Safety Culture Assessment in Three Automobile Assembly Plants in Thailand
1
Issued Date
2023-09-01
Resource Type
ISSN
2697584X
eISSN
26975866
Scopus ID
2-s2.0-105016136638
Journal Title
Thai Journal of Public Health
Volume
53
Issue
3
Start Page
630
End Page
655
Rights Holder(s)
SCOPUS
Bibliographic Citation
Thai Journal of Public Health Vol.53 No.3 (2023) , 630-655
Suggested Citation
Naksawat S., Yogyorn D., Sujirarat D., Boonyayothin V. Safety Culture Assessment in Three Automobile Assembly Plants in Thailand. Thai Journal of Public Health Vol.53 No.3 (2023) , 630-655. 655. Retrieved from: https://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/123456789/112206
Title
Safety Culture Assessment in Three Automobile Assembly Plants in Thailand
Author(s)
Author's Affiliation
Corresponding Author(s)
Other Contributor(s)
Abstract
The automotive industry in Thailand is at the turning point with digitalization, lean and advanced manufacturing technological development, transforming the structure and system that drive this industry. In the meantime, rapid change over assembly lines is forcing workers at risk of injury and illness from working with collaborative robots (cobots) and being exposed to dangerous machinery and chemicals. Objective: This study aimed to draw and compare the pictures of safety culture in three Japanese automobile assembly plants in Thailand, broadly recognized as a strong corporate safety culture. Method: This was a cross-sectional study conducted on three automobile assembly plants, with 719 respondents, mostly male 686 people (94.5 %). This study used the questionnaires which consist of two parts, personal data and the safety climate assessment developed by the UK Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Descriptive statistics were used to describe the safety climate score and the characteristics of the respondents. Inferential statistics were used to describe the comparison of personal factors, workplace location and find the correlation to the safety climate. Result: This study found that there was no shared vision of management commitment between the managers and subcontractors (p=0.04). The subcontractor perceived the safety rules and procedures differently compared to the manager (p = 0.001), supervisor, and operational staff (p = 0.00). In addition, the subcontractor’s perception of the work environment was different between the supervisor (p = 0.01) and operational staff (p = 0.04). The older workers perceived the safety rules and procedures differently compared to the younger generations (p = 0.00). The differences between Plant C compared with Plant A and B were communication, involvement, priority of safety, safety rules and procedures, supportive environment, and work environment (p = 0.00). Conclusion: This study explored the differences factors that are embedded in these three plants by using the Safety Climate questionnaires. Recommendation: The method of this study can be applied to other corporates to perform multiple plants assessment to measure their safety climate periodically.