![]() Therefore, the focus of most safety culture and safety climate studies has been on identifying the basic dimensions of the concept, but the identified dimensions are not always commensurate. Accordingly, the exact dimensions consisting of safety culture have still been debated and no agreement has been reached in this area. As Guldenmund has noted, the safety culture is a multidimensional construct. Some of these weaknesses include the following.įocusing only on one aspect/dimension of safety culture, such as the Just culture. The literature review shows that to date many studies have been conducted in this area (for example,, ,, ,, ,, ,, ,, , ), but seldom do they explicitly tell us about the weaknesses of employing safety culture in practice. Since then, a plethora of definitions for safety culture has been provided (see more in, ,, ). ![]() ![]() Therefore, one of the earliest definitions of the safety culture was also presented by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 1991 as “Safety culture denotes the assembly of characteristics and attitudes in organizations and individuals which establishes that, as an overriding priority, nuclear plant safety issues receive the attention warranted by their significance”. The concept of safety culture was born in the aftermath of the devastating Chernobyl disaster (1986) and has today become an established concept in all major safety-critical domains. In an efficient safety management system, safety culture may be seen as necessary as the oil. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |