DOI : https://doi.org/10.56338/mppki.v9i9.10864

Preliminary Validation of a Safety Culture Maturity Model for Occupational Health and Safety in the Garment Industry

Irwan Iftadi (1), Bambang Suhardi (2), Eko Pujianto (3), Retno Wulan Damayanti (4)
(1) Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
(2) Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
(3) Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
(4) Department of Industrial Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Sebelas Maret University, Surakarta, Indonesia
Fulltext View | Download
How to cite :
Iftadi, I., Suhardi, B., Pujianto, E., & Retno Wulan Damayanti. (2026). Preliminary Validation of a Safety Culture Maturity Model for Occupational Health and Safety in the Garment Industry . Media Publikasi Promosi Kesehatan Indonesia (MPPKI), 9(9), 1712–1724. https://doi.org/10.56338/mppki.v9i9.10864
Citation Format :

Introduction: This study aimed to provide preliminary validation of a second-order Safety Culture Maturity (SCM) measurement model and to propose a conceptual roadmap for future organisation-level maturity assessment in the Indonesian garment industry. The model comprised communication, organisational learning, management commitment, and employee involvement.


Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional survey was conducted using an online questionnaire. The initial 20-item instrument underwent expert-based content validation before confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A total of 178 complete responses were obtained from workers at 10 garment companies belonging to two industry groups in the Surakarta region. A second-order CFA was estimated using maximum likelihood with robust Huber–White standard errors and the Yuan–Bentler scaled test. The questionnaire assessed workers’ perceptions at one point in time; company-level maturity classification was outside the scope of the design.


Results: Seventeen items met the content-validity retention threshold. The final 13-item second-order CFA model showed good fit: Yuan–Bentler χ² (60) = 74.8, p = 0.094; SRMR = 0.029; robust RMSEA = 0.046, 95% CI [0.000, 0.076]; robust CFI = 0.989; and robust TLI = 0.986. Standardised first-order loadings ranged from 0.768 to 0.908, and standardised second-order loadings ranged from 0.930 to 0.997. Cronbach’s α ranged from 0.836 to 0.920, and AVE ranged from 0.641 to 0.747. One within-construct residual covariance between safety planning and safety budgeting was retained. Six salient indicators, interpreted alongside prior maturity-model literature, informed a four-stage conceptual roadmap for developing future organisation-level maturity criteria.


Conclusion: The findings provide preliminary empirical support for a four-dimensional, perception-based SCM measurement model in the present sample. The model offers an empirical foundation for developing stage-specific organisation-level maturity criteria, and the conceptual roadmap defines the next phase of cross-company, longitudinal, and predictive validation.

  1. 1. ILO. Safety and health in textiles, clothing leather and footwear [Internet]. 2022. Available from: https://www.ilo.org/sites/default/files/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_dialogue/@sector/documents/normativeinstrument/wcms_828429.pdf
  2. 2. WTO. World Trade Statistical Review 2023 [Internet]. 2023. Available from: https://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/wtsr_2023_e.pdf
  3. 3. CNN Indonesia. Tenaga Kerja Industri Tekstil RI Turun 7,5 Persen di 2024 [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 May 9]. Available from: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/ekonomi/20240808150745-92-1130802/tenaga-kerja-industri-tekstil-ri-turun-75-persen-di-2024
  4. 4. Waluyo D. Indonesia.go.id - Menembus Batas Pasar Produk Tekstil [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2025 May 9]. Available from: https://indonesia.go.id/kategori/editorial/8284/menembus-batas-pasar-produk-tekstil
  5. 5. Izzati NR. Indonesia country Study. Fair Wear Foundation; 2021.
  6. 6. Indonesia Country Study 2018 [Internet]. Netherlands: Fair Wear Foundation; 2018. p. 68. Available from: https://api.fairwear.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Indonesia-Country-Study.pdf
  7. 7. IAEA. INSAG-7 The Chernobyl Accident: Updating of INSAG-1 [Internet]. 1992. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub913e_web.pdf
  8. 8. IAEA. Safety Series: Safety Culture [Internet]. 1991. Available from: https://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub882_web.pdf
  9. 9. Brown B. Mind over Risk: Leading a Safety Culture Revolution. Gatekeeper Press; 2024.
  10. 10. Hudson P. Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. Saf Sci. 2007 Jul;45(6):697–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.04.005
  11. 11. Goncalves Filho AP, Waterson P. Maturity models and safety culture: A critical review. Saf Sci. 2018 Jun; 105:192–211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.017
  12. 12. Zohar D. Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. J Appl Psychol. 1980;65(1):96–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96
  13. 13. Fleming M, Wentzell N. Patient Safety Culture Improvement Tool: Development and Guidelines for Use. Healthc Q. 2008 Mar 15;11(sp):10–5. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcq.2013.19604
  14. 14. Mulyasari W, Ciptomulyono U, Sudiarno A. A Critical Review of Safety Culture Maturity Model Tools. In: 2023 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) [Internet]. Singapore, Singapore: IEEE; 2023 [cited 2025 May 13]. p. 1083–7. Available from: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/10406377/ https://doi.org/10.1109/IEEM58616.2023.10406377
  15. 15. Siuta D, Kukfisz B, Kuczyńska A, Mitkowski PT. Methodology for the Determination of a Process Safety Culture Index and Safety Culture Maturity Level in Industries. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Feb 25;19(5):2668. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19052668
  16. 16. Suprapto VH, Pujawan N, Dewi RS. A Framework to Strengthen Learning Culture and Safeguards. Safety. 2021 Nov 15;7(4):78. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety7040078
  17. 17. Tappura S, Jääskeläinen A, Pirhonen J. Creation of satisfactory safety culture by developing its key dimensions. Saf Sci. 2022 Oct 1; 154:105849. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2022.105849
  18. 18. Iftadi I, Suhardi B, Pujianto E, Damayanti RW. A bibliometric analysis on safety culture maturity model. E3S Web Conf. 2023; 465:02044. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202346502044
  19. 19. Reiman T, Pietikäinen E. Indicators of safety culture – selection and utilization of leading safety performance indicators [Internet]. 2010. Report 2010:07. Available from: https://sarjaweb.vtt.fi/julkaisut/muut/2010/SSM-Rapport-2010-07.pdf
  20. 20. Robertson MF. Examining the Relationship Between Safety Management System Implementation and Safety Culture in Collegiate Flight Schools. J Aviat Technol Eng. 2018 Mar 8;7(2). https://doi.org/10.7771/2159-6670.1169
  21. 21. Saunders LW, Kleiner BM, McCoy AP, Ellis KP, Smith-Jackson T, Wernz C. Developing an inter-organizational safety climate instrument for the construction industry. Saf Sci. 2017 Oct; 98:17–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2017.04.003
  22. 22. Nævestad TO, Phillips RO. The limits of soft safety regulation: Does successful work with safety culture require SMS implementation? Transp Res Interdiscip Perspect. 2023 Jan; 17:100733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2022.100733
  23. 23. Gallier U, Duarte F. Safety culture improvement proposals in high-risk industries: A semi-systematic literature review. Saf Sci. 2025 Jan; 181:106670. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106670
  24. 24. Stiles S. Developing a safety culture maturity tool for the construction sector. In: Ergonomics & Human Factors 2021 / CIEHF. 2021.
  25. 25. Golabchi H, Pereira E, Lefsrud L, Mohamed Y. Proposal of a safety maturity framework in construction: Implementing leading indicators for proactive safety management. J Saf Sustain. 2025 Jun; S2949926725000344. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsasus.2025.06.001
  26. 26. Kusma VV, Gerônimo BM, Zola FC, Aragão FV, De Genaro Chiroli DM, Kovaleski JL. A maturity model of occupational safety and health in industry 4.0: An analysis in Brazilian organizations. J Saf Sustain. 2024 Dec;1(4):234–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsasus.2024.11.002
  27. 27. Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate Data Analysis. 7th ed. Harlow, England: Pearson; 2013.
  28. 28. Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 5th ed. Guilford Publications; 2023. 494 p.
  29. 29. Rozo-García H, Alcantar-Nieblas C, Ramírez-Montoya MS. Scale to measure student perception in collaborative online international learning experiences: design and validation. Front Educ. 2024 Aug 16;9. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2024.1401295
  30. 30. Angel-Cuervo ZM, Briceño-Martínez JJ, Bernal-Ballén A. Validation of a questionnaire to evaluate mathematics teachers’ beliefs about mathematics, teaching, and learning. Eurasia J Math Sci Technol Educ. 2024 May 1;20(5): em2435. https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/14447
  31. 31. Aiken L. Three Coefficients for Analyzing the Reliability and Validity of Ratings [Internet]. 1985 [cited 2026 Jul 23]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0013164485451012
  32. 32. Yuan KH, Bentler PM. Three Likelihood-Based Methods for Mean and Covariance Structure Analysis with Nonnormal Missing Data. Sociol Methodol. 2000;30(1):165–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078
  33. 33. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating Structural Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement Error. J Mark Res. 1981 Feb 1;18(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
  34. 34. Rhemtulla M, Brosseau-Liard PÉ, Savalei V. When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychol Methods. 2012 Sep;17(3):354–73. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029315
  35. 35. WEN Z, WANG Y, DU M, YU Y, ZHANG Y, JIN T. Scaling methods of second-order latent growth models and their comparable first-order latent growth models. Acta Psychol Sin. 2023;55(8):1372–82. https://doi.org/10.3724/SP.J.1041.2023.01372
  36. 36. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. In Search of Golden Rules: Comment on Hypothesis-Testing Approaches to Setting Cutoff Values for Fit Indexes and Dangers in Overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) Findings. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 2004 Jul;11(3):320–41. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
  37. 37. MacCallum RC, Roznowski M, Necowitz LB. Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychol Bull. 1992;111(3):490–504. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490
  38. 38. Holm S. A Simple Sequentially Rejective Multiple Test Procedure. Scand J Stat. 1979;6(2):65–70. https://doi.org/10.2307/4615733
  39. 39. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best Practices for Developing and Validating Scales for Health, Social, and Behavioral Research: A Primer. Front Public Health. 2018 Jun 11;6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149
  40. 40. Knode T. A New Way of Looking at Safety Culture Maturity Models-The Lens of Employee Engagement. In: SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition [Internet]. Virtual: SPE; 2020 [cited 2025 May 15]. p. D041S057R004. Available from: https://onepetro.org/SPEATCE/proceedings/20ATCE/20ATCE/D041S057R004/449796 https://doi.org/10.2118/201259-MS
  41. 41. Knode T. A New Safety Culture Assessment Model: Understanding Employee Engagement in a Company’s Safety Program. SPE Int Health Saf Environ Sustain Conf Exhib. 2024. https://doi.org/10.2118/220481-ms
  42. 42. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Balla JR, Grayson D. Is More Ever Too Much? The Number of Indicators per Factor in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Multivar Behav Res. 1998 Apr;33(2):181–220. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1
  43. 43. Hayduk LA, Littvay L. Should researchers use single indicators, best indicators, or multiple indicators in structural equation models? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Dec;12(1):159. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-159
  44. 44. Doyle KP, Moore K, Foster P. Criteria-Driven Socio-Environmental Maturity Modelling for Mining: Driving Positive Sustainability Attitudes and Perceptions at Diverse Operational Scales [Internet]. 2025. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5119209
  45. 45. Frederick S, Charbonneau A. Occupational Safety and Health Improvement in the Garment Industry: Drivers and Constraints. A Synthesis Review. Geneva: International Labour Organization; 2021. 37 p.
  46. 46. Spagnoli P, Vlerick P, Jacxsens L. Food safety culture maturity and its relation to company and employee characteristics. Heliyon. 2023 Nov;9(11): e21561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e21561

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.