Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 251–261, 1999
Copyright © 1999 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd
Printed in the USA. All rights reserved
0022–4375/99 $–see front matter
Pergamon
PII S0022-4375(99)00020-1
An Exploratory Study of Meanings of Risk
Control for Long Term and Acute Effect
Occupational Health and Safety Risks
in Small Business Construction Firms
Noni Holmes, Helen Lingard, Zeynep Yesilyurt, and Fred De Munk
A qualitative study of employers’ and employees’ meanings of occupational
health and safety (OHS) risk control was conducted among a sample of small businesses engaged in the Australian construction industry. Two OHS risks relevant to
the construction industry were selected for study. One risk (falls from height) represented an immediate consequence, whereas the other (occupational skin disease)
represented a long-term health effect. Meanings of the sources and control for these
risks were explored during in-depth interviews. Participants perceived the immediate effect, falls from height OHS risk, as being more important in their workplaces than the delayed effect, skin disease OHS risk. The risk of falls from height
was perceived to be controllable but requiring a great deal of effort to prevent,
whereas there was a fatalistic resignation to the risk of occupational skin disease.
Meanings of risk control for both occupational skin disease and falls from height
focused on individual rather than technological risk controls. Organizational barriers to the adoption of technological OHS risk controls in the construction industry
were identified. © 1999 National Safety Council and Elsevier Science Ltd
Keywords: Small business, construction, occupational health and safety, risk
perception, risk control
Dr. Noni Holmes completed a Bachelor of Science before
working as a medical research technologist at the Cancer Institute in Melbourne. She was awarded a Masters of Environmental Science, writing her thesis on the relationship between
occupational cancer research and its benefit to workers. Noni
received her Ph.D. in the field of workplace perceptions of occupational health and safety risk in 1996. She died from breast
cancer before taking up this position.
Dr. Helen Lingard completed her Ph.D. in the field of behavior-based safety management. She works as a lecturer in
construction management and law in the Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning, The University of Melbourne.
She has also worked as an occupational health and safety
(OHS) advisor in the construction industry, where she gained
practical experience in managing OHS on large-scale infrastructure construction projects such as the new Hong Kong
airport site at Chek Lap Kok and the Tsing Ma Bridge.
Winter 1999/Volume 30/Number 4
Zeynep Yesilyurt has a BA (Honors) in Sociology and has
nearly completed an MA in Health Studies. Since starting her
research career in 1994, Zeynep has mainly worked in
women’s health research, with particular emphasis on Non
English Speaking Background communities. Zeynep has a
special interest in qualitative methodologies and was the Research Officer in the current study.
Fred De Munk’s major research interests are ecological
sustainable development and its implementation strategies in
industry. He has also conducted in vitro research into the effects of xenobiotics on skin and bone and this has led to his
interest in occupational skin disease. Fred has submitted a
Ph.D. in natural resource management and has been involved
in teaching environmental management to occupational health
and safety students for 10 years.
251
INTRODUCTION
Occupational health and safety (OHS) law and
standards are based on a technical approach to
the management of OHS risk. In the technical literature, risk management is defined as a threestaged process (Ridley, 1990; Viner, 1996). First,
hazards in the work environment are identified;
second, the risk posed by these hazards is assessed; and finally, appropriate controls for risks
are selected according to a risk control hierarchy
(Mathews, 1993). The principle of this hierarchy
is that control measures that aim to target hazards
at their source and act on the work environment
are more effective than controls that aim to
change the behavior of exposed workers. Thus,
technological control measures, such as the substitution of hazardous substances or processes
and engineering controls, are preferable to individual controls such as the introduction of safe
work practices or the use of personal protective
equipment.
Technical approaches to risk management use
quantitative assessment techniques. However, research evidence suggests that both psychological
and social factors are also important in determining the way people perceive and respond to risks
(Fischoff, Slovic, Lichtenstein, Read, & Combs,
1978; Slovic, 1987; Rayner, 1992; Douglas &
Wildavsky, 1982). Perceptions and understandings of risk are important influences on the conceptualization of risk control strategies (Tesh,
1981). Perceived control of OHS risks has also
been found to be an important theme in risk rating judgments of Victorian construction industry
participants (Holmes, 1995; Holmes & Gifford,
1997). Research also suggests that construction
workers’ perceptions relating to their personal
control over OHS risks and the responsibilities
for risk control present barriers to the implementation of OHS strategies. Perceived controllability of OHS risk influenced the success of a
behavior-based safety management program.
Lingard (1995) found the program to be effective
in improving safety practices believed to be
within the control of construction workers. However, the program had little effect on improving
safety practices that workers believed were not in
their control, for example, the provision of safe
equipment for gaining access to height to prevent
fall fatalities (Lingard & Rowlinson, 1997, 1998).
Effective technical evaluation of risk may be
hindered when people in the workplace do not
share a common understanding of the nature of
252
risk and its control. This may be particularly
acute when distinct groups attribute risk to different sources (Holmes & Gifford, 1996) or experience the costs and benefits of risk controls differently (Viner, 1996). Attaining consensus and
trust is important in the risk management decision-making process. In pursuit of this consensus, there is an increasing recognition that, in the
context of acceptability of risks and issues of equity, psychological and social considerations
should be taken into account in the management
of OHS risk (DeJoy, 1994; Cox & Tait, 1998).
The construction industry poses a particular
challenge for the attainment of consensus and the
making of risk control decisions that are equitable and acceptable to all parties involved in the
construction process. The industry is fragmented
with different mixes of professional practices,
contractors, and subcontractors on each project
(Walker, 1996). The temporary management
structure, consisting of an amalgam of different
firms, each with its own objectives and pressures,
makes trust and consensus in OHS risk management difficult to attain. This situation is further
exacerbated by the time and cost constraints imposed by the system of competitive tendering as
well as the practice of awarding contracts to the
lowest bidder (Lingard & Rowlinson, 1994; Russell, Hancher, & Skibniewski, 1992).
Small Business Construction Firms
The focus of the study was on small businesses.
Such firms are typically engaged as subcontractors in the construction industry and are therefore
located at the lower end of the inter-organizational hierarchy in a construction project. As
such, their ability to exert influence on decisionmaking in the construction process is limited.
The majority of Australian construction firms are
small businesses with 97% of general construction businesses employing less than 20 employees and 85% employing less than five employees
(Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 1998).
Previous research suggests that Australian
small business construction firms may not manage OHS risk as effectively as larger firms in the
industry. Mayhew (1995) found that small business employers in Queensland’s construction industry have a poor understanding of their responsibilities under OHS law. In another study of
construction firms in Victoria, larger business
employers were found to view OHS as something to be integrated into their management sysJournal of Safety Research
tems, whereas small business employers did not
focus on systems of management and believed
OHS risks to be created by employees and therefore viewed risk control as the responsibility of
employees (Holmes 1995; Holmes & Gifford,
1996, 1997). These findings are consistent with
those of a study of Canadian small business owners, which indicated that small business owners
regarded OHS as a matter for the individual employee, being of little significance for the management of the business (Eakins, 1992).
Immediacy of Effect
Immediacy of effect has been found to influence
lay persons’ risk judgment (Slovic, 1987; Fischoff et al., 1978; Hale & Glendon, 1987). Different meanings of risk control for immediate and
long-term consequence OHS risks could require
different approaches in the design of risk control
strategies. The study aimed to explore and compare participants’ meanings of risk control for
one of each of these risk types relevant to the
construction industry.
Two OHS risks, representing the quality of
immediacy of effect, were chosen as the topics
for the study. One risk is associated with an immediate outcome (falls from heights) and the second (occupational skin disease) with a delayed
outcome. The two risk topics were selected
jointly by an employers’ organization (the Master Builders Association of Victoria) and an employees’ organization (the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union) to be relevant
to the construction industry. The OHS literature
also identifies the construction industry as a high
risk population for falls from heights (Kisner &
Fosbroke, 1994; Helander, 1991; Davies & Tomasin, 1990) and occupational dermatoses, particularly allergic dermatitis (Rosen & Freeman,
1992; Geier & Schnuch, 1995).
METHODOLOGY
the use of key informants to identify what was
typical of a small business construction firm, followed by the selection of a small homogeneous
sample to describe this sub-group. A set of criteria for typical construction industry small businesses was developed through consultation with
the Master Builders Association of Victoria and
the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy
Union. These criteria included:
• Long term involvement in the industry;
• Undertaking of a wide range of work;
• Self-owned /managed or family-owned and
run;
• Consistent operators in the industry;
• Employment of between 3 and 10 people.
Businesses that matched these criteria were
then identified and a total of five typical construction industry small businesses were recruited. A requirement for the involvement of a
business was that both the employer and all employees in the business agreed to participate.
The Sample
Fifteen individuals were interviewed during the
study. All participants were male. The five small
businesses that took part in the study represented
the concreting, plumbing, electrical, and carpentry trades. In addition, one general building contractor was also involved. The employees and the
employer of each business were interviewed. The
average age of participants was 32.4 years and
just over half of the men were under the age of
30. Only three of these men had been in the industry for longer than 25 years, two had been in
the industry for less than four years, whereas 10
had been in the industry between five and 14
years. The majority of participants (eight) had
started in the industry by doing apprenticeships,
three men had started by working in their family
businesses, two began working as laborers, and
the remaining two men were tertiary educated.
Sampling Strategy
Interviews
A purposeful, typical case sampling strategy was
used to recruit a sample of five representative
construction industry small businesses. This approach was selected because it is particularly
suited where the intention is not to generalize the
findings of a study but to conduct an in-depth exploration of participants’ attitudes (Patton, 1990;
Neuman, 1994). The sampling strategy involved
In-depth interviews, guided by a structured
theme list were conducted at the workplace over
the period of a normal day at work. Interviews
were designed to minimize disruption and inconvenience to participants. The interviews were recorded in writing since audio recording was not
practical on construction sites due to background
noise levels. The theme list comprised a list of
Winter 1999/Volume 30/Number 4
253
questions to elicit data concerning participants’
experiences and understandings of the two OHS
risks and their control in the construction industry. A structured approach was suited to the research purpose in that it was useful in ensuring
the comparability of data and enabled the identification of similarities and differences between
the two different risk topics (Maxwell, 1996).
The interview transcripts were double coded
independently by two different researchers for
major themes and analyzed in more depth using
ethnographic content analysis (Tesch, 1990).
Emergent concepts for the two OHS risks were
contrasted on the basis of frequency. Understandings of impediments and facilitating factors
were similarly analyzed.
RESULTS
Relative Importance of Immediate Effect
Compared to Delayed Effect OHS Risk
When asked to identify the main OHS risks in their
work, trade, or industry, participants frequently associated OHS risks with an immediate effect. The
potential for delayed effects was mentioned much
less frequently than the potential for immediate effects. Two participants mentioned the potential for
hearing loss but no other delayed effect outcome
was mentioned by more than one participant. Table
1 presents the OHS risks identified.
Participants most commonly mentioned the
risk of falling from ladders, from roofs, or into
excavations, indicating a strong awareness of the
risk of falls. Only two participants felt that falls
were not a risk in their own work but believed
that the risk was important in other construction
industry trades. One of these respondents was an
engineer/site supervisor, whereas the other was a
concretor who indicated that most of his work
was carried out at ground level.
When probed specifically on the risk of occupational skin disease, over a third of participants
indicated that skin disease was not a risk in their
work. They cited a variety of reasons for this, including the fact that they did not work with
chemicals or that the risk was small when compared to other OHS risks. Of the remaining participants, a third felt that working out in the sun
posed an OHS risk and half mentioned skin diseases related to chemicals including glues, cleaning products, cement, epoxies, and fuel. Three
participants expressed the belief that the risk of
occupational skin diseases was dependent on the
characteristics of individual employees in that
skin disease “only affects you if you have an allergy.” Several participants stated that they believed the risk of skin disease to be neglected because of a lack of knowledge. For example, one
participant said:
I don’t really know what’s in the products we
use so I really don’t know . . . We aren’t
made aware of the dangers of what we are
using. We just assume there isn’t any danger.
Several participants appeared to consider the
consequences of occupational skin disease as be-
Table 1. Frequency of OHS Risk Identification
Immediacy of effect
OHS risks associated with immediate
effect consequences
OHS risks associated with delayed effect consequences
OHS risks associated with both immediate
and delayed effect consequences
254
OHS risk
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Falls from height
Crushing
Cuts/bruises/burns
Trench collapses
Slips/trips
Unstated injuries
Machinery incidents
Electrical injuries
Breathing in dust/fumes
Hearing loss
“Wear and tear” on body
(cumulative musculo-skeletal disorders)
• Back injuries
• Working with chemicals
Journal of Safety Research
ing low in severity. Skin disease was described
as being “annoying and disruptive,” “curable and
non life threatening,” and being characterized by
an “irritable rash.” These descriptions indicate
that skin disease is regarded more as an inconvenience than as a serious health problem.
Almost all participants perceived falls and
skin diseases to be different types of OHS risk.
They identified dimensions to these differences
including the immediacy of the effect, the severity of the effect, the controllability of the risk, the
knowledge of the risk, the foreseeability of the
effect, and the inevitability of exposure to the risk
and availability. Availability refers to the ease
with which the OHS risk is recalled. For example, one participant said:
Of course (falls and occupational skin diseases are different types of risk). One is
more of an immediate danger and so we
give it a higher profile and think about it a
lot more. Whereas skin diseases don’t enter
people’s minds to the same extent.
Table 2 presents these differences.
Sources of OHS Risks
When asked why people are exposed to the risk
of falling from height, a variety of organizational
and individual issues were identified. The majority of participants explained the existence of the
risk of falling in terms of the work they routinely
undertake. For example one participant said “We
have no choice but to work from heights, it has to
be done.” Another said that falls from height
were important “because no matter how careful
or cautious you are, there is an element of risk.”
Almost an equal number of participants also
mentioned poor work practices, such as the failure to secure ladders or working without rails or
harnesses, as explaining the existence of the risk
of falling. Participants who attributed the risk of
falls to poor work practices were a different
group from those who mentioned the nature of
the work as being the source of the risk of falls
from height. Thus it appears that participants differ in that some simply accept the risk of falling
from height as being “part of the job,” whereas
others believe that the risk can be mitigated by an
adherence to safe work practices.
Many different organizational factors giving
rise to a risk of falls from height were also mentioned. These mainly related to the pressures imposed by tight budgets and schedules or to the
principal contractor’s failure to provide appropriate height access equipment such as a general access scaffold. As one participant said, “Contractors can’t afford to spend money and time on
scaffolding—we look for cheaper and quicker
ways of doing things” and another commented
“Money gets in the way . . . Money comes before someone’s life.”
When asked why people are exposed to the
risk of occupational skin disease, factors cited
predominantly related to the use of personal pro-
Table 2. Perceived Differences between the OHS Risks Falls and Skin Disease
Falls
Severity of effect
• Can be fatal
Immediacy of effect
Inevitability of exposure
• Results in instant injury
• Working at height is a necessary part
of the job—cannot be avoided.
Knowledge of risk
• Dangers of falling are known
Controllability of risk
• Risk of falls is controllable
Foreseeability of effect
• Falling occurs through carelessness or
poor risk management and can be foreseen.
Availability
• Falls comes to mind more often than
skin disease.
Winter 1999/Volume 30/Number 4
Skin disease
• Can be treated and is more
manageable
• Presents a slow risk factor
• Occurs when dealing with
chemicals to which you are
allergic and can be avoided
• Dangers of skin disease
are unknown
• Risk of skin cancer is not
controllable as “We have no
choice but to work outdoors”
• You cannot foresee the effect
of skin disease as “you don’t
know you are allergic until
it happens”
• Falls comes to mind more
often than skin disease
255
tective equipment. For example one participant
stated “not wearing protection like gloves . . . I
even do it sometimes. I can’t be bothered putting
on gloves for a job that’s going to take me 10
minutes.” Participants expressed a lack of choice
in their exposure to occupational skin disease
risk. For example, one participant said “We don’t
have a choice in the types of glues we use, there
isn’t much of a choice so we have to use it.” Participants also suggested that control measures
currently adopted are limited in effectiveness.
For example, one participant commented that “In
some jobs you can’t use protective gear like
gloves . . . especially in summer, if I use gloves
my hands sweat, this can be worse sometimes.”
Risk Controls
When asked to identify appropriate risk control
measures for each of the OHS risks, participants
placed a strong emphasis on individual controls
for both risk topics. One third of participants suggested that the risk of falling from height should
be controlled by the use of engineering controls
such as the installation of guard rails, handrails,
or safety mesh and indicated that the responsibility for these measures lay with the employer or
site manager. However, the most commonly
mentioned risk control measures for falls from
height were those that may be termed administrative or procedural controls. Thus over half of the
participants recommended improved education
and training for workers and employers. As one
participant said “Young apprentices like myself
are unaware/inexperienced about how to use ladders (setting up), what’s safe, where to set it up,
how strong it is and so on.”
A third of the participants also indicated that
employees needed to take greater care and concentrate when working at heights. These people
perceived that the responsibility for this action
lies with individual workers. Participants who
emphasized education and training were a different group than those who mentioned the need for
workers to take greater care. This indicates that
participants are divided between those who believe workers do not understand the risk of falls
from height and the need to follow safe work
procedures and those who perceive that workers
understand the risks but choose to flout safe
work procedures.
The selection and use of ladders were identified by almost half of respondents as being appropriate controls for the risk of falls from
256
height. The responsibility for these measures was
perceived to lie mainly with employees themselves, but employers were also perceived to
share the responsibility for the selection of ladders. Control measures relating to the use of personal protective equipment mentioned in relation
to falls included wearing appropriate shoes to
avoid slipping (two participants) and using fall
arrest devices such as safety harnesses and inertia
reels (five participants). Employees were perceived to have responsibility for the first of these
two measures but employers, site managers, and
principal contractors were perceived to be responsible for the use of fall arrest equipment.
Strong emphasis was placed by the majority
of participants on the need for personal protective equipment to control the risk of occupational
skin disease. All but two of the participants mentioned the need for the provision and use of such
equipment. Over half of the participants suggested that employers should bear the responsibility for providing protective equipment such as
gloves, hats, and sunscreen. As one participant
said “If they are providing products that can be
potentially harmful then they should take responsibility and provide safety as well.” A further
third of participants indicated that they believed
employees were responsible for using this equipment. One participant commented:
The work habits of people get in the way.
Workers become lazy or can’t be bothered
using safety gear [for occupational skin diseases], especially if it is a small job that
won’t take that long.
A third of participants also said that the provision of education and training on hazardous
chemicals and skin disease were required. One
participant stated:
Ignorance is also very important. People
aren’t aware of the risks (of occupational
skin disease) because it is something that
happens over the long run. They think ‘its
not going to happen to me.’
Just over one third of participants mentioned
the need for the provision of information about
the risks associated with chemical products, including the need for labeling and the provision of
material safety data sheets.
At the upper end of the risk control hierarchy,
only two participants suggested that the selection
Journal of Safety Research
of safer products and/or application methods was
an appropriate control. A third participant hinted
at the need to substitute hazardous products by
suggesting that sub-contractors be consulted in
the selection of materials. This participant commented that “sub-contractors should be given
some choice in the materials they use and not
forced to use things.”
Facilitating Factors and Barriers to
Risk Control
All but two of the participants identified cost and
time constraints as being barriers to the effective
control of the risk of falls from heights and almost half of the participants identified the provision of monetary incentives (such as reimbursements, subsidies, tax incentives, and rebates) as a
factor that would facilitate the control of this risk.
As one participant commented:
Cost, it comes down to this at the end of the
day. It is very competitive out there so a
way of keeping costs down is to overlook
safety. Scaffolding, for example, can be very
expensive.
Three participants also suggested that competitive tendering for construction work led to “corner cutting” and acted as a barrier to the control
of risks of falls. Presumably participants believe
the provision of financial incentives could help to
overcome these barriers.
The most commonly mentioned facilitating
factor for the improved control of occupational
skin disease was the provision of information, on
data sheets and labels, as well as increased education and training. The participants who identified the provision of information and those who
identified training and education as facilitating
factors included different participants, indicating
that there is an almost universal acceptance that
workers are lacking in awareness of the risk of
and precautions to be taken against occupational
skin disease. This problem may be particularly
acute for people of non-English speaking backgrounds. As one participant commented, there is
a “lack of understanding, particularly with people who can’t read English. They can’t read labels on products.”
Over half of the participants identified money
as a constraint to the effective control of the occupational skin disease risk. They suggested that
safer products cost more. An additional three
Winter 1999/Volume 30/Number 4
participants identified the related factor of the
competitive nature of the industry as being a hindrance.
DISCUSSION
Attribution of Risk
DeJoy (1994) suggests that the attribution of causation is a logical human response to events. The
results of the study suggest that, for the OHS risks
of falls from height and occupational skin disease,
participants’ attribution of risk causation may influence their meanings of risk control. These attributions need to be better understood if appropriate
risk control strategies are to be developed.
Attribution of risk causation involves a consideration of the locus of control and the perceived controllability of the cause. The locus of
control relates to whether the source of the cause
is internal (individual) or external to the person
involved in the event (DeJoy, 1994). For example, where the locus of control is deemed to be
internal for an OHS risk, an individual’s meaning
of risk control is likely to focus on individual
rather than technological control measures.
Controllability of risk is also important in the
attribution of risk. Where it is perceived that a
risk cannot be controlled, a fatalistic resignation
to exposure to the risk may develop. This pilot
study’s results suggest that such a fatalistic resignation applies to the risk of occupational skin
disease. The perceived degree of effort required
to control an OHS risk also appears to be important in determining individuals’ meanings of risk
control. Where the possibility of control is recognized but it is perceived to require too great a
level of effort to control the risk, individuals appear to weigh up the benefits and costs associated with this control. Where the risk is deemed
to be too difficult (or costly) to control, they may
decide to accept the prevailing level of risk.
Comments made by participants suggest that the
risk of falls from height is accepted on this basis.
The development of meanings of risk control
may also be influenced by individual biases such
as a belief that ‘it won’t happen to me’ or the tendency to attribute the behavior of others to internal factors and their own behavior in terms of situational factors. For example, in relation to
occupational skin disease, participants perceived
that the risk was dependent upon individual susceptibility and thus believed the risk to themselves to be insignificant. Similarly, many partic257
ipants suggested that the occurrence of falls from
height is due to worker carelessness or a lack of
concentration. The attribution of falls to the failure of others to take sufficient care might lead
workers to believe that such incidents will not
happen to them.
Organizational Context
The construction industry organizational structure and its associated economic constraints appear to influence the way individuals perceive
risks and the options for their control. Organizational constraints, such as cost and time pressures, were commonly cited as barriers to the effective control of risk for both OHS risks but they
were particularly prevalent for the risk of falls
from height. Recognition of these organizational
constraints resulted in participants’ acceptance of
the existence of both OHS risks and a resignation
to bearing a large part of the burden of responsibility for the control of the risks. Thus, participants placed a strong emphasis on procedural
controls for the risk of falls from height, and on
the use of personal protective equipment for the
control of occupational skin disease. Both of
these types of control may be termed ‘individual’
control measures in that they seek to influence
the behavior of individuals rather than achieve
changes to the work environment. These controls
represent lower order controls in the risk control
hierarchy and are accepted to be less effective
and reliable than the technological types of risk
control at the upper end of the hierarchy. The reliance on personal protective equipment is particularly limited since such equipment:
• Frequently does not provide the protection
claimed;
• Is uncomfortable to use;
• Often makes working difficult;
• Can create a hazard itself; and
• May add unnecessary burden of responsibility on workers (Mathews, 1993).
A perceived lack of control over the selection
and implementation of technological risk controls, such as the provision of scaffolding and
guardrails or the selection of safer chemicals in
place of hazardous ones was evident. Responsibilities for these issues were commonly believed
to lie with the principal contractor and recommendations were made for greater involvement
258
of subcontractors in decisions affecting OHS risk
exposure and risk control.
Reason (1995) developed a scheme for examining the etiology of human errors leading to accidents in work systems. The construction industry situation presents a complex work system in
that projects typically involve several different
organizations, each operating with its own objectives and pressures. Under these circumstances,
integrated risk control decision-making and implementation can be difficult to achieve. Figure 1
presents an adaptation of Reason’s model to the
environment of a construction project. It illustrates that two causal sequences for accidents exist. A failure can originate at the top of the contractual hierarchy and proceed through errorproducing conditions at the various contractual
levels to result in an error or violation by workers
at the immediate man-equipment-material interface. A latent failure pathway also runs directly
from organizational processes to deficiencies in a
system’s defenses. In construction, both pathways may originate in a functional or organizational entity distinct and remote from the firm
undertaking the construction work. The existence
of these pathways exposes workers at the lowest
point in the contractual chain to OHS risks,
which they must seek to control by the individual
control measures that are available to them. This
model may explain why participants in the study,
positioned at the lowest end of the contractual
chain, understood risk control in terms of individual controls. If technological controls for
OHS risks are to be implemented effectively, an
adapted version of Reason’s model may be useful in identifying organizational processes that
give rise to errors or violations at an individual
level.
It is recognized that the selection of upper order risk controls such as elimination of hazards,
substitution of hazardous chemicals or processes,
and/or engineering controls can often only be
achieved if OHS risks are considered prior to the
execution phase of a construction project (Health
and Safety Executives [HSE], 1995a). OHS risks
should be assessed and control decisions made in
the concept design, project planning, specification and tendering, and contractor selection
stages of a construction project (European Construction Institute [ECI], 1996). Where OHS
risks are not considered early in the life of a
project, and/or OHS risk information is not effectively communicated between parties engaged in
a construction project, OHS risks experienced at
Journal of Safety Research
Winter 1999/Volume 30/Number 4
259
FIGURE 1 Etiology of individual errors and violations leading to accidents. Adapted from Reason (1995).
the workplace may only be controlled by the implementation of ‘individual’ control measures. It
is therefore important that the structure of the
construction industry and the organizational processes adopted be examined in order to identify
methods of achieving increased integration of
OHS risk control decision-making between parties to a project.
The UK Legislative Model
The United Kingdom has implemented a legislative model for enhancing OHS risk communication and integration in construction projects. In
1994, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations were enacted. These regulations identify key parties to a construction project
including the client, professional advisors, designers, the principal contractor, and subcontractors or self employed persons (HSE, 1995b).
Each of these parties has a defined set of statutory duties for ensuring that OHS risks are managed during the life of the project. In addition,
the regulations require that a planning supervisor
be appointed whose role it is to coordinate the
activities of designers, collate OHS risk information relevant to the project into a health and
safety file, and inform the client as to the competence and resource allocation of designers and
contractors. Such a model may serve to overcome some of the organizational constraints currently inhibiting the selection and implementation of technological controls for both long term
and acute effect OHS risks experienced in the
construction industry of Australia.
CONCLUSIONS
The results of this study suggest that meanings of
risk control for occupational skin disease and
falls from height, that are currently held by small
business construction industry participants, are
largely limited to individual risk controls at the
lower end of the risk control hierarchy.
The risk of occupational skin disease is perceived to be unknown and associated with delayed effects. Most participants did not believe
occupational skin disease to be a risk in their
workplace. The risk of occupational skin disease
is also believed to be uncontrollable and, in part,
dependent on individual susceptibility. The general understanding of the risk of skin disease is
thus that it is inevitable; a fatalistic resignation to
260
the existence of the risk is manifest. Risk control
for occupational skin disease is largely understood in terms of the provision and use of personal protective equipment. While some participants acknowledged the limitations of such
equipment, they perceive there to be little alternative to the control of occupational skin disease risk.
The risk of falling from height is perceived to
be highly relevant to the work of small business
construction firms. It was understood to be associated with immediate consequences and the potential for serious or fatal injury. In contrast to
the risk of occupational skin disease, the risk of
falls was perceived to be controllable but cost
and time constraints imposed in the construction
industry were believed to be barriers to the implementation of technological risk controls such
as the provision of suitable scaffolding. The acceptance of this fact appeared to give rise to an
acceptance of the risk as “part of the job” and the
perception that controlling the risk of falling was
an individual issue. The need to adopt safe work
practices and work with care was emphasized in
relation to this risk. In addition, there was a perception that external imposition of discipline is
required to ensure that people work safely. These
views may prohibit the adoption of technological
risk controls that aim to achieve a safer working
environment.
These findings suggest that there is a need to
change small business construction industry participants’ meanings of OHS risk and its control
in relation to the risks of occupational skin disease and falls from height, if more effective control measures are to be expected and achieved in
the construction industry. An adapted version of
Reason’s model (1995; see Figure 1) provides a
scheme to examine constraints imposed by the
construction industry structure, organizational
processes, and methods of decision-making currently adopted. The usefulness of the UK legislative model for achieving improved integration
and coordination in the management of construction industry OHS risks should be considered in
the Australian context.
FUTURE RESEARCH
A follow-up action research study is proposed. A
risk control intervention is to be developed and
introduced under carefully controlled experimental conditions. The impact of this intervention on
Journal of Safety Research
participants’ meanings of risk control will be determined for both OHS risks. The intervention
will be formatively evaluated for its validity in
the construction industry small business context.
REFERENCES
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1998). Business register
data. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics
Cox, S., & Tait, R. (1998). Safety, Reliability and risk management. 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann.
Davies, V.J., & Tomasin, K. (1990). Construction safety
handbook. London: Thomas Telford Ltd.
DeJoy, D.M. (1994). Managing safety in the workplace: An
attribution theory analysis and model. Journal of Safety
Research, 25, 3–17.
Douglas, M., & Wildavsky, A. (1982). Risk and culture.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Eakins, J. (1992). Leaving it up to the workers: Sociological
perspectives on the management of health and safety in
small workplaces. International Journal of Health Services, 22(4), 689–704.
European Construction Institute. (1996). Total project management of construction safety, health and environment.
London: Thomas Telford.
Fischoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., &
Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and
benefits. Policy Sciences, 9, 127–152.
Geier, J., & Schnuch, A.A. (1995). A comparison of contact
allergies among construction and nonconstruction workers attending contact dermatitis clinics in Germany: Results of the information network of departments of dermatology from November 1989 to July 1993. American
Journal of Contact Dermatitis, 6 (2), 86–94.
Hale, A.R., & Glendon, A.I. (1987). Individual behaviour in
the control of danger. New York: Elsevier Science Publishers.
Health and Safety Executive. (1995a). Designing for health
and safety in construction. London: HSE Books, HMSO.
Health and Safety Executive. (1995b). Managing construction for health and safety. London: HSE Books, HMSO.
Helander, M. (1991). Safety hazards and motivation for safe
work in the construction industry. International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, 8, 205–223.
Holmes, N. (1995). Workplace understandings and perceptions of risk in OHS. PhD thesis. Australia: Monash University.
Holmes, N., & Gifford, S.M. (1997). Narratives of risk in
occupational health and safety: Why the ‘good’ boss
blames his tradesmen and the ‘good’ tradesman blames
his tools. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Public
Health, 21, 11–19.
Winter 1999/Volume 30/Number 4
Holmes, N., & Gifford, S.M. (1996). Social meanings of
risk in OHS: Consequences for risk control. Journal of
Occupational Health and Safety Australia and New
Zealand, 12 (4), 443–450.
Kisner, S.M., & Fosbroke, D.E. (1994). Injury hazards in
the construction industry. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 36 (2), 137–143.
Lingard, H., & Rowlinson, S. (1994). Construction site
safety in Hong Kong. Construction Management and
Economics, 12, 501–510.
Lingard, H. (1995). Safety in Hong Kong’s construction industry: Changing worker behavior. Ph.D. thesis. Hong
Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Lingard, H., & Rowlinson, S. (1997). Behaviour-based
safety management in Hong Kong’s construction industry. Journal of Safety Research, 28, 243–256.
Lingard, H., & Rowlinson, S. (1998). Behaviour-based
safety management in Hong Kong’s construction industry: The results of a field study. Construction Management and Economics, 16, 481–488.
Mathews, J. (1993). Health and safety at work. 2nd ed. Sydney: Pluto Press.
Maxwell, J.A. (1996). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mayhew, C. (1995). An evaluation of the impact of Robens
style legislation on the OHS decision-making of Australian and United Kingdom builders with less than five employees. [Worksafe Australia Research Grant Report].
Sydney: National Occupational Health and Safety Commission.
Neuman, W.L. (1994). Social Research Methods. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Patton, M.Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research
methods. 2nd ed. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.
Rayner, S. (1992). Cultural theory and risk analysis. In S.
Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds), Social theories of risk (pp.
83–116). London: Praeger.
Reason, J. (1995). A systems approach to organizational error. Ergonomics, 38, 1708–1721.
Ridley, J. (1990). Safety at work. 3rd ed. London: Butterworth Heinemann.
Rosen, R.H., & Freeman, S. (1992). Occupational contact
dermatitis in New South Wales. Australian Journal of
Dermatology, 33, 1–10.
Russell, J.S., Hancher, D.E., & Skibniewski, M.J. (1992).
Contractor prequalification data for construction owners.
Construction Management and Economics, 10, 117–129.
Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science, 236, 280–285.
Tesch, R. (1990). Qualitative research: Analysis types and
software tools. New York: The Falmer Press.
Tesh, S. (1981). Disease causality and politics. Journal of
Health Politics, Policy and Law, 6 (3), 369–390
Viner, D. (1996). Accident analysis and risk control. New
Delhi: Sonali Publishing House.
Walker, A. (1996). Project management in construction.
Oxford: Blackwell Science.
261