INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4075
www.rsisinternational.org
Building Safer Workplaces: The Interplay of Safety Culture, Climate,
and Performance
Justice Badam Parmaak
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Catholic University of Ghana, Fiapre, Sunyani, Ghana
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000350
Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 13 November 2025; Published: 22 November 2025
ABSTRACT
Workplace safety is a multidimensional outcome shaped by organizational culture, safety climate, policies, and
external drivers such as climate change and digitization. Despite decades of regulatory progress, nearly three
million workers die annually from work-related injuries and diseases and hundreds of millions sustain non-fatal
injuries — a global burden that disproportionately affects vulnerable occupations and low-resource regions.
This paper synthesizes recent global data (UN/ILO/WHO/OSHA/EU-OSHA) and peer-reviewed literature to
develop an integrative model linking safety culture and climate to safety performance, resilience and
organizational outcomes. We identify measurement and intervention gaps, illustrate mechanisms (leadership
commitment → climate → behavior → outcomes), examine emerging threats (heat stress, digital hazards,
psychosocial risks), and propose a multilevel, evidence-based framework for policymakers, employers and
researchers to build safer workplaces. Practical recommendations cover measurement, governance, technology
use, worker participation, and financing for prevention. The paper concludes with a research agenda to better
quantify causal pathways, cost-effectiveness, and equity impacts of safety interventions.
Keywords: Safety culture; safety climate; safety performance; occupational health; heat stress; organizational
behavior; ILO; WHO; workplace safety.
INTRODUCTION
Workplace safety remains an urgent global public-health and economic priority. International agencies report
that millions of workers continue to suffer fatal and non-fatal harm each year despite improved regulation and
technologies. The International Labour Organization (ILO) currently estimates nearly 2.93 million work-
related deaths annually and hundreds of millions of non-fatal injuries — figures that underscore persistent gaps
between policy intent and on-the-ground safety performance. [1]
Contemporary workplace hazards are evolving. Climate change—manifested as rising ambient temperatures,
extreme heat events, and wildfire smoke—exposes large swathes of the workforce to heat-related injury,
cardiovascular strain and productivity loss. The ILO and partner agencies estimate that roughly 2.4 billion
workers (≈70% of the global workforce) are exposed to excessive heat annually, with millions of injuries and
many thousands of heat-related deaths attributable to heat stress each year. [1]
Simultaneously, the digital transformation of work — automation, remote work, AI systems and algorithmic
management — changes hazard profiles: physical exposures can decline in some sectors while psychosocial
risks, surveillance-related stress, and new human–machine interaction failures emerge. EU-OSHA and ILO
events have recently emphasized both opportunities and risks from digitalization for occupational safety and
health (OSH). [2]
This paper synthesizes current empirical evidence on the interplay between safety culture, safety climate and
safety performance, integrates up-to-date global data, discusses contemporary hazard drivers, and proposes a
pragmatic, multilevel framework for building safer workplaces.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4076
www.rsisinternational.org
CONCEPTUAL DEFINITIONS AND THEORETICAL FRAMING
Safety culture refers to the deeper, enduring shared values, norms, and practices related to safety within an
organization — the “way we do things around here.” It is relatively stable and shaped by leadership values,
history, formal systems, and socialization. Safety climate is a more proximal, perceptual construct: employees’
shared perceptions at a point in time about safety policies, procedures, management commitment, and
enforcement. While related, culture captures core values; climate captures surface perceptions that mediate
behavior. Safety performance denotes objective and subjective outcomes: injury rates, near misses, safety
compliance and participation, and safety-related productivity. The dominant theoretical pathway posits:
leadership and systems → safety culture → safety climate → safety behaviors (compliance & participation) →
safety outcomes. Several studies and reviews support elements of these pathways while also documenting
reciprocal and contextual influences (industry, national institutions, hazard type). [3]
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: SAFETY CULTURE, CLIMATE, AND PERFORMANCE
Systematic reviews and meta-analytic evidence
Systematic reviews consistently find moderate to strong associations between safety climate and safety-related
behaviors and outcomes. Reviews suggest safety climate is reliably associated with compliance, participation,
and lower self-reported injuries across industries, though effect sizes vary with measurement quality, temporal
design, and occupational context. A growing body of longitudinal multilevel research indicates that unit-level
climate perceptions predict future safety behaviors and accident rates, supporting a causal interpretation when
confounders and temporal precedence are addressed. [3]
Empirical mechanisms
Peer-reviewed studies identify several mediators and moderators in the culture–climate–performance pathway.
Mediators commonly include safety motivation, risk perception, and psychosocial hazards (stress, fatigue). For
example, studies show that stronger safety culture reduces psychosocial hazards, which in turn improves safety
behaviors and lowers injury risk. Leadership behaviors (visible commitment, resources allocation) shape
climate; climate shapes both adherence to safety rules (compliance) and discretionary safety participation
(going beyond formal requirements), which together reduce accidents. Organizational factors (staffing levels,
job design), and industry hazards (construction vs healthcare) moderate the magnitude of effects. [4]
Measurement challenges and heterogeneity
Research is hampered by construct heterogeneity: multiple instruments purport to measure safety culture and/or
climate with differing item content and levels (individual vs unit vs site). Cross-sectional designs and common-
method bias (self-report) inflate associations. There is a pressing need for standardized, validated instruments
that separate climate from culture and capture both perceptual and objective indicators. Recent calls emphasize
multilevel measurement (individual perceptions aggregated to unit climate, supplemented by objective
performance metrics). [3]
CONTEMPORARY GLOBAL DATA ON WORK-RELATED HARM AND
EMERGING HAZARDS
Global burden overview
Global estimates from ILO/WHO indicate that nearly 3 million workers die from work-related injuries and
diseases annually, and hundreds of millions sustain non-fatal injuries, with large economic and social costs.
ILOSTAT provides disaggregated data for fatal and non-fatal injuries by sector, sex, and migrant status, which
show higher fatality rates in agriculture, construction, transport and extractive industries. Regional variation is
substantial, with low- and middle-income countries lacking sufficient inspection, reporting and prevention
capacities. [1]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4077
www.rsisinternational.org
Country-level surveillance — example: United States and OSHA data
National surveillance systems provide complementary insights. For example, the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics and OSHA reported 5,283 fatal work injuries in 2023 (≈3.5 fatalities per 100,000 FTE), reflecting
sectoral patterns similar to global data. Such national statistics are critical for benchmarking, but under-
reporting remains a concern in many jurisdictions. [2]
Climate change and heat exposure
Climate-driven hazards are rapidly altering occupational risk landscapes. Multiple ILO and UN analyses
estimate that over 2.4 billion workers are exposed to excessive heat, yielding tens of millions of non-fatal
injuries and nearly 19,000 heat-related deaths annually, alongside large productivity losses and growing
burdens of chronic kidney disease in exposed workers. Heat exposure disproportionately affects outdoor and
manual labourers, and regions in Africa, Asia and the Arab states show the highest exposures. Responses must
integrate prevention, adaptation, and social protections. [1, 5]
Digitalization and Psychosocial Risk
Digitalization and the AI-driven transformation of work are reshaping psychosocial risk profiles. Remote and
gig work, algorithmic scheduling, and intensified monitoring can increase stress, erode autonomy, and reduce
opportunities for safety learning through on-site peer interaction. EU-OSHA and ILO events highlight both
safety gains (automation of hazardous tasks) and risks (new human-system interaction failures and mental-
health concerns). These developments require adaptive governance and an updated safety culture that addresses
psychosocial safety. [2]
INTEGRATIVE MODEL: HOW CULTURE AND CLIMATE INTERACT TO
PRODUCE SAFETY PERFORMANCE
I propose a parsimonious, multilevel integrative model (Figure 1, conceptual) that links organizational
antecedents, emergent climate, worker behaviors and outcomes, and external contextual drivers:
1. Macro/contextual drivers: national regulation, labor market structures, climate change, industry
hazards, technology diffusion.
2. Organizational antecedents: leadership commitment, safety management systems (policies, training,
resources), worker participation structures, and safety governance.
3. Safety culture: deep values and norms (leadership safety priority, learning orientation, blame vs just
culture).
4. Safety climate: employees’ shared perceptions of management commitment, communication, training,
and enforcement (measured at unit level).
5. Behavioral mechanisms: compliance, safety participation, hazard reporting, risk communication.
6. Outcomes: safety performance (injury rates, near misses), health (disease burden), productivity and
financial outcomes (direct and indirect costs).
7. Feedback loops: incident investigations and learning modify culture and climate; regulations and
market pressures feed back to organizational antecedents.
This model emphasizes that culture and climate operate at different depths and time scales: culture changes
slowly via leadership and socialization; climate can be more rapidly influenced by targeted interventions
(visible leadership actions, communication campaigns, enforcement). The model supports mixed interventions
(policy + leadership development + structural changes) and underscores measurement at multiple levels
(individual, unit, organization). Empirical studies support many of the model’s pathways, including mediation
by psychosocial factors and moderation by sector and hazard type. [4]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4078
www.rsisinternational.org
CASE VIGNETTES AND SECTORAL IMPLICATIONS
Construction and Extractive Industries
High-hazard sectors like construction and mining exhibit concentrated fatality burdens. Safety culture
interventions — visible leadership, toolbox talks, near-miss reporting and safety walkabouts — have shown
reductions in incident rates when accompanied by enforceable safety systems and worker engagement.
Multilevel climate measurement (crew/unit climate aggregation) improves predictive validity for accidents in
these sectors. [6, 1]
Healthcare
Healthcare organizations demonstrate the interplay of culture, climate and patient/worker safety. Safety culture
initiatives (just culture, non-punitive reporting) combined with unit-level climate interventions (teamwork
training) have reduced adverse events and burnout. The healthcare literature underscores measurement nuance:
unit-level climate explains variation in safety behaviors beyond hospital-level policies. [7]
Agriculture and Outdoor Work (Heat Exposure)
Agriculture and outdoor manual occupations face dual hazards: traditional injury risks and escalating climate
risks. Heat protection requires both engineering and administrative controls (shade, adjusted hours), social
protections (paid rest breaks, sick leave), and a safety culture that legitimizes schedule changes in extreme heat.
Where organizational culture prioritizes productivity over safety, climate protections are weak, producing
preventable illness and reduced productivity. ILO guidance emphasizes social dialogue and legislative
frameworks to protect vulnerable workers. [1]
INTERVENTIONS: EVIDENCE-BASED ACTIONS ACROSS LEVELS
A successful prevention strategy addresses structural, cultural, and perceptual domains:
Governance and Systems (Macro and Organizational)
Strengthen inspection and enforcement where capacity gaps exist; expand labour inspection coverage
and training. ILOSTAT shows inspection coverage varies widely — investments in labor inspection
correlate with better reporting and prevention. [1]
Embed OSH in corporate governance: board-level oversight, OSH KPIs, and linkage of safety to
remuneration encourage sustained investment. Evidence links better safety culture and safety
performance to financial metrics in firms that integrate safety in governance. [8]
Leadership and Culture Change
Visible leadership and ‘walk the talk’: leaders must visibly prioritize safety, allocate resources and
model behavior. Leadership-driven interventions can shift culture and rapidly improve climate
perceptions. [4]
Just culture and learning orientation: replacing blame with systems analysis encourages near-miss
reporting and collective learning, improving climate and reducing repeated errors.
Measurement and data systems
Standardize measures: adopt validated, multilevel instruments that differentiate culture from climate
and link perceptual measures to objective outcomes.
Real-time surveillance and analytics: combine administrative data (injuries, near misses) with
perception surveys and environmental sensors (temperature, air quality) to detect risk patterns and
target interventions. EU-OSHA and WHO/ILO recommend integrating digital tools while managing
new risks from monitoring. [2]
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4079
www.rsisinternational.org
Worker participation and social dialogue
Co-design interventions: worker involvement in hazard assessment and scheduling (especially heat)
increases legitimacy and compliance. ILO guidance highlights social dialogue as a central tool for heat
adaptation and other climate-related risks. [1]
Technology and engineering controls
Eliminate or minimize hazard exposure through automation for high-risk tasks where feasible, and
use climate controls (ventilation, cooling systems) and PPE adapted for heat. However, technology
must be introduced within a safety culture that recognizes new human–machine interface risks. [2]
Psychosocial protections
Address mental health and fatigue: workload, algorithmic scheduling and job insecurity heighten
psychosocial hazards; policies for reasonable hours, leave, and worker agency mitigate these risks and
improve safety performance. [2]
ECONOMIC CASE AND FINANCING PREVENTION
Investments in prevention often yield favourable returns through reduced direct costs (medical care,
compensation) and indirect costs (lost productivity, reputational damage). Emerging literature links safety
culture and performance to financial outcomes; firms that embed safety in governance may experience
improved productivity and lower insurance premiums. However, rigorous cost-effectiveness studies at scale
remain limited; this is an important empirical gap. Public financing (subsidies for small enterprises, tax
incentives for OSH investments) and insurance-market reforms can lower barriers for prevention, especially in
small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). [8]
MEASUREMENT AGENDA AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES
To advance understanding and policy, I recommend the following research priorities:
1. Causal, longitudinal designs: large, multilevel longitudinal studies that measure leadership actions,
culture, climate and subsequent objective outcomes to strengthen causal inference. [4]
2. Standardization of instruments: develop and disseminate validated, cross-sector measures that clearly
differentiate culture and climate and are translatable across languages. [3]
3. Cost-effectiveness studies: economic evaluations of culture-changing interventions (leadership
training, just culture, heat protections) across sectors and LMIC contexts. [8]
4. Intervention research in climate-vulnerable sectors: randomized or quasi-experimental studies of
heat mitigation measures (shift scheduling, rest breaks, engineering controls) examining health, safety
and productivity outcomes. [1]
5. Digital hazards and human–AI safety: research on psychosocial and human-system interface risks
introduced by algorithmic management and remote work, combined with governance experiments. [2]
PRACTICAL ROADMAP FOR POLICYMAKERS AND EMPLOYERS
A pragmatic, phased roadmap:
Phase 1 (Assess & Commit): baseline OSH assessment (injuries, exposures, climate vulnerabilities), board
commitment, designate OSH leads, and develop a prioritized prevention plan.
Phase 2 (Measure & Build Climate): implement validated climate surveys at unit level, launch visible
leadership actions (safety walkabouts, resource commitments), and create non-punitive reporting channels.
Phase 3 (Systems & Protections): upgrade engineering controls (ventilation, shading, automation where
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4080
www.rsisinternational.org
feasible), adapt schedules for heat, ensure PPE, and integrate psychosocial protections (reasonable hours, paid
rest/sick leave).
Phase 4 (Sustain & Learn): monitor outcomes, conduct incident analysis with a learning orientation, refine
policies, and include safety KPIs in performance and procurement processes.
Cross-cutting: engage workers and unions in co-design, use digital analytics for surveillance while
safeguarding privacy, and secure financing for SMEs through public subsidies or insurance incentives. ILO and
WHO guidance should be used to tailor national policies on heat and other climate hazards. [1]
LIMITATIONS
This paper synthesizes a broad and evolving literature. Limitations include reliance on available aggregated
global statistics (which may suffer under-reporting), heterogeneity in measurement instruments across studies,
and emergent nature of digital-era hazards where long-term data are limited. While ILO/WHO/OSHA provide
authoritative statistics, ongoing surveillance and improved reporting are necessary to refine estimates.
CONCLUSION
Safer workplaces require coordinated action across governance, culture, measurement, technology and worker
participation. Safety culture and safety climate are distinct but complementary levers: culture establishes the
deep values and leadership commitment, while climate captures perceptual levers that can be shifted more
rapidly to change behavior and outcomes. Addressing contemporary threats — especially climate-driven heat
stress and the psychosocial impacts of digitalization — demands integrated, evidence-based strategies rooted in
social dialogue and worker rights. Investments in prevention pay dividends in health, productivity and
resilience. A focused research and policy agenda — combining multilevel measurement, causal evaluation, and
equity-sensitive financing — will be critical to reduce the global burden of work-related harm.
REFERENCES
1. International Labour Organization. Safety and health at work. ILO. [Internet]. 2023. Available from:
https://www.ilo.org/topics-and-sectors/safety-and-health-work. International Labour Organization
2. ILO News. Nearly 3 million people die of work-related accidents and diseases. ILO. 2023 Nov 26.
Available from: https://www.ilo.org/resource/news/nearly-3-million-people-die-work-related-accidents-
and-diseases. International Labour Organization
3. ILOSTAT. Statistics on safety and health at work. ILOSTAT. [Internet]. Available from:
https://ilostat.ilo.org/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/. ILOSTAT
4. U.S. Department of Labor — Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Commonly
Used Statistics; Worker fatalities 2023. Available from: https://www.osha.gov/data/commonstats.
OSHA
5. United Nations. World Day for Safety and Health at Work (28 April). UN. 2025. Available from:
https://www.un.org/en/observances/work-safety-day. United Nations
6. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA). Impact of digitalisation on OSH.
Highlight April 28, 2025. Available from: https://osha.europa.eu/en/highlights/eu-osha-highlighted-
impact-digitalisation-world-day-safety-and-health-work. osha.europa.eu
7. Naji GM, et al. Impact of Safety Culture on Safety Performance; Mediating role of psychosocial
hazards. International Journal (open access). 2021. Available from:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8394037/. PMC
8. Abegaz T, et al. Association between safety climate, safety participation and self-reported injuries in
construction sites. [PMC article] 2025. Available from:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12484091/. PMC
9. Bautista-Bernal I, et al. Safety culture, safety performance and financial outcomes. Safety
Science/Journal 2024. (Article detailing link between safety performance and financial performance).
ScienceDirect
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025
Page 4081
www.rsisinternational.org
10. Systematic review: The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance
— [ResearchGate]. 2018. Available from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329554236_The_relationship_between_safety_culture_and_s
afety_climate_and_safety_performance_a_systematic_review. ResearchGate
11. ILO. Heat at work: Implications for safety and health. ILO (report/PDF). 2024. Available from:
https://www.ilo.org/publications/heat-work-implications-safety-and-health. International Labour
Organization
12. ILO. Working on a warmer planet: The impact of heat stress on productivity and decent work (report).
2019 (background). Available from: https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---
dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/wcms_711919.pdf. International Labour Organization
13. World Health Organization / WMO. Climate change and workplace heat stress: Technical report (2025
guidance series). WHO. (Emerging guidance; referenced for heat impacts and technical measures).
World Health Organization
14. Reuters/AP/Axios coverage of ILO heat findings and UN call to action (selected news reporting).
Reuters: Worlds workers increasingly at risk as climate changes, ILO says. 2024 Apr 22. Reuters+1
15. Accident Analysis and Prevention. Elsevier. Volume highlights (2024–2025). (Journal resource used
for contemporary empirical studies). ScienceDirect+1
