| 摘要: | 摘要
「安全」的概念應為企業永續經營之重要一環，員工若擁有舒適與安全的工作環境，有助於提升企業之競爭力，而安全亦非只是一種概念，更可說是一種習慣或一種文化。近年來「安全文化」之概念於工業安全衛生之先進國家中逐漸受到重視，對於企業而言，亦是一重要課題。台灣造紙產業製程中，隱含許多危害因子，對於勞動者手、足部危害最甚，且失能傷害嚴重率與總和傷害指數更是居於全國產業之冠。有鑑於此，本研究以安全文化評量量表為工具，透過多種統計分析方法，試圖瞭解台灣造紙產業安全文化現況。
本研究針對某造紙公司之A、B、C與D等四個場廠共1136位員工為研究樣本進行量表發放，回收後之量表經人工逐份檢查，扣除無效量表後有效份數為706份，有效回收率66.17%。量表內容以SPSS 17.0 版軟體進行各項統計分析，分析方法包括次數分配、平均數、標準差、百分比、Cronbach’ s α係數、KMO取樣適切性檢定、Bartlett 球形檢定、因素分析、t檢定（t-test）、變異數分析（ANOVA）、最小顯著差異事後比較（LSD）、平均數積分比較、Pearson積差相關分析及複迴歸分析等進行分析與討論。
本研究量表設計採李克特（Liker）五點式量表，無論前測或正式施測，其各構面之Cronbach’ s α係數均為0.70以上，因素分析後各構面所有指標之因素負荷量絕對值介於0.525至0.894之間，因此本量表具有相當信度與效度。量表填答結果顯示各安全文化指標平均數均大於3，安全文化之正向呈現為「普通-同意」範圍或「同意-非常同意」範圍。量表整體得分百分比為78.137％，可見本研究之樣本員工呈現中等以上之整體安全文化水準。就員工背景因素與場廠別因素而言，「部門屬性」、「三年內傷害事故經驗」、「學歷」、「一年內教育訓練次數」及「場廠別」等因素與安全文化差異皆有顯著性關係。其中「製造部門」、「無傷害事故經驗」、「低學歷」及「教育訓練次數頻繁」之員工呈現較佳之安全文化。於構面相關性分析中顯示，八項安全文化評量構面之間皆呈現正向相關性。在所有員工背景因素中，對安全文化評量構面具有顯著預測力者為「教育訓練次數」、「有無受傷經驗」、「學歷」及「服務年資」。其中「教育訓練次數」為正向，「有無受傷經驗」、「學歷」及「服務年資」則均為負向之關係。
關鍵字：造紙業、安全文化、安全文化評量構面。
Abstract
"Safety" should be an important part of the sustainable management for the enterprise. A comfortable and safe workplace for the employees can help to increase the competitiveness of the enterprise. However, safety is not merely a concept but a kind of habit or culture. In recent years, "safety culture" has been increasingly attended in the advanced countries of the industrial safety and health, which is also an important issue for the enterprise. The process of the paper industry implies many potential risk factors, damage from which is worst in both hands and feet of the labors. Its disabling severity rate and total damage index are the highest among the industries in Taiwan. In view of this, this study used the Safety Culture Assessment Questionnaire to understand the current situation of the safety culture of paper industry in Taiwan.
This study distributed the questionnaires to 1136 employees of four factories of a paper company, and 706 valid returns were obtained with a valid return rate of 66.17%. The collected data were analyzed by using the SPSS V17.0 software with various statistical analysis methods, including frequency distribution, average, standard deviation, percentage, Cronbach α coefficient, KMO measure of sampling adequacy, Bartlett's test of sphericity, factor analysis, t-test, ANOVA, post-hoc LSD test, average integral comparison, Pearson product-moment correlation and multiple regression analysis.
This study made the questionnaire based on the five-point Liker scale, in which the Cronbach α coefficients are all above 0.70 in both the pretest and formal measurement. After the factor analysis, the absolute value of the factor loading index under each safety culture dimension is between 0.525 and 0.894. Therefore, this questionnaire has a considerable validity and reliability. The results show the average of every safety culture index is above 3 and the positive demonstration of safety culture is within the range of “acceptable-agree” or “agree- strongly agree”. The score percentage of the entire questionnaire is 78.137％, it indicates that the samples of this study represent above average level on safety culture. For the factors of employee background and factory, it can be found that the following factors show significant correlation with the difference of safety culture, such as department attribute, accident experience in three years, educational background, education and training frequency within one year, and working factory. Among the study samples, those who work in manufacturing department, have no accident experience, lack educational qualifications, or get frequent education and training reveal a better safety culture. For the correlation analysis of the safety culture dimensions, it represents a positive correlation between the eight dimensions. Among all factors of employee background, “frequency of education and training”, “injury experience”, “educational background” and “service years” are significantly predictable to the dimensions of the safety culture assessment. Furthermore, “frequency of education and training” is positive, while the “injury experience”, “educational background” and “service years” are negative.
Key words: paper industry, safety culture, dimensions of safety culture assessment |
