Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) and Its Impact on Employee Satisfaction and Performance—A New HSMS Model

Abstract

The main aim of this study is to investigate the association of an assortment of factors pertaining to the implementation of a Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) with firms’ Health and Safety (H&S) level and employees’ satisfaction and performance. The proposed research model incorporates six independent factors: (i) the development of a safety culture, (ii) the availability of H&S specific procedures/instructions/rules, (iii) the forethought of H&S-focused training, (iv) the availability of the essential resources to improve H&S equipment, (v) the augmentation of employee motivation for safe behavior, and (vi) the top management commitment to upgrade H&S at the workplace. The model was empirically tested using primary data from 230 employees of 10 manufacturing firms operating in Greece. It was found that H&S meliorates employees’ performance, but, on the other hand, firm’s management should be committed towards creating a high-level safety culture. To achieve this, proper resources should be invested, comprehensible procedures/instructions/rules should be established, and focused training should be provided. The acceptance of this policy would result in an enhanced safety culture, an augmented firm H&S level, amplified employee satisfaction and, accordingly, improved employee performance. In addition, this article suggests a new HSMS model, which, by relying on the principles of the Plan–Do–Check–Act cycle, incorporates the examined six H&S factors, which can upgrade other known standards (like OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001).

1. Introduction

One of the main arguments for adopting a Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) or Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) is probably the financial consequences of accidents. A part of these could be economized by the usage of more proficient health and safety (H&S) practices and, hence, could be redirected to the solution of many other significant economic and societal problems [1]. However, a number of manufacturing companies view “Health and Safety” (H&S) as a secondary operation that has little to do with competitiveness or production goals and will have a negative impact on the success of the company as a whole [2,3], so they just try to fulfill the legal requirements for their operation. On the other side, the study of Singh [4] concludes that, for the safety–environmental–quality (SEQ) multiple management systems’ econometric analysis, the consideration of the industry-specific quality management system (i.e., the QMS standard [5]) is a novel contribution that means the adoption of the OHSAS 18001 standard [5] is closely related to the internationalization of the firm, and this is similarly accurate for adopting a triple-standard set (i.e., the standards OHSAS 18001, ISO 14001, and QMS) [5].

The implementation of an HSMS/OHSMS is crucial for reducing workplace accidents and enhancing employee performance, particularly in high-risk industries such as manufacturing. Despite the existence of standards, organizations often struggle to integrate these frameworks effectively, treating health and safety as secondary to operational goals. This disconnection highlights a critical gap in the current literature: a need for models that not only comply with international standards but also demonstrably improve safety culture and employee satisfaction.

Existing studies have largely focused on the financial implications of workplace accidents and the basic compliance with safety standards without exploring the specific mechanisms through which an OHSMS can enhance firm performance and employee engagement. Moreover, there is a scarcity of research examining the interplay between comprehensive HSMS factors and their direct impact on both organizational and individual outcomes.

This study aims to bridge gaps in the existing occupational health and safety literature by empirically examining the multifaceted effects of HSMS implementation on both firm-level health and safety outcomes and individual employee performance and satisfaction. By introducing a novel HSMS model grounded in the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle, this study extends current understanding by integrating six factors that are playing a crucial role in shaping organizational safety dynamics:

1. Safety Culture Development: A robust safety culture is vital for reducing accident rates and enhancing safety performance [6]. Recent studies emphasize the importance of shared beliefs and practices in fostering a safe work environment [7,8]).

2. Clear Procedures and Rules: Establishing detailed procedures and rules is crucial for ensuring job clarity and compliance, thereby reducing incident rates. The importance of clear guidelines is highlighted in the recent safety management literature [9].

3. Targeted Safety Training: Effective training programs equip employees with the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their jobs safely. Recent research underscores training’s role in improving safety outcomes and hazard recognition [10,11].

4. Availability of Essential Resources: Access to adequate safety resources, such as personal protective equipment and safety tools, is critical for maintaining a safe work environment. Studies show that resource availability significantly impacts safety performance [12].

5. Top Management Commitment: Management’s commitment is a cornerstone of successful safety programs, as it influences the overall safety climate and employee engagement. Recent analyses (for instance the one by Nazeer Ahamed & Mariappan [13]) confirm its pivotal role in sustaining safety initiatives.

6. Motivation for Safe Behavior: Encouraging safe behavior through motivation and incentives is key to fostering a proactive safety culture and improving compliance [14].

Thus, this research augments existing knowledge and contributes to the field by offering a comprehensive evidenced-based framework that organizations can adopt to foster an environment where safety and productivity are mutually reinforcing, thereby filling a significant gap in the literature concerning the effective implementation and impact of an OHSMS and offering evidence-based recommendations for creating a sustainable competitive advantage through enhanced occupational health and safety practices.

The findings presented in this research underscore the financial ramifications tied to workplace accidents, which extend beyond immediate costs such as medical expenses and lost labor to include long-term impacts on productivity, employee morale, and organizational reputation. Previous studies corroborate that a robust safety culture, supplemented by well-defined procedures, adequate training, management commitment, and necessary resources, not only mitigates risks but also fosters a climate of trust and encouragement among employees.

Moreover, the significance of actively investing in health and safety measures is amplified by statistics indicating that a noteworthy portion of global GDP is lost due to work-related injuries and illnesses. In this context, this paper advocates for a structured approach to HSMS implementation, drawing upon the Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle as a foundational framework. The proposed new HSMS model offers a comprehensive strategy that integrates safety culture and managerial practices while simultaneously aligning with international standards such as the OHSAS 18001 and ISO 45001 standards [5,15,16].

As organizations navigate complex operational landscapes, acknowledging the intertwining of health and safety practices with employee satisfaction and performance becomes imperative. This paper is a vital contribution to the discourse on workplace safety, highlighting necessary protocols for creating a secure environment that concurrently enhances employee engagement, satisfaction, and operational efficiency, thereby establishing a sustainable competitive advantage.

Through this study, the terms Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) and Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS) are used interchangeably to refer to structured frameworks that organizations use to manage workplace health and safety risks.

1.1. Highlights

• Investigation of the association of various factors pertaining to the implementation of an HSMS (or, interchangeably, an OHSMS) with firms’ H&S level and employees’ satisfaction and performance.
• Empirical test using primary data from 230 employees of 10 manufacturing firms in Greece.
• Top management’s commitment to maintain an acceptable H&S level is satisfactory.
• Adequate resources to establish an acceptable H&S level are available.
• There is adequate and appropriate training of personnel on H&S-related issues.
• Firms’ H&S level and employee satisfaction are mainly affected by available resources and safety culture.
• Suggestion of a new HSMS model (relying on the PDCA cycle), which can upgrade other known standards.

1.2. Graphical Depiction of the Proposed Model

Figure 1 illustrates the graphical depiction of the new proposed OHSMS model incorporating the six (F1–F6) H&S-related factors.

2. Literature Review

There are limited sources linking specific H&S factors with employee performance, and, thus, a scientific literature review was conducted (through this section) in order to investigate the connection between the implementation of an H&S system (in terms of safety climate and safety culture or other elements) and firm performance.

2.1. Safety Climate and Safety Behavior

Most studies have concentrated on the relationship between safety climate (SCL) and safe behavior. In 1980, Zohar’s study [17] was among the first to be undertaken for safety climate and served as the basis for numerous more that came after. Almost three decades later, Zohar and Erev [18] identified three behavioral tendencies accountable for the underweighting of results associated with safe behavior, that is, delayed outcomes (like melioration bias), rare or vague outcomes (like recency bias), and also results relating to social externalities. In addition, they tried to explain the apparent paradox, i.e., workers’ safety behavior (SBE) during routine (or habitual) work depends mainly on supervisory measures (i.e., pressures and rewards), rather than on self-preservation [18,19,20,21,22,23].

There are many other studies that investigated the influence of SCL on safety outcomes, even though the relationship between SCL and the individual risk-taking behavior (RTB) becomes unidentified, like the following: (A) Bunner et al. [24] investigated the mediating roles of safety climate, safety motivation, and safety knowledge in the relationships of work intensification (WI), with components of safety performance (SPE) at an organizational level, and found that WI is negatively related to both components of SPE, i.e., safety compliance (SCO) and safety participation (SPA). (B) Saedi et al. [25] examined the relationships between SCL and SPA in the petroleum industry, and, by performing a Structural Equation Modeling approach, (i) confirmed SCL’s positive effect on employees’ plant SPA and (ii) revealed that safety knowledge and attitude fully intervene between the relation of SCL and SPA in the frame of the studied refinery plants. (C) Alfayez [26] examined the safety behavior of foreign workers in a company from the construction sector, by analyzing the direct relationships among safety management practices (like safety communication, the priority of safety, and work pressure) on safety compliance and safety participative behavior. Thus, he has shown that (i) the priority of safety and safety communication forecasts both safety compliance and participative behavior, (ii) the relations between work pressure and safety compliance and involvement are not significant, and (iii) the relationship between safety communication and work pressure on safety involvement was affected by social support. (D) Bhandari and Hallowell [27] in a cross-cultural examination analyzed the influence of SCL on risk tolerance and RTB, showing that SCL can decrease risk tolerance and boost more risk-averse (RAV) decision making (DM) at work. (E) Glendon and Litherland [28] investigated (i) SCL factors, group differences, and SBE in a road construction project using a customized form of a safety climate questionnaire (SCQ), (ii) the relationship between SCL and SPE, and also (iii) developed a behavioral observation measure of SPE, by using a factor analysis (which derived six factors), showing that differences in the SCL of job sub-groups were determined by two of these factors. (F) Syed-Yahya et al. [29] studied the function of supervisory and co-worker safety support associated SCL and SPE, in order to evaluate the extent to which the influence of SCL discloses over time and the impact on SCO and SPA via the safety-related support provided by both direct supervisors and co-workers. The results revealed that co-workers’ support for safety was more significant than that accounted for by supervisory support. (G) Pomirleanu et al. [30] performed a systematic literature review concerning SCL in business-to-business (B2B) (like a manufacturer and a wholesaler, or a wholesaler and a retailer) and presented some significant future research directions. They revealed six organizational climate dimensions related to Human Resources, Interpersonal Relationships, Service, Coordination, Environmental, and Exploration. (H) Recently, Brandt et al. [31] investigated SCL at work and the risk of long-term illness absence (LTSA). Hence, they concluded that the SCL problems at the workplaces (i) amplify the risk of LTSA in the working population and (ii) can be considered as proactive indicators that must be taken into account by the safety managers in order to take measures for upgrading H&S and well-being at the workplace. (I) Recently, Issam et al. [32] achieved an SCL and SBE assessment among employees in manufacturing industry. Their study showed that management’s commitment to SCL persuaded employees to be involved in the safety process and stimulated them to comply with safety rules and procedures.

2.2. Occupational Health and Safety Management System

There is no agreement on the precise concept of an Occupational Health and Safety Management System (OHSMS or HSMS); hence, it would be challenging to define [33]. Fernandez-Muniz et al. [2,3] state that “HSMS comprises a set of policies and practices aimed at positively impacting on employees’ attitudes and behaviors with regard to risk”. Thus, an HSMS goes beyond the confines of a paper system and denotes a collection of organizational concepts, practices, and processes that are successfully implemented with the goal of managing health and safety elements and averting any detrimental or dangerous situations [34].

OHSM systems have been developed by companies worldwide over the past 40 years [35], with firms in the construction and manufacturing sectors as the ones that are mainly focusing on OSHMS system deployment. Different types of systems are implemented, where the most common are considered to be (i) the HSG65, which was produced by the Health and Safety Executive HSE (HSE, 2013), (ii) the British Standards BS8800 and BS18004 [36,37,38], (iii) the OHSAS 18001 one [39] (and its companion, i.e., the OHSAS 18002 one [39]), (iv) the ILO-OSH_2001 standard by the International Labor Office [15,40], (v) the united Australian–New Zealand standard AS/NZS 4801–2001 [41], (vi) the ANSI/AIHA Z10–2005 [42], which was developed by the American National Standardization Institute (ANSI) in collaboration with the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA), (vii) the Singapore standard SS506:2004 [43,44], which was published by Singapore Standards Council (SSC), (viii) the Spanish Une 81900:1996 EXStd [45], which was produced by the “Asociación Española de Normalización y Certificación” (AENOR), i.e., the Spanish Association for Standardization and Certification (according to the work by Romero [45]), (ix) the Uni 10616 and Uni 10617 standards, which were published by the Italian Standardization Authority UNI (Ente Nazionale Italiano di Unificazione) for relevant accident prevention [46,47], (x) the Russian GOST 12.0.230-2007 “Occupational safety standards system—OHSMS systems—General requirements” (its name in Russian: ГOCT 12.0.230-2007) [48], which is based on the guidelines of the ILO-OSH 2001 [15], and (xi) the new ISO 45001 std [16] with the title “Occupational health and safety management systems—Requirements”, which was developed by ISO and takes into consideration a variety of IMSSs (like the OHSAS 18001 [39], the environmental ISO 14001 [16], and the quality ISO 9001 [15] ones), the ILO-OSH guidelines, various national standards, and/or conventions, etc. [15,16,39].

The OHSAS 18001 standard [39] was thought to be the most widely used of these systems, which led to the creation of the OHSAS 18001:2007 [39] version, and its companion OHSAS 18002, which was developed with the support of 44 cooperating organizations, constituting the project group of OHSAS series (i.e., Occupational Health and Safety Assessment Series). Furthermore, even though the ISO 45001 standard [16] is a new one, it has revealed during its short lifetime (2018–2023) its remarkable importance, perhaps due to the fact that it was developed to gradually substitute the OHS standard of OHSAS 18001 (according to the studies by Marhavilas et al. [1,5]).

Marhavilas et al. [5], via an extensive literature review, mapped the scientific territory of the OHS-related international management system standards (IMSSs), while, four years later, they updated their literature survey [1], which constituted an efficacious base for the growth of newfangled OHS IMS standards, and also for the development of new studies, like the following articles: (A) Kineber et al. [49] via a literature review presented the benefits of implementing OHSMSs as far as the sustainable construction industry is concerned; (B) Fonseca et al. [50] proposed a framework to incorporate sustainability in IMSSs and subsequently implemented and disclosed sustainable development goals and results; (C) Ispas et al. [51], by means of a systematic review, depicted a risk-based approach in the implementation of integrated management systems (IMS); (D) Johanes et al. [52] reviewed the implementation of OHSMSs covering the period of years 1970–2020, and their survey recommended the contextualization of OSHMS implementation, taking into account other different environmental factors; (E) Karanikas et al. [53] evaluated the level to which the ISO 45001:2018 [16] OHSMS embodies system-thinking aspects derived from the literature; and (F) also noteworthy is the review conducted by Swuste et al. [35] through scientific sources (in English and Dutch language) about the situation of OHSMSs throughout the period of 1988–2010.

Continuing, Redinger and Levine [54] have provided an exhaustive analysis of 27 elements that institutes an OSHMS, suggesting (according to the study of Robson et al. [33]) that the primary ones are the following fourteen: (i) management commitment and resources, (ii) employee participation, (iii) occupational health and safety policy, (iv) goals and objectives, (v) performance measures, (vi) OHSMS manual and procedures, (vii) a training system, (viii) a hazard control system, (ix) a preventive and corrective action system, (x) a communication system, (xii) an evaluation system, (xiii) continuous improvement, and (xiv) a management review.

However, the collection of primary data for measuring all these 27 elements would be an extremely difficult task. Consequently, six essential components were chosen, taking into account both the appropriate degree of representation and the shop floor workers’ capacity to understand their use and presence. The primary cause is that all information comes from staff members who do not hold any kind of supervisory position. It is important to note that several other crucial components of an HSMS were not examined since it would be challenging to identify them in shop floor personnel. For example, the existence or the application of a communication plan would not be clearly known by blue-collar workers. The management review element is no different.

Two primary classes could be created out of each element of an OHSMS [33,55]. The required elements are thought to come first. These elements are related to the legislation of each country and are under the control of the authorities. Implementation is a prerequisite for any industry to function. The optional OHSMS elements are included in the second class. These voluntary OHSMS elements are the primary focus of the current study.

Research that was undertaken in Greece with the participation of sixty (60) manufacturing firms identified the basic motives for a firm to adopt an HSMS. Six of the most important motives are as follows: (i) improvements of OHS conditions, (ii) decrease in accidents, absence, and illness, (iii) increase in productivity, (iv) decrease in production cost, (v) decrease in insurance cost, and (vi) decrease in fines due to non-compliance [34].

2.3. Safety Culture

The concept of SCU has also generated a sizeable quantity of academic research, discussion, and debate (as for instance the studies by Crossman [56], Guldenmund [57], Glendon and Clarke [58]). According to Orikpete and Ewim [59], who achieved a concise approach to SCU (with reference to nuclear power plants’ safety), involving organizational and individual performance, SCU issues are frequently unveiled due to communication failures, leadership gaps and also human errors, while continuous training in leadership, communication, and teamwork is essential for SCU.

Taking into consideration that there is a substantial overlap between the notions of culture and social identity, Tear and Reader [60] investigated the extent to which social identity processes can support the understanding of SCU and safety citizenship via the lens of social identity theory. They also moved a step forward testing this relationship using two different social identity processes (individuals’ organizational identity and social identity framing of culture).

Willis et al. [61] tried to understand the regulator–regulatee relationship for developing SCU. They also discussed the theoretical implications for moving forward with the conceptualization of SCU and the practical implications for risk regulators.

Further, Trinh and Feng [62] presented a maturity model to measure and upgrade resilient SCU in the construction sector, while Aven and Ylönen [63] investigated how the risk science (and, more especially, risk management) could help anybody establish a high-quality safety culture, and they depicted a framework for assisting organizations to grow an SCU based on the risk science.

Berglund [64], discussing the conditions and consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi accident, explored SCU in relation to three critical elements (i.e., knowledge, leadership/power, and critical thinking). On the other hand, Qayoom and Hadikusumo [65] adopting a system dynamic approach, examined how multilevel SCU affects organization safety performance and how multilevel SCU in an organization interacts with an HSMS to augment the organization’s SPE. Hence, they showed that the SCU at the tactical (middle management) and operational level is much more effective than at the strategic level (top management) in improving organizational safety performance (SPE).

Earlier, Glendon and Clarke [58] examined SCU, human safety, and risk management through a psychological perspective and attempted to approach the term of SCU by considering several inquiry reports as an explanation for the way that a combination of managerial, organizational, and social factors contributed to the disasters. According to Reiman and Rollenhagen [66], SCU is associated with people’s collective values, beliefs, and assumptions, and it constitutes a collective way of thinking that characterizes a group and not one individual. The same year, Gunningham and Sinclair [67] provided insights about the impact of SCU on systemic risk management and the reinforcement of the effectiveness of the company’s total risk management strategy.

Safety culture is frequently discussed in the literature as distinct from an HSMS. However, it was shown that the safety culture, not a breakdown of other HSMS elements, was the primary reason for failure in a number of event investigations, including the Piper Alpha Explosion and the Chernobyl Accident [6]. Thus, the element of an HSMS that helps firms to further lower injury (incident) rates is H&S culture. According to Kim et al. [6], a pertinent study carried out in Hong Kong, safety culture had an impact on both the number of injuries and the injury rate in the construction industry between the years 1986 and 2013.

Novatsis [68], discussing the concept of SCU and safety-relevant behavior, the shared ways of thinking and behaving concerning safety in any organization, addressed three key topics of SCU: definition, assessment, and development and reinforcement. The same was discussed by Schwarz and Kallus [69], who produced a five-factor model (i.e., informed culture, reporting and learning culture, just culture, flexible culture, and management’s safety attitudes), which was validated via two separate occupational groups and assessment dates.

The present study adopts the analytical—quantitative approach and attempts to measure the level of SCU using primary data collected through a structured questionnaire.

2.4. Procedures/Instructions/Rules

Every OHSMS must include H&S processes [15]. Their goal is to offer direction so that all workers may adhere to detailed instructions on how to complete their jobs, balancing productivity and security at work. Procedures are regarded as the paper infrastructure of a business, together with guidelines and regulations. Advanced procedures are essential to an HSMS’s efficacy and are under management’s purview, according to Smith et al. [70]. However, it is crucial to maintain a balance in the number of H&S guidelines and regulations.

National legislation also defines the need for clearly established procedures and rules. Each component of a working risk or hazard should be appropriately reduced and in accordance with the applicable policy or procedure. Therefore, educating and training staff members on policies, guidelines, and processes shows that a company intends to abide by national regulations and give its workers a safe place to work.

2.5. H&S Training

Since it gives workers precise instructions on how to carry out their jobs and protect themselves and their coworkers from any potential danger that could affect their health and physical condition, health and safety (H&S) training is regarded as a mandatory OHSM initiative [71]. It is a method of creating safe work habits that, when paired with technical expertise, guarantees the correct execution of any task.

According to Hale [72] numerous things could lead to training. Safety events are frequently the catalyst for businesses to move forward with safety training. In order to stop mishaps or accidents from happening again, the lessons learned from them are typically employed as training materials. The known risks present in the workplace could also be a contributing factor. Ordinarily, breaking regulations or following procedures is another trigger point that signals the need to continue with safety training. The conclusions or non-conformities found during safety audits are the last ones.

According to Burke et al. [73], health and safety training is acknowledged as a very effective way to lower the expenses related to workplace illnesses and injuries. Additionally, in line with the study of Sinelnikov et al. [11], employees respond positively to the training and find it essential to their occupational responsibilities and aligned with the organization’s existing safety policies, programs, and practices. It has also been discovered that training produces outcomes by raising workers’ H&S competencies. According to Robson et al. [74], training often covers the following subjects: emergency protocols, preventive measures, safe working practices (SOPs), hazard recognition, hazard control, and the use of personal protective equipment. In addition, according to Mariani et al. [10], safety training boosts safety at work.

The bulk of the 80 studies that were conducted to look into the effects of H&S training has revealed beneficial effects on behaviors and knowledge [74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81]. Additionally, a favorable effect has been noted in 20 of them (a decreased prevalence of illnesses and injuries). As a result, appropriate and focused training is associated not only with a decrease in the number of incidents but also with improved safety behavior and subject-matter understanding.

2.6. Resources

It is thought that having enough resources on hand is essential to guaranteeing a safe and healthy workplace. These resources come in a variety of forms, mainly tangible ones. They concern appropriate equipment and tools, personal protective equipment and first aid kits [82,83,84,85]. It goes without saying that having the resources available is a requirement for creating a safe and healthy work environment, and it directly affects a plethora of HSMS elements. It is a good idea to prioritize safety since it not only shows management’s commitment to safety but also fosters a culture of safety inside the firm. According to Shannon et al. [86], not only does the availability of safety resources, including personal protective equipment, demonstrate management’s commitment to safety, but it also plays a significant role in lowering the incidence of injuries. Lipscomb et al. [87] investigated the issue of systematic reviews of workplace injury meddling and tried to answer the question “what is missing?”.

The relation between the supply of safety equipment to employees and the increased level of safety performance is also stated by Boustras et al., Szczecińska and Lezak, Wang et al., and Zhao et al. [82,83,84,85]. Benson et al. [12] thoroughly examined the impact of interventions on H&S in the process industry and concluded that a variety of intervention methods, like administrative controls, engineering controls, behavioral interventions, and personal protective equipment (PPE), have been applied to deal with challenges related with explosions, fire, product leaks, mechanical failures, and occupational health hazards.

2.7. Management Commitment

The literature makes it very evident that management commitment is necessary for an HSMS to be implemented successfully. There are various ways to show commitment, but, according to Gardner [88], the only way to prevent high failure rates for all quality management systems is to properly combine all of the parts. Quinlan and Mayhew [89] questioned the efficacy of required HSMSs, claiming that the “globalization of business, casualisation of labor-force, and diminishing unionization has negatively influenced the effectiveness of forced HSMSs”. Conversely, O’Toole [90] found that employees who participated in the survey had the strongest positive opinion of management’s commitment to safety. The same results were derived by the work of Nazeer Ahamed and Mariappan [13], who determined human-related errors at the top management level, throughout the accomplishment of safety practices in construction engineering.

2.8. Motivation for Safe Behavior

Motivation is regarded as the engine that propels workers to surpass performance standards and fulfill particular company objectives [91,92]. The same holds true for inspiring employees to meet health and safety goals and changing an industry’s safety culture. A variety of motivational incentives should constantly be used inside an organization since every person interacts with their surroundings differently. It is also widely accepted that motivation has a considerable positive impact on performance [93,94,95,96].

Griffin et al. [14] state that, in addition to fostering safety inside a company, motivation may also be seen as the essential component connecting safety performance and safety climate. According to the same study, there is a direct correlation between the desire to follow H&S regulations and the desire to engage in H&S activities. Moreover, it is well established that, where motivation initiatives are applied, there is a clear increase in the level of safety compliance and participation of employees in safety activities [97,98,99].

A summary of the main issues discussed in this section is presented in

Table 1. Summary of the main issues concerning the incorporated factors discussed.

Factor	Key Outcomes	Indicative Evidence	Mediators/Moderators
Safety Climate	↑ Safety compliance, ↑ Safety participation, ↓ Risk-taking behavior, ↓ Long-term illness absence.	[17,25,27,31]	Supervisory support, co-worker support, safety knowledge, safety motivation
OHS Management System	↑ Risk control, ↑ Productivity, ↓ Accidents, ↓ Insurance costs, ↑ Compliance.	[1,16,33,35,49]	Management structure, legal requirements, degree of integration with other management systems
Safety Culture	↓ Injury rate, ↑ Safety performance, ↑ Risk awareness, ↑Organizational resilience.	[6,58,64,65,66]	Leadership quality, social identity, communication, organizational maturity
Procedures/Rules	↑ Job clarity, ↑ Rule compliance, ↓ Incident rates.	[1,5,15,70]	Complexity of rules, training, communication efficiency
H&S Training	↑ Knowledge retention, ↑ Safe practices, ↓ Occupational injuries.	[10,11,75,77]	Type of training, frequency, risk-based content, audit follow-up
Resources	↑ Workplace safety, ↓ Injury rates, ↑ Safety behavior.	[83,84,85,86]	Availability of PPE, financial investment, infrastructure support
Management Commitment	↑ System effectiveness, ↑ Employee engagement, ↓ Implementation failure.	[13,88,90]	Organizational structure, top-down communication, human error at managerial levels
Motivation for Safe Behavior	↑ Safety participation, ↑ Compliance, ↑ Performance.	[14,91,97,99]	Incentive programs, psychological engagement, individual perception of safety value
Memo:	↑ Increase	↓ Decrease

.

3. Research Framework

In view of the previous sections, it is considered useful to investigate the effect of implementing specific HSMS characteristics on the organization as well as its employees (F1–F6), a factor named “company H&S level” (F1–F6), and another factor called “employee satisfaction” (F1–F6).

The literature review presented earlier has provided an initial view on how the implementation of specific elements of an HSMS may affect employees’ perceptions on safety or the safety climate within organizations. Hence, Fernández-Muñiz et al. [2] investigated the relation between occupational safety management and firm performance, analyzing 455 responses from firms’ safety officers. The current study, on the other hand, attempts to explore employees’ perceptions and the way they are affected by HSMS implementation.

It is widely recognized that management commitment has the greatest impact on safety culture and employee understanding of H&S, and it also constitutes the most important factor that helps to reduce similar incidents [73]. It has also been demonstrated to be crucial in improving H&S performance. But what impact does it have on employee happiness and the company’s H&S level? According to Haslam et al. [100], there is a direct correlation between the dedication of management and the attitudes of employees, including job satisfaction.

Employee engagement and satisfaction are positively impacted by fewer injuries and, as a result, improved H&S performance, according to Fernández-Muñiz et al. [2]. Our goal is to look at the connection between a company’s level of H&S and its motivation for H&S. According to Haslam et al. [100], firms that prioritize safety exhibit improved worker and safety performance. The same was concluded by Domínguez et al. [9], Mohammadfam et al. [7], and Kalteh et al. [8].

This study looks into how implementing particular HSMS elements affects workers’ productivity. Two intermediary factors will be used to examine the effects of HSMS elements. The first one is the impact on the organization, represented by the “Firm’s H&S Level” factor, while the second one is the impact on the employees, represented by “Employee’s Satisfaction”. Finally, it is also examined whether these two factors affect employee performance. This concept is achieved by calculating the impact of implementing specific H&S elements on the organization, employees, and the overall impact on employee performance. Figure 2 outlines the proposed research model.

Taking into consideration all the above referred to in the previous sections, the following hypotheses are proposed:

H1a: 

Safety culture positively affects the level of H&S.

H1b: 

Safety culture has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.

H2a: 

The existence of adequate and quality procedures/instructions/rules is positively related with the level of H&S.

H2b: 

The existence of adequate and quality procedures/instructions/rules has a positive impact on employee satisfaction.

H3a: 

H&S-related training has a positive effect on the level of H&S.

H3b: 

H&S-related training has a positive effect on employee satisfaction.

H4a: 

The availability of resources is positively related to the level of H&S.

H4b: 

The availability of resources has a positive impact on employee satisfaction.

H5a: 

Management commitment has a positive effect on the level of H&S.

H5b: 

Management commitment has a positive impact on employee satisfaction.

H6a: 

Motivation for safe behavior has a positive effect on the level of H&S.

H6b: 

Motivation for safe behavior has a positive impact on employee satisfaction.

H7: 

Increased levels of H&S is positively affecting employee performance.

H8: 

Employee satisfaction has a positive effect on employee performance.

4. Research Methodology

To address the research objectives, a structured multi-phase methodology was adopted, as summarized in Figure 3. Initially, a comprehensive questionnaire was developed based on validated constructs from the literature, tailored to reflect the specific context of the Greek manufacturing sector. A pilot test with selected experts ensured clarity and relevance of the items. Following this, primary data were collected from employees of ten manufacturing firms using stratified random sampling. The rationale behind employing Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) lies in its robustness for analyzing complex relationships between latent variables and observed indicators, especially in organizational and behavioral research. SEM allows for the simultaneous assessment of multiple dependent relationships, making it suitable for testing the hypothesized effects of HSMS components on employee satisfaction and performance.

The primary data needed to empirically test the proposed research model and the hypotheses were collected using a newly developed structured questionnaire. Each of the nine factors (constructs) incorporated into the research model was measured using multiple items (questions). These items were adopted from the relevant literature and fully adapted to Greek business conditions. Their appropriateness and correct understanding (due to possible translation issues) were also tested. Furthermore, the content validity of the research instrument (questionnaire) was also tested, adopting a two-stage process, with consecutive discussions with three academics and two H&S experts. This process allowed the elimination of inappropriate wording, ambiguity, and confusing issues.

A total of fifty-one (51) items were used to measure the nine factors of this study, while six more questions were used for the collection of demographic information. These scales were adopted from a number of sources, mainly those by Davies et al. [101], Brown et al. [102], and Becker et al. [103]. The measurement of all items was conducted using a 5-point Likert rating scale [104,105], ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neither agree nor disagree, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree).

Since H&S is a major concern for all working populations, but especially for those involved in the manufacturing process, due to the fact that they are exposed to various risks and hazards, this study focused on people who work for firms that belong to the Greek manufacturing sector. However, in order to avoid biases, the employees holding any type of managerial position were excluded from this survey. Forty (40) Greek manufacturing companies were contacted in an attempt to encourage their management to allow their employees to participate voluntarily in this research.

These companies were selected in order to have a sample that will be a good representative of the whole population. Although fourteen of those initially accepted, finally, only ten (25% acceptance rate) allowed a limited number (up to 30) of their employees to participate in the survey. The main excuse they provided was that there is a time pressure, while a few of them expressed their concern since the issue examined is considered a sensitive one. The participating employees were randomly selected by the researchers who visited the production facilities of each company.

The final sample consists of 230 employees who work for 10 companies that belong to different manufacturing sub-sectors such as Food and Beverages, Chemical, Pharmaceutical, Cement industry, Electricity production industry, Mining, and Mineral Processing. As far as their size is concerned, one is a small company (SC) (<50 employees), five are medium companies (MCs) (with 51–250 employees), while four are large companies (LCs) (>250 employees).

The sample mainly consists of male participants (93,9%), between 31 and 45 years old (64.3%), with working experience between 6 and 15 or 16 and 30 years of experience (42.6% and 42.6%, respectively), working for medium or large firms (53% and 42.6%, respectively), which belong to various industrial sectors (Chemicals—32.2%, Food and Beverages —23.5%, Cement/Brick Industry—13%, and Pharmaceuticals—7.8%).

5. Statistical Analysis and Results

5.1. Factor Analysis

In order to measure the unidimensionality of the scales used, as well as their validity and reliability, factor analysis was performed, and various indices were considered. Principal component factor analysis was first performed for assessing construct validity. More specifically, the sample adequacy was measured using KMO as suggested in the scientific literature [106,107]. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) test is a statistical measure to determine how suited data are for factor analysis. The test measures sampling adequacy for each variable in the model and the complete model. The statistic is a measure of the proportion of variance among variables that might be common variance. For all factors measured with more than two items, KMO was higher than the minimum threshold of 0.600 (from 0.621 up to 0.861). Next, Total Variance Explained (TVE) was calculated for each factor in order to assess the extent to which each factor explains the variance of the incorporated items (convergent validity). The TVE score for all factors exceeds the 0.500 threshold [108]. Then, Factor Loadings were calculated in order to determine the degree of influence that an item has on its relevant factor. From the 51 items used to measure the nine factors, 9 items were excluded because their loading was lower than the minimum accepted threshold (0.600), while 42 items were included in the factor analysis.

The internal consistency (construct validity) of the factors is measured using Cronbach’s Alpha Value. Any value over 0.7 [109] or 0.6 [110]) denotes a respectable internal consistency. In this case, the scores for all factors were above this threshold (from 0.718 up to 0.874) (

Table 2. Factor analysis.

	K.M.O	T.V.E.	Factor Loadings	Cronbach α-Value	Mean
Safety Culture	0.819	60.784	0.665–0.870	0.869	3.74
Procedures/Instructions/Rules	0.621	59.589	0.691–0.835	0.759	3.52
Training	0.646	66.079	0.744–0.876	0.825	3.79
Available Resources for H&S	0.795	72.060	0.797–0.916	0.863	4.08
Management Commitment	0.861	57.238	0.664–0.890	0.874	3.72
Motivation for Safe Behavior	0.861	54.872	0.615–0.828	0.856	3.88
Company’s H&S Level	0.500	77.994	0.883–0.883	0.718	3.04
Employee Satisfaction	0.782	56.010	0.613–0.897	0.778	4.52

K.M.O. (Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin)—T.V.E. (Total Variance Explained).

).

5.2. Descriptive Statistics and ANOVA

Safety culture has been measured using nine questions. Its relatively satisfactory mean (3.74) indicates that firms make an effort to establish a safety culture and, as a result, safety conditions within these organizations are most likely within acceptable levels. However, it is not high enough for us to conclude that a company’s safety culture is one of its strengths. It is also worth mentioning that, despite the fact that employees believe that their company gives continuous emphasis on employees’ H&S (item B5, mean 4.19), the possibilities of being involved in an accident are not very small (item B7, mean 2.34).

Examining the H&S-related procedures/instructions/rules, it is revealed (mean 3.52) that there are not as many and not as clear as they should be. It is rather worrying that participants claim that the existing procedures/instructions/rules do not represent how the work is carried out in practice (item C3, mean 2.87), while many of them do not take into account the real risks associated with the tasks for which employees are responsible for (item C2, mean 2.39).

However, training is moderately satisfactory (mean 3.79), indicating that updated, to-the-point, and quality training is in place. Moreover, training is one of management’s priorities (item D4, mean 4.01). More importantly, it is accepted that there is availability of the necessary resources for H&S purposes (mean 4.08). Specifically, employees ensure that H&S equipment is easily accessible, tools are in good working order, and the right tool is available for each job.

As far as management commitment is concerned, the results (3.72) suggest that participants are rather satisfied. More precisely, workers think that, even in the event that the company lost money, management would halt a project if it would endanger a person. Additionally, they believe that management takes appropriate action to address H&S concerns and does not “turn a blind eye” to infractions of H&S regulations (item F8, mean 3.54). However, it is not thought that the amount of time required to implement safety enhancements is sufficient (item F4, mean 3.03).

Next, motivation towards safe behavior was examined in an attempt to identify the behaviors that support employees’ safety performance. Its mean value (3.88) suggests that all stakeholders exhibit the appropriate behavior in order to ensure that safety is in place. Thus, for example, it is found that supervisors praise employees’ safe behavior (mean 4.09), while colleagues also support and encourage safe behavior (mean 4.18). However, it seems that, although there are some financial rewards (mean 3.58), they are not as high as they should be.

Examining the actual level of H&S, the results are rather disappointing (mean 3.04). In particular, it is found that H&S problems are neither frequent nor they are rare (2.95), while there is a similar picture for the severity of H&S problems (3.14). Nevertheless, taking into account that all participating companies belong to heavy manufacturing industries and all employees are working in the ‘line of fire’, these statements could be considered as reasonable. Despite that, it seems that participants are very satisfied with their jobs (mean of 4.52). It is remarkable that, for all six items used to measure satisfaction, the mean score is quite high (from 4.18 up to 4.69).

Finally, the performance of the participants is quite high (4.13), indicating that they perform their duties with quality, on time, and efficiently. It must be underlined, though, that this is a subjective assessment because participants evaluate their own performance.

It should be stressed that the mean scores of the factors do not significantly vary considering some of the demographic characteristics of the participants. More specifically, it is found (through an ANOVA test) that participants’ gender, age, and experience do not differentiate the mean of any of the nine factors examined. Only their education level seems to play a significant role in the magnitude of the mean score of the three factors (safety culture, training, and top management commitment). On the other hand, the three main characteristics (the specific company, its size, and the business sector) of the firms that these people work for differentiate the mean score of all factors except two (employee satisfaction and employee performance).

5.3. Structural Equation Analysis

Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) was used to test the proposed model and hypotheses. A number of indices have been examined for assessing the goodness-of-fit. These include the following: Minimum Sample Discrepancy/Degrees of Freedom (CMIN/DF), Relative Fit Index (RFI), Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Root Mean Square Residual (RMR), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). Looking at the results (

Table 3. Goodness-of-fit indices.

	Value	Threshold		Reference
CMIN/DF	0.784	<5	Accepted	[111,112]
RFI	0.937	>0.900	Accepted	[113,114]
CFI	1	>0.900	Accepted
NFI	0.968	>0.900	Accepted
RMR	0	<0.100	Accepted	[115]
RMSEA	0	<0.100	Accepted

), it can be concluded that all indices are within the acceptable margins. The proposed model is presented in Figure 4, where path coefficients and the relationships between the factors of the model are included.

The results of the SEM analysis suggest that the independent factors can explain only 15%, 15%, and 20% of the variation in “Firms’ H&S level”, “Employee Satisfaction”, and “Employee Performance”, respectively. Therefore, although the predictive power of the model is not very high, it could be reasonably argued that it provides a picture of the way that the specific set of independent factors affect the three dependent factors.

Overall, based on the direct effects of the independent factors, it is concluded that nine (H1a, H1b, H2b, H3a, H4a, H4b, H6a, H7, and H8) of the originally fourteen hypotheses are supported from the results (

Table 4. Hypothesis testing results.

No	Hypothesis			Coeff.	Result
H1a	Safety Culture	→	Firm H&S Level	0.16	Accepted
H1b	Safety Culture	→	Employee Satisfaction	0.32	Accepted
H2a	Procedures/Instructions/Rules	→	Firm H&S Level		Rejected
H2b	Procedures/Instructions/Rules	→	Employee Satisfaction	0.21	Accepted
H3a	H&S-related Training	→	Firm H&S Level	0.24	Accepted
H3b	H&S-related Training	→	Employee Satisfaction		Rejected
H4a	Available Resources	→	Firm H&S Level	0.36	Accepted
H4b	Available Resources	→	Employee Satisfaction	0.23	Accepted
H5a	Management Commitment	→	Firm H&S Level		Rejected
H5b	Management Commitment	→	Employee Satisfaction		Rejected
H6a	Motivation for Safe Behavior	→	Firm H&S Level	0.14	Accepted
H6b	Motivation for Safe Behavior	→	Employee Satisfaction		Rejected
H7	Firm H&S Level	→	Employee Performance	0.14	Accepted
H8	Employee Satisfaction	→	Employee Performance	0.42	Accepted

). However, when their indirect effect is taken into consideration (

Table 5. Direct, indirect, and total effects.

		Z	E	C	D	H	B	K	F
E	D	0.640
Available Resources	I	0.000
	T	0.640
C	D	0.676	0.267
Procedures/Instructions/Rules	I	0.171	0.000
	T	0.847	0.267
D	D	0.646	0.000	0.188
Training	I	0.095	0.050	0.000
	T	0.741	0.050	0.188
H	D	0.333
Motivation for Safe Behavior	I	0.000
	T	0.333
B	D	0.441	0.182	0.000	0.364
Safety Culture	I	0.386	0.018	0.068	0.000
	T	0.827	0.200	0.068	0.364
K	D	0.000	0.355	0.000	0.240	0.140	0.162
Firm H&S Level	I	0.225	0.039	0.034	0.059	0.000	0.000
	T	0.225	0.394	0.034	0.299	0.140	0.162
F	D	0.000	0.234	0.208	0.000		0.318
Employee Satisfaction	I	0.218	0.003	0.022	0.116		0.000
	T	0.218	0.237	0.230	0.116		0.318
I	D	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.139	0.419
Employee Performance	I	0.123	0.055	0.101	0.074	0.019	0.111	0.000	0.000
	T	0.123	0.055	0.101	0.074	0.019	0.111	0.139	0.419

Z = Management Commitment.

), then H3b could also be accepted (indirect effect of 0.116 through safety culture), as well as H5a and H5b (indirect effect of 0.225 and 0.218, respectively). It is quite interesting and, therefore, should be stressed that, although management commitment does not show any impact on any of the three dependent factors, it strongly affects all the other independent factors (Figure 4, Table 5) and thus the dependent factors as well (indirectly).

It is observed (Figure 4 and Table 5) that H&S is directly affected by four factors and indirectly by two more (management commitment and procedures/instructions/rules). The strongest total impact on H&S is the one exercised by the available resources (0.394) and training (0.299). Similarly, employee satisfaction is directly affected by three factors and indirectly by two more (management commitment and training), with safety culture as the factor with the strongest impact (0.318). Finally, although no independent factor seems to have a direct impact on Employee Performance, the other two dependent factors affect it (with employee satisfaction as the factor with the strongest direct and total impact: 0.419).

6. Discussion

6.1. Discussion of the Results and Interpretation

It is impressive that there is no clear correlation between management commitment and performance, employee satisfaction, or H&S level. However, it has been demonstrated to be an independent factor with significant influence over every other H&S element (factors investigated) (column Z of Table 5).

It is also intriguing that incentives for safe behavior—prizes, awards, and accolades—do not boost worker satisfaction. On the other hand, it encourages workers to take a safer approach to their employment, which lowers the likelihood of accidents and their severity. Furthermore, one could contend that, while motivation does influence employee behavior, it probably will not do so in a long-term way, given the lack of correlation between it and the other H&S components, particularly safety culture.

Safety culture is thought to have an impact on employee happiness and the H&S level of the company (r = 0.318). According to Kim et al. [6], the first is acknowledged as the final stage in reducing additional safety events. Regarding the second, it makes perfect sense because it is typically highly valued when a workplace is designed with the safety and well-being of its employees in mind. However, as was to be expected, management commitment has a favorable impact on safety culture (r = 0.827). The management’s expectations for behavior shape the culture of the entire company. Prioritizing finances or output before health and safety will undoubtedly cause workers to believe that H&S is unimportant. The availability of resources and training linked to health and safety also influences safety culture (r = 0.200 and r = 0.364, respectively). H&S training supports businesses’ concerns about safety, helps to reduce risks and hazards, and fosters a favorable attitude toward safety among all parties. On the other hand, resources dedicated to upholding an H&S workplace demonstrate businesses’ sincere concern for safety, something that staff members equally value. It is important to emphasize that the majority of safety culture variance (76%) may be explained by management commitment, training, and resources.

The findings concerning H&S training were also expected. More specifically, the positive impact of training on the establishment of a safety culture and, consequently, of an increased firm H&S level (r = 0.299) is in line with the findings of other similar research attempts [10,11,77,78,79,80,81].

Further, it is not surprising that a direct link between procedures/instructions/rules and training exists (r = 0.188). Actually, it could be argued that the more H&S-related guidelines a firm provides, the higher the need for training, as it is the only way to ensure compliance and appropriate implementation. Additionally, the existence of procedures/instructions/rules has a positive effect on employee satisfaction (r = 0.230) because they can potentially eliminate uncertainty about desired ways of working and eliminate the need for improvisation.

As far as the availability of resources is concerned, its crucial role is proved once again since it affects both the H&S level (r = 0.394) and employee satisfaction (r = 0.237), as well as two independent factors (safety culture and procedures/instructions/rules) (r = 0.200 and r = 0.267, respectively). Surprisingly, no relation between the H&S level and employee satisfaction was found. One would probably expect that fewer safety incidents would reflect in high employee satisfaction. Possibly, there are other factors that are not included in this study that mediate between these two factors.

The primary finding of the structural equation analysis verifies that employee happiness and the firm H&S level have an impact on employee performance (r = 0.419 and r = 0.139, respectively). Higher performance levels are demonstrated to be induced by low frequency and small-scale incidents; this effect is also observed in highly pleased personnel. It might be interpreted as a purposeful or inadvertent response from workers to a company that genuinely offers them physical and psychological protection.

6.2. A New-Fangled Suggested Occupational Health and Safety Management System Model

Taking into account the knowledge coming from the current survey of the examined scientific studies, we deduce that an efficient IMS-OSHMS system should amalgamate a variety of management systems, such as OH&S (i.e., health and safety), QMS (i.e., quality), and EMS (i.e., environmental), and the businesses and organizations (of any kind and/or every size) can definitely produce and implement such OSHMS models [1].

Thus, a new proposed OHSMS model is displayed (Figure 5), which is based on the principles of a Plan–Do–Check–Act (PDCA) cycle and incorporates the previous examined six (F1–F6) H&S related factors, which can improve the OHSAS 18001 [39] and ISO 45001:2018 [16] standards by concentrating on the OHS management and more particularly on the hazards’ control at the worksites (the reader could focus on the central circular module). The framework of this generic Safety Management System (SMS) or the OHSMS model is based on the principles of prevention, participation, and responsibility. More specifically, this drawing constitutes a four-step model, and, just as a circle has no end, the P-D-C-A cycle should be repeated all over again for continual improvement, and is considered a project planning tool, while its heart includes a subsystem for the OH&S management and the controlling of hazards at worksites.

6.3. Strengths, Significance, and Limitations of This Study

Some of the main strengths and significance of the current research are described briefly as follows:

• Highlights the importance of management commitment: Emphasizes that management commitment has the greatest impact on safety culture and employee understanding of H&S, and it is crucial for reducing incidents and improving H&S performance.
• Discusses the impact of H&S on employee engagement and satisfaction: Explains that fewer injuries and improved H&S performance positively impact employee engagement and satisfaction.
• Explains the relationship between a company’s level of H&S and its motivation for H&S: Emphasizes that firms that prioritize safety exhibit improved worker and safety performance.
• Mentions the use of intermediary factors: Explains that this study uses two intermediary factors, “Firm’s H&S Level” and “Employee’s Satisfaction”, to examine the effects of HSMS elements on employee performance.
• Elaborates on the hypotheses: Provides a brief overview of the hypotheses tested in this study, such as the positive effects of safety culture, procedures, training, resources, management commitment, and motivation for safe behavior on the level of H&S and employee satisfaction.

As in any other research, this also has a number of limitations. First is the small number of participating firms. Another one is that, although the initially invited-to-participate firms (40) were targeted having in mind specific criteria (industrial sector, size, possibility for emerging H&S incidents), eventually, they were not randomly selected. Then, although the questionnaires were completed anonymously and without the supervision of a management representative, it is not clear whether the fear of a possible effect on the firm’s social reputation affected the answers given. Finally, the proposed research model incorporated a relatively small number of independent factors. A future research study could expand this list of factors including some more found in the relevant literature.

6.4. Future Research Directions

As for a potential work, a future OH&S management system model could incorporate not only the previously examined six H&S-related factors (F1–F6) but an additional environmental one (F7) that could be determined, investigated, and analyzed in the immediate interval. As we referred to above, the implementation of OHSMSs taking into consideration other different environmental factors is substantial for the scientific literature [52]. This new proposed OHSMS model constitutes a significant system model, because it will fulfill the basic principles of “sustainability” [116,117,118], by the three concentric triangles of Figure 6 and will emphasize the hierarchy consisting of the three sustainability components (or pillars), i.e., “economy” and “society” that are confined by the boundary of the “environmental” component.

Finally, another future work would be the repetition of this research by using another sample of firms that are situated either in Greece or elsewhere.

7. Conclusions

This study aimed to investigate the impact of various Health and Safety Management System (HSMS) elements on employee performance within the Greek manufacturing sector. To achieve this, a structured questionnaire was developed and distributed to employees, gathering primary data on their perceptions of safety culture, procedures, training, resources, management commitment, and motivation for safe behavior. The collected data were then analyzed using factor analysis to ensure the validity and reliability of the scales. The results revealed statistically significant relationships between several HSMS elements and both the firm’s overall level of health and safety (H&S) and employee satisfaction. Specifically, management commitment demonstrated the most substantial impact on safety culture and employee understanding of H&S, leading to improved H&S performance and reduced incidents. Furthermore, this study found that a higher level of H&S within the organization positively influenced employee engagement and satisfaction, ultimately contributing to enhanced employee performance. These findings underscore the importance of a comprehensive and well-implemented HSMS, with a strong emphasis on management commitment, in fostering a safer and more productive work environment.

In this study, we clearly link empirical results to prior research on HSMSs, safety culture, and employee outcomes. For instance, the strong indirect influence of management commitment—despite its lack of direct impact—has been interpreted as a foundational enabler of other HSMS elements, in line with findings by Fernández-Muñiz et al. [2] and O’Toole [90], who emphasize leadership’s indirect but decisive role in shaping safety practices. Similarly, the pivotal role of resource availability in improving both the perceived H&S level and employee satisfaction is consistent with the studies by Shannon et al. [86] and Zhao et al. [85], affirming the importance of tangible investment in safety infrastructure. Moreover, we have to note the surprising absence of a direct relationship between the firm’s H&S level and employee satisfaction, suggesting possible mediating variables such as organizational justice or psychological safety, which could be explored in future research [8,100].

Social and Policy Implications: The findings of this study have several important social and policy implications, particularly for the manufacturing sector in Greece and potentially other similar contexts. Socially, this research highlights the need for organizations to prioritize employee well-being and safety by investing in robust HSMS programs. A strong safety culture, driven by visible management commitment, can lead to a more engaged and satisfied workforce, reducing the human cost associated with workplace accidents and injuries. From a policy perspective, this study suggests that regulatory bodies should promote and enforce comprehensive H&S standards that emphasize the critical role of management commitment and employee involvement. Incentives could be provided to encourage organizations to implement effective HSMS programs and continuously improve their safety performance. Furthermore, the findings underscore the importance of providing adequate resources and training to employees, empowering them to actively participate in maintaining a safe work environment. By adopting these policy measures, governments can foster a culture of safety within the manufacturing sector, protecting workers’ health and well-being while also enhancing productivity and economic competitiveness.

To summarize the results, it is found that, indeed, H&S improves employee performance. However, firm management should be committed towards establishing a safety culture. To do so, appropriate resources should be invested, clear and well-understood procedures/instructions/rules should be implemented/adopted, and focused training should be provided. The adoption of this policy will result in an improved safety culture, increased firm H&S levels, increased employee satisfaction, and, consequently, improved employee performance.

It simply means that minimizing health and safety deviations in terms of frequency and severity is certainly an outcome that one would hope to achieve after implementing an HSMS. The HSMS elements presented in this study were found to help reduce accidents and lost work hours. Avoiding (or reducing) incidents and eliminating their serious consequences brings financial benefits to companies and gives H&S professionals a solid argument to convince companies to invest in H&S.