CONSIDERATE CONSTRUCTORS SCHEMEANNUAL SURVEY 2012

2 3

SUMMARYThe purpose of this report is to view and understand the ongoing picture of attitudes towards the Considerate Constructors Scheme (CCS) and the construction industry, both by the general public and members of the industry itself – contractors and clients.

METHODOLOGYCCS DATA SURVEYThis survey consisted of about 25 questions emailed out to customers of the CCS. This was almost identical to the online survey carried out by the CCS for the past five years. It gathers opinions on the CCS and the construction industry overall.

There are two main groups within this data – contractors and clients. The questions asked to each respondent were almost identical, but tailored to suit their role in the industry.

BUILDING SUBSCRIBER SURVEYThe reach of the survey has been extended from previous years by sending a selection of the questions to Building subscribers. Where possible this report compares the results of the Building subscriber survey with the CCS data survey.

The Building survey hopefully gives a wider industry view of the CCS and the construction industry.

GENERAL PUBLIC SURVEYTwo thousand members of the public were contacted and asked eight questions regarding their opinion of the construction industry.

OVERVIEW OF THE INDUSTRYThe construction industry went through a tough year in 2011. The data and analysis in this report reflects a construction industry that is struggling in the context of the wider economy.

The coalition’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October 2010 announced £83bn of public sector cuts and in March 2011 chancellor George Osborne announced in his Budget that capital funding would drop 22% over the next three years. In January of this year the Construction Products Association revised down its predictions for public and private construction output for this year. Its forecast is now for output to fall 5.2% in 2012, remain flat in 2013 and return to growth in 2014. In November it had predicted a 3.6% fall in 2012. Output was

forecast to be: ➜ £100bn in 2012 ➜ £101bn in 2013 ➜ £105bn in 2014

According to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the volume of construction output fell by 1.1% (-£295m) in the third quarter of 2011 compared with the same period in 2010, reflecting not only the decline in public work but also a fall in commercial orders. New work also fell by 1.8% (-£340m) 1.

This climate is reflected in the survey results. The respondents indicate that less available work has meant firms have scaled back their operations and cut jobs. This has left the smaller number of employees who remain with a bigger workload, potentially affecting the quality of the work and the way the industry is viewed.

It has also affected some firms’ ability to register with the Scheme and to pay for the additional elements demanded by the Scheme to achieve points.

1 source: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/construction/output-in-the-construction-industry/october-2011/index.html

INTRODUCTION

4 5

“Unfortunately we do still have a [bad] profile in general due to the persistent number of fatal and disabling accidents in the UK, regardless of the probably justified claims of improvement”. Others noted a “cavalier attitude to health and safety” and “no national standard on safety, either belt and braces or absolutely nothing.”

➜ Economic climate ➜ Lack of trust in the supply chain –

client/contractor and contractor/subcontractor

➜ Cost cutting and undercutting➜ Lack of progression in the industry –

lack of monitoring, investment, new products, technology.

The main reasons for negative views expressed by contractors in the CCS survey included:➜ Bad workmanship and inconsistent

standards➜ Appearance of sites➜ Cowboy builders “that probably don’t

register [with the CCS] meaning that the companies that need monitoring are not even involved in the Scheme.”

➜ Economic climate leading to cutting corners

➜ Lack of training Schemes and apprentices

➜ Long hours➜ Red tape and paper work➜ Lack of good practice among small

businesses. Comments included: “small companies, too small to care what the public think […] disregard safety and site tidiness”, “small businesses working privately, not complying with regulators”, “not everyone is doing what we do. Considerate Constructors is improving the industry on many levels, but man-in-van won’t change”.

Clients’ reasons in the Building survey for negative views of the industry included:➜ Health and safety – again this was

mainly directed at smaller sites and sites not registered with the CCS

➜ Lack of consistency. Comments included: “a lack of consistency in procurement, delivery and quality” and “being in the industry for over 30 years […] there is little consistency in any form of audits and checking”

➜ Corruption. One respondent noted: “Cut throat industry, constant conflict. Lack of trust between main contractor and sub contractors”.

➜ Compromising quality vs cost➜ Poor quality, workmanship and lack of

planning

RESPONDENTSThe respondents were broken down into contractor and client company type. The majority of contractors described themselves as “general contractors”. The majority of clients responding to the CCS survey described themselves as “public sector clients” while the majority of clients responding to the Building survey described themselves as “other type of client” [see figures 2-5].

Client responses revealed that many clients expect contractors to undertake CCS registration. Many of the CCS criteria relate to site maintenance and behaviour on site – aspects for which clients felt contractors take responsibility.

VIEW OF THE INDUSTRYThe view of the construction industry from the point of view of those who work within it was mainly positive – with an average score from contractors of 6.7 out of 10 (Building survey) and 7.3 (CCS survey) and from clients of 6.7 (Building survey) and 7.7 (CCS survey), where 10 was a very positive view of the industry.

The main reasons for any negative view of the industry stated by contractors in the Building survey included:➜ Health and safety. One respondent said:

BUILDING AND CCS SURVEY

6 7

FIGURE 1 - Respondent type

Client24%

Contractors76%

BUILDING SURVEY: RESPONDENT SPLIT

Client19%

Contractors81%

CCS DATA SURVEY: RESPONDENT SPLIT

Specialist contractor / other type of contractor

Private sector client

General construction company

Public sector client23%

19%

56%

33%

Civil engineering

Repair and maintenance company

Housebuilder

Other type of client8%

5%

9%

48%

CONTRACTOR TYPE: BUILDING SURVEY CLIENT TYPE: BUILDING SURVEY

Specialist contractor / other type of contractor

Private sector client

General construction company

Public sector client9%

19%

67%

58%

Civil engineering

Repair and maintenance company

Housebuilder

Other type of client8%

2%

15%

23%

CONTRACTOR TYPE: CCS DATA SURVEY CLIENT TYPE: CCS DATA SURVEY

FIGURES 2-5 - Company type➜ Lack of training/education➜ CS survey➜ Cowboy builders➜ Lack of professionalism/management

skills➜ Site presentation including “poorly

controlled sites” and “access to sites” as well as “untidy sites”.

Despite the positive view of the industry, the above comments may explain why 50% of the Building survey respondents answered “not very confident” when asked their views on the prospects for the construction industry in 2012 [see figure 6] (the CCS survey did not include this question).

VIEWS OF CCSWhen asked how satisfied they were that the CCS contributes to a better image of construction the average score of CCS survey respondents was 7.8 out of 10, up from 7.7 in 2010. Interestingly, when asked “Do you feel your company/ your contractor practices are improved as a result of the Scheme or would you have implemented similar practices anyway or already do?” 53% of contractors said they already implement similar practices. However, 73% of clients stated that they

felt their contractors had improved as a result of the CCS.

CCS REGISTRATIONNinety-seven percent of Building survey respondents had heard of the CCS before receiving the survey. Of these only 29% are not registered with the CCS, mostly (62.4%) ticking the box stating the CCS is “not relevant to my company”.

The number of Client Partners and Associate Members among respondents increased this year to 6% (157) and 56% (1386) respectively compared with 5% (139) and 29% (849) respectively in 2010 [see figure 7].

The average number of CCS-registered sites that respondents have been involved with over the last two years is between two and five [see figure 8A and 8B]. This has increased since 2010, with 51% of clients in 2011 compared with 49% in 2010 and 64% of contractors in 2011 compared with 60% in 2010. However, this has remained the average number since 2008 (49% of clients and 56% of contractors).

BENEFITS OF THE SCHEMEWhen asked if the industry benefits from the Considerate Constructors Scheme, contractors gave an average score of 6.3

73% of clients stated that they felt their contractors had improved as a result of the CCS

FIG

UR

E 6

13% 13%12% 50% 49%54% 31% 31%29% 6% 6%5% 1% 1%

60%

Very worried Not very confident Quietly confident Confident Very confident

40%

20%

50%

30%

10%

0%0%

Clients

Contractors

Total

How confident are you with regard to the prospects for the construction industry in 2012?

8 9

FIG

UR

E 9

7.2 7.5 7.2 7.2 7.3 7.3 7.7 7.7

10

2008 2009 2010 2011

6

3

4

7

8

9

5

1

2

0

ClientsContractors

To what extent do you feel the industry benefits from the Considerate Constructors Scheme? (please rate on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is of no benefit and 10 is of considerable benefit)

FIG

UR

E 11

8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.3 8.1 8.2 8.3 7.8 7.7 8.0 8.07.9 7.6 8.0 8.3 8.0 7.6 7.9 7.9

10

General public around the site

The industry generally You as a client The contractor The environment

6

3

4

7

8

9

5

1

2

0

2008 20102009 2011

In your experience whom does a registered site benefit compared to one that isn’t registered? (please rate on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is doesn’t benefit at all and 10 is benefits greatly) - Client responses

FIG

UR

E 10

7.5 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.4 7.3 7.8 7.9 8.1 8.1 7.3 7.6 7.8 8.0 8.1 6.5 7.2 7.5 7.5 7.87.6 7.7 7.7 7.97.9 8.1 8.2 8.3

10

General public around the site

The industrygenerally

Your clients Your company The environment Your workforce

6

3

4

7

8

9

5

1

2

0

2008 20102009 2011 2012

In your experience whom does a registered site benefit compared to one that isn’t registered? (please rate on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is doesn’t benefit at all and 10 is benefits greatly) - Contractor responses

FIG

UR

E 7

60%

Associate contractor Members

Client Partners Non membercontractor

Non memberclients

Did not indicate member status

40%

20%

50%

30%

10%

0%

2011

2010

56%29% 5% 6% 43% 13% 11%12% 4%22%

FIG

UR

E 8

A

60%

1 site 2 to 5 sites 6 to 10 sites Over 10 sites

40%

20%

50%

30%

10%

0%

2007

2009

2008

2010

2011

57% 56% 58% 60% 64%20% 20% 20% 20% 16% 12% 10% 10% 10% 9% 11% 14% 12% 10% 11%

How many sites have you been involved with in the last two years which have been registered with the Scheme? - Contractor responses

Is your company an Associate Member/Client Partner of the CCS?

FIG

UR

E 8

B

60%

1 site 2 to 5 sites 6 to 10 sites Over 10 sites

40%

20%

50%

30%

10%

0%

2008

2010

2009

2011

49% 48% 49% 51%22% 24% 22% 21% 13% 13% 14% 13% 17% 15% 15% 15%

How many sites have you been involved with in the last two years which have been registered with the Scheme? - Client responses

10 11

out of 10 (Building survey) and 7.7 (CCS survey) and clients gave an average score of 6.7 (Building survey) and 7.7 (CCS survey) [see figure 9].

For clients and contractors, the biggest benefit of the CCS is that it creates better relations between the construction industry and the public.

Clients and contractors also answered that those who benefit the most from a registered construction site are the general public (8.4 out of 10) closely followed by the industry generally (8.3), while clients also felt that they themselves benefited from working with a registered site (8.3) [see figures 10 and 11].

In terms of site management contractors and clients said that the Scheme is beneficial, scoring an average of 7.6 and 8 respectively, where 10 means “benefits greatly”. This is a score that has risen steadily since 2008, reflecting the above perceived benefit for the client [see figure 12].

When asked if they would recommend the Scheme to others only 4% of contractors and 3% of clients answered “no”, with 67% of contractors and 68% of clients ticking “strongly recommend”. This is an increase on the last four years for contractors and for clients is an increase

on 2009 but the same as 2010 [see figures 13 and 14].

Other benefits stated include:➜ BREEAM points➜ Setting high standards➜ Improving public perception➜ Sense of professionalism in the industry➜ Pride/ a benchmark of where individual

sites/ firms stand in relation to other sites.

LEAST SATISFACTORY ELEMENTS OF THE SCHEMEThe CCS survey results showed that the cost of registration was the least satisfactory part of the Scheme for contractors and clients. Other low-scoring areas included consistency of scoring (contractors) and the way the Scheme is promoted (clients). COST OF REGISTERING The average scores out of 10 for the cost of registering was 7.2 (contractors) and 6.8 (clients).

Comments included that “registration should be free or at least cheaper for smaller companies to be able to participate to promote to a fuller client base” and “smaller, remote sites where the client is not willing

The CCS survey results showed that the cost of registration was the least satisfactory part of the Scheme

FIG

UR

E 14

67% 29% 68% 29%3%

59% 38%3%

68% 29%3%

80%

2008 2009 2010 2011

60%

30%

40%

70%

50%

10%

20%

0

NoPossiblyStrongly recommend

3%

FIG

UR

E 13

57% 38% 5% 62% 34%4%

58% 38%4%

67% 29%4%

80%

2008 2009 2010 2011

60%

30%

40%

70%

50%

10%

20%

0

NoPossiblyStrongly recommend

Would you recommend registering with the Scheme to others? - Contractor responses

Would you recommend registering with the Scheme to others? - Client responses

FIG

UR

E 12

7.0 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.4 7.8 7.6 8.0

10

2008 2009 2010 2011

6

3

4

7

8

9

5

1

2

0

ClientsContractors

To what extent does the Scheme benefit the way in which sites are managed? (please rate on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is of no benefit and 10 is of benefits greatly)

12 13

to share the cost but asks for the Scheme are at a loss”. It was also noted that “cost is always a concern in this current climate”.

CONSISTENCY IN MONITORS’ SCORINGThe average scored for consistency among Monitors was 7.3 (contractors) and 7.4 (clients).

Just over 83% of respondents felt that the scoring process was “about right”, although this has dropped from 84% in 2010 and 85% in 2009. A recurring point from respondents was that scoring differed according to the Monitor, and according to the size of the site.

Smaller firms felt they were being judged according to the same criteria as larger and wealthier sites, putting them at a disadvantage. Another recurring suggestion was for unannounced visits by Monitors as “pre-notification of visits grossly distorts scores”.

PROMOTION OF THE SCHEME The way in which the Scheme is promoted or brought to the attention of the general public received scores of 7.6 (contractors) and 7 (clients).

One respondent commented: “The general public do not know enough about

the Scheme outside of the actions that contractors do to the local communities [sic]. Initiatives to promote the Scheme from outside of the contractor’s regime should be sought to further improve the image of the industry”.

DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF THE SCHEME

WEBSITESeventy-eight percent of contractors have used the website, but only 43% of clients. This is an increase for both groups since 2009. However overall satisfaction with the website has dropped, with respondents’ “general impression” averaging at 7.7 out of 10 , down from 7.9 in 2009 and 2010 and “ease of finding information” scoring an average of 7.6, down from 7.8 in 2009 and 2010.

Only contractors were asked about online registration. The majority of contractors (55%) did not register via the website in 2011, however online registrations did see an increase from 2009 (38%) and 2010 (40%). Satisfaction with the online registration process has remained the same as 2010 at 8.1 out of 10.

NEWSLETTERFifty-seven percent of respondents receive and read the newsletter Industry Image, down from 74% in 2010. Of this, 70% of contractors read it and 43% of clients. Respondents liked the updates on best practice offered here, but there was a consensus that a hard copy or downloadable format would be useful. Satisfaction with the newsletter has increased from 7.1 out of 10 in 2009 and 2010 to 7.4 in 2011.

DISPLAY MATERIALComments about display material were generally negative, with most respondents unhappy with the presentation of the material (size, colour) and the way it is provided. Comments included:➜ “Display material is not free to download

– CCS does not exist to make a profit so why is this?”

➜ “No guidance given except in handout pack, no contact with or from office team, no information on the national award scheme, [I have] never seen any promotion to the general public only posters issued to site.”

➜ “Having spoken to the public around our sites the Scheme is not understood by the day to day public, just those involved

with the construction industry.”➜ “Rarely is the Scheme in the national

press.”➜ “What would be good is to see some of

the major London developments actively promoting the Scheme. It is not as if we see the Shard with a banner on it.”

➜ “Provide poles for flags. The material of the flag should be more resilient to wet weather.”

➜ “Signage on construction sites blends into the background. The CCS banner while a good size does not particularly stand out against the multitude of other red, white, and blue safety signage. Give it a neon yellow background. Also how

about 4ft x 1ft CCS signs for hoardings which can repeat several times along the hoarding?”

CONCLUSIONA repeated theme of the professional surveys was the inconsistency of scoring and the disadvantage of being a small site or a site with a smaller budget. Spot checks were recommended as a way of preventing last minute changes of practice in the run up to a Monitor’s visit.

The biggest perceived benefit of being part of the CCS was to improve relations between the industry and the public, however, a separate General Public Survey (see separate report) showed that only 16% of respondents had heard of the Scheme and the average level of satisfaction with the construction industry was only 5.3. Respondents indicated that this could be addressed by further attention to display materials and public relations. Better promotion of the Scheme and the good works of the industry would also, according to respondents, help battle the problem of cowboy builders which affected the general public’s view of the industry and contributed to the industry’s own negative view of itself.

OTHER SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDITIONAL AIMS FOR THE CCS

➜ More feedback and advice on how to reach targets and “how to do the initiatives at little cost. In the current climate it is difficult for companies to justify spending the money required to gain the points”.

➜ Increase public awareness – of both the Scheme and the construction industry in general

➜ Education – training of construction workers and creating apprenticeships: “Get reps into schools”, “Encourage training of young managers”.

➜ Lots of respondents said they had no suggestions for additional aims but that the CCS should focus on getting their current objectives right first

➜ Clients generally thought that it should be mandatory for contractors to be members but contractors were concerned about costs in the current economic climate and worried that standards would be continue to be tightened.

Fifty-seven percent of respondents receive and read the newsletter

14 15

RESPONDENTSThe General Public Survey is a representative view of the general public, rather than the industry-focused surveys detailed separately.

Respondents to the General Public Survey were predominantly employed (63%) and ABC1 (55%). The highest number of respondents came from the North of England (25%) and 52% of respondents were women.

VIEW OF THE INDUSTRYThe general public’s view of the industry is less positive than that of those who work within the industry, with an average score of 5.3 out of 10. This is a drop from 2010, when the average score was 6.2, and still below the previous two years of 5.5 in 2008 and 2009.

The most negative scoring came from older respondents, with retired respondents and those over 55 scoring an average of 5 out of 10 each. The highest average score came from the 18-24 age group, however they scored less than a point higher, with 5.8.

The main reasons include:➜ Too much building➜ Poor quality of new builds: “New build

houses are not built to the same standards as older homes; construction firms cut corners to make money.”

➜ Cowboy builders and horror stories of cowboy builders (this echoes the results from the CCS and Building surveys which indicate that bad press – and a lack of positive promotion in the press – contribute to the negative view of the construction industry). One respondent summed it up: “I have had some good experiences with builders but have read and heard of cowboys”.

➜ The economy – either land is left undeveloped or people they know in the industry are unemployed

➜ The industry/building is not sustainable➜ Lots of “don’t know” replies with low

scores. This corresponds with the CCS and Building survey results, which showed that people within the industry feel the general public has a negative view of the industry and that CCS does not do enough to promote the Scheme to the public. One respondent said: “Overall there appears to be nobody which standardizes plumbing, electrics and general building. As it is no one knows whether tradesmen are genuine or rogue traders.”

The general public’s view of the industry is less positive than that of those who work within the industry

GENERALPUBLIC SURVEY

16 17

Positive views included:➜ Hard working➜ Honest➜ “Do a dangerous job well”

INCONVENIENCEFor this question, a score of 1 indicates “extremely inconvenienced” and 10 indicates “not inconvenienced at all”.

This year’s survey had the lowest average score for inconvenience caused to the general public (6.5), a score which has been on a steady decline since 2008 (7.2) [see figure A].

The area that experienced the most inconvenience was London, where the average score was 5.7 and the age range that gave the lowest scores was 18-24 (6).

Roadworks were voted the most inconvenient form of construction, affecting 61% of respondents, however this is down from 73% in 2010, 70% in 2009 and 63% in 2008. The next highest scoring inconvenience was “none of these”, which scored 25%, significantly up from 15% in 2009 and 2010 and 20% in 2008.

Delays caused by site traffic were deemed the most annoying aspect of the construction industry by 39% of

respondents, up from 34% in 2010. Noise was the next most annoying aspect for 28% of respondents, up from 23% in 2010. Construction vehicles and cars parked around sites scored highest in 2009 with 39% but this has now dropped to just 25% for 2011 [see figure B].

CCS AWARENESSOnly 16% of respondents had heard of the CCS, however this is an increase on previous years, with 13% in 2009 and 2010 and 12% in 2008. ➜ The most effective method of

communication was seeing the name on a building site (signs, posters,

billboards, hoardings). Sixty-nine percent of respondents were aware of the CCS through this, up from 63% in 2010 and significantly up from 2009 (60%) and 2008 (50%).

➜ The lowest scoring category was via the TV which reached 1.9%, up from 1% in 2009 and 2010 but down from 4% in 2008.

➜ A new category was introduced for the 2011 survey, “on a van”, but this only reached an average of 1.6% of respondents [see graph C].

DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS➜ Respondents from London were the

most aware of the CCS (28%).➜ Twenty-two percent of male

respondents answered “yes I have heard of the CCS” compared to 11% of female respondents.

➜ The most aware age group was 35-44.➜ Households with children were more

aware than those without. 15% of child-free households had heard of the CCS compared with 24% of households with three or more children, who answered “yes”.

Compiled by Jessica Baron

FIG

UR

E A

7.2 7.0 7.0 6.5

10

2008 2009 2010 2011

6

3

4

7

8

9

5

1

2

0

Roadworks were voted the most inconvenient form of construction, affecting 61% of respondents

How inconvenienced, if at all, have you been by construction activity generally in the last 12 months? (please rate on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 is “I have been extremely inconvenienced” and 10 is “not inconvenienced at all:) 50

%

35%

20%

45%

30%

15%

40%

25%

10%5%

Delays caused by site traffic

Noise

Construction vehicles and cars

parked around sites

Mud and dust around sites

Poor pedestrian routes around sites

Lack of concern for the environment

Unsocial behaviours of builders

Unsocial work hours

Damage to property

Safety in or around the site

Site lighting

Don’t know

Other

Not applicable - nothing annoys me about the

construction industry

0%

39%

34%

37%

35%

28%

23%

30%

23%

25%

32%

39%

30%

24%

25%

30%28%

24%

25%

27%

23%

11%

12%

19%

15%

11%

7%

7%

6%

7%

7%

8%

7%

4%

6%

8%

9%

17%

17%

12%

16%

5%

4%

3%

4%

5%

1%

1%

2%

2%

2%

3%

2%

5%

4%

4%

2%

2008 20102009 2011

FIGURE B Which three, if any, of the following MOST annoy you about the construction

18 19

75%

50%

55%

30%

65%

70%

45%

25%

60

%

35%

40%

15%

20%

10%5%

Seen it on a building site (signs / posters /

billboards / hoardings)

Know of it because I work in the industry

Know of it because someone I know works

in the industry

In the press

At work

Internet

TV

On a van

Other

Don’t know

0%

50%

60%

63%

69%

4%

3%

10%

3.4%

2%

5%

4%

2.2%

4%

1%

1%

1.9%

12%

14%

7%

5%

26%

12%

17%

4.7%

11%

17%

8%

2.5%

3%

4%

3%

2.2%

0%

0%

0%

1.6%

1%

2%

2%

7.2%2008 20102009 2011

FIGURE C Where did you hear of the Considerate Constructors Scheme?

Client SolutionS taglineS: For uSe on any projeCt 4 pageS or longer

For anything in-mag: or where SpaCe iS tight:

For anything not in-mag (SupplementS etC):

produced by

+44 (0) 20 7560 4291 www.beclientsolutions.com

produced by Client Solutions | +44 (0) 20 7560 4291 | www.beclientsolutions.com