Oswald, D; Zhang, R P; Lingard, H; Pirzadeh, P and Le, T (2018) The use and abuse of safety indicators in construction. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 25(9), pp. 1188-1209. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to present a critical review of the use of safety performance indicators in the construction industry. The authors consider the strengths, limitations and managerial consequences associated with commonly used indicators. Design/methodology/approach: The authors combine two separate data sets in this critical review. These include 32 semi-structured interviews with construction industry representatives involved in the collection and reporting of safety indicators, as well as a multi-level safety climate survey that was conducted at 12 construction sites across Australia. Findings: The analysis provides new evidence that, in their current use, commonly used H&S indicators are subject to manipulation and misinterpretation. Their usefulness as tools to support safety management activities in construction projects and organisations needs to be understood in the context of their limitations. In particular, safety indicators do not reflect the full set of factors that affect workplace safety and there will always be disagreement about what should be counted and how. Originality/value: As a result of the substantial shortcomings of safety indicators, great care needs to be taken when using them to determine or evaluate organisational safety policy and practices.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; construction safety; project management |
| Index terms: | survey, construction site, safety climate, workplace safety, interview, safety performance, construction safety, safety management, evidence, methodology, construction project, Australia, project management, construction industry |
| Subjects: | occupational health and safety management, industry analysis, occupational health, environmental health, research methods, Geography, health safety and environment, production management, project management theory and practice, work location, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Geographical Context, Project Management, Research Practice, Health and Safety, Site 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