Work safety climate. Comparison of selected occupational groups

commitment to health and safety, modeling and strengthening safe behaviors in the organiza- tion, workplace accident risk management, pace of work and level of fatigue, health and safety training process, and atmosphere in the workplace. For the areas mentioned above, the values of the univariate F test are statistically significant. However, no statistically significant differ- ences were found between the three occupational groups studied together with regard to the assessment of the other work safety climate dimensions, such as technical facilities and ergo- nomics, as well as the organizational policy with regard to occupational health and safety management. The analysis of the differences between the assessment made by representatives of the indi- vidual occupational groups analyzed in pairs proves the existence of statistically significant dif- ferences between all the groups studied. Significant differences occur between industrial production line workers and retail workers in all the work safety climate dimensions studied, except the organizational occupational health and safety management policy dimension. Table 6. Results of MANOVA variance analysis (multivariate and univariate tests). All effects (Wilks multivariate test): F = 69.18p = 0.00 partial eta-squared = 0.19 Variables Univariate test for 3 groups A, B, C Multivariate test (for groups A and B) F = 82.14 p = 0.00 eta-squared, partial = 0.23 Multivariate test (for groups A-C) F = 42.46 p = 0.00 eta-squared, partial = 0.21 Multivariate test (for groups B-C) F = 72.00p = 0.00 eta-squared, partial = 0.30

Univariate test for groups A-B Univariate test for groups A-C Univariate test for groups B-C F Adjusted R2 F Adj. R2 F Adj. R2 F Adj. R2 1. EPSRM 10.97�� 0.01 20.96�� 0.01 0.01 -0.00 6.21� 0.00 2. SB 62.68�� 0.04 45.45�� 0.02 39.42�� 0.02 123.39�� 0.07 3. MEH&S 91.69�� 0.06 99.00�� 0.03 34.47�� 0.02 149.11�� 0.08 4. M&ESBO 16.68�� 0.01 22.55�� 0.01 3.49 0.00 20.77�� 0.01 5. WARM 173.12�� 0.10 289.70�� 0.09 6.35� 0.00 137.52�� 0.08 6. TF&E 2.46 0.00 4.93� 0.00 0.09 -0.00 0.74 -0.00 7. PWFL 72.74�� 0.05 35.80�� 0.01 153.39�� 0.09 67.69�� 0.04 8. OH&STP 52.07�� 0.03 80.88�� 0.03 45.97�� 0.03 6.61�� 0.00 9. WA 81.90�� 0.05 163.46�� 0.06 21.66�� 0.01 5.04� 0.00 10. OOH&SMP 0.09 -0.00 0.04 -0.00 0.08 -0.00 0.16 -0.00 significance of differences between mean values for study samples A, B and C �� p = 0.01 � p = 0.05 Group: A(Mnfc) (N = 1,331)–production workers; B(Retl) (N = 1,431)–retail workers; C (MnRsc) (N = 233)–mine rescuers Variables: EPSRM–Employee participation in safety-related matters SB–Safe behavior MEH&S–Management engagement in health and safety M&ESBO–Modeling and enhancing safe behaviors in the organization WARM–Workplace accident risk management TF&E–Technical facilities and ergonomics PWFL–Pace of work and fatigue level OH&STP–Occupational health and safety training process WA–Atmosphere in the workplace OOH&SMP–Organizational policy with regard to occupational health and safety management https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056.t006 PLOS ONE Work safety climate

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056 December 14, 2020 10 / 19