Orvik, C. P. and Albrechtsen, E. (2026) The mismatch between conceptualization and measurements of safety performance: Insights from a qualitative study of the Norwegian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 44(5), pp. 319-336. ISSN 0144-6193
Abstract
This study explores how safety performance is measured and applied by clients and contractors in the Norwegian construction industry. Addressing a knowledge gap, where prescriptive models dominate over empirical insights, it explores how safety performance is interpreted and applied in practice. A qualitative, inductive survey was conducted with 24 client and contractor organizations.Thematic analysis revealed a predominant reliance on reactive measures, such as Lost Time Injury Rate, Total Recordable Injury Rate, and Reports of Unwanted Occurrences. In contrast, proactive measures, such as management presence, safety inspections, and Job Safety Analyses, were less consistently applied and varied significantly across organizations. Key findings include: (1) a strong motivation to adopt proactive measures despite the dominance of reactive metrics; (2) a mismatch between how safety is conceptualized and how it is measured; (3) the influence of data availability on indicator selection; and (4) the need for context-sensitive, risk-based development of proactive measures. This study contributes a industry-oriented perspective that highlights the importance of aligning safety measurement practices with actual work conditions and decision-making needs.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction companies; Norway; qualitative research; safety; safety performance evaluation |
| Index terms: | presence, safety inspection, mismatch, construction industry, contractor organization, qualitative study, thematic analysis, qualitative research, decision-making, safety performance, injury, motivation, Norway, survey, construction company |
| Subjects: | psychology, environmental science, organization, engineering problems, quality assurance, Geography, research design and methodology, data collection methods, health conditions and diseases, decision analysis, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, methods and analysis |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Sustainability, Risk Management, Engineering Principles, Geographical Context, Health and Safety, Organizational Design, Human Resources, Research Practice, Business Strategy |
| 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