Lingard, H; Warmerdam, A and Shooshtarian, S (2019) Getting the balance right: Regulating occupational health and safety planning and coordination in the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 26(4), pp. 599-617. ISSN 0969-9988
Abstract
Purpose: In Australia, national harmonisation of occupational health and safety (OHS) regulation was pursued through the development of model Work Health and Safety legislation. The model Work Health and Safety Regulations specify that construction works above a threshold cost of AU$250,000 are deemed to be construction projects requiring the appointment of a principal contractor with duties relating to OHS planning and coordination. The purpose of this paper is to explore the effectiveness of the monetary threshold as a suitable trigger for specific OHS planning and coordination duties. Design/methodology/approach: Interviews were conducted with 46 Australian construction industry stakeholders, including union representatives, employer groups, construction firm representatives and regulators, as well as four international construction OHS experts, to explore perceptions about the effectiveness of the monetary threshold. Two construction scenarios were also modelled to test for variability in operation of the threshold by geographical location of works and design conditions. Findings: The monetary threshold was perceived to be subject to two forms of capture problem, reflecting inadvertent capture of low risk works or failure to capture high risk works. Organisations were also reported to deliberately split contracts to avoid capture by the threshold. The cost-estimate modelling revealed inequalities and variation in the operation of the monetary threshold by geographic location and design specification. Practical implications: The analysis suggests that limitations inherent in the use of a monetary threshold to trigger duties relating to OHS planning and coordination in construction works. Opportunities to use more sophisticated risk-based mechanisms are considered. Originality/value: The study explores a fundamental challenge of risk-based OHS regulation, i.e., how to ensure that workers' health and safety are adequately protected without creating an unnecessarily high regulatory burden. The research provides evidence that using a monetary value as a proxy measure for OHS risk in construction projects may be problematic.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | construction; construction safety; interview |
| Index terms: | regulator, Australia, inequality, construction work, international construction, effectiveness, construction industry, estimate, modelling, coordination, variability, legislation, interview, health and safety, principal contractor, occupational health and safety, construction firm, construction project, methodology, design specification, variation, evidence, regulation, construction safety, duty |
| Subjects: | industry analysis, environmental health, statistical analysis, political science, occupational health and safety management, sociology, production management, health safety and environment, Geography, contractual condition, design practice, management, research methods, performance management, legal systems, analytical methods, financial and cost management, operations management, practitioner, evaluation and assessment methods, data collection methods, contractual role, strategic management, organization |
| Topics: | Legal Issues, Design Practice, Quality Management, Ethics, International Construction, Contract Administration, Organizational Design, Cost Management, Business Strategy, Health and Safety, Research Practice, Geographical Context, Project Management, Engineering Principles, Roles and Professions, Stakeholder Management, Sustainability, Governance |
| 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