Nielsen, K J (2017) A comparison of inspection practices within the construction industry between the Danish and Swedish work environment authorities. Construction Management and Economics, 35(3), pp. 154-169. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
Denmark has a 39% higher rate of fatal occupational injuries within construction than Sweden. Although there are only minor differences in the work environment legislation between the countries, there may be differences in how the legislation is enforced. The aim of the study was to describe and compare the inspection practices, within the construction industry, between the Danish and Swedish Work Environment Authorities. A mixed-method approach was employed combining observations of inspections, interviews with inspectors and questionnaire responses from inspected workplaces. The primary role of both Danish and Swedish inspectors was as controllers. A minor role was as experts. A third role of being a sounding board was only identified in a few instances in Sweden. Autonomy-supportive tactics were employed more regularly in Sweden while coercive tactics were more widespread in Denmark. Negative behaviour on behalf of the inspected party was also more widespread in Denmark while positive behaviour was more widespread in Sweden. Questionnaire data revealed that the inspected Swedish companies had a significantly more positive perception of the inspectors and the benefits of the inspections. There were differences in the enforcement practices of the Danish and Swedish inspectors, which may lead to greater adherence to health and safety regulations in Sweden.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction sites; Denmark; inspection; safety; Sweden |
| Index terms: | regulation, questionnaire, Denmark, health and safety, injury, interview, legislation, construction site, work environment, construction industry, enforcement, Sweden, inspection |
| Subjects: | political science, quality assurance, industry analysis, health conditions and diseases, health safety and environment, Geography, management, legal systems, work location, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Governance, Health and Safety, Geographical Context, Research Practice, Site Management, Organizational Design, Legal Issues, Quality Management |
| 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