Modeling the impact of safety climate on process safety in a modern process industry: The case of the UAE’s oil-refining industry

Figures & data

Figure 1. The research model.

Table 1. Summary of exploratory factor analysis

Dimension		Items	Mean	SD	Factor loadings	Eigenvalues	Total variance explained
Employees’ safety engagement (ESE)	ESE1	My organization values my contribution to promoting process safety	5.63	1.07	0.86	6.952	57.933
	ESE2	My organization values employees’ suggestions on improving safety	5.71	1.04	0.87
	ESE3	My organization values employees’ adherence to process safety procedures	5.64	1.09	0.82
	ESE4	My organization regularly promotes process safety	5.71	1.05	0.80
	ESE5	My organization can achieve zero process safety events/incidents	5.70	1.18	0.79
Employees’ safety performance (ESP)	ESP1	I use all of the necessary safety equipment when doing my job	5.72	1.06	0.79	4.615	31.897
	ESP2	I ensure the highest levels of safety when carrying out my job	5.71	1.12	0.76
	ESP3	I know how to use safety equipment and understand standard work procedures	5.68	1.14	0.73
Safe working environment (SWE)	SWE1	My organization wants to eliminate process safety incidents	5.71	1.32	0.73	3.427	22.892
	SWE2	The leadership at my organization reviews process safety procedures after an event/incident occurs	5.92	0.97	0.71
	SWE3	My organization conducts regular checks to ensure that process safety standards are maintained	5.77	1.05	0.72
	SWE4	I feel safe when working at my organization	5.71	1.18	0.67

Note: N = 180; all loadings are significant at p < 0.01.

Table 2. Summary of confirmatory factor analyses for dimensions of process safety

Construct		1—ESE	2—ESP	3—SWE
1.	Employee’s engagement in safety (ESE)	0.85
2.	Employees’ safety performance (ESP)	0.83**	0.90
3.	Safe working environment (SWE)	0.82**	0.88**	0.91
	Average variance extracted (AVE)	0.72	0.80	0.83
	Cronbach’s α	0.85	0.89	0.89
	Composite reliability	0.96	0.92	0.94
	Factor loadings	0.80–0.91	0.88–0.91	0.84–0.98

Note: N = 180; all are significant at ** p < 0.01, values on the diagonal are the square-root of the AVE for each construct.

Table 3. Summary of fit indices for the proposed factor structure of process safety

Model assessments	χ^2	df	CFI	NFI	TLI	RMSEA
Model 1: test of process safety indicators	82.898	39	0.972	0.950	0.953	0.079
Model 2: test of process safety dimensions	62.697	39	0.985	0.962	0.975	0.058
Model 3: test of the second-order factor	63.168	39	0.985	0.962	0.976	0.057

Note: N = 180.

Figure 2. Indicators of process safety.

Figure 3. Dimensions of process safety.

Figure 4. Second-order factor model of process safety.

Table 4. Correlations, reliability values, average variances extracted, and factor loadings of the studied variables

Dimension/Variable		1—PS	2—TMCS	3—TMSP	4—SSB
1.	Process safety (PS)	0.88
2.	Top management commitment to safety (MCS)	0.77**	0.85
3.	Top management safety practices (MSP)	0.79**	0.83**	0.86
4.	Supervisory safety behavior (SSB)	0.75**	0.65**	0.70**	0.88
	Average variance extracted (AVE)	0.77	0.73	0.75	0.77
	Cronbach’s α	0.88	0.85	0.86	0.88
	Composite reliability	0.91	0.93	0.94	0.94
	Factor loadings	0.81–0.94	0.83–0.89	0.83–0.91	0.82–0.94

Note: N = 180; all are significant at ** p < 0.01; values on the diagonal are the square-root of the AVE for each construct.

Table 5. Results of the causality analyses of process safety predictors

Hypotheses	H2	H3	H4	Final Model
Model assessments	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3	Model 4
Top management commitment to safety	0.692** ^a	0.770** ^b	0.384** ^b	0.135
Top management safety practices	0.738** ^b	0.484** ^a	0.601** ^b	0.148
Supervisory safety behavior	0.932** ^b	0.706** ^b	0.108 ^a	0.307**
Employee’s engagement in safety	0.982**	0.987**	0.989**	0.900**
Employees’ safety performance	0.614**	0.612**	0.628**	0.607**
Safe working environment	0.979**	0.977**	0.988**	0.998**
R^2	0.61	0.64	0.58	0.81
F	91.73	104.13	159.65	144.94
Fit indices
χ^2	623.010	613.432	670.700	404.164
df	288	288	288	264
CFI	0.927	0.929	0.917	0.970
NFI	0.874	0.876	0.864	0.918
TLI	0.911	0.914	0.899	0.959
RMSEA	0.076	0.079	0.086	0.054

Note: N = 180; ^a uncontrolled variable; ^b controlled variable.

Standardized regression coefficients (β) are shown.

** p < 0.01.

Figure 5. The final model.