Safety Climate in High-Rise Construction

Abstract

This study examines safety climate perceptions in construction using two models: the Safety Climate Model (SCM) and the Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50). Data from 20 projects of various sizes (ranging from 11 to 50 floors) and company years of experience (1-25+) were analyzed using the 5-point Likert scale and ANOVA tests. SCM and NOSACQ-50 contained 10 and 7 questions, respectively. Responses were gathered from safety officers and supervisors. Results revealed insights into safety culture and the impact of management practices on safety perceptions in high-rise construction. The study found that safety climate perceptions were relatively poor, with a score of 3.865 for the SCM and 3.600 for NOSACQ-50. The findings emphasize the need for stronger safety practices at higher organizational levels, particularly in management, expressed by the findings of 3.3 and 3.5 in means of management commitment and safety climate fostering in NOSACQ-50 and the relatively large variance in the NOSACQ-50 model (0.23), control, and leadership. Cronbach’s alpha values were 0.935 and 0.943 for SCM and NOSACQ-50, respectively, indicating internal adherence of the models to safety practices. A moderate positive correlation of 0.470 between the two models suggests that both measures overlap but there exist distinct aspects of safety perceptions. In SCM, the highest-rated factors were safety equipment availability and employee participation in safety training, and employees feel the company prioritizes their well-being, highlighting the importance of resources and engagement. Current work pace does not compromise safety measures and protocols received the lowest score. In NOSACQ-50, the highest scores were for management’s commitment to safety and safety communication, while the lowest scores were found for management actions, reflecting their commitment to worker safety management and employees’ shared responsibility, suggesting areas for future improvement. The study underscores that project size and company years of experience do not significantly affect safety perceptions, but effective safety communication, management commitment, and employee engagement are crucial. The findings indicate that the NOSACQ-50 better elucidates safety climate core performance as depicted by the larger coefficient of variance (0.23 compared to 0.16).

1. Introduction

The construction industry, particularly in the context of high-rise building projects, faces inherent challenges related to worker safety and risk management. The escalating complexity and scale of these projects have intensified safety concerns, contributing to significant rates of both fatal and non-fatal occupational accidents. Despite advancements in safety protocols and regulatory frameworks, safety incidents continue to occur, often resulting in devastating losses. These incidents are exacerbated by factors such as prolonged construction periods, frequent changes in workplace conditions, and the unique risks associated with working at height. In this context, the importance of understanding the safety climate in high-rise construction projects becomes increasingly evident [1].

Safety climate, as defined by [2], refers to workers’ shared perceptions of an organization’s safety practices, policies, and procedures. This perception significantly influences workers’ behavior, safety outcomes, and the overall effectiveness of safety management systems. Recent studies indicate that safety climate is a critical determinant in reducing accident rates. Ref [3] identified key safety factors in large construction enterprises, emphasizing the relationship between safety climate and accident rates. Their study suggests that organizational safety practices, along with management’s commitment to safety, are pivotal in shaping a favorable safety climate. Ref [4] highlighted the significant role of organizational safety culture and proactive monitoring in reducing incidents. Additionally, the building sector, especially in high-rise construction, has attracted significant scholarly attention regarding risk management in health and safety. Ref [5] used a smart wearable device to monitor high-rise construction workers’ physiological indicators in real time. The results revealed that heart rate and blood pressure had the most significant impact on worker safety, followed by work duration, age, working period, and gender.

Ref [6] highlight that frontline workers and foremen often face extended working hours, which leads to fatigue and decreased safety awareness. As workers become familiar with their tasks, safety alertness declines, emphasizing the need for periodic refresher safety training. Similarly, Ref [7] underlines the significance of a construction safety culture in improving safety behaviors, suggesting that management’s safety actions have a great impact on safety behavior and motivation. Additionally, Ref [8] calls for a deeper understanding of safety climate perceptions, emphasizing system-level attributes to enhance safety measurement accuracy. Ref [9] emphasize the role of risk aversion in the allocation of safety resources, recommending that regulatory measures aim to stimulate risk motivation in construction firms’ decision-making processes. Ref [10] stress that a thorough understanding of safety predictors, compliance intention, and safety participation is crucial for improving safety performance on construction projects. Moreover, Ref [11] introduce a Bowtie-based framework for risk modeling in health risk management, providing critical insights for decision-makers in public health and safety interventions. Ref [12] developed a hybrid AI-based, data-driven approach using Bayesian networks and ensemble learning to predict and diagnose fall-related risks in the workplace, enabling reliable causal inference and tailored safety solutions. While effective, the model’s applicability is limited by its reliance on industrial-level data, exclusion of certain personal and environmental factors, and lack of cost analysis for safety interventions. The increasing focus on occupational safety within high-rise construction has prompted extensive scholarly investigation into risk management strategies. Ref [13] conducted a bibliometric analysis to assess the development of research on safety and health risk management in construction. Analysis of 1000 studies (2000–2023) identified safety and health as key themes, highlighting the growing focus on occupational health and safety risk management in construction. Ref [14] identified critical safety risks in high-rise projects, such as falls from heights and improper use of manual tools, and underscored the pivotal role of safety training and continuous monitoring in mitigating these risks. Ref [15] showed that safety climate is influenced by gender, age, work experience, education level, and employer size. However, among these variables only age, education level, and employer size also significantly influence construction worker safety behavior. Ref [16] highlight the need to customize safety interventions based on trade-specific and phase-specific risks.

A further aspect of safety management in high-rise construction pertains to regulatory compliance and enforcement. Ref [17] examined common safety violations, including inadequate fire protection measures and improper site practices, identifying them as key contributors to heightened safety risks. Ref [18] proposed a two-factor model of safety climate, emphasizing the interplay between management commitment and worker participation in fostering safer work environments.

Despite advancements in safety protocols, persistent challenges remain in accident prevention and safety awareness. Ref [19] found that loose accident prevention awareness among workers continues to pose a significant threat to safety performance, advocating for enhanced safety education and re-education initiatives. This aligns with [20], who found that construction workers in South Korea generally perceived safety measures positively. Their results indicate that workers trust in the efficacy of the safety system, ranked highest in safety perception. Similarly, Ref [21] examined safety climate in Saudi Arabian construction, identifying key strengths and weaknesses in management and worker commitment. Strengths include safety commitment, prioritization, trust in systems, and management competence. Weaknesses involved lenient judgment, lack of worker input, and unreported near-miss incidents. Ref [22] used grounded theory and a deep reinforcement learning model to analyze and predict safety risks in subway construction, outperforming traditional machine learning models and identifying 37 key contributing factors to guide optimized risk mitigation measures.

Ref [23] suggests that larger firms tend to have better safety culture practices due to more structured safety actions from upper management. The study also shows that there is no significant correlation between firm size and the construction safety climate, which is influenced by the safety actions of field personnel, such as frontline supervisors and workers. Ref [24] further support this by proposing that a commitment from all organizational levels, from top management to individual workers, is essential for promoting better safety performance. Similarly, Ref [25] demonstrates that management commitment and employee involvement are significant predictors of workers’ safety perceptions. Ref [26] found significant differences in safety scores based on safety inspections and non-compliance, but no difference related to safety training. They also found no correlation between work experience or safety training and non-compliances. Ref [27] found that proactive behavior-based safety enhances construction safety performance and improves safety management efficiency. Ref [28] examined how immediate superiors’ safety leadership affects safety climate perceptions among construction professionals in southern India. The results show that safety leadership significantly influences several key safety climate factors.

The perception of safety climate varies across hierarchical levels within the construction industry. Ref [29] investigated these variations in Colombian construction sites and emphasized the importance of addressing discrepancies in safety perceptions to improve overall workplace safety and reduce injury rates. In a different methodological approach, Ref [30] applied a cascading failure and entropy flow model to analyze risk factors in construction safety, identifying key nodes in risk networks (individual and organizational) and proposing mitigation strategies to address underlying risk propagation paths.

Ref [31] identify personal characteristics such as gender, marital status, education level, direct employer, and safety knowledge as significant factors influencing safety behavior. Similarly, Ref [32] finds that older workers’ safety perceptions are influenced more by workload and job satisfaction, whereas younger workers are more affected by organizational relationships, job security, and mental stress. This distinction underlines the need for tailored safety approaches based on the worker’s demographic characteristics.

The role of management in shaping safety attitudes is also well-documented. Ref [33] identified a strong positive correlation between management’s safety priority, commitment, competence, and empowerment. It also revealed a gap in safety commitment between public and private construction projects in Nigeria, emphasizing the need to prioritize management commitment to enhance safety attitudes. This perspective is further reinforced by [28], who established that safety leadership behaviors of immediate supervisors significantly impact key safety climate factors on Indian construction sites, highlighting the importance of leadership in reducing workplace accidents.

Ref [34] demonstrates that a behavior-based safety management approach, involving goal setting and feedback, can significantly reduce unsafe behaviors and enhance safety compliance on construction sites. Similarly, Ref [35] identify key safety practices, such as management discussions on safety, the provision of safety equipment, and the appointment of trained safety representatives, as essential elements for reducing accidents on construction sites. Ref [36] reveal that indirect costs of accidents are three times higher than direct costs, suggesting that optimal safety investment is crucial to reduce overall project costs.

Methodological advancements in safety climate assessment have also emerged in recent years. Ref [37] conducted a systematic review of safety climate measurement methods, categorizing them into three main approaches: literature surveys, questionnaires, and data analysis. Their findings highlight key topics such as safety culture, safety performance, and safety management. Similarly, Ref [38] reviewed the existing body of literature on construction safety climate, identifying gaps in understanding its antecedents and consequences, and called for further research into the causal mechanisms influencing safety climate.

Urban construction sites, particularly in high-density environments, face unique safety challenges. Ref [39] investigated safety issues in high-rise construction projects in Bengaluru, identifying persistent safety lapses despite increased regulatory scrutiny. Their study offers insights into the factors contributing to safety deficiencies and proposes strategies to enhance safety performance at construction sites. A related study by [40] applied the analytic hierarchy process to identify key factors influencing safety climate, concluding that workers’ prioritization of safety and their willingness to reject risky practices are central determinants of safety outcomes.

Ref [41] explore the use of wearable technologies, typically applied in other industries, for monitoring safety performance in construction. These technologies can track various safety metrics and provide real-time feedback to workers and managers. Ref [42] investigate the use of a mobile app for communication, control, and command of construction of safety and quality (C⁴) to integrate leading safety indicators, demonstrating its effectiveness in improving both safety and quality performance on construction sites. The integration of these technological tools can significantly enhance safety management practices and reduce incidents on site. Ref [43] found a strong correlation between the level of maintenance and safety performance in educational facilities. Their findings emphasize integrating safety and maintenance to improve performance and safety climate in public facilities management. Ref [44] found that skills like self-awareness and social awareness positively influence safety management and safety climate. Ref [45] evaluated 31 studies on the role of safety culture and climate in improving safety performance. Their findings suggest that reactive criteria and safety compliance align closely with safety climate and culture.

In conclusion, the studies emphasize the need for a proactive, integrated approach to safety management in construction. They stress the importance of organizational culture, leadership commitment, customized safety training, technological advancements, and personal factors in enhancing safety performance and minimizing accidents. Moreover, the research reinforces the notion that safety should be regarded as a holistic system that requires not just regulatory frameworks and management interventions but also the active involvement of workers at all levels. Building on these insights, this paper delves into the critical safety challenges in high-rise construction, examines the influence of safety climate on safety performance, and offers strategic recommendations to improve safety outcomes. By bridging theoretical concepts with practical evidence, this study seeks to contribute to the ongoing conversation on elevating construction site safety and mitigating occupational risks in high-rise building projects. The study delivers novel insights regarding the distinctions between NOSACQ-50 and SCM and elucidates the capabilities of the NOSACQ-50 model for enhanced safety climate in construction.

2. Method

Research Framework

This study aims to identify optimal strategies for improving safety and reducing failures in high-rise construction projects by utilizing two key models: the Safety Climate Model (SCM) [2] and the Nordic Safety Climate Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) [46]. The research framework presented in Figure 1 is composed of four analytical and empirical research steps (review of construction safety, implementation of SCM and NOSACQ-50, field survey, and comprehensive statistical analyses) that support the main research blocks on the left. The SCM focuses on workplace safety perceptions and is a known predictor of occupational injuries, while the NOSACQ-50 incorporates various factors such as managerial commitment and safety priorities. By using these models, the study seeks to understand the safety climate in the high-rise construction sector, addressing the core question of how to enhance safety and prevent failures in such projects. The SCM consists of 10 questions, and the NOSACQ-50 consists of 7 questions assessing safety perceptions. Cronbach’s alpha is used to assess the internal consistency of the two questionnaires. A Likert scale from 1 (very low) to 5 (very high) was used. The questionnaires were distributed to 32 construction companies, and responses were collected from 20 companies through safety coordinators and officers using electronic channels such as email. The dataset focuses on Israel’s construction sector, with a specific emphasis on high-rise projects, and includes information from these 20 diverse companies. These companies were carefully chosen to represent various operational scales, geographical regions, and different years of experience. Safety officers and coordinators from completed projects filled out the questionnaires, ensuring anonymity to encourage honest responses. The statements in the questionnaires were tailored to individual projects, offering a detailed understanding of safety perceptions and practices at the project level. The company’s years of experience and number of floors of the chosen 20 projects are presented in

Table 1. Companies’ years of experience distribution among the 20 projects.

Years of Experience	Frequency	Percentage
1–5	3	15
6–10	3	15
11–15	3	15
16–20	4	20
21–25	3	15
>25	4	20

and

Table 2. Number of floors distribution among the 20 projects.

Number of Floors	Frequency	Percentage
11–20	7	50
21–30	5	20
31–40	5	25
41–50	3	5

, respectively.

To assess the internal consistency of both models (SCM and NOSACQ-50), Cronbach’s alpha was used, ensuring the reliability of the questionnaires. Pearson correlation analysis was conducted to examine the relationship between the two models, while ANOVA tests were applied to determine whether project number of floors and company years of experience significantly influence safety perceptions. This analytical phase was essential in identifying correlations between various safety factors and their potential impact on preventing accidents and safety failures in high-rise construction projects. Furthermore, the reliability and validity of the questionnaires were rigorously evaluated to ensure the robustness and credibility of the findings. These methodological steps were integral to gaining a comprehensive understanding of the safety climate and its implications for improving safety measures in high-rise construction projects.

3. Results

3.1. Research Preliminary Results

The preliminary research results are presented in

Table 3. Questionnaires’ preliminary results.

	SCM	NOSACQ-50
Number of questions	10	7
Scale	1–5	1–5
Cronbach’s alpha	0.935	0.943
Mean	3.865	3.600
SD	0.625	0.835
Min	2.70	2.29
Max	4.80	4.71

. Both models exhibited a high rate of internal consistency. SCM had a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.935, indicating excellent internal consistency and strong correlation between the questions, which effectively measure the safety climate as per Zohar’s model. NOSACQ-50 had Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.943, demonstrating even stronger internal consistency despite having fewer questions. This suggests the NOSACQ-50-based questionnaire is also highly reliable, with strong coherence among its variables. SCM had a mean score of 3.865 (out of 5 on the Likert scale). This is slightly higher than NOSACQ-50, indicating a solid safety climate perception. NOSACQ-50 showed greater variability, with a higher standard deviation and a broader response range, suggesting more diverse opinions. The Pearson correlation analysis revealed a moderate positive correlation (R² = 0.470, p-value = 0.036) between responses to the two models, indicating that, as scores rise in one model, they tend to do so in the other as well, reflecting moderate similarity between the constructs measured. This result is statistically significant. While the moderate correlation points to shared features between the models, the lack of a stronger correlation indicates that each model captures unique dimensions of safety perceptions. This underscores the potential advantage of using both questionnaires to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the safety climate.

The SCM primarily focuses on the organizational and managerial aspects of safety culture, emphasizing the role of leadership, communication, and proactive safety measures. It evaluates how management prioritizes safety related to productivity, the effectiveness of safety committees, the availability of safety resources, and employees’ engagement in training and safety initiatives. In contrast, the NOSACQ-50 model is a validated instrument developed for safety climate measurement from a worker-centric perspective. It includes dimensions such as employees’ perceptions of management’s commitment to safety, the extent to which workers feel empowered to report hazards, and the level of trust and open communication within the organization. NOSACQ-50 assesses safety climate as a shared responsibility between management and employees, incorporating behavioral and psychological factors that influence workplace safety decisions.

While both models overlap in their emphasis on management’s role in fostering safety, SCM places more weight on organizational and procedural elements, whereas NOSACQ-50 integrates a broader psychological and behavioral assessment of workplace safety perceptions. Furthermore, the NOSACQ-50 model depicts greater safety variance (COV = 0.23 compared to 0.16 in SCM) than the SCM. By using both models in our study, we aimed to capture a more comprehensive evaluation of safety climate, ensuring that both managerial strategies and employee perceptions were considered.

3.2. SCM and NOSACQ-50 Results

The questionnaire results are presented in

Table 4. Questionnaire results—Mean and Std. Dev.

	Question	Mean	Std. Dev.
	SCM
Q1	Management consistently prioritizes safety over productivity.	3.75	0.89
Q2	Safety guidelines are clearly communicated by management to all employees.	3.90	0.83
Q3	The role of safety committees is well-defined and actively promotes a safe work environment.	3.90	0.77
Q4	Regular inspections are conducted to ensure adherence to safety protocols.	3.85	0.65
Q5	The current work pace does not compromise safety measures and protocols.	3.55	0.74
Q6	Employees are encouraged to actively participate in safety training and drills.	4.00	0.89
Q7	There is a proactive approach to reporting and addressing safety incidents.	3.85	0.65
Q8	Safety equipment and resources are readily available and well-maintained.	4.00	0.84
Q9	Management is committed to fostering a culture of safety within the organization.	3.85	0.65
Q10	Employees feel that their well-being is a top priority in the company’s policies and actions.	4.00	0.71
	NOSACQ-50
Q11	Management consistently demonstrates a commitment to safety priorities.	3.80	0.98
Q12	Clear channels are in place for employees to express safety concerns and suggestions.	3.55	0.80
Q13	The company fosters a culture where safety is regarded as a shared responsibility between management and employees.	3.50	0.92
Q14	Management’s actions reflect commitment to employee safety.	3.30	0.95
Q15	Employees feel confident refusing tasks they consider unsafe.	3.65	0.91
Q16	Safety communication is encouraged, facilitating learning and trust between management and employees.	3.75	0.94
Q17	The organization invests in regular safety training and education programs.	3.65	1.06

and visually illustrated in Figure 2. The results reveal a moderately positive perception of the organization’s safety culture, with mean scores generally ranging between 3.30 and 4.00 on a 5-point Likert scale. This result highlights a significant opportunity for improvement in safety climate practices, which could enhance safety conditions on construction sites. The questions that received higher scores highlight strengths in areas such as safety training and equipment availability, and that the employees feel that their well-being is a top priority, with Questions 6, 8, and 10 achieving the highest means (4.00). Respondents also recognized clear communication of safety guidelines (Q2, mean = 3.90) and proactive measures such as periodic inspections (Q4, mean = 3.85) and incident reporting (Q7, mean = 3.85). These results suggest that the organization has successfully implemented several critical safety measures. However, further improvement in safety climate assimilation is needed.

The results also highlight the most deficient safety practices that require improvement. Management’s actions reflecting a commitment to safety scored the lowest (Q14, mean = 3.30), suggesting a misalignment between leadership’s stated commitment to safety and employees’ perceptions of actual enforcement and prioritization. This indicates a potential gap between intent and implementation, where employees may feel that safety policies are not adequately reinforced through concrete actions. Fostering a culture of shared safety responsibility (Q13, mean = 3.50) suggests that employees may not perceive safety as a collective responsibility or feel sufficiently encouraged to participate in safety initiatives. The need for clearer channels for employees to voice concerns (Q12, mean = 3.55) indicates that workers may not feel fully confident or empowered to report safety issues, possibly due to unclear reporting mechanisms or fear of repercussions. Employee empowerment, particularly the confidence to refuse unsafe tasks (Q15, mean = 3.65), suggests room for improvement in ensuring that workers feel fully supported and protected when making safety-related decisions. Strengthening policies that reinforce employees’ right to stop unsafe work and foster a culture where such actions are encouraged without fear of negative consequences could further enhance workplace safety. Overall, these findings indicate that, while some aspects of the safety climate are moderately rated, there is a clear need for stronger leadership commitment, improved communication channels, and enhanced employee empowerment to create a more effective and proactive safety culture in construction sites.

The variability in responses, reflected by standard deviations, highlights inconsistencies in experiences. For instance, safety training (Q17, SD = 1.06) and management consistently demonstrating a commitment to safety priorities (Q11, SD = 0.98) show the widest spread, indicating differing perspectives among respondents and variance in safety perceptions. In contrast, aspects such as regular inspections (Q4, SD = 0.65) and proactive incident reporting (Q7, SD = 0.65) have more consistent agreement.

Overall, the organization demonstrates a solid safety foundation, particularly in training, communication, and equipment availability. However, bridging the gaps in management’s perceived commitment, fostering shared safety responsibility, and empowering employees to engage actively in safety practices will be essential for further strengthening the safety climate. Comparing the results with parallel international studies reveals gaps compared to safety climate perceptions in Ethiopian construction enterprises (mean SCM in NOSACQ-50 of 2.70 compared to 3.6 in the present study), indicating regional and cultural differences [47]. The safety climate perceptions in this study depict similarities the study carried out in the US a decade ago [48]. The Cronbach’s alpha test on the NOSACQ-50 model (0.934) indicates high internal consistency between the model composite and the safety performance compared to a parallel study in the retrofitting and refurbishment industry in Australia (0.60) [49].

3.3. Results for Each Project

The results of each one of the 20 projects are presented in

Table 5. Results for each project.

Project	Number of Floors	Region	Years of Experience	SCM Mean	SCM SD	NOSACQ-50 Mean	NOSACQ-50 SD
1	21–30	Gush Dan	11–15	4.2	0.6	4.29	0.7
2	31–40	North	16–20	3.5	0.5	3	0.76
3	Nov-20	South	6–10	4.3	0.64	3.71	0.45
4	21–30	Jerusalem Area	21–25	4.3	0.64	4.43	0.73
5	41–50	Gush Dan	25+	3.2	0.4	2.29	0.45
6	31–40	South	0–5	4.6	0.49	3.43	0.49
7	Nov-20	Ramat Gan	16–20	4.6	0.49	4.57	0.49
8	21–30	South	11–15	3.7	0.46	3	0.00
9	31–40	Kiryat Ono	25+	2.7	0.46	3.71	0.45
10	Nov-20	Shefela	0–5	3.7	0.46	4.57	0.49
11	41–50	Sharon	6–10	4.7	0.46	2.71	0.45
12	Nov-20	Gush Dan	21–25	3.7	0.46	3.86	0.35
13	Nov-20	Jerusalem Area	16–20	3.6	0.49	2.29	0.45
14	21–30	Shefela	11–15	3.6	0.49	4.71	0.45
15	41–50	Gush Dan	25+	4.2	0.4	3.57	0.49
16	31–40	North	0–5	3.2	0.4	2.71	0.45
17	Nov-20	Gush Dan	6–10	4.8	0.4	4.71	0.45
18	21–30	Gush Dan	21–25	3.7	0.46	3.71	0.45
19	Nov-20	Gush Dan	16–20	2.7	0.46	2.43	0.49
20	31–40	Sharon	25+	4.3	0.46	4.29	0.45

. The SCM scores ranged from a mean of 2.7 to 4.8, with standard deviations between 0.4 and 0.64. Projects with higher scores reflect stronger safety climates, often associated with experienced teams or a structured approach to safety management. For example, project 17, which achieved the highest mean SCM score of 4.8, demonstrates exemplary safety management, as reflected by the low variability (standard deviation of 0.4) in responses. Conversely, projects 9 and 19 showed the lowest mean SCM scores of 2.7, pointing to potential shortcomings in safety leadership or practices.

Projects with teams having 16 or more years of experience often scored higher on SCM, such as projects 4 and 7, which achieved means of 4.3 and 4.6, respectively. This highlights the positive role of experience in cultivating a robust safety climate. However, a few projects with highly experienced teams (e.g., 25+ years) showed surprisingly low SCM scores (e.g., project 5 with a mean of 3.2), suggesting that experience alone may not guarantee strong safety practices without consistent management efforts.

The NOSACQ-50 score ranged from a mean of 2.29 to 4.71, with standard deviations between 0 and 0.76. High NOSACQ-50 scores, such as those observed in projects 14 and 17 (4.71), signify a strong shared safety culture and effective communication between management and employees. On the other hand, projects 5 and 13 showed the lowest mean NOSACQ-50 scores of 2.29, indicating a lack of worker engagement and shared responsibility for safety.

Interestingly, projects with fewer years of experience (0–5 years) often reported relatively strong NOSACQ-50 scores, such as project 10 (4.57). This suggests that newer teams might benefit from intensive training or increased management oversight, leading to positive safety perceptions. However, variability in responses (e.g., standard deviation of 1.06 in some cases) suggests room for improvement in fostering consistency.

Comparative Insights

• High Alignment: Projects with high SCM scores typically showed high NOSACQ-50 scores, such as project 17 (SCM: 4.8, NOSACQ-50: 4.71), indicating consistent management and employee safety perceptions.
• Divergences: Some projects displayed notable discrepancies. For example, project 5 had a moderate SCM score (3.2) but a very low NOSACQ-50 score (2.29), suggesting gaps in worker engagement despite some management focus on safety.
• Experience Trends: Teams with 16–20 years of experience generally reported higher alignment and strong safety perceptions in both models, while highly experienced teams (25+ years) sometimes showed weaker NOSACQ-50 scores, such as project 9 (SCM: 2.7, NOSACQ-50: 3.71), potentially reflecting overconfidence or complacency in safety practices.

These findings emphasize the need for targeted interventions to bridge gaps, particularly for projects with high management emphasis on safety but low worker engagement. Structured safety programs and proactive communication may help address these disparities.

3.4. Project Size and Company Years of Experience Effect

Table 6. Differences in organizational safety climate according to project size (N = 20).

Value	SCM	NOSACQ-50
Sum of squares between groups	0.318	2.848
Mean square between groups	0.106	0.949
F	0.239	1.460
Sig.	0.868	0.263
Size effect	0.043	0.215

presents the differences in organizational safety climate according to project size (number of floors). For the SCM, the F-value of 0.239 is very low, indicating that the variance between groups is much smaller than the variance within groups. The p-value (0.868) is well above 0.05, confirming that the difference is not statistically significant. This suggests that any variation in SCM scores across groups is likely random rather than an outcome of a systematic effect. The size effect is 0.043, suggesting a very weak relationship between project size and the questionnaire responses, with minimal variance explained by the model. For the NOSACQ-50, the F-value of 1.460 suggests a slightly greater variance between groups than within groups, but it is still relatively low. The p-value (0.263) is above 0.05, indicating that the observed difference is not statistically significant. The size effect is 0.215, indicating a weak to moderate relationship, though the results remain non-significant. Overall, the analysis suggests that project size does not have a significant impact on the organizational safety climate based on the questionnaire responses in either model.

Table 7. Differences in organizational safety climate based on company seniority (N = 20).

Value	SCM	NOSACQ-50
Sum of squares between groups	2.192	2.193
Mean square between groups	0.438	0.439
F	1.173	0.555
Sig.	0.370	0.732
Size effect	0.295	0.166

presents the differences in organizational safety climate according to company years of experience. In the SCM, the F-value of 1.173 is relatively low, meaning the variation between groups is not much greater than the variation within groups. The p-value (0.370) is greater than 0.05, indicating that the difference is not statistically significant. This suggests that any observed differences in SCM scores between groups are likely random rather than a systematic effect. The size effect is 0.295, suggesting a moderate relationship between the company’s years of experience and the questionnaire responses, but the small values imply that the model did not capture all the variance. In NOSACQ-50, the F-value of 0.555 is even lower, meaning that the differences between groups are minimal. The p-value (0.732) is much greater than 0.05, confirming that there is no significant difference in NOSACQ-50 scores between groups. The size effect value is 0.166, smaller than in SCM, indicating a weaker relationship. Overall, the analysis suggests that the company’s years of experience do not have a significant impact on the questionnaire responses in both models.

3.5. Technological Framework

Figure 3 illustrates the technological framework for safety management in high-rise construction. It presents core factors influencing safety climate in high-rise construction, categorized under the SCM and the NOSACQ-50. Management commitment to safety is reflected in prioritizing safety over productivity, clear communication of procedures, and well-defined roles in safety committees, ensuring a structured safety culture. Real-time monitoring and control are reinforced through regular inspections and proactive reporting of safety incidents, crucial in high-rise projects where hazards are dynamic. Safe work processes are supported by maintaining an appropriate work pace to prevent safety compromises and ensuring access to well-maintained safety equipment, critical in reducing high-rise construction fall risks. Worker engagement and training are evident in employee participation in safety training and their confidence in avoiding unsafe tasks, fostering an environment where safety is a shared responsibility. Availability and improvement of safety equipment highlight the necessity of investing in safety resources and maintaining them properly, ensuring workers in high-risk environments have adequate technological protection. Communication and information management are emphasized through open channels for safety concerns and trust building between management and employees, a key factor in reinforcing adherence to safety protocols in complex high-rise construction environments. Together, these core composites contribute to an effective safety climate by integrating management policies, worker behavior, and technological advancements to minimize risks in high-rise projects.

4. Conclusions

This study evaluated safety climate perceptions across multiple construction projects using two validated models: SCM and NOSACQ-50. The findings highlight key strengths and areas for improvement in organizational safety practices. Both models demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha values exceeding 0.93, confirming their reliability in assessing safety climate. The moderate positive correlation between the models suggests some overlap in their constructions while also capturing distinct dimensions of safety perception. Project size and company years of experience do not significantly affect safety perceptions. However, other factors such as company culture and external pressures could influence safety perceptions. This was not covered in this research and may be a subject of future research.

The results reveal that employees generally perceive a moderately positive safety climate, particularly in aspects such as safety training, equipment availability, and proactive incident reporting. However, areas requiring further attention include management’s demonstration of commitment to safety, fostering shared safety responsibility, and empowering employees to voice concerns and refuse unsafe tasks. Variability in responses suggests inconsistencies in safety experiences across different projects, underscoring the need for tailored interventions. Analysis of individual projects showed that those with highly structured safety management systems and experienced teams generally reported stronger safety climates. However, experience alone was not always a predictor of better safety perceptions, as some highly experienced teams exhibited weaker NOSACQ-50 scores, potentially indicating complacency or gaps in worker engagement.

The comparative analysis between SCM and NOSACQ-50 scores provided valuable insights into alignment and discrepancies. Projects with strong safety management generally exhibited higher scores in both models, while certain cases revealed a disconnect between management’s safety efforts and workers’ perceptions. These discrepancies highlight the need for continuous engagement, communication, and reinforcement of safety culture at all organizational levels. To further improve safety climate, organizations should focus on enhancing leadership visibility in safety initiatives, strengthening worker involvement, and ensuring consistent application of safety policies across projects. Targeted training programs, frequent safety audits, and open communication channels can help bridge existing gaps. Additionally, leveraging insights from both SCM and NOSACQ-50 can provide a more comprehensive safety assessment, enabling organizations to implement more effective safety interventions.

Comparing the results with parallel international studies reveals gaps compared to safety climate perceptions in Ethiopian construction enterprises, indicating regional and cultural differences. The Cronbach’s alpha test on the NOSACQ-50 model (0.934) indicates high internal consistency between the model composites and safety performance compared to a parallel study in the retrofitting and refurbishment industry in Australia.

Overall, this study underscores the importance of a multidimensional approach to safety climate evaluation. By integrating multiple assessment tools and considering project-specific dynamics, construction organizations can develop more robust safety strategies, ultimately fostering a safer and more engaged workforce.