Towards integrated hazard assessment: Convergence of objective and subjective work environment assessments in manufacturing

What the paper says

• Objective and subjective hazard assessment data were compared across manufacturing environments. • Each assessment strategy captured different aspects of workplace risk. • Combined assessments explained more variance in job satisfaction than either approach alone. • Employee perceptions were shown to complement standardized risk measurements. • Results support integrating subjective data into practical risk assessment processes. Introduction: Ensuring a safe and healthy work environment remains a priority across industries, yet employees often perceive workplace hazards differently than standardized measurements suggest. This study investigates whether objective and subjective assessments of the work environment align, diverge, or complement each other in a practice setting. Method: Objective data was obtained from 472 safety protocols from high-risk settings in the manufacturing sector covering noise, thermal environment, lighting, and ergonomic factors, spanning 1,285 employees. Subjective perceptions were collected via surveys completed by 547 employees, capturing self-reported exposure and job satisfaction. Job satisfaction captures overall work evaluation, reflecting both objective and subjective workplace factors. Distance-based statistics, including canonical correlation analysis, multidimensional scaling, and multiple regression, were applied to compare the two assessment approaches and explore their association with job satisfaction. Results: Objective and subjective assessments showed a moderate overall correlation, yet the two approaches capture different facets of the work environment. Multidimensional scaling indicated that the hazards clustered largely by assessment approach or hazard type, suggesting each method illuminates distinct facets of the work environment. Moreover, incorporating both objective and subjective data explained more variance in job satisfaction than either approach alone, indicating complementarity in capturing employees’ work experiences. Conclusions: Our findings indicate that relying solely on objective assessments may not capture the entire spectrum of environmental hazards. Subjective assessments offer a complementary perspective that standardized measurements miss. When combined, both approaches provide a more holistic view of hazard potential and its relationship to employee outcomes. These insights underscore the importance of embedding employee perceptions into risk assessment practices and work design strategies. Practical Applications: Practitioners should consider supplementing objective measurements with employee self-reports to capture the multifaceted nature of hazards. This combined strategy can better pinpoint high-impact areas for intervention, thereby enhancing both risk mitigation and worker well-being.