

Han B, Son S, Kim S. Measuring Safety Climate in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2021; 13(19):10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910603

Chicago/Turabian Style

Han, Bumjin, Seunghyun Son, and Sunkuk Kim. 2021. "Measuring Safety Climate in the Construction Industry: A Systematic Literature Review" Sustainability 13, no. 19: 10603. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910603

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop