Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Heliyon
journal homepage: www.cell.com/heliyon

Assessing the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the performance

indicators of safety management using the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP) in an electricity industry
Mohammad Ali Esmaeili a, Mohammad Reza Ghotbi Ravandi b, Sajad Zare b, *
a
Student Research Committee, Department of Occupational Health Engineering and Safety at Work, Faculty of Public Health, Kerman University of
Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran
b
Department of Occupational Health Engineering and Safety at Work, Faculty of Public Health, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman,
Iran

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Introduction: The importance of evaluating the performance of different management systems in
Analytic hierarchy process industries necessitates examining the performance of the Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE)
Performance indicator management system along with other management systems. Particularly during the COVID-19
Safety
pandemic, there is a greater need than ever to assess the impact of the COVID-19 spread on
COVID-19
the performance of the HSE management system compared to before this pandemic. This research
aims to investigate safety performance indicators (SPIs) on the performance of the HSE man­
agement system and the impact of the COVID-19 spread on these indicators.
Methods: This cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study was conducted to evaluate the influ­
ence of the COVID-19 outbreak on the safety performance to revise the industry safety index in an
electricity distribution company using the multi-criteria decision-making method before and after
the disease epidemic in three stages. In the first part, the safety indicators were identified ac­
cording to the comprehensive safety indicators available in the industries and experts’ opinions.
In the second part, safety indicators were ranked, weighted, and prioritized using the Analytic
Hierarchy Process (AHP). In the third part, these indicators were calculated and compared in the
periods before and after the outbreak of COVID-19.
Results: Two main criteria, namely the “effectiveness criterion” and the “applicability/calculation
criterion”, were identified for the evaluation and pairwise comparisons of performance indicators.
Among these two criteria, the applicability/calculation criterion had higher priority and impor­
tance for the evaluation of indicators. Pairwise comparisons of the indicators indicated that the
“accident frequency rate” and “safe T-factor” indicators (with weights of 0.238 and 0.023
respectively) had the highest and lowest priorities, respectively, for the assessment of organiza­
tional safety performance among the SPIs.
Conclusion: Based on the calculations of the indicators and their analyses before and after the
outbreak of COVID-19, the current status of the safety performance of the HSE unit was not
significantly affected by this pandemic. However, the investigations carried out while collecting
the data needed to calculate the indicators and evaluate the performance of this unit demon­
strated that some indicators were not considered sufficiently in the studied electricity industry.
Since conducting regular performance evaluations greatly impacts the achievement of continuous

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: ss_zare87@yahoo.com (S. Zare).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e16727
Received 22 July 2022; Received in revised form 19 April 2023; Accepted 25 May 2023
Available online 26 May 2023
2405-8440/© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

improvement, more attention should be paid to compiled indicators, which should be periodically
assessed in the organization to achieve continuous improvement.

1. Introduction

In the current highly competitive world, many organizations also consider Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) management as
an indispensable and necessary part of the organization and value it in parallel with other management systems [1]. The effectiveness
of the HSE management system is an important factor to achieve the goals of the organization in the field of safety, health, and
environment. Obviously, accidents, occupational diseases, and environmental damages cause lots of direct and indirect damage to
organizations [2]. By monitoring the organization’s safety and minimizing injuries and occupational diseases, HSE management can
advance industrial activities toward sustainable development. Factors affecting the sustainable development, productivity, and
profitability of an organization include the health of human resources, the protection and improvement of the efficiency of equipment
and facilities, and environmental protection, and all kinds of protection from these factors will ultimately increase the productivity of
an organization [3].
In all organizations, performance evaluation of management systems is an important factor influencing sustainable development.
Organizations measure the performance of an HSE management system by planning and determining performance indicators and
examining the effectiveness of their performance. The identification of HSE performance indicators to measure and analyze man­
agement performance reduces safety and environmental risks and ultimately paves the ground to achieve sustainable development in
relevant operations. The HSE unit is a service or independent business unit that needs a performance evaluation system [4]. The
methods used in the performance evaluation of HSE have so far mostly relied on the indicators that draw the past performance; hence
these methods are not sufficiently efficient in drawing the performance results in the past. However, one of the effective methods of
evaluating the performance of the HSE management system is to examine the status of the safety, health and environment performance
indicators which are generally known as leading indicators in industries [5]. In the industrial context, the introduction of indicators
has proven to be a useful tool for obtaining information about the internal consequences of activities and processes so that potential
risks can be monitored [6].
Using and evaluating safety performance indicators as one of the leading indicators helps the organization in evaluating the safety
situation as well as predicting and preventing incidents [7]. During the outbreak of COVID-19, the evaluation of safety performance
became very important so that de Oliveira Neto et al. stated that the spread of this pandemic can have a significant negative effect on
the safety and health performance of an industry [8]. In another study, Nnaji et al. stated that, this pandemic could exacerbate an
already fire safety and health situation in the industry, adversely affecting construction workers and employers [9].
Decision-making is defined as the process of determining the best option among all available options. Nonetheless, in most cases, it
is difficult to achieve the optimum result as decision-makers often face various problems when it comes to making certain decisions.
Multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is one of the most commonly used methods in the decision-making process and is used to
identify the best of all available choices [10]. There are numerous techniques to perform MCDM, including AHP, superiority and
inferiority ranking (SIR), Simos ’ranking method, multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), and elimination and choice corresponding to
reality (ELECTRE) [11]. The analytic hierarchy process (AHP) is used in making decisions based on quantitative and qualitative
criteria. In this analysis, different options are assessed together based on different criteria such that the elements of each level are
compared with their respective elements at a higher level to select the best option or suitable options [12]. The AHP is very compatible
with the thinking style and cognitive processes of humans, and its algorithm is based on mathematical logic, making it a highly efficient
method that has been used to solve many decision-making problems [13]. This technique examines a problem or a factor hierar­
chically, from goal to criteria, sub-criteria, and alternatives at successive levels [14]. A hierarchical assessment provides experts with
an overview of intrinsic complex relationships in a certain field and allows them to compare various factors based on their weight using
a 9-level scale [15].
Various studies have been conducted in order to make decisions in the field of safety management using the AHP technique. For
example, In the study of Bragatto et al. A questionnaire was developed to assess the safety resilience of organizations. In their study, a
two-level AHP model was developed to define the weight assigned to each point of questionnaire. The AHP panel included practi­
tioners from industry, regulators, authorities and researchers. The results are based on their experience with COVID-19, and as a result
the model developed is tailored to address health emergencies. They also stated the approach easily can translates to other external
crises [16]. Hadidi and Khater in a study, developed an AHP model that is applied to rank Turnaround maintenance contractors’
selection. In this study, they defined main needed safety attributes to prequalify contractors [17]. In another study Jabbari et al.
applied fuzzy analytical hierarchy process to weigh and priorate fire, explosion and release of toxic gas risk in the context of safety
management of gas pipelines [18].
At the end of December 2019, the outbreak of an unknown type of pneumonia was reported in Wuhan, China, which was very
similar to other types of viral pneumonia. This virus, which belongs to the Beta coronavirus family with many natural hosts like other
viruses, was named COVID-19 by the World Health Organization (WHO) [19]. This virus is known as the most dangerous virus in the
branch of pneumonia-causing viruses [20]. After the global spread of this virus and the increased cases of infection with this virus, the
spread of the coronavirus was introduced as the sixth reason for declaring a global health emergency and a threat to the whole world by
the WHO on January 30, 2020 [21]. The spread of this virus has influenced the performance of various industries and has even led to
the widespread national and global cessation of many industrial units, production units, markets, and other supply chain activities

2
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

[22]. According to one of the existing theories, organizations will be propelled to change production systems and supply chains more
sustainably in the post-COVID-19 era. Accordingly, there is a need to develop sufficient organizational and operational policies to
overcome the existing losses, which will further flourish the industries [23].
Further consideration of the crisis and its effects on different industries may encourage management systems to better prepare for
different types of crises and the resulting shocks in the future. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the impact of the COVID-
19 outbreak on the safety performance indicators (SPIs) to evaluate the safety performance of the industry during this pandemic and
help to increase the understanding of industries about the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the industry and their performance.

2. Methods

2.1. Study design

This cross-sectional, descriptive-analytical study was designed to identify and evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on
safety performance and compare it with the situation before this pandemic to revise the industry safety index in an electricity dis­
tribution company using a multi-criteria decision-making method. The periods before and after the COVID-19 pandemic were
determined based on consultation with the company. Fig. 1 shows study flow diagram for applying AHP method [24]. Accordingly, the
present study was conducted based on the following two main parts.

2.2. Determining the hierarchical structure of prioritizing and weighting SPIs before and after the outbreak of COVID-19

According to previous studies, the number of experts is not very important in decision-making using the AHP method, but the
competence of the experts participating in the decision-making process is more important [25]. In the studied industry, we only had
access to 8 qualified experts, including university professors, health and safety experts, and supervisors with more than 1 years’
experience, were selected for this study. The experts were asked to complete two questionnaires, namely a comparative questionnaire
to evaluate the criteria and a questionnaire to assess the solutions based on the criteria. In this study, two main criteria and 11 al­
ternatives (safety indicators) were identified (Table 1) according to field studies and experts’ opinions.

2.3. Performance and prioritization of the AHP in ranking, weighting, and determining SPIs

The main steps of the AHP methodology were summarized as follows.

2.3.1. Step 1: creating a hierarchical structure of the problem, based on the decomposition of the problem into constituent elements

2.3.1.1. Setting the goals, criteria, and alternatives. In this study, criteria and alternatives should first be determined to prioritize and

Fig. 1. Study flow diagram (The process of applying AHP).

3
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

Table 1
Two Main criteria and eleven (safety) indicators identified in the studied electricity company.
Varieable Definition

Goal Prioritizing and weighting SPIs of the organization’s

Criterions A Effectiveness criterion
B Applicability/calculation criterion
Safrty indicators C Accident frequency rate (accident rate/effective working hours)
9
D Accident severity rate (lost days due to the accident/effective working hours)
E Accident frequency severity
F Safety training (person/h)
G Incidence rate
H Safe T-score
I index of performing safety maneuvers (Percentage)
J index of the number of performed risk assessments (Percentage)
K index of the number of performed corrective actions (Percentage)
L index of the number of performed safety audits (Percentage)
M index of the number of distributed personal protective equipment (Percentage)

weight SPIs by means of AHP. The study aims to prioritize and weight the control measures of sound engineering.

2.3.1.2. Drawing the AHP network. To draw the AHP network, a connectivity matrix is first specified in which the rows and columns
both contain influencing factors. Then, the final structure of the problem is obtained in the form of a tree. In general terms, it can be
stated that the method for making a hierarchy depends on the type of decision to be taken. The goal is placed at the top of the AHP
network, and the criteria are displayed afterward [26]. The alternatives lie at the lowest level of this network. Fig. 2 depicts the
relationship between the goal of the study (prioritization and weighting of safety indicators), study criteria, and identified indicators.

2.3.1.3. Designing the questionnaires and preference judgment (pairwise comparisons). As input to the AHP, a questionnaire should be
designed to collect the opinions of the target community and perform paired comparisons based on these questionnaires. To do this, a
questionnaire containing criteria and alternatives is designed based on Saaty’s nine-point scale and is offered to technical and health
occupational experts in several industries who are active in the specialized field of sound control and management, after which the
criteria and alternatives are determined based on the experts’ score. The selected cases are used based on the AHP method to determine
the weighting of sound engineering control measures [27]. Experts should score each question between 1 and 9, which respectively
indicate the same importance of two elements and very high importance of one element versus the other one.
Following guide is useful for filling out the questionnaire according to the 1–9 Saaty scale:
Experts must give each question a score from 1 to 9. A score of 1 indicates the equal importance of the two elements, and a score of 9
indicates the great significance of one element in comparison to another element. The degree of importance of the scores (1–9) in the
pairwise comparisons has been presented in the Table 2 [27].

2.3.2. Step 2: comparing the weight of the constituent elements of the problem based on their characteristics to form a reciprocal matrix
The AHP analyses difficult and complex problems to convert them into a simple form and solves such issues. This method is widely
used in economic and social issues and has also been used in management issues in recent years. To solve a problem or decision, two

Fig. 2. Relationships between the aim of the study (prioritization and weighting of safety indicators), study criteria, and identified indicators.

4
 M.A. Esmaeili et al.
Table 2
The guide for filling out the questionnaire according to Saaty scale [27].
Numerical value 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
5

Degree of importance in Similar Similar importance to a Relative Relative to a Strong Strong to a very Very to a strong Very strong to an Extremely strong
the pairwise importance relative preference preference strong preference preference strong preference preference extremely strong preference
comparison preference

Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

steps (i) calculation of weights and (ii) system compatibility should be taken after making the structure of the problem [28].

2.3.2.1. Calculation of SPIs weights. The relative weight is obtained from a pairwise comparison matrix (PCM), while the absolute
weight is the final rank of each option, which is calculated by combining the relative weights.

2.3.3. Calculation of SPIs relative weights

In the AHP, the elements are first compared in pairs to form a PCM, and then the relative weights of the elements are calculated
using this matrix. In general, a PCM is shown as below, where aij is the preference of the i-th element to the j-th element, and the
weights of elements, i.e. the wis, are obtained according to the values of aijs (Equation (1)) [28].

⎡ a11 a12 …. a1n ⎤

⎢ a12 a22 …. a2n ⎥

A=⎣ ⎦ (1)
….
a1n an2 ann
/ /
Where aij = 1 (positive reciprocal) and aij = aik .
aji ajk
Each PCM may be consistent or inconsistent; in the former case, the weight (wi) is calculated simply by normalizing the elements of
each column. In an inconsistent matrix, the weight calculation is not simple and is obtained using four methods (least squares method,
logarithmic least squares method, eigenvector method, and approximation methods) [28].

2.3.3.1. Calculation of SPIs final weight. In an AHP, the final weight of each option is obtained from the sum of the product of the
importance of the criteria by the weight of the options as follow (Equations (2) and (3)):
w1 … wj … wn
w1 ⎡ w /w /
1 1 … w1 wj … w1 /wn ⎤
⋮ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥
W = wi ⎢
⎢ w /w / ⎥
⎥ (2)
⎢ i 1 … wi wj … wi /wn ⎥
⋮ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⎦
wn /
wn /w1 … wn wj … wn /wn

By multiplying W by w we have:

w1 …wj … wn
w1 /
⎡ w /w
1 1 … w1 wj … w1 /wn ⎤ ⎡ w1 ⎤ ⎡ w1 ⎤
⋮ ⎢ ⎥ ⋮ ⋮
⎢ ⋮ ⋮ ⋮ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
⎢ ⎥ ⎢ ⎥
W.w = wi ⎢
⎢ w /w / ⎥
⎥ ⎢ wj ⎥ = n⎢ wj ⎥ (3)
⎢ i 1 … wi wj … wi /wn ⎥ ⎣ ⎦ ⎣ ⎦
⋮ ⎢ ⎥ ⋮ ⋮
⎢ ⋮ ⎥
⎣ ⋮ ⋮ ⎦
wn / wn wn
wn /w1 … wn wj … wn /wn

By solving equation (2.3), the eigenvalue of the problem is obtained, then the comparative weights can be obtained by finding the
eigenvector w with the corresponding λmax.

2.3.4. Step 3: calculation of inconsistency ratio

A matrix may be consistent or inconsistent; in the former case, the weight is calculated simply by normalizing the elements of
individual columns. In an inconsistent matrix, however, the weight is obtained using several methods. In addition to weight calculation
in inconsistent matrices, calculating the inconsistency ratio (IR) is of paramount importance. It can generally be stated that the
acceptable IR of a matrix or a system depends on the decision-maker, but Saaty introduces 0.1 as an acceptable limit and believes that
the judgment should be reconsidered if the IR is more than 0.1 [28].
The inconsistency ratio is calculated as follows (Equation (4)):
λmax − n
IR = (4)
n− 1

where λmax is the largest eigenvalue, and n denotes the numbers of the attributes.
The consistency ratio is obtained by dividing the inconsistency ratio by the random inconsistency index according to the Equation
(5):

6
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

IR
CR = (5)
R.I.I
The values of the inconsistency index (I.I.) have been calculated for the matrices whose numbers are chosen completely randomly,
named the random inconsistency index (R.I.I.), whose values are for n-dimensional matrices according to the Table 3.
For each matrix, the result of dividing the I.I. by its same-dimensional R.I.I. is then a suitable criterion to judge inconsistency, called
the inconsistency ratio (I.R.). If this number is < 0.1, the consistency of the system is acceptable, otherwise, it is necessary to reconsider
the judgments. After ensuring the acceptability of obtained priorities, the average of the submitted opinions will be calculated using
the geometric mean method with the coefficients of each PCM. Before introducing different people’s opinions to the software, they
must be integrated and consolidated in the form of a questionnaire [22], for which the geometric mean formula will be used according
to Equation (6):
/
( )1
∏n n
√̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅̅
ai = n a1 a2 a3 …an (6)
i=1

2.4. Analysis of data

The SPIs of the organization were evaluated and prioritized using Expert Choice software.

2.5. Ethics code

The present study was approved by the ethics committee (with the code IR. KMU.REC.1401.030) at Kerman University of Medical
Sciences.

3. Results

3.1. Prioritization and weighting of safety indicators as the subset of HSE performance indicators

3.1.1. Pairwise comparisons of criteria based on the goal of the problem (with an inconsistency rate of 0)
Table 4 represents the pairwise comparisons of the criteria based on the goal of the problem. According to the results, the criterion
of applicability and calculation had a higher priority than the effectiveness criterion.

3.1.2. Pairwise comparisons of SPIs based on the criterion A = effectiveness (with an inconsistency rate of 0.079)
Pairwise comparisons of SPIs presented based on the performance criteria of each indicator are shown in Table 5. Based on the
effectiveness criterion, the “accident severity rate (ASR)” indicator had a higher priority for evaluating the organization’s safety
performance than the other indicators. As shown in this table, the next priorities belong to the “accident frequency severity (AFS)” and
“accident frequency rate (AFR)” indicators. Additionally, the “safety training” and “number of distributed personal protective
equipment” indicators had the lowest priorities for evaluating the organization’s safety performance.

3.1.3. Pairwise comparisons of SPIs based on the criterion B = applicability and calculation (with an inconsistency rate of 0.092)
Table 6 shows the pairwise comparisons of SPIs based on the criterion of applicability and calculation for each indicator. According
to this criterion, the “AFR” and “safety training index” indicators had higher priorities for evaluating the organization’s safety per­
formance than the other indicators. The mentioned criterion also indicated that the “AFS” and “ASR” indicators had lower priorities for
evaluating the organization’s safety performance than the other indicators.
As shown in all above tables (Tables 2–4), all the IRs of the above PCM are <0.1, which is a desirable result.

3.1.4. The weight and normalized rank of each criterion

According to the results of the normalized weights and ranks of individual criteria presented in Table 7, the criterion of “appli­
cability and calculation” has a higher weight and priority for evaluating the safety performance indicators of the organization.

3.1.5. Normalized weights of individual SPIs in terms of each criterion

According to Table 8, the normalized weights of individual indicators based on the efficiency criterion revealed that “ASR” and
“AFR” indicators regarding the criterion of applicability and calculation had the highest priorities for evaluating the safety perfor­
mance of the relevant organization.

Table 3
Inconsistency index of the random matrix.
n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

R.I.I. 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.45 1.45

7
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

Table 4
Pairwise comparisons of criteria based on the goal of the problem (with an incon­
sistency rate of 0).
based on the goal A B

A 1 0.139
B 7.164 1

Table 5
Pairwise comparisons of indicators based on the criterion A = effectiveness (with an inconsistency rate of 0.079).
Based on effectiveness C D E F G H I J K L M

C 1 0.639 1.009 7.348 1.706 2.651 4.375 3.421 2.794 8.015 7.341
D 1.565 1 1.425 8.361 1.859 7.632 8.737 7.855 7.963 8.027 7.068
E 0.991 0.702 1 6.734 1.028 2.239 6.472 6.783 6.047 8.581 7.613
F 0.136 0.120 0.149 1 0.153 0.153 0.365 0.314 0.410 1.123 0.289
G 0.586 0.538 0.973 6.529 1 1.242 1.376 7.345 6.667 6.386 7.575
H 0.377 0.131 0.447 6.546 0.805 1 0.937 1.784 6.322 8.756 7.098
I 0.229 0.114 0.155 2.741 0.727 1.067 1 1.616 1.496 6.194 6.555
J 0.292 0.127 0.147 3.182 0.136 0.561 0.619 1 1.231 7.068 7.381
K 0.358 0.126 0.165 2.437 0.150 0.158 0.668 0.812 1 1.725 1.589
L 0.125 0.125 0.117 0.890 0.157 0.114 0.161 0.141 0.580 1 1.014
M 0.136 0.141 0.131 3.463 0.132 0.141 0.153 0.135 0.629 0.986 1

Table 6
Pairwise comparisons of indicators based on the criterion B = applicability and calculation (with an inconsistency rate of 0.092).
Based on applicability and calculation C D E F G H I J K L M

C 1 6.664 7.614 1.257 7.058 8.641 3.743 2.357 3.124 6.547 7.016
D 0.150 1 1.582 0.128 0.117 1.246 0.158 0.130 0.119 0.136 0.167
E 0.131 0.632 1 0.135 0.139 0.906 0.132 0.118 0.136 0.161 0.130
F 0.796 7.841 7.383 1 2.164 5.318 5.822 1.634 2.463 1.196 6.773
G 0.142 8.523 7.170 0.462 1 6.891 0.590 0.126 0.271 0.390 1.603
H 0.116 0.803 1.104 0.188 0.145 1 0.118 0.136 0.132 0.147 0.134
I 0.267 6.312 7.554 0.172 1.694 8.492 1 0.394 0.427 0.316 2.314
J 0.424 7.698 8.491 0.612 7.934 7.346 2.541 1 1.054 2.641 4.712
K 0.320 8.410 7.366 0.406 3.687 7.568 2.341 0.949 1 1.621 5.047
L 0.153 7.346 6.224 0.836 2.561 6.805 3.164 0.379 0.617 1 3.491
M 0.143 6.003 7.714 0.148 0.624 7.462 0.432 0.212 0.198 0.286 1

Table 7
Normalized weights and ranks of individual criteria.
Criterion Criterion name Weight Rank

A Effectiveness criterion 0.12249 2

B Applicability/calculation criterion 0.87751 1
Total weight 1

3.1.6. Final normalized weights and ranks of individual SPIs

According Table 9, the final normalized weights and ranks of the indicators showed that the “AFR” and “safety training” indicators,
with weights of 0.238747 and 0.152497 respectively, had the utmost effectiveness and priority for evaluating the organization’s safety
performance. Moreover, the “safe T-score” and “AFS” indicators, with weights of 0.023129 and 0.032971 respectively, possessed the
lowest priorities for evaluating the organization’s safety performance.

3.2. Calculations and comparisons of SPIs before and after the COVID-19 pandemic

Table 10 indicates the decrease in the majority of safety indicators in 2020 due to the increased training hours compared to those in
2019, suggesting the positive effect of training on the safety of the organization.

4. Discussion

The present study aimed to investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on SPIs in the electricity industry. HSE requirements
are an essential part of the management process of organizations and firms. The statistics of occupational accidents and injuries are still

8
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

Table 8
The normalized weights of individual indicators in terms of each criterion.
Indicators Indicators name Weight based on effectiveness Weight based on Applicability/calculation
criterion criterion

C Accident frequency rate 0.1519 0.2509

D Accident severity rate 0.2628 0.0149
E Accident frequency severity 0.1745 0.0132
F Safety training (person/h) 0.0164 0.1715
G Incidence rate 0.1337 0.0556
H Safe T-score 0.0879 0.0141
I Percentage index of performing safety maneuvers 0.0600 0.0657
J Percentage index of the number of performed risk assessments 0.0489 0.1529
K Percentage index of the number of performed corrective 0.0292 0.1198
actions
L Percentage index of the number of performed safety audits 0.0153 0.0971
M Percentage index of the number of distributed personal 0.0194 0.0443
protective equipment
Total 1 1
weight

Table 9
Final normalized weights and ranks of individual indicators.
Indicators Indicator’s name Weight Rank

C Accident frequency rate 0.238747 1

F Safety training (person/h) 0.152497 2
J Percentage index of the number of performed risk assessments 0.140162 3
K Percentage index of the number of performed corrective actions 0.108689 4
L Percentage index of the number of performed safety audits 0.087095 5
G Incidence rate 0.065155 6
I Percentage index of performing safety maneuvers 0.065037 7
D Accident severity rate 0.045262 8
M Percentage index of the number of distributed personal protective equipment 0.041256 9
E Accident frequency severity 0.032971 10
H Safe T-score 0.023129 11
Total Weight 1 –

Table 10
Status of SPIs before and after the outbreak of COVID-19.
Indicator Year

2019 2020

Accident frequency rate 0.11 0.1

Accident severity rate 675.5 610.3
Accident frequency severity 0.27 0.24
Safety training (person/h) 1.5 11.8
Incidence rate 1.5 1
Safe T-factor − 1.5 − 0.1
Percentage index of performing safety maneuvers 69.6 67.2
Percentage index of the number of performed risk assessments – –
Percentage index of the number of performed corrective actions – 100
Percentage index of the number of performed safety audits 100 100
Percentage index of the number of distributed personal protective equipment – –

high despite the implementation of HSE programs [29]. Evaluating the performance of management systems is a major concern of
managers, which is not exempt from the HSE system [30]. Managers want to know whether or not all the elements of an implemented
management system are working properly and whether the effect of the implemented system is as expected [31]. The need to create a
precise performance evaluation system in the area of HSE has been emphasized in many studies [32–35]. A study considers the
necessary existence of an HSE system as a management tool to monitor and confirm the effective establishment of the HSE policy in
every organization and factory, along with an emphasis on the performance evaluation of this sector periodically [35]. The present
study was conducted on an Electricity Company, a leading industry in the field of HSE and a company with a comprehensive man­
agement system throughout the organization. The performance of this industry was evaluated in terms of HSE in the COVID-19
pandemic and the extent to which the performance of this organization was influenced by the spread of this disease.
Based on the abovementioned issues, SPIs were first identified and then evaluated in this research based on some criteria. Two main

9
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

criteria, namely applicability and effectiveness, were used in prioritization. Applicability refers to the extent to which the intended
index can be calculated in terms of cost, facilities, and currently available data. This criterion is opposed to the effectiveness criterion,
meaning the extent to which the performance of the field covered by that index can be accurately evaluated by calculating this index.
The results of the current study, which is based on experts’ opinions, indicates that the applicability criterion has a higher priority than
the effectiveness criterion. Therefore, the applicability and calculation indicator should first be considered in the calculation of in­
dicators, followed by examining the effectiveness criterion. This result is defensible from a logical point of view because if an index has
the best effectiveness but it is not applicable and calculable, it will have no role in performance evaluation., The applicability and
calculation of performance indicators, as well as the rationality of the process of safety management systems, were also emphasized in
a review study on the literature on safety management systems in 2018 [36], the results of which are similar to ours regarding the
applicability and calculation of indicators.
Based on the pairwise comparisons of the SPIs presented based on the criterion of applicability and calculation of each indicator,
the “AFR” and “safety training” indicators had a higher priority for evaluating the organization’s safety performance than the other
indicators. According to the effectiveness criterion, a higher priority was recorded for the “ASR” indicator in evaluating the safety
performance of the organization than the other indicators. In a study conducted in 2020, all the above three indicators were used as
performance indicators to investigate the impact of an occupational health and safety management system on the organizational HSE
performance in a casting industry over 5 years [37].
A comparison of the results of the “AFR” indicator revealed no significant differences between before and after the spread of
COVID-19. The results of the study disclosed that the outbreak of COVID-19 did not influence the year-long number of accidents in the
studied electricity industry. Nevertheless, the comparison of the “safety training” indicator indicated that safety training increased
significantly after the COVID-19 pandemic. One of the main reasons for this result may be because society and consequently the
company managers focused more on the health of human resources after the COVID-19 pandemic than before, providing an oppor­
tunity to allocate more time and expense of the organization to educational topics. A similar study emphasizes education during the
COVID-19 pandemic by reporting a considerable increase in education during the outbreak of the disease, along with an emphasis on
the leadership role of managers in education [38]. A significant difference was observed in the comparison of the “percentage of
performed corrective measures” in the safety area before and after the spread of COVID-19. As such, no corrective measures were taken
before the disease, but all the corrective measures were taken after this pandemic. It seems that the activities of the electricity industry
are followed up more seriously due to the COVID-19 pandemic than before. A major reason for this assumption is that the importance
of people’s health has been highlighted at all social levels during the COVID-19 period. This importance has been transferred from the
world community to countries and from politicians of countries to managers of organizations and the general public. On the other
hand, the increased awareness of the personnel has increased their demands regarding the provision of a safe work environment, and
this demand has driven more serious follow-up of corrective measures and improvement of workplace conditions. In 2021, a study on
nurses’ demands and views in the care environments of COVID-19-infected patients reported an increase in nurses’ demands to create a
safer environment than before [39]. In another study conducted in 2021, the perceived risk of infection with COVID-19 by personnel
was reported to cause emotional exhaustion, and the existence of safety systems, communication, decision-making, and participation
in decision-making would reduce the perceived risk. Consequently, organizations were recommended to reduce the risk of infection
with the virus in work environments by taking intervention measures [40].
In the study conducted by Bragatto et al. [16], the AHP method was also used for weighting and prioritizing safety performance
indicators during COVID-19 pandemic. The results of their study showed that risk assessment, operating control, and resources in­
dicators with weights of 24.3%, 22.1%, and 15.5%, respectively, are in the first to third priorities of the effective indicators in
evaluating safety performance [16]. Based on this, the results of our study also showed that the indicators of accident frequency rate,
safety training and risk assessments have weights of 23.8% and 15.2%, respectively. 14% were in the first to third priorities. Besides
this, it can be said that the results of both studies are consistent. Also, in another study conducted by Kusrini and Maswadi [41] in order
to prioritize indicators for improving the performance of supply chain management in a palm oil industry using F-AHP technique
during COVID-19, among the safety and health indicators, the “Increasing the health and safety of employees” indicator with a weight
of 0.502 had the most influential weight. In addition, the “Significant reduction in work-related deaths” indicator with a weight of
0.382 was ranked second. Also, in the current study, the indicators that led to the improvement of workers’ safety and health and the
reduction of their deaths, such as the indicators of safety training and the indicators of corrective actions carried out in the industry,
have a high impact weight compared to others.
In addition, in the study of Guo and Wu [42], which was conducted in order to evaluate the performance of the supply chain of
manufacturing companies using the fuzzy-AHP-DEMATEL-VIKOR technique in the period of COVID-19, it was stated that the in­
dicators of the frequency of product safety incidents and the frequency Export control safety incidents are two valuable and effective
indicators on the social sustainability of the supply chain in the organization that should be taken into account. The findings were
completely in line with the results of the present study, which showed that the accident frequency rate indicator has the greatest impact
on the organization’s safety performance.
Altogether, the status of safety indicators in the studied electricity industry has relatively improved in 2020 compared to before the
spread of COVID-19 in 2018. This relative improvement can be justified for two reasons, one of which is the improved “safety training”
indicator that could effectively improve overall safety as indicated by the results. Another reason is a 100% improvement in the in­
dicator of “percentage of performed corrective measures”. Obviously, the elimination of shortcomings and the follow-up and complete
implementation of corrective measures will play a significant role in improving the overall status of safety.
One of the limitations of the existing study was the organization’s lack of access to the appropriate system for recording information
related to indicators after the outbreak of COVID-19. For this reason, comparing the status of safety performance indicators in the time

10
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

period before and after the outbreak of COVID-19 was completely dependent on the opinion of experts working in the studied industry.
Another limitation of this study was the lack of proper cooperation of experts working in the studied industry, and to overcome this
problem, a decision-making technique such as AHP was used, which was simple to use for them. And another limitation of this study
was the evaluation and collection of experts’ opinions. To overcome this problem, we used the Expert choice software, which is a
specialized software for evaluating the opinions of experts in the field of MCDM.

5. Conclusion

According to the calculations of the indicators and their analyses in the period before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, the current
condition of the safety performance of the HSE unit was not considerably affected by the outbreak of this disease. However, the in­
vestigations performed during the collection of data required to calculate the indicators and evaluate the performance of this unit
revealed that some indicators were not sufficiently paid attention to in the studied electricity company. Despite this issue, these in­
dicators play an effective role in HSE performance, workforce health, and reduction of occupational accidents. Some of the mentioned
indicators include the percentage of risk assessment, the percentage of corrective measures, and the prevalence of occupational dis­
eases. In these indicators, risk assessment has not been done regularly and annually, and corrective measures have only been taken in
the area of safety. Annual risk assessment allows regular access to the pros and cons of an organization’s performance. Consequently,
corrective measures in all areas of HSE will considerably reduce the number of accidents, improve the health of the workplace and
workforce, and ultimately increase the work efficiency of the organization.

Author contribution statement

Mohammad Ali Esmaeili: Performed the experiments; Wrote the paper. Sajad Zare: Conceived and designed the experiments;
Contributed reagents, materials, analysis tools or data. Mohammad Reza Ghotbi ravandi: Analyzed and interpreted the data.

Data availability statement

No data was used for the research described in the article.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

Acknowledgements

This article was extracted from a thesis written by Mohammad Ali Esmaeili. We are deeply grateful of Health Modeling Research
Center and the research deputy of Kerman University of Medical Sciences.

References

[1] H. Sarkheil, S. Rahbari, HSE Key Performance indicators in HSE-MS establishment and sustainability: a case of south pars gas complex, Iran, Int. J. Occup. Hyg. 8
(1) (2016) 45–53.
[2] A. Nikulin, A.Y. Nikulina, Assessment of occupational health and safety effectiveness at a mining company, Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 23 (1) (2017) 351–355.
[3] M. Mapar, M.J. Jafari, N. Mansouri, R. Arjmandi, R. Azizinezhad, T.B. Ramos, A composite index for sustainability assessment of health, safety and
environmental performance in municipalities of megacities, Sustain. Cities Soc. 60 (2020), 102164.
[4] A framework to quantitatively assess safety performance for civil aviation organization, in: M. Chen, M. Luo, Y. Zhang, Y. Chen (Eds.), International Conference
on Human-Computer Interaction, Springer, 2019.
[5] I. Mohammadfam, M. Kamalinia, M. Momeni, R. Golmohammadi, Y. Hamidi, A. Soltanian, Evaluation of the quality of occupational health and safety
management systems based on key performance indicators in certified organizations, Safety and Health at Work 8 (2) (2017) 156–161.
[6] B. Fabiano, M. Pettinato, F. Currò, A.P. Reverberi, A field study on human factor and safety performances in a downstream oil industry, Saf. Sci. 153 (2022),
105795.
[7] D. Eskandari, M.J. Gharabagh, A. Barkhordari, N. Gharari, D. Panahi, A. Gholami, G. Teimori-Boghsani, Development of a scale for assessing the organization’s
safety performance based fuzzy ANP, J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 69 (2021), 104342.
[8] G.C. de Oliveira Neto, H.N. Tucci, M. Godinho Filho, W.C. Lucato, D. da Silva, Moderating effect of OHS actions based on WHO recommendations to mitigate the
effects of COVID-19 in multinational companies, Process Saf. Environ. Protect. 159 (2022) 652–661.
[9] C. Nnaji, Z. Jin, A. Karakhan, Safety and health management response to COVID-19 in the construction industry: a perspective of fieldworkers, Process Saf.
Environ. Protect. 159 (2022) 477–488.
[10] M. Gul, A review of occupational health and safety risk assessment approaches based on multi-criteria decision-making methods and their fuzzy versions, Hum.
Ecol. Risk Assess. 24 (7) (2018 Oct 3) 1723–1760.
[11] A. Darko, A.P. Chan, E.E. Ameyaw, E.K. Owusu, E. Parn, D.J. Edwards, Review of application of analytic hierarchy process (AHP) in construction, Int. J. Constr.
Manag. 19 (5) (2019 Sep 3) 436–452.
[12] K. Zhang, J. Zhan, W.-Z. Wu, On multicriteria decision-making method based on a fuzzy rough set model with fuzzy alpha neighborhoods, IEEE Trans. Fuzzy
Syst. 29 (9) (2020) 2491–2505.
[13] L. Fei, Y. Deng, Multi-criteria decision making in Pythagorean fuzzy environment, Appl. Intell. 50 (2) (2020) 537–561.
[14] Y. Liu, C.M. Eckert, C. Earl, A review of fuzzy AHP methods for decision-making with subjective judgements, Expert Syst. Appl. 161 (2020), 113738.

11
M.A. Esmaeili et al. Heliyon 9 (2023) e16727

[15] S. Zare, A. Rahmani, J. Korouzhdeh, M. Hajghani, R. Rostami, R. Esmaeili, Evaluation of environmental sound pressure level, drawing of noise-isosonic map
using surfer V. 19, and prioritization of engineering noise control methods using the analytic hierarchy process (AHP): a field study in CGS stations, Sound Vib.
56 (3) (2022) 275–291.
[16] P. Bragatto, T. Vairo, M.F. Milazzo, B. Fabiano, The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the safety management in Italian Seveso industries, J. Loss Prev.
Process. Ind. 70 (2021), 104393.
[17] L.A. Hadidi, M.A. Khater, Loss prevention in turnaround maintenance projects by selecting contractors based on safety criteria using the analytic hierarchy
process (AHP), J. Loss Prev. Process. Ind. 34 (2015) 115–126.
[18] M. Jabbari, R. Gholamnia, R. Esmaeili, H. Kouhpaee, G. Pourtaghi, Risk assessment of fire, explosion and release of toxic gas of Siri–Assalouyeh sour gas pipeline
using fuzzy analytical hierarchy process, Heliyon 7 (8) (2021), e07835.
[19] F. Danesh, S. Ghavidel, Coronavirus: scientometrics of 50 Years of global scientific productions, Iran. J. Med. Microbiol. 14 (1) (2020) 1–16.
[20] J. Cui, F. Li, Z.-L. Shi, Origin and evolution of pathogenic coronaviruses, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17 (3) (2019) 181–192.
[21] X. Xu, P. Chen, J. Wang, J. Feng, H. Zhou, X. Li, et al., Evolution of the novel coronavirus from the ongoing Wuhan outbreak and modeling of its spike protein for
risk of human transmission, Sci. China Life Sci. 63 (3) (2020) 457–460.
[22] M.J. Cohen, Does the COVID-19 outbreak mark the onset of a sustainable consumption transition? Sustain. Sci. Pract. Pol. 16 (1) (2020) 1–3.
[23] S. Zare, R. Esmaeili, R. Kazemi, S. Naseri, D. Panahi, Occupational stress assessment of health care workers (HCWs) facing COVID-19 patients in Kerman
province hospitals in Iran, Heliyon 7 (5) (2021), e07035.
[24] S. Duleba, S. Moslem, Examining Pareto optimality in analytic hierarchy process on real Data: an application in public transport service development, Expert
Syst. Appl. 116 (2019) 21–30.
[25] V.V. Tsyganok, S.V. Kadenko, O.V. Andriichuk, Significance of expert competence consideration in group decision making using AHP, Int. J. Prod. Res. 50 (17)
(2012 Sep 1) 4785–4792.
[26] C.-L. Hwang, A.S.M. Masud, Multiple Objective Decision Making—Methods and Applications: a State-Of-The-Art Survey, Springer Science & Business Media,
2012.
[27] T.L. Saaty, What is the analytic hierarchy process?, in: Mathematical Models for Decision Support Springer, Berlin, 1988.
[28] R.H. Ansah, S. Sorooshian, S. Bin Mustafa, Analytic hierarchy process decision making algorithm, Global J. Pure Appl. Math. 11 (4) (2015).
[29] C. Ho, H.W. Lee, J.A. Gambatese, Application of Prevention through Design (PtD) to improve the safety of solar installations on small buildings, Saf. Sci. 125
(2020), 104633.
[30] M. Omidvari, M. Ghandehari, Urban environmental management performance assessment by fuzzy analytical hierarchy processing (FAHP), Journal of
Environmental Accounting and Management 2 (1) (2014) 31–41.
[31] Holistic approach to HSE performance assessment, monitoring and management in an integrated upstream oil/gas corporation, in: A.B. Chakraborty (Ed.), SPE
International Conference on Health, Safety, and Environment in Oil and Gas Exploration and Production, OnePetro, 2004.
[32] R.S. Kaplan, R.E. Kaplan, D.P. Norton, T.H. Davenport, D.P. Norton, Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes, Harvard Business
Press, 2004.
[33] Y. Yang, R. MacLean, A template for assessing corporate performance: benchmarking EHS organizations, Environ. Qual. Manag. 13 (3) (2004) 11–23.
[34] J. Nouri, M. Abbaspour, E. Roayaei, H. Nikoomaram, Comparison Environment Performance HSEQ management systems, regarding the international and
Iranian of oil and gas general contractors, American Journal of Appleid Sciences 2 (1) (2005) 447–451.
[35] G. Yildiz, Developing a Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Management Performance Index, Master Thesis, Eindhoven University of Technology, 2011.
[36] Y. Li, F.W. Guldenmund, Safety management systems: a broad overview of the literature, Saf. Sci. 103 (2018) 94–123.
[37] A. Karimi, A. Barkhordari, B. Saranjam, M. Abazari, A. Babaei-Pouya, The effects of implementing an occupational health and safety management system on
functional indices: a five-year study in casting industry, Malaysian J. Med. Health Sci. 16 (3) (2020) 8–14.
[38] K.R. Choi, K. Skrine Jeffers, M. Cynthia Logsdon, Nursing and the novel coronavirus: risks and responsibilities in a global outbreak, J. Adv. Nurs. 76 (7) (2020)
1486–1487.
[39] M.T. Gonzalez-Gil, C. Gonzalez-Blazquez, A.I. Parro-Moreno, A. Pedraz-Marcos, A. Palmar-Santos, L. Otero-Garcia, et al., Nurses’ perceptions and demands
regarding COVID-19 care delivery in critical care units and hospital emergency services, Intensive Crit. Care Nurs. 62 (2021), 102966.
[40] A. Falco, D. Girardi, L. Dal Corso, M. Yildirim, D. Converso, The perceived risk of being infected at work: an application of the job demands–resources model to
workplace safety during the COVID-19 outbreak, PLoS One 16 (9) (2021), e0257197.
[41] N. Kusrini, M. Maswadi, The performance improvement of sustainable palm oil supply chain management after COVID-19: priority indicators using F-AHP,
Uncertain Supply Chain Manag. 9 (2) (2021) 227–236.
[42] R. Guo, Z. Wu, Social sustainable supply chain performance assessment using hybrid fuzzy-AHP–DEMATEL–VIKOR: a case study in manufacturing enterprises,
Environ. Dev. Sustain. (2022 Aug 1) 1–29.

12