See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/357535435

Common Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Hazards and Control Measures:
Manufacturing, Public Services and Construction Sectors in Malaysia

Article · January 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 25

8 authors, including:

mohd esa Baruji Nor Halim Hasan

15 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   
Cyberjaya University College of Medical Sciences
13 PUBLICATIONS   36 CITATIONS   
SEE PROFILE
SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

OSH Legislation Compliance Level and Issues at Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) at Utilities Sector View project

Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Improvement to Empower the Role of Principal Employer in Implementing OSH in Malaysia View project

All content following this page was uploaded by mohd esa Baruji on 03 January 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Common Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) Hazards and Control Measures:

Manufacturing, Public Services and Construction Sectors in Malaysia

Mohd Esa Baruji1*, Siti Zainatul Arafah1, Siti Nasyrah Ibrahim1, Nur Hidayana Abdullah1, Nur Alyani
Fahmi1, Nor Halim Hasan2, Izani Mohd Zain2, Zamalia Mahmud3

1
Consultation, Research and Development Department (CRD), National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH), Lot 1, Jalan 15/1, Section 15 43650 Bandar Baru Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
2
Department of Occupational Safety and Health, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia.
3
Faculty of Computer and Mathematical Sciences, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 40450 Shah Alam, Malaysia.
*Corresponding author: Email: mohd.esa@niosh.com.my

ABSTRACT

The aims of this study are to (1) identify the common OSH hazards and (2) analyse employer's

control measures in three main sectors in Malaysia, namely manufacturing, public services and

construction. Each sector is divided into three subsectors: (1) manufacturing (timber, furniture and

plastics), (2) public services (health services, water facilities and vehicle repairs) and (3) construction

(Grade 4 & 5, 6 and 7). A total of 445 respondents (employers) were involved in face-to-face interviews

and 90 workplaces were inspected. The reliability analysis of Cronbach Alpha for questionnaire form

is 0.977. It was found that improper / poor housekeeping (77.8%) is the main hazard for all three sectors

followed by manual handling (68.5%) and use of high-powered equipment (64.5%). Majority of

employers (85.4%) chose Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) as hazard control measure while only

36% prefer engineering control. Employers must be aware of the occupational hazard and understand

the importance of choosing the best control measures to be implemented in order to minimize the

incidents happen at workplace.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The number of registered construction sites with Department of Occupational Safety and Health

(DOSH) is increasing every year due to the country's economic growth. Another blooming sector

is manufacturing sector as the direction from 2016 to 2020 in the Eleventh Malaysia Plan’

(RMK-11), is to produce complex and diverse products, increase productivity through

automation, promote innovation-based growth, strengthen growth and boost internationalization.

1
Hence, the rate of workplace accidents in manufacturing sector have been steadily increasing

every year.

Figure 1.1: Occupational Accidents by Sector 2018 (investigated)

Occupational Sector

Hotels & Restaurants

Utilities

Finance, insurance, Real Estate

& Business Services

Constructions

Transport, Storage &

Communication

Manufacturing

Wholesale & Retail Trades

Public Services & Statutory

Authorities

Mining & Quarrying

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing

Source: DOSH (www.dosh.gov.my)

Figure 1.1 shows manufacturing sector has the largest number of accident while fatality

cases mark the highest in construction sector. On the other hand, a low number of accident

reported for public services sector. Previous studies have found workers in manufacturing sector

are exposed to hazards such as mechanical, noise, ergonomics and chemicals (Sarok & Susil,

2012). The construction sector has constant challenge with several safety and risk factors,

requiring quality and safety management systems to be established (Mehta & Agnew, 2010).

According to Social Security Organization (SOCSO) statistic in 2014, public services marks the

highest number of accident cases (8,015 cases) after the manufacturing sector. In 2015, the sector

remain highest at 64 cases overcoming transport & storage sector and construction sector. Public

services sector will be the main turning point in driving the country's development towards

developed countries by 2020. If OSH issues in this sector remains to be ignored, it might lead to

an impact that could adversely affect the country's economy. The increase in workplace accident

rates leads to a higher number of compensation payments by SOCSO. This can be alarming to

2
the country in developing credible human capital and raising the nation's economy. Therefore,

effective methods should be taken by the government through relevant agencies to prevent

occupational accidents and diseases. DOSH has outlined the OSH Master Plan (OSHMP 2020),

a comprehensive transformation OSH plan towards preventive culture strategies. OSHMP 2020

(Strategy 2, Program 1) states that stakeholders including employers, managers, supervisors,

employees and/or contractors are required to have the capability in terms of knowledge, skills

and competence in managing risks effectively that enables them to identify hazards and assess

risks in order to control and manage risks at a good level. The objectives of this study are to

identify the common OSH hazards and to determine the type of control measures taken by

employers according to the hierarchy of control. The general scope of this study covers three

sectors in Malaysia; 1) Manufacturing, 2) Public Services, and 3) Construction, in short as MPC

sector. Each sector consists of three subsectors as shown in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: List of subsector of each sector

Sector Subsector
Manufacturing Timber Furniture Plastic

Public Services Water facilities Health Services Vehicle repairs

Construction:
- Building/ civil/ Mechanical (> RM10 Grade (G)4 &
G6 G7
million); or G5
- Electrical (> RM 200,001)

The source of data for manufacturing and public services were obtained from SOSCO

meanwhile reference from Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) was reliable for

construction sector.

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) 1994, employer means the owner

of an industry or person with whom an employee has entered into a service of contract, including
3
a manager, agent, or person responsible for payment of wages to a worker. As stated in Section

15 and 17, OSHA 1994, employers are responsible to ensure the safety, health and welfare of the

employees and other persons entering the workplace. Hazard means a source or situation with a

potential to harm in terms of human injury, ill health, damage to property, damage to

environment or a combination of these (DOSH, 2008). Each workplace has different hazards

based on its nature of bussineses and activities. Hazard can be vary depending on the types of

machine, work environment and material used. There are five types of hazards at workplace such

as physical, biological, chemical, ergonomic and physcological. Mohamed Taufek et al., (2016)

found that the commitment is important to employers in managing employees pertaining to safety

and health issues. This is to reduce the number of accidents among employees in the workplace.

The study also stated that the element of commitment has a strong relationship with the factors

of occurrence of employee accidents in the workplace.

At the national level, plywood manufacturer features an incidence of work-related

illnesses and accidents respectively 5 and 2 times higher than the mean values for industrial

production sectors. The most frequent work-related illnesses are lung and bronchial diseases,

respectively at 75% and 14% of reported cases. The injury risk was quantified statistically as

24% for wounds, 54% for traumas (fractures, bruises), 13% for penetration and 9% for other

physical damage (P. Balsari, 1999). Plastic product consists of various types of component

depending upon the use like Teflon, polyvinylchloride, polypropylene, polyethylene and

polystyrene. Out of these styrene is one of the chief packaging materials being used extensively.

Styrene exposure seems to be associated with hypersensitivity pneumonitis, occupational

asthma, diffuse cell damage involving tracheal, bronchiolar and alveolar epithelium (Sati, 2011).

Noise is a common hazard in the furniture industry. The usage of equipment for certain process

such as woodcutting, carving, and molding are sources of noise. A study conducted in wood

furniture industries in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia indicated that 34.7% of the workers

suffered from hearing handicap. It was apparent that despite the existent of a comparable

4
Occupational Health and Safety regulations in the region, its implementation and enforcement

within the wooden furniture industry must be improved to ensure the workers safety and health.

(Ratnasingam et al., 2010).

Needle Stick and Sharps Injuries (NSSIs) is one of the common hazard in healthcare

services which leads to the increasing number of spreading risk of diseases such as HIV, Hepatitis

B and Hepatitis C. It was reported that approximately 600, 000 to 800, 000 injection needles and

other sharp injuries occured among healthcare workers (NIOSH, Washington, DC, 1999).

Meanwhile for vehicle repair activities, it has been reported that about 2500 different chemicals

are provided under the supervision of VW-Audi in Germany which contains dangerous

ingredients. The company took alternatives from the exposure of those harmful substances to

ensure all their car dealers were detached from the compliance. (Walters & James, 2011). In

United Kingdom, 4% of water and wastewater workers claim to suffer from work-related illness

annually, where 8,000 cases reported that work-related illnesses come from water supply or

waste management sectors (HSE UK, 2014). In the study of Corinna Summerill et al. (2010), the

role of cultural organization and leadership in water safety plans in the implementation of risk

management is important.

There is a popular belief that construction site is unsafe and categorize as high risk

activities involving work activities such as scaffolding, excavation, working at height, use of

electrical power equipment, plant and machinery. The major categories of hazard in construction

sites are physical injury hazard, health hazards and biological hazards (A. Rahim, 2003) that may

cause physical injuries and long term health illness.

Hierarchy of control refers to an established priority order on types of measure to be taken

in risk control (DOSH, 2008). Traditionally, hierarchy of control as shown in FIGURE 2.1 has

been used as a mean of determining a feasible and effective control measure for mitigation action.

The control at the top are potentially more effective and protective than those at the bottom.

5
 Figure 2.1: Hierarchy of Control

3.0 METHODOLOGY

A pilot study of 50 respondents was conducted by convenience sampling of manufacturing,

public service and construction sectors within Klang Valley. The pilot study was conducted to

determine the appropriateness of the questionnaire. The result was analysed by Cronbach’s

Alpha value. The population size of this study is based on active employers of companies

registered under SOCSO and CIDB. Referring to SOCSO database (2016), population size, N of

manufacturing subsectors is N = 6843, whereas the N for public sector for all three sub sectors

is N = 18,423. The construction sector recorded N = 12,938 (CIDB, 2016). The total population

of the study was N = 38,204. TABLE 3.1 show organizational statistics from SOCSO and CIDB.

TABLE 3.1: Distribution of Employers for Manufacturing, Public Services and

Construction Sector

Sector (Subsectors) Total

Manufacturing (Timber, Furniture & Plastic) 6,843

Public Services (Water, Health & Vehicles Repair) 18,423

Construction (G4, G5, G6 & G7) 12,938

GRAND TOTAL 38,204

The sampling design of this study is Stratified Random Sampling (SRS). Fink (1995),

defines SRS as a method that divides a population into strata (subgroups). The minimum number

6
of respondents required for this study is n = 380 using the Lohr formula (2010). TABLE 3.2

shows the calculation of the sample size, n:

TABLE 3.2: Calculation of Sample Using Lohr (2010) Formula

Calculation Using Lohr’s Formula (2010)

Formula : Guide : n0 = z2 s

n = n0 --------

---------------- e2

1 + (n0/N) n = Number of sample sizes

N = Population size

z = Standard variables (1.96 at 95% confidence level)

s = p (1-p)

p = Variable rate or level (0.5 or 50%)

e = Precision level (0.05 or 5%))

Calculation :

n0 = z2 s Sample size, n = 384.16

-------- ----------------------------

e2 1 + (384.16/ 38204)

= (1.96)2 [(0.5) (1-0.5)] = 380.3

---------------------------

(0.05)2

= 384.16

Samples are then selected according to stratum of all subsectors. TABLE 3.3 shows the

distribution of strata for each subsector.

7
 TABLE 3.3: Stratum Distribution for Each Subsector

Stratum 𝑵𝒉 𝒏𝒉 𝒚𝒉

Timber 1961 20 5%

Furniture 3317 33 9%

Plastic 1565 16 4%

Water Facilities 325 3 1%

Health Services 8616 86 23%

Vehicle repair 9482 94 25%

G4 2732 27 7%

G5 3578 36 9%

G6 1349 13 4%

G7 5279 53 14%

Total 38204 380 100%

Guide: 𝑁 = total population, ℎ= strata or stratum or "layer", 𝑛 = sample or observation selected at

random

The strategy of data collection is divided into two phases which are via questionnaire

distribution and workplace inspection. A total of 534 questionnaire forms were distributed to the

respondents by two approaches, via individual (face-to-face) and group sessions (seminars /

workshops). Target respondents are among employers or appointed representatives (managerial

and above) in the organization. Workplace inspection was conducted to 90 workplaces using

NIOSH workplace inspection checklist consisting OSH documentation review and workplace

condition. This was an additional method to validate the statement in the questionnaire form

earlier. The data was analyzed via descriptive and ranking analysis by using IBM SPSS 21.0.

8
4.0 RESULTS

Results from the pilot study showed that Cronbach’s Alpha coefficient (α) for all statements in

the questionnaire is 0.977, categorize as extremely high reliability (Hair et. al, 2006). This

indicates the questionnaire is consistent and easy to understand. The total number of

questionnaire collected is 445 (80% of response rate) and beyond the minimum required sample

size of 380. Demographically, majority of 75% from total respondents are male. Only 38% from

respondents are employers while 62% are representing the employer. For ranking analysis,

TABLE 4.1 lists the common hazards for MPC sector.

TABLE 4.1: List of Hazards in MPC Sector

Hazard No. of Respondent % of Respondent Rank

Improper/ poor housekeeping 346 77.8 1

Manual handling 305 68.5 2

Use of high-powered equipment 287 64.5 3

Repetitive movement 261 58.7 4

Expose to flammable materials 253 56.9 5

Awkward position 230 51.7 6

Work related stress 218 49.0 7

Work overload 197 44.3 8

Workplace design 181 40.7 9

Working at height 180 40.4 10

Vibration 180 40.4 10

Expose to toxic materials/liquids 178 40.0 12

Usage of pneumatic & hydraulic machine 170 38.2 13

Expose to corrosive materials 123 27.6 14

Confined space 118 26.5 15

Expose to compressed gas 86 19.3 16

Expose to microbiological 79 17.8 17

9
 Violence at work 72 16.2 18

Expose to pathogens 62 13.9 19

Sexual harassment 49 11.0 20

Expose to oxidize materials 48 10.8 21

Expose to animal tissue or fluids 48 10.8 21

Drug abuse 31 7.0 23

Expose to dust 26 5.8 24

Sharp surface 20 4.5 25

Expose to noise 15 3.4 26

Hot working environment 6 1.3 27

Animal bites 6 1.3 27

Improper work space 6 1.3 27

Hot surface 5 1.1 30

Infected by animal disease 2 0.4 31

Hit by object (falling object) 2 0.4 31

Commuting 2 0.4 31

Limited work space 1 0.2 35

TABLE 4.1 shows the 35 common hazards in MPC sector. Majority of respondents, 77.8% (346)

agreed that improper housekeeping is the main hazard, followed by 68.5% (305) and 64.5% (287)

on manual handling and use of high-powered equipment respectively. The list of top three

hazards for each MPC sector are shown in TABLE 4.2. There are 6 hazards identified from the

study. Improper or poor housekeeping is the common top three hazard for each sector; top rank

for public service and construction sector while second rank for manufacturing. Meanwhile,

manual handling is common hazard for manufacturing sector (top rank) and public service sector

(second rank). The other hazards are identified for different sector.

10
Table 4.2: Top Three Hazards in Manufacturing, Public Service and Construction Sector

No. of Respondent

No. of Respondent

No. of Respondent
% of Respondent

% of Respondent

% of Respondent
Sector

Rank

Rank

Rank
Hazard
Manufacturing Public Service Construction

Manual handling 53 75.7 1 22 61.1 2

Improper / poor housekeeping 52 74.3 2 26 72.2 1 140 87.0 1

Repetitive movement 51 72.9 3

Awkward position 20 55.6 3

Working at height 128 79.5 2

Use of high-powered equipment 126 78.3 3

Table 4.3 to 4.5 shows the frequency distribution of different control measure taken by

MPC sector. There were a few respondents not giving feedback for particular control measures.

However, the total no. of respondents was more than the minimum required sample size of 380.

Hence, this will not much influence the result of the findings.

TABLE 4.3 shows the frequency distribution of the elimination and substitution method

implemented across all sectors. For both method, frequent was the highest percentage taken by

employer to overcome the hazards at workplace, 27.6% for elimination and 35.4% for

substitution. Meanwhile, very frequent was the lowest taken by employer to solve the OSH issues

at workplace; 12.3% for elimination and 8.9% for substitution. There were 21 respondents for

elimination and 19 respondents for substitution were not answer this part respectively.

11
 Table 4.3: Frequency Distribution of Elimination & Substitution Control Measure

Control Measure Elimination Substitution

Frequency No. of Respondent % of Respondent No. of Respondent % of Respondent

Never 60 14.2 40 9.4

Rarely 94 22.2 78 18.3

Sometimes 101 23.8 119 27.9

Frequent 117 27.6 151 35.4

Very Frequent 52 12.3 38 8.9

Total 424 100.0 426 100.0

TABLE 4.4 shows 29.9% (the highest) of employers sometimes chose engineering

control methods while 7.6% of employers very frequently implementing engineering control (the

lowest). 23 respondents didn’t state their opinions for this part. On the other hand, 45.1% of

employers choose administrative control as the highest control measure and only 2.6% of

employers never choose the administrative control (the lowest) at workplace. Only 20

respondents didn’t state their view for the administrative control measures.

Table 4.4: Frequency Distribution of Engineering and Administrative Control Measure

Control Measure Engineering Control Administrative Control

Frequency No. of Respondent % of Respondent No. of Respondent % of Respondent

Never 62 14.7 11 2.6

Rarely 82 19.4 26 6.0

Sometimes 126 29.9 107 24.9

Frequent 120 28.4 194 45.1

Very Frequent 32 7.6 92 21.4

Total 422 100.0 430 100

12
 TABLE 4.5 shows 52.1% that the majority of employers often use PPE as a control

measure. While 1.6% never choose PPE to their workers as the control measure at workplace.

This indicates that employers prefer PPE compared to other control measures; the highest

percentage among other control measures as discussed earlier. Only 7 respondents didn’t state

their responses.

Table 4.5: Frequency Distribution of PPE Control Measure

Scale No. of Respondent % of Respondent

Never 7 1.6

Rarely 9 2.1

Sometimes 48 11.0

Frequent 146 33.3

Very Frequent 228 52.1

Total 438 100.0

5.0 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Generally, respondents stated improper housekeeping is the main issue in MPC sector. As proven

by Heinrich’s theories of accident causation and prevention, 88% of workplace accidents were

caused by unsafe acts and 10% of workplace accidents were the result of unsafe equipment or

conditions. As preventive measures, implementation of housekeeping management is important

such as Japanese 5S concept (Seiri, Seiton, Seiso, Seiketsu and Shitsuke). 5S is one of the tools

for organizing the workplace in a clean, hygiene, efficient and safe arrangement to enhance the

productivity and indirectly the quality. It also improve the visual and physical management as

well as to ensure the structured and standardized working condition. Among the available control

measures based on the hierarchy of control, it was found that, 52.1% of respondents stated that

PPE were the most preferrable control measure. According to Canadian Centre for Occupational

Health and Safety (CCOHS, 2016), PPE is equipment worn by a worker to minimize exposure

to specific hazards. Examples of PPE include respirators, gloves, aprons, full body harness,
13
safety helmet, face shield and safety shoes that would use a variety of strategies to maintain a

safe and healthy environment. PPE does not reduce the hazard itself nor does it guarantee

permanent or total protection. From the findings, it shows that:

i. The top three common hazard in MPC sector are improper/poor housekeeping, manual

handling, and use of high-powered equipment;

ii. Employers still do not know the actual roles and responsibilites as stipulated in OSHA 1994

and lack of awareness in providing the most practicable and effective control measures on

managing OSH at workplace towards business continuity and sustainability;

iii. Employers prefer the easiest and low cost control measures dispite of measuring the

effectiveness in short and long term period to overcome the hazard at workplace; and

iv. From workplace inspection findings, employers do not understand the proper and

comprehensive management of PPE; consists of essential elements such as hazard

identification, risk assessment, selection, fitting, training, management support, maintenance

and auditing is important to ensure the effectiveness of control.

REFERENCES

A. Rahim, W. Zulkifli, & B. Singh. (2003). Hazards at Construction Sites. Proceedings on the

5th Asia-Pacific Structural Enginerring and Construction Conference (APSEC 2003).

Canadian Centre for Occupational Health & Safety. (2016)

https://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/prevention/ppe/designin.html (accessed March 2020).

Corinna Summerill, Simon James Trent Pollard, Jennifer A Smith (2010). The role of

organizational culture & leadership in water safety plan implementation for improved risk

management. Science of The Total Environment. 408(20): 4319-27.

Department of Occupational Safety and Health Malaysia. (2004). Guidelines On Occupational

Safety and Health.

Department of Occupational Safety and Health. (2015). Occupational Safety and Health Act and

14
View publication stats

Regulations. Kuala Lumpur: MDC Publisher.

Hair, J., Black, W., Babin, B., Anderson, R., & Tatham, R. (2006). Multivariate & analysis (6th

ed.). Uppersaddle River, N.J.: Pearson Prentice Hall.

HSE UK. (2014). Health and safety in water supply; sewerage, waste management & remediation

activities ( Water and waste ) sector in Great Britain , 2014 / 15, 1–13.

Ratnasingam, J., Natthondan, V., Ioras, F. & McNulty, T. (2010). Dust, Noise & Chemical

Solvents Exposure of Workers in the Wooden Furniture Industry in South East Asia. Journal

of Applied Sciences, 10: 1413-1420.Lohr, S. L. (2010). Sampling: Design and analysis.

Boston: Brooks/Cole, 47-48.

Mehta, R.K., Agnew, M.J., (2010). Analysis of individual & occupational risk factors on task

performance & biomechanical demands for a simulated drilling task. IJIE 40 (5), 584–591.

Mohamed Taufek, F. H., Zulkifle, Z., Abdul Kadir, S. Z. (2016). Safety & Health Practices &

Injury Management in Manufacturing Industry. Procedia Economics and Finance, 35 (Oct.

2015), 706-712.

Occupational Safety and Health Master Plan (OSHMP 2020).

Osman, R., Awang, N., & Yusof, S. A. H. S. H. N. M. (2015). Level of awareness BBS in

manufacturing sector towards reducing workplace incidents. International Journal of

Education and Research, 3(1), 77–88.

P.Balsari, P.Cielo, & R.Zanuttini (1999). Risk for the Health of Workers in Plywood

Manufacturing: A Case Study in Italy. Journal of Forest Engineering, 10(2).

Sarok, A., & Susil, J. (2012). Occupational Hazards in the Workplace: A Case of an Electronic

Company in Sama Jaya, Kuching, Sarawak. Asian Journal of Business Research, 2(1).

Social Security Organization. (2016). https://www.perkeso.gov.my/index.php/en/report/annual-

report. (accessed March 2020).

15