Keywords

1 Introduction

Workplace illnesses and injuries continue to plague workers around the world.Footnote 1 According to the International Labour Organization (2015), every year there are close to 337 million workplace accidents and 2.3 million deaths around the world, i.e., there are close to 6,300 deaths per day. The majority of these deaths are the result of illnesses resulting from repeated exposure to hazards at work (ILO 2015, http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-at-work/lang–en/index.htm).

The garment manufacturing, dressmaking and tailoring sector is not deemed to be a high-risk industry, which is why the number of accidents and illnesses reported by government bodies is underestimated. This means that the private sector continues to believe that the working conditions within this sector are adequate, focusing only on fulfilling the most basic standards and regulations (Mata 2004).

González (2006) argues that, in Mexico , some business owners within the textile industry are neither concerned about safety, nor do they deem it to be important. Furthermore, workers do not have enough information regarding the risks they face, not to mention the fact that their participation in safety measures is not sufficient. However, a number of studies show that there is a relationship between the incidence of musculoskeletal disorders, such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome or arthritis (Melo 2012), and the incidence of respiratory disorders among workers in the textile industry (Díaz/Schlaen 1994). The majority of the employment opportunities available in this industry are almost always filled by women , who usually work in precarious situations where there is no workplace safety, little or no participation in workplace organization (including health and safety) and, above all, economic conditions that perpetuate poverty (Guadarrama et al. 2012).

Hazard identification is the first step in creating a healthy and safe working environment. The opinion of risk managers within a given industry is of vital importance as it is they who decide what measures need to be taken to manage health and safety in the workplace. However, if risk managers have no information about workers’ perceptions and attitudes towards the risks they face, their opinions become somewhat limited in scope. Therefore, the evaluation of risks is a fundamental factor within the safety management process when choosing prevention and protection measures (risk management) that guarantee the safety and well-being of workers (Reinhold/Tint 2009). In this study, we will be referring to potential danger as a latent environmental factor that threatens the status of an individual or society in general. We understand risk as the likelihood of a potential risk having a negative impact on humans and/or their environment .

This study aims to relate risk perceptions to the physical and health hazards of an industry. The chapter is organized in the following fashion: Firstly, a theoretical framework encompassing industrial hazards and risks in the industry is presented, as well as contributions from a risk perspective from the emerging area of occupational and health psychology. Secondly, it continues with the presentation of a case study of a company from the garment manufacturing industry (n = 271) and presents the development and validation of the Risk Perception Scale for the Textile Industry, which encompasses two factors: (a) Perception of Risk of Accident and (b) Perception of Ergonomic Risks . Thirdly, the results of the analysis of these risk perception factors and their relationship to gender and occupational level are relayed. Lastly, conclusions and recommendations aimed at professionals within the spheres of academia, applied psychology and other areas interested in promoting safe and healthy workplaces are presented.

2 Occupational Risks and Hazards

Risks are conceived in different ways. Risk perception studies examine the opinions that people express when questioned, in a variety of different ways, about how they evaluate dangerous substances and activities (Slovic 1987; Slovic et al. 1982). Health and occupational psychology focuses on linking these opinions to psychosocial factors (e.g., organizational stressors) industrial psychology (job design and individual differences), and, finally, organizational psychology (group activities and a culture of industrial safety within organizations).

In the United States and Europe, psychosocial risks are currently a major focus as the economies in these regions have moved from manufacturing to service providers. In Mexico and other developing countries, economies have shifted from agriculture to manufacturing, which is why the traditional analysis of hazardous waste is of the utmost importance. In the aforementioned economic regions, these industries generate large quantities of toxic residue and waste that directly and indirectly affect people’s health.

Industrial activity has led to damage to both the environment and people’s health. The pollution stemming from productive processes can be seen inside and outside facilities, contaminating the air, water and soil, which are indispensable natural resources for the livelihood of every species, including humans. The health risks posed by industrial pollution range from minor to mortal.

Over the past number of decades, numerous research projects have identified and studied a wide range of workplace risks (physical, chemical, biological, psychosocial and physiological) that can lead to accidents (e.g., Hollmann et al. 2001; Salminen et al. 1993). These accidents frequently result in workplace injuries and illnesses, which have the potential to decrease productivity and generate high costs, in addition to damaging the reputation of the company (Sheu et al. 2000). Employees who have been injured can suffer not only from pain and discomfort, but also much more serious physiological and psychological problems. If workers suspect that they may be being exposed to physical harm, this can cause stress , which, by itself, is associated with coronary disease, depression and even cancer (Reinhold/Tint 2009). In Mexico , the Federal Labour Law stipulates that employers are responsible for health, safety and the prevention of workplace risks (Federal Labour Law 2012, p. 98). Quintero/Romo (2001) state that risk management is exceedingly important in the regulation of labour relations by companies in Mexico, and this can be seen in the advent of trade unions, collective contracts and labour disputes.

Human error is the one of the leading causes of workplace accidents. Human error can be attributed to people underestimating or overestimating risks, in such a way as to make workplace risk perception an important regulatory element of occupational safety (Carbonell/Torres 2010).

Most of the studies undertaken by health and safety researchers have focused on reducing ‘objective’ risk, through an essentially quantitative approach to risk analysis . However, people do not undertake quantitative risk analysis when evaluating workplace hazards, but rather they do the opposite, assuming ‘subjective’ risk evaluations (Arezes/Miguel 2008).

3 Risk and Productivity

Within organizations, productivity demands can become psychosocial risks. Within industries, the major determining factor for worker safety is the behaviour of the latter, but this element, by itself, ‘cannot turn a dangerous workplace into a safe one’. Furthermore, if the company’s management is not committed to eliminating workplace hazards and concentrating on the health and safety of its workers, the focus will remain on productivity and speed. This leads to a breakdown in preventive behaviours and attitudes (Asfahl 2000: 1).

The differences in risk perception can be explained by the organizational culture present in each group or department, given that different occupational groups have different visions of what organization means, and, as such, they have different meanings for production processes (Pérez-Floriano/Gonzalez 2007; Schein 1996). It is a fact that safety elements are an integral part of any industrial process, which is why safety procedures and policies must take precedence over aspects of the process, such as working speed (an important element for the group charged with supervising production) and profitability (a priority for an organization’s management).

Other theoretical approaches to workplace hazards focus on psychosocial risks, which are aspects of the workplace design, organization and management, in addition to social frameworks that have the potential to cause psychological, social or physical harm (Cox/Rial-Gonzalez 2000: 14). Psychosocial risks are deemed to be: job stress, burnout, mobbing, sexual harassment and physical violence , among others.

In the last few years, psychosocial risks and risks to health have become more of a focal point for employers, politicians, legislators and workplace health and safety professionals. This is due to the relationship between these risks and globalization , not to mention the burden this has on jobs today (Kompier 2006). Exposure to psychosocial risks has the potential to cause serious harm. The most significant risks in this new millennium can be grouped into five categories: (a) new forms of employment and a lack of job security; (b) an ageing workforce; (c) the intensification of workloads; (d) high emotional demands in the workplace; and (e) the poor balance between family and work. There are numerous studies that focus on the effect of workplace risks, such as psychosocial factors and their association with physical and mental health effects in almost every occupation and working environment (e.g., Cox/Rial-Gonzalez 2000). Psychosocial risks manifest themselves as organizational stressors; the pressure to complete tasks quickly, with no breaks, will have a negative impact on people’s health and well-being .

The purpose of risk analysis is twofold: Ideally, it establishes the relationship between workplace hazards and people’s health. It then evaluates the risk to health as a result of exposure to hazards. Physical hazards are, in occupational health psychology terms, stressors that have the potential to cause damage, such as stress (considered to be a harmful psychosocial risk). Furthermore, the notion of fear has major implications on managing risks in the workplace. Burke et al. (2011) undertook a meta-analysis in which they found that the ‘dread’ factor has an impact on the effectiveness of industrial safety programmes. These studies focused on situations where there was a high level of risk and that required different training compared to jobs where there was a low level of risk. The finding of Burke and colleagues was post hoc as the researchers who undertook the original studies had not contemplated the importance of the ‘dread’ factor.

4 Risk Perception and Its Implications for the Industry

The relevant academic literature indicates that risk perceptions are more informative than objective risk indicators in predicting behaviour. This is because the majority of workers have difficulty understanding and evaluating probabilistic calculations (Brewer et al. 2007; Morrow/Crum 1998).

Risk perception and safety procedures can vary considerably depending on the culture found within each company, and even the subculture of different occupations within an organization will affect perceptions of risk. Members of some industrial sectors can underestimate certain corporations that are generally exposed to high levels of risk as they tend to minimize them, while in other situations, they overestimate them. There are communities and occupations where accepting risks is part of the job. Furthermore, a worker’s perception of risks and their relationship with the said risk can vary significantly depending on the culture of safety within the organization (Kouabenan 2009).

For example, Arezes/Miguel (2008) found that in industrial environments with high noise levels, people who perceived a risk of losing their hearing, given the risk posed by the noise levels, used ear protectors more frequently than people who did not perceive this threat. The same authors state that they deem it reasonable to presume that the perception of risks in the workplace can influence people’s behaviour and, as such, their exposure to some occupational risks. Research into risk perception has focused mainly on preventing risks as a result of accidents. Therefore, there are gaps in the research with regard to understanding how people perceive and react to the long-term risks which potentially affect their health because those risks are not clearly visible or evident. As such, it is fundamentally important to study and understand how workers perceive the risks to which they are potentially being exposed.

Pérez-Floriano/Gonzalez (2007) among others (see Burke et al. 2011), have discussed the fact that there are numerous differences in risk perception within subgroups (including documented differences within the same culture , workplace environment and occupation), demonstrating that the social construction of risk beliefs are endogenous to the environment. These differences can lead to inaccurate interpretations of the sources of potentially hazardous risks. When risks are not properly evaluated, they can lead to: risky behaviour and improper activities with regard to the source of the risk; inadequate decisions regarding safety measures; and, both ordinary and catastrophic workplace accidents (Rundmo 1996). Moreover, tackling risks in the workplace depends not only on being able to perceive and deal with them, but also on the level of knowledge and the correct ways of avoiding them (Hoyos 1995).

Experts state that, through communication and social interaction processes, people are capable of eventually understanding the properties of hazards , including the risks associated with different types of events and hazardous exposure. When hazardous events and exposure can result in potentially fatal consequences, such as fires or exposure to toxic chemical products, it is expected that this will lead to fear and other negative emotions and feelings. The ‘dread’ factor and awareness regarding vulnerability to injuries and illnesses, as well as the feelings experienced, must be the main motivating factors for training in how to handle the said hazards (Burke et al. 2011). In summary, the judgements of different stakeholders regarding the level of risk of a number of hazards helps us to identify where and how to focus policies, procedures and training, which are fundamental to improving the systems and safety culture of the occupational groups under scrutiny.

5 Ergonomic Risk, Repetitive Motion Injuries, and Risk of Accident

The pollution found within factories, stemming from production processes, emissions, industrial waste and hazardous waste management, is considered to be a minor danger . Sometimes, managers and technical personnel do not know or do not want to recognize the long-term impact that processes have on workers’ health and safety (Lezama 2004). Repeated exposure to these types of hazardous objects and situations is considered to lead to ergonomic risks and can result in injury and illness.

Society’s perceptions of the environmental threats that industries represent has been modified as a result of industrial accidents. For example, in Mexico , the industrial accident at the Pasta de Conchos coal mine in Coahuila in 2006 led to the deaths of 65 miners. Mining involves a latent risk of accidents or illnesses stemming from the different gases that miners inhale; however, there are workers who minimize this risk, while other recognize that there is an implicit risk and are afraid of suffering an accident (Tejeda/Pérez-Floriano 2011).

The 2013 collapse of the Rana Plaza garment factory in Dhaka, Bangladesh, where more than 1,100 textile workers died and about 2,500 were injured, exposed the precarious conditions to which garment workers are exposed. Industrial accidents can affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of people; however, some risks are considered to be ‘secondary effects or necessary evils, and, in many cases, these are risks that are not perceived by the same people who are directly exposed to them as a result of the introduction of technologies that involve unknown dangers’ (Lezama 2004: 17).

Despite the catastrophic industrial accident in the Rana Plaza garment factory in Bangladesh, the garment manufacturing industry is, debatably, considered to be one of the cleanest industries in environmental terms; however, it is possible to identify a number of effects, including emissions that lead to: sound pollution; air pollution stemming from dust generated during the cutting process within the plants; the presence of solid waste from fabric, oil and fat residues; and the excessive use of resources, such as electricity and water, among others (Parada/Pelupessy 2006).

6 Methods

In the field research, the following activities were undertaken: archival data analysis, group interviews, direct observation, open interviews, and surveys. The goal of these activities was to identify the major health risks facing people working in the production process. As a measurement tool, a specific questionnaire was used, covering the following variables: age, gender, education level , organizational tenure, daily productivity, and position. The data compiled helped to validate the Risk Perception Scale for the Textile Industry.

6.1 Participants

The target population comprised those workers within the production area of XY textile factory. 405 questionnaires were distributed to workers from different production areas, with a response rate of 66.91%. The convenience sample (n = 271) was composed of 67.89% (=184) women and 32.11% (n = 87) men . The average age was 33.58 years old. Production operators were deemed to be all those people involved directly in the production process, in sewing operations, inspection, auditing, garment spotting, distribution of materials to production modules (materials). A group of workers (indirect personnel), involved in several jobs relating to production, was distinguished from operators, including: production supervisors, line managers, quality auditors and mechanics. Administrative personnel are people who coordinate a production department, which is why they are considered to be supervisors.

6.2 Risk Analysis and Measurement of Risk Perception Within the Textile Industry

A risk analysis was undertaken at a textile factory, which included data from the Mexican Social Security Institute (Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social in Spanish), academic literature, interviews, and a focus group with managers from the factory. The goal of this process was to identify the hazards facing production personnel at the factory.

The purpose of identifying workplace hazards was to use them to: measure workers’ perception of risk of exposure to each of those working conditions; characterize the hazards; and analyse the effects that hazards have on workers’ subsequent behaviour. The participants identified potential hazards to which people from the sewing and garment spotting areas were exposed, and the risk of each of these hazards was evaluated on a scale from 1 ‘the level of risk is low’ to 7 ‘the level of risk is very high’.

The risk perception scale was subjected to a factor analysis using the Kaiser Meyer-Olkin method (KMO) and Bartlett’s test of sphericity. The factor analysis included the extraction of factors or major axes and oblique rotation (Oblimin); to determine the number of factors, the Kaiser Guttman rule (Nunnally/Bernstein 1994) was employed to obtain a reduction in the variables relating to one or more factors that explain their lineal combinations (Nunnally/Bernstein 1994). From this analysis, two factors emerged, explaining 50.46% of the variance of the workplace hazards or inherent safety conditions for the working environment . However, the risks of accident and from environmental conditions, and ergonomic risks or risk from repeated exposure, are different in the factorial solution found. The resulting risk factors were the following:

Factor 1 Perception of Risk of Accident : risks stemming from dangers that are conducive to accidents and hazards from environmental elements. This factor comprises the evaluation of some risks from physical agents , such as the ignition of chemical agents and the exposure to toxic substances within the factory. This factor also encompasses unexpected situations resulting from safety conditions that lead to workplace accidents. The dangers identified within this factor were: exposure and/or handling of flammable substances; exposure and/or handling of toxic substances; electric shock from spilling water or any other liquid on the sewing machines, garment spotting guns, other machinery or equipment; the clothing or hair of the operator becoming caught in the sewing machine; fires resulting from a dirty or poorly-maintained sewing machine; damage to eyes from broken needles ejected from the machine; trips and falls; insufficient illumination; fires resulting from the overheating of equipment, tools and machine motors; insufficient ventilation; not using safety equipment for handling heavy boxes.

Factor 2 Perception of Ergonomic Risks : this factor characterizes ergonomic risks, i.e., those situations stemming from the interaction between the person and a system, e.g., injuries resulting from repetitive movements and the implicit health risks of the environmental conditions, such as noise and dust inhalation. The hazards identified in this factor were: deteriorated eyesight; heat from physical effort; being exposed to a lot of noise for long periods; inhaling lint; damage to eyes resulting from a blast of compressed air; muscular injuries resulting from repetitive motion ; and heat stroke (exposure to intense heat).

Although the list of hazards identified is not exhaustive, it is representative of the main safety elements and hazardous situations that affect the health of the workers. The risk of ‘piercing fingers with needles’ was eliminated as it fell into both factors.

7 Results of Risk Perception Analysis of Work at the Textile Factory

The differences between risk perception by occupational level and by gender were analysed. Visits were made to the factory to observe the production processes and carry out informal interviews with members of the organization. It was found that the operators are exposed to dust particles (what they commonly refer to as ‘lint’), which detach themselves from the material and stick to their face and clothes. Some operators were using masks for protection, while others were not. Furthermore, they were exposed to the noise and heat stemming from the motor of the sewing machines used in the production process, and they were not using earplugs.

7.1 Risk Perception and Gender

Multiple studies have found that men tend to judge risks to a lesser extent than women (for example, Fischer et al. 1991; Finucane et al. 2000; Sjöberg 2003; Slovic 1999; Weber et al. 2002). Various hypotheses have been presented to explain these differences, one of which focuses on biological and social factors. For example, they state that women are more concerned about human health and safety because they are mothers and have been educated to promote and maintain life .

With the variables from the factor analysis, we proceeded to undertake a statistical analysis to find out whether there were significant differences between men and women, even though the average risk perception from both genders was high; on a scale of 1 to 7, the averages for both factors were above 5.

However, given the fact that most of the operators are women, an analysis was undertaken to find out whether there was a significant difference between men and women with regard to each of the risks found in the production process. We found that women are significantly more concerned than men about the following hazards : muscle injuries because of repetitive movements; fires as result of overheating of tools, equipment or machine motors; exposure to extreme heat; trips and falls; and the inhalation of lint .

In addition to gender analysis, risk perception by occupational strategy was assessed for both factors (accident-environmental risks and ergonomic risks). Significant differences were found among the three occupational groups: production operators, administrators and supervisors. The operators perceived a higher level of risk than the other two groups, and it is noteworthy that ergonomic risks, according to the participants, pose the greatest risk to the health of the workers (see Fig. 16.1).

Fig. 16.1
figure 1

Source The authors

Risk factors by occupational level (own elaboration).

Full size image

7.2 Descriptions of Perception of Risk Factors by Occupational Level

The average of each of the risks from the perception scale by occupational level, including the experts in this analysis, is shown in Fig. 16.2. Production operators, administrative and indirect personnel and experts gave the highest ratings to the risk of muscle injuries stemming from repetitive movements, while for supervisors the greatest risk came from lint inhalation . However, the operators ranked the risk from inhaling lint higher than the supervisors. It is important to underscore the fact that the supervisors gave the lowest score to each of the risks. It is the supervisors who set the pace in the workplace and, as such, the production demands. Finally, it should be noted that the experts were those people who took part in the focus group , and who, once the decision had been reached as to which risks would be included in the final survey, received a list of these risks and ranked them. The group of ‘experts’ were those who took part in the group interview and who filled out a different form from the other groups. They evaluated and put the risks in order based on their potential harm to workers’ well-being.

Fig. 16.2
figure 2

Source The authors

Risk perception average for each hazard by occupational level (own elaboration).

Full size image

  • List of Hazards:

  1. 1.

    Heat stroke from physical exertion

  2. 2.

    Trapping clothing, hair and/or clothing accessories in the sewing machine

  3. 3.

    Falls and slips

  4. 4.

    Electric shock from dropping water or other liquid on sewing machines, garment dismantling guns, or other machines or equipment

  5. 5.

    Wear and tear

  6. 6.

    Exposure to lint for long periods of time

  7. 7.

    Exposure to flammable substances

  8. 8.

    Exposure to toxic substances

  9. 9.

    Exposure to excessive noise and for long periods of time

  10. 10.

    Heat stroke (exposure to intense heat)

  11. 11.

    Inadequate lighting

  12. 12.

    Fire from overheated engines, equipment or tools

  13. 13.

    Fire caused by lack of cleaning and maintenance of the sewing machine

  14. 14.

    Eyes injuries caused by projectiles, such as broken needles

  15. 15.

    Eye injuries caused by compressed air blown in the face

  16. 16.

    Muscle injuries due to repetitive movements

  17. 17.

    Failure to use safety equipment to handle heavy boxes

  18. 18.

    Inadequate ventilation

7.3 Production, Authority and Risk Perception

In keeping with the numerous studies that analyse the relationship between productivity and a culture of industrial safety, we found that productivity demands lead to a lesser focus on safety measures. The people who reported making more tops on a daily basis also perceived fewer workplace risks. This would indicate that the more tops produced, the less attention workers pay to workplace hazards . The relationship between productivity and ergonomic risks, although pointing towards a negative trend, was not significant.

8 Conclusions

This study indicates that occupational characteristics are more important in predicting risk than demographic factors, such as gender. The degree of exposure to lint is rated considerably higher by the operators than by the supervisors and experts (management). This is in keeping with that suggested by academics in the area of cultures of safety. They have shown that placing an emphasis on productivity leads to individuals ignoring and/or minimizing the real and potential risks found in industrial environments. We can see this in our results. The operators perceive a greater level of risk compared to the other occupational groups, given that the former face the implicit possibility of bodily harm, which, frequently, can have an irreversible impact. Identifying industrial hazards will lead to the creation of workplace practices and policies that are safer for workers and their environment .

Although the gender differences in both factors included in the scale were not significant, it is worth reviewing whether there are any differences in perception of those hazards considered to be ‘important’ given their potential to negatively impact the health of the people who work in this industry and, in particular, in this factory. The risk of inhaling lint, heatstroke (in a city where the temperature can reach more than 40°C in summer) and muscle injuries resulting from repetitive movements were statistically significant.

In conclusion, understanding the risk perceptions and safety attitudes of workers is necessary in developing a culture of safety, where each person accepts responsibility for working safely (Fleming et al. 1998). Identifying workplace risks lies at the core of industrial safety, and given that safety, just like quality and productivity, is inherent in each and every manufacturing process, when safety aspects are ignored, workers will infer that safety is not a priority, simply by omission, leading in the eyes of the workers to a weak industrial safety climate (Zohar/Luria 2004). Hazard identification and characterization is a powerful tool to better understand the risks posed by the industrial sector. At the same time, understanding risk perception can lead to more accurate recommendations regarding training for workers in safe practices and the improvement of health and safety conditions to eliminate and control the risks found in the workplace. Furthermore, analysing risk perception can contribute to the understanding of risk management and safe working conditions (Rundmo 1996). These perceptions can be used for training, personnel development, wages and salaries, and even personnel selection.