Understanding the Mechanism Through Which Safety Management Systems Influence Safety Performance in Nigerian Power and Electricity Distribution Companies

Abstract

The power and electricity (P & E) sector experiences a substantial number of occupational accidents, including in Nigeria. The implementation of a safety management system (SMS) to promote safety performance and mitigate occupational risks in this sector remains underreported. Therefore, we aimed to explore the factors influencing the safety performance of Nigeria’s P & E distribution companies by applying McGrath’s input–process–output model as a theoretical framework. We used SmartPLS 3.0 for structural equation modelling and SPSS Version 23 for preliminary data analysis. We included a sample of 222 organizations and found that management commitment to safety, safety communication, safety champions, and government regulations influence working conditions and safety performance to varying degrees. Employee involvement, safety training, and working conditions were significant factors affecting safety performance. Management commitment, employee involvement, safety communication, safety champions, and government regulations had significant indirect effects on safety performance through their influence on working conditions. Organizational and regulatory elements played a crucial role in shaping safety performance in high-risk environments. The results highlight vital areas to be considered when developing interventions to address P & E occupational accidents. The results can aid stakeholders in developing and implementing measures to improve workplace safety, including examining current SMSs and considering working conditions when implementing safety interventions.

1. Introduction

Many organizations worldwide have recognized the importance of occupational safety [1]. This is because accidents result in a significant number of fatalities, lowering productivity and exerting negative effects on national economies [2]. In order to attain a competitive edge, organizations are using pertinent resources to lower the rate of occupational accidents while maintaining worker safety [3]. However, accidents are commonplace at work sites, marring the reputation of organizations and resulting in large fines paid toward safety infractions, thereby negatively affecting the effectiveness of organizations [2].

Similarly, occupational accidents impose a considerable burden on employers in terms of replacing injured workers, in addition to the social and financial effects on families and businesses [4]. In this regard, the International Labour Organization (ILO) estimates that there are 2.9 million work-related deaths attributable to 330,000 occupational accidents and 2.6 million occupational diseases worldwide each year; this translates to an annual cost of approximately USD 4.18 trillion to the gross domestic product (GDP) of every country, representing 3.94% of the GDP [5]. The associated cost of occupational accidents in low-middle-income nations (LMINs), such as Nigeria, is estimated to be 10–20 times greater than that in high-income countries [4]. However, this economic burden has not been captured because of a high level of underreporting and lack of occupational injury records across various industries [6]. Generally, occupational accidents lower safety performance, and a reduction in safety performance dramatically affects how well an organization performs on a larger scale [7]. The power and electricity (P & E) sector is one of the sectors with a substantial number of occupational accidents in several LMINs, especially in terms of adverse effects on human lives and a high risk of mortality [8]. The sector generates, transmits, and distributes electricity [9] and is critical for economic growth and sustainability in every nation [10,11,12].

For example, in 2021, the Nigerian economy saw a 0.75% contribution from this sector to the GDP [13]. This low contribution has sparked research on the challenges that have crippled the industry. Researchers agree that poor safety performance is a likely issue limiting the ability of the P & E sector to contribute to the country’s GDP [14]. Although Nigeria, as with other African nations, is characterized by a high level of underreporting, a recent report from the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission [15] revealed that the ratios of injuries to incidents and fatalities to incidents are alarming. Specifically, while injuries and fatalities accounted for 33.7% and 66.2% of the incidents recorded in 2016, they accounted for 64.3% and 84.3% of those recorded in 2022, respectively. These estimates reflect the increasing severity and intensity of occupational accidents, as well as the higher fatality per case ratio in recent years. Therefore, the Nigerian P & E sector remains one of the most dangerous industries to work in [16], indicating the need to address the risk of occupational accidents in this sector. This trend of accidents is in tandem with that observed in other high-risk organizations where low safety performance leads to a subpar level of operational performance [17]. Given the deplorable safety conditions in Nigeria’s P & E sector, exploring safety strategies that could potentially improve the performance of many organizations is essential.

In this regard, the importance of safety management systems (SMSs) has been increasingly acknowledged to incorporate pertinent factors for addressing various types of work-related safety issues [18]. SMSs are crucial for workplace safety and constitute management activities and principles for minimizing the risk of occupational accidents [18,19]. Given the important role of SMSs and following the accident causation sequence proposed by Frank Bird, failure in management systems forms the root cause of accidents, rather than workers’ behaviours [20]. (Despite the role played by SMSs in reducing accidents across industries [18], there is limited research on the positive effects of SMSs on safety performance [21]. While these studies provide strong evidence of the role of SMSs in enhancing occupational safety and safety performance in diverse organizations, such as aviation, transportation, and manufacturing [19,22], the application of SMSs to promote safety performance and mitigate the risk of occupational accidents in the P & E industry remains underreported [23], especially in less-developed nations [8]. For instance, studies in aviation emphasize the role of SMSs in reducing accidents and enhancing operational safety, supported by robust frameworks and standards [24]. Similarly, research in manufacturing highlights SMSs’ impact on improving workplace safety performance [21]. However, there is limited evidence of comprehensive SMS adoption or evaluation in the power sector, a highly hazardous environment due to its industrial tasks. Existing studies, such as those examining Pakistan’s power sector, primarily focus on safety climate rather than SMS frameworks, revealing gaps in addressing operational risks and safety management issues [8]. Furthermore, recent reports highlight persistent challenges in achieving safety goals despite technological advancements, underscoring the need for proactive SMS adoption across industries [25]. Given this background, this study aimed to fill the research gap by investigating SMS use in order to elucidate safety performance among organizations in the Nigerian P & E industry.

Although researchers in occupational health and safety (OHS) have considered an SMS as a significant component in boosting an organization’s safety performance [26], research on the underlying mechanisms or additional routes for the relationship between SMSs and safety performance is limited [27]. Zohar [27] has suggested that constructs should be tested with antecedents and mediators in occupational safety research. Furthermore, Moosa and Oriet [22] opined that the relationship between an SMS and safety performance is indirect and mediated by other factors. Hence, research on a mediator is warranted to gain a clearer understanding of the strong relationship between an SMS and safety performance, particularly in the P & E sector. Prior studies have reported that enhanced working conditions are tied to organizations’ safety performance [28,29]. Furthermore, SMSs implemented by organizations can serve as an important factor in eliciting favourable working conditions, which significantly influences the safety performance of organizations [30].

Working conditions are important determinants of job burnout. Moreover, job burnout, as described by [31], can act as a mediator. The same applies to working conditions, given their role in influencing job satisfaction and burnout among industrial workers. Poor working conditions in an industry, such as prolonged monotonous tasks and work overload, may result in workers experiencing energy depletion, cynical feelings, and low professional efficiency as such problems increase in severity [31]. Therefore, working conditions may influence the risk of occupational accidents.

Based on the above, this research aims to understand the mediating role of work conditions in the relationship between SMSs and organizational safety performance. Specifically, it seeks to explore how the work conditions influence the effectiveness of SMSs in improving safety outcomes among P & E organizations in Nigeria. By examining the mediating role of working conditions, this study aims to provide deeper insights into the mechanisms through which an SMS impacts safety performance, offering practical recommendations for P & E organizations to optimize their work environments and enhance overall safety outcomes. Thus, the objectives of this study are fourfold. The first objective is to test the relationship between an SMS and safety performance. The second is to test the relationship between an SMS and working conditions. The third is to test the relationship between working conditions and safety performance. The fourth is to test the mediating role of working conditions in the relationship between an SMS and safety performance among employees in Nigeria’s P & E industry. In the subsequent subsections, we describe the formulation of our hypotheses.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Safety Performance

Safety performance, particularly at the organizational level, has been defined and explained from different perspectives, and there is no consensus on the most appropriate definition [32]. According to He et al. [33], safety performance is the well-organized use of limited resources to attain safety goals within an organization. As defined in an earlier study by Sawacha et al. [34], this term is frequently used to describe the safety levels in organizations, which reflects the occurrence of accidents leading to injuries within organizations. Likewise, scholars have categorized safety performance as self-reported accident involvement and work-related injuries [35].

While the use of accident rates to reflect safety performance is acknowledged, early advocates for a proactive approach to safety, such as Glendon and McKenna [36], emphasized that using accident rates to depict safety performance is retrospective and neglects risk exposure. Hence, they are lagging indicators. To this end, researchers have advocated the use of behaviours in safety performance assessments. Behavioural facets indicate that the safety behaviours implemented by employees are leading indicators in the evaluation of organizational safety performance and include employees’ safety compliance and participation [37]. These two aspects were developed by Neal and Griffin [38], who built on Borman and Motowidlo’s [39] observations and included task and contextual performance as components of job performance. Several authors have explored organization-level safety performance in this regard. For example, Fernandez Muniz et al. [40] utilized safety compliance and participation as organizational safety dimensions to understand the safety performance of 103 process industries in Spain. The same authors used similar dimensions in 2014 to understand the safety performance of 188 organizations in Spain. Other studies employing similar dimensions include the study by Braunger et al. [41] as well as that by Bunner et al. [42]. Although some authors have raised questions about using safety behaviours as a sole estimate of the level of safety [43,44], the drawback of behaviour selection is that behaviours only provide average results and disregard individual behaviour variances [45]. Hence, researchers are of the opinion that for safety performance to be a successful measure, it should have the ability to offer a comprehensive view of an organization’s safety culture and assess not only the proactive efforts to maintain safety but also the actual outcomes in terms of workplace safety [46,47,48]. Despite its close relationship with safety performance, employee satisfaction as a constituent of safety performance is an under-researched factor [47,49,50]. Thus, it is worth examining, owing to its association with safety. When employees are satisfied with their work, they improve the organization’s performance [51,52].

Moreover, Bayram et al. [13] demonstrated a strong correlation between employee satisfaction and organizational safety. Similar to the views of Bayram et al. [13], Bayram and Ungan [53] highlighted the significance of employee satisfaction in shaping safety performance across 171 firms in Turkey. Thus, an organization’s safety performance should correlate with overall employee satisfaction. Therefore, we considered that the inclusion of this dimension for measuring safety performance within the context of this study is conceptually appropriate (see, for example, [47]).

Hence, to achieve the aim of the present study, safety performance was assessed based on safety compliance, safety participation, employee satisfaction, and safety outcomes at the organizational level. Although several safety performance researchers have focused solely on safety behaviours (individual safety performance) in explaining workplace safety [54,55,56], there is limited information on an understanding of the aspects that contribute to organizational safety performance [57]. Fulmer and Ostroff [58] noted that dissimilar processes may operate at various levels. Thus, findings from individual-level analyses may not yield similar results to those obtained at the organizational level [57]. Also, researchers have called for a balanced approach when assessing safety performance [59,60]. Hence, integrating leading and lagging indicators into high-risk industries’ safety performance assessments is necessitated.

2.2. Safety Management Systems

A management system is a set of interlinked processes that requires the distribution of resources to attain numerous organizational goals [61]. Since the early 1990s, management systems have been increasingly acknowledged as essential factors for addressing various types of corporate risk [62]. In this context, an SMS emerges. An SMS is a system comprising management activities and principles for preventing accidents and controlling safety risks [63,64]. Furthermore, it relates to the sets of tools that organizations use to handle matters related to workplace safety. These include roles, functions, practices, activities, procedures, and policies related to safety [65]. Fernandez-Muniz et al. [66] noted that when an SMS is integrated into an organization, it serves as a mechanism to control risk, which might impact workers’ safety, thus increasing the organization’s regulatory compliance. SMS implementation is generally acknowledged as the foundation for enhancing safety outcomes across different industries [21,49,67]. While internationally acceptable frameworks, like OHSAS 18001 [68], ISO 45001 [69], and ILO-OSH 2001 [70], provide a structural approach to identify, assess, and control workplace hazards systematically, thereby improving safety performance [71,72]. Goerlandt, Li, and Reniers [73] highlighted the need to determine which specific elements of a safety management system (SMS) are most influential in achieving positive safety performance outcomes. Furthermore, despite the significant role SMSs play in promoting organizational safety, there have been discrepancies in their constituents [21]. Additionally, there are no approved or exact methods for establishing a truly effective SMS [74]. Efforts to recognize the constituents of an SMS have given rise to different opinions; for instance, Clarke [75] specified that safety audits and the SMS are vital factors in the safety of railway organizations. The author stressed that communication is crucial for the effective implementation of an SMS. Similarly, Vassie and Lucas [76] found communication to be critical in enhancing the safety management of UK manufacturing companies. Santos-Reyes and Beard [74] provided further insights into the constituents of an SMS. The authors alluded to the fact that an SMS encompasses planning and implementation, operations and policies, evaluation and measurement, reviews, and improvements.

Dewi and Wardani [77] indicated that SMSs should incorporate policy/regulations, training, supervision, planning, and promotion. Despite the above assertions, it is evident that there is no consensus as to which SMS component contributes the most to safety performance enhancement. To this end, researchers can select the dimensions and aspects of an SMS that are appropriate for their chosen population, culture, and context.

Further evaluation revealed that management commitment, employment involvement, safety training, safety champions, safety communication, and government regulations align with an SMS and are important for its implementation in diverse high-risk organizations [78], including the P & E industry. These six dimensions were selected for the assessment of SMSs in this study.

2.3. Safety Management Systems and Safety Performance

2.3.1. Management Commitment

Management commitment is the foundation of a hands-on SMS [4]. Management commitment to safety is the degree to which top managers provide assurance to enhance workplace safety, which is usually reflected in the safety-related support and encouragement provided to employees [4,79]. In addition, this commitment from top managers assists in shaping employees’ perceptions of working as safely as possible, thereby improving their behaviours and reducing workplace injuries, accidents, and fatalities [80]. Several empirical studies have examined management commitment as a dimension of safety climate [49] and safety management practices [65,81].

In a related context, on retrieving data from safety managers in 131 SMS-certified organizations in Spain, Fernandez-Muniz et al. [49] found that management commitment to safety, as a factor involved in safety climate, predicted safety behaviours through incentives, work pressure, and communications. However, Chong et al. [78] used management commitment to safety as a core component of an SMS and found that it significantly predicted the safety performance of 300 manufacturing organizations in Malaysia. In conclusion, it is essential to note that the studies mentioned above were conducted in nations with advanced and cutting-edge work systems, which starkly contrasts with the context of the present study. Hence, a theoretical gap exists, and it is worthwhile to study how to bridge this gap. Based on the aforementioned studies, management commitment has been reported to reduce accidents and injuries and improve safety. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H1. 

Management commitment is significantly related to safety performance.

2.3.2. Employee Involvement

The efficacy of an SMS is influenced by employee involvement, which is defined as a range of procedures and structures that allow and sometimes encourage workers to directly and indirectly participate in impact decisions [82]. Employee involvement is a behaviour-focused procedure that encompasses the flow of communication in an upward pattern among groups or individuals in an organization’s decision-making process [83]. This includes employees participating in policy formulation to enhance workplace safety, receiving safety training, and undergoing health and medical check-ups [81]. Active employee involvement is emphasized in SMS models as a crucial component in enhancing safety performance [84]. Employee involvement in an OSHMS decreases workplace accidents and promotes employee health [81]. In other words, SMS effectiveness and safety performance depend significantly on employee involvement in safety management [65]. Engaged and content workers believe that everyone at all organizational levels gives safety the importance it deserves.

Earlier empirical research on safety management revealed that worker involvement is essential for organizations to realize safety goals. O’Toole [85] showed that the government’s objective of reducing work-related injuries in UK manufacturing firms could be realized when manufacturing firms were encouraged to intensify employee participation in the safety process. Fernandez-Muniz et al. [21] discovered that employee involvement in safety has a positive and significant association with managers’ commitment to safety, which in turn impacts the safety performance of Spanish firms at the organizational level of abstraction. Furthermore, Ali [86] found a positive link between employee participation and injury rates in industries in Malaysia. In light of the above, we formulated the following hypothesis:

H2. 

Employee involvement is significantly related to safety performance.

2.3.3. Safety Communication

Communication is a critical factor that provides data and information on the level of safety in an organization [26]. In addition, managers use SMS communication to identify the level of risk caused by workplace accidents and to influence worker performance in organizations [87]. In other words, communication plays a fundamental role in the success of individuals and organizations, primarily in accomplishing tasks and attaining safety goals [65]. Vinodkumar and Bhasi [65] and Mearns et al. [87] contended that consistent communication on safety matters among workers, supervisors, and managers is an effective management practice for workplace safety improvement and that reinforced communication on health and safety issues with the workforce is a crucial phase of organizational learning that proceeds from safety audits, accident investigations, or changes in procedures. In light of the above, we formulated the following hypothesis:

H3. 

Safety communication is significantly related to safety performance.

2.3.4. Safety Champions

According to Jones [88], safety champions provide an example and model of the desired culture in firms that have built a safety culture. Employees are more conscious when organizations have a safety champion strategy. This awareness increases the more employees perceive that management is approachable when safety concerns are raised and freely addressed within the company [89]. In other words, a safety champion encourages staff to raise safety concerns to enhance their physical health. Likewise, when a culture of safety championship is fostered, staff members come to believe that the company takes workplace safety seriously and will consequently initiate or participate in internal control enforcement [89].

The concept of an organizational champion has been explored in the organizational literature and has been acknowledged to drive organizational success [90]. In the safety literature, the success of safety champions has been confirmed in numerous safety initiatives, such as the implementation of rapid responses, increased reporting of adverse incidents, and improved safety performance [91]. Based on these arguments, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H4. 

The presence of a safety champion is significantly related to safety performance.

2.3.5. Safety Training

Safety training is a crucial construct of an SMS and focuses primarily on enhancing the safety climate for employees in an organization [92]. Employees in high-risk organizations are constantly exposed to risk [93]. Therefore, to improve safety, managers are urged to undertake specialized education and training programs created according to the requirements and characteristics of their employees [65].

Training is vital for enhancing the effectiveness of an organization’s health and safety program [65], particularly by enabling workers to keep up with the demands of their occupations [93]. Furthermore, training is one of the most significant elements of an SMS [65], as it increases workers’ awareness of potential workplace hazards and risks [78]. Safety training aims to ensure that workers acquire safety behaviours in order to realize the safety and operational goals of an organization [82].

Earlier empirical investigations have revealed a link between safety training and safety performance, reduced workplace accidents, addressed safety issues, and enhanced employee safety productivity. For example, Huang et al. [35] studied the association between safety practices and safety performance in construction industries in New Zealand. The results reveal a significant negative association between safety training and safety performance, as measured by the self-reported injury rate. Hou et al. [94] explored the role of safety practices in improving the safety performance of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) in Pakistan. This study considered safety training as a safety practice factor. The results show that safety training was an effective practice for predicting safety performance. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H5. 

Safety training is significantly related to safety performance.

2.3.6. Government Regulations

The most crucial practices are the degree to which laws and regulations on occupational safety are followed and how rigorously management enforces them. A systematic approach to SMS implementation involving collaboration between employers and governments is critical to addressing safety issues [95].

Regulations are the outcomes of legal endeavours formulated by governments to promote law and order in society [96]. They also encompass rules or laws established by the legislative arm of the government, with the aim of managing safety-related problems that negatively affect people, whether employed or not [96]. Therefore, regulations must be enforced effectively, understood clearly, reviewed as required [95], and followed adequately for their purpose to be accomplished. Ensuring compliance with safety regulations has been recognized as a critical success factor in an organization’s SMS [95].

Saksvik et al. [95] argue that compliance with safety regulations is a prime concern for both employers and employees. Numerous safety management studies have identified the role of regulations in improving workplace safety. Comberti et al. [97] explored the impact of safety regulations on occupational safety in Italian food and beverage industries. The results indicate that larger companies that comply with regulations reported a greater reduction in occupational accidents than small and micro enterprises. Based on this, we propose the following hypothesis:

H6. 

Government regulation is significantly related to safety performance.

2.4. Working Conditions and Safety Performance

Generally, within the context of occupational safety, working conditions are categorized into job demands and job resources, both of which are found in every organization [40]. Job demands encompass risks and hazards in the workplace, physical requirements, and work complexity [98]. In contrast, job resources include organizational, social, and psychological aspects that play an essential role in helping workers meet their job demands and achieve their work-related objectives [99]. These resources, such as support from co-workers and support and compensation from organizations, are the foundation of motivation for workers, underscoring their importance in the work environment [99]. Working conditions include stress, working hours, degree of safety, and hazards that affect workers in the workplace. Dangerous working conditions and unfavourable work environments are common aetiologies of workplace accidents and injuries [40]. Once working conditions meet employee expectations, they lead to several direct and indirect benefits, including an increase in productivity, a reduction in absenteeism, and a better-quality work environment. In contrast, unfavourable working conditions have repercussions and lead to alterations in the normal functioning of processes [100,101].

Earlier studies have shown that workers are satisfied when their workplace possesses certain qualities that lead them to perform better [102]. Therefore, appropriate working conditions must be created for workers to execute their roles by fully employing their abilities and concomitantly providing quality customer service [103,104].

Similarly, Mitropoulos et al. [105] identified a physical environment with hazards, such as floor openings, confined spaces, and high elevations, and harsh environmental conditions, such as cold, noise, heat, and vibration, as detrimental working conditions that can result in new hazards. Thus, it is essential to create favourable working conditions to ensure safety. Fernández-Muñiz et al. [40] established that working conditions, defined as occupational hazards; co-worker support; and work pressure, significantly influence safety compliance in process industries located in Spain; however, safety incentives, co-worker support, and occupational hazards affect safety participation. Based on these previous studies, occupational hazards, work pressure, safety incentives, and co-worker support were selected to define working conditions in the present study. These components were selected because of their common inclusion as working condition dimensions in occupational safety studies and their ability to influence safety performance outcomes. However, Rachmad et al. [106] noted that most research on working conditions focuses on the antecedents of unsafe behaviour while neglecting their effects on organizational safety performance. Hence, this study investigated the influence of work conditions on the safety performance in P & E organizations. Thus, the following hypothesis was formulated:

H7. 

Working conditions are significantly related to safety performance.

2.5. Safety Management Systems and Working Conditions

Several studies agree that when an SMS is implemented, workplace working conditions improve [66,107,108,109,110]. In addition, Battaglia et al. [111] noted that a favourable health program and an SMS are implemented with the aim of improving working conditions and workers’ health. Moreover, Fernández-Muñiz et al. [66] demonstrated that a more developed SMS decreased damage to workers, machines, and materials, thereby improving working conditions.

An organization’s commitment to safety is crucial for mitigating the rate of occupational accidents and injuries. Employer commitment requires that all workers participate. Workplace safety can be enhanced by commitment to prevent unsafe acts and conditions, whereby each individual adheres to the safety rules of the organization [84].

Employee involvement involves opportunities for workers to participate in decisions that affect their work. Employee involvement remains an important issue for both policymakers and researchers, highlighting a significant change over time in conceptualizing the most effective types of organizations for achieving high employee and organizational performance [112]. Research has shown that better working conditions are observed among employees working in discretionary and high-involvement organizations compared with those working in low-involvement organizations [112].

Active communication is essential for reducing the incidence of workplace accidents and improving workplace safety. While unsafe behaviour is well recognized as an antecedent of workplace accidents, safety behaviours stem from an organization’s SMS [113]. An organization’s support and commitment to safety provide a pathway for creating a safe workplace. Unsafe working conditions pose serious health and occupational problems and affect the well-being of employees as well as organizational performance and productivity [114]. Effective safety communication is considered imperative for organizations to enhance work performance in high-risk environments, such as in the P & E industry [115]. Safety communication is critical for ensuring positive working behaviour among employees [116,117].

Numerous studies have found that safety training and performance are positively correlated [118,119]. Furthermore, safety training has been reported as a significant predictor of vital management practices. Safety training is a major safety-related practice that encompasses compliance, knowledge, motivation, and participation [65].

Likewise, the presence of safety champions in an organization facilitates improved workplace safety. Safety champions can identify potential hazards before accidents occur [120]. They also encourage their co-workers to adhere to safety behaviours and lead by setting good examples [121]. Thus, safety champions play diverse roles that may assist in improving working conditions and in making workplaces healthier and safer for employees.

Tang and Zhou [122] reasoned that government regulations, to which all organizations must adhere, are important SMS factors that are essential for fostering sustainable operations through the establishment of essential safety and environmental conditions. This view is in concordance with that of Jordanoska [123] and Madsen et al. [124], who stated that the imposition of penalties and fines for regulatory breaches increases costs arising from non-compliance, which in turn influences organizations’ safety behaviour. Thus, regulations serve as deterrents that inhibit organizational managers from subjecting employee safety and health to risk [125]. Hence, we formulated the following hypotheses:

H8. 

Management commitment is significantly related to working conditions.

H9. 

Employee involvement is significantly related to working conditions.

H10. 

Safety communication is significantly related to working conditions.

H11. 

Safety training is significantly related to working conditions.

H12. 

The presence of a safety champion is significantly related to working conditions.

H13. 

Government regulation is significantly related to working conditions.

2.6. Working Conditions as Mediators in the Relationship Between an SMS and Safety Performance

Mediation analysis is a common statistical inferential analysis in occupational safety research, as researchers are inquisitive about how systems operate [126]. Despite the established understanding of the relationship between an SMS and safety performance, scholars have emphasized the need for additional knowledge on how and why such associations occur, especially in the intermediary process [126]. Cohen et al. [127] suggested introducing a mediator and performing a subsequent analysis to gain a better understanding of the established findings. Therefore, the present study aimed to explore whether working conditions play a mediating role in the relationship between SMSs and safety performance in Nigeria’s P & E industry.

While the primary goal of an SMS is to ensure safe working conditions [128], improving the working environment is equally pertinent to an enterprise’s growth [129]. Several studies in the field of occupational safety report that higher productivity may stem from ensuring good working conditions [40,130]. Previous studies have also highlighted the potential role of working conditions in facilitating safety performance through SMS implementation [30,66]. This view is supported by Fernandez-Muniz et al. [44], who reasoned that adopting an SMS standard would enhance working conditions, thereby reducing the risk of injury and damage to materials. An organization with a well-established SMS would greatly benefit from improved hazard control and safer working conditions, resulting in fewer accidents and better project management [110]. The primary aim of an SMS is to facilitate safety practices and create a positive work environment, which will eventually foster a reduction in workplace accidents [131]. While the role of SMS in enhancing safety performance is well established, most of these investigations were conducted in countries with developed systems and structures. Furthermore, this association is particularly novel within the Nigerian P & E industry where contextual challenges such as weak infrastructure, regulatory enforcement, and resource constraints differ significantly from those in more developed settings. It was also noted that there is a lack of studies examining the mediating role of working conditions in this relationship, a gap that this research addresses. Hence, this study hypothesized that working conditions play a mediating role between SMS dimensions and safety performance. The specific hypotheses are outlined below.

H14. 

Working conditions act as a mediator in the relationship between management commitment to safety and safety performance.

H15. 

Working conditions act as a mediator in the relationship between employee involvement and safety performance.

H16. 

Working conditions act as a mediator in the relationship between safety communication and safety performance.

H17. 

Working conditions act as a mediator in the relationship between the presence of a safety champion and safety performance.

H18. 

Working conditions act as a mediator in the relationship between safety training and safety performance.

H19. 

Working conditions act as a mediator in the relationship between government regulations and safety performance.

2.7. Underpinning the Theory of This Study

To explore the relationship between an SMS and safety performance or other safety-related constructs, numerous models have been proposed in several studies, including those in the P & E sector [132,133]. Examples of these theories include the planned behaviour theory, social exchange theory, health belief model, and social cognitive theory.

Meanwhile, the input–process–output model (IPO model) developed by McGrath [134], offers an opportunity to understand the processes or transformations involved in the pathway linking specific inputs and the resulting outcomes [135]. The IPO model refers to inputs that lead to processes or transformations that in turn lead to outcomes [136]. Thus, the influence of the input factor on the output factor is transferred or mediated by processes [135].

Input factors may include individual, group, and environmental factors that are used to alter a process, along with its outcomes [137]. According to the developers of the theory, organizational factors are also crucial resources implemented by organizations and the entire organizational structure [138]. More importantly, the IPO model can assist designers and policymakers in evaluating and improving designs and eliminating previous implementation flaws [139], which are critical in the context of safety, both in terms of research and real-life circumstances. Accordingly, the present study examined the influence of an SMS on organizational safety performance, positing the IPO system theory as a potential candidate to describe the pathways and processes involved in the hypothesized relationships. The fact that the model has provisions to link multiple variables and identify their direct and indirect relationships makes it suitable for exploring the mediating role of working conditions. A detailed explanation of this theory is provided below, and its application is explained subsequently.

This study employed the IPO model to link three broad variables (SMS, working conditions, and safety performance) and their corresponding constructs to synthesize a more comprehensive process and causal model of safety performance among P & E organizations in Nigeria. Under the IPO concept, the input variables are constructs of an SMS, which can serve as assets for the working environment and conditions, and the output variable is safety performance. The process variables are considered the ‘drivers’ or ‘processes’ involved in achieving safety performance goals. Processes are observable conditions affected by diverse input factors that influence outcomes [140]. Examples include encouragement between members of a group [134], conflicts, boundary management [138], team learning activities [141], and conditions governed by external units [137].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Research Design

In this study, hypothesis testing was used to explicate and test the relationships among SMS implementation, working conditions, and safety performance. Consistent with the observations of Sekaran and Bougie [142], this type of investigation is appropriate if researchers are interested in testing statements synthesized from a theoretical framework that can be validated through statistical analysis. This study also tested several hypotheses based on the IPO theory [134]. Furthermore, this study adopted a cross-sectional research design to collect and analyse data simultaneously.

3.2. Population and Sample

The unit of analysis in this study comprises P & E distribution organisations in Nigeria, with data collected from one safety manager per organisation, signifying that data collected from each safety manager represents their individual organisations. Safety managers were selected, because they are likely to have access to every detail regarding the SMS that is carried out in their organisations [21]. The study sample was selected from an accessible population of organizations. Accordingly, the target population comprised 11 P & E distribution companies with 380 branches spread throughout the 36 states of Nigeria, including the capital city of Abuja. Diverse sources, such as telephone numbers, email addresses, and postal addresses, were used to contact the companies in the sampled population.

The sample size for this study was derived from the Krejcie and Morgan [143] sampling technique. Based on this technique, the minimum sample size for a population of 380 (i.e., the number of branches of the 11 P & E distribution companies in Nigeria) was 191. However, to achieve an appreciable response rate, scholars suggest that the sample size be added to at least 50% of the required sample size [144], based on which a sample of 96 was added to the required sample size of 191, totalling 287 participants.

3.3. Survey Instrument

3.3.1. Management Commitment to Safety

Management commitment to safety was measured using ten items adapted from [145]. Researchers have widely used these items. For example, Chong et al. [78] reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.909. Sampled items included “Management cares about workers’ safety and does everything possible to make the job safe”.

• Employee Involvement

The measures of employee involvement in safety were adapted from Dedobbeleer and Beland [145] and consisted of eight items. Chong et al. [78] reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.882. Sampled items included “Employees have personal control over safety at work”.

• Safety Communication

The measures of safety communication were adapted from Fernandez-Muniz et al. [66] and consisted of four items. The internal consistency reliability was 0.805. Sampled items included the following: “Company has fluent communications in periodic and frequent meetings, campaigns, or oral presentations to transmit principles and rules of action”.

• Safety Training

Eight safety training measures were adapted from Fernandez-Muniz et al. [66]. The internal consistency reliability was 0.782. Sampled items included the following: “Employees are given sufficient training periods when entering the company, changing jobs, or using new techniques”.

• Safety Champion

The safety champion measures were adapted from Chong et al. [78] and consisted of six items. Chong et al. [78] reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.906. Sampled items included the following: “The peer leader influences the employees to practice safety procedures”.

• Government Regulations

The measures of government regulation were adapted from Ahmad Nazri [146] and consisted of five items. Researchers have widely used these items. For example, Chong et al. [78] reported an internal consistency reliability of 0.923. Sampled items included the following: “The company implements the OSH program because of government laws”.

3.3.2. Working Conditions

The items for working conditions were adapted from Brown et al. [147] and Seo [148]. The scale consists of twenty-one items and four subscales. These subscales were utilized by Fernadez-Muniz et al. [40]. These included (1) work pressure (four items), (2) environmental conditions and occupational hazards (seven items), (3) safety incentives (five items), and (4) co-worker support (five items). The internal consistency reliability of all the scales ranged from 0.78 to 0.87.

• Safety Performance

Safety performance dimensions are well-described in a study by Fernandez-Muniz et al. [47], in which four dimensions were used: safety compliance (three items), safety participation (five items), employee satisfaction (three items), and safety outcomes (three items). A five-point Likert scale [149] with the following anchors was used to measure all variables in this study: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly agree.

3.4. Data Collection Procedure

Data were collected from the second week of April 2024 to July 2024. The remaining days in April and the first week of May were used to conduct a pilot study. The participants were initially informed by phone calls, soliciting their interest and willingness to participate in a survey based on the frame obtained from the Nigerian Electricity Regulation Commission. A questionnaire was distributed by mail to the selected participants. The questionnaire contained a cover page that introduced the purpose of the study to the respondents. An official letter was collected from the OYA Graduate School of Business to enable the researcher to obtain approval from the distribution companies. The letter and copy of the proposal were forwarded to the National Research Ethics Committee of Nigeria (NHREC) for review. Written approval was obtained from the committee under the following protocol approval number: NHREC/01/10/01/2007-12/07/2023. A total of 287 questionnaires were distributed; of these, 222 were returned and retained, translating to a 77% response rate. By following up via phone calls and site visits, ensuring respondents that their data would be kept private, and working with important industry players to promote participation, the research team was able to obtain a 77% response rate in the Nigerian Power and Electricity Distribution Industry.

3.5. Data Analysis

The data analysis comprised several sequential steps. First, data collected via structured questionnaires from the safety managers in P & E branches were initially subjected to a descriptive analysis. SPSS version 23 was utilized to conduct this analysis, which involved calculating the frequencies and percentages of the respondents’ profiles. The subsequent analysis aimed to assess the potential for common method bias; we used all survey items obtained from the respondents, since both independent and dependent variables were measured using self-report questionnaires. Harman’s single-factor test was applied, involving an exploratory factor analysis in SPSS on all measurement items without rotation [150]. Subsequently, SmartPLS version 3.2.9 was employed to examine the research hypothesis. This approach comprises two steps: the first involves assessing the measurement model, achieved by performing composite reliability test as shown in Table 1 and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to validate the first-order safety performance dimensions; working condition dimensions and SMS dimensions as shown in Table 2. Once the measurement model has been satisfied, the next step is to assess the second-order construct’s measurement using SmartPLS. In this study, the higher-order construct of working conditions and safety performance was formed, each by four lower-order components, respectively. Following the guidance proposed by Hair et al. [151], the working conditions and safety performance were classified as a reflective–formative model. Variance inflation factor (VIF) values were calculated to examine multicollinearity among the sub-constructs of working conditions and safety performance, as shown in Table 3. After obtaining the second-order construct, the second stage of the data analysis (structural model evaluations) was conducted to test the study’s hypotheses as shown in Figure 1. In this analysis, a hypothesized path was considered significant or not based on the T value and p value. This was achieved using the bootstrapping technique, which involved 5000 samples to assess both the direct and indirect (mediation analysis) relationships between the constructs, following the recommendation by Hair et al. [151].

4. Results

4.1. Demographic and Descriptive Results

The respondents’ profiles revealed a wealth of experience, as evidenced by their long tenure in Nigeria’s P & E distribution companies. Nearly half of the participants (48.6%) had been in their current employment for 7–9 years, indicating a significant number of seasoned workers. A smaller proportion (10.4%) had held their current jobs for <3 years, whereas 41.0% had 4–6 years of experience. This distribution underscores the industry’s ability to retain workers for extended periods, thus contributing to a stable workforce with extensive knowledge of the field.

Male and female respondents comprised 70.3% and 29.7% of the sample, respectively. This indicates a considerable gender imbalance. This discrepancy draws attention to the gender gap in the field and raises questions regarding how diversity and inclusion initiatives can be strengthened. Initiatives to promote greater female participation and address any underlying causes of this disparity could benefit the sector. Regarding respondents’ qualifications, a sizable proportion had advanced degrees. Of the respondents, 49.5% had a bachelor’s degree, 24.8% had an MSc degree, and 3.6% were PhDs. Moreover, 2.7% had an Ordinary National Diploma, and 19.4% had a Higher National Diploma. This high level of education shows that the staff was well-trained and had the know-how to handle challenging tasks in the P & E distribution industry. Diverse skillsets among personnel can improve an industry’s ability to innovate and solve problems.

4.2. Common Method Variance

This study used several procedural remedies to reduce the impact of common method variance [152]. First, to lessen the level of evaluation anxiety, the participants were reassured that their answers would remain confidential throughout the research process and that there were no correct or incorrect responses to any of the questionnaire items. Second, all the survey questions were prepared in a clear, precise, and short style to further enhance the presentation of the scale items. In addition to the abovementioned steps, the current study used Harman’s single-factor test, as suggested by Podsakoff et al. [152], which revealed 14 factors that together explained 75.585% of the variance, with the first (highest) component accounting for <50% of the variance at 40.988%.

4.3. Measurement Model Evaluation

4.3.1. Assessment of Construct Reliability for First-Order Constructs

To establish the measurement model of the first-order constructs, discriminant and convergent validities of the measurement model were assessed. Examining the composite reliability, loadings, and average variance extracted allowed for the determination of convergent validity [153]. Each construct achieved loadings above 0.7, as shown in Table 1. According to Hair et al. [153], the composite reliability of all constructs was >0.7, and the average variance was >0.5. The HTMT criteria used in this study showed that discriminant validity was achieved (Table 2), which was within the conventional yardstick of 0.90 [154].

Table 1. Quality criteria of the first-order constructs for the variables analysed in this study.

Construct	Item	Loading	Composite Reliability	AVE
Worker satisfaction	CWS1	0.915	0.932	0.820
	CWS2	0.894
	CWS3	0.908
Co-worker support	CWSP1	0.971	0.985	0.941
	CWSP2	0.961
	CWSP4	0.978
	CWSP5	0.971
Environmental conditions and occupational hazards	ECOH1	0.800	0.923	0.632
	ECOH2	0.836
	ECOH3	0.772
	ECOH4	0.770
	ECOH5	0.745
	ECOH6	0.852
	ECOH7	0.783
Employee involvement	EI1	0.781	0.940	0.661
	EI2	0.828
	EI3	0.812
	EI4	0.781
	EI5	0.853
	EI6	0.873
	EI7	0.763
	EI8	0.803
Government regulations	GR1	0.856	0.948	0.822
	GR3	0.902
	GR4	0.931
	GR5	0.934
Management commitment to safety	MCS1	0.757	0.949	0.649
	MCS10	0.749
	MCS2	0.778
	MCS3	0.852
	MCS4	0.779
	MCS5	0.805
	MCS6	0.851
	MCS7	0.864
	MCS8	0.776
	MCS9	0.833
Safety communication	SC1	0.798	0.932	0.774
	SC2	0.891
	SC3	0.926
	SC4	0.899
Safety champion	SCH1	0.903	0.941	0.729
	SCH2	0.903
	SCH3	0.800
	SCH4	0.820
	SCH5	0.880
	SCH6	0.809
Safety compliance	SCOM1	0.912	0.934	0.824
	SCOM2	0.932
	SCOM3	0.879
Safety incentives	SI1	0.849	0.926	0.714
	SI2	0.817
	SI3	0.871
	SI4	0.838
	SI5	0.850
Safety outcomes	SOUT1	0.914	0.933	0.822
	SOUT2	0.912
	SOUT3	0.893
Safety participation	SP1	0.926	0.926	0.715
	SP2	0.848
	SP3	0.874
	SP4	0.778
	SP5	0.794
Safety training	ST2	0.850	0.961	0.781
	ST3	0.765
	ST4	0.919
	ST5	0.913
	ST6	0.935
	ST7	0.896
	ST8	0.899
Work pressure	WP1	0.924	0.953	0.835
	WP2	0.909
	WP3	0.888
	WP4	0.933

Source: researcher—based on PLS Output Criteria: composite reliability > 0.708; AVE > 0.5 [153]. AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 1. Quality criteria of the first-order constructs for the variables analysed in this study.

Construct	Item	Loading	Composite Reliability	AVE
Worker satisfaction	CWS1	0.915	0.932	0.820
	CWS2	0.894
	CWS3	0.908
Co-worker support	CWSP1	0.971	0.985	0.941
	CWSP2	0.961
	CWSP4	0.978
	CWSP5	0.971
Environmental conditions and occupational hazards	ECOH1	0.800	0.923	0.632
	ECOH2	0.836
	ECOH3	0.772
	ECOH4	0.770
	ECOH5	0.745
	ECOH6	0.852
	ECOH7	0.783
Employee involvement	EI1	0.781	0.940	0.661
	EI2	0.828
	EI3	0.812
	EI4	0.781
	EI5	0.853
	EI6	0.873
	EI7	0.763
	EI8	0.803
Government regulations	GR1	0.856	0.948	0.822
	GR3	0.902
	GR4	0.931
	GR5	0.934
Management commitment to safety	MCS1	0.757	0.949	0.649
	MCS10	0.749
	MCS2	0.778
	MCS3	0.852
	MCS4	0.779
	MCS5	0.805
	MCS6	0.851
	MCS7	0.864
	MCS8	0.776
	MCS9	0.833
Safety communication	SC1	0.798	0.932	0.774
	SC2	0.891
	SC3	0.926
	SC4	0.899
Safety champion	SCH1	0.903	0.941	0.729
	SCH2	0.903
	SCH3	0.800
	SCH4	0.820
	SCH5	0.880
	SCH6	0.809
Safety compliance	SCOM1	0.912	0.934	0.824
	SCOM2	0.932
	SCOM3	0.879
Safety incentives	SI1	0.849	0.926	0.714
	SI2	0.817
	SI3	0.871
	SI4	0.838
	SI5	0.850
Safety outcomes	SOUT1	0.914	0.933	0.822
	SOUT2	0.912
	SOUT3	0.893
Safety participation	SP1	0.926	0.926	0.715
	SP2	0.848
	SP3	0.874
	SP4	0.778
	SP5	0.794
Safety training	ST2	0.850	0.961	0.781
	ST3	0.765
	ST4	0.919
	ST5	0.913
	ST6	0.935
	ST7	0.896
	ST8	0.899
Work pressure	WP1	0.924	0.953	0.835
	WP2	0.909
	WP3	0.888
	WP4	0.933

Source: researcher—based on PLS Output Criteria: composite reliability > 0.708; AVE > 0.5 [153]. AVE, average variance extracted.

Table 2. Discriminant validity heterotrait–monotrait ratio.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1 Co-worker support
2 Worker satisfaction	0.683
3 Employee involvement	0.558	0.615
4 Environmental conditions and occupational hazards	0.673	0.668	0.557
5 Government regulations	0.584	0.604	0.464	0.581
6 Management commitment to safety	0.578	0.538	0.673	0.566	0.452
7 Safety champion	0.651	0.605	0.608	0.677	0.653	0.640
8 Safety communication	0.610	0.603	0.642	0.662	0.648	0.625	0.720
9 Safety incentives	0.650	0.670	0.625	0.654	0.507	0.579	0.566	0.623
10 Safety participation	0.560	0.611	0.666	0.624	0.450	0.516	0.582	0.562	0.643
11 Safety compliance	0.648	0.597	0.570	0.623	0.554	0.585	0.629	0.617	0.710	0.625
12 Safety outcomes	0.393	0.543	0.429	0.414	0.331	0.377	0.374	0.381	0.457	0.383	0.449
13 Safety training	0.569	0.580	0.628	0.544	0.614	0.597	0.699	0.651	0.504	0.558	0.617	0.373
14 Work pressure	0.378	0.552	0.404	0.423	0.431	0.384	0.448	0.515	0.500	0.418	0.480	0.448	0.465

Table 2. Discriminant validity heterotrait–monotrait ratio.

Construct	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14
1 Co-worker support
2 Worker satisfaction	0.683
3 Employee involvement	0.558	0.615
4 Environmental conditions and occupational hazards	0.673	0.668	0.557
5 Government regulations	0.584	0.604	0.464	0.581
6 Management commitment to safety	0.578	0.538	0.673	0.566	0.452
7 Safety champion	0.651	0.605	0.608	0.677	0.653	0.640
8 Safety communication	0.610	0.603	0.642	0.662	0.648	0.625	0.720
9 Safety incentives	0.650	0.670	0.625	0.654	0.507	0.579	0.566	0.623
10 Safety participation	0.560	0.611	0.666	0.624	0.450	0.516	0.582	0.562	0.643
11 Safety compliance	0.648	0.597	0.570	0.623	0.554	0.585	0.629	0.617	0.710	0.625
12 Safety outcomes	0.393	0.543	0.429	0.414	0.331	0.377	0.374	0.381	0.457	0.383	0.449
13 Safety training	0.569	0.580	0.628	0.544	0.614	0.597	0.699	0.651	0.504	0.558	0.617	0.373
14 Work pressure	0.378	0.552	0.404	0.423	0.431	0.384	0.448	0.515	0.500	0.418	0.480	0.448	0.465

4.3.2. Assessment of Formative Measurement Model

Table 3 presents the assessment of the formative constructs with dimensions. The variance inflation factor values for the dimensions of the formative construct were below the threshold of five [155]. Subsequently, outer weight significance was assessed using the bootstrapping procedure by generating 5000 subsamples [153]. The results of the bootstrapping procedure demonstrate that all dimensions were significant. The results indicate that all first-order dimensions were found to make a significant contribution to the corresponding second-order constructs.

Table 3. Assessment of formative measurement model.

	Weights	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p Values	VIF
Working Condition
Co-worker support → Working condition	0.322	0.014	23.204	0.000	2.321
Work pressure → Working condition	0.221	0.017	12.722	0.000	1.444
Environmental conditions and occupational hazards → Working condition	0.383	0.018	21.083	0.000	2.220
Safety incentives → Working condition	0.312	0.015	21.278	0.000	2.136
Safety performance
Safety participation → Safety performance	0.448	0.023	19.804	0.000	2.072
Safety compliance → Safety performance	0.288	0.016	17.745	0.000	2.243
Safety outcomes → Safety performance	0.235	0.020	11.732	0.000	1.396
Worker satisfaction → Safety performance	0.293	0.016	18.787	0.000	2.449

VIF, variance inflation factor.

Table 3. Assessment of formative measurement model.

	Weights	Standard Deviation (STDEV)	T Statistics (|O/STDEV|)	p Values	VIF
Working Condition
Co-worker support → Working condition	0.322	0.014	23.204	0.000	2.321
Work pressure → Working condition	0.221	0.017	12.722	0.000	1.444
Environmental conditions and occupational hazards → Working condition	0.383	0.018	21.083	0.000	2.220
Safety incentives → Working condition	0.312	0.015	21.278	0.000	2.136
Safety performance
Safety participation → Safety performance	0.448	0.023	19.804	0.000	2.072
Safety compliance → Safety performance	0.288	0.016	17.745	0.000	2.243
Safety outcomes → Safety performance	0.235	0.020	11.732	0.000	1.396
Worker satisfaction → Safety performance	0.293	0.016	18.787	0.000	2.449

VIF, variance inflation factor.

4.4. Hypothesized Model

To examine the significance of the path coefficients, a bootstrapping procedure was employed using 5000 subsamples [153]. This is a nonparametric resampling procedure used in Partial Least Squares (PLS) that provides the standard errors and t values of the parameters [153].

The findings in

Table 4. Results of the analysis of hypothesized direct relationships.

H+	Relationship	Β	Standard Error	T Values	p Values	Confidence Interval Lower	Confidence Interval Upper	Result
H1	Management commitment to safety → Safety performance	0.014	0.056	0.245	0.403	−0.073	0.104	Not Significant
H2	Employee involvement → Safety performance	0.181	0.055	3.306	0.001 **	0.077	0.256	Significant
H3	Safety communication → Safety performance	−0.019	0.060	0.319	0.375	−0.108	0.083	Not Significant
H4	Safety champion → Safety performance	0.034	0.063	0.539	0.295	−0.075	0.135	Not Significant
H5	Safety training → Safety performance	0.111	0.058	1.922	0.028 *	0.021	0.214	Significant
H6	Government regulations → Safety performance	0.063	0.060	1.054	0.146	−0.043	0.153	Not Significant
H7	Working condition → Safety performance	0.603	0.058	10.394	0.000 **	0.518	0.713	Significant
H8	Management commitment to safety → Working condition	0.166	0.063	2.641	0.004 *	0.065	0.268	Significant
H9	Employee involvement → Working condition	0.170	0.066	2.565	0.005 *	0.068	0.279	Significant
H10	Safety communication → Working condition	0.217	0.069	3.143	0.001 **	0.094	0.326	Significant
H11	Safety training → Working condition	0.047	0.074	0.636	0.263	−0.089	0.167	Not Significant
H12	Safety champion → Working condition	0.201	0.078	2.587	0.005 *	0.073	0.308	Significant
H13	Government regulations → Working condition	0.200	0.063	3.191	0.001 **	0.096	0.313	Significant

** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05.

show that the direct relationship between management commitment to safety and safety performance was not significant (β = 0.014, T value = 0.245, and p = 0.403). Employee involvement had a significant positive direct effect on safety performance (β = 0.181, T value = 3.306, and p = 0.001). The direct effect of safety communication on safety performance was not significant (β = −0.019, T = 0.319, and p = 0.375).

Table 4 shows that the relationship between the presence of a safety champion and safety performance was not significant (β = 0.034, T value = 0.539, and p = 0.295). Safety training had a significant positive direct effect on safety performance (β = 0.111, T value= 1.922, and p = 0.028). The direct effect of government regulations on safety performance was not significant (β = 0.063, T value = 1.054, and p = 0.146). The relationship between working conditions and safety performance was highly significant (β = 0.603, T value = 10.394, and p = 0.000).

Management commitment to safety significantly affected working conditions (β = 0.166, T value= 2.641, and p = 0.004). Employee involvement significantly affected working conditions (β = 0.170, T value = 2.565, and p = 0.005). Safety communication had a significant positive effect on working conditions (β = 0.217, T value = 3.143, and p = 0.001). The relationship between safety training and working conditions was not significant (β = 0.047, T value = 0.636, and p = 0.263). The presence of a safety champion had a significant positive effect on working conditions (β = 0.201, T value = 2.587, and p = 0.005). Table 4 also shows that government regulations significantly affected working conditions (β = 0.200, T value = 3.191, and p = 0.001).

4.5. Mediation Analysis

Table 5. Indirect effect report.

H+	Relationship	Β	Standard Error	T Values	p Values	Confidence Interval Lower	Confidence Interval Upper	Result
H14	Management commitment to safety → Working condition → Safety performance	0.100	0.040	2.491	0.013 *	0.026	0.180	Significant
H15	Employee involvement → Working condition → Safety performance	0.103	0.043	2.359	0.019 *	0.029	0.199	Significant
H16	Safety communication → Working condition → Safety performance	0.131	0.042	3.120	0.002 *	0.058	0.219	Significant
H17	Safety champion → Working condition → Safety performance	0.121	0.046	2.647	0.008 *	0.043	0.215	Significant
H18	Safety training → Working condition → Safety performance	0.029	0.047	0.609	0.543	−0.063	0.118	Not Significant
H19	Government regulations → Working condition → Safety performance	0.120	0.040	3.001	0.003 *	0.041	0.201	Significant

* p < 0.05.

reports the findings on the indirect effects within Nigerian P & E distribution companies. First, management commitment to safety (β = 0.100, T value = 2.491, p = 0.013, and CI [0.026, 0.180]) positively influenced safety performance via improved working conditions. Second, employee involvement (β = 0.103, T value = 2.359, p = 0.019, and CI [0.029, 0.199]) also significantly contributed to safety performance through better working conditions. Third, safety communication (β = 0.131, T value = 3.120, p = 0.002, and CI [0.058, 0.219]) had a strong positive indirect effect on safety performance.

The relationship between the presence of a safety champion and safety performance mediated through working conditions in Nigerian P & E distribution companies was significant, as indicated by the indirect effect (β = 0.121, T value = 2.647, p = 0.008, and CI [0.043, 0.215]). Conversely, safety training (β = 0.029, T value = 0.609, p = 0.543, and CI [−0.063, 0.118]) did not exert a significant indirect effect on safety performance through working conditions. Finally, the relationship between government regulations and safety performance mediated through working conditions was significant, as demonstrated by the indirect effect (β = 0.120, T value = 3.001, p = 0.003, and CI [0.041, 0.201]).

As illustrated in Table 5, five of the indirect relationships were significant, and one was not. Similarly, using the 95% bootstrapping confidence interval results [156], five of the indicators did not have a zero overlap between the upper and lower intervals, suggesting that mediation occurred. Unfortunately, one of these relationships was not significant, suggesting no mediation. This is because there was zero overlap between the upper and lower intervals.

With regard to the R² value, management commitment to safety, employee involvement, safety communication, safety training, presence of a safety champion, government regulations, and working conditions accounted for 76.1% of the variance in safety performance. Additionally, management commitment to safety, employee involvement, safety communication, safety training, presence of a safety champion, and government regulations accounted for 65.7% of the variance in working conditions.

Another important criterion is effect size. Cohen [157] classified effect sizes of 0.02, 0.15, and 0.35 as small, medium, and large, respectively. The effect sizes (f²) in this study were within an acceptable range and were mainly small based on Cohen’s classification [157]. The predictive relevance of the model was assessed using the Stone–Geisser test [158]. A Q² > 0 indicates adequate predictive relevance of a model [158]. The results confirm that the Q² value for the dependent variable was acceptable (safety performance = 0.438 and working conditions = 0.402).

5. Discussion

The core purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between SMS implementation and safety performance based on the mediating role of working conditions in Nigerian P & E distribution organizations. The findings show no evidence to support the existence of a relationship between safety performance and management commitment to safety in Nigeria’s P & E distribution companies. This shows that management commitment by itself does not significantly or directly affect organizational safety performance in this particular setting. While management commitment is frequently regarded as an essential element of a strong safety culture, in this particular situation, its isolated influence might not be sufficient to produce appreciable improvements in safety results. Our findings contrast with previous studies conducted at the organizational level, such as those by Hajmohammad and Vachon [159], Bayram [160], and Fernández-Muñiz et al. [49], which all reported a significant association between safety performance and management commitment to safety. A plausible reason for this variation in findings could be ascribed to the unique context of the Nigerian electricity sector, where persistent resource constraints; infrastructural challenges; and systemic issues, such as political interference and operational risks, may limit the practical impact of management commitment on actual safety outcomes. This result implies that the extent to which management commitment exerts its influence on safety performance at the organizational level may be context-dependent; thus, addressing sector-specific challenges is essential in achieving the benefits of management commitment in safety.

According to this study, a strong positive relationship exists between employee involvement and safety performance in Nigerian P & E distribution companies. This implies that, in this context, employee involvement is a crucial factor for determining safety performance. Improved safety performance is directly affected by active employee participation in safety-related activities, such as reporting hazards, participating in safety training, and joining safety committees. This result is consistent with that of McGrath’s [134] IPO model, which views employee participation as a necessary input that converts into the output of improved safety performance through efficient safety procedures. This study’s findings about the significant relationship between employee involvement and safety performance are consistent with those of Saata et al. [161], who found employee involvement to have significantly predicted safety performance outcomes reflected in injury rates of the industry, and also those of Braunger et al. [41], who discovered that maintaining safety performance required employee involvement, particularly in high-risk settings. These findings also align with those of Turner et al. [57], who identified employee involvement as the only significant human resources practice capable of predicting organizational-level injury rates of 49 UK firms.

According to the findings of this study, there is no statistically significant relationship between safety performance and safety communication in Nigerian P & E distribution companies. This shows that in this specific situation, safety performance, which includes the elements of safety compliance, safety participation, safety outcomes, and worker satisfaction, is not significantly affected by safety communication alone. Although safety communication is often regarded as an essential element of an SMS, the extent to which it is linked to other safety practices may determine its effectiveness in enhancing safety performance. The non-significant finding in this study is due to contextual characteristics unique to the Nigerian power sector, where other factors, such as working conditions or regulatory compliance, may have a greater effect on safety performance than safety communication. This finding aligns with the results of previous studies, such as those by Job, Silva, and Moriera [162] among different Portuguese firms and Gümüş et al. [163], which emphasize that while safety communication is essential, its impact on safety performance is often mediated by other factors.

This study found that the relationship between the presence of a safety champion and safety performance in Nigerian P & E distribution companies is not statistically significant. It appears that the position of a safety champion—someone who promotes safety, inspires colleagues, and spearheads safety initiatives—does not directly affect safety performance in this context, including safety compliance, safety participation, safety outcomes, and worker satisfaction. This study suggests that the presence of a safety champion may not be sufficient to considerably improve safety results, despite the fact that SMSs frequently highlight the idea of a safety champion as a crucial driver of safety culture. This finding contrasts with studies conducted in other regions or industries where safety champions have been shown to impact safety performance significantly. For example, research by Shea [164] has demonstrated that visible and proactive champions can foster a strong organizational performance by directly influencing champion commitment, experience, self-efficacy, peer engagement, and organizational support. The limited influence of safety champions in this study could be attributed to several contextual factors. One possibility is that the organizational structure or cultural setting in Nigerian P & E distribution companies does not empower safety champions to implement or enforce safety initiatives effectively. Additionally, employees may perceive the role of a safety champion as symbolic rather than functional, particularly if there is insufficient support from senior management or inadequate resources for implementing safety programs. This study showed a substantial positive link between safety performance and safety training in Nigerian P & E distribution companies. This finding is in tandem with those of Vredenburgh [81], Bayram [82], and Ghahramani et al. [165] which all support the notion that safety performance is significantly influenced by safety training, especially in high-risk sectors. According to this research, safety compliance, safety participation, safety outcomes, and worker satisfaction are just a few aspects of safety performance in which safety training appears to have a significant influence. Within this framework, safety training provides workers with the information, abilities, and mindset needed to recognize and reduce hazards, follow safety procedures, and engage in safe work practices. Furthermore, it equips employees with the necessary knowledge and skills to adhere to safety protocols, participate in safety initiatives, and improve overall safety outcomes. While management may not be directly involved in operational-level activities that stimulate safety, their decision to organize mandatory safety training plays an indirect yet critical role in fostering a safer work environment. By investing in structured training programs, management creates an infrastructure that supports safe practices and empowers employees to act safely. This finding aligns with broader research emphasizing the importance of management-driven initiatives, such as policy implementation and resource allocation, in shaping organizational safety performance. The relevance of this relationship highlights the role of safety training as a fundamental input in McGrath’s [134] IPO model.

In this study, there was no statistically significant relationship between government regulations and safety performance in Nigerian P & E distribution companies. This result is in line with earlier research in the safety literature, which emphasizes the difficulties of depending entirely on rules to raise standards for safety performance. Ghahramani [166], for example, pointed out that although rules such as OHSAS 18001 offer an essential foundation for safety management, their efficacy primarily rests on how successfully an organization implements and maintains them. Our findings imply that in this context, worker satisfaction and other safety performance outcomes, such as safety compliance, safety participation, and safety outcomes, are not significantly affected by government rules alone. These findings suggest that although government rules are widely seen as essential for establishing safety benchmarks and guaranteeing adherence, their impact on safety outcomes may be limited if they are not adequately incorporated into the company’s safety management framework [167]. Government laws can be seen as an input that needs to be appropriately processed within the organizational environment to obtain the intended safety outputs, according to McGrath’s [134] IPO model.

The results of this study show a substantial positive link between working conditions and safety performance. The study findings are similar to the results of Magalhães et al. [30] and Fernandez Muniz et al. [40], who evaluated the influence of working conditions on the safety performance of different organizations. This strong correlation implies that several safety performance factors, such as safety compliance, safety engagement or participation, and safety outcomes, are significantly affected by favourable work environments. In addition to ergonomic workspaces, top-notch equipment, and job needs, working conditions encompass organizational, environmental, and physical aspects. By implementing these changes, staff members can follow safety procedures more closely, actively participate in safety-related activities, and achieve better safety performance. This study emphasizes the vital function of working conditions as a necessary input in McGrath’s [134] IPO model, which produces improved safety performance as an output when working conditions are favourable.

This study reveals a strong positive relationship between management commitment to safety and working conditions. The results of this study show that working conditions, including environmental factors, occupational dangers, safety incentives, and peer support, are highly influenced by management’s commitment to safety. This finding aligns with that of Magalhães et al. [30]. According to Vinodkumar & Bhasi [65] and Mashi et al. [84], management commitment plays a critical role in setting the tone for safety practices within an organization and influencing policy, resource allocation, and overall safety culture. When the management demonstrates a clear and active commitment to safety, working conditions improve, providing employees with a more secure work environment. This is consistent with McGrath’s [134] IPO model, in which managerial commitment functions as an input that influences processes, such as improved working conditions.

According to this study, a strong positive relationship exists between working conditions and employee involvement. This finding aligns with Rasmussen et al. [168] and Abatan et al. [169]. Our study suggests that there are notable improvements in working conditions, such as environmental aspects, occupational dangers, safety incentives, and peer support, when employees actively participate in safety-related activities. Employee involvement can take many different forms, including participating in safety committees, helping to identify hazards, and attending safety training courses. Employees are more likely to contribute to a safer workplace when encouraged to actively participate in these procedures, because their knowledge and experience can be used to identify possible hazards and create workable solutions.

Working conditions and safety communication were positively correlated in this study. This result is consistent with a study by Lingard, Pirzadeh, and Oswald [170]. This study showed that good safety communication among staff members greatly improves working conditions, especially in terms of co-worker support, safety incentives, environmental factors, and occupational dangers. Safety communication involves sharing safety-related information, reporting hazards, and having conversations about safety protocols and practices. Effective communication of safety concerns and information by employees improves overall working conditions by facilitating a more accurate identification of hazards and the development of suitable preventive strategies.

This study found no statistically significant relationship between working conditions and safety training. This indicates that changing working conditions may not be significantly affected by safety training alone. Although safety training is frequently seen as an essential part of an SMS, its efficacy may vary depending on several other variables, including employee participation, the frequency and quality of training, and how successfully the training is incorporated into regular operations [171]. Within the context of McGrath’s [134] IPO model, safety training can be considered an input. However, depending on organizational practices, it might not influence processes that result in better working conditions [171]. This finding contrasts with that of Lingard et al. [170], who reported that safety training improved the working conditions of construction organizations. These variations in findings may indicate that certain contextual factors, such as a lack of practical applications, insufficient follow-ups, or organizational challenges, impede the effectiveness of safety training in the Nigerian power and electricity sector.

This study found a strong relationship between the presence of a safety champion and working conditions. This research emphasizes how crucial it is to have committed individuals or groups of individuals within a company who actively push for changes in working conditions and safety incentives and address environmental and occupational dangers. A safety champion is essential to an organization, because this individual sets an example, represents the organization’s commitment to safety, and ensures that safety procedures are followed correctly and are continuously improved. This consistency in results, as observed in studies by Chong et al. [78] and, Zavalkoff et al. [172] underscores the importance of implementing a safety champion to promote the working conditions of firms.

This study showed a significant positive relationship between government regulations and working conditions, such as environmental conditions, occupational hazards, safety incentives, and co-worker support, in Nigerian P & E distribution companies. This study emphasizes the importance of governments in regulating sectors of the economy, such as P & E distribution, to shape and enhance working conditions. Government laws provide businesses with the rules and guidelines that they need to follow to guarantee a safe and healthy work environment for employees. Our findings give credence to those of Mearns et al. [87] and Strauss-Raats [173]. This similarity in findings across varying contexts and sectors, as observed in ours and that of Mearns et al. [87] and Strauss-Raats [173], shows that vibrant government regulations can significantly influence safety practices and standards, irrespective of differences in the industry. Our results extend this understanding to the Nigerian context, where regulatory interventions appear equally vital in determining the quality of working conditions.

The findings of this study indicate a substantial relationship between management commitment to safety and working conditions, which in turn affects safety performance. This suggests that organizations with higher degrees of management commitment to safety have better working environments, which improve safety performance outcomes. Our findings align with previous mediation analyses in organizational-level safety research across various sectors and contexts. For instance, Chong et al. [78] found that a strong commitment to safety by management was linked to enhanced internal control and improved safety outcomes of SMEs in Malaysia. Likewise, Bayram [160] reported that management commitment in safety initiatives significantly predicted workplace safety performance of firms located in Turkey. The consistency of these findings across different sectors and geographical settings underscores the critical role of management in reinforcing safe working environments and promoting high safety standards.

Findings from our study also reveal that active employee involvement has a positive effect on working conditions, which in turn improves safety performance in Nigerian P & E distribution companies. The relationship between employee involvement and safety performance is significant, owing to the indirect effect of employee involvement through working conditions. This implies that workers improve their working conditions when they actively participate in safety-related activities, such as joining safety committees, reporting hazards, and helping with safety training. Better safety performance outcomes are ultimately the result of these enhanced conditions, typified by a more collaborative work atmosphere and improved understanding of safety standards [174]. Our findings mirror Magalhães et al.’s [30] mediation findings between safety culture and performance; our study revealed that employee involvement enhances performance by fostering safer places, suggesting that participatory safety practices transcend regional or cultural boundaries.

The findings from this study also show that safety communication significantly and indirectly affects safety performance through working conditions. This finding aligns with that of Magalhães et al. [30]. These findings suggest that improving working conditions through effective safety communication is critical for improving the safety performance in Nigeria’s P & E distribution companies. This indicates that a safer work environment is greatly enhanced by open, transparent, and consistent communication on safety issues, practices, and expectations. The effective communication of safety information makes employees more knowledgeable and conscious of hazards, which encourages watchfulness and proactive actions to improve safety performance [175].

The presence of a safety champion within Nigerian P & E distribution companies positively influences working conditions, which in turn enhances safety performance. The relationship between the role of a safety champion and its indirect effect on safety performance through working conditions was significant. Ensuring that safety procedures are regularly followed and upheld is primarily the responsibility of a safety champion, who is frequently a designated person or team responsible for promoting safety awareness and practices. A safety champion actively promotes safety, identifies possible risks, and rewards safe conduct. This helps establish and maintain a safer workplace, which improves safety performance [176]. Similar to a study by Fernandez-Muniz et al. [40], which found that leadership improves safety performance through working conditions, our results confirm that safety champions exert their influence on safety by improving working conditions. This supports the collective role of leadership in shaping both procedural and physical safety environments, even in different contexts.

The findings show that safety training has no significant indirect effect on safety performance through working conditions. Our findings align with Al-Bsheish’s [177] suggestion that training effects may bypass working conditions and operate through knowledge retention or motivation. This suggests that in Nigerian P & E distribution companies, safety training has no discernible effect on working conditions that affect safety performance. This research implies that although safety training is an essential component of an SMS, in this specific industry environment, it might not indirectly result in better safety performance through working conditions. There could be a number of reasons for the absence of a substantial relationship, including gaps between training and implementation in the workplace or problems related to the frequency, quality, or applicability of the training provided [38]. In Nigeria, inconsistent training implementation or under-resourced facilities may weaken its mediated impact

Government regulations have a strong indirect effect on safety performance through working conditions. This means that government regulations have a major influence on how Nigerian P & E distribution companies shape their working environments, which in turn improves safety performance. According to this research, strict and strictly implemented government rules help make workplaces safer by establishing guidelines for safe behaviour, guaranteeing adherence and providing a structure for ongoing safety measure development. The considerable improvement in safety performance is indicative of the influence of these regulations on working conditions and highlights the significance of regulatory control in high-risk industries [178]. Unlike previous studies, which focused on internal organizational factors like Magalhães et al. [30] and Naji et al. [60], our finding that government regulations influence outcomes of safety performance across organizations through working conditions underscores the crucial role of external institutional forces in high-risk industries. This supports institutional theory but has not been empirically tested in safety models.

6. Conclusions, Implications, Limitations, and Directions for Future Research

6.1. Managerial Implications

This study contributes to the safety performance literature by providing empirical evidence to support the mediating role of working conditions on the relationship between a safety management system and organizational safety performance of P & E firms. This study has important implications for the management of methods to improve the safety of the P & E distribution industry in Nigeria. The strong relationship between safety performance and employee involvement implies that encouraging an environment in which employees play an active role in their work improves overall safety performance. Initiatives that motivate employees to participate in safety procedures, such as including them in committees and decision-making processes, offering forums for safety-related recommendations, actively involving them in safety planning, and fostering an atmosphere in which employees feel comfortable reporting safety concerns, should be implemented. This level of participation may facilitate better overall safety outcomes and a stronger safety culture.

The positive effect of safety training suggests that funding thorough safety training initiatives can enhance safety performance. Managers must ensure that the training sessions are consistent, are applicable to the positions held, and include hands-on activities. Stressing the value of ongoing training in safety procedures may encourage employees to act safely. By doing so, workers would be better prepared to handle safety challenges, which would improve safety performance. The substantial effect of safety training on safety performance highlights the need for ongoing investments in employee training programs.

The significant influence of good working conditions on safety performance is highlighted by the highly substantial relationship between working conditions and safety performance. Managers must prioritize the upkeep and enhancement of infrastructure, equipment dependability, ergonomic needs, and overall comfort in the workplace. Safety can be improved by addressing these issues. Equipment maintenance should be a top priority for managers, who should also ensure that the workplace is ergonomic and safe and address any problems that can jeopardize employee safety. This emphasis on the working environment has the potential to improve safety performance significantly.

A strong managerial commitment to safety has a favourable impact on working conditions, as evidenced by the positive relationship. Managers of P & E distribution companies should set an example for others to follow, prioritize safety when making decisions, set aside funds for infrastructure upgrades, and ensure that routine operations and facility upkeep incorporate safety measures. Managers can demonstrate their dedication to safety by reviewing safety procedures regularly and setting good examples. This dedication may have a domino effect that enhances working environments and safety performance.

According to this study, good safety communication improves working conditions, which in turn affects safety performance. Managers of P & E distribution companies in Nigeria must create unambiguous channels of communication on safety matters, guarantee that information reaches every company level, and foster discussions on safety issues and potential enhancements. The significant indirect effect of government regulations on safety performance through working conditions suggests that regulatory compliance is essential for maintaining safe work environments. Supervisors ought to ensure that their establishments adhere to all pertinent laws and perceive adherence to laws as the barest minimum measure for ensuring safety. Encouraging compliance with laws can prevent mishaps and enhance overall safety outcomes.

6.2. Theoretical Implications

In addition to adding to the body of knowledge on safety management, the theoretical ramifications of this study’s findings offer insightful information on the dynamics of safety performance within Nigerian P & E distribution companies. First, the understanding of how workplace environment elements contribute to safety has been advanced by the insights into the important role that working conditions play as a mediator between many safety-related factors (e.g., management commitment, safety communication, and government regulations) and safety performance. The IPO model, which emphasizes how input factors (such as management systems and regulations) influence the process (working conditions), which in turn affects the output (safety performance), is supported by the finding that working conditions play a critical intermediary role in these relationships. This emphasizes the importance of safety performance theories considering working conditions as a key component of the causal chain that results in better safety outcomes. This is a significant contribution to the safety literature.

Second, numerous presumptions made in the safety management literature are questioned by the non-significant results regarding the direct relationships of management commitment, safety communication, and the presence of a safety champion with safety performance. These findings imply that the relationship of these factors with safety performance may be more conflicting than previously thought and may be mediated by additional factors, such as working conditions or dynamics unique to a company. This necessitates a more thorough theoretical investigation of the ways and circumstances in which these variables have an impact, which could result in the creation of more context-specific safety models, as in this study.

Finally, the theoretical significance of McGrath’s [134] IPO model resides in its capacity to offer an organized framework for comprehending the ways in which different factors, such as government regulations, influence safety performance through intermediary processes, such as working conditions. The IPO model provides a clear, sequential framework for studying the dynamics within companies by decomposing complicated relationships into manageable steps. This study used the IPO model to clarify how external factors, including laws and regulations, play a critical role in influencing internal processes, particularly those related to working conditions, which in turn influence observable safety performance.

6.3. Limitations of This Study and Directions for Future Research

The main limitation of this study is that it only examined the P & E distribution sector in Nigeria, which may limit the applicability of the findings to other sectors or regions. The industry-specific regulatory framework, safety culture, and organizational dynamics may differ from those of other sectors. Consequently, the correlations between the variables may not be generalizable to other contexts. Subsequent investigations may broaden the scope of this study to include various sectors and regions, facilitating a comparative evaluation that could augment the applicability of the results.

This study also used cross-sectional data, which provide an overview of the relationships at a particular moment in time. This method restricts the capacity to deduce causality and comprehend how these associations change over time, particularly in response to modifications in safety procedures and legal requirements. Longitudinal studies should also be conducted to determine how the connections between variables evolve.

6.4. Conclusions

In conclusion, this study highlights the critical factors influencing safety performance in Nigerian P & E distribution companies using the IPO model. The findings demonstrate that management commitment to safety, employee involvement, safety communication, and the presence of safety champions significantly affect working conditions, which in turn affects overall safety performance. Government regulations play a pivotal role in shaping working conditions and ensuring adherence to safety standards. However, this study revealed that not all factors, such as safety training, had a significant indirect effect on safety performance, suggesting the need for a more tailored approach to developing safety interventions in this industry. These insights emphasize the importance of a holistic approach to safety management that considers both organizational and regulatory inputs, the processes they influence, and the resulting safety outcomes. The IPO model provides a valuable framework for understanding how these factors interact within an industrial context and offers both theoretical and practical implications for improving safety performance.