Trethewy, R W (2003) OHS performance: improved indicators for construction contractors. Journal of Construction Research, 4(1), pp. 17-27. ISSN 1609-9451
Abstract
Past measurement indicators of OHS performance have been preoccupied with the negative consequence of workplace injuries and illness rather than measures that gauge "actual" safety in the workplace. In Australia and other parts of the world common measures have been lost time injury frequency rate and incidence rate. Such measures, in isolation, are generally now regarded as inadequate in providing any meaningful information to help reduce the cause of workplace injury or illness. In Australia, as in other parts of the world, contractors comprise an increasing proportion of the workforce, i.e.?up to 95% in industries like construction. This type of labor arrangement diminishes accuratev assessment of safety performance through the myriad of complex contract arrangements typically encountered. Therefore, to accurately measure safety in a work environment predominantly consisting of contracted labor, indicators must be capable of gauging both contractor performance as well as overall workplace management of safety.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | safety measurement; OHS performance indicators |
| Index terms: | Australia, contract arrangement, illness, contractor performance, work environment, performance indicator, injury, construction contractor, safety performance |
| Subjects: | Geography, contract management, contractual arrangements, practitioner, occupational health and safety management, health conditions and diseases, management, performance management |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Procurement |
| Descriptive scope: | 2 PC |
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