近年來，高風險製造業對職業安全衛生管理之要求日益提升，傳統以法規遵循及事後稽核為主之管理模式，已難以因應複雜且高度動態之作業環境。鋼鐵製造業具有高溫、高負荷、多工序及高風險作業等特性，職業災害風險具有即時性與連動性，因此建立兼具預防導向、動態調適及全員參與之安全管理機制，已成為提升職業安全衛生績效的重要課題。
本研究以國內某大型鋼鐵製造公司為個案，建構安全觀察調適機制，探討其導入後對職業安全衛生執行管理模式之影響。研究採個案研究法，結合質性與量化分析，透過制度設計、現場安全觀察、行為紀錄分析及職業災害統計資料比較，分析制度導入前後之管理差異，並探討制度運作、人員行為、風險辨識、改善機制及標準化文件更新等面向之改變。
研究結果顯示，導入安全觀察調適機制後，個案公司之安全管理模式由原本偏重事後管理與結果檢討，逐步轉變為結合現場觀察、即時回饋及持續改善之預防導向管理模式。制度面建立分層安全觀察與回饋機制，提升管理制度之系統性與穩定性；人員面促使作業人員由被動遵循轉為主動辨識風險，安全意識逐步內化；改善面則建立風險辨識、改善執行、成效驗證及跨部門經驗分享之持續改善循環，並透過標準化文件動態更新，使制度與現場作業得以同步精進。此外，個案公司失能傷害相關指標呈現下降趨勢，顯示本研究所建構之安全觀察調適機制對提升安全管理效能及降低職業災害風險具有正向成效，惟部分高風險作業仍需持續精進。
綜合而言，本研究所提出之安全觀察調適機制，以制度建構、行為改變、持續改善及文件更新為核心架構，促使安全管理由被動管制轉向主動預防，提升組織整體職業安全衛生管理效能。研究成果除可作為大型鋼鐵製造業推動安全管理制度之參考，亦可提供其他高風險製造業建構預防導向職業安全衛生管理機制之實務依據。

With the increasing emphasis on proactive occupational safety and health (OSH) management in high-risk industries, traditional safety management approaches that rely primarily on regulatory compliance and post-incident investigation are no longer sufficient to address the complexity and dynamic nature of modern manufacturing environments. The steel manufacturing industry, characterized by high-temperature operations, heavy machinery, multiple production processes, and continuously changing work conditions, requires a management system capable of integrating risk identification, behavioral intervention, and continuous improvement into routine operations. This study therefore developed an Adaptive Safety Observation Mechanism to strengthen occupational safety and health management in a large-scale steel manufacturing enterprise.
The research adopted a case study methodology combining qualitative and quantitative analyses. Through literature review, system design, on-site safety observation, behavioral analysis, occupational injury statistics, and continuous verification of implementation results, a systematic safety observation framework was established. The proposed mechanism integrates hierarchical safety observations, immediate feedback, improvement tracking, cross-departmental communication, standardized document revision, and organizational learning into a complete management cycle, enabling safety management to become an integral part of everyday operations rather than an independent inspection activity.
The implementation results indicate that the proposed mechanism effectively transformed the organization's safety management philosophy from reactive supervision to proactive prevention. At the organizational level, the mechanism improved the consistency and effectiveness of management practices through systematic observation and standardized operating procedures. At the individual level, employees gradually shifted from passive compliance toward proactive hazard identification and risk awareness. Furthermore, continuous improvement mechanisms encouraged timely corrective actions, experience sharing, and dynamic updating of management documents, thereby enhancing communication, management efficiency, and organizational learning. Occupational injury indicators also showed a declining trend following implementation, demonstrating the practical effectiveness of the proposed mechanism in reducing occupational risks and improving overall safety performance.
From an academic perspective, this study extends the application of safety observation beyond conventional behavior-based safety practices by integrating organizational management, adaptive adjustment, continuous improvement, and document management into a unified occupational safety management framework. Rather than viewing safety observation as an isolated inspection tool, the proposed mechanism establishes a systematic process that continuously adapts to operational changes and organizational needs, providing a more sustainable approach to safety management in high-risk industries.
From a practical perspective, the Adaptive Safety Observation Mechanism developed in this study offers a feasible management model for large-scale steel manufacturing enterprises seeking to strengthen safety culture, enhance employee participation, improve hazard identification capability, and institutionalize continuous improvement. Although this research is based on a single case study and further validation in different industrial sectors is recommended, the proposed framework demonstrates strong applicability and scalability. It may therefore serve as a valuable reference for other high-risk manufacturing industries pursuing sustainable occupational safety and health management and organizational resilience.

一、英文部分
1. Alshreef, B. (2025). The ISO 45001: A systematic review of global adoption trends, outcomes, and barriers (2018–2023). International Journal of Innovative Research and Scientific Studies, 8(5), 1127–1136.
2. British Standards Institution. (2007). OHSAS 18001:2007 Occupational health and safety management systems—Requirements. British Standards Institution.
3. Brocal, F., González, C., Sebastián, M. A., Reniers, G. L. L., & Paltrinieri, N. (2018). Standardized risk assessment techniques: A review in the framework of occupational safety. In S. Haugen, A. Barros, C. van Gulijk, T. Kongsvik, & J. E. Vinnem (Eds.), Safety and Reliability – Safe Societies in a Changing World: Proceedings of the 28th International European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL 2018) (pp. 2889–2896). CRC Press/Balkema – Taylor & Francis Group.
4. Cooper, M. D. (2000). Towards a model of safety culture. Safety Science, 36(2), 111–136.
5. Carra, S., Bottani, E., Vignali, G., Madonna, M., & Monica, L. (2024). Implementation of Behavior-Based Safety in the Workplace: A review of conceptual and empirical literature. Sustainability, 16(23), 10195.
6. Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung. (2023). Prevention. Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung.
7. Deming, W. E. (1986). Out of the crisis. MIT Press.
8. Geller, E. S. (2001). The psychology of safety handbook. CRC Press.
9. Glendon, A. I., & Litherland, D. K. (2001). Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction. Safety Science, 39(3), 157–188.
10. Health and Safety Executive. (2005). A review of safety culture and safety climate literature for the development of the safety culture inspection toolkit (Research Report No. 367). HSE Books.
11. Hennock, E. P. (2007). The origin of the welfare state in England and Germany, 1850–1914: Social policies compared. Cambridge University Press.
12. Hirano, H. (1995). 5 pillars of the visual workplace: The sourcebook for 5S implementation. Productivity Press.
13. Ho, S. K. M. (1999). Japanese 5-S—Where TQM begins. The TQM Magazine, 11(5), 311–320.
14. International Labour Organization. (2014). Safety and health at work: A vision for sustainable prevention. International Labour Organization.
15. International Labour Organization. (2019). Safety and health at the heart of the future of work: Building on 100 years of experience. International Labour Office.
16. International Labour Organization. (2021). Anticipate, prepare and respond to crises: Invest now in resilient occupational safety and health systems. International Labour Office.
17. International Organization for Standardization. (2018). ISO 45001:2018 Occupational health and safety management systems—Requirements with guidance for use.
18. Kalteh, H. O., Mortazavi, S. B., Mohammadi, E., & Salesi, M. (2021). The relationship between safety culture and safety climate and safety performance: A systematic review. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 27(1), 206–216.
19. Krause, T. R. (1997). The behavior-based safety process: Managing involvement for an injury-free culture (2nd ed.). Van Nostrand Reinhold.
20. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (2022). About NIOSH. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
21. National Safety Council. (2013). Near miss reporting systems. National Safety Council.
22. Petersen, D. (1982). Human-error reduction and safety management. Garland STPM Press.
23. Phimister, J. R., Oktem, U., Kleindorfer, P. R., & Kunreuther, H. (2003). Near-miss incident management in the chemical process industry. Risk Analysis, 23(3), 445–459.
24. Reason, J. (1997). Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Ashgate.
25. Rosner, D., & Markowitz, G. (Eds.). (1987). Dying for work: Workers' safety and health in twentieth-century America. Indiana University Press.
26. Singh, V., & Verma, A. (2020). A review, simple meta-analysis and future directions of safety climate research in manufacturing organizations. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 26(4), 678–704.
27. Sulzer-Azaroff, B., Harris, S., McCann, K., & Lachenmeyer, S. (1990). Improving workplace safety: A behavioral approach. Journal of Organizational Behavior Management, 11(1), 137–160.
28. Weil, D. (2001). Assessing OSHA performance: New evidence from the construction industry. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20(4), 651–674.

二、中文部分
1. 行政院(2023)，《行政院國家永續發展委員會2022臺灣永續發展目標年度檢討報告》。
2. 沈家鳳(2016)，我國安全衛生和其他先進國家安全衛生推動概述。
3. 金融監督管理委員會(2020)，公司治理3.0－永續發展藍圖。
4. 勞動部(2013)．《職業安全衛生法》。
5. 勞動部(2014) ．《職業安全衛生管理辦法》。
6. 勞動部職業安全衛生署(2022) ，職業安全衛生管理系統指引。
7. 勞動部職業安全衛生署(2022) ，職業安全衛生制度發展沿革。
8. 勞動部職業安全衛生署(2022) ，職場心理健康促進計畫。
9. 勞動部職業安全衛生署(2022) ，職場永續健康與安全SDGs接露實務建議指南https://www.osha.gov.tw/media/j5zbtg2k/%E8%81%B7%E5%A0%B4%E6%B0%B8%E7%BA%8C%E5%81%A5%E5%BA%B7%E8%88%87%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8sdgs%E6%8F%AD%E9%9C%B2%E5%AF%A6%E5%8B%99%E5%BB%BA%E8%AD%B0%E6%8C%87%E5%8D%97.pdf
10. 勞動部(2023)，109年度至111年度各行業總合傷害指數https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/html/com/statnoun.html
11. 勞動部(2023)，強化職場減災行動計畫。
12. 勞動部(2024) ．《勞動部補助相關單位辦理職業災害預防及職業災害勞工重建事項作業要點》
13. 勞動部職業安全衛生署(2025)，《改善安全衛生設施及器具補助作業要點》
三、網路部分
1. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (n.d.). About OSHA. U.S. Department of Labor.https://www.osha.gov/aboutosha。最後瀏覽日2025年1月20日網路資訊
2. 勞動部職業安全衛生署，「勞動部召開鋼鐵業職安衛高峰會，強化工安領導決心」，https://www.osha.gov.tw/48110/48417/48419/146126/post。最後瀏覽日2024年12月20日網路資訊
3. 勞動部職業安全衛生署，「鋼鐵業職災走高，勞動部展開強力勞檢。」https://www.osha.gov.tw/48110/48417/48419/86958/ 。最後瀏覽日2024年12月20日網路資訊
4. 勞動部(2023)，勞動統計名詞https://statdb.mol.gov.tw/html/com/statnoun.html，最後瀏覽日2024年12月20日