Emuze, F (2018) Foreseeing countermeasures for construction safety violations in South Africa. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, C J (eds.) Proceedings of 34th Annual ARCOM Conference, 3-5 September 2018, Queen’s University, Belfast, UK.
Abstract
Human failure (errors and violations) studies from South Africa and the Sub-Sahara Africa region is limited. While non-compliance (violation) is cited as a causal factor in reported incidents and accidents, counter-measures are lacking in how safety research is understood in South African construction. Through research methods that include a questionnaire survey, interviews, and observations, many perceptions of site management and workers were collected. The textual and statistical data were descriptively analyzed. Routine and situational violations outweigh other cited non-compliances in the studies where participants opined that main contractors are mostly responsible for safety violations. The results suggest that such contractors rarely monitor compliance by either their employees or their supply chain partner. The lax attitudes of contractors that spur violations on is a negation of the ethos of compliance-based safety and construction regulations. Both site management and workers blamed each other for safety violations. More telling is the observation that most workers have no idea of what constitute safety violations and their causes. The shifting of blames for safety violations imply that inspections alone are insufficient to remedy the state of affairs. The paper thus argues for the deployment of countermeasures that improve risk perceptions, comprehension of safety violations, and the awareness of their consequences on construction sites. There is also need to embed early warnings and the likelihood of being caught by concerned stakeholders in a construction project safe working procedures (SWPs).
| Item Type: | Conference Paper (Paper) |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; compliance; safety; site work; violations |
| Index terms: | questionnaire, regulation, construction project, site management, site work, violation, construction safety, South Africa, safety research, routine, Africa, interview, compliance, main contractor, inspection, early warning, survey, construction site, risk perception |
| Subjects: | work location, construction operations, site logistics, regions and continents, data collection methods, practitioner, occupational health and safety management, sociology, regulatory law, political science, quality assurance, environmental hazards, environmental health, health safety and environment, Geography, production management, financial risk |
| Topics: | Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Cost Management, Health and Safety, Sustainability, Governance, Roles and Professions, Quality Management, Legal Issues, Site Management, Organizational Design |
| Descriptive scope: | 4 PCEA |
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