Jia, A Y; Loosemore, M; Gilbert, D and Rowlinson, S (2016) Shielding workers from heat stress: Reconciling the paradoxes of protection and production logics. In: Chan, P W and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 32nd Annual ARCOM Conference, 5-7 September 2016, Manchester, UK.
Abstract
There is significant evidence that the climate in many countries is warming. Characterised by physical outdoor work, site operatives and managers in the construction industry are exposed more than most to the health and safety risks and productivity losses associated with climatic heat stress. Heat stress management guidelines developed by ergonomists have existed for many years but have not been used by the construction industry until recently. Through an in-depth single case study of a major subcontractor employed on a mega-project in north Australia, management attitudes towards the implementation of such guidelines are explored. By employing an institutional logics perspective, the results show that managers are sceptical of the work-rest regime recommended in the ergonomics guidelines based on worries of productivity losses and employee exploitation of rest period duration. However, ironically, the results also show that the avoidance of such guidelines is likely to create heat stresses that trigger a number of social and supply chain issues that will lead to productivity losses. It is concluded that effective initiatives to reduce heat stress associated with climate change must reconcile the two competing institutional logics identified in the study.
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | Australia; climatic heat stress; construction safety; productivity; institutional logics |
| Index terms: | ergonomics, climatic heat stress, evidence, implementation, duration, construction industry, construction safety, heat stress, site operative, subcontractor, climate change, paradox, institutional logic, manager, health and safety, case study, shielding, productivity, Australia, exploitation |
| Subjects: | project controls, occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, environmental health, management, theoretical framing, safety engineering, health safety and environment, Geography, social theory and frameworks, contractual arrangements, data collection methods, evaluation and assessment methods, climate science, practitioner |
| Topics: | Roles and Professions, Procurement, Sustainability, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Engineering Principles, Time Control |
| 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