Abstract
Background
Job stress was found to directly increase the likelihood of accidents and indirectly increase the likelihood of accidents by lowering the safety atmosphere. Job stress has a significant impact on the safety environment, and job satisfaction is effective in reducing accident rates. Accordingly, we sought to investigate the correlation between safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction in small businesses with a high risk of industrial accidents. Additionally, we aim to investigate factors that may affect job stress, job satisfaction, and safety levels.
Methods
This study was conducted on 230 workers in small businesses in Korea. First, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using SPSS software, and anova analysis was used to investigate significant variables. Finally, the relationships between variables were investigated using structural equation modeling (SEM).
Results
The analysis results showed that safety level and job stress had a negative correlation with a coefficient of −0.8. Safety level and job satisfaction had a correlation with a coefficient of 0.2. Job satisfaction and job stress had a negative correlation with a coefficient of −0.7. This shows that when job stress is high, there is a negative correlation between job satisfaction and safety level. In addition, 4 general characteristics items and 3 job characteristics items showed a correlation with job stress. 2 general characteristics items and 8 job characteristics items showed a correlation with job satisfaction. 4 general characteristics items and 11 job characteristics items showed a correlation with safety level.
Conclusion
Small businesses' job stress, safety level, and job satisfaction showed a significant correlation. In addition, the relationship between the variables affecting them was significant. In order to reduce the occurrence of accidents among workers in small businesses, control of factors and efforts to reduce job stress are necessary.
Keywords: Safety level, Job stress, Job satisfaction, Workplaces with less than 50 worker, Small business
1. Introduction
In order to reduce the number of industrial accidents at industrial workplaces, efforts are being made to improve various safety and health systems and to prevent accidents stemming from changes in the working environment [1]. However, in Korea, more than half of all accidents occur in small businesses with poor working conditions. Most of many research have mainly focused on the working conditions of workers and the working environment and the roles of supervisors [2].
However, since safety accounts for a large portion of domain related to human feeling, decision, and psychology, research on workers feeling and decision is also needed [[3], [4], [5]] General prior studies have also reported that work environment, job demands, relationship conflicts, job insecurity, organizational system, and compensation factors all affect the occurrence of accidents in industrial sites [6]. In addition, excessive and chronic stress causes illness and unsafe action in workers in the workplace, and it can also be a factor that can lead to an industrial accident by falling job engagement in job satisfaction and organization [7]. Many previous studies also emphasized the harmful effects of job stress on workers' job behavior [8]. Job stress can have effects on concentration, inattentive, damage a memory, causing task hesitation and hindering one's decision-making ability unsafe act and accident occurrence [9]. These unsafe acts are an expression of attitudes towards one's job and are associated with job satisfaction [10]. Surprisingly, existing research shows that job satisfaction also affects people's health [11], in that people who are satisfied with their jobs are healthier than those who are not [12]. It has also been found that job satisfaction is the most important factor influencing work stress and that it acts as a mediator in the safety environment and of employee participation [9].
Workers will not behave positively at work if they perceive that the safety level is not being met, and this is directly related to their job satisfaction [[13], [14], [15]].
If safety awareness is positive, more positive attitudes and behaviors can be expected. On the other hand, dissatisfaction with accident risks and hazardous environments can lead to job stress [3,[16], [17], [18]].
Job stress has been shown to directly increase the likelihood of accidents and indirectly degrade the safety climate, thereby increasing the likelihood of accidents [19]. An increase in job stress can reduce workers’ resilience, leading to decreased productivity [20]. Job stress significantly impacts the safety climate, and job satisfaction is effective in reducing accident rates [9].
There are studies that show that safety level and job stress or job satisfaction have an effect on industrial accidents. The research focused on single industries such as oil refineries and petroleum companies. Similar research on small workplaces employing 50 or fewer people that have a high accident rate does not exist.
According to the Ministry of Employment and Labor's (MOEL) analysis of the status of occupational accidents by size of the business from 2019 to 2021 [21], many accidents and fatalities occur in workplaces that are small and employ fewer than 50 people (Fig. 1, Fig. 2).
Fig. 1.
2019–2021 industrial accident analysis of the current situation (Injured).
Fig. 2.
2019–2021 industrial accident analysis of the current situation (Deaths).
In fact, the high risk of an industrial accidents in small business with less than 50 workers makes risk analysis essential [22], and research on the safety and health status and safety management of workplaces has been carried out continuously [[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]]. Previous research has mainly focused on medium or large organizations, with findings or conclusions that may or may not apply to SMEs [30].
However, it should be recognized that when organizational problems arise in small companies, they are less likely to be addressed in a scientific or timely manner and are structurally very different [30].
Therefore, this study aims to identify the correlation between the safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction of workers in small businesses, and to analyze and identify the factors that affect it.
2. Methods
2.1. Participants
This study was conducted from November 3, 2022 to December 31, 2022 and involved workers in small business with fewer than 50 full-time workers in South Korea. A list of small businesses was created and randomly selected.
After explaining the research purpose, survey method, and use of survey data to participants, a survey was conducted by distributing questions through paper questionnaires and Google forms (QR codes).
Before the survey was conducted, the number of subjects required for the study was calculated using the G∗Power program. As a result of calculating the number of subjects using G∗Power with effect size f = 0.15, err prob = 0.05, power = 0.95 Number of predictors = 5, and Structural equation model analysis, 138 responses were required. Considering the potential dropout rate, the questionnaires were distributed to 250 people and data were finally obtained from 230 people.
2.2. Data collection instruments
2.2.1. Safety level
The Safety Awareness Level Diagnostic Questionnaire of the Korea Safety and Health Institute was modified and used to assess the safety levels of the workplaces [31]. Each item, in this case the safety awareness of company owners, voluntary participation by workers, cooperation between departments, cooperation with managers, and support for safety, required an answer of ‘not at all’, ‘not like that’, ‘is average’, ‘is so’, or ‘is very much so’, i.e., on a five-point scale. The scores of these ten items about safety levels (out of the total of 84 questions) were converted to a total of 100 points, and the higher the score, the higher the level of safety in the workplace.
2.2.2. Job stress and job satisfaction
The job stress questionnaire used in this study was the ‘Korean Job Stress Measurement Tool’ developed by Jang et al. [32] and cited by Woo [33]. The questionnaire consisted of 24 items, each of which was scored on a four-point scale consisting of ‘not at all’, ‘not like that’, ‘it is like that’, and ‘very much like that’. The total score was analyzed on a scale of 100, with higher scores indicating greater job stress. Job satisfaction was measured using the job satisfaction questionnaire by Woo [33], which is a modified version of the ‘index of work satisfaction’ developed by Slavitt et al. [34]. Each item requires an answer of ‘not at all’, ‘not like that’, ‘is about right’, ‘is so’ and ‘very much so’, i.e., on a five-point scale, with higher scores indicating greater job satisfaction.
2.2.3. General characteristics and job characteristics
General characteristics as used here were gender, age, education, marital status, type of enterprise, and type of employment. Job characteristics were working hours, annual income, freedom to take holidays, stable working conditions, and freedom from work authority.
2.3. Data analysis
All statistical analyses were performed using IBM SPSS version 25.0.
In this study, 84 in total questions were used, with questions about ‘safety levels' (10 questions), ‘job stress' (24 questions), ‘job satisfaction’ (16 questions), the ‘general characteristics’ of the research subjects (13 questions), and ‘job characteristics’ (21 questions).
Regression analysis was conducted to identify statistically significant variables.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to analyze the relationships between independent variables and moderating variables with low significance probabilities using R Studio version 2023.12.0.
SEM has been recognized as a reliable method for deriving reasonable results from structural analysis [[35], [36], [37], [38]].
SEM is a multivariate analysis method that has been widely applied to theoretical exploration and empirical verification in various fields [39].
Structural equation modeling is a more advanced form of statistical method than path analysis and allows the use of mediating variables. Multiple regression models with multiple dependent variables can be tested simultaneously. It shows a form of path analysis that shows causal relationships and correlations between latent variables [40].
3. Results
Descriptive statistics were calculated on the general and job characteristics of safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
As a result of the reliability analysis using Cronbach's alpha, items that lowered the reliability of the questionnaire were excluded from the general characteristics and job characteristics items.
Normality test and equal variance were performed, and after satisfying significance with Welch's statistical probability and significance probability, one-way analysis of variance was performed. When one-way ANOVA was conducted on the general and job characteristics of safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction, statistically significant items were identified.
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using statistically significant items as control variables.
Hierarchical regression analysis was conducted with job stress as a control variable.
Partial correlation analysis was conducted to check for correlations among variables showing significant probabilities with safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
3.1. Statistical analysis of the participants' general and work characteristics
Statistically significant items for general characteristics according to safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction are shown in Table 1 (p < .05).
Table 1.
Significant general characteristics according to safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
| Characteristic | Safety level (p) | Job satisfaction (p) | Job stress (p) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Academic background | q3 | 0.034 | 0.835 | 0.454 |
| Marital status | q4 | 0.925 | 0.098 | 0.028 |
| Type of business | q5 | 0.524 | 0.040 | 0.002 |
| Working years | q8 | 0.017 | 0.276 | 0.046 |
| Average working hours | q11 | 0.984 | 0.030 | 0.154 |
| Promotion opportunity | q12 | 0.000 | 0.414 | 0.008 |
| Acciden experience | q13 | 0.000 | 0.443 | 0.113 |
∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.
At the safety level, Academic background, working years, Promotion opportunity, and Accident experience were statistically significant. In terms of job satisfaction, Type of business and Average working hours were statistically significant. (p < .05)
Marital status, Type of business, working years, and Promotion opportunity were statistically significant in job stress. (p < .05)
The significant items pertaining to the job characteristics according to safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction are shown in Table 2 (p < .05).
Table 2.
Significant job characteristics according to safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
| Characteristic | Safety level (p) | Job satisfaction (p) | Job stress (p) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workspace cleanliness | q15 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.084 |
| Whether dangerous work | q16 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.102 |
| Working space width | q17 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.292 |
| Rest facility | q18 | 0.000 | 0.055 | 0.282 |
| Freedom to use vacation | q19 | 0.000 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Number of full-time workers | q23 | 0.141 | 0.004 | 0.234 |
| Air-conditioning facility | q26 | 0.000 | 0.525 | 0.000 |
| Heating facility | q27 | 0.059 | 0.109 | 0.000 |
| Other business support | q28 | 0.012 | 0.996 | 0.001 |
| Self-development support | q29 | 0.000 | 0.174 | 0.055 |
| Adequate wage level | q31 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Stable working conditions | q32 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Freedom of job authority | q33 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Retention Qualifications | q34 | 0.187 | 0.043 | 0.330 |
∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.
Significant items (p < .05) were ‘workspace cleanliness’, ‘Whether or not dangerous work’, ‘working space width’, ‘rest facility’, ‘Freedom to use vacation’, ‘air-conditioning facility’, ‘other business support’, ‘self-development support’, ‘adequate wage level’, ‘stable working conditions’, ‘freedom of job authority’ at the safety level.
Job satisfaction was ‘workspace cleanliness', ‘whether or not dangerous work’, ‘working space width’, ‘freedom to use vacation’, ‘annual income’, ‘number of full-time workers', ‘adequate wage level’, ' Stable working conditions', ‘freedom of job authority’, and ‘retention qualifications’ were significant. (p < .05)
Job stress was ‘Freedom to use vacation’, ‘air-conditioning facility’, ‘heating facility’, ‘Other business support’, ‘Adequate wage level’, ‘Stable working conditions', and ‘Freedom of job authority’ were significant. (p < .05)
3.2. Hierarchical regression analysis between safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction
After controlling for exogenous variables, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using general characteristics as control variables to determine whether job satisfaction and safety level affect job stress (Table 3).
Table 3.
Effects of general characteristics on safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
| Variables | Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | β | B | SE | β | B | SE | β | |
| Academic background | 0.300 | 0.705 | 0.028 | 0.600 | 0.548 | 0.056 | 0.636 | 0.491 | 0.059 |
| Marital status | 0.693 | 1.197 | 0.040 | 1.467 | 0.931 | 0.086 | 2.471 | 0.845 | 0.144 |
| Type of business | −4.181 | 1.302 | −0.221 | −2.747 | 1.018 | −0.145 | −2.400 | 0.913 | −0.127 |
| Working years | −1.052 | 0.519 | −0.150 | −1.210 | 0.403 | −0.172 | −1.361 | 0.362 | −0.194 |
| Average working hours | 1.910 | 0.899 | 0.152 | 1.664 | 0.698 | 0.132 | 1.103 | 0.630 | 0.088 |
| Promotion opportunity | 3.366 | 0.815 | 0.285 | 1.082 | 0.660 | 0.092 | 1.342 | 0.593 | 0.114 |
| Accident experience | −2.257 | 1.535 | −0.100 | 0.381 | 1.211 | 0.017 | 0.065 | 1.086 | 0.003 |
| Safety level | −0.840 | 0.069 | −0.635 | −0.649 | 0.067 | −0.491 | |||
| Job satisfaction | −0.324 | 0.044 | −0.360 | ||||||
| F(p) | 5.380∗∗∗ | 26.228∗∗∗ | 35.186∗∗∗ | ||||||
| 0.145 | 0.487 | 0.590 | |||||||
| adj. | 0.118 | 0.468 | 0.573 | ||||||
Dependent variable: Job stress ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.
As a result of the analysis [Model 1] F = 5.380 (p < .01), [Model 2] F = 26.228(p < .001), [Model 3] F = 35.186(p < .001) regression model were deemed adequate.
The square change amount increased to [Model 1] = 0.145, [Model 2], = 0.487, and [Model 3] = 0.590. With the significance probability p = .000 according to the change in F of , the independent variable is statistically significant in the description of the dependent variable after inputting the control variable.
Safety level β = −0.635, Job satisfaction β = −0.360, the sign is negative (−), so when Job stress increases, safety level and Job satisfaction decrease.
And the general characteristics items Academic background, marital status, Type of business, working years, average working hours, promotion opportunity, and Accident experience are significant variables.
This shows that safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction are correlated with general characteristic variables.
After controlling for exogenous variables, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using job characteristics as control variables to determine whether job satisfaction and safety level affect job stress (Table 4).
Table 4.
Effects of job characteristics on safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
| Variables | Model 1 |
Model 2 |
Model 3 |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | β | B | SE | β | B | SE | β | |
| Workspace cleanliness | 0.562 | 1.026 | 0.035 | 0.652 | 0.989 | 0.041 | 0.638 | 0.899 | 0.040 |
| Whether dangerous work | −1.715 | 0.930 | −0.111 | −1.229 | 0.904 | −0.080 | −1.178 | 0.822 | −0.077 |
| Working space width | −1.238 | 0.865 | −0.079 | −0.982 | 0.836 | −0.063 | −1.028 | 0.760 | −0.066 |
| Rest facility | −0.428 | 0.602 | −0.039 | −1.012 | 0.596 | −0.093 | −0.811 | 0.543 | −0.075 |
| Freedom to use vacation | 1.000 | 1.250 | 0.041 | 0.445 | 1.212 | 0.018 | 0.218 | 1.102 | 0.009 |
| Annual income | −0.560 | 0.445 | −0.067 | −0.505 | 0.429 | −0.060 | −1.129 | 0.401 | −0.134 |
| Number of full-time workers | 1.098 | 0.332 | 0.177 | 0.952 | 0.321 | 0.153 | 0.763 | 0.293 | 0.123 |
| Air-conditioning facility | 0.191 | 1.548 | 0.007 | 0.063 | 1.492 | 0.002 | 0.906 | 1.362 | 0.035 |
| Heating facility | 0.956 | 0.806 | 0.065 | 1.306 | 0.781 | 0.088 | 1.204 | 0.710 | 0.082 |
| Other business support | 0.643 | 0.390 | 0.088 | 0.555 | 0.377 | 0.076 | 0.763 | 0.344 | 0.105 |
| Self-development support | 0.113 | 0.394 | 0.016 | −0.105 | 0.383 | −0.015 | −0.002 | 0.349 | 0.000 |
| Adequate wage level | −0.766 | 0.730 | −0.067 | −0.547 | 0.705 | −0.048 | −0.073 | 0.645 | −0.006 |
| Stable working conditions | −2.657 | 0.939 | −0.225 | −0.747 | 1.013 | −0.063 | −0.271 | 0.924 | −0.023 |
| Freedom of job authority | −3.622 | 0.865 | −0.312 | −2.805 | 0.856 | −0.241 | −1.785 | 0.793 | −0.154 |
| Retention Qualifications | 1.182 | 1.037 | 0.063 | 0.726 | 1.005 | 0.039 | −0.237 | 0.925 | −0.013 |
| Safety level | −0.457 | 0.109 | −0.345 | −0.401 | 0.100 | −0.303 | |||
| Job satisfaction | −0.304 | 0.045 | −0.337 | ||||||
| F(p) | 14.918∗∗∗ | 16.157∗∗∗ | 21.088∗∗∗ | ||||||
| 0.511 | 0.548 | 0.628 | |||||||
| adj. | 0.477 | 0.514 | 0.599 | ||||||
Dependent variable: Job stress ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.
After controlling for exogenous variables, hierarchical regression analysis was conducted using job characteristics as control variables to determine whether job satisfaction and safety level affect job stress.
Analysis result [Model 1] F = 14.918 (p < .01), [Model 2] F = 16.157 (p < .001), [Model 3] F = 21.088(p < .001) regression model were deemed adequate.
The square change amount increased to [Model 1] = 0.511, [Model 2], = 0.548, and [Model 3] = 0.628. With the significance probability p = .000 according to the change in F of the independent variable is statistically significant in the description of the dependent variable after inputting the control variable.
Safety level β = −0.345, Job satisfaction β = −0.337, the sign is negative (−), so when Job stress increases, safety level and Job satisfaction decrease.
And the job characteristics items workspace cleanliness, whether dangerous work, working space width, rest facility, freedom to use vacation, annual income number of full-time workers, air-conditioning facility, heating facility other business support, self-development support, adequate wage level, stable working conditions, freedom of job authority, and retention qualifications are significant variables. This shows that safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction are correlated with job characteristic variables.
Partial correlation analysis was conducted to check for correlations among variables showing significant probabilities with safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction (Table 5).
Table 5.
Mutual effects of safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction.
| Variables | Model 1 |
Model 2 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | SE | β | B | SE | β | |
| Safety level | −0.856 | 0.067 | −0.647 | −0.677 | 0.065 | −0.512 |
| Job satisfaction | −0.320 | 0.045 | −0.355 | |||
| F(p) | 164.166 ∗∗∗ | 126.283 ∗∗∗ | ||||
| 0.419 | 0.527 | |||||
| adj. | 0.416 | 0.522 | ||||
Dependent variable: Job stress ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001.
It can be said that the regression model is appropriate as [Model 1] F = 164.166 (p < .001), [Model 2] F = 126.283 (p < .001) after controlling for exogenous variables by entering safety level and job satisfaction as independent variables with job stress as the dependent variable.
With the significance probability p = .000 according to the change in F of , the independent variable is statistically significant in the description of the dependent variable after inputting the control variable.
3.3. Path analysis using structural equation models
Based on the significant variables, several models were derived, and the final model is shown in (Fig. 3) considering the model fit index and the proposed relationship. The analysis results showed that safety level and job stress had a negative correlation with a coefficient of −0.8. Safety level and job satisfaction had a correlation with a coefficient of 0.3. Job satisfaction and job stress had a negative correlation with a coefficient of −0.7. This shows that when job stress is high, there is a negative correlation between job satisfaction and safety level, and vice versa.
Fig. 3.
Path analysis through structural equation model.
In addition, for job stress, 4 items of general characteristics (Marital status, Type of business, working years, Promotion opportunity) and 3 items of job characteristics (Freedom to use vacation, Annual income, Freedom of job authority) were correlated.
For job satisfaction, 2 items of general characteristics (Type of business, Average working hours) and 8 items of job characteristics (Stable working conditions, Freedom to use vacation, Annual income, whether dangerous work, Number of full-time workers, working space width, Freedom of job authority, Workspace cleanliness) were correlated.
For safety level, 4 items of general characteristics (Academic background, Accident experience, Promotion opportunity, working years) and 11 items of job characteristics (Working space width, Freedom of job authority, Stable working conditions, Freedom to use vacation, Adequate wage level, Workspace cleanliness, whether dangerous work, Self-development support, Air-conditioning facility, other business support, Rest facility) were correlated.
<Fig. 3> shows that safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction can affect each other, and that there are general characteristic factors and job-specific factors that can directly and indirectly affect each other.
Analysis results: The analysis results were judged to be fair as they satisfied Absolute Fit Index 1, incremental fit indexes 1, and parsimony-adjusted index 1 (Table 6).
Table 6.
Modeling results.
| criterian | data | |
|---|---|---|
| chisq | chisq | 948.769 |
| df | df | 817 |
| pvalue | pvalue>0.05 | 0.001 |
| rmsea | rmsea<0.1 | 0.026 |
| rmsea.ci.lower | rmsea.ci.lower | 0.018 |
| rmsea.ci.upper | rmsea.ci.upper | 0.034 |
| rmsea.pvalue | rmsea.pvalue<0.05 | 1 |
| gfi | gfi>0.9 | 0.864 |
| cfi | cfi>0.9 | 0.977 |
| tli | tli>0.9 | 0.967 |
| srmr | srmr<0.1 | 0.063 |
In the Absolute Fit Index, RMSEA <0.08 was satisfied when one out of three Chisq/RMSEA/GFI values was satisfied.
In Incremental Fit Indices, CFI>0.9 was satisfied when only 1 out of 4 AGFI/CFI/TLI/NFI values was satisfied.
The parsimony-adjusted index Chisq/df was satisfied when Chisq/df < 3.0.
Several models were drawn based on significant variables, and considering the model fit index and proposed relationships, the final model is shown in Fig. 3.
4. Discussion
This study investigated the relationships among safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction in Korean small businesses. Moreover, we examined the influence of general and job characteristics on these relationships.
To confirm the relationship between observed and latent variables, we tested them with SEM.
All hypotheses were supported, and the model fit indices indicated a good fit. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to assess the extent to which the observed variables adequately represented their corresponding latent variables, and all factor loadings were greater than 0.3. The results of this study demonstrate that safety level in Korean small businesses is significantly correlated with job stress and job satisfaction.
Furthermore, the findings suggest that Characteristic factors moderate these relationships.
Workers in small businesses with less than 50 employees showed a negative correlation between safety level and job stress, and a negative correlation between job stress and job satisfaction. This means that a high safety level means low job stress and high job satisfaction, and a low safety level means high job stress and low job satisfaction. This is consistent with previous studies that job stress affects safety or job satisfaction, and job satisfaction affects safety [9,[13], [14], [15],[41], [42], [43], [44]].
Previous studies have demonstrated that job stress directly increases the likelihood of accidents and indirectly increases the likelihood of accidents by decreasing safety climate [9,19]. Similarly, a study on mining industries showed that adherence to safety regulations was correlated with both job stress and job satisfaction, which is consistent with our findings [45]. Another study concluded that job stress has a significant impact on safety climate, and job satisfaction is the most important factor influencing job stress [9]. These findings are also in line with our results, which indicate a negative correlation between high job stress and both job satisfaction and safety levels.
According to the results of the characteristics that affect safety level and job stress and job satisfaction, safety level was affected by general characteristics such as “Academic background “, Accident experience, “Promotion opportunity “, and “Working years”. Factors belonging to the job characteristics group were “Working space width “, “Freedom of job authority “, “Stable working conditions “, “Freedom to use vacation “, “Workspace cleanliness”, “Whether dangerous work “, “Air-conditioning facility “, “Other business support “, “Self-development support“, and “Rest facility“.
The rest facilities provided in the workplace affect the safe working environment, and there were differences in safety awareness depending on work experience and academic background [46,47].
There are research results showing that education level and Accident experience affect safety attitudes [48], efficient working conditions are very important for safety, physical working conditions are potential hazards, and environmental satisfaction of the workspace is very necessary for securing safety [[49], [50], [51]].
Job stress was found to be affected by promotion opportunities, “marital status “, “working years “, “type of business “, “freedom of job authority “, and “freedom to use vacation“. This is similar to the research results that worker in small business manufacturing in Korea had high job stress [52].
It also showed that job role ambiguity increases job stress and that providing appropriate support at work can reduce stress [53,54].
Job satisfaction was more influenced by the Type of business, Average working hours. In addition, the influence of freedom to use vacation, salary, stable working conditions, presence of hazardous work, number of full-time workers, width of workspace, freedom of work authority, cleanliness of work space, support for self-development, air conditioning facilities, other work support, and rest facilities were observed.
Workers need a space to spend their break time, and the physical work environment (cleanliness, controllable heat) affects job satisfaction [[55], [56], [57]].
Workers in small businesses can be seen as having a close relationship between job stress, safety level, and job satisfaction. In order to prevent industrial accidents in small businesses with a high accident frequency in the future,
Factors based on these correlations should be considered and managed. The process of thinking is that there is a complex cause that cannot be judged simply [15].
Therefore, the results of this study will ultimately be able to suggest directions that can contribute to the prevention of industrial accidents in small businesses in Korea.
4.1. Implications
This study investigated the interrelationships among safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction among employees in small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) in South Korea, where a significant number of accidents and fatalities occur.
Our results suggest that small businesses in Korea should view job stress, safety level, and job satisfaction as an interconnected system.
Furthermore, we identified specific characteristics that influence these factors.
These findings highlight the importance of considering these interconnected relationships when developing strategies to improve safety levels in small businesses with high accident rates.
Future research should focus on developing and implementing appropriate systems to improve safety levels, job stress, and job satisfaction based on the findings of this study.
There are also some limitations of this study.
First, while previous studies were conducted on subjects according to industry or occupation, this study targeted workers according to the size of the business. It should be noted that the limitation of this study is that it is limited to domestic small and medium-sized enterprises.
Second, in addition, there is a lack of data analysis for various industries and jobs.
And the influence of non-occupational stress due to family and community environment was not investigated. In addition, the job stress questionnaire was designed for Korean workers, so applying it to other countries may compromise the validity of the results. This is another limitation.
Limitations of this study include the fact that various industries were not investigated and the lack of industry-specific data analysis. These limitations therefore need to be addressed in future studies.
5. Conclusion
This study investigated the interrelationships among safety level, job stress, and job satisfaction among employees in small businesses (fewer than 50 employees) in South Korea, where a significant number of accidents and fatalities occur. The findings revealed a significant correlation between job stress, safety level, and job satisfaction among employees in small Korean businesses. Our results suggest that small businesses in Korea should view job stress, safety level, and job satisfaction as an interconnected system. Furthermore, we identified specific characteristics that influence these factors. These findings highlight the importance of considering these interconnected relationships when developing strategies to improve safety levels in small businesses with high accident rates.
This study is one of the first to explore these issues in small Korean businesses. Future research should focus on developing and implementing practical systems to improve safety levels, reduce job stress, and enhance job satisfaction.
By addressing these interconnected factors, small businesses can create a safer and more positive work environment.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Myung-Hee Kim: Writing – original draft, Methodology, Formal analysis, Conceptualization. Won Choi: Methodology, Investigation. Woo-je Lee: Methodology, Investigation. Jin Woo Jung: Writing – review & editing.
Availability of data and material
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Seoul National University of Science and Technology Life Ethics Committee on November 3, 2022.
Seoul National University of Science and Technology Life Ethics Committee approval number is 2022-0015-01.
This survey was targeted at participants who voluntarily agreed to the survey.
Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants.
The questionnaire was anonymized.
participants free to opt out of participation in the study whenever they were uncomfortable.
All participants gave consent before taking the survey.
Funding information
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
- 1.Kim M. Safety and health status of small businesses and countermeasures. Studies of Social Security Law. 2022;46:1–35. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Adaku E., Ankrah N.A., Ndekugri I.E. Design for occupational safety and health: a theoretical framework for organisational capability. Saf. Sci. 2021;133 [Google Scholar]
- 3.Gyekye S.A. Workers' perceptions of workplace safety and job satisfaction. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2005;11(3):291–302. doi: 10.1080/10803548.2005.11076650. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Samuelsson A.U., Larsman P., Grill M. For the sake of safety: a time-lagged study investigating the relationships between perceived leadership behaviors and employee safety behaviors. Saf. Sci. 2023;166 [Google Scholar]
- 5.van Kampen J., et al. What works in safety. The use and perceived effectiveness of 48 safety interventions. Saf. Sci. 2023;162 [Google Scholar]
- 6.Jeong T. Chosun University; Gwangju: 2009. The Study of an Analysis on Job Stress of Affecting Safety and Management Performance for Workers in the Construction Industry. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Nak sun Choi J.K. A study on job stress and job satisfaction of firefighters. Journal of Korean Autonomous Administration. 2011;25(3):481–502. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Azila-Gbettor E.M., Atsu E., Quarshie A.N.K. Job stress and job involvement among tertiary interns: the buffering role of perceived coworker support. Heliyon. 2022;8(9) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e10414. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Khoshakhlagh A.H., et al. The relations of job stress dimensions to safety climate and accidents occurrence among the workers. Heliyon. 2021;7(9) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e08082. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Brief A.P. vol. 9. Sage; 1998. (Attitudes in and Around Organizations). [Google Scholar]
- 11.Adams J.S. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Elsevier; 1965. Inequity in social exchange; pp. 267–299. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Jain A.K. The mediating role of job satisfaction in the relationship of vertical trust and distributed leadership in health care context. J. Model. Manag. 2016;11(2):722–738. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Raziq A., Maulabakhsh R. Impact of working environment on job satisfaction. Procedia Econ. Finance. 2015;23:717–725. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Ahsan N., et al. A study of job stress on job satisfaction among university staff in Malaysia: empirical study. Eur. J. Soc. Sci. 2009;8(1):121–131. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Jackson S.E. Participation in decision making as a strategy for reducing job-related strain. J. Appl. Psychol. 1983;68(1):3. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Morrow P.C., Crum M.R. The effects of perceived and objective safety risk on employee outcomes. J. Vocat. Behav. 1998;53(2):300–313. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Gupta N., Beehr T.A. Job stress and employee behaviors. Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform. 1979;23(3):373–387. doi: 10.1016/0030-5073(79)90004-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Wu X., et al. Development of construction workers job stress scale to study and the relationship between job stress and safety behavior: An empirical study in Beijing. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2018;15(11):2409. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15112409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Khoshakhlagh A.H., et al. A Bayesian network based study on determining the relationship between job stress and safety climate factors in occurrence of accidents. BMC Publ. Health. 2021;21(1):1–12. doi: 10.1186/s12889-021-12298-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Yazdanirad S., et al. The contribution of hypochondria resulting from Corona virus on the occupational productivity loss through increased job stress and decreased resilience in the central workshop of an oil refinery: a path analysis. Heliyon. 2021;7(4) doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2021.e06808. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.status, m.I.a., Moel. Industrial Accident Status. Seoul Korea: Ministry of Employment and Labor 2019∼2021.
- 22.Sadeghi R., Goerlandt F. Validation of system safety hazard analysis in safety-critical industries: an interview study with industry practitioners. Saf. Sci. 2023;161 [Google Scholar]
- 23.Champoux D., Brun J.-P. Occupational health and safety management in small size enterprises: an overview of the situation and avenues for intervention and research. Saf. Sci. 2003;41(4):301–318. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Okun A., et al. Identifying high‐risk small business industries for occupational safety and health interventions. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2001;39(3):301–311. doi: 10.1002/1097-0274(200103)39:3<301::aid-ajim1018>3.0.co;2-l. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Legg S., et al. Elsevier; 2015. Managing Safety in Small and Medium Enterprises; pp. 189–196. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Sinclair R.C., Cunningham T.R. Safety activities in small businesses. Saf. Sci. 2014;64:32–38. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Sinclair R.C., Cunningham T.R., Schulte P.A. A model for occupational safety and health intervention diffusion to small businesses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2013;56(12):1442–1451. doi: 10.1002/ajim.22263. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Barbeau E., et al. Assessment of occupational safety and health programs in small businesses. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2004;45(4):371–379. doi: 10.1002/ajim.10336. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Cunningham T.R., Sinclair R. Application of a model for delivering occupational safety and health to smaller businesses: case studies from the US. Saf. Sci. 2015;71:213–225. doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2014.06.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Davis G. Job satisfaction survey among employees in small businesses. J. Small Bus. Enterprise Dev. 2004;11(4):495–503. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kosha K. KOSHA; Seoul Korea: 2022. Safety Awareness Level Improvement Program. [cited 2022 June 15]. Available. [Google Scholar]
- 32.Chang S.J., et al. Developing an occupational stress scale for Korean employees. Korean Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 2005;17(4):297–317. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Min-soo W. Yonsei University Graduate School of Public Health; 2014. Factors Related to Job Satisfaction of Safety and Health Managers in Medical Institutions. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Slavitt D.B., et al. Nurses' satisfaction with their work situation. Nurs. Res. 1978;27(2):114–120. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Bagozzi R.P., Yi Y. Specification, evaluation, and interpretation of structural equation models. J. Acad. Market. Sci. 2012;40:8–34. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Bentler P.M. Multivariate analysis with latent variables: causal modeling. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 1980 [Google Scholar]
- 37.Byrne B.M. routledge; 2013. Structural Equation Modeling with Mplus: Basic Concepts, Applications, and Programming. [Google Scholar]
- 38.Hair J.F. Multivariate data analysis. 2009 [Google Scholar]
- 39.Kline R.B. Guilford publications; 2023. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Tae-je Sung. second ed. vol. 2. Hakjisa; Seoul: 2014. Research Methodology. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Zheng H., et al. Working hours and job satisfaction in China: a threshold analysis. China Econ. Rev. 2023;77 [Google Scholar]
- 42.Hoboubi N., et al. The impact of job stress and job satisfaction on workforce productivity in an Iranian petrochemical industry. Safety and health at work. 2017;8(1):67–71. doi: 10.1016/j.shaw.2016.07.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Çetinkaya G., Aras D. Work stress, perception of job safety, and job satisfaction of rope access technicians and the relationship among them. Akdeniz İnsani Bilimler Dergisi. 2017;7(2):125–132. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Bahrami Azar G., Givehchi S., Vosoughi S. Workforce safety culture, job stress and job satisfaction in an automotive industry. Sigurnost. 2023;65(1) [Google Scholar]
- 45.Masia U., Pienaar J. Unravelling safety compliance in the mining industry: examining the role of work stress, job insecurity, satisfaction and commitment as antecedents. SA J. Ind. Psychol. 2011;37(1):1–10. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Choi H.-K.J.H.-S., Choi E.-H., Lee J.-E., Lee J.-H., Choi H.-K., Jung H.-S., Choi E.-H., Lee J.-E., Lee J.-H. Factors affecting satisfaction of rest facilities among employee. Korean Journal of Construction Health. 2019;1(1):65–77. Korean Journal of Construction Health., 2019. 1(1): pp. 65–77. [Google Scholar]
- 47.Young Ran Chae S.K.S., Ran Chae Young, Shin Su Kyung. Relationship between Early Childhood Teachers Safety Recognition and Class Environment Condition of Safety. Early Childhood Education Research & Review. 2009;13(3):397–412. Early Childhood Education Research & Review, 2009. 13(3): pp. 397–412. [Google Scholar]
- 48.Gharibi V., et al. The relationship between workers' attitude towards safety and occupational accidents experience. Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 2016;8(3):145–150. [Google Scholar]
- 49.Strasser H. Compatibility as guiding principle for ergonomics work design and preventive occupational health and safety. Z. Arbeitswiss. (Neue Folge) 2022;76(3):243–277. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Khan W.A., Mustaq T., Tabassum A. Occupational health, safety and risk analysis. Int. J. Sci. Environ. Technol. 2014;3(4):1336–1346. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Samani S.A. The impact of personal control over office workspace on environmental satisfaction and performance. Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities. 2015;1(3):163–175. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Lee H.-Y., Baek J.-T., Cho Y.-C. Relationship between job stress and fatigue symptoms among manufacturing male workers. Journal of the Korea Academia-Industrial cooperation Society. 2016;17(7):543–554. [Google Scholar]
- 53.Verdugo R., Vere A. Citeseer; 2003. Workplace Violence in Service Sectors with Implications for the Education Sector: Issues, Solutions and Resources. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Rizwan M., Waseem A., Bukhari S.A. Antecedents of job stress and its impact on job performance and job satisfaction. Int. J. Learn Dev. 2014;4(2):187–203. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Gamal N.L., Taneo S.Y.M., Halim L. Job satisfaction as a mediation variable in the relationship between work safety and health (k3) and work environment to employee performance. Jurnal Aplikasi Manajemen. 2022;16(3):486–493. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Korkut D.S., et al. The effect of resting time on employee satisfaction: the example of Duzce forest products industry. Mugla Journal of Science and Technology. 2016;2(2):120–124. [Google Scholar]
- 57.Bangwal D., Tiwari P. Workplace environment, employee satisfaction and intent to stay. Int. J. Contemp. Hospit. Manag. 2019;31(1):268–284. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
The data underlying this article will be shared on reasonable request to the corresponding author.