Loosemore, M; Sunindijo, R Y and Zhang, S (2020) Comparative analysis of safety climate in the Chinese, Australian, and Indonesian construction industries. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 146(12): 04020129, ISSN 0733-9364
Abstract
Poor safety is a perennial problem for the construction industry worldwide. The concept of safety climate has been strongly linked to safety performance, yet inconsistent methodologies make international comparisons problematic. In addressing this gap in research, a comparative safety climate survey of 515 construction operatives and managers in Australia, Indonesia, and China is presented using a standardized tool. The results highlight interesting similarities and differences between safety climate in each country and question taken-for-granted assumptions that safety climate in countries with relatively mature regulatory structures like Australia are more positive than in less developed countries like Indonesia and China. Results also highlight the intermediating effects of factors such as management commitment and cultural differences in shaping safety climate. Highlighting the potential value of theories of new institutionalism and cultural and ethical relativism, the paper concludes by raising important new practical, theoretical, and methodological questions about the merits and challenges of making international comparisons of safety climate, even when using standardized measurement tools.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; China; comparison; Indonesia; safety; safety climate |
| Index terms: | construction industry, construction operative, Australia, Indonesia, safety performance, China, developed country, methodology, comparative analysis, survey, commitment, cultural difference, safety climate, international comparison, manager |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, cross-cultural studies, occupational health and safety management, development economics, health safety and environment, Geography, research methods, data analysis and analytics, psychology, practitioner, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Organizational Design, International Construction |
| Descriptive scope: | 5 PCTEA |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here