Italienisch

ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454

Improving Safety Performance through Safety Leadership and Safety

Behaviors
Supardi S1, Grahita Chandrarin2, Sunardi S3
1,2,3
Universitas Merdeka Malang, Indonesia
Email: supardi.tahir@gmail.com

Abstract

The number of severe accidents and deaths at mining companies in Indonesia in 2020 is still relatively high.
This study aims to investigate the effect of improving safety performance through safety leadership and
safety behavior. This study uses data from perceptions of workers at coal mining contractor companies in
East Kalimantan Province. Determination of the sample using proportionate random sampling, with a
comprehensive selection of 161 workers in the production department. The structural equations modeling
approach is used in the data analysis process. According to the findings of this study, leadership and safety
behavior have a partly beneficial impact on safety performance. Direct safety leadership is more successful
than safety behavior in terms of increasing safety performance in the workplace. The impact of safety
leadership on safety performance is mediated in part by the safety behavior of those in charge of it.

Keywords: Safety Leadership, Safety Behavior, Safety Performance.

INTRODUCTION
The increasingly competitive industry competition requires companies to optimize all of their resources. Therefore, a
reliable and rugged workforce is needed to support the company's business to compete (Rajapathirana & Hui, 2018; Sharp
et al., 1999). In addition to the force (TK), companies usually use high-tech machines to support the production process
to increase company productivity and achieve effectiveness and efficiency (Pham & Thomas, 2012; Tortorella &
Fettermann, 2018). The use of high-tech equipment creates safety and health risks for workers. This risk can affect the
workforce anytime and anywhere, requiring special attention from various related parties such as workers, employers,
government, and management (Lindgreen et al., 2009; Edwards & Jabs, 2009). This risk makes the workforce realize the
importance of a healthy, safe and comfortable work environment.
Work safety is an effort made by workers and companies to prevent work accidents and occupational diseases (Akpan,
2011; Thimason & Pozzebon, 2002). Occupational safety and health is the maintenance of human resources as the main
actors so as not to get injured or sick and the maintenance of facility resources, namely facilities and infrastructure, so
that they are not damaged (Friend & Kohn, 2007; Sari, 2009). Care of human resources and facility resources is carried out
to prevent work accidents.
Work accidents are unwanted, unplanned, and unexpected events that can cause losses, namely injury to humans and
damaged property (Kirchsteiger, 1999; Dong et al., 2017). There are work accidents that have caused losses; namely, there
have been workers who have suffered injuries, or there have been damaged equipment which is often called accidents,
and accidents that have occurred but have not caused losses are called near misses or near misses (Friend & Kohn, 2007;
Kasap, 2011). Accidents in companies also cause injury to humans, and equipment is damaged and can cause
environmental damage and business opportunities for companies (Hughes & Ferrett, 2016; Lingard & Rowlinson, 2004).
Accidents occur because of causes, and accidents can be analyzed using the theory of accident-causing models. One of
the most widely used accident-causing model theories in the mineral and coal mining industry is the accident domino
theory. The domino theory explains that accidents are a sequence of factors that cause accidents, and these factors can
be predicted in advance (Friend & Kohn, 2007; Cameron & Hare, 2008).
The number of accidents that occur in the company describes the company's work safety performance, meaning that if
more accidents happen in the company, the company's work safety performance will be low and vice versa if the number
of accidents that occur is small, it means that the company's work safety performance is high (Armstrong, 2006; Curcuruto
et al., 2015). Work safety performance is part of the company's overall performance, and work safety performance is more
focused on the frequency of accidents that occur (frequency rate), the level of accidents that occur (the incident rate),
and the severity rate (the severity rate) (Armstrong, 2006; Wang et al., 2020). Safety performance is a measure of the
company's success in preventing accidents (Hasan & Jha, 2013: Mohammadi et al., 2018).
Improvements in the effectiveness of occupational safety and health protection are inextricably bound up with the
planned, measured structured integrated implementation of occupational safety and health through SMK3 to ensure the

447| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
establishment of an occupational safety and health system in the workplace by involving elements of management,
workers/labor, and trade unions or labor unions to prevent and reduce workplace accidents and occupational diseases
and to create a comfortable, efficient and productive workplace (Ahmed & Faheem, 2021).
The potential danger of accidents in coal mining work activities is still relatively high (Stemn et al., 2019). Accidents will
result in losses such as workers' injuries and equipment damage (Friend & Kohn, 2007). An accident is an unplanned event
that can cause harm to workers, damage to equipment, and disrupt business processes (Hughes & Ferrett, 2016).
Accidents that occur have specific causes and are not accidental so that the causes of accidents can be identified to prevent
work accidents (Friend & Kohn, 2007). Accident prevention can be done by monitoring the sources of accidents, namely
workers, machines, management, and working environmental conditions (Reese, 2012). The analysis of the accident-
causing model generally uses the accident domino theory. The process of the occurrence of an accident is a chronological
sequence of previous events, which are the factors that cause accidents (Friend & Kohn, 2007). According to the domino
theory, the factors that cause accidents sequentially are lack of control, personal characteristics, work factors, unsafe acts,
and unsafe conditions (Bird Jr. & Germain, 1990).
The number of accidents in a company describes the company's safety performance. The lower the number of casualties,
the higher the safety performance (Armstrong, 2006; Curcuruto et al., 2015). The number of mining accidents with severe
consequences and deaths that occur in mineral and coal mining companies in Indonesia in 2020 is still relatively high,
namely 95 cases for severe injuries and 17 cases for worker deaths, even though the company's target for accidents is the
absence of accidents while doing work. The target to be achieved by the company regarding the number of accidents that
occur is safety performance (Armstrong, 2006). From these data, the safety performance target for mining companies in
Indonesia has not been achieved.
Previous study has demonstrated that the effectiveness of safety leadership is impacted by the effectiveness of safety
leadership (Skeepers & Mbohwa, 2015; Wu et al., 2008). Internal safety and behavioral compliance, such as the use of
personal protective equipment and adherence to safety protocols, have a significant impact on overall performance in the
area of safety (Liu et al., 2015). Curcuruto et al. (2015), in their research, concluded that safety behavior is negatively
correlated with the rate of accidents that occur; the more safety behavior of workers increases, the accident rate will
decrease. The safety behavior of truck drivers in trucking companies in the USA harms near-miss rates (Murphy et al.,
2019). Research in the aviation industry has different conclusions regarding the effect of safety behavior, namely worker
participation, an indicator of safety behavior that has a positive impact on the number of accidents, which is an indicator
of safety performance (Singh et al., 2019). Mohammadi et al. (2018), in a study that reviewed 90 previous studies on safety
performance, concluded that the factors that influence the achievement of safety performance are work motivation,
existing regulations in the company, worker competence, safety investment, resources, and equipment. , working
conditions, safety culture, safety climate, safety leadership, employee safety behavior, organizational requirements, and
safety management system.
On the basis of the description of the background, namely, the high number of mining accidents resulting in severe and
fatal consequences in mining companies that continues to occur, as well as the findings of previous studies, the purpose
of this study is to investigate the effect of improving the performance of coal mining companies' safety leadership and
behavior in Indonesian coal mining companies. Indonesia.
The research is intended to yield theoretical advantages, specifically the development of knowledge in the area of
workplace safety. Particularly relevant to this study is the examination and analysis of the roles of safety leadership and
safety behavior in the improvement of safety performance in coal mining contractor companies, as well as the role of
safety behavior as a mediator between the roles of safety leadership and safety performance in the improvement of safety
performance in coal mining contractor companies. On a practical level, the findings of this study may be utilized to inform
policy decisions made by the leaders of coal mining contractor firms, such as attempts to enhance the company's safety
performance through safety leadership and the mediating role of safety behavior.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Relationship between Safety Leadership, Safety Behavior, and Safety Performance
Safety performance is part of the performance of non-financial companies because safety performance measures are a
form of competitive advantage (Zainal et al., 2018). Safety performance in a company can be measured through the level
of accidents, the frequency of accidents, and the severity (Armstrong, 2006; IS: 3786, 1983). The company's safety
performance measurement can also be calculated based on minor injuries, equipment damage, injuries that cause lost-
time injuries, and near misses that occur in the company (Curcuruto et al., 2015). Measuring safety performance on a
project is as important as measuring its success in carrying out its work, measured in time, quality, and cost (Hasan & Jha,
2013). Safety leadership influences subordinates carried out by a leader to pay attention to safety aspects (Wu et al.,
2008). Safety leadership is management's commitment to managing safety in the work area by preparing the necessary
448| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
resources (Roughton & Mercurio, 2002). Safety leadership is part of leadership in organizations, and safety leadership
focuses on how to invite workers to carry out safety rules in the workplace (Wu, 2008). As people responsible for their
work areas, leaders must provide insight and direction to workers regarding safety aspects at work (Lu & Yang, 2010).
Safety behavior is an action from workers to run and support company safety programs (Friend & Kohn, 2007). Safety
behavior includes a series of activities that individuals carry out in the workplace to keep their work area safe by aligning
individual actions to comply with safety rules and procedures applicable to the organization (Kapp, 2012). Safety behavior
is a particular action against existing safety rules or policies; if individual steps are not following the rules, an accident can
occur (Seo et al., 2015).
The company's safety performance is impacted by the safety leadership provided by its leaders, particularly in the area of
safety control indicators. The more important the influence of safety leadership when mediated by the safety climate, the
better the company's safety performance (Wu et al., 2008). According to the findings of construction industry research,
safety leadership has a significant impact on the accomplishment of safety performance goals (Skeepers & Mbohwa,
2015). A company's safety culture has an impact on its safety performance; if the company's safety culture improves, the
company's safety performance will improve as well (Feng et al., 2014). Improved safety performance in mining firms will
be facilitated by a more developed safety culture (Stemn et al., 2019).

The Mediation Role of Safety Behavior

Safety behavior is an act of workers to carry out safety programs (Friend & Kohn, 2007). Safety behavior means aligning
individual actions with safety rules and procedures that apply in the company (Kapp, 2012). In their research, Seo et al.
(2015) explain that safety behavior reflected by individual actions will affect accidents. The unsafe behavior of workers is
a predictor of near-miss events in the company (Mearns et al., 2001). Dangerous actions and hazardous conditions can
cause work accidents (Bird Jr & Germain, 1990; Wills et al., 2009). Unsafe behavior factors cause 85% of workplace
accidents (Hermann et al., 2010). Safety behavior has a negative relationship with the number of casualties (Curcuruto et
al., 2015). Safety behavior is also negatively correlated with a near miss (Murphy et al., 2019). The level of worker injury
is influenced by worker compliance in wearing personal protective equipment, compliance with work safety procedures,
and worker initiatives to work safely (Liu et al., 2015). Worker participation, an indicator of safety behavior, positively
affects safety performance in the aviation industry (Singh et al., 2019).
The conceptual framework in this study is built based on a causal relationship between safety leadership, safety behavior,
and safety performance, which is as follows:

Safety
Behavior

Safety Safety
Leadership Performance

Figure. 1. Conceptual Model

From the conceptual model above, the hypotheses in this study are:
Hypothesis 1. Safety leadership affects safety performance. When there is the treatment of safety leadership, it will affect
safety performance.
Hypothesis 2. Safety behavior affects safety performance. If there is the treatment of safety behavior, it will affect the
achievement of safety performance.
Hypothesis 3. Safety leadership affects safety performance when mediated by safety behavior.
In particular, it will compare the direct and indirect effects or when mediated by safety behavior on the relationship
between safety leadership and safety performance and determine whether safety behavior is a mediating variable in this
relationship.

METHOD
The methodology used in this study is descriptive, describing respondents' proclivity for evaluating research variables
(Sanusi, 2017), and structural equation modeling, which elucidates the causal link between the variables mentioned in the
measurement equation and the structural model equation (Hair et al., 2014). The population in this study were production
workers, namely supervisors, heavy equipment operators, and production truck drivers at 11 coal mining contractor
449| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
companies in East Kalimantan Province - Indonesia, totaling 286 workers. Determination of the sample to be taken is done
by a proportionate random sampling method because the variables used in this study are relatively homogeneous, namely
examining the application of work safety practices in coal mining contractor companies (Sanusi, 2017). Determination of
the number of samples using the Slovin formula, which is then calculated proportionally for each coal mining contractor.
The questionnaires filled in and returned are 170 questionnaires, five are inconsistent in value, and four are incomplete.
In this study, 161 questionnaires were used, or the respondent rate was 96%.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Measurement of the Validity and Reliability of Safety Leadership Variables
The indications of safety leadership include safety caring, safety controlling, safety motivation, and safety policy. Four
statements assessed safety concern, three statements assessed safety handling, two statements assessed safety
motivation, and three questionnaire statements assessed safety policy. Each statement question is completed using a
Likert Scale, which ranges from 1 to 5, or strongly disagree to strongly agree. The results of the validity test indicate that
all values for each indicator are greater than the crucial threshold (0.1547), indicating that the research instrument is
legitimate (Sanusi, 2017). Cronbach's alpha value for reliability is 0.824; this number is larger than the crucial threshold of
0.70, indicating that the instrument is trustworthy (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Measurement of Safety Behavior Validity and Reliability
Safety behavior is quantified using markers of compliance, involvement, safety initiatives, and safety awareness. Three
statement questions were used to assess safety compliance and involvement, while two statement items assessed safety
awareness, using a score scale ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5) strongly. Testing the validity of all
statement items pertaining to safety behavior results in an r-count value greater than the r-table value (0.1547), implying
that all statement items may be used to quantify safety behavior (Sanusi, 2017). Cronbach Alpha value of 0.873 is obtained
from the reliability test results for the safety behavior statement items (greater than 0.70). The statement items relating
to safety behavior are reliable when used to make measurements (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994).
Safety Performance Validity and Reliability Measurement
Accident rate, accident frequency rate, accident severity rate, and near-miss measure safety performance. Each indicator
is measured using 2 statement items by giving a value of 1 to 5, which describes powerfully disagree to agree strongly.
Each statement item is tested for validity so that the correlation coefficient value is obtained at the significance level (α):
0.05, which is greater than the table correlation coefficient, so all statement items are said to be valid or can be used to
measure safety performance (Sanusi, 2017). Reliability tests performed on all statement items resulted in a Cronbach
Alpha value of 0.801, more significant than the Cronbach Alpha critical value of 0.70 (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). So it
can be concluded that all statement items are reliable or reliable to measure safety performance.
Descriptive Analysis
The results of the descriptive analysis conclude that the safety policy indicator provides the most considerable contribution
to safety leadership. The safety participation indicator contributes the most to shaping safety behavior, and safety
performance is formed the most by the accident severity rate indicator.
Structural Equation Modelling Assumption Analysis
The results of the data normality test give a multivariate critical ratio value = 2.549; this value is still below the critical
value (0.258) so that the data meet normality (Ghozali, 2017; Latan, 2013), there is no outlier data with probability values
(p2) all greater of 0.000 (Ghozali, 2017), the multicollinearity value = 0.462 is still below the critical value (0.90) (Ghozali,
2013a), and all standardized residual covariance values < 2.58 (Bryne, 2010; Ghozali, 2017).
Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Goodness of Fit Mode
Confirmatory factor analysis for exogenous variables gives the following results:
Table 1. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Exogenous Variable
Variable Indicators Loading Factor Cut-Off Prob. Conclusion
Safety Safety Caring 0.748 0.50 0.000 Valid
Leadership Safety Controlling 0.838 0.50 0.000 Valid
Safety Motivation 0.830 0.50 0.000 Valid
Safety Policy 0.893 0.50 0.000 Valid
Average Variance Extract (AVE): 0.687 cut-off: 0.50 Valid
Construct Reliability (CR): 0.897 cut-off: 0.70 Reliable
450| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
Source: Primary data prepared (2021)
The indicators on safety leadership are safety caring, safety controls, safety motivation, and safety policy, all factor loading
values are above the critical value (0.50), and the AVE and CR values are also above the crucial importance so that these
four indicators can characterize safety leadership (Ghozali, 2017; Hair et al., 2014).
Table 2. Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis Endogenous Variable
Loading
Variable Indicators Cut-Off Prob. Conclusion
Factor
Safety Safety Compliance 0.854 0.50 0.000 Valid
Behavior Safety Participation 0.821 0.50 0.000 Valid
Safety Initiative 0.950 0.50 0.000 Valid
Safety Awareness 0.730 0.50 0.000 Valid
Average Variance Extract (AVE): 0.709 cut-off: 0.50 Valid
Construct Reliability (CR): 0.906 cut-off: 0.70 Reliable
Safety Accident Rate 0.716 0.50 0.000 Valid
Performance Accident Frequency 0.835 0.50 0.000 Valid
Rate
Accident Severity Rate 0.792 0.50 0.000 Valid
Near Miss 0.783 0.50 0.000 Valid
Average Variance Extract (AVE): 0.612 cut-off: 0.50 Valid
Construct Reliability (CR): 0.863 cut-off: 0.70 Reliable
Source: Primary data prepared (2021)
All indicators on safety behavior have a factor loading value more significant than the critical value (0.50), the AVE and CR
values for safety behavior are also more remarkable than the critical value so that the indicators of safety compliance,
safety participation, safety initiatives, and safety awareness can characterize safety behavior. (Ghozali, 2017; Hair et al.,
2014). The factor loading values for safety performance, AVE, and CR are more significant than critical values . The accident
rate, accident frequency rate, accident severity rate, and near-miss indicators can characterize safety performance
(Ghozali, 2017; Hair et al., 2014).
The results of the model suitability analysis for the three variables in this study, namely the value of X2 (chi square) at df
= 161 was 185.106, still below the cut-off value (191.608); probability value 0.094 (≥ 0.05); RMSEA value = 0.031 (≤ 0.08);
GFI value = 0.904 (≥ 0.90); CMIN / DF value = 1.150 (≤ 2.00); AGFI value = 0.875 (≥ 0.90); TLI value = 0.987 (≥ 0.90); CFI
value = 0.989 (≥ 0.90); PGFI value = 0.693 (≥ 0.50) and PNFI value = 0.780 (≥ 0.60). Of the 10 conformity indices of the
existing model, 9 indices meet the good criteria and 1 model meets the marginal criteria so that the proposed model can
be accepted (Ferdinand, 2014; Ghozali, 2013b; Latan, 2013; Schumacker & Lomax, 2004).
Path Analysis and Hypothesis Testing

0.283; p: 0.001 0.369; p: 0.000

Safety
Behavior

Safety 0.330; p: 0.000 Safety

Leadership Performance

Figure 2. Final Path Analysis with Standardized Coefficients

In accordance with the findings of the path analysis, as depicted in Figure 2 above, it can be concluded that safety
leadership has a positive effect on safety performance, with a regression coefficient of 0.330 and a probability of 0.000.
As a result, hypothesis 1 is statistically tested, and the results of the path analysis are positive. Skeepers & Mbohwa (2015)
found that safety leadership has an impact on safety performance, which is consistent with the findings of Wu et al. (2008),
who found that safety leadership had an impact on safety performance.
Safety behavior has a positive effect on safety performance, according to the relationship between them, which has a
regression coefficient of 0.365 and a probability of 0.000. Thus, statistically, it can be explained that safety behavior has a
positive effect on safety performance, and hypothesis 2 is statistically tested. According to Singh et al. (2019), worker
451| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.
 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
participation in safety has a positive effect on safety performance, which is in contrast to the findings of Curcuruto et al.
(2015) and Murphy et al. (2019), who concluded that safety behavior has a negative effect on the accident rate, which is
an indicator of safety performance.
In order to demonstrate hypothesis 3 that safety leadership affects safety performance through safety behavior, it can be
explained that the direct influence value between safety leadership and safety performance is 0.330, while the indirect
effect value is through safety behavior is 0.283 x 0.369 = 0.104, resulting in a total influence value of 0.434 for safety
leadership and safety performance. In this study, we found that safety behavior has a greater real influence on the
causality relationship between safety leadership and safety performance than does the direct effect, which leads us to
believe that safety behavior can act as a mediator in the relationship between the influence of safety leadership and safety
performance. The statistical validity of Hypothesis 3, which claims that safety leadership influences safety performance
through safety behavior, is investigated. There is a larger monetary value to the direct influence of safety leadership on
safety performance than there is to the impact of safety behavior on safety performance. This implies that the direct
influence channel is more important in influencing safety performance than the pathway through safety behavior, and
that safety behavior plays a role in mediating this connection to some extent.
Discussion
As a result, this study investigated the direct influence of safety leadership and safety behavior on safety performance as
well as the indirect influence of safety leadership on safety performance through behavior safety. The respondents who
were focused on in this study were workers in the production division of coal mining operations, which included
supervisors, heavy equipment operators, and dump truck drivers. In conclusion, the safety leadership practices described
by leaders in the field are used to inform all company safety policies to workers, explain to workers their duties and
responsibilities, and set clear and measurable safety goals in their work area. This will provide understanding to workers,
primarily related to the duties and responsibilities of workers in the field of safety, so that workers' kinesthetic awareness
is increased. The direct influence of safety leadership on safety performance is stronger than the indirect influence of
safety leadership on safety behavior because, with the role of leadership in the work area who constantly informs workers
of safety policies, workers will constantly be reminded of the importance of safety rules at work, reducing the likelihood
that they will be involved in an accident.
This study lends credence to the theoretical view on the relationship between safety behavior and safety performance,
which holds that safety behavior has a beneficial impact on the overall safety performance of a firm. Liu et al. (2015) found
evidence to support the conclusion that safety behavior has a positive effect on safety performance, and Singh et al. (2019)
found evidence to support the conclusion that safety behavior has a negative effect on safety performance. However,
there is no evidence to support the conclusion that safety behavior harms safety performance (Curcuruto et al., 2015;
Murphy et al., 2019). Prosocial and proactive conduct, as well as driving behavior indicators, have been used in previous
studies to reach the conclusion that safety behavior is detrimental to performance. Safety performance, on the other
hand, makes use of the same degree of accidents that occur. In terms of safety performance, there are only two ways to
look at it: as an indication of its own or as a wider unit of its own performance. Based on the findings of this study, which
support the notion that safety behavior has a positive influence on overall safety performance, safety performance should
be considered as an important component of the overall performance of the organization.
Given that the findings of this study confirm prior research, namely that safety leadership has an impact on safety
performance, this study is being conducted in the wake of past research (Skeepers & Mbohwa, 2015; Wu et al., 2008) In
the event that safety behavior has a favorable impact on safety performance (Singh et al., 2019), the mining contractor
company's management must take steps to improve safety performance. There are a number of activities that may be
taken care of to ensure that field leaders always notify employees of the company's security policy, educate workers on
their safety obligations, and create clear and quantifiable safety targets in their respective work areas of responsibility.
Workers will be encouraged to engage in the implementation of safety programs and to adhere to safety regulations as a
result of these activities, which will help to prevent accidents.

CONCLUSION
According to the conclusions of this study, safety leadership has a beneficial impact on safety performance; the more
successfully safety leadership is implemented in a firm, the greater the improvement in safety performance. Safety
behavior also has a beneficial influence on the company's overall safety performance; the greater the improvement in
workers' safety behavior, the greater the improvement in the company's overall safety performance. Because the direct
effect of safety leadership on safety performance is greater than the indirect influence of safety behavior, safety behavior
serves as a partial mediating factor in this connection.

452| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
REFERENCES
Ahmed, I., & Faheem, A. (2021). How Effectively Safety Incentives Work? A Randomized Experimental Investigation. Safety
and Health at Work, 12(1), 20-27.
Akpan, E. I. (2011). Effective Safety and Health Management Policy for Improved Performance of Organizations in
Africa. International Journal of Business and Management, 6(3), 159-165.
Armstrong. (2006). A Handbook of Human Resource Management Practice (10th ed.). Kogan Page.
Bird Jr, F. E., & Germain, G. L. (1990). Practical Loss Control Leadership. International Loss Control Institute, Inc.
Bryne, B. (2010). Structural Equation Modeling with AMOS: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. In Structural
Equation Modeling.
Cameron, I., & Hare, B. (2008). Planning Tools for Integrating Health and Safety in Construction. Construction Management
and Economics, 26(9), 899-909.
Curcuruto, M., Conchie, S. M., Mariani, M. G., & Violante, F. S. (2015). The Role of Prosocial and Proactive Safety Behaviors
in Predicting Safety Performance. Safety Science, 80, 317-323.
Dong, Y., Vinnem, J. E., & Utne, I. B. (2017). Improving Safety of DP Operations: Learning from Accidents and Incidents
during Offshore Loading Operations. EURO Journal on decision processes, 5(1), 5-40.
Edwards, M., & Jabs, L. B. (2009). When Safety Culture Backfires: Unintended Consequences of Half-Shared Governance
in A High-Tech Workplace. The Social Science Journal, 46(4), 707-723.
Feng, Y., Teo, E. A. L., Ling, F. Y. Y., & Low, S. P. (2014). Exploring the Interactive Effects of Safety Investments, Safety
Culture and Project Hazard on Safety Performance: An Empirical Analysis. International Journal of Project
Management, 32(6), 932–943.
Friend, M. A., & Kohn, J. P. (2007). Fundamentals of Occupational Safety and Health. Government Institute.
Ghozali, I. (2013a). Aplikasi Analisis Multivariate Dengan Program IBM SPSS 21. UNDIP Publisher.
Ghozali, I. (2017). Model Persamaan Struktural Konsep dan Aplikasi dengan Program AMOS 24 Update Bayesin SEM (7th
ed.). UNDIP Publisher.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate Data Analysis (MVDA). In Pharmaceutical Quality
by Design: A Practical Approach.
Hasan, A., & Jha, K. N. (2013). Safety Incentive and Penalty Provisions in Indian Construction Projects and Their Impact on
Safety Performance. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 20(1), 3–12.
Hughes, P., & Ferrett, E. (2015). Introduction to health and safety in construction: For the NEBOSH National Certificate in
Construction Health and Safety. Routledge.
IS: 3786. (1983). Methods for computation of frequency and severity rates for industrial injuries and classification of
industrial accidents. Bureau of Indian Standards
Kapp, E. A. (2012). The Influence of Supervisor Leadership Practices and Perceived Group Safety Climate on Employee
Safety Performance. Safety Science, 50(4), 1119–1124.
Kasap, Y. (2011). The Effect of Work Accidents on the Efficiency of Production in the Coal Sector. South African Journal of
Science, 107(5), 1-9.
Kirchsteiger, C. (1999). Trends in Accidents, Disasters and Risk Sources in Europe. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process
Industries, 12(1), 7-17.
Latan, H. (2013). Model Persamaan Struktural Teori dan Implementasi AMOS 21.0. Bandung: Alfabeta.
Lindgreen, A., Antioco, M., Harness, D., & Van der Sloot, R. (2009). Purchasing and Marketing of Social and Environmental
Sustainability for High-Tech Medical Equipment. Journal of Business Ethics, 85(2), 445-462.
Lingard, H., & Rowlinson, S. (2004). Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project Management. Routledge.
Liu, X., Huang, G., Huang, H., Wang, S., Xiao, Y., & Chen, W. (2015). Safety Climate, Safety Behavior, and Worker Injuries in
the Chinese Manufacturing Industry. Safety Science.
Lu, C. S., & Yang, C. S. (2010). Safety Leadership and Safety Behaviors in Container Terminal Operations. Safety Science,
48(2), 123–134.
Mearns, K., Flin, R., Gordon, R., & Fleming, M. (2001). Human and Organizational Factors in Offshore Safety. Work and
Stress, 15(2), 144–160.
Mohammadi, A., Tavakolan, M., & Khosravi, Y. (2018). Factors Influencing Safety Performance on Construction Projects: A
review. Safety Science, 109, 382-397.
Murphy, L. A., Huang, Y. Hsiang, Lee, J., Robertson, M. M., & Jeffries, S. (2019). The Moderating Effect of Long-Haul Truck
Drivers’ Occupational Tenure on the Relationship between Safety Climate and Driving Safety Behavior. Safety
Science, 120(09), 283–289.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory Third Edition. McGraw-Hili, Inc.
Pham, D. T., & Thomas, A. J. (2012). Fit Manufacturing: A Framework for Sustainability. Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management.
Rajapathirana, R. J., & Hui, Y. (2018). Relationship between Innovation Capability, Innovation Type, and Firm
Performance. Journal of Innovation & Knowledge, 3(1), 44-55.

453| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.

 Italienisch
ISSN: 0171-4996, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2021, pp 447-454
Reese, C. D. (2011). Accident/Incident Prevention Techniques. CRC Press.
Roughton, J. E., & Mercurio, J. J. (2002). Developing an Effective Safety Culture: A Leadership Approach. Butterworth–
Heinemann.
Sanusi, A. (2017). Metodolgi Penelitian Bisnis. Jakarta: Salemba Empat.
Sarı, F. Ö. (2009). Effects of Employee Trainings on the Occupational Safety and Health in Accommodation
Sector. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1865-1870.
Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A Beginner’s Guide to Structural Equation Modeling Third Edition. In Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group.
Seo, H. C., Lee, Y. S., Kim, J. J., & Jee, N. Y. (2015). Analyzing Safety Behaviors of Temporary Construction Workers Using
Structural Equation Modeling. Safety Science, 77(10).
Sharp, J. M., Irani, Z., & Desai, S. (1999). Working towards Agile Manufacturing in the UK Industry. International Journal of
Production Economics, 62(1-2), 155-169.
Singh, V., Kumar Sharma, S., Chadha, I., & Singh, T. (2019). Investigating the Moderating Effects of Multi Group on Safety
Performance: The Case of Civil Aviation. Case Studies on Transport Policy, 7(2), 477–488.
Skeepers, N. C., & Mbohwa, C. (2015). A Study on the Leadership Behaviour, Safety Leadership, and Safety Performance
in the Construction Industry in South Africa. Procedia Manufacturing, 4(Iess), 10–16.
Stemn, E., Bofinger, C., Cliff, D., & Hassall, N. E. (2019). Examining the Relationship between Safety Culture Maturity and
Safety Performance of the Mining Industry. Safety Science, 113, 345–355.
Stemn, E., Bofinger, C., Cliff, D., & Hassall, N. E. (2019). Examining the Relationship between Safety Culture Maturity and
Safety Performance of the Mining Industry. Safety Science, 113, 345–355.
Thomason, T., & Pozzebon, S. (2002). Determinants of Firm Workplace Health and Safety and Claims Management
Practices. ILR Review, 55(2), 286-307.
Tortorella, G. L., & Fettermann, D. (2018). Implementation of Industry 4.0 and lean production in Brazilian manufacturing
companies. International Journal of Production Research, 56(8), 2975-2987.
Wang, D., Wang, X., Griffin, M. A., & Wang, Z. (2020). Safety stressors, safety-specific trust, and safety citizenship behavior:
A contingency perspective. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 142, 105572.
Wills, A., Watson, B., & Biggs, H. C. (2009). An Exploratory Investigation into Safety Climate and Work-Related Driving.
Work, 32(1), 81–94.
Wu, T. C., Chen, C. H., & Li, C. C. (2008). A Correlation among Safety Leadership, Safety Climate, and Safety Performance.
Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 21(3), 307–318.
Zainal, V. R., Ramly, H. M., Mutis, T., & Arafah, W. (2019). Manajemen Sumber Daya Manusia Untuk Perusahaan Dari Teori
Ke Praktik. Raja Grafindo Persada.

454| http://www.italienisch.nl © Supardi et al.