Work safety climate. Comparison of selected occupational groups

calculated, separately for the individual respondent groups (representatives of the three occu- pational groups distinguished). A MANOVA multivariate analysis was conducted to find answers to the research questions put forward (cf. Table 6). Multivariate Wilks’ F tests were used to find an answer to question 1, concerning the existence of a statistically significant difference between the representatives of the three occupational groups examined together and the three groups of workers compared in pairs (production workers to retail workers, production workers to mine rescuers, and retail workers to mine rescuers) in terms of the global assessment of the safety climate at work (superposition of the assessment of all safety climate dimensions). Univariate F tests were used to find an answer to question 2, concerning the existence of differences in the assessment of the individual work safety climate dimensions, made by representatives of all three occupa- tional groups together, and then for the occupational groups analyzed in pairs. The adoption of such an analysis model is “an optimal choice when the researcher treats the explained measurable variables as interrelated and thus as ones creating a relational structure of properties which can be meaningfully and substantively interpreted, in whole or in part” [39], and this is the case with respect to the assessment of the individual dimensions of the work safety climate. All statistical analyses were carried out using the STATISTICA 13 statisti- cal package. Results

Descriptive statistics concerning all the studied variables (the mean values obtained and the standard deviations) for each group of respondents, representing the three occupational groups, are presented in Table 4. Table 5 contains the intercorrelations between the studied variables separately for the three occupational groups studied. All variables are significantly correlated with a significance level of p = 0.01. The correlation in the vast majority of the cases is weak or average, and only single coefficients reach 0.7, indicating a high correlation. The results shown in Table 6 were analyzed to answer question 1: they prove the existence of a statistically significant difference between the studied representatives of the three selected occupational groups together in terms of the global assessment of all work safety climate dimensions. The multivariate Wilks’ F test value (F = 69.18, p = 0.00), indicates that all the Table 4. Descriptive statistics of the studied variables. Variables Group A (Mnfc) (N = 1,331) Group B (Retl) (N = 1,431) Group C (MnRsc) (N = 233) M SD M SD M SD Employee participation in safety-related matters 18.59 3.08 18.07 2.97 18.61 3.83 Safe behavior 19.93 3.51 20.75 2.94 18.34 3.81 Management engagement in health and safety 20.12 3.43 21.32 2.90 18.64 4.13 Modeling and enhancing safe behaviors in the organization 18.06 3.05 18.59 2.85 17.64 3.43 Workplace accident risk management 18.99 3.17 16.94 3.16 19.56 3.20 Technical facilities and ergonomics 20.56 2.38 20.35 2.53 20.51 2.82

Pace of work and fatigue level 13.18 3.82 14.10 4.24 16.52 3.59 Occupational health and safety training process 19.49 2.74 20.36 2.38 20.81 2.76 Atmosphere in the workplace 19.27 2.68 20.62 2.83 20.17 2.84 Organizational policy with regard to occupational health and safety management 19.23 2.66 19.21 2.67 19.28 3.19 M–mean, SD–standard deviation Sample:A(Mnfc)–production workers; B(Retl)–retail workers; C(MnRsc–mine rescuers https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056.t004 PLOS ONE Work safety climate PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0243056 December 14, 2020 8 / 19