Salminen, S (1995) Serious occupational accidents in the construction industry. Construction Management and Economics, 13(4), pp. 299-306. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine three hypotheses based on the review of literature concerning occupational accidents in the construction industry. The data concern 102 victims of 99 serious occupational accidents. Of these 102 victims, 35 worked in the construction industry. The first hypothesis assuming the higher risk-taking tendency among victims of construction accidents than among victims from other industries was not confirmed, because the construction victims took significantly less risk at the moment of accident than the other victims. The main contractors' victims had significantly higher values on the risk-taking scale than the subcontractors' victims. There were more falls among construction accidents than among accidents in the other industries, which confirmed the second hypothesis. In line with the third hypothesis, an increased accident risk was shown among subcontractors' workers.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | accident type; risk taking; subcontracting |
| Index terms: | construction accident, subcontractor, risk taking, occupational accident, construction industry, main contractor, falls, subcontracting |
| Subjects: | practitioner, organization, industry analysis, occupational health and safety management, decision-making and reasoning, health risk and incident analysis |
| Topics: | Supply Chain Management, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Roles and Professions |
| 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