• 대한안전경영과학회지
• /
• 제26권2호
• /
• pp.33-42
• /
• 2024

Executive safety leadership is essential to prevent accidents in the workplace. However, will safety be secured by emphasizing only executive safety leadership to workers? In this study, the impact of executive safety leadership on the workplace hazard level was analyzed by adding the supervisor's safety role as a mediating variable. This paper shows that executive safety leadership has no direct effect on workplace hazard levels. However, executive safety leadership was found to have a significant impact on the supervisor safety role, and the supervisor safety role was found to lower the hazard levels in the workplace. In summary, executive safety leadership was found to reduce the hazard levels in the workplace through the full mediating effect of the supervisor safety role. Based on these research results, this study seeks to present the following recommendations to the government and management: The government should ensure that a workplace safety and health system is established by strengthening the effects of other mediating factors, such as strengthening the role of supervisors who are actually responsible for workplace safety and health. Executives must grant supervisors actual authority and responsibility to properly perform their safety roles and establish personnel and performance evaluation systems.

• 보건행정학회지
• /
• 제23권4호
• /
• pp.314-325
• /
• 2013

Background: Stem cell research competition is accelerating globally since President Obama signed an executive order, repealing Bush-era policy that limited use of federal tax dollars for embryonic stem cell research. Methods: In this paper, we conducted a comparative analysis of stem cell research policy changes in three countries, including the Human Fertilisation Embryology Act (HFEA) of UK, executive order 13,505 (removing barriers to responsible scientific research involving human stem cells) of USA, and Bioethics and Safety Act of South Korea. Debates on stem cell research are based on conflicts of fundamental beliefs that exist in the supporting and opposing coalitions. We compared regional characteristics of the advocacy coalitions in three countries and presented various factors that might be related to the policy changes. Results: The UK government, parliament, and the HFEA have sought expert consultations and public opinions to establish guidelines. UK has made social consensus through continued discussion for a long time. US President's veto power was one strongest factors influencing policy. South Korean policy was influenced by public opinion and policy brokers. Also, South Korea has not made social consensus. UK had a strong leadership and strong adjustment of coalitions but US and South Korea had not. Dr. Hwang's scandal has had one of the greatest impacts on policy decision in South Korea. Conclusion: The power of public opinion was critical in all three countries. In particular, the influence of public opinion was noticeable in South Korea. Also it turned out that in US and South Korea, the presence of a policy broker who could pursue his or her goals was the most powerful factor among the advocacy coalition factors.