An Oral presentation slides on the topic of OSH Implementation in SMEs in Malaysia: The Role of Management Practices and Legislation.

2. Introduction

3. Aims

4. Research Framework
Management
Practices
• Management
Commitment
• Hiring Practices
• Employee
Participation
• Safety Reward
• Safety Training
OSH Implementations
• General Compliance
• Safety
Procedures/Policy
• Safety
Communication/
Documentation
• Safety Resources
• Suppliers OSH
• Risk Assessments
Legislation

5. Methodology
• 2216 small : 314
medium
• a ratio of 7:1
• 152 SMEs (68.5%
response rate)

6. Methodology
Participants
• Stratified random sampling using a computer software was
adopted and the self-administered survey was answered
either by the safety and health officer (SHO) or personnel
incharged of OSH management.
Position n %
EHS/Safety 18 12
Others Admin 132 88
• 66% male (M = 38.5 years old, SD = 9.2) ,
• 39% Malay, 47% Chinese & 14% Indian,
• Tenure with Co (M = 8.3 years, SD = 6.2).

7. Company Size
Size No. of Employees n %
Micro < 5 persons 1 1
Small 5 to 75 persons 109 73
Medium 76 to 200 persons 31 20
Large > 200 persons 9 6

8. No of Reported Accidents
25%
59%
15%

9. Company’s Age
4%
20%
55%
21%
M = 16 years
SD = 8.12

10. Questionnaire
55%
• OSH Implementations: 89-item instrument adapted from an OSH
Work Inspection Checklist used for Proton vendors based upon
Part 1:2005 OSH MS OSH Act 1994 and an ILO-OSH 2001
Guidelines on Occupational Safety and Health Management
System document. Example of statements are, “Employees have
the right to access records relevant to their working environment
health, while respecting the need for confidentiality” and “There is
a provision of information and training concerning OSH to all
personnel at workplace”.
• Management Practices: 26-items adapted from Vredenburgh
(2002), Worsfold and Griffith (2003) and Dillard (1997). Covers the
5 dimensions.
• Legislation: 8-items adapted from McQuiston, Zakocs, and
Loomis (1998) and Fairman and Yapp (2005) whom both were
investigating the enforcement elements of legislation on safety
behaviours.
All response scale was a 7-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 7
= Strongly Agree).

11. Results
OSH Implementations:
General
Compliance
Safety
Documentation
Safety
Procedure
Safety
Resources
Suppliers
OSH
Risk
Assessment
β R2 β R2 β R2 β R2 β R2 β R2
Management Practices
Management Commitment .65 - - .45 .26 .52
Hiring Practices - .38 .33 -.19 .22 -
Employee Participation .25 .21 .24 - - -
Safety Reward .10 - -.26 - - -
Safety Training - .81c .18 .42c .34 .45c - .30c .27 .32c - .23c
Moderator
Legislation .12 .82c - .42 - .45 - .31 - .32 - .23
2-way Interactions
Management Commitment X
Legislation
- 1.48 1.63 2.38 2.15 2.61
Hiring Practices X Legislation -.61 - - - - -1.55
Employee Participation X
Legislation
- - - - - -
Safety Reward X Legislation -.70 -1.72 - -2.69
-
1.59
-1.17
Safety Training X Legislation - .84b - .50c - .48 - .42c -.66 .39a - .33c
Table 1.
Results of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for OSH Implementations, Management Practices, and
Legislation, their Interactions with the Moderator

12. Results

13. Results

14. Discussions
ü Different management practices influence
different OSH implementations.
ü Low level of legislation is enough to
encourage or ensure OSH implementations.
ü High level of legislation is required to
encourage OSH implementation when in
interaction with management commitment.

15. Thank You