موجودی مختصر آب و هوای ایمن برای سازمان های نفت دریایی

The first aim of this two-study paper was to report psychometric properties of a brief 11-item measure of safety climate adapted to petro-maritime organizations. The second aim was to examine potential indicators of predictive validity. Factor structure, internal consistency, and validity analyses were performed in two independent samples. The first sample consisted of 396 personnel working on offshore oil- and gas installations in the North Sea (response rate: 42%). The second sample comprised 594 crew members working on vessels belonging to two large Norwegian shipping companies (response rate: 73%). Data from both studies supported a three factor solution labelled Individual intention and motivation, Management prioritization, and Safety routines. The subscales had good psychometric properties. The validity indicators revealed correlations between the safety climate scales and transformational and authentic leadership, risk perception, health problems, intentions to leave, and job satisfaction in the expected directions. The present study indicates that this 11-item measure has a psychometrically sound factor structure that represents a theoretically meaningful and empirically anchored expression of safety climate in a petro-maritime organization.

The International Safety Management (ISM) Code was implemented after a series of severe maritime accidents with the aim to ensure safety at sea, prevent human injury or loss of life and avoid damage to the environment (International Maritime Organization, 2010). Although the ISM Code assumes that an improved safety management practice on board would result in reduced human error and negligence (Anderson, 2003), maritime accidents and near miss incidents are still frequent. For instance, in the period from 2000 to 2005, a worldwide average of 18 ship collisions, groundings, or fires occurred every day (Gregory and Shanahan, 2010). The concept of safety culture is often used to describe the many factors related to organizational processes and management practices that have the potential to influence safety performance ( Guldenmund, 2000). As a related concept, safety climate is defined as the workers impression of safety resources, and based on existing policies and procedures, and how they are enacted, workers will assess whether the organization truly prioritize safety ( Zohar, 2010). Although the distinctions between safety climate and safety culture are debated, the concept of climate is frequently applied in survey research on safety culture (Cox and Flin, 1998). Thus, safety climate is often referred to as an empirically measurable component of safety culture, which has relationships with safety indicators such as near miss reporting, accidents, injuries, and work related illness (Neal et al., 2000, Zohar, 2008 and Zohar, 2010). In line with this perspective, Neal and Griffin (2004) suggests that safety climate provides a motivational antecedent for safe behaviour. In their view safety climate will index essential determinants of safety such as safety knowledge and safety motivation. These determinants are often referred to as non-technical skills to indicate that they represent an additional set of competencies that are used integrally with technical shipping skills ( Flin et al., 2008). Furthermore, safety climate should be linked to safe performance, for instance by worker compliance to safety protocols. When employees from many cultures and nationalities share a confined environment, language and cultural barriers could cause misunderstanding and non-compliance. Finally, safety climate is related to safe outcomes in the form of occurrence or non-occurrence of injuries and work related illness. The relationships between safety climate and safety indicators are crucial in this respect. For instance, a growing body of research indicates that employees who perceive the safety climate as strong have a lower chance for workplace accidents (risk perception), safer workplace performance, reduced number of injuries, and most notably fewer reports of rule violations ( Mearns et al., 1998, Mearns et al., 2001a, Mearns et al., 2001b, Neal et al., 2000, Rundmo, 1996, Rundmo, 2000 and Zohar and Luria, 2004). Maritime accidents share many similarities with accidents in the offshore oil and gas industry, and maritime accidents may also cause accidents related to offshore oil and gas production. The Petroleum Safety Authority Norway (PSA) has for instance registered 26 collisions between vessels and structures in the North Sea over the last 10 years. In order to monitor and improve safety management in petro-maritime organizations there is a need for a user-friendly measurement instrument to assess factors related to safety and loss prevention in petro-maritime organizations. In their review of accidents in the shipping industry Hetherington et al., 2006 note several organizational and individual factors that contribute to safety in the maritime industry. Safety critical factors such as fatigue, stress, health, situation awareness, teamwork, decision-making, communication, automation, and safety culture are considered key elements to be included in a safety climate index of petro-maritime organizations (Hetherington et al., 2006). A few comprehensive surveys have been developed to measure different aspects of safety culture in the maritime sector (Håvold, 2003, Oltedal and McArthur, 2011 and Oltedal and Wadsworth, 2010). Despite the intentions expressed by the new ISM Code to monitor human factors and safety performance, there is to date no brief measure of maritime safety climate available. Using a Study 1–Study 2 design, the present study attempts to bridge this gap in the literature by reporting psychometric properties from a brief self-report measure of safety climate adapted to the petro-maritime organizations. To assess the factor structure, reliability, and validity of the inventory, data were collected through two surveys in safety critical organizations, i.e. organizations with high potential for stress, accidents, and injuries (Rundmo, 1994 and Sutherland and Cooper, 1989). The first survey was administered to offshore personnel working on oil- and gas installations operating in the North Sea, whereas the second survey was carried out among crew members from two large Norwegian shipping companies.