Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037

https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-020-00207-8

Distinctive Model of Mine Safety for Sustainable Mining in Pakistan

Izhar Mithal Jiskani 1,2 & Qingxiang Cai 1,2 & Wei Zhou 1,2 & Zhiguo Chang 1,3 & Saleem Raza Chalgri 4 & Ebelia Manda 1,2 &
Xiang Lu 1,2

Received: 28 June 2019 / Accepted: 16 March 2020 / Published online: 27 March 2020
# Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration Inc. 2020

Abstract
The concept of mine safety is highlighted in the literature of sustainable mining but not extensively discussed. This study
analyzes various aspects of underground and surface mine safety and emphasizes its importance in the context of sustainable
mining. More specifically, this research attempts to find the relationship between mine hazards and demographic characteristics,
examine and compare the perceptual difference among miners, and determine the impact of mine hazards on workplace safety
and safety climate. Descriptive analysis, chi-square test, independent samples t test, and linear regression modeling were
conducted to achieve study objectives. Results confirmed that mine hazards were significantly associated with age and experi-
ence. Miners perceived lower levels of management safety practices, followed by supervisor safety, coworker safety, and job
safety. The analysis showed that underground miners reported lower safety scores than surface miners. There was a statistically
significant difference between miners’ perception of safety climate (p < 0.05). The results showed that the higher prevalence of
mine hazards predicts poor workplace safety and a low safety climate. The regression models revealed that mine hazards have a
significant effect on workplace safety (p < 0.05) and safety climate (p < 0.05). In conclusion, the distinctive model of mine safety
presented here contributes to the monitoring and design of comprehensive safety interventions and helps to better understand how
certain factors interact on multiple levels to influence the overall safety of the industry. In this study, some suggestions are put
forward to provide directions to develop a sustainable mine safety system.

Keywords Mine health and safety . Sustainable mining . Underground and surface mining . Mine hazards . Workplace safety .
Safety climate

1 Introduction therefore, necessary to devise strategies to cope with mount-

Sustainability is a key issue in the modern world because it is
critical for economic growth, social development, and poverty
alleviation. Ensuring the safety and sustainability of mining
operations has become one of the frontiers of scientific re-
search, but the lack of effective policymaking to deal with
such issues can impede sustainable development. It is,
* Wei Zhou
zhw19820624@163.com
1
School of Mines, China University of Mining and Technology,
Xuzhou, China
2
State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, China
University of Mining and Technology, Xuzhou, China
3
School of Mining and Geological Engineering, Xinjiang Institute of
Engineering, Urumqi, China
4
Department of Mining Engineering, Mehran University of
Engineering and Technology, Jamshoro, Pakistan
ing concerns of sustainable development. Sustainability is of-
ten associated with environmental protection and being green,
but it also involves safety. Gobbo et al. [1] posited that there
are more collaborative studies on environmental protection
than process safety. Organizations may not be able to sustain
development without protecting the safety of the workplace as
well as without the protection of the occupational health and
safety (OHS) of workers. On the grounds that mine, health and
safety are regarded as the fundamental determinants of sus-
tainable mining [2]. Qi et al. [3] pointed out that in order to
achieve sustainable development, industries should make ev-
ery effort to reach a balance between optimal operational per-
formance and safety. It is also thought that the continuous
technological and social development has led to an enormous
demand for energy, which not only increased the scale and
complexity of operations but also inevitably increased hazards
and risks that need to be prevented or mitigated rather than
compromised [4]. In terms of mine safety, the role of manage-
ment, including the organization of work, training of em-
ployees, and the formation of safe behavior, is of vital
1024
importance. It implies that for sustainable mining, the de-
mands for mine management are far greater than in the past
[5]. According to Carvalho [6], future mining depends on
better environmental protection, long-term management of
natural resources, equitable socio-economic impacts, and im-
proved safety of mining activities. Owusu et al. [7] defined
that sustainability of the social environment can be ensured by
sustainable reforms such as participation in decision-making,
education, and training; improved technological
implementations, and strengthening of regulatory bodies, leg-
islation, and law enforcement; and the provision of technical
support and logistics. Dubiński [8] outlined economic growth,
resources, and environment protection, as well as a social
responsibility, as three key elements for sustainable develop-
ment in mining. Social responsibility includes taking care of
employees in the workplace and community development in
mining areas. Abrahamsson et al. [9] argued that the scientific
viewpoint of socially sustainable development of mining is
somewhat limited. From a broader perspective, they put for-
ward four aspects, including physical working environment,
safety, psychosocial working environment, and socially sus-
tainable development outside mines. The review of existing
literature reveals that, in relation to the concept of sustainabil-
ity, whether in general or particularly in the mining industry, in
comparison with other dimensions, the social dimension is
relatively underdeveloped.
It becomes clear that for the implementation of sustainable
development of the mining industry, priority should be given
to ensuring safe working conditions and OHS of the miners.
Learning from this, it is not inappropriate to say that the safety
of mines should not be compromised when it comes to sus-
tainable development. Therefore, in this article, a distinctive
model of mine safety is presented, which integrates various
aspects of mine safety that emphasize its importance in sus-
tainable mining. This model explores various aspects of un-
derground and surface mine safety, including the extent to
which miners are exposed to mine hazards and their percep-
tion of workplace safety and safety climate.
2 Preliminaries and Concepts
2.1 Background and Conceptualization of the Study
Mining is considered one of the high-risk industries because it
has to deal with severe OHS problems due to unexpected
natural hindrances, unfavorable working conditions, and other
work-related characteristics. Both the underground and sur-
face mines are often associated with high rates of work-
related hazards that have an adverse effect on the OHS of
workers. The risks and hazards, introduced through complex
mining activities and processes, comprised limited workspace,
complicated geological conditions, poor work design, high
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
job demands, work pressure, psychological stress, job rota-
tion, long working hours, etc. Hazards in mines may be clas-
sified as unsafe working environments, confined spaces (in
underground mines), rock collapse, toxic contaminant, ground
or strata instability, blasting-related hazards, etc. In previous
research, the relationship between work-related hazards and
injuries has also been found [10]. On the other hand, different
aspects of ergonomic functional capabilities, as well as the
control of environmental variables, have also brought obvious
risks that presage the need for improvement and investigation
[11]. Hence, work performed under these conditions, if not
appropriately managed, causes accidents, multiple forms of
injuries, death, or occupational illness [12–15].
In almost any workplace, unsafe working conditions and
obvious hazards exist, but it is tragic that some employers do
not recognize their moral and legal responsibility to protect
workers. Consequently, due to the insufficient attention to
OHS, and lack of understanding of the value and priority of
workplace safety, work-related accidents are prevalent all over
the world. Therefore, it becomes necessary to evaluate the
contribution of critical safety constructs. At present, in addi-
tion to focusing on general OHS, a great deal of attention has
been paid to the safety climate. Safety climate refers to the
sum of employees’ shared perceptions of policies, procedures,
and practices relating to safety [16]. Safety climate investi-
gates how management values the safety within the organiza-
tion and identifies any inconsistencies across the organization.
Its assessment recognizes the factors that contribute to the
overall safety climate and provides measurements in specific
safety dimensions that enable an organization to become safer
in operation. Numerous studies have assessed the safety cli-
mate and its potential associations within many organizations.
Nahrgang et al. [17] found the relation of job demands with
safety outcomes and discovered that risks at work have a
negative association with workers’ participation in safety
compliance. Ford and Tetrick [18] speculated that workers’
behavior and personality variables also directly or indirectly
lead to workplace accidents. Although safety research has
intensified in recent years, there are still many gaps to be
filled, especially in the mining industry. So far, no exhaustive
research on mine safety has been conducted within the frame-
work of different mining workgroups, which has resulted in a
significant knowledge gap. According to Gunningham [19],
effective worker engagement with OHS in mining is probably
more crucial than any other industry. It may be for the reason
that safety in mines varies markedly within individual mines
as well as throughout the industry. A study conducted among
miners in Ghana showed that safety climate is significantly
and positively related to the quality of work-life, and supervi-
sory practice is the strongest predictor among other factors
[20]. Immediate supervisors are also the key elements of
OHS management because when their practices are fair and
consistent with organizational safety, employees comply with
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
safety rules and procedures [21]. Another study conducted in
the same region examined the relationship and the impact of
OHS on the organizational commitment of the employees
[22]. Coworker’s actions towards safety practice are among
the main factors in building safety performance in the work-
place. The research suggests that the company’s activities of
safe behavior improve satisfaction in workers. Thus, workers
who perceive a positive safety climate are likely to report more
participation in compliance type and/or safety-related behav-
iors. In addition, workers become more likely to experience
high-quality work life [23]. With effective OHS management
practices, the incidence of workplace accidents is significantly
reduced [21, 24]. OHS programs clearly define actions to
implement training and policies, which are fundamental deter-
minants of safety performance. Safety performance is
achieved through a positive safety climate [25, 26]. Law
et al. [27] explained safety training as education provided to
employees to work safely without endangering their health.
When an organization fails to address poor workplace condi-
tions, workers are more likely to consider that the cost of
staying in the company exceeds the cost of leaving [28].
Grawitch et al. [29] drew that a healthy workplace is predic-
tive of employee outcomes. There also exists a positive rela-
tionship between emotional commitment and employee health
[30]. Hence, according to the literature review, it is not inap-
propriate to say that management must show concern for the
safety, health, and well-being of employees in order to have a
loyal and committed workforce.
2.2 Problem Statement and Research Objectives
The mining industry is believed to be perilous in Pakistan due
to the number of constraints, including a long history of acci-
dents, lack of basic safety knowledge, poor working condi-
tions, low socioeconomic status, and lack of legislation. The
industry has not yet developed because of insufficient invest-
ment and lack of technological progress. The minerals are
being exploited by outdated mining methods, which are no
longer in practice in developed and developing countries.
Whether in public or state-owned mines, workers deal with
poor working conditions and face very low OHS standards.
Even with such an alarming situation, the importance of mine
safety has not been emphasized, and no framework has been
developed to create safer mining conditions [15, 31, 32]. In
addition to the increase in the production scale, risks of
miners’ OHS are also increasing. Despite such an alarming
situation, only a few studies have been conducted on mine
safety.
The need for technological progress and safety concepts in
the mining industry has been advocated by several authors.
Considerable progress has also been made in the field of mine
safety, especially in China and the USA. Recently, a study
reported that safety practices in the US mining industry have
1025
improved over time due to technological transformation, reg-
ulatory measures, and law enforcement [33]. The same is true
in China, where technology plays a vital role in mine safety
due to four aspects of technological innovation, including re-
search and development, resource development, organization-
al management, and financial management [34]. This means
that it becomes essential to illustrate what the new technolo-
gies can mean to individual miners [35]. Global mining com-
munities also believe that industry can benefit from techno-
logical advances in terms of safety, efficiency, and manage-
ment. This is the reason why the research community is still
looking for spectacular progress in mine safety in the world.
Drawing from the conclusions presented in the previous
sections, this research was conducted to provide meaningful
data and insight into the complexity of mining safety with
differences and peculiarities. The purpose of this study was
to analyze various aspects of mine safety, including mine haz-
ards, workplace safety, and safety climate. The hypothetical
model anticipated in this study assumes that the presence of
mine hazards has a relation to the miner’s perception of their
work environment and overall safety. It is evident that every
mine, whether surface or underground, has different working
conditions that make them unique from each other. Due to the
diversity of natural and man-made characteristics, there exist a
number of different safety challenges. With that, there are
distinct differences, which lead to the perceptual difference
among miners. Therefore, in order to discover a distinctive
model of mine safety, the sample was divided into two cate-
gories: underground miners and surface miners. The survey
data was analyzed according to differences between the work-
force. The first objective of the study was to find the relation-
ship between demographic characteristics and mine hazards.
The second objective includes determining the perceptual dif-
ference between underground and surface miners on mine
hazards, workplace safety, and safety climate. The third ob-
jective was to identify the impact of mine hazards on work-
place safety and safety climate. Finally, to provide
policymakers with a tool to formulate long-term proactive
strategies, some future implications are put forward to develop
a safe and sustainable mining system. The results of this study
could be used to implement interventions to improve workers’
safety in mines and assist mine conglomerates in ensuring
sustainable development of the mining industry.
3 Methodology
This section describes the methodological framework, which
includes information about the instrument, sampling proce-
dure, and data analysis. The framework based on extant liter-
ature and theoretical understanding helped to understand the
way by which mine safety is influenced by mine hazards and
how workers value their safety obligations.
1026
3.1 Instrument
In safety perception research, quantitative methods are widely
used to study a large number of workers’ perceptions of pol-
icies, procedures, and practices, which clearly define the pri-
ority and importance of safety in the organization [16, 36]. It is
argued that relative to other methods, survey research is an
effective way to measure safety perception [37]. In this study,
previously validated tools were used to facilitate the evalua-
tion of critical constructs of mine safety. Prior to this study, the
instrument was evaluated through a pilot survey on a sample
of miners (n = 108). The details of the questionnaire based on
four sections are presented below.
The first section of the questionnaire comprised questions
related to demographic information, including age, relation-
ship status, level of education, and length of work experience.
The second part analyzed the miners’ exposure to mine
hazards. This part of the survey was developed by the research
team based on the existing literature survey and qualitative
and observational research conducted prior to the study [15].
Miners are generally aware of the hazards associated with
their workplace, apparently because they live with them every
day. They experience varying degrees of vulnerability, de-
pending on the type of work they do. In some cases, miners
may have similar levels of hazard exposure, but their working
conditions, as well as safety policies and procedures of mine,
may vary. These differences, especially between underground
and surface miners, make their perception different from each
other. Thus, to have miners consistent in their workplaces, as a
frame of reference, each miner was asked about the level of
exposure to hazards according to their specific site and work.
Items on the mine hazard scale are presented in Table 1. These
items were assessed using the 5-point Likert scale, ranging
from 1 = very low to 5 = very high.
Section 3 requested the information to evaluate the miners’
perceptions of workplace safety. The data was obtained using
Table 1 Hazards in the mining
Code Hazard
H1 Fall-related
H2 Biological
H3 Slip/trip
H4 Machine-related
H5 Ground or strata
instability
H6 Struck by objects
H7 Explosive
H8 Environment
H9 Musculoskeletal
H10 Work design
H11 Task-related
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
the previously validated workplace safety scale developed by
Hayes et al. [38]. In this study, this instrument was used to
assess the four distinct facets of workplace safety: job safety
(WS1), coworker safety (WS2), supervisor safety (WS3), and
management safety (WS4). The items were measured on a 5-
point Likert scale, ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 5 =
strongly agree.
The last section contains elements for predicting safety
motivation, perceived safety level, and self-evaluation of safe-
ty behavior. Nordic Occupational Safety Climate
Questionnaire (NOSACQ-50) consisting 50 questions was
used to measure the status and progress of the safety climate
[39]. Together, these items measure seven dimensions of the
safety climate, three standing for the management level, and
four of which represent the team levels. This contemporary
research tool is based on the 4-point Likert scale, excluding
neutral statements. The questionnaire has both positively and
negatively (reversed) formulated items. Detailed information
on the description of the seven dimensions, as well as the
questions, is available in the original publication (see Kines
et al. [39]).
3.2 Data Collection
The data of 330 miners were gathered over a period of
2 months. The total population at the study time was 428 male
workers. A convenience sampling method was used for data
collection. Participants were selected based on the minimum
criteria of having at least 1 year of experience in mining. Out
of the total participants (N = 330), 170 (51.5%) working in
underground room-and-pillar and longwall mining were re-
ferred to as underground miners, and 160 (48.5%) working
in quarries and open-pit mines were referred to as surface
miners. Before completing the questionnaire, miners were en-
couraged to take part in the study by explaining the purpose of
the research.
Description
Fall of things (components, tools, structures, materials)
Exposure to work-related diseases or illness
Work area housekeeping (inadequate construction and incorrect maintenance of
surfaces on which worker move or climb), improper lighting
Related to equipment operations, equipment failure, accident, etc.
Failure of design, such as slope failure, roof fall, etc.
Hit by falling/rolling object
The blasting incident, uncontrolled initiation
Accumulation of gases, excess respirable dust, temperature
Disorders in body parts
The inappropriateness of work, confined spaces, etc.
The person falling, exposure to personal injuries
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037 1027

3.3 Analysis Strategy Table 2 Demographic characteristics of the miners

Variable Description N (%)

An exhaustive analysis strategy mentioned below was
adopted to achieve research objectives. UG SR WC
First, the collected data was managed in SPSS version 24
Age (years) < 21 7 (4.1) 2 (1.3) 9 (2.7)
for the process of coding, category construction, pattern, and
21–30 61 (35.9) 61 (38.1) 122 (37.0)
relationship finding, as well as theory testing.
31–40 60 (35.3) 58 (36.3) 118 (35.8)
The demographic characteristics were categorized in terms
41–50 28 (16.5) 27 (16.9) 55 (16.7)
of frequency and percentage.
> 50 14 (8.2) 12 (7.5) 26 (7.9)
Descriptive analyses (mean and standard deviation) were
performed to characterize the data of three research variables, Relationship status Single 32 (18.8) 35 (21.9) 67 (20.3)
i.e., mine hazards, workplace safety, and safety climate. The Married 130 (76.5) 121 (75.6) 251 (76.1)
score of each dimension for safety climate was analyzed and Other 8 (4.7) 4 (2.5) 12 (3.6)
explained according to published guidelines. The score of Education level Uneducated 79 (46.5) 68 (42.5) 147 (44.5)
safety climate dimensions higher than 3.30, within the range Primary 67 (39.4) 69 (43.1) 136 (41.2)
of 1–4, shows that the level of safety climate in the workplace Secondary 24 (14.1) 23 (14.4) 47 (14.2)
is good; the score in the range of 2.90–3.30 indicates a fairly Experience (years) 1–3 26 (15.3) 26 (16.3) 52 (15.8)
good safety climate; the score from 2.70 to 2.90 correspond to 4–6 44 (25.9) 62 (38.8) 106 (32.1)
fairly low safety climate dimension; the score less than 2.70 7–9 62 (36.5) 47 (29.4) 109 (33.0)
shows low safety climate dimension. > 10 38 (22.4) 25 (15.6) 63 (19.1)
The relationship between demographic characteristics and
UG, underground; SR, surface; WC, whole cohort
mine hazards was analyzed by chi-square test.
Subsequently, the difference between perceptions of under-
4.2 Descriptive Analysis of Studied Variables
ground miners and surface miners was determined by the in-
dependent samples t test.
Table 3 summaries the miners’ perceptions of exposure to
Finally, to confirm the effect of mine hazards on workplace
mine hazards for each sample and the whole cohort. The com-
safety and safety climate, the linear regression modeling was
parison results show that miners engaged in underground as
carried out. To implement regression models, mine hazards
well as surface mining activities were exposed to many mine
(criterion) were used as the dependent variable and the work-
hazards. According to mean ratings, most of the hazards faced
place safety and safety climate as the independent variable
by underground miners were related to their tasks (3.412),
(predictor). For mine hazards, rather than analyzing every
musculoskeletal disorders (3.400), work design (3.371),
hazard separately, a total mean was computed.
ground or strata instability (3.300), and biological sources
(3.294). While, most of the surface miners were facing
4 Results
Table 3 Miners’ perception of mine hazards
Reliability analysis showed acceptable internal reliability, pro- Hazard Mean (SD)
ducing a coefficient alpha of 0.782 for the overall question-
naire. Instrument-wise Cronbach’s alpha was 0.775 for mine UG SR WC
hazards, 0.886 for workplace safety, and 0.893 for the safety
Fall-related 2.765 (1.432) 3.394 (1.289) 3.070 (1.398)
climate.
Biological 3.294 (1.409) 2.794 (1.432) 3.052 (1.440)
Slip/trip 3.047 (1.475) 3.356 (1.460) 3.197 (1.473)
4.1 Demographic Characteristics
Machine-related 2.265 (1.174) 3.294 (1.390) 2.764 (1.381)
An overview of the demographic characteristics of under- Ground or strata 3.300 (1.268) 2.556 (1.372) 2.939 (1.369)
instability
ground and surface miners is presented in Table 2. The study Struck by objects 2.024 (1.146) 2.900 (1.420) 2.448 (1.357)
sample consisted of men only, as women in Pakistan do not Explosive 3.100 (1.317) 2.963 (1.414) 3.033 (1.365)
work in the mining. The overall sample (whole cohort) cov- Environment 2.865 (1.201) 3.100 (1.393) 2.979 (1.301)
ered most miners aged (years) 21–30 (37%) and 31–40 Musculoskeletal 3.400 (1.298) 2.788 (1.416) 3.103 (1.389)
(35.8%). Their education level was exceptional, and over Work design 3.371 (1.384) 2.350 (1.347) 2.876 (1.456)
85% of them never attended secondary education. Most of Task-related 3.412 (1.370) 2.756 (1.524) 3.094 (1.481)
them were having mining experience (years), ranging from 4
to 6 (32.1%) and 7 to 9 (33%). UG, underground; SR, surface; WC, whole cohort
1028
hazards related to fall (3.394), slip/trip (3.356), machine
(3.294), environment (3.100), and explosives (2.963).
Overall, most reported mine hazards by the whole cohort
corresponded to slip/trip (3.197), musculoskeletal disorder
(3.013), and task (3.094).
The miners’ perceptions of workplace safety are presented
in Table 4. From the four facets of workplace safety, item-by-
item analysis of the whole cohort shows a low level of the
miners’ perception of management safety practices (3.111),
followed by supervisor safety (3.741), coworker safety
(3.867), and job safety (3.945). About job safety, the miners
engaged in underground operations perceived that they could
get hurt easily; their workplaces are hazardous, unhealthy,
risky, and unsafe. The surface miners felt that they could get
hurt easily, and their workplaces are unhealthy and dangerous.
In addition to this, they reported the possibility of death while
working. The coworkers of underground miners keep their
workplaces clean, look out for others’ safety, and encourage
others to be safe, but they do not follow safety rules. Similarly,
the coworkers of surface miners keep their workplaces clean,
look at the safety of others, and pay attention to safety rules,
but do not care about the safety of others. The analysis high-
lights that compared with surface miners, underground miners
appreciably perceived their coworkers to be caring. According
to the results, most underground miners reported that their
supervisors use to inform them about safety rules, but they
do not train them to be safe. In surface mines, supervisors
discuss safety issues with workers, but they do not involve
them in setting safety goals. Underground miners perceived
that their management does not provide safe working condi-
tions, safe equipment, or keep them informed of hazards,
whereas management of surface miners informs them about
hazards, quickly investigates the problem, and ensures safe
working conditions. It implies that management in surface
mines is far better than that of underground mines. The results
also illustrated that the overall workplace safety situation of
surface miners is better than those of underground miners.
Figure 1 shows the scores of each dimension of the safety
climate, as well as the mean score of all dimensions, based on
the analysis of the data provided by the study sample. The
resulting score of safety climate identifies the weaknesses or
strengths of the organization as a key indicator of safety per-
formance. Gaps or deficiencies are indicated by low scores,
high scores describe a positive safety environment, while the
overall score of the safety climate dimensions represents the
safe environment of the entire organization.
Underground miners perceived low management safety
priority, which requires a great need for improvements.
Scores of workers’ safety commitment and workers’ trust in
safety systems showed that there is still a need for improve-
ment, whereas management safety empowerment, manage-
ment safety justice, workers’ safety priority, and safety com-
munication were fairly good, which require the slight need for
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
improvement. As reported by underground miners, no dimen-
sion was found to have a good rank. The safety climate of
underground mining was reported to be fairly low, which re-
quires the need for improvement. It implies that their manage-
ment cannot actively promote safety within the organization,
nor can it respond to unsafe practices. Miners are not commit-
ted to safety; their safety is not actively promoted, they do not
care about the safety of their colleagues, and therefore, they do
not consider the organization’s formal safety systems effec-
tive. These findings extrapolate that more attention should be
paid to safety in underground mining.
Surface miners, however, had not perceived any dimension
to be low in rank. They perceived management safety priority
to be fairly low, which requires a need for improvement, and
management safety justice to be good, allowing for maintain-
ing and continuing development. The remaining dimensions
were fairly good and required slight improvements. The score
was relatively good for most of the elements, with the excep-
tion of the management safety priority and workers’ safety
commitment, which were recorded with the lowest scores
and needed to be improved. The other five dimensions were
found to be fairly good and need to be slightly improved. The
finding suggests that miners believe that their management
should strengthen priority and actively promote safety, dem-
onstrate safety management capabilities, and notify safety
issues.
The safety climate analysis revealed that underground
miners reported lower scores in comparison with surface
miners. Although the overall safety level of the industry
can be considered to be fairly good, there is also an urgent
need to pay more attention to review certain safety dimen-
sions and fill possible gaps in order to improve vulnera-
bilities in the safety climate of the industry. Findings sug-
gest that management should pay more attention to safety
issues by identifying and resolving inconsistencies across
the organization.
4.3 Relationship Between Mine Hazards
and Demographic Characteristics
Results of the Pearson chi-square test showing the relationship
of mine hazards with age and experience among miners are
provided in Table 5. The significant relationships were found
for many mine hazards with age and experience. According to
data from underground miners, two of the hazards related to
slip/trip and struck by objects were not associated with age or
experience. The hazards related to machines and explosives
were not associated with the experience. However, the re-
maining hazards were significantly associated with both the
age and experience. Among surface miners, as well as
throughout the whole cohort, all the hazards were significantly
associated with age and experience.
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037 1029

Table 4 Descriptive analysis of workplace safety

Workplace safety scale Mean (SD)

UG SR WC

(1) Job safety

Dangerous 4.353 (0.765) 3.988 (0.932) 4.176 (0.868)
Safe 3.012 (1.264) 3.388 (1.244) 3.194 (1.266)
Hazardous 4.488 (0.925) 3.763 (0.935) 4.136 (0.997)
Risky 4.429 (0.883) 3.631 (0.895) 4.042 (0.973)
Unhealthy 4.435 (0.941) 4.131 (0.998) 4.288 (0.980)
Could get hurt easily 4.529 (0.830) 4.150 (1.065) 4.345 (0.969)
Unsafe 4.159 (0.932) 3.556 (0.989) 3.867 (1.005)
Fear for health 4.065 (0.955) 3.719 (0.877) 3.897 (0.933)
Chance of death 3.659 (0.898) 3.856 (0.910) 3.755 (0.908)
Scary 4.147 (1.102) 3.331 (0.791) 3.752 (1.046)
Mean of all items 4.128 (0.350) 3.751 (0.332) 3.945 (0.389)
(2) Coworker safety
Ignore safety rules 4.276 (0.850) 4.069 (0.728) 4.176 (0.799)
Do not care about other’s safety 3.765 (1.153) 3.306 (1.341) 3.542 (1.267)
Pay attention to safety rules 3.565 (1.336) 4.244 (0.642) 3.894 (1.110)
Follow safety rules 3.553 (0.942) 3.863 (0.804) 3.703 (0.891)
Look out for others’ safety 4.276 (0.850) 4.319 (0.967) 4.297 (0.907)
Encourage others to be safe 3.876 (0.808) 3.813 (0.985) 3.845 (0.898)
Take chances with safety 2.900 (1.462) 2.856 (1.302) 2.879 (1.385)
Keep work area clean 4.565 (0.745) 4.488 (0.644) 4.527 (0.698)
Safety-oriented 3.776 (0.965) 3.819 (0.690) 3.797 (0.842)
Do not pay attention 4.053 (0.646) 3.956 (0.695) 4.006 (0.671)
Mean of all items 3.861 (0.354) 3.873 (0.364) 3.867 (0.358)
(3) Supervisor safety
Praises safe work behaviors 3.647 (0.749) 3.850 (0.504) 3.745 (0.649)
Encourages safe behaviors 4.353 (1.122) 3.750 (1.387) 4.061 (1.292)
Keeps workers informed of safety rules 4.359 (0.881) 3.794 (1.111) 4.085 (1.037)
Rewards safe behaviors 3.841 (1.138) 4.163 (0.938) 3.997 (1.056)
Involves workers in setting safety goals 3.076 (1.115) 3.056 (1.304) 3.067 (1.209)
Discusses safety issues with others 4.353 (0.725) 4.556 (0.580) 4.452 (0.666)
Updates safety rules 3.282 (0.931) 3.063 (0.866) 3.176 (0.906)
Trains workers to be safe 2.918 (1.029) 3.150 (0.826) 3.030 (0.942)
Enforces safety rules 3.841 (0.772) 3.731 (0.902) 3.788 (0.838)
Acts on safety suggestions 3.947 (1.073) 4.081 (0.700) 4.012 (0.913)
Mean of all items 3.762 (0.441) 3.719 (0.454) 3.741 (0.447)
(4) Management safety practices
Provides enough safety programs 2.388 (1.274) 3.213 (1.200) 2.788 (1.304)
Conducts frequent safety inspections 3.729 (1.008) 3.206 (1.388) 3.476 (1.233)
Investigates safety problems quickly 3.547 (1.038) 3.838 (1.138) 3.688 (1.096)
Rewards safe workers 2.529 (1.222) 3.213 (1.184) 2.861 (1.249)
Provides safe equipment 2.153 (0.985) 3.194 (1.090) 2.658 (1.159)
Provides safe working conditions 2.112 (1.128) 3.500 (1.327) 2.785 (1.410)
Responds quickly to safety concerns 3.282 (0.816) 3.331 (0.895) 3.306 (0.854)
Helps maintain clean work area 3.271 (0.947) 3.019 (0.968) 3.148 (0.964)
Provides safety information 2.618 (1.077) 3.825 (0.865) 3.203 (1.150)
Keeps workers informed of hazards 2.218 (1.99) 4.244 (0.642) 3.200 (1.402)
Mean of all items 2.785 (0.380) 3.458 (0.484) 3.111 (0.549)

UG, underground; SR, surface; WC, whole cohort

4.4 Comparison Between Underground and Surface
Miners
The mean differences between underground miners and sur-
face miners were measured by the independent samples t test
(presented in Table 6). The difference of mine hazards related
to fall, biological, machine, ground or strata instability, explo-
sives, musculoskeletal, work design, and task-related hazards
significantly existed between both underground miners and
surface miners. However, there were no statistically signifi-
cant differences in slips/trips, struck by objects, and the envi-
ronment. When calculating the difference in mean scores of all
hazards together, there was no significant difference between
underground and surface miners.
Regarding workplace safety, there were significant differ-
ences in the scores of job safety and management safety, while
coworker safety and supervisor safety being non-significant.
According to the mean of four facets of workplace safety, the
1030
difference between underground and surface miners was not
statistically significant.
About the safety climate, there were significant differences
in the scores of four dimensions: management safety priority,
management safety justice, workers’ safety commitment, and
workers’ trust in safety systems, while there was no difference
in the scores of the remaining three dimensions. Taking these
seven dimensions as a whole, the difference in their mean
scores significantly existed between underground and surface
miners. These findings manifest that miners working in un-
derground and surface mines had distinctive perceptions and
experiences about the safety climate.
4.5 Impact of Mine Hazards on Workplace Safety
and Safety Climate
To examine the relationship between mine hazards and work-
place safety and safety climate, simple linear regression anal-
yses were performed. The results, shown in Table 7, present a
total of 6 regression models. Models UG1, SR1, and WC1
show the relationship between mine hazards and workplace
safety among underground miners, surface miners, and the
whole cohort, respectively. Meanwhile, UG2, SR2, and
WC2 show the relationship between mine hazards and the
safety climate of underground miners, surface miners, and
the whole cohort, respectively. For all models, significant lin-
ear equations (listed below) were found.
Fig. 1 Scores of safety climate
dimensions
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
UG1 ¼ F ð4; 165Þ ¼ 71:400; p < 0:000; with R
¼ 0:796; R2 ¼ 0:634; ΔR2 ¼ 0:634
UG2 ¼ F ð7; 162Þ ¼ 92:345; p < 0:000; with R
¼ 0:894; R2 ¼ 0:800; ΔR2 ¼ 0:800
SR1 ¼ F ð4; 155Þ ¼ 449:607; p < 0:000; with R
¼ 0:960; R2 ¼ 0:921; ΔR2 ¼ 0:921
SR2 ¼ F ð7; 152Þ ¼ 130:589; p < 0:000; with R
¼ 0:926; R2 ¼ 0:857; ΔR2 ¼ 0:857
WC1 ¼ F ð4; 325Þ ¼ 137:129; p < 0:000; with R
¼ 0:792; R2 ¼ 0:628; ΔR2 ¼ 0:628
WC2 ¼ F ð7; 322Þ ¼ 186:716; p < 0:000; with R
¼ 0:792; R2 ¼ 0:628; ΔR2 ¼ 0:628
All models indicate more than 60% of the variance. The
value of R2 depends on a number of factors, including the
variables that are measured. In addition, R2 is expected to be
less than 50% in any field that attempts to predict human
behavior. However, in the context of decision-making, a value
greater than 50% is generally acceptable to validate a test. The
standardized coefficients draw attention to the relative
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037 1031

Table 5 Results of the Pearson

chi-square test for the relationship Hazard Sample Age Experience
between demographic character-
istics and mine hazards χ2 p χ2 p

Fall related UG 122.933 0.000** 84.313 0.000**

SR 29.645 0.020* 35.231 0.000**
WC 121.178 0.000** 88.593 0.000**
Biological UG 51.400 0.000** 32.518 0.001**
SR 34.263 0.005** 48.407 0.000**
WC 73.397 0.000** 74.422 0.000**
Slip/trip UG 18.035 0.322 11.381 0.497
SR 33.156 0.007** 21.778 0.040*
WC 31.471 0.012* 22.611 0.031*
Machine related UG 26.683 0.045* 14.901 0.247
SR 64.430 0.000** 47.765 0.000**
WC 54.847 0.000** 23.665 0.023*
Ground or strata instability UG 68.825 0.000** 69.657 0.000**
SR 54.625 0.000** 50.584 0.000**
WC 95.290 0.000** 93.971 0.000**
Explosives UG 36.552 0.002** 18.871 0.092
SR 56.017 0.000** 67.231 0.000**
WC 55.314 0.000** 40.900 0.000**
Struck by objects UG 23.914 0.091 19.327 0.081
SR 45.519 0.000** 33.109 0.001**
WC 32.989 0.007** 22.188 0.035*
Environment UG 124.776 0.000** 82.405 0.000**
SR 42.950 0.000** 52.110 0.000**
WC 127.053 0.000** 111.628 0.000**
Musculoskeletal UG 56.156 0.000** 41.601 0.000**
SR 40.765 0.001** 38.946 0.000**
WC 74.040 0.000** 79.857 0.000**
Work design hazards UG 55.468 0.000** 52.868 0.000**
SR 40.432 0.001** 35.929 0.000**
WC 65.576 0.000** 77.653 0.000**
Task related UG 63.001 0.000** 50.299 0.000**
SR 44.332 0.000** 33.497 0.001**
WC 93.502 0.000** 78.295 0.000**

**p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05; UG, underground; SR, surface; WC, whole cohort

significance of each variable. The variable with the largest 5 Discussion

beta coefficient makes the sturdiest influence in clarifying
the dependent variable.
With regard to workplace safety, mine hazards had signif-
icant positive effects on the job safety of underground miners,
while they had negative effects on surface miners, as well as
throughout the whole cohort. Similar to the results of job
safety, mine hazards had positive effects on the supervisor
safety of underground miners but had negative effects on sur-
face miners and the whole cohort. Interestingly, based on data
from underground miners, surface miners, and throughout the
whole cohort, it was discovered that mine hazards had nega-
tive effects on management safety practices.
This study evaluated various aspects of mine safety in
Pakistan, including exposure to mine hazards, workplace safe-
ty, and the safety climate of the mining industry. For a deeper
understanding of the topic, the survey data was analyzed ac-
cording to differences between the workforce of underground
and surface mining. The scores of workplace safety and safety
clime, whether strong or weak, may be able to influence future
safety outcomes within this industry. This evaluation enables
us to identify strengths or weaknesses in the safety of the
mining industry. The main theoretical innovation was to find
the effect of mine hazards on workplace safety and safety
1032 Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037

Table 6 The results of independent samples t test for the perceptual difference between miners

Variable Sample Mean difference (CI 95%) F t p

Lower Upper

(1) Mine hazards

Fall related UG − 0.629 − 0.925 − 0.333 4.343 − 4.185 0.000**
SR − 0.629 − 0.924 − 0.334 0.000**
Biological UG 0.500 0.193 0.808 0.009 3.197 0.002**
SR 0.500 0.192 0.808 0.002**
Slip/trip UG − 0.309 − 0.627 0.009 0.285 − 1.914 0.057
SR − 0.309 − 0.627 0.009 0.057
Machine related UG − 1.029 − 1.307 − 0.751 9.112 − 7.242 0.000**
SR − 1.029 − 1.309 − 0.749 0.000**
Ground or strata instability UG 0.744 0.458 1.030 2.757 5.105 0.000**
SR 0.744 0.457 1.030 0.000**
Explosives UG − 0.876 − 1.155 − 0.598 8.043 − 6.188 0.000**
SR − 0.876 − 1.157 − 0.596 0.000**
Struck by objects UG 0.138 − 0.158 0.433 2.374 0.913 0.361
SR 0.138 − 0.159 0.434 0.362
Environment UG − 0.235 − 0.516 0.046 9.507 − 1.646 0.101
SR − 0.235 − 0.518 0.047 0.102
Musculoskeletal UG 0.613 0.319 0.906 3.445 4.088 0.000**
SR 0.613 0.318 0.907 0.000**
Work design hazards UG 1.021 0.725 1.317 0.058 6.783 0.000**
SR 1.021 0.725 1.316 0.000**
Task related UG 0.656 0.342 0.969 6.321 4.100 0.000**
SR 0.656 0.341 0.970 0.000**
Overall hazards UG 0.054 − 0.094 0.201 17.543 0.711 0.474
SR 0.054 − 0.095 0.202 0.478
(2) Workplace safety
Job safety UG 0.376 0.302 0.450 0.698 10.011 0.000**
SR 0.376 0.303 0.450 0.000**
Coworker safety UG − 0.013 − 0.090 0.065 0.099 − 0.317 0.751
SR − 0.013 − 0.090 0.065 0.752
Supervisor safety UG 0.042 − 0.055 0.139 2.651 0.859 0.390
SR 0.042 − 0.055 0.139 0.391
Management safety practices UG − 0.673 − 0.767 − 0.579 6.837 − 14.104 0.000**
SR − 0.673 − 0.768 − 0.579 0.000**
Overall workplace safety UG − 0.067 − 0.120 − 0.014 31.982 − 2.493 0.013*
SR − 0.067 − 0.120 − 0.013 0.014*
(3) Safety climate
Management safety priority UG − 0.282 − 0.372 − 0.192 2.292 − 6.189 0.000**
SR − 0.282 − 0.372 − 0.193 0.000**
Management safety empowerment UG − 0.061 − 0.174 0.052 0.195 − 1.063 0.289
SR − 0.061 − 0.174 0.052 0.288
Management safety justice UG − 0.272 − 0.369 − 0.174 1.801 − 5.489 0.000**
SR − 0.272 − 0.369 − 0.174 0.000**
Workers’ safety commitment UG − 0.173 − 0.298 − 0.048 0.008 − 2.719 0.007**
SR − 0.173 − 0.298 − 0.048 0.007**
Workers’ safety priority UG 0.082 − 0.010 0.174 3.527 1.740 0.082
SR 0.082 − 0.011 0.174 0.083
Safety communication UG 0.073 − 0.008 0.154 3.478 1.767 0.078
SR 0.073 − 0.008 0.154 0.078
Workers’ trust in safety systems UG − 0.236 − 0.336 − 0.136 1.049 − 4.626 0.000**
SR − 0.236 − 0.336 − 0.136 0.000**
Overall safety climate UG − 0.124 − 0.206 − 0.042 0.269 − 2.980 0.003**
SR − 0.124 − 0.206 − 0.042 0.003**

**p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05; UG, underground; SR, surface; WC, whole cohort

climate and to explore the perceptional difference between
underground and surface miners. The results show that a
higher prevalence of mine hazards predicts poor workplace
safety and a low overall safety climate, which is not conducive
to the employees’ involvement in safety participation. The
distinctive model of mine safety, presented here, emphasizes
the importance of taking mine safety in sustainable mining. It
is worth noting that this study is the first attempt to unveil a
distinctive mine safety model and emphasizes the importance
of mine safety in achieving a sustainable mining industry. In
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037 1033

addition, it also contributes to mine safety literature by eluci-
dating the relationships that existed between mine hazards and
the overall safety climate of the industry.
The comparative analyses indicated the perceived differ-
ences in underground and surface miners in terms of mine
safety. These perceptual differences might be an expected
finding since the nature of both workgroups differs from one
another. The study findings show that mine safety in the whole
industry may not be exactly the same or broadly homogenous,
and miners’ perceptions may be consistent with their role in
the workplace. These results are consistent with the concept of
safety climate in the construction industry [40].
When examining differences between miners, it was dis-
covered that there was no significant difference in the scores
of mine hazards, but the working environment of underground
miners was likely to increase their exposure to mine hazards.

Table 7 Relationship of mine

hazards with workplace safety Model Scale B SE β t p
and safety climate
UG1 (Constant) 3.677 0.631 5.829 0.000**
SR1 10.177 0.277 36.748 0.000**
WC1 9.819 0.380 25.861 0.000**
UG1 Job safety 0.549 0.099 0.329 5.577 0.000**
SR1 − 0.429 0.060 − 0.185 − 7.195 0.000**
WC1 − 0.483 0.064 − 0.277 − 7.563 0.000**
UG1 Coworker safety − 1.079 0.106 − 0.654 − 10.214 0.000**
SR1 − 0.241 0.056 − 0.114 − 4.305 0.000**
WC1 − 0.470 0.072 − 0.248 − 6.512 0.000**
UG1 Supervisor safety 0.642 0.093 0.485 6.906 0.000**
SR1 − 0.082 0.050 − 0.048 − 1.633 0.104
WC1 − 0.213 0.054 − 0.140 − 3.954 0.000**
UG1 Management safety practices − 0.435 0.093 − 0.283 − 4.691 0.000**
SR1 − 1.272 0.052 − 0.799 − 24.327 0.000**
WC1 − 0.752 0.045 − 0.606 − 16.650 0.000**
UG2 (Constant) 6.999 0.277 25.258 0.000**
SR2 7.963 0.398 20.020 0.000**
WC2 7.532 0.238 31.623 0.000**
UG2 Management safety priority − 0.250 0.056 − 0.186 − 4.444 0.000**
SR2 − 0.292 0.062 − 0.150 − 4.751 0.000**
WC2 − 0.176 0.043 − 0.114 − 4.134 0.000**
UG2 Management safety empowerment − 0.212 0.078 − 0.191 − 2.710 0.007**
SR2 − 0.449 0.216 − 0.302 − 2.078 0.039*
WC2 − 0.256 0.080 − 0.196 − 3.196 0.002**
UG2 Management safety justice − 0.283 0.091 − 0.209 − 3.099 0.002**
SR2 − 0.360 0.121 − 0.219 − 2.986 0.003**
WC2 − 0.186 0.067 − 0.128 − 2.763 0.006**
UG2 Workers’ safety commitment − 0.258 0.051 − 0.252 − 5.115 0.000**
SR2 − 0.322 0.060 − 0.245 − 5.334 0.000**
WC2 − 0.257 0.042 − 0.221 − 6.185 0.000**
UG2 Workers’ safety priority − 0.064 0.359 − 0.045 − 0.178 0.859
SR2 − 1.444 0.439 − 0.828 − 3.293 0.001**
WC2 − 0.704 0.299 − 0.442 − 2.353 0.019*
UG2 Safety communication − 0.109 0.433 − 0.067 − 0.253 0.801
SR2 1.428 0.619 0.719 2.308 0.022*
WC2 0.193 0.358 0.106 0.539 0.591
UG2 Workers’ trust in safety systems − 0.198 0.067 − 0.166 − 2.953 0.004**
SR2 − 0.235 0.361 − 0.132 − 0.650 0.517
WC2 − 0.132 0.068 − 0.092 − 1.933 0.054

**p ≤ 0.01; *p ≤ 0.05; UG, underground; SR, surface; WC, whole cohort
1034
Thus, it is clear that underground miners were more vulnera-
ble to mine hazards. Therefore, they had negative perceptions
of workplace safety and reported lower scores of safety cli-
mate than surface miners. This leads to the necessity for cor-
rective measures, as organizations with a low safety climate
have more accidents and incidents rates [41]. The vulnerabil-
ity of mine hazards leaves much room for further risk reduc-
tion, indicating that risk management and sustainability
should be at the core of industry practices. We found that there
were significant differences in scores of workplace safety per-
ception between underground miners and surface miners. Our
findings are in line with a study conducted among African
miners [42]. The workplaces of underground and surface
miners were generally seen as hazardous, which can lead to
accidents and injuries, and may have a predictive impact on
safety climate [43].
In our findings, underground miners had made a remark-
able observation and appreciation of their colleagues’ contri-
bution to safety. Surface miners considerably perceived their
supervisors to be supportive, and believe that the administra-
tion also provides more support for their safety policies.
Mattson Molnar et al. [44] indicated that safety-specific lead-
ership has an increasing contribution to the prediction of pos-
itive safety behaviors. This highlights the importance of em-
phasizing and encouraging safety concerns of supervisors and
the management of underground mines. Hence, in view of the
current situation of underground miners’ poor perceptions of
workplace safety, relevant mining enterprises must continu-
ously communicate with workers on safety issues [45] and
provide them with a safe working environment. Taken as a
whole, the difference in the safety climate significantly existed
between underground miners and surface miners.
Underground miners reported lower safety climate scores in
comparison with surface miners. This finding conforms to the
initial step research carried out by Gyekye [46] and Silva et al.
[47]. These findings manifest that miners working in under-
ground and surface mines had distinctive perceptions and ex-
periences of safety climate. Since the average score of the
survey ranges from 2.968 to 3.092, the overall level of safe
climate can be considered between fairly low to fairly good.
However, the maturity of safety culture still has opportunities
for further improvement [48].
From the relationship between mine hazards and safety
climate, the presence of hazards affects the whole safety cli-
mate. These findings comforted with a case study of under-
ground coal mines, in which Maiti et al. [49] analyzed the
influences of risk factors on work injury. This indicates that
these issues require immediate managerial insight, because the
safety climate has a positive relation with safety behavior, and
workers with positive safety perceptions are rarely involved in
accidents and injuries [50, 51]. According to Laurence [52], it
has also been argued that workers who perceive safety hazards
can respond or act in a safe manner because they understand
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
the possible consequences of their actions. Thus, the imple-
mentation of training programs in workplaces, where workers
do not know much about OHS, can reduce the risk of injury
[53]. In recent years, it is generally believed that the factors
leading to OHS incidents are related to the practice of organi-
zational risk management in the work environment [54]. In
addition to this, management commitment and attitude is an
important dimension of workers’ perception [16]. Pietilä et al.
[55] determined that there is a substantial probability of inci-
dent reoccurrence after one’s first injury. Therefore, more ef-
fective prevention measures should be put in place on a rou-
tine basis. When management ensures the safety of organiza-
tions by implementing fair measures, formulating job enrich-
ment plans, and providing support beyond the formal scope of
the contract agreement, they improve employees’ job satisfac-
tion, organizational efficiency, and productivity, thereby mo-
tivating safety at work [56, 57].
For organizations seeking to improve their safety perfor-
mance, more attention must be paid to how to investigate
accidents, especially to identify and address blunt-end causes
[58]. Improving safety climate can have a substantial impact
on increasing miners’ safety and reducing their morbidity, as
well as improving organizational viability. The focus on safety
commitment, involvement, and accountability within the or-
ganization will lead to building a safer and sustainable work
culture. There is no exception for sustainable mining; new
strategies must be formulated. The mining sector must contin-
ue to strengthen its efforts to achieve a more holistic perspec-
tive of its sustainable operations in terms of safety, environ-
ment, economy, efficiency, and community [59], considering
the fact that sustainable mines are safe, play a leading role in
environmental management and community participation, are
economically stable, and, more importantly, use mineral re-
sources effectively. If the industry meets well with these stan-
dards, it will improve the service life of the mines and maxi-
mize the social benefits (community interests), while the in-
dustry itself will be more widely recognized by the society
[60]. A substantive practical implication of this study is that
interventions aimed at proving workplace safety and concern
for workers’ well-being should be strengthened in suck work
environments. The adoption of the best available technology,
appropriate training, and standard working practices can make
mining a safer occupation than ever before, which can be the
basis for the transformation of the mining industry into a sus-
tainable enterprise [61]. For that, a central target of improving
mine working conditions and the management system design
is needed. However, there is no single way to make the mining
site a safer and healthier place for workers. The preferred
approach to reduce addressed problems may be achieved
through engineering solutions like improvements in work de-
sign, reduction of manual material handling, and the introduc-
tion of technology (mechanized mining). If an engineering
solution is not feasible, administrative controls like safety
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
Fig. 2 Main steps in developing a
safety system
training, and providing appropriate safety equipment become
the next order for implementation. Based on the problems
identified in this study, a practical outline of the main steps
to be followed in developing an effective safety system is
provided (Fig. 2). It is worth noting that without proper work
system design and management, unhealthy work will prevail
and lead to a lower safety climate. Employers must consult
with miners and their representatives to identify, assess, and
develop appropriate methods to accomplish the task in the
safest possible way. It should be ensured that mining activities
are well researched and that work conforms to laws and reg-
ulations to improve human and environmental safety. The
mining industry that plans to develop a safe workplace should
first create an environment in which management and miners
can take safety as a collaborative responsibility and positively
participate in devising appropriate problem-solving solutions.
Sustainable activities for participation and monitoring should
be implemented to induce a positive impact on improving the
overall safety of the organization.
Like all observational studies, the contribution of this study
should be accounted for its limitations as well as its strengths.
The major limitation was its reliance on self-reporting mea-
sures. The responses may be affected by miners’ intentional
distortion or misinformation. A high proportion of miners
were uneducated, which may have an impact on their
responses.
6 Conclusion
This study presented a distinctive model of mine safety, which
covers mine hazards, workplace safety, and safety climate, and
emphasizes the importance of taking mine safety issues within
the context of sustainability strategies in mining. To our knowl-
edge based on a literature survey, this is the first attempt to
1035
consider mine safety issues as a critical step to protect the in-
stability of workers and the industry. Hence, an important sci-
entific gap has been addressed. The results of this study have
significant contributions to the existing mine safety literature.
First, the current findings defined that underground and surface
miners are exposed to diverse types of mine hazards, and they
have a different perception of workplace safety and safety cli-
mate. Second, the study found that exposure to hazards signif-
icantly influences safety at work and safety climate. It can be
inferred that attention should be paid to general priorities for
strengthening safety policies to improve the overall safety cli-
mate of the industry. Among a variety of issues, mine safety is
also seen as one of the prevailing issues that have a long-term
impact on sustainable mining. In order to make a possible re-
sponse to this issue, the suggestions provided in this study could
be useful to apply resources and focus to the appropriate areas
in order to make safety improvements in the workplace. It is
concluded that sustainable mining depends on the excellence in
mine safety, but due to its complexity, mine safety is now seen
and will continue to be a significant challenge that the industry
must respond to in order to foster sustainable mining.
Acknowledgments The authors are grateful to mine enterprises and min-
ing workers for their cooperation during the fieldwork.
Author Contributions Izhar Mithal Jiskani designed and conceptualized
the study, wrote the manuscript, and performed the analyses. Cai
Qingxiang and Wei Zhou supervised the project and obtained funding.
Saleem Raza Chalgri assisted in data collection and drafting. Zhiguo
Chang, Ebelia Manda, and Xiang Lu performed the analysis and
interpreted the results in consultation with Izhar Mithal Jiskani. All the
authors provided critical feedback, significantly contributed to the re-
search, and approved the final manuscript.
Funding Information This study was supported by the Independent
Research Project of State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe
M i n i n g , C h i n a U n i v e r s i t y o f M i n i n g a n d Te c h n o l o g y
(SKLCRSM18X001).
1036
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest The authors declare that they have no conflicts of
interest.
References
1. Gobbo JA, Busso CM, Gobbo SCO, Carreão H (2018) Making the
links among environmental protection, process safety, and industry
4.0. Process Saf Environ Prot 117:372–382
2. Jiskani IM, Silva JMN, Chalgri SR, Behrani P, Lu X, Manda E
(2020) Mine health and safety: influence of psychosocial factors
on musculoskeletal disorders among miners in Pakistan. Int J Min
Miner Eng 11
3. Qi R, Prem KP, Ng D, Rana MA, Yun G, Mannan MS (2012)
Challenges and needs for process safety in the new millennium.
Process Saf Environ Prot 90(2):91–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2011.08.002
4. Khan F, Rathnayaka S, Ahmed S (2015) Methods and models in
process safety and risk management: past, present and future.
Process Saf Environ Prot 98:116–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psep.2015.07.005
5. Borujeni MP, Gitinavard H (2017) Evaluating the sustainable min-
ing contractor selection problems: an imprecise last aggregation
preference selection index method. J Sustain Min 16(4):207–218
6. Carvalho FP (2017) Mining industry and sustainable development:
time for change. Food Energy Secur 6(2):61–77
7. Owusu O, Bansah KJ, Mensah AK (2019) “Small in size, but big in
impact”: socio-environmental reforms for sustainable artisanal and
small-scale mining. J Sustain Min 18(1):38–44
8. Dubiński J (2013) Sustainable development of mining mineral re-
sources. J Sustain Min 12(1):1–6
9. Abrahamsson L, Segerstedt E, Nygren M, Johansson J, Johansson
B, Edman I, Åkerlund A (2014) Mining and sustainable develop-
ment: gender, diversity and work conditions in mining. Luleå
tekniska universitet,
10. Goldenhar LM, Williams LJ, Swanson NG (2003) Modelling rela-
tionships between job stressors and injury and near-miss outcomes
for construction labourers. Work Stress 17(3):218–240
11. Mejías C, Jiménez D, Muñoz A, Reyes-Bozo L (2014) Clinical
response of 20 people in a mining refuge: study and analysis of
functional parameters. Saf Sci 63:204–210. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ssci.2013.11.011
12. Moore SM, Pollard JP, Nelson ME (2012) Task-specific postures in
low-seam underground coal mining. Int J Ind Ergon 42(2):241–248
13. McMillan G, Nichols L (2005) Osteoarthritis and meniscus disor-
ders of the knee as occupational diseases of miners. Occup Environ
Med 62(8):567–575
14. Niczyporuk ZT (1996) Safety management in coal mines—risk
assessment. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 2(3):243–250
15. Jiskani IM, Ullah B, Shah KS, Bacha S, Shahani NM, Ali M,
Maqbool A, Qureshi AR (2019) Overcoming mine safety crisis in
Pakistan: an appraisal. Process Saf Prog. https://doi.org/10.1002/
prs.12041
16. Zohar D (1980) Safety climate in industrial organizations: theoret-
ical and applied implications. J Appl Psychol 65(1):96–102
17. Nahrgang JD, Morgeson FP, Hofmann DA (2011) Safety at work: a
meta-analytic investigation of the link between job demands, job
resources, burnout, engagement, and safety outcomes. J Appl
Psychol 96(1):71–94
18. Ford MT, Tetrick LE (2008) Safety motivation and human resource
management in North America. Int J Hum Resour Manag 19(8):
1472–1485
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
19. Gunningham N (2008) Occupational health and safety, worker par-
ticipation and the mining industry in a changing world of work.
Econ Ind Democr 29(3):336–361
20. Ismail U-FF, Asumeng M, Nyarko K (2014) Safety climate as a
predictor of quality of worklife: an empirical study among miners in
Ghana. Euro J Bus Manag 6(18):107–116
21. Yule S, Flin R, Murdy A (2007) The role of management and safety
climate in preventing risk-taking at work. Int J Risk Assess Manag
7(2):137–151
22. Amponsah-Tawiah K, Mensah J (2016) Occupational health and
safety and organizational commitment: evidence from the
Ghanaian mining industry. Saf Health Work 7(3):225–230
23. Fernández-Muñiz B, Montes-Peón JM, Vázquez-Ordás CJ (2012)
Safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: anteced-
ents and consequences of safety behaviour. Accid Anal Prev 45:
745–758
24. Ali H, Azimah Chew Abdullah N, Subramaniam C (2009)
Management practice in safety culture and its influence on work-
place injury: an industrial study in Malaysia. Disaster Prev Manag:
An International Journal 18(5):470–477
25. Zohar D (2000) A group-level model of safety climate: testing the
effect of group climate on microaccidents in manufacturing jobs. J
Appl Psychol 85(4):587–596
26. Clarke S (2006) Contrasting perceptual, attitudinal and disposition-
al approaches to accident involvement in the workplace. Saf Sci
44(6):537–550
27. Law W, Chan A, Pun K (2006) Prioritising the safety management
elements: a hierarchical analysis for manufacturing enterprises. Ind
Manag Data Syst 106(6):778–792
28. Sinclair RR, Tucker JS, Cullen JC, Wright C (2005) Performance
differences among four organizational commitment profiles. J Appl
Psychol 90(6):1280–1287
29. Grawitch MJ, Trares S, Kohler JM (2007) Healthy workplace prac-
tices and employee outcomes. Int J Stress Manag 14(3):275
30. Ol S (2002) Occupational stressors and well-being among Chinese
employees: the role of organisational commitment. Appl Psychol
51(4):527–544
31. Jiskani IM, Siddiqui FI (2019) Fault orientation modeling of Sonda-
Jherruck coalfield, Pakistan. Journal of Mining and Environment 10
(2):305–313. doi:https://doi.org/10.22044/JME.2019.7415.1597
32. Jiskani IM, Siddiqui FI, Pathan AG (2018) Integrated 3D geologi-
cal modeling of Sonda-Jherruck coal field, Pakistan. J Sustain Min
17(3):111–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsm.2018.06.001
33. Grayson RL (2019) Safety and productivity in coal mining—how
to make both the top priority. In: Hirschi J (ed) Advances in pro-
ductive, safe, and responsible coal mining. Woodhead Publishing,
pp 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-101288-8.00002-X
34. Wang W, Zhang C (2018) Evaluation of relative technological in-
novation capability: model and case study for China’s coal mine.
Resour Policy 58:144–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.
2018.04.008
35. Lööw J, Abrahamsson L, Johansson J (2019) Mining 4.0—the im-
pact of new technology from a work place perspective. Min Metall
Explor 36(4):701–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-00104-
9
36. Murphy LA, Robertson MM, Y-h H, Jeffries S, Dainoff MJ (2018)
A sociotechnical systems approach to enhance safety climate in the
trucking industry: development of a methodology. Appl Ergon 66:
82–88
37. Ojanen K, Seppala A, Aaltonen M (1988) Measurement methodol-
ogy for the effects of accident prevention programs. Scand J Work
Environ Health 14:95–96
38. Hayes BE, Perander J, Smecko T, Trask J (1998) Measuring per-
ceptions of workplace safety: development and validation of the
work safety scale. J Saf Res 29(3):145–161
Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration (2020) 37:1023–1037
39. Kines P, Lappalainen J, Mikkelsen KL, Olsen E, Pousette A,
Tharaldsen J, Tómasson K, Törner M (2011) Nordic safety climate
questionnaire (NOSACQ-50): a new tool for diagnosing occupa-
tional safety climate. Int J Ind Ergon 41(6):634–646
40. Marín LS, Lipscomb H, Cifuentes M, Punnett L (2019) Perceptions
of safety climate across construction personnel: associations with
injury rates. Saf Sci 118:487–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.
2019.05.056
41. Leitão S, Mc Carthy VJC, Greiner BA (2018) Health and safety
practitioners’ health and wellbeing — the link with safety climate
and job demand-control-support. Accid Anal Prev 119:131–137.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2018.06.017
42. Gyekye SA (2006) Workers’ perceptions of workplace safety: an
African perspective. Int J Occup Saf Ergon 12(1):31–42
43. Beus JM, Payne SC, Bergman ME, Arthur W Jr (2010) Safety
climate and injuries: an examination of theoretical and empirical
relationships. J Appl Psychol 95(4):713–727
44. Mattson Molnar M, Von Thiele SU, Hellgren J, Hasson H, Tafvelin
S (2019) Leading for safety: a question of leadership focus. Saf
Health Work 10(2):180–187. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2018.
12.001
45. Haas EJ, Eiter B, Hoebbel C, Ryan ME (2019) The impact of job,
site, and industry experience on worker health and safety. Safety 5
(1):16
46. Gyekye S (2006) Perceptions of workplace safety: perspectives
from miners and nonminers. Prof Saf 51(7):34–40
47. Silva S, Lima ML, Baptista C (2004) OSCI: an organisational and
safety climate inventory. Saf Sci 42(3):205–220
48. Stemn E, Bofinger C, Cliff D, Hassall ME (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
49. Maiti J, Chatterjee S, Bangdiwala SI (2004) Determinants of work
injuries in mines – an application of structural equation modelling.
Inj Control Saf Promot 11(1):29–37. https://doi.org/10.1076/icsp.
11.1.29.26305
50. McGonagle AK, Kath LM (2010) Work-safety tension, perceived
risk, and worker injuries: a meso-mediational model. J Saf Res
41(6):475–479
51. Cooper MD, Phillips RA (2004) Exploratory analysis of the safety
climate and safety behavior relationship. J Saf Res 35(5):497–512
1037
52. Laurence D (2005) Safety rules and regulations on mine sites – the
problem and a solution. J Saf Res 36(1):39–50. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jsr.2004.11.004
53. Yanar B, Lay M, Smith PM (2019) The interplay between supervi-
sor safety support and occupational health and safety vulnerability
on work injury. Saf Health Work 10(2):172–179. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.shaw.2018.11.001
54. García-Herrero S, Mariscal MA, García-Rodríguez J, Ritzel DO
(2012) Working conditions, psychological/physical symptoms and
occupational accidents. Bayesian network models. Saf Sci 50(9):
1760–1774
55. Pietilä J, Räsänen T, Reiman A, Ratilainen H, Helander E (2018)
Characteristics and determinants of recurrent occupational acci-
dents. Saf Sci 108:269–277
56. Gyekye SA, Salminen S (2009) Educational status and organiza-
tional safety climate: does educational attainment influence
workers’ perceptions of workplace safety? Saf Sci 47(1):20–28
57. Ayim Gyekye S, Salminen S (2007) Workplace safety perceptions
and perceived organizational support: do supportive perceptions
influence safety perceptions? Int J Occup Saf Ergon 13(2):189–200
58. Stemn E, Hassall ME, Bofinger C, Cliff D (2019) Assessing the
quality of incident investigations and its effect on safety perfor-
mance: a study of the Ghanaian mining industry. Min Metall
Explor 36:1145–1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0076-4
59. Laurence D, Scoble M (2009) Integration of sustainability into
mining schools: counter-cycle strategies for the next boom. In:
4th International Conference on Sustainable Development
Indicators in the Minerals Industry, Queensland, Australia.
60. Laurence D (2011) Establishing a sustainable mining operation: an
overview. J Clean Prod 19(2):278–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jclepro.2010.08.019
61. Pokhrel LR, Dubey B (2013) Global scenarios of metal mining,
environmental repercussions, public policies, and sustainability: a
review. Crit Rev Environ Sci Technol 43(21):2352–2388. https://
doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2012.672086
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdic-
tional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.