Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Perception in Restaurant Enterprises: a Quantitative Field Survey of Employees

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES A QUANTITATIVE FIELD SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES Yücel OĞURLU Cevdet AVCIKURT Mehmet SARIOĞLAN Eray KARAGÖZ Gözde KUMAŞ Lyon 2025 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT ENTERPRISES A QUANTITATIVE FIELD SURVEY OF EMPLOYEES Yücel OĞURLU Cevdet AVCIKURT Mehmet SARIOĞLAN Eray KARAGÖZ Gözde KUMAŞ Lyon 2025 Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) Perception in Restaurant Enterprises: a Quantitative Field Survey of Employees Authors: • Prof. Dr. Yücel OĞURLU • Orcid: 0000-0001-7922-9841 • Prof. Dr. Cevdet AVCIKURT • Orcid: 0000-0002-9169-9763 • Prof. Dr. Mehmet SARIOĞLAN • Orcid: 0000-0003-4343-1225 • Dr. Eray KARAGÖZ • Orcid: 0000-0002-0315-2021 • Resch. Asst., Gözde KUMAŞ • Orcid: 0009-0007-1484-473X Cover Design • Motion Graphics Book Layout • Motion Graphics First Published • December 2025, Lyon e-ISBN: 978-2-38236-972-2 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18036187 copyright © 2025 by Livre de Lyon All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without prior written permission from the Publisher. The author or authors of the relevant section are responsible for any copyright infringement that may occur due to the images and graphics used in the book. The editor or publisher does not assume responsibility in this regard. Publisher • Livre de Lyon Address • 37 rue marietton, 69009, Lyon France website • http://www.livredelyon.com e-mail • [email protected] I PREFACE Occupational health and safety aims to protect individuals from the potential adverse conditions of the working environment and from risks associated with the nature and execution of the work. These adverse conditions encompass a range of factors, including working environments that do not provide adequate conditions against risks individuals may encounter, occupational diseases, and psychological problems arising from workloads. Occupational health and safety measures play a role in many areas, such as individuals’ physical health, workplace comfort, and employees’ social rights. In other words, paying sufficient attention to occupational health and safety measures enables individuals to have a suitable working environment and a secure working life in terms of social rights. From this perspective, occupational health and safety encompasses many disciplines, such as law, labour economics, and medicine. This study examines the possible differences in the perception of occupational health and safety according to demographic factors and tests for differences based on gender. In this research conducted in restaurant businesses, the differentiation of occupational health and safety perception according to gender was attempted to be explained by the Risk Perception Theory. This is because women and men may have different social and technical skills, and therefore their perceptions of danger will differ. With the proliferation of intense work pace and long working hours in almost every sector, individuals spend the majority of their days and lives in the workplace. Therefore, the perception of occupational health and safety is of great importance for ensuring a healthy and productive work environment and, consequently, the existence of a sustainable working environment. III CONTENTS PREFACE .............................................................................................................I LIST OF FIGURES ...........................................................................................IV LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................. V 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1 2. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY ................................................... 5 2.1. Work Accident ............................................................................................ 8 2.2. Occupational Disease ................................................................................ 10 2.3. Measures that can be taken against occupational accidents and diseases ............................................................................... 12 2.4. Hazard and Risk ........................................................................................13 2.5. Risk Assessment .......................................................................................14 2.6. Positions within the Scope of Occupational Safety ................................... 14 2.7. General Framework of the Occupational Health and Safety Law ............ 16 2.8. Application Areas of Occupational Health and Safety ............................. 18 2.9. Assessment of Legislation Related to Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey ........................................................................................ 19 2.10. Comparison of Occupational Health and Safety Legislation in Turkey with Practices in the European Union and Other Countries .....................21 2.11. Occupational Health and Safety in the European Union .......................... 23 2.12. Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey ............................................... 24 2.13. Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey within the Framework of European Union Legislation ............................. 25 3. RISK PERCEPTION THEORY ...................................................................... 27 4. BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH .........................................................29 5. RESEARCH QUESTION, HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT AND RESEARCH MODEL ....................................................................................... 31 6. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................35 6.1. Purpose and Significance ........................................................................... 35 6.2. Limitations ................................................................................................. 35 6.3. Original Value ............................................................................................ 35 6.4. Scale Used in the Research ........................................................................36 CONTENTS IV   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . 7. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION ........................................................... 39 8. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................61 9. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................. 63 REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 65 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Research model ........................................................................................... 32 Figure 2: Scree Plot result of the scale during the pilot study phase ........................... 46 Figure 3: Scree Plot result of the scale in the final working stage ............................... 52 Figure 4: Scale Average result .....................................................................................54 Figure 5: Q Plot Result ................................................................................................ 54 Figure 6: Simplified Q Plot result ............................................................................... 55 Figure 7: Research model based on the results ........................................................... 59 5 2. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY Occupational health and safety, which aims to protect employees from the adverse conditions of working life in the most fundamental sense, has grown in importance from the past to the present and has become a fundamental part of working life today. Occupational health and safety is a distinct field of medicine that focuses on the relationship between the workplace and health. Safe working environments are not just a matter of worker health; they have other dimensions as well. This issue is also indispensable for sustainable economic and social development on a national and global scale (Abrams, 2001; Belkić & Nedić, 2014; LaDou, 2002; Piňosová et al., 2021). The primary objective of occupational health is to ensure the safety, health, and well-being of workers in the workplace. In addition, it is important to identify, prevent, and control risks that affect work performance. (Mehrdad, 2020). Occupational health is a multidisciplinary field of science and involves collaboration with many other disciplines, such as law, labour economics and medicine, to protect workers. As a result of this collaboration, workers’ legal rights are protected and the aim is to prevent them from losing their health. Work life plays an important role in people’s lives. A significant part of employees’ daily lives and overall lives is spent at work. Therefore, employees may face many occupational hazards and risks arising from the working environment. Occupational hazards and risks arising from the working environment have negative consequences for employees. These negative consequences can lead to economic losses, decreased performance, health risks, and even loss of health (Yıldız, 2019). With the Industrial Revolution, the establishment of factories capable of producing goods much more cheaply and quickly, coupled with the rapid changes in technology and society, led to significant transformations in the workplace. Workers’ unfamiliarity with machines and factory conditions, rapid changes in production systems, shift work and long working hours led to a significant increase in the number of accidents and occupational diseases. Workers’ efforts to improve working conditions and the gradual rise of the welfare state concept created a need for regulations on occupational health and safety. Legal regulations concerning the protection of workers’ physical and mental 6   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . health and social rights gradually led to efforts by states to take the necessary measures to prevent accidents at work and occupational diseases. The process that began with the Industrial Revolution led to the emergence of the concept of occupational health and safety, with efforts to improve working conditions and protect workers from occupational diseases and accidents (Kılkış, 2022). Occupational health and safety can be defined as protecting employed workers, their families, workplaces, business owners and society from accidents and illnesses that may occur in the workplace. It can also be defined as systematic efforts to identify, reduce to an acceptable level, or even eliminate safety risks in the workplace in order to eliminate or minimise the material and moral damages and costs that may arise as a result of occupational accidents and diseases in the workplace (Evren, 2016). In general, occupational health and safety can be defined as systematic efforts undertaken to protect employees from health hazards arising from the work itself during the course of their duties in the workplace. Occupational health and safety aims to ensure that employees work in a safer environment by protecting them from potential accidents and occupational diseases that may occur in the workplace. The work involved in determining and implementing measures to eliminate the losses caused by occupational accidents and diseases can be summarised under the concept of occupational safety (Selek, 2022). According to the World Health Organisation (WHO, 2025), the concept of health is defined not only as the absence of illness and disability, but also as the state of complete physical, mental and social well-being. Based on this definition, occupational health and safety can be defined as all preventive and protective measures taken to protect workers from hazards arising from the performance of work and to provide a safer working environment. According to the International Labour Organisation, occupational health and safety can be defined as all activities carried out to ensure that workers in every sector have a high level of physical, mental and social well-being and that this situation is maintained. In addition to this definition, the International Labour Organisation emphasises the importance of the following points (Ören, 2020): · The need to protect and improve the physical, mental and social wellbeing of workers · It is necessary to prevent employees from losing their health as a result of working conditions · Workers must be protected from conditions that could affect their health OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   7 · Workers must be assigned to jobs that are suitable for their physiological and psychological makeup · All these provisions related to occupational health and safety must be sustainable. The reason for the emergence of occupational health and safety and its purpose is to protect employees in the workplace against potential accidents and illnesses. In essence, occupational health and safety aims to protect not only the employee but also society. This is because an accident or occupational illness experienced by an employee affects not only themselves but also their family first and then the whole community. Therefore, occupational health and safety aims to effectively protect workers against accidents and occupational diseases that may arise from the working environment. Furthermore, providing workers with a healthy, safe, sustainable, and humane working environment is also among the main objectives. The three main principles of occupational health and safety are listed below (Sümer, 2021): a) Protecting workers: This aims to prevent workers from suffering accidents and occupational diseases by eliminating workplace-related risks and hazards. Thus, the goal is to safeguard workers’ rights to work, their health, and their right to life. b) Ensuring production safety: Producing under safe conditions to protect workers from occupational accidents and diseases is one of the fundamental principles of occupational health and safety. This will ensure the safety of workers’ production capacity by preventing occupational accidents and diseases, and moreover, there will be no loss of manpower. c) Ensuring workplace safety; analysing working conditions in the workplace and taking the necessary precautions will prevent potential accidents and occupational diseases, making the workplace safe. Occupational health and safety is a field of science that requires meticulous attention, both in terms of directly affecting human health by protecting workers against health and safety risks in the workplace and in terms of ensuring production safety and continuity in the workplace. For this reason, workplaces must be continuously monitored and deficiencies must be addressed in terms of worker health and safety. Failure to carry out these inspections and follow-ups can inevitably lead to accidents at work and occupational diseases. Accidents at 8   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . work can have irreparable consequences, such as workers becoming disabled or even losing their lives. They can also cause significant production losses for the workplace. In order to eliminate the hazards in the workplace and ensure a healthier and safer workplace, all stakeholders must fulfil their responsibilities (Ören, 2020). The potential losses that accidents and illnesses in the workplace may cause to employees, employers and the state economy can be listed as follows (Sümer, 2021): a) Loss of labour force b) Loss of working days c) Loss of production and income d) Costs incurred by the social security institution e) Cost of hiring a replacement worker for the absent worker f) Litigation costs g) Material and moral damages The implementation of all occupational safety rules in the workplace with clear regulations will protect the lives and physical integrity of workers and prevent losses resulting from occupational accidents and diseases, thereby achieving positive outcomes for society (Sümer, 2021). Preventing work accidents and occupational diseases enhances the positive image of businesses while also preventing waste of resources by keeping costs under control. 2.1. Work Accident Workplace accidents and occupational diseases are the fundamental reasons that have placed occupational health and safety at the centre of attention and in the literature (Sümer, 2021). In the most basic terms, the aim of occupational health and safety is to protect workers from risks in the workplace, eliminate risks against accidents and occupational diseases, and create effective protection and sustainable working conditions. According to the Turkish Language Association Dictionary (TDK, 2025), an accident is defined as “damage to a person, object or vehicle due to negligence, carelessness or lack of caution”, while an occupational accident is defined as “an event occurring in the workplace that causes physical or mental harm to a worker”. The WHO defines an occupational accident as an unplanned event that often causes injuries, damage to machinery, equipment and tools, or disrupts production for a period of time. The ILO defines an accident at OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   9 work as an incident occurring during the course of work that may result in death, injury, or illness (Kılkış, 2022). Foreign legal and occupational health and safety literature generally defines the term “workplace accident” as an event that occurs during the performance of work, is sudden and identifiable in nature, causes physical or psychological harm, and has a causal link to the work activity. These studies do not consider the mere occurrence of harm sufficient when defining an accident from a legal perspective; rather, they view the existence of a causal link between the event and the performance of the work as the determining factor. Leigh (2011) states that occupational accidents and diseases are defined from a legal perspective based on their connection to the work activity performed and the working environment. In this context, in addition to the physical exposure of the employee, the organisational and environmental conditions in which the work takes place are also evaluated. The author considers the fact that the damage occurred as a result of the work being performed and arose during work to be one of the fundamental criteria sought by comparative labour and social security law (Leigh, 2011). Similarly, Salminen (2004), in a literature review, defines occupational accidents as sudden and externally caused events that occur “during work” or are “work-related”. The author clearly distinguishes such events from occupational diseases, which develop over time, even if they are work-related. The author further states that the elements of sudden occurrence and work-relatedness are mandatory criteria sought within the scope of the legal nature of an accident at work (Salminen, 2004). From a regulatory and protective perspective, Boden and Ozonoff (2008) state that contemporary occupational health and safety systems broadly interpret the concept of workplace accident for the effective protection of workers. According to the authors, if an event occurring in the work environment aggravates an employee’s existing health condition and a causal link can be established between the event and the work activity, this situation should be considered an accident at work (Boden & Ozonoff, 2008). As can be seen, occupational accidents are not considered merely as factual or medical phenomena in foreign literature either. An occupational accident is accepted as a normative legal concept built on the principles of causality, occupational risk, and worker protection. In Turkish legislation, definitions of occupational accidents are found in the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 and the Social Insurance 10   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510. The Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 defines an occupational accident as “an event occurring at the workplace or due to the performance of work that causes death or renders the body mentally or physically disabled” (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2012). The definition of a work accident in the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law No. 5510, published in 2006, is as follows: a) While the insured employee is in the workplace. b) While the insured employee is performing work assigned by the employer or, if the insured employee is working independently on their own behalf and account, due to the work they are performing. c) When the insured employee is assigned to work at a location other than their own workplace and spends time outside the workplace. d) When an insured female employee who is breastfeeding spends time feeding her child. e) An event occurring during the insured employee’s commute to and from work using transport provided by the employer, which immediately or subsequently causes physical or psychological harm to the insured employee (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2006). Technical, social, psychological, physiological, and environmental factors may contribute to workplace accidents. Employee fatigue, carelessness, the machinery and equipment used, lack of knowledge, negligence, environmental factors, and working conditions can each be causes of workplace accidents. It is necessary for occupational safety to examine the conditions that may cause work accidents and to take the necessary precautions (Kılkış, 2022). 2.2. Occupational Disease Occupational diseases may vary depending on the country and society. In the literature, the main occupational health risks on a global scale are classified as chemical, biological, physical, ergonomic, and psychosocial factors. These risks lead to the emergence of occupational diseases at varying levels in different sectors and countries (Rom & Markowitz, 2007; Rushton et al., 2012). For example, although Italy is a country that completed its industrialisation late, it achieved significant economic development from the 1960s to the 1980s and joined the ranks of developed economies. This was accompanied by OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   11 developments in occupational health, with progress made alongside industrial and social transformation. As in many other similar countries, occupational health problems, infectious diseases and poisoning linked to poverty and harsh industrial conditions, occupational cancers and other non-communicable diseases began to appear more frequently. As we approach the present day, ergonomic and psychosocial disorders have become more prevalent (Fellone & Battista, 2019). In the literature, “occupational disease” is defined as physical or mental illnesses that arise as a result of prolonged or repeated exposure to physical, chemical, biological, or psychosocial risks in the workplace (LaDou & Harrison, 2002). Contemporary literature emphasises the necessity of establishing a correct cause-and-effect relationship in occupational diseases and highlights that it is a fundamental element in identifying work-related illnesses (Mehrdad, 2020). The important point here is establishing the existence of a causal link between the disease and working conditions. In this respect, it is similar to occupational accidents in that a causal link is sought. On the other hand, unlike occupational accidents, occupational diseases do not occur suddenly. They develop over time, depending on the duration and intensity of exposure to occupational hazards. For this reason, occupational diseases are described in the literature as having cumulative risk and delayed onset characteristics (Rushton, 2017). In comparative occupational health law, occupational disease is considered a health problem that arises as a result of insufficient control of preventable occupational risks and is directly related to the employer’s preventive obligations (Seaton et al., 1994). Occupational disease is defined in the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 as “a disease arising from exposure to occupational risks” (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2012), while the Social Insurance and General Health Insurance Law defines it as “a temporary or permanent illness, physical or mental disability suffered by an insured person due to a recurring cause related to the nature of their work or the conditions under which the work is carried out” (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2006). Occupational disease can be defined, as stated in the definitions, as a mental or physical illness arising from the conditions of the work performed by employees and their exposure to these conditions. Unlike an accident at work, occupational disease may not occur suddenly; the duration and severity of 12   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . exposure to adverse conditions are effective in the onset of occupational disease. Four factors are effective in the diagnosis or proof of occupational disease: a) The employee being insured b) The employee has developed an illness related to the nature of the work or working conditions c) The disease causing physical and mental harm to the worker d) The existence of a causal link between the occupational disease that has developed in the worker and the harm suffered (Sümer, 2021). Occupational diseases are grouped into five main categories. The classification of occupational diseases is as follows (Selek, 2022): · Group A: Occupational diseases caused by chemical substances · Group B: Occupational skin diseases · Group C: Occupational respiratory system diseases · Group D: Occupational infectious diseases · Group E: Occupational diseases caused by physical factors 2.3. Measures that can be taken against occupational accidents and diseases Work accidents and occupational diseases, which directly or indirectly affect workers and therefore society due to the working environment, cease to be inevitable when the necessary measures are taken, implemented and followed up. Ninety-eight per cent of work accidents in working life are preventable. Indeed, by intervening in the working environment, risks should be tackled at source and eliminated. Training provided to employees should both refresh their knowledge and demonstrate the potentially dire consequences of possible risks. 100% of occupational diseases are preventable if the necessary precautions are taken (Selek, 2022). Measures to prevent occupational diseases can be summarised under three main headings (Selek, 2022): a) Medical measures: pre-employment and return-to-work examinations, periodic check-ups, etc. b) Administrative measures: shift planning, regulation of working hours, regulation of break times, training, etc. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   13 c) Technical measures; workplace adjustments, source control, use of personal protective equipment, etc. 2.4. Hazard and Risk It is important to understand the concepts of hazard and risk in order to ensure the safety of employees in the workplace and to prevent accidents and occupational diseases. Hazards and risks must be addressed at their source, and employees, and therefore businesses, must be strictly protected. The Occupational Health and Safety Risk Assessment Regulation defines risk and acceptable risk levels, hazards, near misses, prevention, and risk assessment within this scope (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2012). The relevant definitions are as follows: a) Hazard: Refers to the potential for something present in the work environment or likely to come from outside to adversely affect employees or the workplace. b) Risk: This refers to the likelihood of injury, loss, or harmful consequences arising from hazards. c) Acceptable risk level: Refers to a risk level that complies with laws and workplace prevention policies and will not cause harm to employees or the workplace. d) Near miss: Refers to an incident that occurs in the workplace that has the potential to cause harm to employees or the workplace but does not actually cause harm to employees or the workplace. e) Prevention: Refers to all measures taken or planned against all risks related to occupational health and safety in the workplace. f) Risk assessment: This refers to the identification of risks that exist in the workplace or may come from outside, the grading of identified risks, and the work to be done to take precautions. Risk control measures must be implemented to protect employees from existing hazards and risks in the workplace and to prevent occupational accidents and diseases. These risk control measures are as follows (Selek, 2022): a) Preventing hazards at their source in the workplace. b) Reducing hazards at their source in the workplace. 14   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . c) Preventing hazards by implementing engineering controls. d) Implementing administrative measures. e) If the hazard cannot be prevented despite all measures taken, use personal protective equipment (PPE). 2.5. Risk Assessment Every workplace has its own specific hazards and risk areas. Risk assessments involve evaluating the hazardous working environment, identifying potential risks, and implementing prevention policies to make workplaces safe. With certain exceptions, employers have been required to conduct risk assessments in all workplaces, regardless of the number of employees and hazard classification, since 1 January 2013 (Kılkış, 2022). Risk assessment in workplaces is carried out by the employer or by another party. The fact that the employer has carried out a risk assessment does not eliminate the responsibilities that must be fulfilled in terms of occupational health and safety. The employer must provide the necessary information and documents to the team conducting the risk assessment. The employer or employer’s representative, occupational safety specialist, workplace physician, employee representative, and support staff form the natural members of the risk assessment team (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2012). Risk assessments must be renewed at specific intervals according to the hazard classes of the workplaces. Risk assessments must be renewed at least every 2 years in highly hazardous workplaces, every 4 years in hazardous workplaces, and every 6 years in low-hazard workplaces. In addition, even if the renewal period has not expired, risk assessments must be renewed following changes made in the workplace, work accidents, and near-miss incidents. 2.6. Positions within the Scope of Occupational Safety Occupational safety specialists, workplace physicians, and other health personnel (workplace nurses) are assigned to protect employees from workplace hazards and risks. These specialists are employees who have received the training required for their field of work and hold the relevant certificates issued by the ministry. The job descriptions of the relevant employees are as follows (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2012): · Occupational Safety Specialist (OSS): Occupational safety specialists hold Class A certification for businesses in the highly hazardous category, Class OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   21 necessary measures have been taken. Furthermore, if the necessary precautions are not taken, employees have the right to terminate their employment (Hughes and Ferrett, 2011). Article 19 of Section II of the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 stipulates the obligations of employees as follows (Ministry of Labour and Social Security, 2012): 1) Employees are obliged not to endanger their own health and safety or that of other employees affected by their actions or work, in accordance with the training they have received on occupational health and safety and the employer’s instructions on this matter. 2) The obligations of employees, in accordance with the training and instructions provided by the employer, are as follows: a) To use machinery, equipment, tools, hazardous substances, transport equipment and other production tools in the workplace in accordance with the rules, to use their safety equipment correctly, and not to remove or alter them arbitrarily. To use and maintain the personal protective equipment provided to them correctly. b) To immediately notify the employer or employee representative when they encounter a serious and imminent health and safety hazard in the workplace’s machinery, equipment, tools, facilities, and buildings, or when they notice a deficiency in protective measures. c) Cooperate with the employer and employee representative in addressing deficiencies and non-compliance with regulations identified at the workplace by the competent inspection authority. d) To cooperate with the employer and the employee representative to ensure occupational health and safety within their area of responsibility. 2.10. Comparison of Occupational Health and Safety Legislation in Turkey with Practices in the European Union and Other Countries Occupational health and safety (OHS) is of great importance for the protection of workers, the prevention of accidents at work and the prevention of occupational diseases. Each country’s process of developing its own legislation in this area is based on factors such as local economic conditions, social structures and cultural differences. Comparing Turkey’s OHS legislation with practices in the European Union (EU) and other countries is of great importance in understanding the effectiveness, scope and level of implementation of these 22   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . legislations. By comparing Turkey’s OSH legislation, particularly with that of the EU and other developed countries, it is possible to identify areas that are lacking or could be improved. Legislation in Turkey has a broad scope, covering the identification of hazardous work in the workplace, the implementation of occupational safety measures, and the prevention of accidents at work. However, the applicability of OSH legislation in Turkey can sometimes be limited in terms of local authorities and small businesses. It has been observed that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, face financial and technical difficulties in fully implementing OSH measures (Yılmaz, 2010). Furthermore, a lack of oversight regarding the implementation of legislation is also a significant problem. Other developed countries also have various regulations in place to ensure occupational safety through their OSH legislation. In the United States, the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) came into force in 1970 and is the most fundamental regulation setting occupational health and safety standards across the country. OSHA implements a comprehensive inspection and monitoring process to ensure safety in the workplace. OSHA’s inspection authority applies to all workplaces, and training programmes in occupational health and safety are organised annually. Canada, on the other hand, has a provincial-based regulation on occupational health and safety. Provincial governments set occupational health and safety rules and monitor compliance with these rules. Occupational health and safety regulations in Canada aim to promote a culture of safety in the workplace, and most workplaces have occupational health and safety representatives. Furthermore, units such as safety committees are quite common in Canadian workplaces for the purpose of preventing accidents (Jones, 2007). Turkey’s occupational health and safety (OHS) legislation contains certain similarities and differences when compared to practices in the European Union and other developed countries. Although Turkey’s legislative structure largely parallels EU standards, difficulties may arise in implementation for local authorities and small businesses. In EU countries and other developed countries, the effective implementation and updating of OSH legislation has increased these countries’ success in the field of occupational health and safety. In Turkey, too, in order to spread OSH culture and enable more effective implementation of legislation, it is necessary for local authorities and businesses to cooperate, strengthen training processes and activate inspection mechanisms. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   23 2.11.Occupational Health and Safety in the European Union Occupational Health and Safety activities in the European Union (EU) date back to the period when the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) existed in 1952. The 1972 Paris Summit and the 1987 Single European Act were crucial for the emergence and advancement of OSH in the EU (Yılmaz, 2022). The foundation of social policies in the EU was laid with the establishment of the European Economic Community (EEC) in the 1957 Treaty of Rome. Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome stipulates that member states shall take into account certain selective criteria in the trade of goods for the purpose of protecting public order, public safety, public morality, and the health of humans, animals, and plants. In this case, a member state has the right to refuse goods from another member state if they are contrary to its OSH rules. Furthermore, Article 117 of the “Social Provisions” section of the Treaty of Rome draws attention to the rules regarding the need for better living and working conditions for employees. Although these rules, established through the agreement, aim for member countries to adopt a common policy in the field of occupational health and safety to prevent accidents at work and occupational diseases, the EU has not been granted authority in this regard. In the current period, economic prosperity is considered more important, and the goals set for social policies have been pushed into the background (Karluk, 1996). The Final Declaration of the Paris Summit held in 1972 within the framework of the European Union stated that there was no competition between social and economic policies for the European Union; on the contrary, both were of equal importance. With this declaration, independent European Union social policies were initiated for the first time, and in 1978, the European Union implemented its first Social Action Programme (Hermans, 2001). The four fundamental issues addressed in the first Action Programme for Health at Work (1978-1982), adopted by the Council in 1978, are listed below: a) Prevention of work-related accidents and illnesses in businesses, b) Protecting employees in workplaces from hazardous substances, c) Taking measures against incidents involving machinery in workplaces that could create hazards and cause harm as a result of accidents, d) Making OSH practices more efficient for employees’ work areas in workplaces. 24   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . The topics addressed are based on the fundamental principle of creating working conditions that are appropriate for human life. The action programme has contributed to working life by protecting employees from occupational accidents, keeping them away from conditions that could cause occupational diseases, and creating an efficient working environment. 2.12. Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey Work in the field of OHS in Turkey dates back to the pre-Republican era. The first law enacted to protect workers was the Dilaver Pasha Regulation. The Dilaver Pasha Regulation (full title: Regulation of the Ereğli Coal Mine Administration) was prepared by Dilaver Pasha. Promulgated on 8 May 1867, it was the first legal text in the Ottoman Empire to regulate the working conditions and health of mine workers. It remained in force between 1867 and 1922 (Yüksel, 2016). The first measures taken in this regard during the Republican era were Law No. 394 on Weekly Holidays and Law No. 3008 on the Labour Code. The Labour Code was amended by Law No. 1475 and again by Law No. 4857, introducing innovations and improvements on the subject. The subject was also regulated in detail by the Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331 (2012). The first regulation on OSH during this period was the Weekly Holiday Law No. 394 dated 2 January 1924. Looking at other regulations related to OSH, the Izmir Economic Congress was held in 1923, and the Code of Obligations, which also regulated the legal liability of employers for work accidents and occupational diseases, was enacted in 1926. In 1930, due to the absence of labour legislation, it was stipulated that workplaces with 50 or more employees must have an infirmary or hospital and employ a workplace physician. The Public Health Law, which included provisions prohibiting the employment of children under the age of 12, children aged 12-16 in places such as underground sites after certain hours, and children under the age of 18 in bars, cafés, and similar establishments. The Public Health Law, which came into force in 1945, prohibited the employment of children under the age of 18 in bars, casinos, taverns, and similar establishments. The first regulation on social insurance was the Law on Work Accidents, Occupational Diseases, and Maternity Insurance, and in parallel with this, the Workers’ Insurance Institution Law was published in the same year. To consolidate these regulations into a single law, the Social Insurance Law came into effect in 1964 (Ergül, 2020). OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   25 The need for a new law arose due to reasons such as the scattered nature of the regulations in force regarding OSH, their constant change, the inadequacy of inspections at workplaces and the institutions providing services, and the need to comply with the OSH guidelines of the United States of America. Law No. 6331, which aims to prevent occupational accidents and diseases by taking the necessary measures before they occur, has entered into force (Kılkış, 2013). 2.13. Assessment of Occupational Health and Safety in Turkey within the Framework of European Union Legislation Developments in occupational health and safety (OHS) legislation in Turkey, when assessed in light of the founding treaties and key action programmes (1978–1982) of the European Union (EU), reveal the following observations: In the EU, OHS activities are based on the fundamental provision set out in Article 117 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome, the founding treaty, which stipulates the need to improve the living and working conditions of employees in commercial enterprises. In Turkey, OSH efforts began with the enactment of the Weekly Holiday Law of 1924 during the Republican era and progressed through the indirect provisions of fundamental legislation such as the Civil Code of 1926 and the Public Health Law of 1930. Although OSH has been included in fundamental economic, health and social legislation in both Turkey and the EU, over time it has entered legislation as an independent regulatory area. The legal evolution and transition to a holistic approach to OSH in the EU has been as follows: Following the 1972 Paris Summit, OSH was recognised as an independent social policy and was concretised in 1978 with the first Social Action Programme, becoming part of the plan. The four fundamental principles of this programme – prevention, protection against hazardous substances, safety measures for machinery, and productivity – which are directly related to occupational health and safety, formed the basis of the EU’s protective philosophy on this issue. In Turkey, fundamental problems such as the long-standing fragmentation and constant change of OSH regulations, as well as inadequacies in supervision and public service delivery, clearly demonstrate the need for a holistic approach. The Occupational Health and Safety Law No. 6331, which came into force in 2012, was an important step towards eliminating this fragmentation as the fundamental law on the subject. The fragmented structure has been consolidated into a single law, based on a preventive approach aimed at “preventing 26   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . occupational accidents and diseases at source,” as defined in the EU’s 1978 programme. This demonstrates that developments in Turkish legislation are striving to align with the fundamental principles established by the EU in the field of occupational health and safety. The EU has made OSH standards a technical element of the internal market through Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome. Turkey’s Customs Union and candidate country status require workplaces and producers in Turkey to comply not only with national legislation but also with EU occupational health and safety standards, which are reinforced by economic regulations. 27 3. RISK PERCEPTION THEORY Individuals’ development of behavioural strategies based on their perceived environmental and technological risks is examined within the framework of risk perception theory (Slovic, 1987). The risks perceived by individuals are not determined solely by objective assessments; individuals’ experiences, environmental conditions, and social relationships also influence perceived risks. Individuals develop behavioural patterns based on their perception of risks in their environment. Risk Perception Theory emerged in the second half of the 20th century to address the effects of environmental and technological risks on individuals’ behaviour. In particular, individuals’ perceptions of voluntariness, control, and personal experience shape their responses to large-scale risks such as nuclear energy, chemical hazards, and natural disasters (Slovic, 1987). Risk perception theory has been used as a basis in this study to understand the possible gender differences in the perception of occupational health and safety, which is a variable related to the work environment. This is because the ways in which women and men perceive the environment can shape the ways in which individuals of different genders understand danger. 29 4. BACKGROUND OF THE RESEARCH Workplace accidents, which are prevented within the scope of occupational health and safety, refer to events that can cause permanent or temporary physical and mental harm to employees. While occupational accidents were quite common in the early 1900s, they have decreased significantly over the years with the dominance of technology in the sector (Hofmann et al., 2017). It is known that the weaknesses causing occupational accidents mostly stem from technological inadequacies and that the human factor plays an important role (Gordon, 1998). According to research conducted by the Campbell Institute, the human factor accounts for 9% of serious and fatal workplace accidents (IOSH, 2019). According to 2024 statistics from the Social Security Institution (SSI), falls from height account for 41.8% of workplace accidents, followed by health problems at 19.3%. Working at an intense pace in the service sector is crucial to fully meeting customer needs, which is why shift work is commonly used in this sector (Kuo et al., 2020). Working in a complex pace with a heavy workload and different job descriptions can lead to risks due to carelessness and negligence caused by fatigue during the performance of tasks (EU-OSHA, 2008). Factors such as a demanding work pace and excessive workload can bring about workrelated stress, leading to a decrease in productivity, a decline in performance, low morale, fatigue, and absent-mindedness (Ambardar, 2015; Özer et al., 2013). Taking adequate occupational health and safety measures in businesses will increase employee safety and job satisfaction, thereby improving service quality in businesses. This is because occupational health and safety measures will ensure that employees enjoy their work and perform it willingly. Based on a study highlighting the importance of installing uniform lighting systems in restaurant businesses (Özen, 2025), the fact that the level of lighting in the working environment is included in occupational health and safety measures demonstrates the sensitivity and importance of this issue in terms of occupational safety. Indeed, it has been observed that employee loyalty increases in restaurant businesses where occupational health and safety measures are implemented, and that the perception of service quality plays a role in this regard (Ünal and Demirkol, 2025). OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   37 occupational health and safety perception, items 7 to 12 measure education and communication perception, items 13 to 17 measure risk perception, and items 18 to 23 measure self-efficacy perception related to occupational health. However, in this study, the scale was considered unidimensional in line with the purpose of the research. The scale items are listed below: 1. My workplace attaches high importance to occupational health and safety rules. 2. Managers systematically take all necessary preventive measures to prevent workplace accidents. 3. The company management prioritises employee safety over production targets. 4. There is absolutely no tolerance for violations of safety rules in the workplace. 5. The safety measures taken at the company make me feel safe. 6. I believe that working safely contributes to higher quality work, not slower work. 7. Regular, comprehensive and up-to-date training is provided on occupational health and safety issues. 8. I can easily apply the knowledge I gain from training to my daily work routine. 9. I know how and to whom to report if I notice a hazardous situation. 10. Safety violations or risky situations can be reported to managers without hesitation. 11. Employees constructively remind each other about safe behaviour. 12. Feedback regarding occupational health and safety is taken into consideration by managers. 13. I can easily identify potential risks in my work environment. 14. I believe that the majority of workplace accidents can be prevented by taking precautions in advance. 15. I know that seemingly minor oversights at my workplace can lead to serious accidents. 16. I can foresee the consequences of unsafe behaviour in risky situations. 17. Risk assessments are conducted regularly in the workplace, and the results are shared with employees. 18. I believe I can effectively apply safety rules during work. 38   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . 19. I am willing to take personal responsibility for preventing workplace accidents. 20. I can maintain safe working practices even in intense or stressful situations. 21. I am confident that I can act correctly and quickly in emergencies. 22. I regularly use personal protective equipment (e.g., hard hats, gloves, goggles). 23. I believe that occupational health and safety practices increase work efficiency. Thanks to the hypotheses developed to achieve the aim of this research, the research has an “explanatory” feature as it will reveal the cause-effect relationship. In this study, the items included in the quantitative questionnaire form will determine perceptions related to occupational health and safety. Therefore, inductive reasoning was adopted in the scale development process of this research, and deductive reasoning was adopted in testing the hypotheses. Expert opinions were utilised in the process of finalising the scale form. The population of the research consists of restaurant consumers. The sample of the research will consist of individuals selected using the stratified sampling technique from among the consumers of restaurants located in Balıkesir. Participants who volunteered to complete the questionnaire form during the data collection process were included in the research sample. In the first stage of the data collection process, a pilot study involving at least 50 individuals (Çokluk, 2010), which is a prerequisite for tests such as regression, was planned. The target number of participants was 384 (Sekaran, 2000), which is also valid for the largest populations. As the research involves a scale development process, it has an “exploratory” dimension. However, as the subject addressed in the research is tested through hypotheses in a cause-and-effect context, this research generally has an “explanatory” feature. 39 7. FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION During the data collection phase of the pilot study, data were collected from a total of 60 participants. In order to perform tests such as regression on the data, it is necessary to reach at least 50 participants (Çokluk, 2010). Therefore, care was taken to reach at least 50 people in the pilot study. Ten questionnaire forms were excluded from the analysis due to reasons such as missing markings found in the collected questionnaire forms. Data obtained from 50 participants were examined to analyse the results of the pilot study. Thus, the minimum threshold of 50 was met. In the final stage, data was collected from a total of 400 individuals. After excluding the incomplete questionnaires from the analysis, the valid data obtained from a total of 397 individuals was subjected to analysis. Thus, the total number of participants reached 384 (Sekaran, 2000), which is also valid for the largest populations. When interpreting the research findings, a 95% confidence level and a 0.05 margin of error were considered in the social sciences, and these criteria were also used as a basis in this study. In order to arrive at the most accurate scale format during the pilot and final data analysis stages, the first step is to identify missing data and, if necessary, assign missing values. According to Table 1, in the pilot data analysis phase, it was determined that there was no missing data in the Likert-type items because the EM Means value was p < 0.05, so there was no need for missing data imputation. 40   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . Table 1: Missing data analysis of Likert-type items in the pilot study Univariate Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Missing Number of Extremesa Count Percentage Low High I1 50 3.4000 1.10657 0 ,0 2 0 I2 50 3.4800 1.09246 0 ,0 2 0 I3 50 3.6600 1.09935 0 .0 2 0 I4 50 3.8000 1.12486 0 .0 0 0 I5 50 3.4800 1.18218 0 ,0 5 0 I6 50 3.5600 1.16339 0 ,0 3 0 I7 50 3.4200 1.16216 0 ,0 5 0 I8 50 3.3200 1.07741 0 .0 4 0 I9 50 3.1400 1.10675 0 .0 0 0 I10 50 3.2200 1.18304 0 .0 0 0 I11 50 3.3000 1.24949 0 ,0 0 0 I12 50 3.3800 1.17612 0 .0 3 0 I13 50 3.2800 1.24605 0 .0 0 0 I14 50 3.5200 1.14713 0 .0 4 0 I15 50 3.8600 .96911 0 .0 0 0 I16 50 3.8600 1.04998 0 ,0 0 0 I17 50 3.9200 .98644 0 .0 0 0 I18 50 3.3600 1.19112 0 ,0 4 0 I19 50 3.9400 1.11410 0 ,0 0 0 I20 50 3.7000 1.26572 0 .0 0 0 I21 50 3.7200 1.14357 0 ,0 0 0 I22 50 3.6200 1.33844 0 ,0 0 0 I23 50 3.8400 1.18425 0 ,0 0 0 a. Number of cases outside the range (Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR). Item removal from the scale based on the BoxPlot criterion is performed when the reliability level is low. It was concluded that there was no missing data among the data shown in Table 1 above and that reliable results could be obtained during the analysis. However, to be certain, a BoxPlot analysis must also be performed. According to the BoxPlot test shown in Table 2, it was considered too early to remove items from the scale due to outliers, so no items were removed. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   41 Table 2: BoxPlot test results for Likert-type items in the pilot analysis phase According to Table 3, it was determined that there was no missing data in categorical variables because the EM Means value was p < 0.05. Therefore, there was no need for missing data imputation. Table 3: Missing data analysis for categorical variables in the pilot study Univariate Statistics N Mean Std. Deviation Missing Number of Extremesa Count Percentage Low High Gender 50 1.4400 ,50143 0 .0 0 0 Education 50 3.0600 ,79308 0 .0 1 0 Age 50 3.1800 .87342 0 .0 2 0 Income 50 3,2200 ,73651 0 .0 2 0 a. Number of cases outside the range (Q1 - 1.5*IQR, Q3 + 1.5*IQR). The removal of items from the scale based on the BoxPlot criterion is performed when the reliability level is low. It was concluded that there was no missing data among the data shown in Table 3 above and that reliable results could be obtained during the analysis phase. However, to be certain, a BoxPlot analysis must also be performed. However, in Table 4, it was considered too early to reduce the number of participants due to the outliers identified in the 42   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . BoxPlot test results for the categorical variables in the pilot phase, and therefore no reduction in the number of participants was made. Table 4: BoxPlot test results for categorical variables in the pilot analysis phase A test or scale being reliable indicates that the data obtained with that scale will also be reliable. A high level of reliability does not indicate a high level of validity. However, a scale with a high level of validity also has a high level of reliability. Thus, a close relationship between validity and reliability can be observed (Coşkun et al., 2015:24). In the literature, a Cronbach’s Alpha value of up to 0.50 is considered acceptable (Coşkun et al., 2015:124). However, a Cronbach’s Alpha (α) value between 0.80 ≤ α < 1.00 indicates a high degree of reliability (Kalaycı, 2017:405). Table 5: Reliability test results of the pilot study Reliability Statistics Cronbach’s Alpha Cronbach’s Alpha Based on Standardised Items Number of Items 0.659 0.650 23 Table 5 shows that the Cronbach’s Alpha test result obtained before applying factor analysis to determine the reliability of the scale is 0.659. In this case, it is possible to say that the scale is sufficiently reliable. To understand whether the items of the scale are semantically similar to each other, the correlations between the items are examined. Table 5 shows the correlation values between the items after the reliability test. In scale OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   43 development and adaptation studies, item correlation values are expected to be greater than 0.20 and all values are expected to be positive (Kalaycı, 2017:405). It is seen that not all items in the scale have positive values. Items in the scale that were below 0.20 and negative were removed from the scale. The rightmost column in Table 6 shows that the values of all items are close to each other. Therefore, it is seen that if any of the items are deleted for this reason, there is no item that will significantly increase reliability. For this reason, a total of 8 items were removed from the scale during the pilot study phase. Table 6: Pilot study item correlation values and alternative Cronbach’s Alpha values Corrected Item-Total Correlation Cronbach’s Alpha if Item Deleted I1 0.292 .642 I2 .272 ,644 I3 ,060 ,664 I4 ,219 ,649 I5 -,048 ,676 I6 -,014 ,672 I7 ,096 ,662 I8 -,032 ,672 I9 ,175 ,653 I10 ,301 ,640 I11 ,367 ,632 I12 ,250 ,646 I13 ,236 ,647 I14 ,146 ,657 I15 ,209 ,650 I16 ,333 ,638 17 -106 ,677 18 ,292 ,641 19 ,442 ,626 20 ,424 ,626 21 ,533 ,616 22 ,392 ,629 23 ,307 ,640 44   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . Factor analysis refers to the reduction of a large number of statements with shared meaning to a smaller number in order to increase their comprehensibility and interpretability (Coşkun et al., 2015:264). To interpret the resulting KMO value from the validity analysis conducted for this purpose, the classification established by Kalaycı (2017) was considered. According to this classification, the minimum KMO value generally considered appropriate by researchers is 0.70. However, this value can be accepted down to 0.50 (Coşkun et al., 2015:268). Table 7: Pilot study KMO results KMO and Bartlett’s Test Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy. 0.682 Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity Approximate Chi-Square 309.073 df 105 Sig. .000 According to Table 7, when examining the Bartlett Sphericity Test results of the scale, it is seen that the KMO value is (0.682) and the Bartlett value is less than 0.05. Therefore, it shows that the scale has sufficient adequacy for factor analysis. As shown in Table 8, in the pilot analysis, a total of 5 dimensions with eigenvalues of 1.00 and above were obtained in the scale, and the overall explanatory power of the scale was found to be 73%. It is expected that the explanatory ratio of the total variance in the scales should be 50% or higher (Coşkun et al., 2017). Therefore, it is possible to say that the scale has sufficient explanatory power. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   45 Table 8: Explained variance value of the scale during the pilot analysis phase Total Variance Explained Component Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative % Total Percentage of Variance Cumulative % 1 3,872 25,816 25,816 3,872 25,816 25,816 2 2,902 19,348 45,164 2,902 19,348 45,164 3 1,671 11,137 56,301 1,671 11,137 56,301 4 1,486 9,910 66,211 1,486 9,910 66,211 5 1,077 7,181 73,392 1,077 7,181 73,392 6 ,758 5,055 78,447 7 ,689 4,592 83,039 8 ,554 3,694 86,733 9 ,456 3,041 89,774 10 ,406 2,710 92,484 11 307 2,047 94,531 12 ,258 1,719 96,251 13 ,246 1,638 97,888 14 ,176 1,176 99,064 15 ,140 ,936 100,000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. The 5 dimensions shown in Table 8 are presented graphically in Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the Scree Plot result of the final scale. According to the result, it can be understood from the number of breaks that 5 dimensions emerged in the scale. 46   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . Figure 2: Scree Plot result of the scale during the pilot study phase When obtaining the validity results of the scale, AFA (exploratory factor analysis) is used to examine whether each statement has sufficient factor loadings. Table 9 below shows the factor loadings and dimensions in detail. As the scale is considered unidimensional, items consisting of a single dimension were not removed from the scale. Instead, items with a factor loading difference of 0.200 or more that expressed the same meaning were removed from the scale. Before proceeding to the final analyses, a total of 12 items were removed from the 23-item scale, resulting in 11 items. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   53 Table 18: Final working AFA results Component Matrixa Component 1 2 I11 .887 I12 ,882 I18 ,732 I19 ,780 I20 ,801 I21 ,772 I22 ,812 I23 ,493 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 2 components extracted. The sample size in the study was 397, and since this number of individuals (n > 50) was large, the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was preferred for normality distribution. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov value for normality distribution must be (p > 0.05). According to Table 19, this condition is not met. To reach a definitive conclusion regarding the normality distribution, it is recommended to evaluate the Q Plot tables (Coşkun et al., 2015). The Q Plot tables are shown in Figures 4 and 5 below. Table 19: Results of the normality test for the data (Kolmogorov-Smirnov) Tests of Normality Kolmogorov-SmirnovaShapiro-Wilk Statistic df Sig. Statistic df Sig. scale_average .081 397 ,000 .981 397 ,000 a. Lilliefors Significance Correction Figure 3 shows the histogram of the normality distribution of the scale whose mean was calculated before proceeding to the hypothesis test. According to this histogram, the data appear to be normally distributed. 54   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . Figure 4: Scale Average result Figure 4 shows the Q Plot result, indicating that the data follows a specific trend. In this case, the data appears to be close to a normal distribution. Figure 5: Q Plot Result OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   55 Figure 5 shows how much the data deviates from the general line. Since the data is distributed in a specific pattern on the line above the 0.0 point, it can be said that a normal distribution is achieved. Figure 6: Simplified Q Plot result In social sciences, in addition to the Kolmogorov-Smirnov value and Q Plot results, it is also necessary to look at the skewness and kurtosis values as a clear result of whether the normal distribution condition is met. Therefore, skewness and kurtosis values are the final stage for normal distribution and are the last in a series of stages to be used when making a decision. Skewness and kurtosis values considered valid for normal distribution must be in the range (-1 < x < +1) (Kalaycı, 2017). However, according to Tabachnick and Fidell (2013), this range should be between (-1.5 < x < +1.5), while values in the range (-2 < x < +2) are also considered acceptable (George and Mallery, 2010; Yalız, 2013:100). Before examining the normality distribution, the average score of the scale must be obtained to achieve reliable results. Therefore, the overall average of the scale was first calculated. To obtain reliable results, it is recommended to check the skewness and kurtosis values of the overall scale. In this case, the average of the Occupational Health and Safety Scale was calculated. As shown in Table 20, it was determined that the average skewness-kurtosis values of the scale were in the range of -0.448 to -0.090 and that each item of the scale met the normal distribution criteria. Normal distribution is a necessary criterion for performing 56   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . parametric analyses in hypothesis testing. In addition, the scale must be Likerttype. This scale meets all the conditions for the application of parametric tests. Without examining the dimensions of the scale separately, as required by the research objective, the scale was tabulated with a single dimension. At the end of the item extraction stages carried out on the scale, the reliability level of the 8-item scale is shown in Table 20. Table 20: General information about the scale Perception of occupational health and safety Scale Items Cronbach’s Alpha KMO Eigenvalue Explainability Factor loadings KolmogorovSmirnov Skewness Kurtosis Scale .727 0.795 1.584 60,934 ,000 -,448 -,090 I11 ,887 -,563 -,616 I12 ,882 -,651 -,568 I18 ,732 -,437 -,620 I19 ,780 -,535 -,688 I20 ,801 -,533 -,515 I21 ,772 -,481 -,497 I22 ,812 -,572 -,561 I23 ,493 -,630 -,511 The percentages of the data collected regarding the demographic variables shown in Table 21, namely “age,” “educational status,” and “income status,” are not evenly distributed. Therefore, as it was considered that reliable results could not be obtained, no difference test was applied for age, educational status, and income status. Since the data is normally distributed and the categorical variable in the hypotheses consists of two groups, the Independent Samples T-Test was applied to test H1 hypothesis. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   57 Table 21: Demographic variables Demographic Characteristics Number (n) Percentage (%) Gender Female 202 50.9 Male 195 49.1 Age 18-25 12 3.0 26-35 44 11.1 36-45 136 34.3 46-55 95 23.9 56 and above 110 27.8 Educational Status Primary 37 9.3 Secondary education 70 17.6 Undergraduate 168 42.3 Postgraduate 122 30.7 Income Status 22,000 and below 36 9.1 22,001 and 43,000 71 17.9 43,0001 and 64,000 166 41.8 64,001 and above 124 31.2 Table 22 contains statements regarding the occupational health and safety perception scale. The mean and standard deviation values of these statements are shown in the table. 58   OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . . Table 22: Mean and standard deviation values of the occupational health and safety perception scale Scale statements Mean S.D I11: Employees constructively remind each other about safe behaviour. 3.67 .059 I12:Feedback related to occupational health and safety is taken into consideration by managers. 3.79 059 I18: I believe I can effectively implement safety rules during work. 3.61 0.056 I19: I am willing to take personal responsibility for preventing workplace accidents. 3.64 0.058 I20: I can maintain safe working practices even in intense or stressful situations. 3.53 0.059 I21: I am confident that I can act correctly and quickly in emergency situations. 3.56 0.057 I22: I regularly use personal protective equipment (e.g., hard hat, gloves, goggles). 3.58 0.60 I23: I believe that occupational health and safety practices increase work efficiency. 3.66 0.057 Total 3.64 0.34 According to Table 22, it is observed that the statements on the scale generally remained at an average level. The standard deviation values for the statements are close to each other. Upon examining the statements, it was concluded that there is above-average consensus that feedback related to occupational health and safety is taken into consideration by managers. However, the fact that employees cannot work with the same level of confidence during busy and stressful times as they do at other times is noteworthy, as it takes a back seat to other statements. Table 23: H1 test result Hypothesis Test Value (F) Significance p. (sig) Significance p.(two-tailed) H1 : The perception of occupational health and safety differs significantly according to gender. 3.288 .071 .981 As shown in Table 23, since the condition that the categorical variable follows a normal distribution (p > 0.05) is met (0.071 > 0.05), the p.(2-tailed) OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   59 value was considered to determine the result of the hypothesis test. The significance p.(2-tailed) value shown in the third column must be (p < 0.05). Since this value is (,981 > 0.05), H1 hypothesis is rejected. Gender Perception of Occupational Health and Safety H1 “,981” rejected Figure 7: Research model based on the results As shown in Figure 6 above, the final version of the research model is presented. Due to the p-value being 0.981 in the difference test, no significant difference was determined. Table 24: Results table for the hypothesis test Hypothesis Test Result H1 : The perception of occupational health and safety differs significantly according to gender. Rejected The results of the research hypotheses shown in Table 24 above are presented. The hypothesis established within the scope of the research has been rejected. 61 8. DISCUSSION Occupational health and safety refers to the understanding that the work environment and conditions should be suitable for human life and should protect human life. Since the safety and comfort of employees will also affect the quality of service, occupational health and safety is important for businesses from both the employer and employee perspectives. This study examined whether perceptions of occupational health and safety differ according to gender in restaurant businesses where women and men share the same working environment. The results of the study revealed that perceptions of occupational health and safety do not differ according to gender. The Risk Perception Theory, which forms the basis of this study, explains how individuals develop behavioural strategies according to the risks they perceive in their environment. The findings of this study do not support the Risk Perception Theory’s suggestion that different behavioural strategies are developed based on environmental factors. Saha and colleagues (2025) proposed a machine learning approach to identify health problems experienced by employees. By examining employees in the workplace with the support of artificial intelligence and identifying the problems they experience or may experience, differentiated according to the job characteristics of women and men, it will be possible to ensure that employees’ perceptions of occupational health and safety reach a level important enough to increase service quality. On the other hand, according to Vitrano and colleagues (2026), it has been shown that as the average age of employees increases, occupational health and safety measures in businesses also increase. Therefore, although no differences were found in this study, which examined one demographic factor, Vitrano and colleagues (2026) found that there were differences in occupational health and safety perceptions based on a different demographic variable, namely age. The differences created by occupational health and safety perceptions highlight the need for a solution in this area. Based on this, it is emphasised that economic incentives and policies do not create a sustainable impact on the implementation of occupational health and safety measures (Vitrano et al., 2026). Vitrano and colleagues stated that the implementation of applied training programmes based on cultural differences and employee relations within the company would contribute to the establishment of occupational health and safety awareness. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OHS) PERCEPTION IN RESTAURANT . . .   69 Social Security Institution, (2024). 2024 yılı istatistik bilgisi. İş kazası ve meslek hastalığı istatistikleri https://www.sgk.gov.tr/Istatistik/Yillik/fcd5e59b6af9-4d90-a451-ee7500eb1cb4 Access Date: 26.11.2025 Sümer, H. H. (2021). İş sağlığı ve güvenliği hukuku. Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık. Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics, Pearson: Sixth Edition. Access Address: https://www.amazon.com/UsingMultivariate-Statistics-Barbara-Tabachnick/dp/0205849571 Taşdemir, C., & Gür, B. (2021). Sınıf öğretmenlerinin iş sağlığı ve güvenliği öz yeterliği (Iğdır ili örneği). International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Pure Sciences, 33 (3), 467-477. TDK – Türk Dil Kurumu (2025). Kaza, https://sozluk.gov.tr/ Access Date: 26.11.2025 Ünal, A., & Demirkol, Ş. (2025). Restoranlarda iş sağlığı ve güvenliği uygulamalarının çalışan sadakati ile olan ilişkisinde hizmet kalitesi anlayışının aracılık etkisi: İstanbul’da bir uygulama, İşletme Araştırmaları Dergisi, 17 (2), 1033-1055. Vitrano, G., Arena, S., Varianou-Mikellidou, C., Micheli, G. J., Sgarbossa, F., & Boustras, G. (2026). An exploratory study of workplace Occupational Safety and Health Interventions and their impact on productivity and performance in an Ageing Workforce. Safety Science, 194, 107031. WHO – World Health Organizational - Dünya Sağlık Örgütü (2025). https://www.who.int/data/gho/data/major-themes/health-and-well-being. Yalız, D. (2013). Investigation of emotional intelligence levels of Anadolu University physical education and sports teaching students. Pamukkale Journal of Sport Sciences, 4 (2),94-111. Yıldız, A. (2019). Hastanelerde iş sağlığı ve güvenliği. Ankara: Ekin Basın Yayın Dağıtım. Yılmaz, F. (2010). Avrupa birliği ülkeleri ve türkiye’de iş sağlığı ve güvenliği kurulları: Türkiye’de kurulların etkinliği konusunda bir araştırma. Uluslararası İnsan Bilimleri Dergisi, 7 (1), 149-192. Yılmaz, G., (2022). İşçi sağlığı ve iş güvenliğinin tarihi gelişimi, http:// www.isguvenligi.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=53. Yüksel, H. (2016). 19. yüzyıl Osmanlı Devleti Maden Ocakları’nda çalışma standartlarının oluşturulması girişimleri: Dilaver Paşa Nizamnamesi Örneği. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 30(5).