Hussain, A.; Che Ibrahim, C. K. I.; Belayutham, S.; Manu, P. and Cheung, C. (2026) Exploring regulatory capabilities for design for safety in construction: The case of Malaysia. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, 16(2), pp. 221-241. ISSN 2044-124X
Abstract
Purpose – Despite numerous efforts to examine the Design for Safety (DfS) capabilities of different duty holders, understanding regulatory capabilities has remained limited. This study aims to identify the regulatory DfS capabilities for regulatory organizations in Malaysia to enhance enforcement effectiveness. Design/methodology/approach – A quantitative research methodology was adopted using a structured questionnaire informed by literature and expert validation. Data were collected via face-to-face surveys with 91 stakeholders during 14 engagement sessions using purposive sampling. Responses were analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics, along with content analysis of open-ended responses to identify key capabilities for effective DfS regulatory implementation in Malaysia's construction sector. Findings – Analysis of the survey data showed that the five most important DfS regulatory capabilities are competence-based capabilities (i.e. knowledge and skills) and strategy-based capabilities (i.e. resilience, top management commitment and funding allocation). Furthermore, the findings suggest that the continuous improvement of DfS practices relies on six key drivers: leadership and commitment, capacity building and duty holder training, technological advancements and integration, regulatory framework and compliance, stakeholder engagement and collaboration and financial and resource allocation. Practical implications – The identified regulatory capabilities will facilitate regulatory organizations to enforce the DfS legislation, e.g. Occupational Safety and Health (Construction Work) (Design and Management) Regulations 2024, effectively. Originality/value – This study contributes to the existing DfS literature by providing the first empirical evidence on regulatory DfS capabilities in construction, thereby facilitating the diffusion of DfS practices within enforcement and beyond, particularly in the context of developing countries.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | capabilities;design for safety; health and safety; Malaysia; regulatory |
| Index terms: | enforcement, statistics, purposive sampling, implementation, construction work, occupational safety and health, effectiveness, stakeholder engagement, funding, capacity building, continuous improvement, quantitative research, Malaysia, resource allocation, duty, construction sector, validation, questionnaire, evidence, regulation, design for safety, competence, collaboration, top management, methodology, integration, survey, face, strategy, content analysis, commitment, health and safety, developing country, legislation, compliance |
| Subjects: | data analysis and analytics, resource management, community and social dimensions, data collection methods, social and economic development, mathematical modelling, industry analysis, political science, organizational analysis, occupational health and safety management, professional development, personnel development, management, performance measurement, performance management, contractual arrangements, legal systems, economic analysis, psychology, operations management, evaluation and assessment methods, contractual role, health safety and environment, Geography, development economics, research methods |
| Topics: | Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Site Management, International Construction, Human Resources, Governance, Stakeholder Management, Information Management, Research Practice, Business Strategy, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Procurement, Geographical Context, Project Management, Health and Safety |
| 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