Scholarlink

<p>Factors influencing unsafe behaviors can be prioritized. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of unsafe behaviors and prioritize the factors affecting them in the detergent manufacturing sector. This study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative analysis utilizes QCA to categorize and analyze the prevalence of unsafe behaviors in the detergent manufacturing sector, using MAXQDA software. The quantitative part employs F-DEMATEL to examine relationships among factors influencing unsafe behaviors, and F-ANP for prioritizing these factors. Out of 7,454 unsafe behavior reports in an online panel, 990 were excluded, resulting in 6,464 for analysis. Using QCA, 21 categories of unsafe behaviors were identified, with the top three being: failing to perform P.M. effectively on equipment, machinery, or facilities (27.75%); lack of using engineering or administrative controls to maintain HSE standards (11.71%); and failing to adhere to 5&#xa0;S principles (9.55%). Three main categories of unsafe behavior were established: organizational, social, and individual. F-DEMATEL results, showed that three social factors—society’s regulations and circumstances, society’s labor force, and society’s safety mindset—are causes (D-<i>R</i> &gt; 0), while organizational and individual factors are effects influenced by social factors (D-<i>R</i> &lt; 0). Furthermore, organizational and individual factors impact each other as well. F-ANP identified five top priorities, focusing on social factors: societal culture issues, improper comparisons with other similar industries, government regulations for contact sealing, insufficient socioeconomic circumstances, and incompetence of stakeholders. Individual factors weighed more than organizational factors, though the difference was minor. This study emphasizes that addressing unsafe behavior solely through organizational or individual factors is insufficient. By recognizing social factors as crucial drivers, it advocates for a comprehensive approach to safety management that integrates social, organizational, and individual elements to improve industrial safety protocols.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Prioritizing factors, influencing unsafe behaviors: a mixed-methods study in the detergent manufacturing sector

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年5月15日

查看全文
  • Alireza Bostanpara,
  • Mehran Ghalenoei,
  • Ahmad Nikpey

摘要

Factors influencing unsafe behaviors can be prioritized. This study aimed to identify the prevalence of unsafe behaviors and prioritize the factors affecting them in the detergent manufacturing sector. This study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods. The qualitative analysis utilizes QCA to categorize and analyze the prevalence of unsafe behaviors in the detergent manufacturing sector, using MAXQDA software. The quantitative part employs F-DEMATEL to examine relationships among factors influencing unsafe behaviors, and F-ANP for prioritizing these factors. Out of 7,454 unsafe behavior reports in an online panel, 990 were excluded, resulting in 6,464 for analysis. Using QCA, 21 categories of unsafe behaviors were identified, with the top three being: failing to perform P.M. effectively on equipment, machinery, or facilities (27.75%); lack of using engineering or administrative controls to maintain HSE standards (11.71%); and failing to adhere to 5 S principles (9.55%). Three main categories of unsafe behavior were established: organizational, social, and individual. F-DEMATEL results, showed that three social factors—society’s regulations and circumstances, society’s labor force, and society’s safety mindset—are causes (D-R > 0), while organizational and individual factors are effects influenced by social factors (D-R < 0). Furthermore, organizational and individual factors impact each other as well. F-ANP identified five top priorities, focusing on social factors: societal culture issues, improper comparisons with other similar industries, government regulations for contact sealing, insufficient socioeconomic circumstances, and incompetence of stakeholders. Individual factors weighed more than organizational factors, though the difference was minor. This study emphasizes that addressing unsafe behavior solely through organizational or individual factors is insufficient. By recognizing social factors as crucial drivers, it advocates for a comprehensive approach to safety management that integrates social, organizational, and individual elements to improve industrial safety protocols.