mines safety essay in english

• Food Safety in the Commercial Industry Words: 697
• A Person’s Safety Is Not Increased by Buying a Gun Words: 578
• How Canadian Government Could Improve Food Safety? Words: 2499
• Irish Aviation Safety and Its Strategic Position Words: 2554
• Reducing Risks Through Safety Design Words: 614
• Behavior-Based Safety in the Food Industry: DO IT Method Words: 597
• The Importance of Health and Safety Training at the Workplace Words: 1387
• Ireland’s Aviation Safety Strategic Plan Words: 2487
• Employee Engagement in Safety Improvement Words: 623
• Risk Management and Patient Safety Words: 1200
• Food Industry: The Safety Issues Words: 678
• Safety Risks in the Modern Aviation Industry Words: 2810
• Safety Considerations of a Commercial Airport Words: 11001
• Patient Safety Culture and Its Elements Words: 585
• Patient Safety Culture in the Healthcare Workplace Words: 565
• Occupational Health Safety Management in the USA Words: 2549

Safety in the Mining Industry

The mining industry.

The mining industry is one of the biggest employers across the world. Millions of people work in the industry as miners, geologists, process engineers, health care workers, and Geotechnical engineers among other roles (Humphreys, 2015). Studies have established that mining is one of the main economic pillars in some of the world’s leading economies such as the United States of America, Canada, Australia, and South Africa among others.

Over the last several decades, the global mining industry has experienced enormous growth characterized by the creation of numerous job opportunities and growth of urban centers in the areas where the mines are located (Humphreys, 2015). However, the high rate of growth in the industry has not been very smooth because a number of issues have been raised regarding the occupational health and safety of the miners.

The main reason as to why this is a major concern in the mining industry is the fact that any form of injury to a miner often affects their health, productivity, and the financial future of their families. Studies have established that the mining industry has one of the highest rates in terms of the working days lost by employees in a year due to injury related causes (Humphreys, 2015). In the recent past, various stakeholders in the industry have made efforts geared towards promoting the occupational health and safety of all people that work within the sector.

Accidents in the mining industry

Accidents are a common feature of all mines across the world. The process of extracting coal and hard rocks is very hard and poses a number of risks to the people involved. Research has established that thousands of deaths are reported every year across the world because of mining related injuries. Although the number of mining accidents in the United States has significantly reduced since the turn of the century, statistics from other developed economies such as China suggest that there is still a lot of work to be done in order to increase the safety of miners (Karmis, 2001).

Accidents in the mining industry are attributed to a number of causes that include leakage of poisonous gases, flooding, mechanical errors, poor visibility, and collapse of the mines. During the 21 st Century, several mining accidents have been reported across the world in countries such as Australia, Belgium, Canada, China, Central African Republic, Chile, Ecuador, France, and Japan among others. In 1942, more than 1,500 people died in a coal mine accident in China. The main reason for the accident was harsh working conditions, lack of proper expertise, and a series of poor decisions following the fire outbreak (Karmis, 2001).

Reports indicate that a fire broke out in the mine, and the Japanese group managing the operations sealed all the ventilations as a way of containing the fire. Unfortunately, this decision was ill fated because a number of miners had not been evacuated and ended up dying due to suffocation. At the time, the concern for the occupational health and safety of the miners was not a priority issue for the operators because they had not conducted a risk assessment (Karmis, 2001).

In order to ensure the safety of miners, a risk assessment is very important because it provides the basis for creating a mitigation strategy in case any tragedy occurs during the mining process. Currently, most countries have mining legislation that provides guidelines for ensuring the occupational health and safety of miners. In addition, the laws also state the responsibilities of mining operators in ensuring that their operations do not compromise the health and safety of communities living around their mines (Clinton, 2000).

Safety of miners in the United States compared to other countries

The mining industry in the United States has been in existence for several decades. During its formative years, the sector experienced a number of challenges that ranged from lack of adequate expertise to a high number of accidents to miners. Some of the factors that contributed to the poor safety measures for the miners included lack of necessary legislation, lack of adequate oversight by the government, lack of a safety culture, and few mining experts (Darling, 2011).

However, numerous efforts by the government over the last couple of decades have changed the situation through the creation of various laws geared towards ensuring the occupational health and safety of the miners. Reports indicate that since the early 1990s, the number of deaths caused by mining related injuries in the United States has not exceeded one hundred people in a year (Darling, 2011).

The numbers have dropped further since the turn of the century, as a 2012 report by the United States Labor Department indicates that only 35 deaths were reported in the three years that preceded its publication. The huge improvements in the safety of miners are attributed to increased regulation of mining activities by the government, training of miners on their safety, technological advancements, and adoption of better mining methods (Darling, 2011).

The United States mines are safer compared to those in other countries such as China and Turkey. Currently, Turkey is ranked as one of the most unsafe countries for mining activities in the world. Unlike the United States where the government has committed its self towards promoting the safety standards in the industry, Turkish authorities have lagged behind in terms of regulating the industry and creating legislation to promote the occupational health and safety of miners (Darling, 2011).

Currently, the country averages one hundred deaths every year due to mining related injuries. A report released by the government in 2012 indicated that more than 1100 people had died in the country from mining activities since the turn of the century. China is also another country that scores poorly compared to the United States in terms of the occupational health and safety of miners. Reports by the Chinese government indicate that in 2011, the country lost 1973 people to mining activities and a further 1300 in the following year. This shows that the United States has some of the safest mines in the world (Darling, 2011).

The ethics involved in the safety of miners

Mining is one of the human activities that divide opinion across the world in terms of its moral obligations and implications. The ethical dilemma that surrounds mining activities tags along creating a balance between its advantages and disadvantages. It is important to promote mining because it contributes to economic development through the creation of jobs and providing raw materials for various industries (Jennings, 2014).

Research has established that the mining industry across the globe supports very many families on top of being a major source of income to some of the leading economies in the world. On the flip side, mining has been accused of being a major contributor to most of the environmental and health challenges being experienced across the world.

Due to unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, a number of environmental challenges such as flooding, degradation of the ecosystem, and contamination of water bodies are felt in communities that live around mines across the world (Jennings, 2014). The biggest ethical dilemma with regard to mining is whether to prioritize the economic empowerment of people and development activities at the expense of their health or vice versa. Mining is a way of life in various parts of the world that needs to be promoted and supported through the appropriate government regulatory measures (Jennings, 2014).

The history of government involvement with safety in the mining industry

The government has an ethical responsibility of creating economic opportunities for its people, and at the same time creating the necessary legislation in order to ensure their occupational health and safety across all workplaces (Graebner, 2015).

In the United States, the federal government has been involved in promoting safety in the mining industry through the creation of various agencies and laws. So far, the government has created the bureau of mines, the Federal Coal Mine Safety Act of 1952, the Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act of 1966, the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969, and the Mining Enforcement and Safety Administration (MESA) among others (Graebner, 2015).

Safety in the workplace is very paramount, thus the need for all the relevant stakeholders to do their part. In the case of the mining industry, both the employer and the employee have the legal obligation to promote occupational health and safety. The employer holds the responsibility of proving the employees with the best working conditions (Graebner, 2015). In addition, they should take the initiative on capacity building in order to keep their workforce in touch with any emerging risks and their mitigation measures.

The employees have the responsibility of actively participating in training programs organized to educate them on their safety in the workplace (Graebner, 2015). They also have the responsibility of promoting a safety culture.

Clinton, W.J. (2000). Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: William J.  Clinton, 1999 . Los Angels, CA: Best Books.

Darling, P. (2011). SME Engineering Handbook, Third Edition . New York, NY: SME.

Graebner, W. (2015). Coal-Mining Safety in the Progressive Period: The Political Economy  of Reform . Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

Humphreys, D. (2015). The Remaking of the Mining Industry . New York, NY: Springer.

Jennings, M.M. (2014). Business Ethics: Case Studies and Selected Readings . New York, NY: Cengage Learning.

Karmis, M. (2001). Mine Health and Safety Management . New York, NY: SME.

Cite this paper

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2020, October 9). Safety in the Mining Industry. https://studycorgi.com/safety-in-the-mining-industry/

"Safety in the Mining Industry." StudyCorgi , 9 Oct. 2020, studycorgi.com/safety-in-the-mining-industry/.

StudyCorgi . (2020) 'Safety in the Mining Industry'. 9 October.

1. StudyCorgi . "Safety in the Mining Industry." October 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/safety-in-the-mining-industry/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "Safety in the Mining Industry." October 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/safety-in-the-mining-industry/.

StudyCorgi . 2020. "Safety in the Mining Industry." October 9, 2020. https://studycorgi.com/safety-in-the-mining-industry/.

This paper, “Safety in the Mining Industry”, was written and voluntary submitted to our free essay database by a straight-A student. Please ensure you properly reference the paper if you're using it to write your assignment.

Before publication, the StudyCorgi editorial team proofread and checked the paper to make sure it meets the highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, fact accuracy, copyright issues, and inclusive language. Last updated: October 9, 2020 .

If you are the author of this paper and no longer wish to have it published on StudyCorgi, request the removal . Please use the “ Donate your paper ” form to submit an essay.

• Sign up for free
• SafetyCulture
• Mining Safety

Elevating Mining Safety for Sustainability

Explore essential safety procedures and best practices in mining operations and learn how fostering a culture of safety ensures compliance, efficiency, and sustainability in this highly controversial industry.

What is Mining Safety?

Mining safety refers to practices, procedures, and regulations aimed at controlling and managing the various hazards associated with every step of the mining process, from exploration to reclamation. By taking well-strategized measures to prevent accidents, injuries, and fatalities during operations, companies can effectively safeguard the health and well-being of miners and minimize their impact on the environment. Ultimately, upholding mine safety benefits both the company and the community they belong to.

Importance of Mining Safety

Mining is the foundation of many industries, providing vital raw materials for manufacturing goods, energy, and infrastructure. The modern world depends on its end products, from fossil fuels to metals and minerals. But their destructive consequences are also undeniable. Ensuring the safety of the people involved in the operations, as well as those who may be affected on the sidelines, is a must for the following reasons:

• Reduces risk of accidents and near-misses – According to the NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), there were nearly 3,500 mining-related injuries in 2022 and an average of 30 fatalities in the past decade. By implementing robust safety measures and critical control management practices , companies can save lives, reduce workers’ compensation costs, and avoid legal liabilities.
• Increases operational efficiency – Workers aware of workplace hazards behave safely and confidently accomplish their tasks despite the inherent dangers in their environment. This, in turn, minimizes downtimes due to near-misses and boosts overall productivity, which is always a benefit to the company.
• Upholds operational sustainability – As aforementioned, miners and other mine workers are not the only ones in danger when a serious mining incident occurs. It could also negatively affect the ecosystem and the community closest to the site. By developing a safety management system , companies can maintain their good reputation with regulatory and industry leaders and society and increase their business longevity.

Most Common Mine Hazards

Although progress has been achieved in reducing accidents, near-misses, and fatalities in the past century, industry leaders still believe there is much to do to reach that zero-incident goal. The first step to creating a fool-proof mine safety system is knowing these hazards and their gravity.

• Cave-ins and Roof Falls – In underground mining, large hollow pits, rooms, and tunnels are created to remove rock and dirt before conveying people and equipment. It is a serious concern because the structure could collapse, trapping the miners working on site. In fact, cave-ins and roof falls account for a large number of all recorded fatalities. The Copiapo accident in 2010, where 23 men were trapped 2,300 feet underground and five kilometers from the entrance, is an example of a cave-in.
• Explosives and Blasting – Blasting is defined as the process of reducing a large, solid body to smaller fragments by firing up explosives. This involves drilling a hole, placing both the detonator and charge inside, detonating the charge, and clearing operations. Aside from the peril of charges blowing up sooner than planned, air overpressure, fly rock, dust, and toxic fumes can all cause injury and illness.
• Fires and Explosions – This happens when flammable gases like methane and coal dust accumulate in an enclosed space and get ignited. According to the NIOSH, up to a quarter of fatalities in the industry are due to fires and explosions . In 2022, five workers lost their lives in a coal mine explosion in Kazakhstan due to a sudden release of methane during drilling.
• Respiratory Hazards – Dust, gases, and fumes are generated during the mining operations, and everyone working on-site—both miners and administrative workers—can get exposed. Pneumoconioses (dusty lung) such as asbestosis and silicosis (black lung) can develop over time and lead to cancer. Sadly, the rate of workers contracting these diseases is on the rise.
• Haulage and Transportation – Gigantic 16-wheeler off-road trucks, bucket-wheel excavators, backhoes, and power shovels are all used in hauling and transporting ores, overburdens, and waste rocks. Working with heavy machinery has always been dangerous, but the risk of injury is magnified in this industry because of confined spaces , limited visibility, and human error. One coal mining company in Indonesia reported that hauling is the largest contributor to fatal accidents.
• Fall from Heights – Mineworkers, whether those climbing into tunnels or those handling heavy machinery, often work on elevated surfaces and are at risk of falling from heights . Unexpected ground or equipment movement, faulty walking or standing surfaces, and falls through holes or openings are the most common reasons for this injury.
• Noise and Vibrations – While most people are simply annoyed at the clanging, whirring, and buzzing sounds and reverberations from machines, mine workers who are exposed to this every day may acquire long-term health issues such as tinnitus, hearing loss, musculoskeletal problems, and neuropathy, just to name a few.
• Chemical Hazards – Almost all types of mining operations, from surface mining of limestone for concrete or underground drilling for oil and gas extraction, make use of chemicals . Cyanide and sulfuric acid separate the ores, ammonium nitrate is used for blasting, and acetylene is a crucial component in welding and soldering. All these are toxic, causing health problems for the workers and even the people living near the mines.

6 Ways to Ensure Worker Safety in the Mines

Safety is an essential component of any healthy workplace. Mines are particularly hazardous and pose large-scale environmental damage and loss of life compared to other workplace environments. However, many successful companies are able to record zero deaths and minimize accidents and near-misses, which means that it is possible to increase operational efficiency while ensuring that their workers get home safely .

Training and Education

Proper training and education are fundamental to ensuring worker safety in mines. Workers must be well-informed about the hazards they may encounter and equipped with the knowledge and skills to respond to incidents effectively.

Best Practices:

• Tailor training programs and mining safety topics to address specific hazards and delegate the task of sharing relevant information to skilled and certified individuals.
• Incorporate realistic and hands-on simulations to allow workers to practice learned procedures.
• Promote continuous education and skill development through daily toolbox talks , refresher courses, and regular safety-sharing sessions.

Use of Safety Equipment

Safety equipment, especially Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), is crucial in protecting miners from various hazards. Equipping workers with these is non-negotiable.

One of the biggest disasters in U.S. coal mining history is the one that occurred in the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia. The investigation showed that miners lacked safety equipment or had faulty ones even when sent to the most remote sections of the mines.

On the other hand, the previously mentioned Chilean mining accident demonstrates that safety equipment, especially PPEs and specialized communication devices, can save lives. All 33 miners trapped were rescued after 69 days.

• Ensure that safety equipment correctly fits the user to maximize its effectiveness.
• Routinely conduct inspections to determine PPE wear and tear, damage, or defects.
• Train miners on the correct use of the PPEs and their limitations.

Risk Assessment and Management

This practice is essential for preventing accidents and incidents, helping companies proactively address potential hazards. In fact, the four steps to safety mining follow the basic risk assessment steps : spot the hazard, assess the risk, fix the problem, and evaluate the results.

New Zealand’s Pike River Tragedy showed that the cause of the explosion (e.g., the lack of methane gas monitoring and improper ventilation) was preventable and that a lack of risk assessment could have devastating effects on the operations. Twenty-nine people have perished, and their remains never recovered.

• Use digital inspection templates for thoroughly identifying and evaluating mining hazards.
• Continuously assess and update risk assessments as mining conditions change.
• Engage everyone—safety managers, workers, and even community stakeholders—in the risk assessment process to gather diverse insights.

Create Your Own Mining Inspection Template

Eliminate manual tasks and streamline your operations.

Real-time Monitoring

Constantly tracking key parameters (e.g., gas levels, ground stability, and equipment status) enables workers to detect hazards early and begin preventive or emergency action.

It is also important to examine the worker’s health and well-being since many companies have reported that exhaustion is a major contributor to accidents. Mining equipment companies like Caterpillar recently introduced a fatigue monitoring system to reduce incidents.

Finally, monitoring the effects of the operations on the environment is also crucial for the company’s sustainability . Erosion, sinkholes, water contamination, and air pollution have grave consequences on biodiversity and people’s lives in the surrounding areas.

• Utilize advanced sensor technology to collect accurate data.
• Establish detailed protocols for effectively responding to deviations.
• Conduct regular maintenance and calibration on monitoring equipment.

Reporting and Investigation

Incident reporting and conducting thorough investigations aid companies in preventing incident recurrence and improving safety practices. Mining companies and regulatory offices have learned a great deal from closely scrutinizing every past mining tragedy and have made the necessary improvements in their operations to prevent those from happening again.

• Establish a standardized process for reporting and investigation.
• Store all generated reports in a secure centralized repository and share them with stakeholders for transparency.
• Empower workers to report hazards observed, negligence, or outright violations without fear of reprisal.

Integrate ESG principles into your operations

Drive sustainable growth and create long-term value with our ESG solutions.

Emergency Preparedness and Response Planning

This involves preparing for various scenarios, such as cave-ins, fires, and chemical leaching, to reduce injuries and fatalities. Mining companies should have a plan to mitigate the effects of an incident (e.g., use of fire extinguishers, creating escape routes on tunnels, building blast shelters) and be ready in the immediate aftermath of the situation (e.g., comprehensive rescue and first aid plan).

• Develop a comprehensive emergency response plan tailored to the mine’s conditions.
• Conduct regular drills and simulations.
• Pre-delegate roles to skilled personnel for emergencies and ensure communication channels are open.

Uphold Mine Safety with SafetyCulture

Why use safetyculture.

Mining is a vital industry and plays a significant role in our global economy. But no one can deny the inherent risks associated with it. Ensuring safety in such a hazardous environment is not just a moral imperative, but also a legal, financial, and reputational necessity.

SafetyCulture (formerly iAuditor) has been the partner of responsible and sustainable mining companies for years. Let them help you leverage technology not only to boost operational efficiency but also to preserve the health and well-being of all stakeholders.

• Standardize safety inspections , hazard assessments, risk management plans , and operating procedures using templates and checklists from the Public Library.
• Efficiently track the location and monitor the condition of the various sites , facilities, and assets using geo-tagging and environmental sensors .
• Prepare teams for rapid and coordinated responses in case of emergencies by creating emergency response plans, drills, and other relevant workflows .
• Facilitate prompt corrective actions and ensure accountability by delegating safety tasks to relevant personnel.
• Enable timely resolutions of incidents and other safety concerns by enabling employees to report observed hazards, near-misses, and other safety issues in real-time.
• Make better decisions on the spot, reduce risks, and improve safety measures by leveraging robust analytics with the collected data.
• Enhance the knowledge and skills of mine workers so they are well-prepared to handle any challenges on-site through training .
• Improve the flow of safety-related information and enable efficient coordination during incidents with Heads Up .
• Equip miners with up-to-date PPEs and safety equipment from the SafetyCulture Marketplace .

FAQs about Mining Safety

Who needs to learn about mining safety.

Mining health and safety is everyone’s responsibility. Miners working on the frontlines, safety managers and supervisors overseeing the protocols, government agencies enforcing regulations, and local communities living near the sites should all be apprised of mining hazards and emergency procedures.

What is the most hazardous type of mining?

Some experts say that underground coal mining is the most dangerous since workers are exposed to so many hazards and are always at risk of cave-ins. However, many factors can make any mining site perilous. For instance, small-scale mining operations are just as hazardous because they are exposed to the same level of toxicity but are not routinely inspected.

Which regulatory offices are responsible for mine safety?

Enforcing regulations to ensure safety in mining falls under the purview of specific offices, depending on the location.

• United States of America – Mine Safety and Health Administration (MHSA) under the U.S. Department of Labor
• Canada – Ministry of Energy and Mines
• United Kingdom – Health and Safety Executive (HSE)
• Australia – The Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS)
• European Union – Every country has its own regulatory office but works with the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) .

How often should mine inspections and safety reports be conducted and submitted?

Generally speaking, surface mines should be inspected twice a year, while underground mines should be investigated quarterly. However, these schedules may vary depending on the level of risk in a particular site, changing conditions, and emergency situations. To know more about the specific guidelines, check the MSHA page or the specific website of your local regulators.

Eunice Arcilla Caburao

Related articles

• Biomass Energy

Discover what biomass energy is, its importance, and the challenges we face in adopting it.

• Find out more

• Environmental Hazards

Discover the critical threats posed by environmental hazards and learn the effective prevention and mitigation strategies to reduce their health impacts and social implications.

• Medical Waste Management

Explore the importance of medical waste management in healthcare by understanding the processes, regulations, and benefits of effective waste disposal.

Related pages

• Construction Waste Management Software
• Air Quality Monitoring Software
• Climate Risk Software
• Emissions Management Software
• Mining Software
• Liquid Waste Management
• Solid Waste Management
• Environmental Impact Assessment Template
• Environmental Audit Checklist
• Drain Inspection

SAFETY IN SURFACE MINING

• December 2016

• University of Johannesburg

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• CURR SCI INDIA

• Bruce Regensburg

• Jami M. Girard
• J SAFETY RES
• T S Bajpayee
• A D O'brian
• J F Colinet
• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Safety Climate in MT Mining: A Case Study

• Published: 13 August 2021
• Volume 38 , pages 1861–1875, ( 2021 )

Cite this article

• Ty Murphy 1 ,
• Hadi Aldossari 1 ,
• Lorri Birkenbuel 1 ,
• Scott Rosenthal 2 ,
• Daniel Autenrieth 1 ,
• Michael McGivern 1 &
• David Gilkey 1  

1752 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

A safety climate case study was carried out at a surface metal mine where investigators administered the Liberty Mutual Short Scale Safety Climate Survey to 365–368 miners to measure safety climate in consecutive years. Following the baseline safety climate survey in 2019, Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) training was conducted with 81 middle to upper management employees at the mine site. Investigators found statistically significant differences in the pre vs. posttraining FSL assessment scores of the middle to upper management employees who attended the training. The follow-up safety climate evaluation was compared to baseline scores and revealed no significant improvement. The overall baseline company safety climate score of 76.38 increased minimally to 76.50 ( p -value = 0.616). Investigators also evaluated differences in safety climate between the company’s three major divisions (operations, maintenance, and administration). Both years administration had the highest mean score and operations had the lowest mean score. The authors attributed the statistically significant differences found among the three major divisions to various dissimilarities in their work environments.

Similar content being viewed by others

Exploring the Differences in Safety Climate Among Mining Sectors

Psychosocial Safety Climate and Occupational Health

Explore related subjects

• Artificial Intelligence

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Mining is an industry that presents an abundance of risk to its workers including physical, chemical, biological, and psychosocial hazards [ 1 ]. The mining industry has a long history of safety failures and resulting tragedies that have taken the lives of many miners. At the beginning of the twentieth century the average death toll per year reached greater than 1500 in the mining industry [ 2 ]. From 1911 through 1997, approximately 103,000 miners died in the United States due to safety failures [ 3 ]. Over the past 100 years fatality rates have plummeted from 329 per 100,000 in 1911 [ 3 ] 0 to 3.5 per 100,000 in 2017 [ 4 ]. In 2019, 15 miners died and 2431 recordable injuries were reported in the United States metal/nonmetal mining industry [ 5 ]. Improvements in regulatory action, safety leadership, working conditions, and work practices have been identified as key factors in reducing injury, illness, and fatality rates in mining [ 3 , 6 ].

The first law to regulate mine safety was passed in 1891, followed by nine incremental pieces of legislation over the next 90 years that helped shape current mining safety standards and culminated in the creation of the Mine Safety Health Administration (MSHA) [ 7 ]. In 1977, the MSHA was created and continues operating today to develop and enforce safety and health regulations for all mines in the United States. The MSHA works strategically and cooperatively with industry, labor, and other federal and state agencies to reduce hazards and improve safety and health conditions for all the miners they oversee. By law, the MSHA must inspect and enforce safety and health regulations at all surface mine sites a minimum of two times annually. The MSHA also provides educational tools and other forms of assistance to mine operators with a goal of improving safety and health conditions for miners [ 7 ]. The MSHA initiated its Educational Field and Small Mine Services Program in 1999, with the intention of preventing mining accidents by assuring all miners receive effective training. The MSHA believes with certainty that there is a clear positive correlation between the level of quality training the miners receive and improving the safety and health of miners. This positive relationship has been demonstrated consistently in prior research [ 8 ].

Despite advancements, metal and nonmetal mining still presents substantial occupational safety and health hazards. Researchers analyzed 91 mining accidents and found the majority of the accidents were caused by inadequate safety leadership [ 9 ]. It has often been found that inadequate and/or deficient training by mine operators was responsible for the injury, fatality, or hazardous exposures [ 6 , 10 , 11 ]. Injuries have much greater economic impacts than just the direct costs. The direct to indirect cost ratio for an injury ranges between 1:3 and 1:5 [ 12 ]. Indirect costs include training costs for replacement workers, lost productivity, and increase error due to new employee learning curves, whereas direct costs include workers’ compensation and medical expenses [ 13 ]. Prior research found that safety training both decreases days-away-from-work injuries and reduces overall injury rates [ 8 ].

1.1 Safety Climate

A crucial factor in reducing lost workdays and injury rates is a positive safety climate [ 14 ]. Safety climate was originally described in literature by Zohar as a summary of perceptions and assumptions that employees share about their work environment [ 15 ]. Another research team described safety climate as something that, “results from the enacted policies and procedures related to safety and the employee’s perceptions and assumptions about the real priorities and consistency of management policies and procedures and their application for day-to-day business and decision making, particularly by frontline supervisors when company goals are conflicting” (p. 1045) [ 16 ].

Zohar found safety climate level could be measured and was associated with safety program effectiveness [ 15 ]. This association has led to an abundance of research aimed at developing tools to measure safety climate and identifying methods and strategies that are effective at improving safety climate. The Liberty Mutual Short-Scale Safety Climate Survey was validated by researchers using responses from 29,179 frontline workers from various industries including manufacturing, construction, and transportation [ 17 ]. One mining study of 235 workers found a positive relationship between miners’ perceptions of safety climate, and their safety performance at a gold mining operation in Ghana [ 18 ]. Investigators also found that safety systems were good predictors of worker compliance and participation enhancing safety climate. In another study involving over 280 construction workers at 57 worksites, investigators found that high levels of hazard recognition were correlated with high levels of safety climate [ 19 ].

Safety climate has been linked to management communication and workers recognition [ 20 ] and other factors such as job satisfaction and turnover rate [ 21 ]. Safety communication and supervisory practices were positive predictors of compliance and safety participation [ 18 ]. Research from stone, sand, and gravel operations found that increasing safety climate perceptions leads to increased job satisfaction and a reduction in turnover intention [ 22 ]. Another investigator found turnover rates have negative implications in a variety of areas including safety and profits [ 23 ]. It has also been found that employees who were satisfied with their job were more likely to be safety compliant [ 24 ]. Their research was consistent with Zohar who reported over 200 research articles had been published on safety climate and the overwhelming conclusion among them was that high levels of safety climate were associated with lower injury, illness, and fatality rates [ 14 ].

Safety training has been shown to make an immediate and lasting improvement on safety climate. One study found that when health and safety training courses were provided to miners working at an Iranian mine, it made a significant change in their safety climate scores [ 25 ]. Safety climate surveys can be used to identify weaknesses in safety, which may reveal opportunities for improvement [ 25 , 26 ]. Other researchers found the largest difference among all factors influencing safety climate was the employee’s perception of safety training [ 27 ]. Their research suggested that company owners/operators use training programs that have been designed and validated to increase safety climate. In Ghana, investigators looked at the relationship between safety climate elements and incident rates at four gold mine locations [ 26 ]. Investigators found the mines with lower incident rates consistently had higher safety climate scores than mines with higher incident rates [ 26 ]. Limited research has been conducted on safety climate in US mining and contributing factors such as leadership and training. There remains a gap in effective interventions for safety climate in mining and this research will add to that literature. The training intervention used in this study is relatively new and encouraging . This project will evaluate both training effectiveness and overall impact on safety climate.

1.2 Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) Training

The Foundations for Safety Leadership (FSL) was developed by the Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) and experts from the University of Colorado to improve safety in the high-risk industry. The FSL was designed specifically for construction and aimed at employees with supervisory responsibilities, with a goal of improving their safety leadership skills [ 28 ]. The program is open-source and has been downloaded over 100,000 times and allows for adaptation to various companies and industries [ 29 ]. Management leadership has been consistently shown in the literature to have a direct impact on company safety climate [ 30 , 31 ]. The FSL training program teaches five safety leadership skills that can be used to improve safety leadership practices, strengthen jobsite safety climate, and ultimately reduce the incidence of adverse safety and health outcomes [ 32 ]. The five key safety leadership skills are: (1) leads by example, (2) engages and empowers team members, (3) actively listens and practices three-way communication, (4) develops team members through teaching, coaching, and feedback, and (5) recognizes members for a job well done. Improving safety leadership skills in those with management responsibilities has been shown to improve jobsite safety climate and lead to fewer injuries, illnesses, and lost time incidents [ 33 ]. Positive safety leadership has been shown to have a significant negative correlation with turnover in the mining industry [ 34 ]. Investigators surveyed 255 miners in Ghana to evaluate safety management effects on turnover. They concluded that safety leadership is crucial in the management of occupational safety and health and employee turnover. Another research team found that many frontline leaders do not receive leadership training and therefore the FSL training program was designed to help provide a solution to this insufficiency [ 28 ].

1.3 The Purpose of This Study

Researchers partnered with a surface metal mining operation in Montana. The purpose of this study was to investigate and evaluate the company’s safety climate by establishing a baseline measurement, followed by Foundations for Safety Leadership Training, and then a postintervention safety climate measurement to determine if the intervention was effective at improving the company’s safety climate. The company requested that researchers investigate whether or not differences in safety climate existed between the company’s major divisions (operations, maintenance, and administration). The intervention used in this study was the FSL training program, a 3-h workshop, conducted by a trained investigator with middle to upper management personnel at the mine. A FSL training program assessment was given immediately before and after training to determine if participants’ knowledge of safety leadership skills improved and if they planned on utilizing the skills on their jobsite. The intervention was implemented after the baseline safety climate measurement in an effort to improve the company’s safety climate as a whole. The null hypotheses used for the study were:

No statistically significant improvements would occur in the company’s pre and posttraining safety climate measurements. HØ: Median Pre-Intervention  ≥ Median Post-Intervention

No statistically significant differences existed between the three major divisions of the company in either year surveyed HØ: All company division’s median safety climate scores are equal

No statistically significant improvements in the training assessment would occur in middle-upper management personnel’s pre and posttraining FSL assessment scores. HØ: Median Pre-Training ≥ Median Post-Training

Specific Aims were as follows:

Measure and evaluate overall companywide safety climate scores comparing pre to post intervention

Measure and evaluate potential differences in safety climate scores between the major divisions of the company

Measure and evaluate middle and upper management workers’ knowledge of FSL skills pre to posttraining

This investigation was carried out in three phases: Phase (1) baseline safety climate survey in 2019; Phase (2) intervention using FSL training with pre and posttraining FSL assessment survey; and, Phase (3) follow-up safety climate survey one year later in 2020. Researchers secured authorization to use the Liberty Mutual, Safety Climate Short-Scale Survey from Liberty Mutual [ 35 ]. The same survey instrument was used for both pre and postintervention measurements. Company executives agreed to allow 365–368 full-time employees at the mine to be surveyed both years. The 19-item survey instrument was designed to evaluate perceptions held by company personnel about management’s commitment to safety and communication pertaining to safety [ 17 ]. All statistics in this paper were analyzed using Minitab® Statistical Software version 18, which included basic descriptive and frequencies to describe the population and mean scores.

Survey items were presented in the form of statements in two major categories, with statements 1–8 pertaining to top management at the mine and statements 9–19 pertaining to the respondent’s direct supervisor with Cronbach’s alpha established at 0.94 and 0.97, respectively [ 17 ]. For example, in relation to top management the following statements included, “tries to continually improve safety levels in each department” or “quickly corrects any safety hazard (even if it's costly)” [ 17 ]. Statements related to supervisors included the following examples: “frequently checks to see if we are all obeying the safety rules” and “discusses how to improve safety with us” [ 17 ]. Respondents were asked for their level of agreement with each statement using a 1 – 5 scale where, 1 = highly disagree to 5 = highly agree [ 17 ]. The instrument was developed from the original 32-item safety climate survey that was validated by safety climate experts [ 36 ]. The survey was then shortened to 19 items in an attempt increase the utility of the survey for research and practice [ 17 ]. The short-scale survey has also been used in prior research and validated in various industries including manufacturing, construction, and transportation [ 17 ]. Additional questions were added to the safety climate survey to identify various demographic characteristics including the division the respondent worked in (operations, maintenance, or administration), gender, race, age, and time worked with the company. Mean scores within each division were generated. Differences and similarities between divisions’ mean safety climate scores were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test statistic with a 95% confidence interval. Comparing the individual safety climate statements and overall mean scores using two of the three divisions at a time was analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test statistic with a 95% confidence interval.

All surveys in this study were administered and collected onsite during annual MSHA refresher training sessions in 2019 and 2020. Surveys were then collected by researchers for coding, data entry, and analysis. Differences and similarities between the pre and postintervention safety climate survey scores were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney test statistic with a 95% confidence interval. The investigation protocol was approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

2.1 FSL Training

Two months after the baseline safety climate surveys were administered and scores were evaluated, the research team conducted a literature review to identify possible interventions. A summary of interventions that had demonstrated beneficial impacts on safety climate was provided to the company senior management. After senior management evaluated possible interventions and engaged the research team, the FSL was selected. In preparation for the FSL intervention, the lead team member contacted the CPWR for training. The CPWR representative directed the individual to a train the trainer experience with a competent FSL trainer. The researcher attended two full days of FSL training with the CPWR designated trainer. The researcher using CPWR tools administered the FSL training workshops with small groups over eight weeks. A total of 81 employees who had middle to upper management responsibilities at the mine were trained on FSL skills. Each session was accomplished using the 3-h workshop model designed by CPWR to teach the FSL’s five critical leadership skills: (1) leads by example; (2) engages and empowers team members; (3) actively listens and practices 3-way communication; (4) develops team members through teaching, coaching, and feedback; and, (5) recognizes team members for a job well done [ 29 ]. Follow-up messaging was to the 81 supervisors at monthly intervals thereafter for five months to support FSL safety leadership skills implementation. Each month, one safety leadership skill was highlighted in a memo from senior management and encouraged among all workgroups.

Mining supervisors and company leaders who completed the 3-h FSL training workshop were given the FSL assessment survey pre and posttraining. This assessment was used to evaluate if the training was effective in improving safety leadership skills, and jobsite safety climate [ 32 ]. The pre- and posttraining assessments consisted of 23 statements associated with positive safety leadership skills. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement with each statement on a scale ranging from 1 to 5 where, 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree. Pre and post-training assessments as a whole, and all 23 question individual questions on the pre and posttraining assessments were analyzed for potential differences using the Wilcoxon Signed-rank test with a 95% confidence interval.

The study population demographics can be seen in Table 1 . The majority of respondents in combined surveys were male (96%), Caucasian (96%), and worked in operations (63%). A total of 23 respondents (3.2%) reported they had been employed with the company for over 30 years and 213 respondents (59%) reported they had been working for the company less than 11 years. The age of participants ranged from less than 25 to over 65 years, with 49% of them younger than 45 years.

3.1 2019 and 2020 Safety Climate Scores

The total company safety climate score in 2019 was 76.4 out of a possible 95. Researchers defined a positive response as either “agreeing” or “highly agreeing” with the statement. Slightly less than three-quarters (74.8%) of total responses were positive for an overall mean score of 4.02/5.0, see Table 2 . Three statements had less than 70% positive responses. Two of the three statements that had less than 70% positive responses were regard to top management. Three other statements saw greater than 80% positive responses. All three of the statements that had greater than 80% positive responses were with regard to top management, see Table 2 . Less than two-thirds (64%) of responses were positive with regard to the statement “Top management of this company considers safety when setting production speed and schedules” with an overall mean score of 3.77. More than four-fifths (83%) of responses were positive with regard to the statement “Top management of this company gives safety personnel the power they need to do their job” with an overall mean score of 4.26. Table 2 provides detailed safety climate scores for overall company year to year and by divisions.

The total company safety climate score for 2020 was 76.5 out of a possible 95 points. Over three-quarters (76.5%) of all responses were positive for an overall mean score of 4.03/5.0. Two statements had less than 70% positive responses. One of the two statements that had less than 70% positive responses was with regard to top management. Four additional statements had a greater than 80% positive response rate. Three of the four statements that had greater than 80% positive response rate were with regard to top management. A little more than two-thirds (68%) of all responses were positive with regard to the statement “top management listens carefully to workers’ ideas about improving safety” for an overall mean score of 3.77. Eighty-five percent of responses were positive with the regard to the statement “top management gives safety personnel the power they need to do their job” for an overall mean score of 4.21.

Looking at the division level, administration had the highest overall mean scores with a total of 83.1 from a possible 95 in 2019 and 83.3 in 2020, see Table 3 . Minimal changes in safety climate scores were seen with none being significant. Slight decreases in means score were seen in 6 of 19 items and increases were seen in 9 of 19 items.

Maintenance had the next highest overall scores safety climate scores with a total of 77.9 in 2019 and 77.5 in 2020., please see Table 4 . One item was nearly significant a 0.06 regarding the statement, uses any available information to improve existing safety rules. This time decreased from 4.2 in 2019 to 4.0 in 2020. Overall 7 of 9 items decreased minimally and 5 of 19 items increase slightly, no changes were significant at the 0.05 level.

Operations had the lowest overall mean scores in both 2019 and 2020 with totals of 75.2 and 76.5, respectively, for a 10% overall increase. We did see significant changes in two variables, see Table 5 . The first statement pertained to topic management and their response to correcting safety hazards, even if it was costly. The mean score was 3.7 in 2019 with a 10% increase in 2020 to 3.9. The second significant variable pertained to supervisor frequently checking to see if employees were are all obeying the safety rules. In 2019, the mean scores for this statement was 3.8 with a 10% increase to 4.0 in 2020, see Table 5 . Increases were seen in 10 of the 19 variables. Another statement pertaining to the supervisor, reminds workers who need reminders to work safely, was nearly significant with a p -value 0.08. The 2019 mean score was 3.8 and increased to 4.0 in 2020.

3.2 Comparing Safety Climate Score Between 2019 and 2020

Figure  1 shows interval plots comparing all the overall company mean score and the three divisions’ mean scores in 2019 and 2020 with 95% confidence intervals. The overall company’s mean score increased from 4.02 in 2019 to 4.03 in 2020. The company’s mean score increased on 10 out of the 19 statements in the survey. The Mann–Whitney statistical test found no statistically significant changes ( p -value = 0.616) from 2019 to 2020 in the company’s overall mean score. Nine of 19 statements from the 2019 survey had a mean score greater than 4.0, while 11 of 19 statements on the 2020 survey registered a mean score greater than 4.0.

Comparison of Means Scores from 2019 to 2020 for Company, Operations, and Maintenance

Administration had the highest score mean score (4.39), followed by maintenance (4.09), and then operations (3.96). These mean scores showed statistically significant differences ( p -value = 0.007). Comparing administration to operations found statistically significant differences on 10 of the 19 statements. Comparing maintenance to operations found statistically significant differences on five of the 19 statements. Administration had a higher mean score than maintenance and operations on 18 of the 19 statements in the 2019 survey.

Figure 1 is an interval plot comparing the overall company climate score and all three divisions’ mean scores in 2019 to 2020 with a 95% confidence interval.

Administration had the highest score mean score (4.40), followed by maintenance (4.08), and then operations (3.98). These scores showed statistically significant differences when comparing each division ( p -value = 0.041). When comparing administration to operations we found statistically significant differences on 8 of the 19 statements. When comparing maintenance to operations we did not find statistically significant differences on any of the 19 statements. Administration had a higher mean score than maintenance and operations on all 19 statements in the 2020 survey.

3.3 FSL Training

The FSL training sessions were conducted one to two months after the 2019 safety climate survey. A total of eight training sessions were completed with 81 employees who had middle to upper management responsibilities over an eight week period. Table 6 presents the pre and posttraining results of those employees who completed the FSL Training. The posttraining median score revealed statistically significant improvement compared to the pre-training median score. All 23 questions had statistically significant median score improvements when comparing pre and posttraining results. The pre-training assessment found nearly 90% (88.9%) of employee responses were positive. In the posttraining assessment this number increased to just over 98% (98.1%) of employee responses being positive.

4 Discussion

The purpose of this study was to investigate and evaluate safety climate at a Montana metal mining company and assist the company with an intervention to improve its safety climate. The population characteristics of those surveyed were similar to national data reported by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics [ 4 ]. The BLS reported nearly 90% of US miners identified as white males [ 4 ]. The demographics section of the survey found 96% of the population at this mine identified as being male and 92.8% identified as white. The BLS reported the combined industry sectors (mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction) had a population distribution of 87.3% white and 86.2% male [ 4 ]. Researchers were very successful in data collection; both 2019 and 2020 safety climate surveys achieved a response rate greater than 95%. This investigation was able to achieve the three study aims: (1) Measure and evaluate potential differences in safety climate scores between the major divisions of the company; (2) Measure and evaluate middle and upper-management worker’s understanding of FSL skills pre and posttraining; and, (3) Measure and evaluate safety climate scores comparing pre to postintervention.

Investigators rejected null hypothesis (1) and determined that statistically significant differences in mean safety climate scores existed between the three major divisions. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the overall mean scores of all three divisions in both 2019 ( p -value = 0.041) and 2020 ( p -value = 0.041). Statistically significant differences in specific safety climate scores between operations maintenance and administration were found in many areas. These results were consistent with prior research that found group-level variation in safety climate within a single organization [ 36 ]. On most items, operations had the lowest mean score and administration had the highest mean scores. Administration had higher mean scores than operations and maintenance on 18 of 19 items in 2019 and 19 of 19 statements in 2020. These differences might be partially explained by the fact that operations and maintenance workers face significantly more hazardous working conditions than administrative personnel.

Some of the most common hazards in mining include rock fall, mobile equipment accidents, explosions, falls from height, and crystalline silica exposure [ 1 ]. Company administrative personnel routinely work at a desk or meeting room for the majority of their shift. They generally face fewer hazards and risks compared to maintenance and operations workers. Another research team concluded that higher levels of hazards in mining are a predictor for poor levels of safety and low safety climate [ 37 ]. We believe that this may partly explain the differences in scores seen our study between administration compared to the other two divisions that face more daily hazards in the course of their usual work.

A research team investigated a nuclear facility where they found administrative personnel’s mean safety climate score was 10% higher than workforce/craft workers [ 38 ]. Results found in this study were similar, with administration having a mean score 10.2% higher than operations and 7.1% higher than maintenance in 2020. When a worker from either group is asked to increase speed of work, it will likely lead to quicker fatigue and therefore increase the risk of making a mistake [ 39 ]. These factors elevate the likelihood the employee could suffer an injury or damage equipment [ 40 ]. Administration personnel do not face the same level of risk as operations and maintenance personnel when they are asked to increase work speed.

Operations and maintenance workers face similar hazards on a consistent basis while working at the mine site. This could explain why operations and maintenance scores for both 2019 and 2020 were more similar than administrations’ scores. Though these divisions were more comparable than administration, maintenance had a significantly higher median score than operations in 2019 ( p -value = 0.07). Maintenance also scored higher on 16 of 19 items in 2019 and 2020. A possible explanation for the differences found between operations and maintenance is the amount of interaction between employees and their supervisors/foremen within each group. Maintenance workers tend to have more face-to-face interaction with direct supervisors/foreman than operations workers due to simple geographical work area differences. The work area for maintenance workers is more of a team environment with each crew being limited to three or fewer buildings. Operations personnel on the other hand are located throughout the entire mine site, for example a worker may be isolated to a haul truck for their entire shift moving ore from excavation locations to dump locations. These types of jobs limit communication between workers and supervisor/foremen to primarily mobile radio use. Looking at some of the safety climate items with larger differences in mean scores between operations and maintenance, it is noted that most are linked to communication with supervisors/foreman. Communication is the key to an effective safety climate [ 40 ]. Being limited to mobile radio communication as the primary source of interaction between foremen/supervisors and workers could negatively impact the relationship potential. Another investigator found that face-to-face communication most effective in building interpersonal relationships between employees and managers when comparing it to computer-mediated communication [ 41 ].

Variability exists in the work schedules of the company’s three major divisions. Operations workers work 12-h shifts, with one of four crews working onsite at all times, and all crews rotating between day and night shift. Maintenance workers are scheduled from 7 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. Monday through Friday, and they are on-call at all times in the event a pivotal piece of equipment breaks down. Administration workers generally work 7 A.M. to 3:30 P.M. A research team found that night shift workers perceived a higher level of injury risk compared to day shift workers [ 42 ]. Half of operations worker’s shifts are night shifts, which may have negatively affected their safety climate scores.

Investigators rejected the null hypothesis (2) and found statistically significant differences when comparing pre vs. posttraining FSL assessment scores. All 23 items from the survey had statistically significant improvements. The authors believe that that the positive increase in scores represents a level of effectiveness of the training. Research have found similar evidence that the FSL training can, at least in the short-term, improve FSL assessment scores in construction frontline leaders [ 32 ]. Their results were similar to the ones found in this study. They also acknowledged that further research is necessary to determine if these results lead to long-term improvements [ 32 ]. The company plans on continuing to focus on safety training in the future as the major strategy to improve their safety climate.

Recently, a research team that investigated numerous mining operations found that improving training, communication, and follow-up after training should be considered highest priority rather than the volume of training for improving safety climate [ 43 ]. At the mine, work teams continued to meet daily at the beginning of each shift and practiced FSL skills however, when COVID 19 restrictions were implemented group leaders experienced difficulty maintaining effective safety group and individual practices. The short video training messages produced by CPWR for the five leadership skills were evaluated by senior management. They did not feel that the content within the messaging would be effective and opted to not use them. Formal follow-up training did occur with monthly messaging to reinforce FSL skills and practices. The next MSHA mandated annual refresher training in 2020 included additional reinforcement of FSL practices in combination with the second safety climate survey. At the sessions employees in small groups received eight hours of training that included one full hour of FSL refresher training by the research team leader via video.

Researchers also found, in general that the mining industry often lacked “soft skills” training such as sustaining communication and leadership [ 43 ]. The FSL training targets these “soft skills” and researchers in this study found a high level of engagement in the miners who took the class. This high level of engagement was reflected by the pre vs. post training assessment scores. Attendees provided good interaction and understood the importance of soft skills in effective safety related communication. There was discussion about the barriers and ideas to overcome them. For example, just making sure that employees were paying attention and understood the safe work practice could be confirmed by practicing three-way communication. A research team performed a comprehensive literature review on training effectiveness and concluded that further research on high quality training effectiveness was needed [ 44 ]. This study demonstrates that FSL training has the potential to increase miners with management responsibilities’ knowledge of safety leadership skills. We recommend that the company continue to support the FSL practices and believe that over time safety climate scores will improve.

Posttraining scores suggested that these managers enhanced their safety leadership skills and that they could use them to improve communication with the employees they oversee. Prior research has found frontline leaders who display a “caring” dimension are particularly effective in safety leadership [ 45 ]. The FSL training stresses the importance of actively listening, engaging, empowering, and communicating with all members of their workforce. When these skills are put to use, it convey a message to workers they are valued members of a team. The authors believe that if managers utilized the skills learned from FSL training they could become better safety leaders and therefore improve the company’s safety climate. At the company, safety training conveys the message that everyone is a safety leader. Given that the company had a high level of safety climate prior to the onset of the study, it will be a challenge to move the climate scores to significantly higher levels. Improving safety climate takes time, determination, stamina, leadership support, commitment, reinforcement, and long-term focus [ 46 ]. The company has a stellar record with more than ten years without a lost time injury and has worked hard to build a positive safety climate. Senior management and front-line supervisors felt that the FSL training was right for their company for many reasons.

Safety is a core value at the company. Management buy-in and support for safety have been identified as best-in-class features of good companies [ 47 ]. Commitment to safety is embedded in the organization and its structure from workers and front-line supervisors to top management, they have a strong safety climate and only wish to get better. Organizations that demonstrate this kind of commitment and seize the opportunity to reinforce safety at every turn are poised for continuous improvement [ 47 ]. The FSL was and is a good fit approach for improving safety climate for this organization. Given the level of commitment, positive FSL implementation, and reinforcement, authors believe that over time safety climate measures will improve as seen by other companies who demonstrated similar strategies [ 33 , 48 ].

The FSL program has been found to be effective in construction for improving safety leadership skills [ 48 ]. Key to the success of FSL is the effective training, not only because of the knowledge and skills learned but, because the program increases motivation and self-efficacy of those trained [ 48 ]. The FSL program had significant promise to impact safety in construction and was adopted by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and designed into a 30-h stand-alone course. As of 2019, more than 60,000 leaders have been trained in the FSL [ 28 ]. This study is the first to our knowledge of the FSL being used in mining. The FSL program was designed to be adapted to most industries and was a good fit for mining and the company studied [ 29 ].

Investigators failed to reject the null hypothesis (3) that no statistically significant changes would occur between the pre and post-training safety climate measurements. Investigators did see an increase from 76.35 pre-training to 76.49 posttraining out of a possible 95. The mean scores were 4.02 for 2019 and 4.03 for 2020. This increase was not found to be statistically significant ( p -value = 0.616). Investigators also observed an increase in positive responses with 74.8% of total responses being positive in 2019 compared to 75.8% in 2020, a negligible increase of 1%.

Researchers in Ghana used surveys to assess the maturity of safety climate in a large gold mine operation with 9,767 employees located at four sites. Investigators administered 1,040 surveys across the four sites and received 828 back for an 80% response rate. Researchers found an overall climate score of 3.42 from a possible 5.0 with a 68% positive response. Significant differences were found between various mine locations [ 26 ]. They found a higher safety climate maturity was correlated with lower incidence rate among the four mines [ 26 ]. The authors believe the high baseline measurement (4.02) correlates well with the fact the mine surveyed in this study had gone over 11 years without a lost time injury as of February 2021. This extraordinary achievement speaks to the high level of safety management in place at the mine. Mine operators in this study stated that they go above and beyond annual refresher training required by the MSHA. This includes mandatory daily toolbox talks, monthly FSL reminders, and various annual trainings depending on the employee’s job and responsibilities, such as first aid, trench safety, fall protection, and lockout tagout. Research supports the assertion that all mine operators should implement safety training beyond what is required by law [ 43 ]. The high initial state of the company’s safety climate makes it more difficult to increase the company’s safety climate.

The FSL training assessment demonstrated significant improvements on all 23 items when comparing the pre vs. posttraining results, this improvement did not translate to improved posttraining safety climate scores over the period of time studied. Investigators replicated and validated the Ebbinghaus forgetting curve research that claimed people often forget 90% of what they learned within 3–6 days unless learning is reinforced with multiple repetitions [ 49 ]. This research aligns with claims made by other research teams who found that reminding employees of training concepts and post-training communication may be the key to improving employees’ safety knowledge [ 43 ]. The FSL training has been found to be effective on follow-up with supervisors 4 weeks post intervention [ 48 ]. Long-term studies using the FSL have not been published thus far but are expected in the future.

A limited follow-up plan was used in conjunction with the training intervention to consistently reinforce supervisors/managers of FSL training concepts and practices after training concluded. By consistently reminding employees of the skills they learned in the FSL training, they may be more likely to utilize the skills on their jobsites. Experts have recommended to go beyond the annual refresher to reinforce training and safe work practices [ 43 ]. These authors recommend the company continue their strategies and believe long-term reinforcement of FSL will lead to a greater adoption of safety leadership skills by both front-line supervisors and workers. Over time, investigators expect measurable improvement in safety climate scores at the company as seen in other companies with committed, supportive, positive leadership for safety [ 33 ].

Another possible factor that may have negatively affected post-training safety climate scores was the occurrence of COVID-19 pandemic during this study. Three-months before the posttraining safety climate assessment the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic [ 50 ]. The Center for Disease Control and Prevention stated that COVID-19 pandemic can cause stress, fear, and anxiety for people [ 51 ]. They also reported that social distancing protocols utilized by the mine operators to reduce the spread of COVID-19 can make people feel isolated and further increase stress and anxiety [ 51 ]. Therefore, COVID-19 is a variable that could have biased scores toward the null. In light of the COVID-19 pandemic occurring prior to and throughout the post intervention assessment, the small but insignificant increase in safety climate scores is remarkable.

5 Limitations

This study has a number of limitations. The safety climate surveys were completed by individuals and may be subject to response bias. Self-report surveys are also subject to recall bias. Individuals may not have accurately recalled the circumstances for which they formed their opinions. The company experienced changes in middle to upper management positions between 2019 and 2020 during the study period. This could also have led to bias in the results of 2020 either toward or away from the null depending on how employees perceived the new managers views on safety. The newly appointed management personnel also did not receive Foundations for Safety Leadership training and therefore were not taught the skills to make potential improvements in the company’s safety climate. The high level of safety climate and safe work practices in place at the mine bias the results toward the null. The company may not represent the average metal mine in Montana or elsewhere.

6 Conclusions

In this study we found statistically significant differences in safety climate between the company’s three major divisions in both 2019 and 2020. We also found statistically significant differences in the FSL pre vs. posttraining assessment scores indicating the training was effective. Despite the positive evaluation findings, we did not see a statistically significant increase in the overall company mean safety climate scores when comparing 2019 to 2020. The company has all the right pieces in place to succeed at raising their safety climate and culture over time.

Leadership is foundational to improving organizational climate [ 33   40   52 ]. The company practices a transformational leadership style, which has been found to have a strong relationship to safety behaviors and reduced losses [ 28 , 53 ]. Leadership by example, with competency and consistency builds positive organizational climate and culture [ 40 ]. A number of leadership practices have been recommended for improving safety climate by experts such as practicing consideration for all employee’s contributions, wellbeing, and status within the company, providing clarity of leadership structure, responsibilities, and expectations throughout the organization, representation of personnel at all levels within the organization, reconciliation of conflicting demands within organizational operations, tolerance of uncertainty, persuasiveness, tolerance for freedom in opinions of followers and differences in perspective, role retention for leadership, predictive accuracy, acumen, and planning, production emphasis, integration and alignment of company policy and roles, transparency, and influence of subordinates on superiors [ 33 ].

Other experts recommended enhanced omni-directional communication that aligns the organization to the vision, mission and values of the company and reinforces safe work practices [ 40 ]. Alignment of production and safety goals are key factors that demonstrate company commitment to safe work practices and raise climate and culture [ 40 ]. Accountability for all employees in relation to company safety standards, rules and practices, and to lead by example is important for enhancing safety climate [ 40 ]. Creating opportunities for meaningful employee involvement and empowerment builds company culture and safety climate [ 40 ]. Effective training and education that includes adequate intensity, frequency, and duration to bring about adoption of safe work practices as normal and usual for all duties and tasks. Effective training supports self-efficacy and motivation for compliance [ 48 ]. Building mutual trust between individuals and groups within the organization is also important for creating and enhancing positive organizational culture and safety climate [ 45 ].

Measuring and monitoring leading indicators for safe work is also a pathway to prevention [ 54 ]. If the company continues to be proactive about identifying gaps in safe work practices, responds positively, and reinforces correction in procedures, tools, and/or conditions, improvement in lagging indicators will follow. Companies that maintain robust reporting systems for frontline safety needs, performance, injury, illness, and near misses may also expect to improve safety climate [ 47 ]. The company uses multiple measures for leading indicators from frequent audits, regular employee-management communication and exchanges, and annual company climate and safety climate surveys.

Strong safety leadership is the best approach to improving safety climate within an organization [ 33 ]. The next phase of this study includes continued discussion with company leaders to identify, develop, and implement additional strategies to further improve safety climate followed by future reevaluations to assess changes in safety climate scores for the company as a whole and by division. In the meantime, practices to improve the company’s safety climate continue including follow-up reinforcement of the FSL training and frequent communication with supervisors and employees to remind them of key safety leadership concepts and practices.

Donoghue AM (2004) Occupational health hazards in mining: an overview. Occup Med 54(5):283–289. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqh072

Article   Google Scholar  

Kowalski-Trakofler K, Barrett E (2003) The concept of degraded images applied to hazard recognition training in mining for reduction of lost-time injuries. J Safety Res 34(5):515–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2003.05.004

Morbidly and Mortality Weekly (MMWR) (1999) Achievements in Public Health, 1900–1999: Improvements in Workplace Safety—United States, 1900–1999, MMWR, 48(22), 461–469. Retrieved from  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Bureau of Labor and Statistics (BLS) (2018) Mining at a glance (except oil and gas): NAICS 212.  https://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag212.htm . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

NIOSH (n.d.) Number and rate of nonfatal lost-time injuries per sector, 2016 – 2019 https://wwwn.cdc.gov/niosh-mining/MMWC/Injuries/NumberAndRateBySector . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Saleh J, Cummings A (2011) Safety in the mining industry and unfinished legacy of mining accidents: safety levers and defense-in-depth for addressing mining hazards. Saf Sci 49(6):764–777. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.02.017

Marshall, R (1981) Mine safety health administration. https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/carter-msha#:~:text=MSHA%20was%20created%20in%20the,to%20the%20Bureau%20of%20Mines . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Waehrer G, Miller T (2009) Does safety training reduce work injury in the United States? The Ergonomics Open Journal 2:26–39. https://doi.org/10.2174/1875934300902010026

Bonsu J, van Dyk W, Franzidis J-P, Petersen F, Isafiade A (2017) A systemic study of mining accident causality: an analysis of 91 mining accidents from a platinum mine in South Africa. J South Afr Inst Min Metal 117(1):59–66. https://doi.org/10.17159/2411-9717/2017/v117n1a9

Filigenzi M, Orr T, Ruff T (2010) Virtual Reality for Mine Safety Training. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 15(6):465–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/104732200301232

van Wyk E, Villiers R (2009) Virtual reality training applications for the mining industry. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on computer graphics, virtual reality, visualisation and interaction in Africa, pp 53–63. https://doi.org/10.1145/1503454.1503465

Camm T, Girard-Dwyer J (2005) Economic consequences of mining injuries. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Spokane Research Laboratory. https://www.cdc.gov/NIOSH/Mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/ecomi.pdf . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Heberger JR (2018) Demonstrating the financial impact of mining injuries with the “Safety Pays in Mining” web application. Min Eng 70(12):37–43. https://doi.org/10.19150/me.8643

Zohar D (2010) Thirty years of safety climate research: reflections and future directions. Accid Anal Prev 42(5):1517–1522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2009.12.019

Article   MathSciNet   Google Scholar  

Zohar D (1980) Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoretical and applied implications. J Appl Psychol 65:96–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96

Gilkey D, Lopez del Puerto C, Keefe T, Bigelow P, Herron R, Rosecrance J, Chen P (2012) Safety culture in residential construction: managers vs workers. J Constr Eng Manag 138(1044–1052):1045. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000519

Huang Y, Lee J, Chen Z, Perry M, Cheung J (2017) An item-response theory approach to safety climate measurement: the Liberty Mutual Safety Climate Short Scales. Accid Anal Prev 103:96–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.015

Froko IUF, Maxwell A, Kingsley N (2015) The impact of safety climate on safety performance in a gold mining company in Ghana. International Journal of Management Excellence 5(1):556–566

Pandit B, Albert A, Patil Y, Al-Bayati A (2019) Impact of safety climate on hazard recognition and safety risk perception. Saf Sci 113:44–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.11.020

Sparer E, Catalano P, Herrick R, Dennerlein J (2016) Improving safety climate through a communication and recognition program for construction: a mixed methods study. Scand J Work Environ Health 42(4):329–337. https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.3569

Huang YH, Lee J, McFadden AC, Murphy LA, Robertson MM, Cheung JH, Zohar D (2016) Beyond safety outcomes: an investigation of the impact of safety climate on job satisfaction, employee engagement and turnover using social exchange theory as the theoretical framework. Appl Ergon 55:248–257

Balogun AO, Andel SA, Smith TD (2020) “Digging Deeper” into the relationship between safety climate and turnover intention among stone, sand and gravel mine workers: job satisfaction as a mediator. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(6):1925. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17061925

Shaw D (2010) Turnover rates and organizational performance: review, critique, and research agenda. Sage Publishing 1(3):187–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/2041386610382152

Masia U, Pienarr J (2011) Unravelling safety compliance in the mining industry: examining the role of work stress, job insecurity, satisfaction and commitment as antecedents. SA J Ind Psychol 37(1):1–10. http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2071-07632011000100018 . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Firoozi C, Beheshti M, Poursadeghiyan M (2015) Effect of health, safety, and environment management system training on safety climate in a mine in Yazd Province, Iran. Journal of Occupational Health and Epidemiology 4(4):198–204. http://johe.rums.ac.ir/article-1-153-en.html . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Stemn E, Bofinger C, Cliff D, Hassall M (2019) Examining the relationship between safety culture maturity and safety performance of the mining industry. Saf Sci 113:345–355. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.008

Ma Q, Yuan J (2009) Exploratory study on safety climate in Chinese manufacturing enterprises. Saf Sci 47(7):1043–1046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2009.01.007

Goldenhar L, Schwatka N, Johnson S (2019) Leadership skills for strengthening jobsite safety climate. J Safety Res 70:263–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.04.011

Center for Construction Research and Training (CPWR) (2021) Foundation for safety leadership (FSL). https://www.cpwr.com/research/training-and-awareness-programs-from-research/foundations-for-safety-leadership/ . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Flin R (2007) Measuring safety culture in healthcare: a case for accurate diagnosis. Saf Sci 45(6):653–667. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.04.003

Kozlowski SW, Doherty ML (1989) Integration of climate and leadership: examination of a neglected issue. J Appl Psychol 74(4):546–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.74.4.546

Schwatka N, Goldenhar L, Johnson S, Beldon M, Tessler J, Dennerlein J, Fullen M, Hao T (2019) A training intervention to improve frontline construction leaders’ safety leadership practices and overall jobsite safety climate. J Safety Res 70:253–262. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2019.04.010

Williams JH (2002) Improving safety leadership. Prof Saf 47(4):43–47. http://mtproxy.lib.umt.edu:3048/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/docview/200407769?accountid=28080 . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Amponsah-Tawiah K, Ntow M, Mensah J (2015) Occupational Health and Safety Management and Turnover Intention in the Ghanaian Mining Sector. Saf Health Work 7(1):12–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2015.08.002

Liberty Mutual Insurance (2019) Liberty mutual safety climate short scale survey. Liberty Mutual Insurance, Boston, MA

Google Scholar  

Zohar D, Luria G (2005) A Multilevel Model of Safety Climate: Cross-Level Relationships Between Organization and Group-Level Climates. J Appl Psychol 90(4):616–628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.616

Jiskani I, Cai Q, Zhou W, Chang Z, Chalgri S, Manda E, Lu X (2020) Distinctive Model of Mine Safety for Sustainable Mining in Pakistan. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 37:1023–1037. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00207-8

Findley M, Smith S, Gorski J, O’neil M, (2006) Safety climate differences among job positions in a nuclear decommissioning and demolition industry: employees’ self-reported safety attitudes and perceptions. Saf Sci 45(8):875–889. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.08.027

MacDonald W (2003) The impact of job demands and workload on stress and fatigue. Aust Psychol 38(2):102–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/00050060310001707107

Putz-Anderson V, Bernard B, Bur SE, Cole LL, Fairfield-Estill C, Fine L, Grant K, Gjessing G, Jenkins L, Hurrell JJ, Nelson N, Pfirman D, Roberts R, Stetson D, Haring-Sweeney M, Tanaka S (1997) Musculoskeletal disorders and workplace factors: a critical review of epidemiologic evidence for work-related musculoskeletal disorders of the neck, upper extremity, and low back. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/97-141/default.html . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Gilkey D, Lopez del Puerto C (2018) There is culture and there is safety culture: lessons learned from construction. World Safety Journal 27(4):5–12. https://worldsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/WSJ_VolXXVII_No4-2018.pdf . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Ean L (2010) Face-to-face versus computer-mediated communication: exploring employees’ preference of effective employee communication channel. International Journal for The Advancement of Science & Arts 1(2):38–47. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Ean%2C+L.C.+Face-to-face+Versus+Computer-mediated+Communicaton%3A+Exploring+Employee%27s+Preference+of+Effective+Employee+Communication+Channel.+International+Journal+for+the+Advancement+of+Science+and+Arts%2C+2010%2C+1+%282%29.+38%2D%2D47 . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Huang Y, Chen J, Dearmond S, Cigularov K, Chen P (2007) Roles of safety climate and shift work on perceived injury risk: a multi-level analysis. Accid Anal Prev 39(6):1088–1096. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2007.02.006

Haas E, Hoebbel C, Yorio L (2020) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2020–120, RI 9704. https://doi.org/10.26616/NIOSHPUB2020120

Robson L, Stephenson C, Schulte P, Amick B, Chan S, Bielecky A, Wang A, Heidotting T, Irvin E, Eggerth D, Peters R, Clarke J, Cullen K, Boldt L, Rotunda C, Grubb P (2010) A systematic review of the effectiveness of training & education for the protection of workers. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Publication No. 2010–127. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2010-127/pdfs/2010-127.pdf . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Wu C, Wang F, Zou P, Fang D (2016) How safety leadership works among owners, contractors and subcontractors in construction projects. Int J Project Manage 34(5):789–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.02.013

Stiles S, Ryan B, Golightly D (2018) Evaluating attitudes to safety leadership within rail construction projects. Saf Sci 110:134–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.12.030

Mannan MS, Mentzer RA, Zhang J (2013) Framework for creating a Best-in-Class safety culture. J Loss Prev Process Ind 26(6):1423–1432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jlp.2013.09.007

Schwatka NV, Goldenhar LM, Johnson SK (2020) Change in frontline supervisors’ safety leadership practices after participating in a leadership training program: does company size matter? J Safety Res 74:199–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2020.06.012

Murre J, Dros J (2015) Replication and analysis of Ebbinghaus’ forgetting curve. PLoS ONE 10(7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120644

World Health Organization (2020) Archived: WHO Timeline - COVID-19. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/27-04-2020-who-timeline---covid-19 . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2020) Coping with Stress. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/daily-life-coping/managing-stress-anxiety.html . Accessed 8 Aug 2021

Jiang L, Probst TM (2016) Transformational and passive leadership as cross-level moderators of the relationships between safety knowledge, safety motivation, and safety participation. J Safety Res 57:27–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2016.03.002

Sheehan C, Donohue R, Shea T, Cooper B, De Cieri H (2016) Leading and lagging indicators of occupational health and safety: the moderating role of safety leadership. Accid Anal Prev 92:130–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.03.018

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported in part by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Training Project Grant (grant no. T03OH008630). The contents of this publication are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not represent official views of the CDC or NIOSH.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Safety, Health and Industrial Hygiene, Montana Technological University, 1300 West Park St., Butte, MT, 59701, USA

Ty Murphy, Hadi Aldossari, Lorri Birkenbuel, Daniel Autenrieth, Michael McGivern & David Gilkey

Department of Mining Engineering, Montana Technological University, 1300 West Park St., Butte, MT, 59701, USA

Scott Rosenthal

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

Ty Murphy, lead author, was a graduate student earning an MS degree. Dr. Gilkey was Chair of the graduate committee and oversaw the study from conception to completion. Mr. Hadi Aldossari was an undergraduate student working under Dr. Gilkey and participated in in all phases of the initial baseline measurement process, data collection, coding, data entry, analysis, and FSL intervention. Dr. Autenrieth provide statistical support. Professor Birkenbuel was a graduate committee member and contributed to all phases of the study. Professor Rosenthal was a graduate committee member and participated in all phases of the study. Mr. McGivern is an adjunct professor in the department and represented the community partner and participated in all phases of the project.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Gilkey .

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Murphy, T., Aldossari, H., Birkenbuel, L. et al. Safety Climate in MT Mining: A Case Study. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 38 , 1861–1875 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-021-00472-1

Download citation

Received : 21 January 2021

Accepted : 13 July 2021

Published : 13 August 2021

Issue Date : October 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-021-00472-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Safety climate
• Safety culture
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Journal Proposal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Journal Menu

• Safety Home
• Aims & Scope
• Editorial Board
• Topical Advisory Panel
• Instructions for Authors
• Special Issues
• Sections & Collections
• Article Processing Charge
• Indexing & Archiving
• Editor’s Choice Articles
• Most Cited & Viewed
• Journal Statistics
• Journal History
• Journal Awards
• Editorial Office

Journal Browser

• arrow_forward_ios Forthcoming issue arrow_forward_ios Current issue
• Vol. 10 (2024)
• Vol. 9 (2023)
• Vol. 8 (2022)
• Vol. 7 (2021)
• Vol. 6 (2020)
• Vol. 5 (2019)
• Vol. 4 (2018)
• Vol. 3 (2017)
• Vol. 2 (2016)
• Vol. 1 (2015)

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

Mine Safety

• Print Special Issue Flyer

Special Issue Editors

Special issue information, benefits of publishing in a special issue.

• Published Papers

A special issue of Safety (ISSN 2313-576X).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 August 2020) | Viewed by 31975

Share This Special Issue

Dear Colleagues,

This Special Issue of Safety is focused on international mine safety. Mining, anywhere in the world, involves working in potentially-hazardous conditions, which require high levels of awareness of hazards and risks involved; well-designed mine plans and mining methods; and appropriate, proactive and responsive mine management approaches. A particular characteristic of mining hazards and associated risk management is that the level and nature of hazards can vary significantly from one day to another, as the mine develops through different regions of the rock mass where changing conditions prevail.

The approaches taken by mines to the important issue of mine safety can vary significantly around the world, as can the hazard levels and the different mining technologies and systems. However, the universal goal must be "zero harm" for all personnel.

This issue of Safety is dedicated to safety issues facing the mining industry and aims to showcase a range of safety-related mining environmental issues and hazard identification processes; case studies of proactive safety management initiatives; and analyses of, and insights into significant, industry-wide safety performance improvements and achievements.

Prof. Dr. Bruce Hebblewhite Assoc. Prof. Ting Ren Prof. Yosoon Choi Guest Editors

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website . Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form . Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as short communications are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a single-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Safety is an international peer-reviewed open access quarterly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1800 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

• mine safety
• hazard assessment
• risk management
• mining conditions
• Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
• Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
• Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
• External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
• e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here .

Published Papers (4 papers)

Further Information

Mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

• DOI: 10.1038/130271b0
• Corpus ID: 52859211

Safety in Mines

• Published in Nature 1932
• Engineering, Environmental Science

Related Papers

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Don’t Mine Our Land in the Name of 'Progress.' Protect Waorani Traditions

P erhaps people all over the world are a bit arrogant and think that their ways of doing things are the best ways. Arrogance like that can be annoying, and it can also be very funny. But it becomes something else altogether when accompanied by the desire, the will, and the ability to eliminate people who are different.

I am Waorani . I will not eat a meal in my territory if I do not tell or listen to the stories of how that meal was prepared. If I am a guest at another’s home in my territory, I will ask: Where did you go to fish? At which river, and which bend in the water, did you catch this fish? How long were you there? What happened along the walk to get there? How did you catch this fish? What happened on the walk back? How was the process of smoking the fish once you got home? Which firewood did you use? And what do you think of the flavors that come out when you use this other type of wood? But, of course, it is not an interview—I am not the only one asking questions. Everyone present talks and shares and asks and tells stories.

If someone invites you to eat in Waorani territory, you don’t just show up, sit down, and start eating. You share the stories of how the meal came to be in order to share the meal. If I am in a city and someone invites me to a restaurant, I must adapt. I may think it is funny, and even a bit sad, that people in cities mostly do not have a connection to their food or even know how it came to be on the plate before them. But I keep my thoughts to myself and share the meal on the terms of the place where I’ve been invited.

The problem is that the societies that make the cities that produce the meals with hidden stories want to destroy my home, destroy our forest, our rivers, our ability to fish, cook, and tell the stories of the meals we share. And they want to do this to feed their cities, to fuel their automobiles and jets, and to line the aisles of their supermarkets with food packaged in all kinds of plastic. But I do not want to live in the city. I do not want to become something other than what I am.

I want to be Waorani. I want to wake up before dawn, sit by the fire, talk about my dreams from the night before, listen to the dreams of my family, and plan our day accordingly. For us, dreams are central to who we are. Discussing them is part of how we decide if we should set out to hunt or fish, to work in the garden, to go for a swim at the waterfall, to gather plants to make dyes, to weave, or simply to take a walk.

Read More: Nemonte Nenquimo Says Mother Earth Is Calling and We All Need to Listen

To be Waorani is to live in deep connection with our forests, lagoons, mountains, rivers, trees, animals, and plants. To be Waorani means maintaining our own voices , our knowledge and values. It means walking through the woods singing a song that comes to mind knowing that our ancestors sang the same song. It means listening to the owls and the scarlet macaws to know if we will receive a visit from friends or relatives, to discern from a jaguar’s howl if we are in danger.

We live through our connections to animals and living spirits that guide and protect us. If the land and rivers are poisoned or razed and grow ill, so the animals and spirits also sicken and die, and so we lose our connection, our guidance. We will no longer be able to dream. We will become ill and disconnected, and we will die.

Industrialized nations have mostly consumed the oil in their territories and that in many territories they have plundered. Mine is constantly under threat . We have fought to protect it using the very tools of these nations against them: laws, technology, media, and direct democracy. And we have won . And still the distant governments and oil companies insist on destroying our home, destroying our people, destroying our language and culture, turning to ruin our very ability to dream.

Many people may be arrogant in thinking that the way they do things is the best. But it goes beyond arrogance and into the realm of injustice and truly vile behavior when one society decides to eliminate another in the name of what it decides to call progress. I do not want that progress. I want to be Waorani.

Nemonte Nenquimo is a leader of the Waorani people, cofounder of the Ceibo Alliance, and an activist. She is the author of We Will Be Jaguars: A Memoir of My People . Co-writer Mitch Anderson, Nenquimo’s partner, is the founder and executive director of Amazon Frontlines.

• Welcome to the Golden Age of Scams
• Introducing TIME's 2024 Latino Leaders
• How to Make an Argument That’s Actually Persuasive
• Did the Pandemic Break Our Brains?
• 33 True Crime Documentaries That Shaped the Genre
• The Ordained Rabbi Who Bought a Porn Company
• Why Gut Health Issues Are More Common in Women
• The 100 Most Influential People in AI 2024

Contact us at [email protected] .

What Rwanda's Kigali Genocide Memorial Can Teach the World

Empowered women can transform the world's poorest communities, donald trump showed his disregard for nurses. kamala harris will prioritize the nation’s health, the problem with california’s ai bill, the u.s. health care system fails women. employers need to step in, what i learned about the power of sports as a refugee olympian.