Online Registration

ISO 9001:2015

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION, MODERN MANAGEMENT, APPLIED SCIENCE & SOCIAL SCIENCE (IJEMMASSS) [ Vol. 8 | No. 2 (II) | April - June, 2026 ]

Workforce Perceptions of Occupational Risk in Material-Handling Projects of the Indian Fertilizer Industry: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Hazard Controls, Working Conditions, and Regulatory Compliance

Subrota Ghosh & Dr. Preeti Kulshrestha

Worker perceptions of safety provision are a recognized leading indicator of safety performance, and material-handling processes in the fertilizer sector expose workers to mechanical, chemical, and ergonomic dangers. However, there is a dearth of quantitative, perception-based data from Indian fertilizer facilities. Goals. In order to determine whether working conditions are satisfactory (H0₁/Ha₁) and whether DISH guidelines are implemented (H0₂/Ha₂), this study profiled the surveyed workforce and evaluated worker perceptions across three domains: hazard identification and personal protective equipment (PPE) controls, working conditions and statutory welfare, and compliance with DISH guidelines. A seven-point Likert questionnaire was utilized in a cross-sectional study of 262 employees from four factories in India (Gujarat (n=3), Maharashtra (n=1)). The main non-parametric methods were one-tailed one-sample tests against the scale midpoint for the hypotheses, Mann–Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests for group differences(Kruskal & Wallis, 1952), and multiple regression on age, experience, and gender because the bounded, ceiling-loaded responses violated normality. outcomes. With a mean age of 32.4 years, the majority of respondents were men (74.4%); age and experience were nearly correlated (r =.994). All three domains had very good perceptions (97.5%, 96.8%, and 77.5% of the scale maximum). Both alternative hypotheses were supported: working conditions were judged satisfactory (t(261) = 675.5, one-tailed p < .001, d = 41.7) and DISH guidelines implemented (t(261) = 74.9, one-tailed p < .001, d = 4.6). Plant location differed significantly in every domain (Kruskal-Wallis p < .01)(Kruskal & Wallis, 1952), whereas individual demographics explained little variance. Hence, from the study it has been observed that, the workforce at all four locations has a strong, facility-variable culture of safety, welfare and regulatory compliance; site-level factors, not worker characteristics, drive the residual variation. Although the study has limitations with the samples from other geographic locations of India, it is a future perspective for further investigation.

Ghosh, S. & Kulshrestha, P. (2026). Workforce Perceptions of Occupational Risk in Material-Handling Projects of the Indian Fertilizer Industry: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Hazard Controls, Working Conditions, and Regulatory Compliance. International Journal of Education, Modern Management, Applied Science & Social Science, 08(02(II)), 155–162. https://doi.org/10.62823/IJEMMASSS/8.2(II).9097
  1. Government of India. (1948). The Factories Act, 1948 (Act No. 63 of 1948). Ministry of Labour and
  2. Employment.
  3. Christian, M. S., Bradley, J. C., Wallace, J. C., & Burke, M. J. (2009). Workplace safety: A meta-analysis of the roles of person and situation factors. Journal of applied psychology, 94(5), 1103-1127. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016172
  4. Clarke, S. (2010). An integrative model of safety climate: Linking psychological climate and work attitudes to individual safety outcomes using meta‐analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational psychology, 83(3), 553-578.
  5. Cohen, J. (2013). https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587
  6. Colley, S. K., Lincolne, J., & Neal, A. (2013). An examination of the relationship amongst profiles of perceived organizational values, safety climate and safety outcomes. Safety science, 51(1), 69-76.
  7. D'agostino, R. B., Belanger, A., & D'Agostino Jr, R. B. (1990). A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. The American Statistician, 44(4), 316-321.
  8. D’Agostino, R. B. (2017). Tests for the normal distribution. In Goodness-of-fit-techniques (pp. 367-420). Routledge.
  9. Darda’u Rafindadi, A., Kado, B., Gora, A. u. M., Dalha, I. B., Haruna, S. I., Ibrahim, Y. E., & Ahmed Shabbir, O. (2025). Caught-in/between accidents in the construction industry: A systematic review. Safety, 11(1), 12.
  10. Griffin, M. A., & Curcuruto, M. (2016). Safety climate in organizations. Annual review of organizational psychology and organizational behavior, 3(1), 191-212.

 

  1. Gupta, V. V., Asawa, K., Bhat, N., Tak, M., Bapat, S., Chaturvedi, P., . . . Shinde, K. (2015). Assessment of oral hygiene habits, oral hygiene practices and tooth wear among fertilizer factory workers of Northern India: A Cross sectional study. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, 7(5), e649.
  2. Hallowell, M. R., Hinze, J. W., Baud, K. C., & Wehle, A. (2013). Proactive construction safety control: Measuring, monitoring, and responding to safety leading indicators. Journal of construction engineering and management, 139(10), 04013010.
  3. Hofmann, D. A., Burke, M. J., & Zohar, D. (2017). 100 years of occupational safety research: From basic protections and work analysis to a multilevel view of workplace safety and risk. Journal of applied psychology, 102(3), 375.
  4. Hoyos, C. G., & Zimolong, B. (2014). Occupational safety and accident prevention: behavioral strategies and methods (Vol. 11). Elsevier.
  5. JAIN, D. (2017). HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE AS PER THE FACTORIES ACT 1948 DEVI AHILYA VISHWAVIDYALAYA].
  6. Kruskal, W. H., & Wallis, W. A. (1952). Use of Ranks in One-Criterion Variance Analysis. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 47(260), 583. https://doi.org/10.2307/2280779
  7. Latif, M. B., Ali, M. F., & Tuly, S. J. (2026). Assessment of Risks Related to Health and Industrial Effluents: Study of Physical and Occupational Risks within Jamuna Fertilizer Company Limited. Journal of Bio-Science, 34(1), 63-73.
  8. Mohapatra, B. (2021). Corporate social responsibility in India: Rethinking Gandhi’s doctrine of trusteeship in the twenty-first century. Asian Journal of Business Ethics, 10(1), 61-84.
  9. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625-632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
  10. Pingle, S. (2012). Occupational safety and health in India: now and the future. Industrial health, 50(3), 167-171.
  11. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879-903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  12. Saha, R. K. (2018). Occupational health in India. Annals of global health, 84(3), 330.
  13. Schumacher, K. (1999). India's Fertilizer Industry: Productivity and Energy Efficiency.
  14. Zohar, D. (1980). Safety climate in industrial organizations: Theoretical and applied implications. Journal of applied psychology, 65(1), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.65.1.96

DOI:

Article DOI: 10.62823/IJEMMASSS/8.2(II).9097

DOI URL: https://doi.org/10.62823/IJEMMASSS/8.2(II).9097

Download Full Paper:

Download