Sherratt, F (2013) Et in arcadia ego? 'Zero target' safety programmes in the UK construction industry. In: Smith, S D and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D D (eds.) Proceedings of 29th Annual ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2013, Reading, UK.
Abstract
Zero has become the biggest number in UK construction site safety. The emergence of zero within safety management programmes crosses industries and international boundaries, and has become a prominent safety feature of large construction contractors operating in the UK. However, zero has also attracted academic attention within these contexts; its practicality within practice as well as wider ethical and philosophical considerations. Indeed, a social constructionist perspective would suggest considerable variety in the way zero is approached, accepted and positioned within work and safety contexts. This incoherence will inevitably influence the reception and success of such programmes, and the potential for their impact in practice.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | discourse analysis, health and safety, social construction |
| Index terms: | boundaries, emergence, social construction, construction contractor, safety management, construction industry, health and safety, programme, construction site |
| Subjects: | health safety and environment, systems engineering, industry analysis, sociology, project controls, occupational health and safety management, practitioner, property law, work location |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Engineering Principles, Health and Safety, Roles and Professions, Legal Issues, Site Management, Time Control |
| 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