Safety is an inconvenience: A qualitative exploration of occupational health and safety compliance in Zimbabwe’s manufacturing sector
This qualitative study, grounded in Social Cognitive and Organizational Justice theories, identifies inadequate resources, inconsistent leadership, and perceptions of injustice as primary barriers to occupational health and safety compliance within Zimbabwe's manufacturing sector.
Original paper licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). This is an AI-generated explanation of the paper below. It is not written or endorsed by the authors. For technical accuracy, refer to the original paper. Read full disclaimer
In the bustling world of manufacturing, where heavy machines hum and workers move through complex processes, safety is often treated as a necessary rulebook rather than a living practice. To understand why workers follow—or ignore—these rules, researchers look at two powerful ideas. The first is the way people learn by watching others; if a leader acts safely, the team tends to follow, but if a leader cuts corners, the team often does the same. The second idea is fairness. Workers constantly judge whether the system is just: do they get the tools they need, are rewards given fairly, and are rules applied to everyone equally? When these two forces collide in a factory, the result is not just a matter of following orders, but a complex mix of trust, resources, and daily pressure.
A recent study in Zimbabwe set out to uncover why safety compliance remains a struggle in the country's manufacturing sector. The researchers did not simply count accidents or tally violations. Instead, they stepped into the shoes of the people living the reality of the factory floor. They spoke with sixteen individuals across five different companies, ranging from large food processors to smaller textile and engineering firms. These participants included workers who faced the hazards directly, managers responsible for production targets, and safety specialists tasked with keeping everyone safe. By listening to their stories, the team sought to understand the human reasons behind the numbers, exploring how the environment and the sense of fairness shape the decision to wear a helmet or skip a safety check.
The investigation revealed that safety is often viewed not as a priority, but as an inconvenience that gets in the way of getting the job done. One of the most persistent barriers was a simple lack of resources. In several factories, workers described sharing gloves because there were not enough pairs for everyone, or buying their own safety boots because the company would not provide them. One safety practitioner noted that while the company always found money for new production machines, there was never enough budget for safety gear. This scarcity created a feeling that the company valued output over the well-being of its people. When workers saw that safety equipment was missing or of poor quality, they felt the organization did not truly care about their protection.
Leadership behavior played a critical and often contradictory role. The study found that when managers failed to wear safety gear themselves, it sent a powerful message that the rules were optional. In one instance, a manager admitted that while safety policies existed on paper, the pressure to meet production targets meant that safety would always lose out. When bosses walked through dangerous areas without helmets, workers felt it was pointless to follow the rules. This inconsistency eroded trust, making safety compliance feel like a suggestion rather than a requirement. The researchers observed that this lack of leadership commitment was not just a bad habit; it was a signal that safety was not a shared value, but a secondary concern.
Perhaps the most profound finding was how deeply the sense of fairness influenced behavior. Workers and safety officers alike described a system that felt unjust. They reported that safety decisions were made without their input, and when accidents happened, the blame was often shifted to the workers rather than addressing the root causes, such as broken equipment or missing training. One safety officer recounted being told to let a machine run even though an operator refused to wear protective gear, simply because the operator was needed to keep production moving. This experience taught the workers that their safety was less important than the speed of the line. When the system feels unfair, the motivation to follow the rules disappears.
The tension between getting the job done and staying safe emerged as a central theme throughout the interviews. In many cases, workers admitted to taking shortcuts to meet tight deadlines, knowing that supervisors prioritized speed over caution. One worker described how safety talks were held in the morning, but by afternoon, the rush to load trucks meant that no one was told to be careful. Another shared that when a machine broke down, foremen would urge workers to fix it quickly, sometimes telling them to ignore safety procedures that took too long. This pressure created a situation where following safety protocols felt like an obstacle to success, rather than a part of it.
The study suggests that fixing these issues requires more than just writing new rules. It calls for a shift in how organizations view safety, moving it from a cost to be minimized to a fundamental part of the work. The researchers recommend that companies dedicate specific budgets for safety equipment and training, ensuring that workers have the tools they need. They also emphasize the importance of involving employees in safety decisions, so that rules feel fair and shared rather than imposed. Managers need to be trained to model safe behavior, showing that safety is a priority for everyone, from the top floor to the shop floor.
Ultimately, the research paints a picture of a sector where safety is compromised not by a lack of knowledge, but by a lack of resources, inconsistent leadership, and a deep sense of unfairness. The findings indicate that as long as workers feel that safety is an inconvenience or a barrier to their livelihood, compliance will remain low. By addressing the root causes of these perceptions—by providing the necessary tools, leading by example, and treating safety as a matter of justice rather than just a rule—manufacturing organizations can begin to build a culture where safety is not an afterthought, but a shared commitment.
Drowning in papers in your field?
Get daily digests of the most novel papers matching your research keywords — with technical summaries, in your language.