Emuze, F A (2022) Addressing violations of safe work procedures in South African construction. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 176(3), pp. 113-121. ISSN 17514304
Abstract
In this study, safety violations professed to be part of work routines were investigated. The knowledge gap addressed is how to prevent the normalisation of violation of safe work procedures (SWPs) on construction sites in South Africa. An exploratory, mixed-methods approach was adopted for the study. The sequential approach started with face-to-face interviews, which were followed by a self-administered questionnaire survey to produce textual and statistical data for analysis. The findings showed that unsafe procedures beget safety violations on construction sites. The unsafe procedures usually stem from work pressure, inadequate supervision, misleading information, deviation from safety rules and refusal to follow SWPs. The source of the data analysed was limited to construction sites in two provinces in South Africa, so caution is needed regarding statistical generalisation. This study has provided some measures for preventing violations of SWPs, particularly in developing countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; developing countries; health & safety; project management |
| Index terms: | routine, interview, developing country, survey, construction site, face, questionnaire, violation, South Africa, deviation, project management, supervision |
| Subjects: | psychology, Geography, development economics, control systems, data collection methods, financial and cost management, work location, project management theory and practice, regulatory law, sociology |
| Topics: | Organizational Design, Site Management, International Construction, Cost Management, Research Practice, Legal Issues, Project Management, Geographical Context |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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