Working Together for a Collective Culture of Construction

8/8/2019 Working Together for a Collective Culture of Construction

1/17


2/17

COBRA 2009The Construction and Building Research Conference of theRoyal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

Held at the University of Cape Town, 10-11 September 2009

ISBN 978-1-84219-519-2

RICS12 Great George StreetLondon SW1P 3ADUnited Kingdom

www.rics.org/cobra

September 2009


3/17

COBRA 2009

The construction and building research conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

held at the University of Cape Town, 10-11 September 2009

The RICS COBRA Conference is held annually. The aim of COBRA is to provide a platform for the disseminationof original research and new developments within the specific disciplines, sub-disciplines or field of study of:

Management of the construction process

Cost and value management Building technology Legal aspects of construction and procurement Public private partnerships Health and safety Procurement

Risk management Project management

The built asset

Property investment theory and practice Indirect property investment Property market forecasting Property pricing and appraisal Law of property, housing and land use planning Urban development Planning and property markets Financial analysis of the property market and property assets The dynamics of residential property markets Global comparat ive analysis of property markets Building occupation Sustainability and real estate Sustainability and environmental law Building performance

The property industry

Information technology Innovation in education and training Human and organisational aspects of the industry

Alternative dispute resolution and conflict management Professional education and training

Organising Committee

The Organising Committee for the RICS COBRA 2009 Conference consisted of:

Paul Bowen (Chair) University of Cape TownIan Jay University of Cape TownKeith Cattell University of Cape TownKathy Michell University of Cape TownStephen Brown RICS

Page 5


4/17

The doctoral students session was arranged and conducted by:

Monty Sutrisna University of salford, UKLes Ruddock University of Salford, UK

The CIB W113 Law and dispute resolution session was aranged and conducted by Paul Chynoweth of theUniveristy of Salford, UK

Peer review process

All papers submitted to COBRA were subjected to a double-blind (peer review) refereeing process. Referees weredrawn from an expert panel, representing respected academics from the construction and building research com-munity. The conference organisers wish to extend their appreciation to the following members of the panel fortheir work, which is invaluable to the success of COBRA.

Rifat Akbiyikli Sakarya University, TurkeyJohn Boon UNITEC, New Zealand

Richard Burt Auburn University, USAKate Carter Heriot-Watt University, UKKeith Cattell University of Cape Town, South AfricaSai On Cheung City University of Hong KongGrace Ding University of Technology Sydney, AustraliaPeter Edwards RMIT, AustraliaCharles Egbu University of Salford, UKHemanta Doloi University of Melbourne, AustraliaPeter Fenn University of Manchester, UKPeter Fisher University of Northumbria, UKChris Fortune University of Salford, UKRod Gameson University of Wolverhampton, UKTheo Haupt Cape Peninsula University of Technology, South Africa

Godfaurd John University of Central Lancashire, UKKeith Jones University of Greenwich, UKMohammed Kishk Robert Gordons University, UKAndrew Knight Nottingham Trent University, UKEsra Kurul Oxford Brookes University, UKJohn Littlewood University of Wales Institute, Cardiff, UKChampika Liyanage University of Central Lancashire, UKGreg Lloyd University of Ulster, UKS M Lo City University of Hong KongMart in Loosemore University of New South Wales, AustraliaTinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South AfricaSteven McCabe Birmingham City University, UK

Andrew McCoy Virginia Tech, USAKathy Michell University of Cape Town, South AfricaHenry Odeyinka University of Ulster, UKRobert Pearl University of KwaZulu-Natal, South AfricaKeith Potts University of Wolverhampton, UKMatthijs Prins Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsRichard Reed Deakin University, AustraliaHerbert Robinson London South Bank University, UKDavid Root University of Cape Town, South Africa

Page 6


5/17

Kathy Roper Georgia Institute of Technology, USASteve Rowlinson University of Hong KongWinston Shakantu Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, South AfricaMelanie Smith Leeds Metropolitan University, UKSuresh Subashini University of Wolverhampton, UKMing Sun University of the West of England, UKJoe Tah Oxford Brookes University, UKDerek Thomson Heriot-Watt University, UKBasie Verster University of the Free State, South AfricaJohn Wall Waterford Institute of Technology, IrelandSara Wilkinson Deakin University, AustraliaFrancis Wong Hong Kong Polytechnic UniversityIng Liang Wong Glasgow Caledonian Unversity, UKAndrew Wright De Montfort University, UKGeorge Zillante University of South AustraliaSam Zulu Leeds Metropolitan University, UK

In addition to this, the following specialist panel of peer-review experts assessed papers for theCOBRA session arranged by CIB W113, Law and dispute resolution:

John Adriaanse London South Bank University, UKJulie Adshead University of Salford, UKRachelle Alterman Technion, IsraelJane Ball University of Sheffield, UKMichael Brand University of New South Wales, AustraliaPenny Brooker University of Wolverhampton, UKAlice Christudason National University of SingaporePaul Chynoweth University of Salford, UKPhilip Chan National University of Singapore

Sai On Cheung City University of Hong KongRon Craig Loughborough University, UKAsanga Gunawansa National University of SingaporeRob Home Anglia Ruskin University, UKPeter Kennedy Glasgow Caledonian University, UKAnthony Lavers Keating Chambers, UKTim McLernon University of Ulster, UKWayne Lord Loughborough University, UKFrits Meijer Delft University of Technology, The NetherlandsJim Mason University of the West of England, UKBrodie McAdam University of Salford, UKTinus Maritz University of Pretoria, South AfricaMark Massyn University of Cape Town, South AfricaIssaka Ndekugri University of Wolverhampton, UKRobert Pearl University of KwaZulu-Natal, South AfricaLinda Thomas-Mobley Georgia Tech, USAYvonne Scannell Trinity College Dublin, IrelandCathy Sherry University of New South Wales, AustraliaHenk Visscher Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Page 7


6/17

RICS COBRA Research Conference, University of Cape Town, 10-11 th September 2009 .Ian Kennedy and Don Lee, pp 181-192

- 181 -

Working together for a collective culture of constructionsafety

Ian Kennedy1

and Don Lee2

1 School of Construction, Economics and Management, University of the Witwatersrand,Johannesburg, South Africa

2 Recovre, Melbourne, Australia

Email: [email protected] ; [email protected]

Abstract:

In the Construction industry, there must also be a Collective Culture of Safety. One of the challenges facing the construction industry is in determining what more can be doneabout Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S). Stakeholders may appear to complywith all OH&S legislation. However, what else should be done?

This paper therefore presents an analysis of the stakeholders responsible for a culture of safe collective and individual behaviour in the construction industry and their potentialinteractions.

Previously published models for the stakeholders involved in safety are three- and four-party models involving five different stakeholders. This paper extended the models to

include ten stakeholders.All the OH&S stakeholders should all be working together to implement safe, collectiveand individual behaviour. The stakeholders that were identified from the literatureinclude educators, employers (professionals, contractors and sub-contractors),employees (workers, foremen, tradesmen, labourers), clients, Trade Unions, Authorities,such as Governments (e.g., Departments of Labour and Health). These are expanded inthis paper to include five additional stakeholders. It follows that the expanded group of ten health and safety stakeholders results in there being one hundred potentialinteractions involving stakeholder consultations and commitments.

The hundred potential interactions need to be considered in order to obtain safecollective and individual behaviour.

Keywords :Construction industry, safety culture, stakeholders behaviour.

1 The Need for a Collective Culture of Safety

Six km from the first-mentioned author's house was a tragic incident. The report on thisincident (Muragan, 2009) had the subcontractor insisting that the workers were coveredby the Workman's Compensation Act, and the workers claiming that they were forced to


7/17


- 182 -

work under unsafe conditions. The subcontractor said in effect: "Our paperwork isfaultless", but the workers were saying (and sadly proving) that "The site was unsafe".

The theme of this paper is that it is not just one stakeholder doing the wrong thing

but that OH&S is collectively approached in a thoughtless, ill-organised andunsystematic way. The challenge is to ensure that the stakeholder's culture is such thatall are fully committed to doing what is needed to achieve effective OH&S.Unfortunately, the classical models for the stakeholders involved in safety are limited to3- and 4-party models. For example, work by Clarke (1999) in the allied field of transportation safety implies a 3-party model (operatives, supervisors and seniormanagers).

We should be working together instead of talking past each other. But who is this"We"? It is not just three parties. Nor is it just the four parties classified as role playersby Dingsdag, Biggs and Sheahan (2007) as being the "Occupational Health and Safety

Officers, Foremen / Supervisors, Trade Union Representatives and the workersthemselves."

Consequently this paper suggests that there ten stakeholders involved. Figure 1 is amesh, showing the ten role players in the culture of safety. Lines have been drawn fromeach stakeholder to every other stakeholder to show that the number of interactions is102 = 100, if internal interactions are counted, and directions are distinguished.


8/17


- 183 -

Self-employedpersons

Public

Suppliers of products &

services

Authorities

Education &training

providers

InsuranceGroups

Employees

Registeredemployee

groups

Registered

employergroups

Contractors

Figure 1. Stakeholders who have a role in achieving effective OH&S within the building industry sectorand their interactions

2 Review of a Collective Culture of Safety

A fundamental aspect of construction industry today is the need to ensure the right tosafety of construction workers and the safety of the subsequent occupants. Thus thefocus of modern safety management systems and methods includes SHE (Safety,Health, Environment), QHSE (Quality, Health, Safety, Environment), OH&S(Occupational Health and Safety) towards a culture of safety.

Nominal adherence to OH&S legal compliance in the constriction industry is notenough. There must also be a Collective Culture of Safety. One challenge facingemployers in the construction industry is in determining what more they can do aboutOH&S. They may have an effective OH&S system; they appear to comply with OH&S


9/17


- 184 -

legislation, and performance indicators show that they have few lost-time injuries andthere are no reports of any incidents (Lee and Deery, 2006).

This paper uses the more modern phrase of a "culture of safety" rather than the older

term (Guldenmund, 2000) of a "climate of safety", although the older phrase persists.The culture of safety is generally regarded as the common attitude and way that safetyis managed at the construction site or place of work. The culture of safety involves acommon system of shared beliefs, values and behaviour of those working within theindustry. This culture of safety determines how the industry goes about its work andhow it provides for the wellbeing of its workers.

2.1 Balanced Scorecard

Mahomed (2003) advocates using a balanced scorecard tool to benchmark theorganizational safety culture in construction. He argues that this tool has the potential toprovide a way to translate the organization's safety policy into a clear set of goals acrossthe four perspectives: management, operational, customer and learning, which he saysrepresent all stakeholders. The current work expands on these stakeholders from four,with 16 interactions to ten stakeholders, with 100 potential interactions.

2.2 Safety Management Systems

Safety Management Systems, by themselves are not the answer. According to Marosszeky et al., 2004:

"Safety and management systems have largely been developed in response tostatutory requirements. Thus reporting has focused mostly on mandatoryinformation related to accidents and injuries. Such measures suffer from threedrawbacks. Firstly, they measure what happens after the event and are reactive interms of management response. Secondly, in the absence of any proactivemeasure, causal relationships cannot be established. Thirdly, they are negative innature and acknowledged as being unsuccessful as measures of safetyperformance" (citing Trethewy et al. 2000, Mohamed, 2003).

2.3 Risk Perception

Risk perception is a fascinating aspect of safety. According to the Web site, Risktaking(2009):

"Risk taking behaviours such as rock climbing, gambling and drug taking representone of the most perplexing problems in the field of psychology. The need for safetyis fundamental, are people who take huge risks therefore illogical or mentally ill?Recent research findings shed an altogether different perspective on thesebehaviours however, and it seems that normal people are motivated to take risks asa result of their psychological makeup and the nature of the situation they findthemselves in."

People take risks when they do not or cannot do an accurate cost-benefit analysis of thestatistical odds. This can happen, when emotion rules over logic or the person suffers

from faulty logic or poor education or simply ascribes a low value to his life. A simple


10/17


- 185 -

example is if a construction worker fears the loss of his job more than he fears the lossof a limb from unsafe practices he is forced to follow. There is pressure to get job doneno matter what the risk is. The worker needs a job to put food on the table or remitmoney home. Illegal gold mining of old shafts is another example of "calculated" risk-

taking. "I haven't had an accident doing this before" is the worker's voice-of-experiencespeaking. Familiarity with the construction environment sadly breeds contempt.

2.4 Employee representatives

Employee representation (including trade unions) is an important factor in advancingthe culture of safety. According to Walters (1996), trade union representation in healthand safety plays an important role in effective health and safety, both through the role of trade unions within the workplace and through their ability to provide support forrepresentation through training and information. In later work, Walters (1998) pointsout that consultation regulation had very limited support for employee representation inhealth and safety in small enterprises. Even having representation does not guarantee asafe workplace.

2.5 Company size

Certain companies have a higher company risk profile. According to Hasle and Limborg(2006), the employees of small enterprises are exposed to higher risks than employeeswho are working in larger enterprises, and those enterprises have difficulties incontrolling risks. The most effective preventive approach seems to be simple, low costsolutions, disseminated through personal contact. It also is argued (Mayhew andQuinlan, 1997) that "poorer OHS is an important consequence of subcontracting."

2.6 Developing a positive safety cultureDeveloping a positive safety culture is important. Previous research by Mohamed(2002) in the construction industry reveals "the importance of the role of managementcommitment, communication, workers' involvement, attitudes, competence as well assupportive and supervisory environments, in achieving a positive safety climate." Animportant document in this field is by Dingsdag et al., (2006) a summary of which isreproduced in Table 1.


11/17


- 186 -

Table 1. The five sections of a Construction Safety Competency Framework and a brief explanation of theircontent

(Source: Dingsdag et al., 2006)

The framework structure

1. Developing a positive safety culture a definition of safety culture and the particular principal contractorstaff actions that lead to a positive safety culture.2. Identifying Safety Management Tasks (SMTs) and safety critical positions a definition of key staff competency requirements, based on identifying the safety management tasks that safety critical positionholders must be able to complete effectively.3. Defining competency requirements: The Task and Position Competency Matrix the allocation of competency requirements for the identified principal contractors safety critical positions, that is, who needsto be able to do what activities.4. Integrating the framework guidelines for implementing the competency framework outlined in thedocument.

5. SMT competency specifications and culture outcomes to be achieved elements for each of the 39identified safety management tasks.

Furthermore, a Safety Climate Index can be used to measure the climate of safety. Seefor example Garcia et al . (2004). In the same year, project managers were researched byTeo, Ling and Chong (2004). In particular, they found "that site accidents are morelikely to happen when there are inadequate company policies, unsafe practices, poorattitudes of construction personnel, poor management commitment and insufficientsafety knowledge and training of workers."

According to Nahrgang, Morgeson, and Hofmann (2007), "the role of safety climate ...is one of the most often studied antecedents of safety performance." We would thereforespecialize their generalization to argue that the culture of safety is a prerequisite to asafe performance in the construction industry.

Earlier work by Biggs, Dingsdag, Sheahan and Stenson (2005) "indicated the strongrole that ... workplace collaboration had in influencing the ability of organisations todevelop and maintain a positive safety culture." We adopt their (2005) definition of aculture of safety to describe the values, norms, attitudes and beliefs that are heldcollectively towards safety within an organisation.

2.7 Conclusion to the review

It would seem that research has been done on some stakeholders, but not on their combined contribution to a culture of safety. This paper now investigates thestakeholders and their interactions.

3 Towards a Study of OH&S Culture

This section presents important factors in planning, designing, building and improving aculture of safety in the construction industry, where people work together to implementsafe, collective and individual behaviour. The section therefore first identifies particularstrategies to achieve that culture.


12/17


- 187 -

According to Cooper and Philips (2004), safety climate measures are useful diagnostictools in ascertaining employee's perceptions of the way that safety is being operation-alized.

Other researchers have built a safety performance-measurement tool. Ahmad and Gibb(2003) summarize its use:

"The safety culture of an organization is essentially a description of the attitude of personnel about the company they work for, their perceptions of the magnitude of the risks to which they are exposed and their beliefs in the necessity, practicalityand effectiveness of controls. Safety culture, a sub-set of the overall organizationalculture, is now believed to be a key predictor of safety performance. Organizationswith good safety cultures have employees with positive attitudes towards safetypractices. These organizations have mechanisms in place to gather safety-relatedinformation, measure safety performance and bring people together to learn how to

work more safely."

This paper now outlines the foundation of behaviour-based safety management.Behaviour-based safety is commonly defined as applying behavioural sciences tochange workers behaviour in real-world situations, such as on the construction site. Itconcentrates on what workers are doing, it analyzes why they do it and then appliesinterventions based on research results to improve what the workers are doing.

Safety Management Systems (SMSs) play an important role. This approach putsincreased reliance on the construction industry to cultivate a culture that will increasesafety. In a way, it is a type of performance-based regulation. Guidelines have been

developed for SMSs, as documented by Mitchison and Porter (1996) and hazards can beminimized. One particular SMS documented by Quintana (1999) is Task-delineatedsafety, which draws attention to the need for everybody to keep the areas safe.

Safety competency is an important issue that must be addressed and a SafetyCompetency Framework is given by Dingsdag et al. (2006). This must be undertaken bymanaging and collaborating with external stakeholders. According to Harrison and StJohn (1996), an increasing management emphasis on "boundarylessness" has created anew mindset concerning external stakeholders. It is our view that safety cannot besuccessful without engaging all stakeholders to help in all the interactions.

Performance measurement is only one angle of the triangle of Safety Culture, Climateand Performance Measurement. Mohamed (2004) makes the valid point that workingunder pressure is the norm in the construction industry, leading to conflict betweenproduction requirements and safety requirements. On a more positive note, Mohamed(2004) points out that a "commitment and communication are prerequisites to creatingand sustaining a positive safety climate in construction site environments". A"supportive environment" is important. Increased training in the valuable skill of detecting hazards is suggested.

Amongst other things, management systems must be in place, as Bakri et al. (2006)point out.


13/17


- 188 -

4 Achieving a Collective OH&S Culture

The authors have defined the circle of ten interacting stakeholders in safe collective andindividual behaviour as being those shown in Figure 1. There are therefore 10 integrated

stakeholders (new ones shown below in bold), whose behaviour should collectively playa role in achieving the desired health and safety outcomes. These are the:

1. Employee's behaviour

2. Education and training provider's behaviour

3. Authority's (Governments and Institutes) behaviour

4. Suppliers of products and service's behaviour

5. The public's (3rd partys) behaviour

6. Self-employed person's behaviour

7. Contractor's (and supervisors) behaviour

8. Registered employer group's behaviour

9. Registered employee group's behaviour

10. Insurance groups behaviour

1. The individual employee's behaviour involves what people in the organisationdo on a daily basis. Examples are maintaining suitable housekeeping andorderliness at the workplace, complying with safe work procedures, reportingincidents and hazards as required, being involved in risk assessment and controland maintaining an awareness of health and safety needs at the workplace. In time,a culture of being "my brother's keeper" should be actively encouraged to support aculture of zero tolerance towards workplace injury. Such a culture means safety hasindeed become a shared value and responsibility. (Lee and Deery, 2006)

2 Education and training institutions behaviour can involve promoting awarenessabout OH&S principles, legal obligations as well as developing skills in applyingpractical OH&S strategies at the workplace.

3 Government and other Authoritys behaviour involves the pursuit of a legalstructure and its compliance, as well as providing funding to promote OH&Sawareness. An important requirement would be that all duty-holders comply withparticular legal duties as far as is reasonably practicable.

4 The behaviour of suppliers can involve supporting OH&S by ensuring that theyactively comply with their legal obligations to ensure that their products / servicesare safe and healthy, and that suitable information is supplied to the end user.


14/17


- 189 -

5 The behaviour of the public involves playing an important role in demandingthat suitable OH&S laws exist and are adequately enforced.

6 Self employed persons behaviour involves complying with their legal duties of

care by adopting particular safe work practices, and having the evidence to supportthis.

7. The behaviour of the contractor must result in a developing of the OH&S vision,framework and system. From within the contractor's organisation there must be astructure of goals, objectives, leadership, expectations, resources, budgets andspecific tools. These are not merely beliefs and attitudes but entail tangible andobservable behaviour in the form of leadership, values, specific documents andstatements of what is required. (Lee and Deery, 2006)

8. and 9. The behaviour of registered groups involves the actual engagement of

people in achieving the practical OH&S objectives, where there is accountability,quality and ownership of both actions and outcomes. This behaviour can also beobserved through means of audits, personal commitments, risk assessment tasksand communication that should eventually be reflected in the improved injury andincident data. (Lee and Deery, 2006)

10. The behaviour of various insurance groups involves providing practical adviceand guidance to their clients on a value-added or a fee-for-service basis concerningOH&S strategies.

Lee and Deery (2006) also give 15 valuable "Key behaviour safety tools" some

practical examples and suggestions on how to improve the safe collective and individualbehaviour.

In the present paper, the authors have presented the importance and application of whatthey describe as "safe collective and individual behaviour" as a fundamentalrequirement for achieving sustained success in OH&S in the Construction Industry.

According to Moura et al. (2007), clients blame poor task preparation, lack of specifictraining and the lack of individual protection as main reasons for construction incidents,while contractors (simply) attribute responsibilities to the high risk of the activity.

The key to successful OH&S lies in strengthening the delicate balance between legalcompliance, hazard management and organisational, managerial and individualbehaviour. Clarke (1999) correctly states that "accurate intergroup perceptions areessential to the development of mutual trust and understanding between levels, whichforms the basis for a positive safety culture". To now extend Clarkes (1999) idea, a keyfeature of a company's safety culture is shared perceptions amongst all stakeholders onthe importance of safety.


15/17


- 190 -

5 Discussion

Not all of the 100 interactions are of equal value. For example, the self-employedworker may have no link to a Labour Union. It is therefore necessary to establish which

interactions will provide the greatest leverage in ensuring a safer Construction industry.

Surprisingly, little research has been done on reducing the two main causes of injuriesin the construction industry. See for example, Rivara and Thompson (2000). These twocauses are workers falling from heights and objects falling on workers. Perhaps the tenstakeholders could start processes by concentrating on communicating with each otherin trust and with understanding to reduce these two main causes.

6 Recommendations

The interactions between various stakeholders should be minimally structured around:

Contract arrangements to safely undertake building activities.

Compliance with OH&S laws.

Behaviour and consultation processes to maintain safety.

We emphasise that the law should require that stakeholders must comply with particularduties that broadly require them to, so far as "reasonably practicable", eliminate or atleast reduce risk to health and safety of all persons affected by any construction activity.

However, the law is not the sole answer. Every stakeholder has to promote the need forsafety. We have to develop a "local culture of safety", which "reproduces itself". Itreproduces itself by the culture "rubbing off" from the stakeholders, who are tasked withthe double burden of ensuring that other stakeholders will also pass the message on tothose they meet, to ensure that the culture persists over generations. In essence, a safetyculture is "the right way that we do things around here and to do otherwise is not okay".On site, all must immediately think when they see an unsafe practice: "But that'swrong!" and do something reasonable about it.


16/17


- 191 -

References (All Web pages last viewed 2/12/2009)

Ahmad, R.K. and Gibb, A.G.F. (2003), "Measuring safety culture with SPMT field-data." Journal of Construction Research. 4(1), pp 29-44. March 2003

Bakri, Ahmadon plus Rosli Mohd Zin, Mohd Saidin Misnan and Abdul HakimMohammed (stet). (2006), "Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) managementsystems: towards development of safety and health culture." In: 6 th Asia-PacificStructural Engineering and Constr. Conf., 5-6 September 2006, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia. http://eprints.utm.my/520/

Biggs, H.C, Dingsdag, D.P, Sheahan, V. L, and Stenson, N. J. (2005), "The Role of Collaboration in Defining and Maintaining a Safety Culture: Australian Perspectivesin the Construction Sector." In Proc. Association of Researchers in ConstructionManagement 21 st Annual Conference. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/3798/1/3798.pdf

Clarke, S. "Perceptions of Organizational Safety: Implications for the Development of

Safety Culture." Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(2) Mar., 1999, pp 185-198.http://www.jstor.org/stable/3100419Cooper, M.D., and Phillips, R.A. (2004), "Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and

safety behavior relationship" J. of Safety Research . 35 (5), pp 497-512.Dingsdag, D.P., Biggs, H.C., Sheahan, V.L. and Cipolla, D.J. (2006), "A Construction

Safety Competency Framework: Improving OH&S performance by creating andmaintaining a safety culture." Brisbane, Australia: Cooperative Research Centre forConstruction Innovation. http://eprints.qut.edu.au/5316/1/5316.pdf

Garcia A.M., Boix, P., and Canosa, C. (2004), "Why do workers behave unsafely atwork? Determinants of safe work practices in industrial workers." Occupational and

Environmental Medicine 2004; 61 : pp 239-246.

http://oem.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/61/3/239Harrison, J.S. and St. John, C.H. (1996), "Managing and Partnering with External

Stakeholders." Academy of Management Executive 1996. 10 (2).http://www.jstor.org/pss/4165323

Hasle, P. and Limborg, H.J. (2006), "A Review of the Literature on PreventiveOccupational Health and Safety Activities in Small Enterprises." Industrial Health 44 (1) Jan. pp 6-12. http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/indhealth/44/1/44_6/_article

Lee, D. and Deery, M., (2006), "Promoting a behaviour based safety culture within amanufacturing company" Safety Institute of Australia Conference, Melbourne.

Mayhew, C. Quinlan, M. (1997), "Subcontracting and occupational health and safety inthe residential building industry." Industrial Relations Journal, 28 (3), Sept. 1997, pp192-205.http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bpl/irj/1997/00000028/00000003/art00004?crawler=true

Mahomed, S. (2002), "Safety Climate in Construction Site Environments." J. Constr. Engineering and Management. 128 Iss. 5, pp. 375-384 (September / October 2002)

Mahomed, S. (2003), "Scorecard Approach to Benchmarking Organizational SafetyCulture in Construction," J. Constr. Engrg. and Mgmt. 129 , Iss 1, pp 80-88 (January

/ February 2003) http://link.aip.org/link/?JCEMD4/129/80/1Mahomed, S. (2004), "Safety Culture, Climate and Performance Measurement."

in Construction safety management systems. Rowlinson, S.M. (Ed.) Taylor &Francis. ISBN: 978-0-415-30063-6. pp 111-112


17/17


192

Marosszeky, M., Karim, K., Davis, S., Naik, N., (2004), "Lessons learnt in developingeffective performance measures for construction safety management" Proc. 12 th

Annual Conf. of the Int. Group on Lean Construction. Denmark. Aug. 3-5, 2004 pp464-475

Mitchison N. and Porter S. (Editors). (1998), "Guidelines on a major accidentprevention policy and safety management system, as required by Council Directive96/82/EC (SEVESO II). http://mahbsrv.jrc.ec.europa.eu/GuidanceDocs-SafetyManagementSystems.html

Moura, H.M.P., Teixeira, J.M.C. and Pires, B. (2007), "Safety and quality in thePortuguese construction industry", Construction for development: Proceedings of the CIB World Building Congress 2007. Cape Town, South Africa, pp 3294-3306.http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/handle/1822/8498?mode=simple

Nahrgang, J.D., Morgeson, F. P. & Hofmann, D.A. (2007), "Predicting safetyperformance: A metaanalysis of safety and organizational constructs." Postersession presented at the 22 nd Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial andOrganizational Psychology, New York, NY.

Quintana, R. (1999) A task-delineated safety approach for slip, trip and fall hazards"Safety Science 33 , Issues 1-2, October 1999, pp 31-45

Murugan, S. (2009), "Workers feel unsafe." Rekord Newspaper. Pretoria. South Africa http://www.rekord.co.za/story.aspx?lan=Afr&sid=34694

Risktaking (2009) http://www.risktaking.co.uk/index.htmRivara, F.P. Thompson, D.C. (2000), "Prevention of falls in the construction industry

evidence for program effectiveness." Am. J. of Preventive Medicine, 2000. 18 (4S)pp 2326

Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y. and Chong, A.F.W. (2005), "Framework for project managersto manage construction safety." Intl. J. of Project Mgt 23 , Iss. 4, May, pp. 329-341

Walters, D., (1996), "Trade Unions and the Effectiveness of Worker Representation inHealth and Safety in Britain. International Journal of Health Services 26 (4).http://baywood.metapress.com/index/7HNAUC0TLU1BR9P1.pdf

Walters, D., (1998), "Employee representation and health and safety: A strategy forimproving health and safety performance in small enterprises?" Employee Relations 20. Issue 2. pp 180-195. ISSN: 0142-5455

Documents

Working Together for a Collective Culture of Construction