Lees, H and Austin, J (2011) The case for behaviour-based safety in construction. Proceedings of Institution of Civil Engineers: Management, Procurement and Law, 164(1), pp. 3-8. ISSN 17514312
Abstract
Construction continues to have the largest number of fatal and major injuries among UK industry groups and the general rates have shown only a small amount of change over the last few years. Safety processes can (and do) fail, resulting in injuries and incidents. Behavioural science uses data and analysis to come to conclusions about what is actually happening. Therefore, objectivity is at the core of behavioural science. This science of behaviour can help us produce more effective implementations of safety solutions. Behaviour-based safety (BBS) processes most typically involve careful observation of behaviour, feedback, and reinforcement designed to change behaviour in strategic ways. BBS processes recognise the workplace environment as the dominant factor in the creation of safe working. This focus on behaviour needs to be coordinated with the elimination of work hazards. The authors' basic premise is that workplace injuries are reduced when their causes are understood. This paper will discuss the history, successes, and failures of BBS, and suggest fertile areas for improving traditional safety practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | corporate responsibility; health & safety; safety & hazards |
| Index terms: | injury, workplace environment, reinforcement, science, implementation, corporate responsibility, history |
| Subjects: | building materials, health conditions and diseases, business, architectural and construction history, contractual arrangements, specialized education, sociology |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Health and Safety, Education, Construction Materials, Governance, Procurement, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
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