Smith, S D (2019) Safety first? Production pressures and the implications on safety and health. Construction Management and Economics, 37(4), pp. 238-242. ISSN 01446193
Abstract
The prominence of production, schedule, cost and economic wellbeing in government policy and review is explored and contrasted with the status of safety. The connection between productivity as an objective and safety as a constraint is reviewed, though it can be concluded that in spite of widespread belief of a connection there is very little empirical causal evidence for high production pressure causing negative effects on safety. Nevertheless, the inverse is mooted, that high levels of safety has had a negative impact on productivity in construction. This possibility is discussed in the context of government rhetoric which tends to be highly critical of construction’s economic shortcomings yet quite silent on the matter of its safety successes. The essay concludes with a possible vision for the future that allows safety and productivity to be re-positioned in terms of their potential symbiosis.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | economy; health; performance improvement; productivity; safety |
| Index terms: | evidence, well-being, government policy, performance improvement, productivity |
| Subjects: | evaluation and assessment methods, mental health and wellbeing, public policy, performance measurement, management |
| Topics: | Quality Management, Governance, Health and Safety, Business Strategy, Research Practice |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCA |
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