| 摘要: | 隨著國際間推動職業安全衛生的趨勢，工作場所的安全衛生儼然愈來愈受到企業關注。台灣造紙產業製程中，存在著高危險性的危害因子，紙漿、紙及紙製品製造業的總和傷害指數居於全製造業之冠。然而，建立優質的安全工作環境，有待探究安全氣候與安全績效之內涵，故本研究以安全氣候與安全績效量表，並運用Statistics Package for Social Science(SPSS) for Windows 18.0版軟體進行統計分析，試圖瞭解造紙產業安全氣候與安全績效之相關性，並分析不同員工背景因素對兩者之影響。
本研究透過相關文獻理論之探討，以李克特(Liker)五點式尺度建構量表初稿，經過專家審視及前測後，正式形成安全氣候與安全績效之量表，並以問卷調查法收集資料，針對某造紙公司之A、B、C與D四個廠，共計1136位工務人員為施測對象，回收後扣除無效量表，有效份數為672份，有效回收率為59.15%。無論於前測或正式施測，各構面與指標之Cronbach’s α係數均達0.60以上，整體量表Cronbach’s α係數則達0.90以上，且因素負荷量絕對值介於0.506至0.872之間，表示本量表具有一定的信、效度。
由資料分析結果發現，不同的員工背景因素對安全氣候構面或安全績效指標具有顯著性影響者包括「部門」及「安全衛生教育訓練次數」，除此之外，只對安全績效具有影響者尚有「廠場別」及「學歷」。整體而言，製造部門及教育訓練次數較多之員工呈現較佳之安全氣候及安全績效表現，而學歷為研究所以上者則較其他學歷者之認知表現為差。在相關性分析中顯示，安全氣候各個構面之間或安全績效各個指標之間彼此都具有顯著的正向相關性，同時安全氣候與安全績效兩者亦呈現正相關趨勢。由徑路分析結果顯示，安全氣候各構面(安全承諾、安全知覺與安全參與)對領先性安全績效指標皆達顯著影響水準，其中「安全承諾」除了直接影響安全績效「領先性指標」外，亦透過「安全知覺」與「安全參與」的中介效果而對安全績效的「領先性指標」產生影響。另一方面，由安全管理、安全環境與設備及安全衛生教育訓練所構成的「領先性指標」對「落後性指標」(事故調查統計)皆具有影響效果。其中雖然「安全衛生教育訓練」對「落後性指標」沒有顯著的直接效果，但仍透過其他「領先性指標」間接對「落後性指標」產生影響。
With the international trend of promoting occupational safety and health, numerous companies pay more attentions to workplace safety and health obviously. In Taiwan, the manufacturing processes of paper industry exist the high-risk factors, and the Frequency-Severity Indicator is the highest among the manufacturing industry. To establish a safe work environment needs to explore the context of safety climate and safety performance. Based on the safety climate and the safety performance scale and employing Statistics Package for Social Science (SPSS) for Windows version 18.0 for statistical analysis, this study aims to investigate the correlation of safety climate and safety performance on paper industry and analyze the influences on the above two factors.
This study builds the draft scale with Likert five-point scale by exploring the relevant literature. Furthermore, the completed formal scale of safety climate and safety performance is examined by the experts and done with pre-test. The information is collected by means of questionnaire survey from 1136 employees of four factories of a paper company. Finally, 672 valid returns were obtained with a valid return rate of 59.15%. Either in the pre-test or the formal testing, the Cronbach’ s α coefficient of each dimension and each index reaches 0.60 at least, and the overall Cronbach’ s α coefficient reaches more than 0.90. And further, the absolute values of factor loadings are measured between 0.506 to 0.872, which means that the scale is with a certain reliability and validity.
According to the analytic results of the data, this study shows that the significant impact factors of employee backgrounds on the safety climate and safety performance are “departments,” and “training frequencies of safety and health.” In addition, the influences only targeted at safety performance are “factory,” and “educations.” Overall speaking, those employees, who work in the department of manufacturing and receive the training with higher frequency, show that they have better results on safety climate and safety performance. On the other hand, the employees who possess of master degree at least have worse perceptive results than others. The correlation analysis indicates that dimensions among safety climate or indexes among safety performance have positively significant correlations. Also, the safety climate is positively correlated to the safety performance. From the path analysis, the dimensions among safety climate (safety commitment, safety perception, and safety participation) has reached the significant impact level on the leading indicators of safety performance. Moreover, safety commitment further influences the leading indicators of safety performance by means of the intermediate effect of safety perception and safety participation. On the other hand, the leading indicators of safety performance including safety management, safety environment and equipment, as well as the safety and health training, have a significant impact effect on lagging indicator (accident investigation and statistics). |
