Health & Safety Management

Health and Safety Management:
Factors Affecting Implementation
By
William James Wootton
1
Health and Safety Management:
Factors Affecting Implementation
By
This dissertation is submitted to the School of the Built Environment of
Liverpool John Moores University in part fulfilment of the requirements
for the MSc in Construction (Health & Safety) Management.
© July 2001
i
Contents
List of Figures iv
List of Tables vi
Acknowledgements viii
Abstract ix
Chapter 1 – Introduction 1
Rationale for research 1
Research Goals 3
Aim 3
Objectives 3
Key Questions 3
Research methodology 4
Chapter 2 – Principles of Health and Safety Management 6
Introduction 6
Fundamentals 6
Legislation 8
Safety management system 9
Appraisal of literature 13
Chapter 3 – Factors Affecting Health and Safety Management 14
Introduction 14
Costs 14
Time 25
Integrated Health and Safety 28
Client pressure 35
Appraisal of Literature. 39
Chapter 4 – Research Design and Methodology 42
Introduction 42
Research Aim 42
Research Questionnaire 43
Section Questions 45
Research Sample 47
Method of Analysis 49
Chapter 5 – Analysis of Results 50
Introduction 50
General Overview 51
Data Manipulation 53
Descriptive Analysis of Results 55
Further Analysis 63
Spearman Rank Corellation Coefficient 64
Presentation of results 66
ii
Chapter 6 – Conclusions 84
Introduction 84
Objectives’ conclusions 84
Research Questions 85
Personal Recommendations 88
Limitations of Research 89
Suggestions for Further Research 89
References 90
Bibliography 93
Appendix 1 – Dissertation Questionnaire and Email 94
Appendix 2 – Raw Data 99
Appendix 3 – Totals Obtained for Each Question 104
Appendix 4 – Response Totals for each Section 135
Appendix 5 – Spearman’s Rank Corellation Tables 142
iii
List of Figures
Figure 1 Summary of losses identified+ 18

Figure 2 Do clients understand their safety responsibilities? 37
Figure 3 Does lack of construction experience in clients mean safety is 38
overlooked
Figure 4 Do clients rate health and safety competence high enough when 38
awarding contracts?
Figure 5 Percentage breakdown of categories 51
Figure 6 Categorisation of response to survey. 51
Figure 7 Category response to the questionnaire 52
Figure 8 Totals for Question 1 105
iv
Figure 38 Totals for Part 1a General External Motivators 136
Figure 39 Totals for Part 1b General External Motivators 137
Figure 40 Totals for Part 2 Costs Associated with Implementing Health and 138
Safety Management
Figure 41 Totals for Part 3 Time Pressures Affecting Implementation of Health 139
and Safety Management
Figure 42 Totals for Part 4 Integrated Health and Safety 140
Figure 43 Totals for Part 5 Client Pressure 141
v
List of Tables
Table 1 Differences in safety management systems 12

Table 2 Costs associated with accidents 17
Table 3 Research Sample, number and rate of response by category 48
Table 4 Range of answer and their corresponding allocated score 50
Table 5 Percentage Scores for Part 1a of Questionnaire 56
Table 6 Percentage Scores for Part 1b of Questionnaire 58
Table 7 Percentage Scores for Part 2 of Questionnaire 59
Table 8 Percentage scores for Part 3 of Questionnaire 60
Table 11 Spearman Rank Corellation for All Pairings 66
Table 12 Abbreviations 66
Table 13 Ranking of External and Internal Motivators 68
Table 14 Rank Corellation of Directors and Construction Managers 70
Table 15 Rank Corellation of Directors and Project Engineers 72
Table 16 Rank Corellation of Directors and Project Managers 74
Table 17 Rank Corellation of Directors and Supervisors 76
Table 18 Rank Corellation of Directors and Quantity Surveyors 78
Table 19 Rank Corellation of Directors and Safety Managers 80
Table 20 Rank Corellation of Directors and Site Agents 82
Table 21 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Supervisors 100
Table 22 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Project Managers 143
Table 23 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Project Engineers 144
Table 24 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Quantity Surveyors 145
Table 25 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Safety Managers 146
Table 26 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Site Agents 147
Table 27 Rank Corellation of Supervisors and Project Engineers 148
Table 28 Rank Corellation of Supervisors and Project Managers 149
Table 29 Rank Corellation of Supervisors and Site Agents 150
Table 30 Rank Corellation of Supervisors and Safety Managers 151
Table 31 Rank Corellation of Supervisors and Quantity Surveyors 152
Table 32 Rank Corellation of Quantity Surveyors and Project Engineers 153
Table 33 Rank Corellation of Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers 154
Table 34 Rank Corellation of Quantity Surveyors and Safety Managers 155
Table 35 Rank Corellation of Quantity Surveyors and Site Agents 156
Table 36 Rank Corellation of Project Managers and Project Engineers 157
Table 37 Rank Corellation of Project Managers and Safety Managers 158
vi
Table 38 Rank Corellation of Project Managers and Site Agents 159
Table 39 Rank Corellation of Site Agents and Project Engineers 160
Table 40 Rank Corellation of Site Agents and Safety Managers 161
Table 41 Rank Corellation of Safety Managers and Project Engineers 162
vii
Acknowledgements
I would like to give special thanks to James Parry and Peter Williams of
Liverpool John Moores University for the guidance they gave me during this
research topic.
I am also grateful to Roy Pollock from URS Thorburn Colquhoun for his
assistance and his invaluable direction in the statistical analysis of the results.
A thank you goes to Sean Devaney of Crown House Engineering for his help
in obtaining and accessing some of the literature used in the research.
Most of all and most importantly, a very special thank you has to go to my
wife, Sandra and my three children, Scott, Kirsty and Jodie who have
supported me unquestioningly in carrying out this research topic.
viii
Abstract
This research topic set out to evaluate factors, which influence the
implementation of health and safety management.
The factors that were investigated are:
! Costs
! Time
! Integration and
! Client pressure.
A questionnaire containing thirty questions was designed to answer the
following key questions:
! Does the cost of health and safety measures affect their implementation?
! Do time pressures affect the implementation of health and safety
measures?
! Will integrating health and safety management into other management
systems improve health and safety performance?
! Does client pressure affect the level of health and safety management
implementation?
The survey revealed that:

! The issue of costs affecting health and safety is divided.
! Time is not a strong factor when it comes to implementing health and
safety.
! There was strong support for the integration of health and safety
management into other management systems.
! Client pressure is a weak factor in affecting health and safety
management.
The lowest ranked question by the majority of subjects was ‘costs associated
with health and safety management are excessive compared to accident
costs’.
The highest ranked question by the majority of subjects was ‘health and safety
management costs are an integral part of sound business’.
Another strongly supported and highly ranked question was ‘ health and safety
should be enrolled into techniques such as total quality management’.
ix
Chapter 1 – Introduction
Rationale for the Research

During project delivery, it is deemed essential that health and safety
management is carried out throughout the various stages, from inception
through to completion and operation of the project. This research topic is to
focus on factors that affect the implementation of health and safety
management at the construction or building phase of a project. The reason for
the study emanates from the desire to find out why contractors do not
implement health and safety management on site. This desire came from a
report1 into the levels of health and safety management carried out by
Specialists involved in a Construction Management Pilot Scheme undertaken
by a government agency in the year of April 1999 to April 2000. This involved
the taking of the Principal Contractors safety inspections and assessing them
for compliance to the site Health & Safety Plan. Two measurements were
taken:
! Compliance with the Principal Contractors Health and Safety Plan (mainly
administrative e.g., providing method statements, risk assessments, safety
inspections, training records etc)
! Safety inspections carried out by the Principal Contractors site

management teams
The results of the inspections gave rise to further informal analysis. This
revealed the majority of contractors had prepared the necessary paperwork for
safe systems of work but had failed to implement them thoroughly. As a
consequence, of the findings a further informal assessment was carried out
into how Specialists performed who were employed by a major food retailer.
The results of that assessment also found that there were a lot of
discrepancies between what was written in the health and safety management
plans to what actually occurred on site.
1 Wootton, W J (2000) Safety Report for Construction Management Pilot Scheme. Unpublished
1
Although, no serious injuries or incidents occurred as a result of
implementation failures, it raised concerns, as the collection of failures was
quite significant. In the following months informal conversations with members
of the specialist organisations were undertaken to ascertain the reasons for
the levels of non-compliance with their own health and safety management
systems. The main reasons and comments offered gave the motivation and
purpose to carry out this research topic.
The above findings are not unique to the specialists questioned as the initial
literature search shows. In fact, it seems to be a theme running through the
construction industry. The literature search was undertaken to obtain
background knowledge of what had previously been written on the subject and
two main pieces were found.
1. Contract Research Report 452 was undertaken to examine the extent to
which safety performance in the construction industry may be undermined
by factors beyond the control of the individual worker. The research
investigated management, organisational and human factors in the
construction industry. Amongst other items, the research looked at the
integration of safety into other management systems, time pressures and
cost pressures.
2. Contract Research Report 1793 was undertaken to examine the factors
that motivate organisations to be proactive in health and safety
management. It looked at cost drivers, Total Quality Management and
Health and Safety Management.
It is the factors identified from the above reports, combined with the
conversations with Specialist contractors and project management teams,
which have given the purpose for this research project.
2 Whittington, C. Livingston, A. Lucas D A. (1992) Research into Management, Organisational, and Human
Factors in the Construction Industry. Contract Research Report 45/1992 HSE
3 Wright, M S (1998) Factors Motivating Proactive Health & Safety Management. Contract Research Report
179/1998 HSE
2
Research Goals
Aim
The aim of the research topic is to establish the views of the project
management teams working under schemes managed by a major retailer and
a government agency to the factors that may affect health and safety
management.
Objectives
The objectives of the research is to:
! To provide a general overview of the principles of health and safety

management.
! To survey the project management teams identified in the aim and

investigate their views on the following factors:
! The costs of health and safety
! Time pressures affecting health and safety.
! Integrated health and safety
! Client pressure
! To test whether various members of the project management teams have

similar views on the above factors.
Key Questions
The following key questions are to be investigated:
! Do the costs of health and safety measures affect their implementation?
! Do time pressures affect the implementation of health and safety
measures?
! Will integrating health and safety management into other management
! Does client pressure affect the level of health and safety management
implementation?
3
Research Methodology
The methods used to achieve the aims and objectives of this study are as
follows:
Literature search
! Extensive use of the Liverpool John Moores University’s libraries was
made to find abstracts and citations of pieces of literature relevant to the
research topics. Books, periodicals and the University’s computer library
system4 were used.
! The Internet, and in particular the Yahoo5 and Lycos6 search engines were
used to source any relevant material.
! One months access to the Bell and Howell ProQuest7 library of information
via the Internet which was successfully sought by applying to the ProQuest
Information centre in the USA.
! One weeks attendance at the reading rooms of the British Library in St
Pancras, London, to access full text from the abstracts and citations found
during the extensive search at Liverpool John Moores University Library.
The attendance at the British Library allowed extensive reading of
materials and facilitated note taking to form the basis of the written
chapters.
! Use of various databases such as OPAC 97, HSELINE, and NIOSHTIC at
the British Library.
4
Liverpool John Moores University http://whirly.livjm.ac.uk/lionweb.htm
5
Yahoo Search Engine www.yahoo.co.uk
6
Lycos Search Engine www.lycos.co.uk
4
Data Collection
The collection of data for the research topic was qualitative by nature.
Attitudinal measurements were taken from a range of subjects. The
relationship between the author and the subjects of the research was mixed,
with a high percentage of the subjects being known (65%) and a small
percentage (35%) being unknown to the author.
Primary data collection was used as the method to obtain the relevant
information needed to carry out the analysis stage of the research topic. The
survey approach was used, as the author wanted to gauge the level of answer
towards a set of particular questions (see questionnaire design below). This
method allows the author to analyse the data collected for trends. Further
analysis of the results was carried out using the Spearman Rank Correlation
Coefficient statistical test to compare the results between categories of
respondents (see Chapter 5 – Analysis of Results).
Questionnaire Design
The questionnaire was designed using six sections and their breakdown is
discussed in detail later (see Chapter 4 – Research Design and Methodology).
The design was in conjunction with the research objectives as outlined in
Research Goals above. Likert scaling was used as attitudinal responses were
desired and the responses ranged from strongly agree to strongly disagree,
with five number possible answers.
The topics chosen were of reasonable importance to all categories of
respondent as they are all involved in, in some form or another, to different
degrees in the construction process. The particular questions asked were
unique to this study, as there is no other information available and no other
studies that have been undertaken as far as the author is aware.
The questionnaire was constructed using Word 97 and was tested for
appearance and quality by a few colleagues over a period of three weeks. A
final test was undertaken in a workshop attended by the author in early
January 2001 (see Chapter 4 – Research Design and Methodology).
7
ProQuest Information Centre www.umi.com/8090/proquest/
5
Chapter 2 – Principles of Health and Safety Management
Introduction
This chapter sets out to review the literature on the principles of health and
safety management.
Fundamentals
There are three fundamental approaches to defining strategies for health and
safety management8 and they are
! Legal
! Humanitarian and
! Financial.
Jacobson (2000)9gives us a similar analogy for the three reasons why health
and safety should be a central concern:
! To prevent human suffering and the disruption it can bring into a persons
life
! Industrial accidents are very costly and the costs must be controlled in
today’s competitive marketplace
! To stay in compliance with safety codes and standards
Another point of view expressed by the ASCNI Human Factors Group (1993)10
is that the primary aim of health and safety management is to intervene in the
accident causation process and break that chain11. This view is also
expressed by Booth and Lee (1993)12 and they go on to say that safety should
be a part of every day decision making.
8
E & P Forum. (1996) Loss Costing Guidelines Report No. 6.54/246 Oct 1996 Exploration and Production
Forum
9
Jacobson, J. (2000) The legal view Safety Supervisor Update
http://www.eig.com/ssus/ssu9602.htm.[online] Accessed 13 Jan 2001
10
Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations. (1993) ACSNI Human Factors Study Group:
Third Report; Organising for Safety HMSO
11
Ridley, J. (1990) Safety at Work 3rd Edition Butterworth Heinemann
12
Booth, R T. and Lee, T R. (1993) The role of human factors and safety culture in safety management
Papers presented by the Engineering Manufacturers Industries Division of the Institute of Mechanical
Engineers in association with the Hazards Forum 12-13 October 1993 Mechanical Engineering Publications
Limited London
6
Stranks (1994)13 explains the above aspects and the approach to them varies
across the levels of management and is as follows:
! Legalistic – comply with the law and no more
! Socio-Humanistic - considers the human resource aspects and people are
important.
! Financial-economic – all accidents and ill health cost money. Most
organisations are good at calculating the cost of health and safety but are
no good at costing the losses associated with accidents, sickness and
poor health and safety performance. These losses tend to get absorbed in
the operating costs of the business.
13
Stranks, J. (1994) Safety management and policy. Pitman London
7
Legislation
There is no question that there is a requirement to comply with health and
safety law. What can be questioned is the level of compliance needed to carry
on a business.
Hansen (2000)14 says that safety results will improve if you improve your level
of compliance, focusing on improving your conditions, facilities, equipment and
the work environment.
Ridley (1990 pg. 143)15 cites the Ministry of Labour and National Service six
principles of accident prevention and states that they have only recently had
legislative backing. They are:
! Accident prevention is an essential part of good management and of good
workmanship
! Management and workers must co-operate wholeheartedly in securing
freedom from accidents
! Top management must take the lead in organising safety in the work place
! There must be a definite and known safety policy in the workplace
! The organisation and resources necessary to carry out the policy must
exist
! The best available knowledge and methods must be applied
Apart from regulation, another form of legal compliance that we must have is
Employers Liability Insurance. Wrightson (1999)16 informs us that the insurer
expects the insured to take all appropriate precautions to prevent and
minimise the occurrence of accidents and occupational ill health and if a claim
arises, supply all the necessary evidence to refute it.
14
Hansen, L. L. (2000) The architecture of safety excellence Professional Safety May 2000. p P26
15
Ridley, J. (1990) Safety at Work 3rd Edition Butterworth Heinemann Oxford
16
Wrightson, I. (1999) An insurers approach to measuring health and safety Safety and Health Practitioner
Vol. 17 Issue 2
8
Safety management system
A method of encompassing the principles into one coherent system is needed

and creating a health and safety management system does this.
To develop the aforementioned principles of health and safety management
Wallace (1995)17 says the following must be shown:
! Management demonstrates visible commitment to safety

! Safety is one of the responsibilities of line management
! Competent safety advisers are appointed
! High safety standards are available and well understood
! Audits of safety standards and practices are carried out
! Effective safety training is carried out
! Sound safety policies are in place
! Realistic safety targets and objectives are set
! Techniques to measure safety performance are applied
! Injuries and incidents are investigated thoroughly and followed up
He goes on to say that effective motivation and communication has to be

inherent in all activities and promoted as follows:
! The level of importance attached by the company to safety health and the
environment
! The overall level of safety health and environmental performance that the
company wishes to achieve
! The standards of safety health and environmental protection that are to be
used to judge the company performance
! The quality assurance standards that are to be applied to safety health and
environmental activities
! General responsibilities for safety health and environmental protection of
the board, management, supervision and employees
! Attitude to safety and health training
! The level of importance attached by the company to employee
involvement and participation
9
Bottomley (1999, pg. 5)18 says several important factors have influenced
organisations to adopt a more systematic approach to health and safety and
some of the reasons are given below:
! The system based nature of occupational health and safety legislation has
encouraged the use of a systematic approach.
! The models used in quality and environmental management have
encouraged larger organisations to adopt a similar approach to managing
occupational health and safety.
! The response to major disasters in the 1980’s (e.g. Piper Alpha) focused
on a greater role for managing safety rather than relegating occupational
health and safety to a secondary, technical function. Companies managing
high-risk facilities with potential major impacts on the public were keen to
demonstrate they had systems in place.
The Health and Safety Executive (pg. 3)19 suggest that the sound principles of
health and safety management are indistinguishable from the sound
management practices advocated by proponents of quality and business
excellence. They offer a model that covers six important elements of
successful health and safety management.
The elements are described briefly below:
! Policy – contributes to business performance
! Organising – establishing responsibilities and relationships which promote
a positive health and safety culture
! Planning and implementing – planning is required to establish and
maintain effective implementation of policy and procedures
! Measuring performance – essential to maintain and improve health and
safety performance
! Reviewing performance and Audits – enable organisations to achieve high
standards of health and safety management.
17
Wallace, I. G. (1995) Developing Effective Safety Systems, Gulf Publishing
18
Bottomley, B. (1999) Occupational health and safety management systems: Strategic Issues Report.
National Occupational Health Safety Commission
19
Health & Safety Executive. (1991) Successful Health and Safety Management. HS(G) 65 HMSO
10
Schaechtel (2000)20 suggests that the health and safety management system
is the way in which an organisation can best vie for the manager’s time.
Pollock (1995)21 states that the health and safety management system should
be an integral part of the business and should join quality, productivity,
customer focus and profitability as the ‘way business is done’.
20
Schaechtel, D. (1997) How to build a safety management system. Professional Safety, Vol. 42. Issue 8.
pp 22-24
21
Pollock, R. A. (1995) Making safety matter Occupational Hazards Vol. 57 Issue 10
11
Earnest (1997)22 argues that most health and safety management systems are
more reactive than proactive and explains the difference in the following table:
Table 1 Differences in safety management systems
Proactive Reactive
The primary measure of safety The primary measure of safety

performance is based on the system performance is based on system
output
Incident investigation focuses on root Incident investigation focuses on

causes and management system unsafe conditions and unsafe acts
Management safety evaluation is based Management safety evaluation is

on improving the system based on the absence of injuries
Activities are orientated toward Activities are orientated to physical

improving key system elements and hazards, contests and gimmicks
behaviour
Safety and health goals focus on Safety and health goals focus on
improving the system improving safety output
Employee safety meetings are planned Employee safety meetings are not
and educational well prepared
Safety and health training is planned and Safety and health training is largely
linked to the improved understanding of conducted in response to regulatory
the system requirements
Behaviour based safety practices are Safe practices are developed in

developed based on hazard identification response to accidents and regulatory
requirements
Group recognition is based on improving Group recognition is based on safe

safety and health work hours without accidents
22
Earnest, R. E. (1997) Characteristics of proactive and reactive safety systems Professional Safety Vol 42
Issue 11pp 27-29
12
Appraisal of Literature
This chapter has looked at the principles of health and safety management
and revealed that there are three main reasons for wanting and having an
effective health and safety management system.
They are as follows:
! Legal – the law says that certain things have to be done
! Financial – the costs of accidents and incidents may affect the companies
profits
! Humanitarian – it is not morally or ethically correct to cause suffering
amongst the working population
Although, the implications of insurance was not investigated in any detail,
insurance seems to have a major part to play in the promotion of health and
safety management.
The literature review has shown that in order to satisfy the principles of health
and safety, and break the accident causation chain organisations respond by
developing a health and safety management system. There should be no
difference in the way that health and safety is managed, compared to other
parts of the business, but the review has highlighted that there are differences.
The safety management system must be capable of having an audit trail and
be flexible enough to be altered, or re-written.
The health and safety management system must bring together the
organisation as a whole and give every level of management some health and
safety responsibility and that includes the ‘shop floor’ employees. A popular
use of a health and safety management system is the one described by the
Health and Safety Executive in there publication HS(G) 65.
In order for the health and safety management system to work it must be given
equal standing with quality and production within organisations.
The review gave an insight into the varied elements of a safety management
system and other reasons apart from preventing accidents why organisations
should adopt and implement one.
There is a suggestion that current health and safety management systems in
use today are reactive and not proactive.
13
Chapter 3 – Factors Affecting Health and Safety Management
Introduction
This chapter will cover the review of the literature search into the factors,
investigated by this research topic, which affect health and safety
management.
They are briefly, as follows:
! Costs
! Time
! Integration
! Client pressure
Costs
A normal part of business

The costs associated with health and safety management are linked to legal
requirements and financial aspects of a business. There is now great
awareness of the role of health and safety management as a factor of
business management23. It is undeniable that health and safety regulation and
therefore, health and safety management, is a part of a business and costs
associated with health and safety management are an important aspect to be
considered.
Legislation is a part of normal business and in an article produced by
Globe (1986)24 into the effect of profit-reducing legislation on business
was studied. He concluded that higher profits may mean more
accidents and that there was no statistically significant relationship
between safety and profits.
23
CBI (1997) Health and safety: the business case Health and Safety Brief October 1997
24
Globe, D. L. (1986) Safety and Profits in the airline industry Vol.34 No. 3 Basil Blackwell Oxford pp305-
318
14
Hoburg (1993)25 tells us that profit is the lifeblood of business and without it
business would die, but warns if social regulation threatens ultimate
profitability, business will not adapt to that regulation. Social regulation will be
violated unless the enforcement raises the costs of non-compliance above the
costs of adaptation.
Industry is committed to the advancement of standards in health and safety

and Asherson (1995)26 says that a case has to be proven that legislation and
its associated costs are necessary and commensurate with the identified and
real risk to the business.
Similar thoughts are conveyed by Oi (1980)27 who informs us that public
concern for safety is understandable, due to the nature of some of the tragic
events, but safety at any cost is unacceptable, as this may ultimately place
some companies out of business. He says that:
“Policies that reduce the frequency and severity of industrial

accidents are desirable only if it can be demonstrated that
industrial safety is presently below the socially optima level
which minimises the sum of accident prevention costs.”
25
Hoburg, J. W. (1993)Profit and business adaptation to social regulation Law and Policy Vol. 15 Issue 3
Blackwell Oxford pp240-242
26
Asherson, J. L. (1995) Burdens on Business: a review of regulation Journal of Health and Safety British
Health and Safety Society Birmingham pp 21-31
27
Oi, W. Y. (1980) On the economics of industrial safety Readings in Industrial Accident Prevention
McGraw Hill USA pp 65-91
15
Hawkins and Hutter (1993)28 state that construction is seen as more
immediately risky than large chemical sites and the reasons given are that
construction sites are more noisy, dirty and untidy. They discuss the reasons
for compliance with regulation and present the following:
! Whether or not compliance has a pay-off, its attainment can be costly.
! Many businesses comply because they think it is symbolically important to
comply (a form of compliance occurring independently of the law).
! Business complies in recognition of the legitimacy of the law (its not right
to violate the law which requires you not to hazard your employees,
whether or not you agree with the law).
! Businesses comply instrumentally (according to an economic interest in
complying).
They go on to state that:

“It is perfectly possible to have a policy which supports
compliance in principle yet a workforce that is some degree
ignorant of its obligations or unwilling to recognise them”.
Wooden and Vandenheuvel (1999)29 carry a similar notion in his article

and advocates that if organisations do not invest in health and safety
then legislation will be produced to force investment and decrease
profitability.
28
Hawkins, K. and Hutter, B. (1993) The response of business to social regulation in England and Wales:
An enforcement perspective Law and Policy Vol. 15 Issue 3
29
Wooden, M. and Vandenheuvel, A. (1999) Is occupational health and safety good for business? Journal
of Occupational Health & Safety Aust./NZ CCH Australia pp 411-416
16
Cost of accidents
The economic argument for safety has been around for some time and the first
detailed study of the cost of occupational accidents came from H W Heinrich
(1959)30. Heinrich’s work focused on the “direct” costs and “indirect” costs
associated with accidents. The study undertaken by Heinrich stated that the
“indirect costs” averaged around four times as much as the “direct costs”. The
table below taken from CCH (1987)31 highlights some of the costs associated
with accidents:
Table 2 Costs associated with accidents
Uninsured Costs (indirect) Insured Costs (direct)

First Aid expenses Compensation for lost earnings
Transportation costs Medical and hospital costs
Cost of investigations Awards for permanent disabilities
Cost of processing reports Rehabilitation costs
Idle time of workers whose work is interrupted Funeral charges
Man hours spent in cleaning up accident area Pensions for dependants
Time spent by lost workers receiving first aid Fire
Production spoiled by accident Loss and damage
Loss of skill and experience Use and occupancy of hired premises
Lowered production of worker replacement Public and liability
Idle machine time
Difference between losses and amount recovered
Rental of equipment to replace damaged equipment
Surplus workers for replacement of injured employees
Wages or other benefits paid to disabled worker
Overhead costs whilst production is stopped
Loss of bonus or repayment of forfeiture for delays
Cost of medical services
Time spent on injured workers welfare loss of skill and experience
Training replacement worker
Decreased production of replacement
Benefits paid to injured worker or dependants
Lowered employee morale
Increased labour conflict
Unfavourable public relations
30
Heinrich, H. W. (1959) Industrialised Accident Prevention: A Safety Management Approach New York
McGraw Hill
31
C.C.H. (1987) Planning occupational safety & health 2nd Edition “Personnel Management in Practice
series C.C.H. Australia Limited Sydney
17
Many researchers have since been inspired to check the validity of the
findings of (Davies and Teasdale 1994)32 but Heinrich emphasised that it was
a purely statistical relationship. The results would differ between organisations,
accident types and even departments of the same company.
Further literature has extended this message and the cost of accidents to
companies is raised by a leaflet33 produced for the Health and Safety
Executive. The leaflet described, how much accidents cost, and what is
deemed an accident. It stated that an accident also included damage to
property, equipment, materials, as well as, delays in production, and services.
The costs of accidents vary depending on the size and type of the company.
The costs shown by a study undertaken by the Health and Safety Executive34
show the following summary from a selection of five case studies:
Figure 1 Summary of losses identified+
Total Loss Annualised loss Representing

1 Construction Site £245 075 £700 000* 8.5% of tender price
2 Creamery £243 834 £975 336 1.4% of operating costs
3 Transport Company £48 928 £195 712 1.8% of operating costs
37% of profits
4 Oil Platform £940 921 £3 763 684 14.2% of potential output
5 Hospital £99 285 £397 140 5% of annual running costs
+
Figures quoted are actual at time of study
* Represents total length of contract
Source: Health and Safety Executive
The same study gave comparison figures for four of the case studies where it
was shown that uninsured costs were approximately between 8 and 36 times
greater than the costs of insurance premiums paid.
32
Davies, N. V. and Teasdale, P. (1994) The Costs to the British Economy of Work Accidents and Work
Related ill Health HMSO
33
Health and Safety Executive. (1995) Be safe, save money: the costs of accidents – a guide for small
firms. Leaflet IND (G) 208 (L) London
34
Health and Safety Executive. (1996) The Costs of Accidents at Work. HS(G)96 HMSO
18
To take the economic argument a step further, an article by Reinfort (1992)35
in Professional Safety stated the costs of on-the-job and off-the-job accidents
are between approximately 2% - 6% of the gross domestic product of
countries. This can amount to billions of pounds for some countries in the
developed world.
Larcher and Sohail (1999)36 states that health and safety costs money and the
financial, economic, environmental and social costs of deaths, injuries,
disabilities and diseases to industry, in particular, and to society in general, is
colossal. They advocate that organisations pay the financial costs of
complying with legislation rather than suffering from economic or social loss
associated with a lack of health and safety management.
In contrast to Larcher and Sohail, Laufer (1987)37 conducted a study of

accident costs between Israel and the United States of America (USA) and
concluded that the uninsured costs alone are not enough of an incentive to
change attitudes to health and safety. He says that the ratio between indirect
and direct costs is invalid and should be abolished. He quotes the uninsured
costs in Israel to be 0.76% of labour costs, the equivalent to 0.14% of total
project costs and in the USA he quotes 2% and 0.25% respectively.
35
Reinfort, F. C. (1992) The Economics of Safety Professional Safety Vol 37 Issue 5
36
Larcher, P. and Sohail, M. (1999) Review of safety in construction and operation for the WS & S sector:
Part 1 Task No. 166 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
37
Laufer, A. (1987) Construction accident cost and management motivation Journal of Occupational
Accidents Vol. 8 Issue 3 pp295-315
19
Costs comparative to the risks encountered
The risks encountered by employees in their work situations vary according to

the trade or occupation they are carrying out but are very real. The Health &
Safety Executive publish figures for accidents, which prove the
aforementioned statement.
According to Fiora and Specht (1992),38 the level of risk acceptable differs
from company to company and job to job. The costs of health and safety
measures to reduce those risks are harder to quantify but there is a lot of “best
practice” in the industry to suggest that there can be some quantification of
costs. The other major factor that can influence health and safety costs is of
course the legal requirement to comply with legislation.
Comparing the costs of health and safety to the risks encountered by

organisations is a sound business decision. Grotewold (1997)39 states that
health and safety involves financial principles. He goes on to explain that using
financial principles is the best way to get health and safety implemented. He
explains that you must identify what you spend your money on, compare it to
the established standard, and therefore ensure compliance. This he explains
ensures that not only do you protect the worker you have a decrease in legal
liabilities, legal fees and settlements. A decrease in prosecutions and an
increase in good will.
Another example of economic analysis is given by Friend (1992)40 who

explains how to allocate funds to protective measures when analysing
accidents. He looks at three scenarios and assesses the cost of each accident
compared to the length of time the activity has been carried out. This is then
given a probability loss factor. The loss factor is then multiplied by the cost of
the accident and the result is the expected value of savings to the company by
preventing the accident happening. You then have a figure to work with to
implement measures.
38
Fiora, G. and Specht, P. G. (1992) Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk: In the Hands of the Supreme Court
Professional Safety Vol 37 Issue 4 pg. 24
39
Grotewold, H. W. (1997) Dollars and Sense: Using Financial Principles in the Safety Profession
Professional Safety Vol 42 pg. 36-40
40
Friend, M. A. (1992) Financial Tools for the Safety Manager Professional Safety Vol 37 Issue 11
20
Costs of health and safety during tender
Cost is considered to be a major resource when managing projects. Contract

Research Report 45 (1992)41 identified from respondents three major
problems with the costing and allocating of resources to a project:
! Safety issues are not addressed systematically at the tender stage.
“There was a difficulty in pricing safety aspects of a project,
since in many cases such aspects are inextricably linked to the
desired method of construction, rather than the provision of
discrete safety items”.
! Safety performance compromised because of inadequate tendering

procedure.
“Anecdotal evidence suggested that subcontractors may under-
cost or otherwise under-resource the work. Where there is a
chain of subcontracting, the current system does not explicitly
provide a means whereby the safety requirements of sub-
contractors are necessarily incorporated in the bid to the main
contractor.”
! Explicitly addressing safety would increase cost of tender.

“The most common point made by respondents related to the
financial and commercial repercussions of explicitly including
safety requirements at tender stage, unless these had been
specifically requested by the client.”
41
Whittington, C. Livingston, A. Lucas, D. A. (1992) Research into management, organisational and human
factors in the construction industry Health & Safety Executive Contract Research Report No. 45
21
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 199442
emphasise the need to ensure adequate resources for project
management. The three points highlighted in the 1992 report above
are re-enforced in the Contract Research Report 179(1998 pg.82)43
which identified that:
“ There was no obvious positive inducement for companies to

give safety a high priority in business or project planning or
tendering. Firms with a high safety profile were not necessarily
placed at any commercial advantage, except for petrochemical
clients. It would appear that selection of tenders is driven by
commercial criteria, principally cost, with safety omitted at the
tendering and bidding stage”
42
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 HMSO
43
Wright, M. S. (1998) Factors Motivating Proactive Health & Safety Management.. Contract Research
Report 179/1998 HSE
22
Health & safety costs during construction
Literature on the costs associated with health and safety management during
construction is limited. The Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 1994 (CDM)44 addresses the question of adequate resourcing for
a project. Regulation 9 requires that the duty holders such as the designers,
planning supervisors and contractors will allocate adequate resources to carry
out their duties under the CDM Regulations.
In the Approved Code of Practice (ACoP pg.34)45 to the CDM Regulations,
gives us a description of what resources might entail and they are:
! Plant
! Machinery
! Technical facilities
! Trained personnel
! Time
The research report of (Whittington et al 1992) although anecdotal, suggested
that once construction has started certain decisions may be made to save
costs due to the under assessment of health and safety during the tender
period. A recent survey undertaken by the New Civil Engineer (2001)46 asked
for a response to the following question and may support the findings of the
Whittington report:
Is enough being spent by contractors to manage health and safety efficiently
on site? The response was as follows: 26% said yes, 70% said no.
A report by Entec (2000 pg.42)47 suggests that cost pressures have led to
design and build contracts becoming popular, and safety is less likely to be a
priority in this type of project. Cost pressures can also lead to poor provision of
services such as welfare facilities and low quality PPE.
44
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 HMSO
45
Managing construction health and safety Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994
Approved Code of Practice
46
New Civil Engineer February (2001) Safety: what do you think New Civil Engineer Institution of Civil
Engineers
47
Entec (2000) Construction health and safety for the new millennium Contract Research Report 313
HMSO
23
Comments made by colleagues during informal discussions carried out during
this research topic made it clear that they did not price for health and safety
efficiently in the tender. This made them very conscious about allowing extra
expenditure during construction, as this would inevitably affect the profit
margins of their respective of the project. They were conscious about the client
not willing to pay for any extra work, albeit safety work, after the tender price
had been submitted unless it was a significant change in methods due to
unforeseen circumstances.
24
Time
Time is a resource within the life cycle of a project and is controlled by many
levels of manager, but ultimately by the client.
Guidance (1998)48 issued by the Construction Industry Research and
Information Association (CIRIA) on the planning supervisors’ duties says it is
important to consider the implication of ‘time’. The ability to carry out the duties
under the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM) in
a proper manner will be affected by the programme. Time is needed both to
plan and to execute duties. If a programme is tight, the duty holders will have
to demonstrate that they have the capacity to respond.
Whittington et al (1992) carried out a survey on factors that undermine health

and safety. Lack of time was high on the respondents ranking as one of the
major factors. This piece of literature also identified that senior and site
managers placed production before safety as time pressures often dictated
that they did so. Inadequate time spent during the planning and programming
stages were also cited as major factors. Tender periods may fail to consider
safety issues effectively and this leads to under-resourcing of time. In the
survey undertaken, when they asked a site manager if they decided not to
take certain precautions or use particular equipment in order to reduce time or
cost, 50% of them considered this happened frequently.
Joyce (1995 pg. 36)49 tells us that the amount of time with which an appointer
should be reasonably satisfied will depend on the planned durations for design
and construction and the scale and complexity of the project.
48
CIRIA (1998) CDM Regulations-Practical guidance for planning supervisors CIRIA Report 173
25
The draft ACoP (2000)50 for the CDM Regulations tells us that clients have the
greatest influence on the time available for the project and should allow
sufficient time for those they appoint to carry out their duties. Any check on the
resources for a project must include the time allowed to carry out the design,
develop the pre-tender and construction phase health and safety plans. The
principal contractor also needs sufficient time to mobilise the labour force and
equipment, including welfare facilities, planning, and preparation for the project
and to carry out the construction work. It is better to have a realistic completion
date that can be relied on than one that is unrealistic.
The survey undertaken by the Institution of Civil Engineers, mentioned

previously in the cost section, suggested that safety is compromised to get the
job done on time and cost.
Reason (1997 pg. 4)51 explains that production and protection are not equal.
This is because those who manage the organisation possess productive rather
than protective skills and partly because information relating to production is
direct and continuous. By contrast, successful safety is measured by negative
outcomes. Because of this, line managers and supervisors cut corners to
make deadlines or other operational demands. The short cuts, which includes
the saving of time, for the most part do not create unwanted effects and so
become habitual and routine. This gradual erosion of the system’s safety,
make it increasingly vulnerable to accident causing combinations.
Nichols and Armstrong (1973)52 concluded similar thoughts in their analysis of

five accidents in depth. They concluded that illegal practices were normal
every day occurrences and supervisors were condoning safety rule breaches
to keep production going.
49
Joyce, R. (1995) The CDM Regulations Explained Thomas Telford London
50
Health and Safety Executive (2000) Proposals for revising the Approved Code of Practice on ‘Managing
construction for health and safety Consultative Document CD161
51
Reason, J. (1997) Managing the risks of organisational accidents Aldershot Ashgate Publishing
52
Nichols, T. Armstrong P (1973) Industrial accidents and the conventional wisdom Falling Wall Press
26
The report by Entec (2000 pg. 41) for the Health and Safety Executive
suggests that schedule pressures can cause health and safety to be
overlooked. However, it is felt that even with tight budgets and time-scales
good management provides control and ensure a project remains safe.
Time pressures can lead to working excessive hours, which may cause health
issues, including stress. Time-scales are getting shorter, with many jobs now
being ‘fast tracked’ such that all contractors are on site at the same time, as
opposed to traditionally completing civils work first and following this by M&E.
Resource pressures can also lead to the sequencing of events as defined in
the original plan being altered, and this movement to a ‘flexible’ approach with
inadequate planning and risk assessment, can lead to accidents (pg.42).
27
Integrated Health and Safety
According to Quinlan and Bohie (1991),53 the purpose of integrating health and
safety into other management systems is the need for health and safety
management to be central, rather than an add-on organisation objective. A
similar position has been taken by Phillis (1990)54 with respect to the
integration of health and safety management into strategic planning.
Rahimi (1995)55 follows this strategic point of view and focuses on the
integration of health and safety into the organisations overall missions and
objectives.
This notion of integrating health and safety management into other

management systems has been investigated by institutions. The Construction
Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA 2000)56, and the British
Standards Institute5758, give guidance on the production of an integrated
management system. The former document purports to integrate health and
safety management into quality systems and the latter gives guidance on
integrating health and safety with environmental management.
Quality management, health &safety and environmental protection are

generally perceived to be separate59, and while this may serve specialists in
these areas, it is not to the advantage of the industry as a whole.
53
Quinlan, M. and Bohie, P. (1991) Managing occupational health and safety in Australia: A multidisciplinary
approach Australia Macmillan
54
Phillis, T. (1990) Integrating occupational health and safety into your organisations business plan
FutureSafe 1990 Conference proceedings Australia May 20-23, 1990
55
Rahimi, M. (1995) Merging strategic safety, health and environment into total quality management
Journal of Industrial Ergonomics Vol. 16 Issue 2
56
CIRIA (2000) Integrating safety, quality and environmental management C509 CIRIA London
57
British Standards BS 8800:1996 Guide to Occupational health and safety management systems
58
British Standards Institute OSHAS 18001:1999 Occupational health and safety management systems-
Specification
59
Construction Productivity Network (1998) Integrating management systems for profit to improve
construction Workshop Report 806L
28
Wheel (1998 pg. 3)60 says that the previous systems such as BS 5750, ISO
9001/2 and EN ISO 14001 have been accused of being bureaucratic, paper-
driven and of limited value in the management of site activities. He goes on to
say that this is de-motivating, costly and counter-productive and activity plans
should be implemented which:
! Truly help safe and efficient operations
! Are user friendly and accepted by all parties
! Do not require excessive bureaucracy
! Can provide a disciplined framework for best practice exchange
! Will involve the workforce, providing method statements within activity

plans which address safety and environmental issues
! Creates seamless activities, rather than ‘silos’ containing parts only of an

activity
The issue of developing a policy of integrating health and safety is discussed

by (Karuppan et al 1996)61 and states that the way forward in reducing
accidents is to develop a total quality management (TQM) approach. They
proposed a total safety management (TSM) model based around the TQM
model. Their argument was that quality models reduced defects and improved
productivity, so the adoption of TSM would reduce accidents.
Cooper and Phillips (1997)62 take on the notion of TSM further. They state that
it is actually better than TQM for giving more benefits to a company by
delivering improvements in all areas of an organisation including the reduction
in accidents.
60
Wheel, T. (1998) Integrated management: A single approach to site management of quality, safety and
environment Construction Productivity Network Workshop Report 806L
61
Karuppan, C. M. Karuppan, M. Schaefer, I. M. (1996) A TQM approach to industrial safety Production and
Inventory Management Journal Vol 37 Issue 2
62
Cooper, M. D. and Phillips, R. A. (1997) Killing two birds with one stone: Achieving quality via total safety
management Facilities Vol. 15 Number 1 / 2 MCB University Press
29
Weinstein (1996)6364 discusses TQM and states that the structure and style of
safety programmes is needed because overall safety levels have reached a
plateau. The reason for the failing of traditional safety programmes is because:
“They are not backed up by company-wide quality style

management systems that promote excellence and continuous
improvement”
He goes on to explain that developing TQM concepts for safety is the only
forward giving nine examples of TQM basic philosophy and showing how
safety management can be adopted to them. They are briefly as follows:
! Product and customer focus
! Leadership commitment
! Company culture
! Effective communication
! Organisational and employee knowledge
! Employee empowerment
! Employee responsibility and excellence
! Management by fact
! Long range view point
63
Weinstein, M. B. (1996) Improving safety programs through total quality Occupational Hazards Vol. 58
Issue 8
64
Weinstein, M. B. (1996) Total quality approach to safety management Professional Safety Vol. 41 Issue 7
30
Petersen (1994 pg.29)65 says that safety and total quality management fit
hand in hand unless safety practitioners choose to block the union. He cites
Deming’s 14 “Obligations of Management” as the best description of the total
quality management approach. He then suggests that they can be re-written in
safety jargon and are briefly as follows:
! Concentrate on the long-range goals of developing world class systems

not on short-term annual accident goals
! Discard the philosophy of accepting accidents – they are not acceptable
! Use statistical techniques to identify the two sources of accidents – the

system and human error
! Institute more through job training
! Eliminate dependence on accident investigation
! Provide supervisors and employees with knowledge of statistical methods
! Reduce fear throughout the organisation by encouraging all employees to

report
! Reduce accidents by designing safety into the process
! Eliminate the use of slogans, incentives, posters and gimmicks to

encourage safety
The use of the Deming approach is also advocated by Motzko (1989)66 and
Sommerkamp (1994)67.
65
Petersen, D. (1994) Integrating safety into total quality management. Professional Safety Vol. 39 Issue 6
66
Motzko, S. M. (1989) Deming’s 14 Points for management: Variation System Improvement. Professional
Safety Vol. 34 Issue 8
67
Sommekamp, J. (1994) The Deming Approach to construction safety management Professional Safety
Vol. 39 Issue 12
31
Lorenzi (1994)68 states that businesses must strive for the integration of
environmental, safety and health systems into business activities and
strategies now, because the reporting of this information will become the
norm.
Curado (1997)69 says that businesses are committed to regulatory compliance

and client requirements more than to implementing their own integrated
systems. He questions the validity of health and safety being integrated into
quality systems. Based on the pitfalls of existing quality systems he advocates
the use of situational management for integrating health and safety.
Situational management is used to control the hazards and risks relevant to
each individual company. He concludes that health and safety management is
currently seen as a necessary burden rather than a potential resource.
Another point of view expressed is by Erkhardt (1995 pg. 35)70 who argues
that TQM is only customer orientated whilst regulation compels safety
compliance through punitive action. He said that:
“A TQM approach would provide a constraint free environment

in which thought provoking ideas, concepts and guidelines
could develop and evolve rapidly.”
He goes on to say:
“The objective is to empower a company to develop its own

safety solutions via TQM-orientated motivational techniques,
not via ineffective, adversarial regulations and penalties.”
68
Lorenzi, N. (1994) Striving to achieve environmental, health and safety excellence Professional Safety
Vol. 39 Issue 8
69
Curado, M. T. (1997) Managing safety in construction: Are standards the way forward. Instituto Superior
Tecnico Department of Civil Engineering Lisbon
70
Erkardt, R. (1995) Introducing quality principles into safety regulatory strategies. Professional Safety Vol.
40 Issue 5
32
An aspect of quality systems is the use of non-conformance notices. Curtis
(1995)71 describes the use of brainstorming, Ishikawa diagrams, and Kepner-
Tregoe analysis techniques for solving variation issues in manufacture non-
compliance. The techniques he argues can be adapted to safety and the
safety requirement can become the variation.
Smith (1980)72 indicates that having an integrated health, safety and

environment standard is subject to several objections. Firstly, because the
standard produced may not bear any relationship to hazards in a particular
operation, yet compliance is necessary. Secondly, by requiring a certain set of
safety inputs rather than penalising an unwanted outcome, such as injuries,
the standards approach does not encourage firms to seek perhaps cheaper
ways of reducing injuries.
Waring (1996)73 says that people are reluctant to own something they do not
understand or feel overwhelmed by and that integration is not easily achieved
and concluded that any attempt at integration may lead to:
! Confusion
! Significant differences
! Consequences of failure may be serious
! A lot of detailed legislation
! Professional rivalry between functions
71
Curtis, S L (1995) Safety and Total Quality Management. Professional Safety Vol. 40, Issue 1,pp 18-20
72
Smith, R. S. (1980) The feasibility of an injury tax approach to occupational health and safety Readings in
Industrial Accident Prevention McGraw Hill USA
73
Waring, A. (1996) Management Systems Integration London Chapman & Hall
33
Ramsay (1998 pg.34)74 advocates the use of tools to assist in the integration
process and they are:
! Models – help managers to communicate, understand and experiment, in

order to design better futures by improving processes and activities.
! Risk concept – allows managers to navigate their change projects through

oceans of uncertainty, acknowledging and managing a wide spectrum of
activities.
! Management systematics and benchmarking – provide structure and

guidelines in activities, an open communication medium and
measurements of progress.
The report by Entec (2000 pg. 50)75 states that several companies and
professional associations are against formal and externally verified
accreditation for health and safety systems. It is thought that this adds
bureaucracy and expense without necessarily bringing improvement to the
safety on sites. An argument put forward is that a construction site is
continuously changing, and the position at the time of an assessment only
represents a snap shot.
74
Ramsay, C. (1998) Constructing an integrated approach to managing safety, environment and quality
Institute of Occupational Safety & Health Journal Vol. 2 Issue 2 December 1998
75
Entec. (2000) Construction health and safety for the new millennium Contract Research Report 313
HMSO
34
Client Pressure
Clients are the individuals, partnerships, corporations or public authorities for

whom construction is carried out. McVitte (2000)76 says that the vast majority
of construction is done under contractual arrangements. The procurement
method used and the Client’s own attitude to health and safety can have a
profound effect on the project’s health and safety performance. Some clients
promote health and safety more than others. Petrochemical companies in
particular make it clear that contractor safety performance is a key condition of
the contract.
The ACoP to the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994

(2000pg. 23)77 tells us that the regulations are designed to promote a strategic
approach to the management of health and safety risks in construction.
It goes on to say that Clients have a key role to play in this as they set the tone
of a project and make decisions crucial to its development.
Effective implementation of CDM can benefit clients. There is the potential for:
Improved planning and control of projects;
(b) Improved communication between the key parties in the project;
(c) A reduction in accidents and ill-health among construction workers as a
result of better risk management;
(d) Improved welfare facilities, which enhance the working environment;
(e) Safer, quicker, easier and cheaper construction, maintenance and cleaning
work because the hazards, access requirements, etc. were considered as an
integral aspect of the design resulting in reduced whole life-cycle costs;
(f) More effective management of future work on the building or structure
because of the information in the health and safety file;
(g) Avoidance of bad publicity following accidents; and
(h) A reduction in the time taken to complete the project because it was well
planned. (If the time allowed for construction is realistic then the completion
date is also more likely to be achieved in practice.)
76
McVitte D J (2000) Organisational Factors Affecting Health and Safety
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/elcosh/docs/d0200/d000279/ilochap93.html. Accessed 5 February 2001
77
Health and Safety Commission (2000) Approval for revising the approved code of practice on ‘Managing
construction for health and safety’ HMSO
35
A comprehensive report by Entec (2000 pg. 36)78 shows that the findings from
UK consultation and international survey emphasise that Clients have
significant influence over construction health and safety but are not using this
influence to the full. The industry feels many Clients are ignorant of their role
and are detached from their projects.
Clients take a wide variety of approaches to health and safety. Some clients
working in highly regulated areas such as the chemical industry or the prison
service set high standards and expect these to be matched by other
companies in the construction chain. The perception of health and safety
standards then falls through the civil engineering sector to the house building
sector, with Local Authorities named frequently as a poor client due to
inadequate provision of resources and setting unrealistic time-scales.
Following the award of a contract, some Clients expect site work to start within
a very short time (pg.41).
The commitment level (pg. 52) of Clients is varied with the report suggesting
while some Clients are demanding regarding safety standards. Most Clients
place little importance on health and safety and they often do not see project
safety as an issue to concern them.
Poor awareness (pg.62) of site issues may mean that Clients do not
appreciate issues such as:
! The effects poor standards of welfare facilities have on the morale of the
workforce, and hence the standard of work and levels of wastage;
! The way in which adverse weather conditions can slow work, such as an
inability to work at height when exposed to high winds;
! Difficulties arising due to the short time between award of project and
starting work on site;
! The effect of a change in project specification on project planning and
implementation;
! The problems in using poorly trained ‘labour only’ contractors to reduce
costs;
! The effects of working excessive overtime and night shifts to meet a
project deadline.
78
Entec UK Ltd (2000) Construction health and safety for the new millennium Contract Research Report
313 HMSO
36
This can lead to them putting unnecessary pressure on the project
requirements.
If the Client is perceived to give health and safety a low priority (pg. 68) then
this does not encourage contractors to invest in health and safety training.
Points of view expressed by respondents to a survey undertaken by the

Institution of Civil Engineers (2001 pg.26-27)79 towards clients gave the
following responses:
Figure 2 Do clients understand their safety responsibilities?
5%
32%
63%
yes no n/a
79
New Civil Engineer February (2001) Safety: what do you think New Civil Engineer Institution of Civil
Engineers
37
Figure 3 Does lack of construction experience in clients mean safety is overlooked?
9%
26%
65%
yes no n/a
Figure 4 Do clients rate health and safety competence high enough when awarding contracts?
3%
22%
75%
yes no n/a
38
Appraisal of Literature
Costs
This first part of this chapter has looked at some of the factors effecting the
costing of health and safety management that organisation’s face. Firstly, it
looked at the role of health and safety being a part of normal business and
therefore costs are borne by organisations through complying with the
legislative process. Organisations might not implement health and safety
measures and/or management, if the costs were too high irrespective of the
legal responsibilities. In contrast to this, if some organisations do not
implement effective health and safety measures then legislation, would be
made, to force them to do so.
Many businesses comply with legislation because they think it is morally and
ethically correct to do so, as well as complying through economic interests.
The literature review then looked at the costs associated with accidents and
there is mixed theories on whether or not accident costs are a burden on
companies. Despite this mixture of theory it was noted that the Health and
Safety Executive promoted the use of the ‘costs of accidents’ as a tool for
persuading directors to promote health and safety management.
With economics being the theme the literature search then looked at the costs
compared to the risks encountered by organisations. It is felt that, ‘to comply
with legislation’ is not the answer to the problems associated with health and
safety management. Organisations must analyse accidents and allocate funds
accordingly irrespective of what the legal requirements may be asking to
ensure good health and safety management .
Safety professionals lack the knowledge to use economics to justify the
investment of health safety management to an organisation. This may be
because a fair amount of the research into costs is devoted to ‘accident costs’
rather than to the savings that may be generated by having sound health and
safety management.
Health and safety management during the tender and construction period did
not systematically address the health and safety management issues.
Therefore, the costs associated with implementing protective measures were
not allowed for in tender or bid prices and this lack of investment early on
became more prominent during construction.
39
Time
The literature review on time has shown that it is a major factor in creating the
unwanted scenarios that can produce accident or incidents. Time is a major
resource often underestimated when carrying out work.
The effect time can have on health and safety is often underestimated by
clients and procurement personnel when carrying out the bidding and
tendering process of construction. Therefore, insufficient time during the
bidding and tendering process affects the quality of the management of health
and safety and this causes projects to be inadequately assessed for health
and safety risks.
During the on-site construction period, time pressure is a major factor for site
managers and supervision because of the pressure to keep production going.
Time and schedules are getting shorter with more happening on site than
before and this can lead to inadequate planning and risk assessment.
Integrated Health and Safety
This section of the chapter looked at the literature regarding the integration of
health and safety into other management systems, either quality,
environmental or complete integration into total quality management (TQM)
systems. Leading institutions have developed systems that organisations can
adopt depending on their degree of required integration. A sizeable amount of
literature focuses on the TQM approach with some writers advocating a total
safety management (TSM) approach, similar to the TQM approach, as the
panacea for improved health and safety.
Deming is cited on a number of occasions as being the main driver for the
TQM approach.
Some authors say that safety and quality fit hand in hand while others state
that TQM is customer focused and safety is driven by compliance motivation
and therefore integration may be difficult. The standards approach to safety
may cause problems in reducing injuries, as the standards may be difficult to
implement in one’s own business.
40
Client Pressure
Clients can be the main contributors, in regards to exerting pressure on

contractors to manage health and safety. Clients can control the programme,
cost and quality of a construction project. There is strong consensus that the
management of health and safety is inadequate for projects because Clients:
! Are inexperienced
! They do not feel they are responsible for the health and safety during
construction
! They are detached from their projects and
! Poor awareness of site issues.
Therefore, if Clients perceive health and safety to be a low priority then this
disseminates down through to the contractors.
Even when Clients have experience in procuring contracts for construction, it

is often thought that they believe that health and safety management is the
domain of the contractor.
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations do not seem to have

the desired effect on ensuring Clients take their responsibilities for the health
and safety management more seriously.
41
Chapter 4 – Research Design and Methodology
Introduction
This chapter will cover the research aim and the categories of information
investigated. It will describe the design of the questionnaire, the type of
questions used and how the sample was selected from the population.
The method of analysis of the sample is the descriptive method as the results
were obtained via a postal questionnaire. This was chosen as the best method
to draw conclusions80. Further analysis was undertaken using the Spearman
Rank Correlation Coefficient81 statistical test to ascertain if there is any
significance in the views of one set of subjects compared to another.
Research Aim
The aim of the research is find out the views and attitudes of respondents on
the following factors related to the implementation of health and safety
management on site;
Part 1 General external motivators
Part 1a General internal motivators
Part 2 Costs associated with implementing health & safety management
Part 3 Time pressures affecting implementing health & safety management
Part 4 Integrated health & safety management
Part 5 Client pressure
80
Naoum Dr S G (2001) Dissertation Research and Writing For Construction Students Butterworth
Heinemann Oxford
81
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient is a non-parametric test statistical test for measuring the
difference in ranking between two groups of respondents scoring a number of issues, attributes or factors.
42
Research Questionnaire
First Thought Questions
The questionnaire was originally designed from a selection of first thought

questions related to the research. These questions were then placed into the
separate parts of the questionnaire, described below, and were linked to the
study objectives.
Formulating the Final Questionnaire
The questions were then placed into categories that corresponded to the
identified parts in the research aim above.
Wording of Questions
The wording of the questions was then checked to ensure that they did not fall
into any of the following categories;
1 Overly long
2 Leading
3 Doubling
4 Presuming
5 Hypothetical
Type of Questions
Closed opinion type questions using Likert82 scaling was used for the
questionnaire as attitudinal statements are utilised. This type of questioning
was used to elicit short answers due to the time restrictions for analysis and
the space limitations for questionnaire
82
Likert scaling is a format similar to a checklist type of questionnaire but differs in the fact that it allows the
respondent to express their degree of agreement or disagreement on a particular scale. It is mainly used
when the questions are of an attitudinal nature.
43
Pilot Study
The questionnaire was then piloted at a two-day workshop with some 45

participants. The questionnaire was given out on the morning of the first day
and the participants were asked to return the questionnaire on the final day
with any comments regarding the structure and the wording of the questions.
The participants included directors, project managers, project engineers,
contracts managers and supervisors.
Final Questionnaire
The research questionnaire was then subjected to a few minor changes

resulting from the responses received at the workshop aforementioned in the
pilot study above.
The final research questionnaire was then e-mailed with a covering message
(see Appendix 1) to a selected list (see research sample) of possible
respondents. This was perceived to be a quicker and cheaper method than
carrying out the conventional postal method. The possible respondents were
taken from two project directories held by the authors company and involved
the specialist contractors employed by a major food retailer and the specialist
contractors employed by a government agency on a Construction
Management Pilot Scheme.
The research questionnaire was designed to enable the author to assess and
analyse the views and attitudes on the subjects described in the research aim.
The subjects and subsequently the parts of the questionnaire were chosen as
a result of a number of conversations with project management personnel.
The conversations were on an informal basis and held over a period of nine
months, in an effort to uncover the reasons for non-compliance of health and
safety management systems and subsequently health & safety measures. The
result of those conversations led to the subject groups parts 2-5 named above
in the research aim. Subject groups parts 1 and 1a were used to ascertain
general motivators of companies with regard to health and safety
management.
44
Section Questions
Part 1 – General External Motivators
This part of the questionnaire is on motivation for health and safety

management derived from external sources such as enforcing authorities,
legal requirements, adverse publicity and commercial pressures.
Part 1a – General Internal Motivators
This part of the questionnaire is on motivation derived from internal sources

such as having a healthy and fit workforce, increased employee morale and
understanding whether or not safety was a cost to the company or an
investment.
The suggestions for the contents of the above questions came from the
literature reviewed at the beginning of the research and are focused on the
attitudes of the subjects towards safety management promotion.
Part 2 – Costs associated with Implementing Health & Safety Management
This section of questions was based around the premise that costs were a
major factor in applying health and safety measures. Questions were asked
concerning whether or not costs of safety measures were omitted during
tenders to remain competitive, costs of safety measures were expensive and
costs of health and safety are a normal part of business.
Part 3 – Time Pressures Affecting Implementation of Health & Safety

Management
In this part of the questionnaire a series of questions were asked on the
effects of time pressure during tender, construction, and site delays.
Part 4 – Integrated Health and Safety Management
This section of questions was concerned with the views of participants on

whether or not health and safety management should become a part of
another management system. The object of these questions was to ascertain
if the subjects believed integrating health and safety would improve health and
safety performance.
45
Part 5 – Client Pressure
The final section of questions probed the respondents for their answers to
whether or not they believed health and safety was important to clients or their
agents. Do clients lay down strict requirements concerning health and safety
management and are they involved in
46
Research Sample
This section describes the method of sampling used to obtain the data
required for analysis. The reason for the method of sample selection, survey
questionnaire and the characteristics of the response sample.
Population
The population chosen for the research topic came from the project
management teams of the specialists identified in the ‘research questionnaire’
section above. 177 possible respondents were identified and were emailed the
questionnaire. A list of the categories in the population is as follows:
! Project Managers ! Construction Managers
! Quantity Surveyors ! Supervisors
! Project Engineers ! Safety Managers
! Site Agents ! Directors
The above list of subjects in the categories was taken from the project
directories held by the author (see Final Questionnaire above).
Sampling Frame
The sampling frame is taken directly from the population and the
categorisation is the same.
47
Sample
The sample for analysis is taken from the list of respondents received from the
postal questionnaire. The method used was the non-random purposive
sampling83 as the author wishes to gain a fair and representative sample from
the total population. Table 3 shows the breakdown of the research sample.
Table 3 Research Sample, number and rate of response by category
Questionnaires
No. Category Issued Responses % Response
1 Directors 20 (11%) 13 (15%) 65%
2 Project Managers 55 (31%) 24 (28%) 44%
3 Project Engineers 20 (11%) 10 (12%) 50%
4 Supervisors 30 (17%) 21 (24%) 70%
5 Construction Managers 7 (4%) 7 (8%) 100%
6 Quantity Surveyors 12 (12%) 2 (2%) 17%
7 Site Agents 8 (5%) 4 (5%) 50%
8 Safety Managers 25 (14%) 5 (6%) 20%
Totals 177 (100%) 86 (100%) 49%
83
Non-random purposive sampling is a method of sampling used when the sample chosen is not by random
methods. The people or subjects are purposely chosen.
48
Method of Analysis
The data from the questionnaire was recorded on to an Excel 97 spreadsheet

(see Appendix 2 – Raw Data). The results were then placed into subject order
to allow for further analysis by each category of respondent.
Initially, the descriptive method of analysis is used to show a breakdown of the
results obtained by subject category. The survey results are then presented
question by question with comments as necessary.
The data was then grouped together under each of the five sections of the
questionnaire. This allowed the results to be analysed so that the key
questions can be tested for support or disagreement.
This was achieved by adding the scores together from the questionnaire that
supported the key question and by adding the scores that did not support the
question (see Appendix 3 – Data Breakdown).
A general overview using bar charts and tables is used to represent the results
of the survey.
Further analysis is undertaken using the Spearman Rank Correlation
Coefficient (1998 pg. 123)84 statistical test. The Spearman test is a non-
parametric test for measuring the difference in ranking between two groups of
respondents scoring a number of issues, attributes or factors. The test can be
applied when:
! The question is requesting a rating value and the rating value is then
converted into rankings.
! The attitude is measured on an ordinal scale.
84
Naoum S G (1998) Dissertation research and writing for construction students Butterworth Heinemann
49
Chapter 5 – Analysis of the Results
Introduction
This chapter will discuss and interpret the results of the survey. Firstly, the
results will be presented generally giving a breakdown of respondents and the
level of response. Tables and charts will be used to present the information
with additional comments provided where necessary.
The questionnaire had six sections as described in Chapter 4 (Research

Design and Methodology). All the questions were given a range of possible
answers for the respondent to tick depending on their degree of agreement or
disagreement to the question and the responses were given a score as the
table below describes:
Table 4 Range of response and their corresponding allocated score
Answer Score allocated to each answer

Strongly Disagree 1
Disagree 2
No Opinion 3
Agree 4
Strongly Agree 5
There were 177 subjects chosen from project directories that were in the
possession of the author. Eighty-six subjects responded to the questionnaire
which is a 49% response (see Table 3 pg.43). This response rate is
considered to be acceptable for analysis and can be treated as a fair reflection
of the population, which in this case are the project management teams of a
government agency and a large retail establishment.
50
General Overview
Each section of the questionnaire contained five questions related to the main
section heading (see Appendix 1).
The percentage breakdown of the categories of subjects used for the survey is
depicted in Fig. 5 below.
Figure 5 Percentage breakdown of categories
35%
31%
30%
25%
20%
17%
15% 14%
12%
11% 11%
10%
5%
5% 4%
0%
Project Managers Supervisors 1 Safety Managers Quantity Surveyors
Project Engineers Directors Site Agents Construction Managers
A breakdown of the number of questionnaires sent per category and the

number of replies per category is shown below in each of the categories in Fig.
6 below.
Figure 6 Categorisation of response to survey.
60
55
50
40
30
30
25
24
21
20 20
20
13
12
10
10 8
7 7
5
4
2
0
Directors Project Managers Project Engineers Supervisors Construction Quantity Site Agents Safety Managers
Managers Surveyors
Number of Questionnaires Sent out Number of Replies
51
The percentage of replies per category is shown in Fig. 7 below.
Figure 7 Category response to the questionnaire
120%
100%
100%
80%
70%
65%
60%
50% 50%
44%
40%
20%
20% 17%
0%
Construction Managers Supervisors 1 Directors Project Engineers
Site Agents Project Managers Safety Managers Quantity Surveyors
Comments
In Fig. 7 above:
! Construction managers have a high response rate and this probably due to
having a high contact rate with them.
! Supervisors and directors have a medium to high response rate, again
especially with supervisors the level of response is probably due to the
high contact rate.
! A medium response rate from project engineers, site agents and project
managers. Little contact is made with project engineers and project
managers as these are often office based personnel within the population.
! A low response rate was obtained from safety managers and quantity
surveyors and this is disappointing as a fair amount of contact is made
with the safety managers. The low response rate from the quantity
surveyors is thought to be the result of limited contact with them.
52
Data Manipulation
The raw data was collected from the questionnaires and placed into an Excel
97 spreadsheet so it could be further manipulated and analysed (see
Appendix 2 for raw data). The data was then analysed and placed in further
Excel 97 spreadsheets to show the total responses for each question in the
questionnaire (see Appendix 3). Graphs were formed using the data, as were
tables to show the totals of the responses to the questionnaire. The graphs
and tables were then used to complete the descriptive analysis section of this
chapter.
53
54
Descriptive Analysis of Results
All the questions in the questionnaire could be answered by using one of five
responses, which the respondents could choose ranging from strongly agree
to strongly disagree. The abbreviations used in the tables are as follows:
SA Strongly Agree
A Agree
NO No Opinion
D Disagree
SD Strongly Agree
Sections in the questionnaire asked the respondents for their views on the
following:
! External motivation for health and safety management.
! Internal motivation for health and safety management
The two sections consisted of five questions in each. The questions were
linked to the report carried out by Entec (1992)85 for the Health & Safety
Executive.
! The third part of the questionnaire asked the subjects their views on the
costs associated with health and safety management.
! The fourth part asked questions on the integration of health and safety
management.
! The fifth part asked questions on client pressure.
Appendix 4 contains charts that depict the overall scoring for each part of the
questionnaire.
85
Entec UK Ltd (1992) Factors motivating proactive health and safety management Contract Research
Report 179 HMSO
55
Part 1a General External Motivators
This part of the questionnaire was related to the external motivators that may
encourage companies to be proactive in health and safety management. The
results of the first section on external motivators are given in the table below.
Table 5 Percentage Scores for Part 1a of Questionnaire
SA A NO D SD
No. Question 5 4 3 2 1
1 Prosecutions will occur for not complying with health & 37 50 1% 9% 2%
safety law. % %
2 Compliance with regulations is undertaken out of fear of 10 40 0% 41 9%
adverse publicity. % % %
3 Compliance with regulations is undertaken out of fear of 26 41 0% 29 5%
prosecution. % % %
4 Compliance with regulations should be made as a matter of 58 36 0% 5% 1%
principle. % %
5 Implementation of health & safety management is 15 27 2% 44 12
undertaken for commercial benefit. % % % %
Average 29 39 1% 26 6%
% % %
Comments
! The above table shows that there is a high level of agreement (95%) for
‘compliance should be made as a matter of principle’ and suggests that
there is strong moral ethics amongst the respondents.
! The combined averages for agreement with the questions were more than
double the disagreements.
! 87% of respondents believe they will be prosecuted for not complying with
the law yet only 67% of respondents believe in compliance with regulation
is undertaken out of fear of prosecution. This suggests there is a strong
acceptance of health and safety law and its implications.
! The respondents are split on their views towards question 2, which states
that companies comply with regulations out of fear of adverse publicity.
! An interesting result is for question 5 as only 42% of respondents believed
implementation is carried out for commercial benefit. This suggests with
the strong acceptance of the law that two thirds of the respondents believe
there is no commercial advantage in excellence health and safety
management.
56
The results of this section of the questionnaire reflect the results of the survey
undertaken by Entec86 for the Health and Safety Executive. The only exception
is for question one which in the Entec survey it was suggested that this was
not the case.
86
Entec UK Ltd (2000) Construction health and safety for the new millennium Contract Research Report
57
Part 1b – General Internal Motivators
Part two asked questions on internal motivators which companies may use as
motivation for proactive health and safety management.
Table 6 Percentage Scores for Part 1b of Questionnaire
SA A NO D SD
6 Health & safety improvements are a cost rather than an 5% 8% 1% 73 13
investment % %
7 Accident statistics motivate our company to ensure health & 17 56 0% 23 3%
safety measures are implemented % % %
8 Improved health & safety management increases employee 27 63 3% 7% 0%
morale % %
9 A fitter and healthier workforce increases productivity 48 45 1% 6% 0%
% %
10 Health & safety management is a core business activity 44 42 6% 7% 1%
% %
Average 28 43 2% 23 3%
% % %
Comments
! The average scores for this section revealed that 71% of the respondents
were in agreement with the statements whilst 26% was in disagreement.
This suggests a strong inclination of health and safety management being
a benefit to their companies.
! 90% of respondents agreed that improved health and safety increased
employee morale.
! 93% of respondents agreed that a fitter and healthier workforce would
increase productivity.
! 86% of respondents agreed that safety is an investment and not a cost
! 73% of respondents believed accident figures motivated their company to
ensure health and safety measures were implemented.
! 86% of respondents believed health and safety is a core business activity
yet in the analysis of Part 1a, only 42% believed that health and safety was
undertaken for commercial benefit.
313 HMSO
58
Part 2 – Costs Associated with Health and Safety Management
This part of the questionnaire asked questions related to costs of health and
safety management during the process of construction.
Table 7 Percentage Scores for Part 2 of Questionnaire
SA A NO D SD
11 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 0% 9% 10 48 33
excessive compared to accident costs incurred by a % % %
company
12 Costs associated with health & safety management are 0% 58 10 29 2%
proportionate to the risks encountered. % % %
13 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 6% 28 13 51 2%
to remain competitive % % %
14 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects 10 52 2% 28 7%
health & safety management implementation. % % %
15 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 37 50 3% 8% 1%
sound business practice. % %
Average 11 40 8% 33 9%
% % %
Comments
! This part of the questionnaire had the most ‘No opinion’ answers (8%)
compared to all the other parts.
! This part of the questionnaire had the least percentage of ‘strongly agree’
answers compared to all the other parts. The respondents are split in their
views with just 51% agreeing with the statements in the questionnaire
! 87% agreed that health and safety management is an integral part of
business.
! 81% of respondents have the view that health and safety management
costs are not excessive compared to accident costs.
! 58% of the respondents believe health and safety costs are proportionate
to the risks encountered, but 10% did not have an opinion.
! 62% of respondents believed that pressure during construction to keep
costs down affects health and safety management.
! 53% disagreed that costs were omitted during tender to remain
competitive.
59
Part 3 – Time Pressure Affecting Implementation of Health and Safety
Management
This part of the questionnaire asked questions relating to the time pressures
during the construction process.
Table 8 Percentage scores for Part 3 of Questionnaire
SA A NO D SD
16 Time allowed during the negotiation period to assess and 15 55 1% 29 0%
plan health & safety management is insufficient. % % %
17 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health 14 38 3% 44 0%
& safety management effectively % % %
18 During construction there is limited time to implement 8% 37 1% 49 5%
requirements of a health & safety management system, % %
(e.g., Health & Safety Plan)
19 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing 8% 47 2% 42 1%
health & safety management. % %
20 Health & safety management implementation decreases 21 58 1% 17 2%
when deadlines/programmes are tight. % % %
Average 13 47 2% 36 2%
% % %
Comments
! 70% of respondents agreed that time is insufficient during tender to assess
and plan health and safety management.
! 52% of respondents agreed that time is limited during construction to
effectively manage health and safety.
! 54% of respondents believed that there is sufficient time to implement the
requirements of a health and safety plan.
! The respondents are split on the question of site delays increasing the
likelihood of not implementing health & safety management.
! 79% of respondents believe that health and safety decreases when
programmes are tight.
! An average of 60% agreed that time is a factor that effects health and
safety management.
60
Part 4 – Integrated Health and Safety Management
This part of the questionnaire asked questions related to the integration of

health and safety management into other forms of management systems, e.g.,
quality.
SA A NO D SD
21 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 21 69 3% 6% 1%
techniques such as Total Quality Management. % %
22 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 29 51 3% 15 1%
systems.(e.g., BS 5750) % % %
23 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 21 63 2% 14 0%
safety management implementation. % % %
24 Integrating health & safety with other management systems 19 65 6% 9% 1%
will improve health & safety implementation. % %
25 Integrating health & safety with other management systems 16 63 7% 12 2%
will improve overall business performance % % %
Average 21 62 4% 11 1%
% % %
Comments
! A high average of 83% of respondents agrees that health and safety
should be integrated into other management systems.
! 80% of respondents agree that health and safety management should be
integrated as part of techniques such as total quality management.
! 84% of respondents agree that non-conformance notices would increase
health and safety management.
! 84% of respondents agree that integrating health and safety management
with other management systems would increase implementation.
! 79% of respondents agreed that integrating health and safety
management would increase overall business performance.
61
This part of the questionnaire asked respondents to give views on the extent
of client pressure during the construction process.
SA A NO D SD
26 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 5% 23 5% 56 12
(e.g., cost, time) during the negotiation period. % % %
27 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 7% 36 1% 48 8%
(e.g., cost, time) during construction. % %
28 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 2% 33 1% 55 9%
construction. % %
29 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a 0% 19 8% 64 9%
project. % %
30 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 3% 56 7% 29 5%
management implementation. % %
Average 3% 33 4% 50 9%
% %
Comments
! An average of 36% of the respondents agreed that clients give equal
importance to health and safety as they do other factors such as cost.
! 68% of respondents agreed that clients do not give equal importance to
health and safety during the negotiation period.
! Respondents are closer together on their views when it comes to clients
giving equal importance to safety during construction, 43% saying that
they do give health and safety equal importance and 56% they do not give
equal importance.
! 64% of respondents expressed a view that clients do not carry out regular
health and safety audits during construction.
! 73% of respondents expressed the view that clients do not attend health
and safety during a project.
These results reflect the findings of the ENTEC (2000)87 report for the Health
and Safety Executive.
87
Entec. (2000) Construction Health and safety for the new millennium Contract Research Report 313
HMSO
62
Further Analysis
Further analysis was undertaken to compare the views of the Directors with
each of the other category subjects to test the key questions of the research.
To do this, the key questions of the research are grouped together to form a
set of twenty questions in which each subject category ranks in order of
importance. The next step is to formulate a question. An example of this is:
Do directors and construction managers perceive factors that affect health and
safety management differently?
The rankings obtained are placed in a table and compared. The results of the
calculations used in the table then give you a figure, which is then checked
against a table88 to see if there is any correlation in the views of each subject.
The method used to obtain the information required is called the Spearman
rank correlation coefficient.
This part of the results does not show or comment on the comparison of the
other subject pairings, e.g., Supervisors and Safety Managers, as it would
become too unwieldy for the scope of this research. However the tables are
shown in Appendix 5. The overall results of all comparisons are shown later in
this chapter.
88
Table used for the analysis is Appendix 4 table C of Dr S G Naoum’s book Dissertation Research and
Writing for Construction Students on page 196
63
Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient Analysis
The Spearman rank correlation coefficient method of analysis was used to
measure the amount and significance of the correlation between the subject’s
rank on the factors that affect health and safety management implementation.
The sections in the questionnaire concerning the external and internal
motivators were not analysed, subject compared to subject, but are presented
in a single table and comments made on the findings. The reason for this was
the author wished to analyse the pertinent factors of the research e.g., costs,
time, integration, and client pressure.
The rank corellation tables that follow are related to the Directors and the other
subject categories only.
Table 11 shows all the results of the rank corellation between all subjects and
the strength of that corellation.. The tables containing the data of all the other
pairings are given in Appendix 5
The formula used for the analysis is as follows:
r1 = 1- 6Σdi2
N(N2 –1)
where, di = the difference in ranking between each pair of factors

N = the number of factors.
The coefficient of rank correlation, r1, has been devised to ensure that its value
will lie within the range of –1 to 1. The value of r1 can be interpreted thus:
r1 = -1 means perfect negative correlation
r1 = 1 means perfect positive correlation
r1 = 0 means zero correlation
r1 = -0.84 means strong negative correlation
r1 = 0.15 means weak positive correlation
and so on. To show the strength of corellation you square the result of the
corellation89. To show the strength of the corellation
The following pages show the results of each comparison and analysis in the
form of tables and comment. The rankings are made by adding up the number
of subjects in a group e.g., Directors = 7. Then you calculate the maximum
possible score that that group could achieve for the question. The
questionnaire used for this research has a maximum individual question score
64
of 5. Therefore, the maximum score for a question for Directors is 35. There
are seven directors, so you multiply 7 by 5 = 35.
You then add up the actual score achieved and work out what percentage of
the maximum score you have. You carry out this for all questions and then
rank them in order. Highest percentage = rank 1, lowest rank = 20.
The calculations were carried out using Excel 97.
The rankings for parts 1a and 1b of the questionnaire were given the following
frequencies to aid interpretation:
Rank Range
1–3 High
4- 7 Moderate
8 – 10 Low
The rankings for parts 2 –5 of the questionnaire were given the following
frequencies to aid interpretation:
Rank Range
1–6 High
7 –14 Moderate
15 – 20 Low
Where a subject is in agreement with the question they will score highly and
this will place the question in the high range rank area and where they
disagree with the question they will score low and this will place the question
in the low rank range.
89
Graham, A. (1988) Teach yourself statistics 2nd Edition Hodder & Houghton London
65
Presentation of Results
Table 11 below shows the scores obtained for all possible pairings of the
subjects using the Spearman Rank Corellation statistical analysis. The
strength of that corellation is also shown.
Table 11 Spearman Rank Corellation for All Pairings
Pairing Spearman Rank Corellation Squared Spearman

Rank Corellation
D+PM 0.861 0.741
Sup+PM 0.858 0.736
SaM+PE 0.815 0.664
D+Sup 0.810 0.656
D+SaM 0.788 0.621
D+PE 0.752 0.566
PM+PE 0.751 0.564
PM+SaM 0.740 0.548
CM+PM 0.722 0.521
Sup+SaM 0.718 0.516
D+CM 0.680 0.462
Sup+PE 0.624 0.389
SA+SaM 0.570 0.325
SA+PE 0.568 0.323
D+SA 0.520 0.270
CM+Sup 0.497 0.247
CM+PE 0.463 0.214
CM+SaM 0.453 0.205
PM+SA 0.417 0.174
CM+SA 0.367 0.135
Sup+SA 0.367 0.135
Sup+QS 0.325 0.106
QS+PE 0.303 0.092
QS+SaM 0.197 0.039
QS+PM 0.152 0.023
D+QS 0.112 0.013
QS+SA 0.071 0.005
CM+QS 0.008 0.000
Table 12 Abbreviations
D= Director SaM = Safety Manager

CM = Construction Manager SA = Site Agent
PE = Project Engineer QS = Quantity Surveyor
PM = Project Manager Sup = Supervisor
66
Comment
The following is an interpretation of the significant findings in Table 11:
! The top four pairings have strong corellation and, therefore have views
that are similar. This does not mean that their views are in agreement with
the questions posed in the survey.
! The most interesting observation of the findings is that CM’s and QS’s
have totally different views on the factors asked in the survey. This stands
out because the CM’s work very closely with the QS’s in the particular
environment in which the survey was undertaken.
! Supervisors have low agreement levels with other members of the
construction teams but a high level of agreement with Directors. This
suggests that other site team members may be focusing on other areas
than health and safety management, whilst the supervisor is at the coal
face and feels responsible for health and safety.
67
Question
Do the subjects of the research perceive external and internal factors that
motivate a company differently?
Table 13 Ranking of External and Internal Motivators
Question D PE PM QS CM SaM SA Sup

1 Prosecutions will occur for not complying with health 4.5 4 5 4.5 4.5 5 2 1
& safety law
2 Compliance with regulations is undertaken out of fear 8 8 8 7 7 9 10 9

of adverse publicity.
3 Compliance with regulations is undertaken out of fear 6 6 7 7 8.5 8 8 6

of prosecution.
4 Compliance with regulations should be made as a 1 4 1 4.5 1 6 1 3

matter of principle.
5 Implementation of health & safety management is 9 9 9 10 10 7 4.5 8

6 Health & safety improvements are a cost rather than 10 10 10 4.5 8.5 10 9 10
an investment.
7 Accident statistics motivate a company to ensure 7 7 6 7 4.5 4 3 7

health & safety measures are implemented.
8 Improved health & safety management increases 2.5 4 4 4.5 6 2.5 4.5 4
employee morale.
9 A healthier workforce increases productivity for a 2.5 2 2 1 2.5 1 6 5

company.
10 Working in a safe environment increases productivity 4.5 1 3 9 2.5 2.5 7 2

for a company
Comment
The following is an interpretation of the above significant findings:
! From the ranking in the table there seems to be overall agreement in views
across all subjects on the questions relating to the external and internal
motivators.
! Although ranked high by all subjects Supervisors rank ‘prosecutions will
occur for not complying with health and safety’ the highest. This may be
due to the fact they are based on site and may have experience of visits
from the enforcing authorities
! ‘Compliance as a matter of principle’ is ranked the highest by a majority of
subjects and this suggest that the humanitarian principle of health and
safety management is strong among the subjects.
68
! ‘Accident statistics’ are ranked moderately, moving towards low, which
suggests that they are not used as a motivator within companies. This may
be because companies surveyed do not understand the costs associated
with accidents, or they have so few accidents they are not major factor
within their organisations
! The majority of subjects ranked ‘ health and safety improvements are a
cost rather than an investment’ low meaning that they believe that health
and safety is not a cost. This view might be associated with the fact that
the majority of subjects also ranked ‘ a healthier workforce increases
productivity’ high and so perceive health and safety to be an investment.
69
Question
Do Directors and Construction Managers perceive factors that affect health
and safety management differently?
Table 14 Rank Correlation of Directors and Construction Managers
Directors and Construction Managers Compared D CM di

No Question R1 R2 R1-R2 di2
.
1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are excessive 20 16 4 16
compared to accident costs incurred by a company
2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 14.5 8.5 6 36
proportionate to the risks encountered.
3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender to 16.5 13 3.5 12.25
remain competitive
4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health & 10 20 -10 100
safety management implementation.
5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of sound 6 1 5 25
business practice.
6 Time allowed during negotiation period to assess and plan health & 10 5.5 4.5 20.25
safety management is insufficient.
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 10 13 -3 9
safety management effectively
8 During construction there is limited time to implement requirements 16.5 18.5 -2 4
of a health & safety management system, (e.g., Health & Safety
Plan)
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health & 12.5 16 -3.5 12.25
safety management.
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 4 13 -9 81
deadlines/programmes are tight.
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management techniques 4 3 1 1
such as Total Quality Management.
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 7 5.5 1.5 2.25
systems.(e.g., BS 5750)
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & safety 1.5 5.5 -4 16
management implementation.
14 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 1.5 5.5 -4 16
improve health & safety implementation.
15 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 4 8.5 -4.5 20.25
improve overall business performance
16 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors (e.g., 19 16 3 9
cost, time) during the negotiation period.
17 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors (e.g., 12.5 10.5 2 4
cost, time) during construction.
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during construction. 14.5 18.5 -4 16
19 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a project. 18 10.5 7.5 56.25
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 8 2 6 36
Total Di2 492.5
Spearman Rank Coefficient 0.630
70
Result
The above table shows that there is overall agreement between Directors and
Construction Managers (CM) with regards to the factors that affect health and
safety implementation (r1 = 0.630).
Comments
! The ‘costs of implementing health and safety management are excessive’
is ranked low by both subjects which suggests that both subjects believe
that the cost of health and safety management is reasonable compared to
the costs of accidents.
! There is a marked difference in opinion on ‘pressure during construction to
keep costs down’ as Directors ranked this moderately while CM’s gave it
the lowest rank. This means that Directors have a view that there is
pressure to keep costs down and CM’s think that there is no pressure. This
result may be due, with no degree of certainty, to the procurement
method90 used within the research population.
! Similar ranks were obtained for the ‘time’ questions except for ‘health and
safety management decreases when programmes are tight’. Directors
ranked this highly while CM’s ranked it moderate to low. This difference
may be explained by the fact that the CM’s are more hands on when
dealing with projects.
! The two subjects ranked ‘integration of health and safety management into
TQM’ the highest, with all the questions on integration being ranked high
by both subjects.
! The questions relating to client pressure were mostly ranked low except for
‘clients lay down strict requirements for health and safety management
implementation’ which were ranked highly by the CM’s and moderately by
the Directors. This suggests that both subjects may believe that clients
have certain requirements for the standard of health and safety
management but do not necessarily enforce them.
90
The procurement method used in the research population is predominantly EEC contracts.
71
Question
Do Directors and Project Engineers perceive factors that affect health and
Table 15 Rank correlation of Directors and Project Engineers
Directors and Project Engineers Compared D PE di

No. Question R1 R2 R1-R2 di2
1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 20 20 0 0
excessive compared to accident costs incurred by a company
2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 14.5 10 4.5 20.25
3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 16.5 15 1.5 2.25
to remain competitive
4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 10 4 6 36
& safety management implementation.
5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 6 1 5 25
sound business practice.
6 Time allowed during negotiation period to assess and plan 10 13.5 -3.5 12.25
health & safety management is insufficient.
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 16.5 16.5 0 0
requirements of a health & safety management system, (e.g.,
Health & Safety Plan)
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 12.5 11 1.5 2.25
& safety management.
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 4 4 0 0
techniques such as Total Quality Management.
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 7 2 5 25
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 1.5 6 -4.5 20.25
14 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 1.5 8 -6.5 42.25
15 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 4 4 0 0
16 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 19 16.5 2.5 6.25
(e.g., cost, time) during the negotiation period.
17 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 12.5 8 4.5 20.25
(e.g., cost, time) during construction.
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 14.5 12 2.5 6.25
construction.
19 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a 18 19 -1 1
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 8 13.5 -5.5 30.25
Total Di2 329.5
72
Result
Project Engineers (PE) with regards to the factors that affect health and safety
implementation (r1 = 0.752).
Comments
! The lowest ranked question by both subjects is ‘costs of implementing

health and safety management are excessive compared to accident costs’
which suggests they are both in disagreement with the question.
! PE’s rank ‘health and safety costs are integral part of business’ the highest
Directors giving it a moderate ranking.
! PE’s give ‘time is limited during construction….’ A low ranking and
Directors a moderate ranking. This is thought to be because of the amount
of involvement PE’s have, for the programming of the project.
! The integration of health and safety management is ranked highly by both
subjects. Noticeably there is a difference in opinion on whether or not it
integration would improve health and safety implementation with PE’s only
ranking it moderately whilst Directors rank it the highest.
73
Question
Do Directors and Project Managers perceive factors that affect health and
Table 16 Rank correlation of Directors and Project Managers
Directors and Project Managers Compared D PM di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 16.5 16.5 0 0
4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 10 15 -5 25
6 Time allowed during negotiation period to assess and plan 10 7.5 2.5 6.25
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 10 10.5 -0.5 0.25
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 16.5 13 3.5 12.25
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 12.5 13 -0.5 0.25
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 4 7.5 -3.5 12.25
15 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 4 5 -1 1
16 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 19 18 1 1
17 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 12.5 16.5 -4 16
construction.
project.
Total Di2 185.5
74
Result
The above table shows that there is strong overall agreement between
Directors and Project Managers (PM) with regards to the factors that affect
health and safety implementation (r1= 0.861).
Comment
! The majority of rankings in this table are equal with only a few exceptions
! Both subjects rank ‘costs of health and safety management are excessive
compared to accident costs’ the lowest, which indicates that they both
disagree with the question.
! There is a difference in opinion on the costs proportionate to the risks
encountered with PM’s ranking it moderately while Directors rank it low.
! Both subjects rank ‘clients give equal importance to health and safety’ as
low.
75
Question
Do Directors and Supervisors perceive factors that affect health and safety
management differently?
Table 17 Rank correlation of Directors and Supervisors
Directors and Supervisors Compared D Sup di

4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 10 12.5 -2.5 6.25
5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 6 6.5 -0.5 0.25
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 10 8 2 4
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 12.5 9 3.5 12.25
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 4 2 2 4
17 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 12.5 16 -3.5 12.25
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 14.5 17.5 -3 9
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 8 14 -6 36
Total Di2 252.5
76
Result
Directors and Supervisors (Sup.) with regards to the factors that affect health
and safety implementation (r1= 0.810).
Comment
! Supervisors agree with Directors on the ranking of ‘costs of implementing

health and safety are excessive compared to accident costs, which
suggests that they both agree that costs are not excessive.
! Supervisors give ’limited time during construction’ a moderate ranking
whilst Directors rank it low. This means that Supervisors do not entirely
agree with the fact that there is enough time to implement health and
safety. This bias may be due to the fact they are at the ‘coal face’.
! Supervisors give the highest ranking to the ‘integration of health and safety
management within general quality systems’ which suggests that
Supervisors wish to have a more systematic approach to health and safety
management on site. On the other hand Supervisors do not agree that
integration would improve business performance.
! Supervisors only rank ‘clients lay down strict requirements’ moderately and
this may be due to the fact they are ‘removed’ from the client.
77
Question
Do Directors and Quantity Surveyors perceive factors that affect health and
Table 18 Rank correlation of Directors and Quantity Surveyors
Directors and Quantity Surveyors Compared D QS di

5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 6 10 -4 16
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 12.5 3.5 9 81
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 4 3.5 0.5 0.25
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 4 3.5 0.5 0.25
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 1.5 17.5 -16 256
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 14.5 17.5 -3 9
construction.
19 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a 18 13.5 4.5 20.25
project.
Total Di2 1181.5
78
Result
The above table shows that there is strong overall disagreement between
Directors and Quantity Surveyors (QS) with regards to the factors that affect
health and safety implementation (r1= 0.112). This set of results must be
treated with caution and may not be a true reflection of QS’s views as only two
QS’s replied to the survey. Nevertheless, there are some notable significant
differences.
Comment
! QS’s rank ‘pressure during construction to keep costs down’ the highest
with the three of the construction cost questions also ranked highly. This
may be because the QS’s have heavy involvement in that part of the
process and encounter those difficulties first hand. The other two cost
questions are ranked moderately, which lead us to believe that they may
consider that costs of safety are an add on element of business rather than
an integral part of business.
! There is conflicting views on the time issues for QS’s as they rank ‘site
delays increases the likelihood of not implementing health and safety
management’ highly. Although they think that there is enough time during
construction to implement health and safety.
! QS’s do not agree that health and safety management would benefit from
integration as they rank three of the questions low. This is unexpected as
they think that health and safety management should be integrated into
systems such as TQM or other general quality systems.
! QS’s think that Client pressure is weak as they rank four out of five
questions low. This is may be the result of close contact with the Client
and suggests that health and safety is not high on the agenda when
consulting with Clients.
79
Question
Do Directors and Safety Managers perceive factors that affect health and
Table 19 Rank correlation of Directors and Safety Managers
Directors and Safety Managers Compared D SaM di

4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 10 5.5 4.5 20.25
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 12.5 8.5 4 16
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 7 8.5 -1.5 2.25
15 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 4 2.5 1.5 2.25
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 14.5 19 -4.5 20.25
construction.
project.
Total Di2 282.5
80
Result
Directors and Safety Managers(SM) with regards to the factors that affect
health and safety implementation (r1= 0.788). This set of results must be
treated with caution, as they may not be a true reflection of SM’s views as only
five SM’s replied to the survey. Nevertheless, there are some notable
significant differences.
Comment
! SM’ s rank ‘ health and safety costs are integral part of business’ the
highest and this is thought to be biased as they would promote this thought
in the course of their duties and responsibilities.
! SM’s rank ‘ costs of implementing health and safety management are
excessive compared to accidents’ equally low with Directors.
! SM’s rank ‘pressure to keep costs down during construction affects health
and safety management’ high against the Directors moderate ranking. This
may be due to the fact that most SM’s have close contact with site staff
and therefore have knowledge of the pressures that can exist on projects.
! SM’s give a moderate, bordering on the low side, ranking to ‘Clients give
health and safety equal importance to other factors during the negotiation
period’ while Directors ranked it low. This may be due to the fact that little
health and safety management input occurs during the negotiation period
and is only considered after the project has been awarded. This is qualified
by the fact that SM’s gave ‘Clients lay down strict requirements for health
and safety management’ a low ranking.
81
Question
Do Directors and Site Agents perceive factors that affect health and safety
management differently?
Table 20 Rank correlation of Directors and Site Agents
Directors and Site Agents Compared D SA di

1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 20 19.5 0.5 0.25
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 16.5 19.5 -3 9
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 4 7.5 -3.5 12.25
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 7 15 -8 64
17 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 12.5 7.5 5 25
construction.
19 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a 18 18 0 0
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 8 7.5 0.5 0.25
Total Di2 639
82
Result
Site Agents (SA) with regards to the factors that affect health and safety
implementation (r1= 0.520). This set of results should be treated with caution,
as they may not be a true reflection of SA’s views as only four SA’s replied to
the survey. Nevertheless, there are some notable significant differences.
Comment
! SA’s rank ‘ Clients give health and safety equal importance to other factors
during the negotiation period’ the highest which is different to the other
subjects who rank it low. They also rank two of the other questions highly,
which refer to Client laying down ‘strict requirements’ and giving ‘health
and safety equal importance to health an safety during construction’. They
rank Client involvement at site low. This set of results suggests that SA’s
have a lot of knowledge of Clients stating strong commitment to health and
safety during the negotiation period but little evidence of it on site.
! SA’s do not believe that there is limited time during construction to assess
and manage health and safety. In fact they rank all the time questions low
which means they disagree with the questions except when ‘programmes
are tight’ with this question being ranked very highly.
! There is conflicting views on the ‘integration of health and safety’ as they
do not believe that health and safety should be integrated into general
quality systems but believe that integration would improve health and
safety implementation.
83
Chapter 6 – Conclusions
Introduction
The aim of the research topic was to establish the views of project
management teams working under schemes managed by a major retailer and
a government agency to factors that may affect health and safety
management.
The objectives of the research was to:
! To provide a general overview of the principles of health and safety

management.
The conclusions of the literature search are as follows:
1. The principles of health and safety management are financial, legal and
humanitarian.
2. The ‘costs of accidents’ is the main focus of the financial side of health and
safety management and there are different views as to whether using the
‘costs of accidents’ is a valid argument.
3. There is limited research into the costs of health and safety management.
4. The legal aspect of health and safety management is closely linked to the
financial aspect. Most organisations comply with legislation because they
believe it is right to do so. Organisations would not comply with legislation
if it affected profits and conversely lack of compliance would lead to more
regulation which would ultimately affect profit.
5. The humanitarian aspect is based on the fact that as human beings we do

not wish to harm our fellow colleagues. This was reflected in the literature
review and in the survey (some 97% of responses) as being a strong
influence.
84
! To survey the project management teams of a major retailer and
government agency and investigate their views on the factors below:
! The costs of health and safety
! Time pressures affecting health and safety.
! Integrated health and safety
! Client pressure
A survey was conducted and the following is concluded:
1. There was a 49% rate of reply, a total of 86 respondents from 177

questionnaires issued, which can be accepted as a fair reflection of the
project management teams.
2. There was a difference in the level of response from the subject

categories, which means there has to be caution in some of the results of
the analysis (see key questions).
3. Contact with the respondents seemed to reflect the response rate. The
higher the contact the higher the response and vice versa. The exception
to the rule is Safety Managers who gave a poor response with a moderate
amount of contact.
! To test whether the various members of the project management

teams have similar views on the above factors
1. All subjects have a positive level of agreement with each other but the
strength of that agreement differs widely.
2. The strongest corellation is between Directors and Project Managers
closely followed by Supervisors and Project Managers, which suggests
that the thinking of line management towards health and safety
management is not too dissimilar (see Table 11).
3. The weakest corellation is between the Quantity Surveyors and all other
subjects. This may be because the QS’s perceive health and safety to be
built in to prices because of the requirement to comply with health and
safety law.
85
Key Questions
The research and subsequent survey set out to investigate and test four key
questions:
Question One:
Do costs of health and safety measures affect their implementation?
1. There is no clear direction obtained on whether or not costs affect health
and safety management .
2. Health and safety management is accepted as being an integral part of
sound business practice and the costs associated with it are not thought to
be excessive. In fact the belief is that health and safety costs are
proportionate to the risks encountered in their business
3. The business case, including the ‘costs of accidents’, for health and safety
management is not yet at the forefront of organisations’ thoughts.
4. The procurement process is inconsistent with its approach to ensuring
health and safety management is allocated sufficient funds and this affects
performance on site.
Question Two:
Do time pressures affect the implementation of health and safety
measures?
1. Time pressures do affect the implementation of health and safety
management but caution has to taken in this finding as the survey did not
produce a convincing conclusion.
2. Time allocated during the procurement process is insufficient to address
health and safety management adequately
3. Programme pressures enhance the chances of ignoring health and safety
issues and increases the likelihood of health and safety management
decreasing
86
Question Three:
Will integrating health and safety management into other management
1. There is strong support for the integration of health and safety
management and that it would improve health and safety implementation
and overall business performance
2. Total quality management or a hybrid system of it, is the favoured option
for the integration of health and safety
Question Four:
Does client pressure affect the level of health and safety management
implementation?
1. Client pressure does affect health and safety management but the results
are not convincing so caution has to be exercised in interpreting them.
2. Client pressure is strongest during tender and bid stage but reduces
considerably during construction.
3. Clients’ involvement in health and safety management during project
execution is limited.
87
Recommendations
Based on the literature review and the results of the survey undertaken during
this dissertation the following is recommended:
1. Fear of adverse publicity has a major influence on proactive health and
safety management. The enforcing authorities should place more
emphasis on the naming and shaming of organisations. The Health and
Safety Executive have taken steps in this direction by publishing health
and safety cases on their web site. This should be taken further, with the
issue of monthly reports published in the popular construction trade press.
2. The case for health and safety based on the ‘costs of accidents’, used by
the Health and Safety Executive amongst others, to be dropped. The costs
of accidents, apart from the high-risk high consequence industries such as
petrochemical and oil and gas exploration, do not present a major financial
concern for the majority of organisations.
3. Clients to be more involved in their projects on a personal level, rather

than using consultants and agents to manage their projects. This
recommendation emerges from the fact that most evidence in health and
safety management suggests that the company must be managed from
the top via the directors or similar. The construction project should be the
same, only the client is to be made ‘director’ responsible for health and
safety for his construction project. The CDM Regulations 1994 have
attempted to address this problem, but have been limited in their effect.
4. Costing of projects is a major issue, therefore, attempts should be made to

make it a requirement that projects cannot start until a minimum of eight
weeks have passed since the issue of tender documents.
5. Emphasis to be placed on line management to be conversant in the

economics of health and safety management
6. Industry should set up pilot schemes to test the validity of having an

integrated management system that incorporates health and safety.
88
Limitations of Research
The research had limitations and they were as follows:
! The survey was undertaken in a Construction Management arena,
although the participants also vie for work under traditional methods, the
views may not be a truly representative of the industry.
! The contractors/specialists in the research survey were small to medium
sized enterprises (SME’s) and therefore the results are biased to their
point of view.
! A 49% rate of reply is representative of the population used but would of
benefited more if the survey was extended beyond the population.
! Time has been a major factor:
! Interviews were not possible during the research and this may have
added more substance to the findings.
! Only postal/email used for questionnaires. This did not allow for
statements or clarification from the respondents on the answers.
! The literature found and used was predominantly pre Construction (Design
and Management) Regulations 1994 (CDM), and this may have the effect
of not being truly representative of current thinking in the academic arena.
Suggestions for Further Research
Further research should be undertaken in the following areas:
! Health and safety costing in the industry and the development of document
on the lines of the Standard Method of Measurement series.
! The viability of developing a database of health and safety
costing/measures which have saved time and money on projects.
! Fixed time-scales for the administration process of a project.
! The effects of making the Client sole responsibility for project safety.
89
References
Advisory Committee on the Safety of Nuclear Installations. (1993) ACSNI
Human Factors Study Group: Third Report; Organising for Safety HMSO
Asherson, J. L. (1995) Burdens on Business: a review of regulation Journal of
Health and Safety British Health and Safety Society Birmingham pp 21-31
Booth, R T. and Lee, T R. (1993) The role of human factors and safety culture
in safety management Papers presented by the Engineering Manufacturers
Industries Division of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers in association with
the Hazards Forum 12-13 October 1993 Mechanical Engineering Publications
Limited London
British Standards BS 8800:1996 Guide to Occupational health and safety
management systems
British Standards Institute OSHAS 18001:1999 Occupational health and safety
management systems- Specification
C.C.H. (1987) Planning occupational safety & health 2nd Edition “Personnel
Management in Practice series C.C.H. Australia Limited Sydney
CBI (1997) Health and safety: the business case Health and Safety Brief
October 1997
CIRIA (1998) CDM Regulations-Practical guidance for planning supervisors
CIRIA Report 173
CIRIA (2000) Integrating safety, quality and environmental management C509
CIRIA London
Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 1994 HMSO
Construction Productivity Network (1998) Integrating management systems for
profit to improve construction Workshop Report 806L
Cooper, M. D. and Phillips, R. A. (1997) Killing two birds with one stone:
Achieving quality via total safety management Facilities Vol. 15 Number 1 / 2
MCB University Press
Davies, N. V. and Teasdale, P. (1994) The Costs to the British Economy of
Work Accidents and Work Related ill Health HMSO
E & P Forum. (1996) Loss Costing Guidelines Report No. 6.54/246 Oct 1996
Exploration and Production Forum
Earnest, R. E. (1997) Characteristics of proactive and reactive safety systems
Professional Safety Vol 42 Issue 11pp 27-29
Entec (2000) Construction health and safety for the new millennium Contract
Research Report 313 HMSO
Fiora, G. and Specht, P. G. (1992) Cost-Benefit Analysis and Risk: In the
Hands of the Supreme Court Professional Safety Vol 37 Issue 4 pg. 24
Friend, M. A. (1992) Financial Tools for the Safety Manager Professional
Safety Vol 37 Issue 11
Globe, D. L. (1986) Safety and Profits in the airline industry Vol.34 No. 3 Basil
Blackwell Oxford pp305-318
Grotewold, H. W. (1997) Dollars and Sense: Using Financial Principles in the
Safety Profession Professional Safety Vol 42 pg. 36-40
90
Hansen, L. L. (2000) The architecture of safety excellence Professional Safety
May 2000. p P26
Hawkins, K. and Hutter, B. (1993) The response of business to social
regulation in England and Wales: An enforcement perspective Law and Policy
Vol. 15 Issue 3
Health and Safety Executive (2000) Proposals for revising the Approved Code
of Practice on ‘Managing construction for health and safety Consultative
Document CD161
Health and Safety Executive. (1995) Be safe, save money: the costs of
accidents – a guide for small firms. Leaflet IND (G) 208 (L) London
Health and Safety Executive. (1996) The Costs of Accidents at Work. HS(G)96
HMSO
Heinrich, H. W. (1959) Industrialised Accident Prevention: A Safety
Management Approach New York McGraw Hill
Hoburg, J. W. (1993)Profit and business adaptation to social regulation Law
and Policy Vol. 15 Issue 3 Blackwell Oxford pp 240-242
Jacobson, J. (2000) The legal view Safety Supervisor Update
http://www.eig.com/ssus/ssu9602.htm.[online] Accessed 13 Jan 2001
Joyce, R. (1995) The CDM Regulations Explained Thomas Telford London
Karuppan, C. M. Karuppan, M. Schaefer, I. M. (1996) A TQM approach to
industrial safety Production and Inventory Management Journal Vol 37 Issue 2
Larcher, P. and Sohail, M. (1999) Review of safety in construction and
operation for the WS & S sector: Part 1 Task No. 166 London School of
Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, UK
Laufer, A. (1987) Construction accident cost and management motivation
Journal of Occupational Accidents Vol. 8 Issue 3 pp 295-315
Liverpool John Moores University http://whirly.livjm.ac.uk/lionweb.htm
Lycos Search Engine www.lycos.co.uk
Managing construction health and safety Construction (Design and
Management) Regulations 1994 Approved Code of Practice
New Civil Engineer February (2001) Safety: what do you think New Civil
Engineer Institution of Civil Engineers
Nichols, T. Armstrong P (1973) Industrial accidents and the conventional
wisdom Falling Wall Press
Oi, W. Y. (1980) On the economics of industrial safety Readings in Industrial
Accident Prevention McGraw Hill USA pp 65-91
Phillis, T. (1990) Integrating occupational health and safety into your
organisations business plan FutureSafe 1990 Conference proceedings
Australia May 20-23, 1990
Pollock, R. A. (1995) Making safety matter Occupational Hazards Vol. 57
Issue 10
ProQuest Information Centre www.umi.com/8090/proquest/
Quinlan, M. and Bohie, P. (1991) Managing occupational health and safety in
Australia: A multidisciplinary approach Australia Macmillan
91
Rahimi, M. (1995) Merging strategic safety, health and environment into total
quality management Journal of Industrial Ergonomics Vol. 16 Issue 2
Reason, J. (1997) Managing the risks of organisational accidents Aldershot
Ashgate Publishing
Reinfort, F. C. (1992) The Economics of Safety Professional Safety Vol 37
Issue 5
Ridley, J. (1990) Safety at Work 3rd Edition Butterworth Heinemann Oxford
Schaechtel, D. (1997) How to build a safety management system.
Professional Safety, Vol. 42. Issue 8. pp 22-24
Stranks, J. (1994) Safety management and policy. Pitman London
Weinstein, M. B. (1996) Improving safety programs through total quality
Occupational Hazards Vol. 58 Issue 8
Weinstein, M. B. (1996) Total quality approach to safety management
Professional Safety Vol. 41 Issue 7
Wheel, T. (1998) Integrated management: A single approach to site
management of quality, safety and environment Construction Productivity
Network Workshop Report 806L
Whittington, C. Livingston, A. Lucas, D. A. (1992) Research into
management, organisational and human factors in the construction industry
Health & Safety Executive Contract Research Report No. 45
Wooden, M. and Vandenheuvel, A. (1999) Is occupational health and safety
good for business? Journal of Occupational Health & Safety Aust./NZ CCH
Australia pp 411-416
Wootton, W J (2000) Safety Report for Construction Management Pilot
Scheme. Unpublished
Wright, M S (1998) Factors Motivating Proactive Health & Safety
Management. Contract Research Report 179/1998 HSE
Wrightson, I. (1999) An insurers approach to measuring health and safety
Safety and Health Practitioner Vol. 17 Issue 2
Yahoo Search Engine www.yahoo.co.uk
92
Bibliography
Bill, F. (1991) Holistic safety engineering from an authority point of view

C407/004 ImechE 1991
Boylston, R (1990) Managing safety and health programs Van Nostrand
Reinhold New York
European Construction Institute. (1995)Total project management of
construction safety, health and environment. 2nd Edition Thomas Telford
Leicester
Goldberg, A.T. (1996) Moving past the blame basis: Safety as a business
asset. Professional Safety Vol. 41 Issue 1 p35
Helander, M. G. (1991) Safety hazards and motivation for safe work Journal of
Occupational Accidents Vol. 8 Issue 3 Elsevier Science pp205-224
Leopold, E. and Leonard, S. (1987) Costs of Construction Accidents to
Employers Law and Policy Vol. 8 Issue 4 Elsevier Science pp 273-294
Raad, V. D. (1991) Safety & the bottom line: proving the financial benefits of
your safety initiatives. Paper presented at ‘Proactive Accident & Incident
Reporting and Investigation Conference, IIR Ltd, Stakis St Ermins Hotel,
London 7-8 December 1991
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. and Fong, D. (1999) Factors affecting safety
performance on construction sites International Journal of Project
Management Vol. 17 No. 5 pp 309-315 Elsevier Science
Stewart, D. A. and Townsend, A.S. (1999) There is more to “Health and Safety
is Good Business” than avoiding unplanned costs; A study into the link
between safety performance and business performance. Paper presented at
‘Proactive Accident & Incident Reporting and Investigation Conference IIR ltd
Stakis St Ermins Hotel, London 7-8 December 1999.
Warren, D. (2000) Unrecognised costs of risk [online] Available at http://www.
Riskinfo.com/warren/tech_001.htm. [Accessed 15 February 2000]
93
APPENDIX 1
EMAIL AND QUESTIONNAIRE
94
From: Bill Wootton [bill.wootton@globe-cm.co.uk]
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2001 10:04 AM
To: Adrian Croot (E-mail); Adrian Legg (E-mail); Adrian Pike (E-
mail); Adrian Rose (E-mail); Alan Church (E-mail); Alan Evans (E-mail); Alan
Neill (E-mail); Alan Tuhey (E-mail); Alan Whitlock (E-mail); Alex Harper (E-
mail); Alex Loquens (E-mail); Alistair Duncan (E-mail); Andrew Cappit (E-mail);
Andrew Dooley (E-mail); Andrew Wells (E-mail); Andy Came (E-mail); Andy
Cook (E-mail); Andy Harland (E-mail); Andy Woodward (E-mail); Anthony J
Wright (E-mail); Arthur Fossey (E-mail); Barry Meesham (E-mail); Bob Heaton
(E-mail); Bob King (E-mail); Brendan McNamara (E-mail); Brian Marsden (E-
mail); Brian Pester (E-mail); Chris Hardy (E-mail); Chris Kirk (E-mail); Chris
Miles (E-mail); Chris Paxford (E-mail); Chris Standring (E-mail); Chris
Tavendale (E-mail); Chris Wilson (E-mail); Colin James (E-mail); Colin Vernon
(E-mail); Damian Brown (E-mail); Damian Culkin (E-mail); Damian McCarthy
(E-mail); Darren Killeen (E-mail); Daryl Fortune (E-mail); Dave Errington (E-
mail); Dave Hawley (E-mail); Dave Jakes (E-mail); Dave Kenny (E-mail); Dave
Riddell (E-mail); David Arrowsmith (E-mail); David Bone (E-mail); David
Cropper (E-mail); David Daines (E-mail); David Gardiner (E-mail); David Hicks
(E-mail); David James (E-mail); David Russel (E-mail); David Steed (E-mail);
David Underwood (E-mail); David Walker (E-mail); Deane Hudson (E-mail);
Derek Phillips (E-mail); Dominic Hui (E-mail); Duncan Robertson (E-mail);
Gary Rowe (E-mail); Gavin Common (E-mail); Geoff Draper (E-mail); Geoff
May (E-mail); Gerald Chappell (E-mail); Gerry Daw (E-mail); Gerry Neale (E-
mail); Graham Crittle (E-mail); Graham Harle (E-mail); Harry Newson (E-mail);
Haydyn Vernon (E-mail); Ian Bolton (E-mail); Ian Reece (E-mail); Jamie
McCloughlin (E-mail); Jeff Denner (E-mail); John Barber (E-mail); John Bovill
(E-mail); John Boylan (E-mail); John Colwell (E-mail); John Forest (E-mail);
John Kane (E-mail); John Martin (E-mail); John Perless (E-mail); John Spiers
(E-mail); John St Leger (E-mail); Jon Noble (E-mail); Keith Barrow (E-mail);
Keith Dennis (E-mail); Kevin Hargreaves (E-mail); Lesley Vaughan (E-mail);
Mark Brassington (E-mail); Mark Fleckner (E-mail); Mark Hargrave (E-mail);
Mark Lansbury (E-mail); Mark McAvaddy (E-mail); Mark Pinner (E-mail); Mark
Wilson (E-mail); Martin Ennis (E-mail); Martin Lavers (E-mail); Martin Perritt
(E-mail); Mathew Morphett (E-mail); Max Jadav (E-mail); Michael Guy (E-
mail); Michael Higgins (E-mail); Michael Hubbard (E-mail); Mick Joy (E-mail);
Mick Mullarkey (E-mail); Mike Bithel (E-mail); Mike Burrow (E-mail); Mike
Jackson (E-mail); Mike Morgan (E-mail); Mike Pringle (E-mail); Mike Ridger
(E-mail); Mike Smith (E-mail); Mike Weaver (E-mail); Neil Cox (E-mail); Neil
Jefferies (E-mail); Neil Owen (E-mail); Nick Hughes (E-mail); Orbit (E-mail);
Paul Brighton (E-mail); Paul Brown (E-mail); Paul Hunter (E-mail); Paul Julian
(E-mail); Paul O’Neill (E-mail); Paul Thurgood (E-mail); Paul Wilkinson (E-
mail); Peter Bliss (E-mail); Peter Clayton (E-mail); Peter Conde (E-mail); Peter
Gallacher (E-mail); Peter Gillespie (E-mail); Peter Smith (E-mail); Peter
Tompkins (E-mail); Peter Whitmarsh (E-mail); Peter Wilcock (E-mail); Phil
Richards (E-mail); Phil Stanton (E-mail); Phil Woolgar (E-mail); Richard
Cooper (E-mail); Richard Ford (E-mail); Richard Thorne (E-mail); Rick Harper
(E-mail); Rob Evans (E-mail); Rob Henshall (E-mail); Rob Kendon (E-mail);
Rob Metcalfe (E-mail); Robert Harrison (E-mail); Robert Harrison (E-mail 2);
Robin Coles (E-mail); Rodney Bond (E-mail); Ronica Sembi (E-mail); Roy
Pollock (E-mail); Russel Philips (E-mail); Scott Boyd (E-mail); Sean Larkin (E-
95
mail); Shaun Bond (E-mail); Simon Parker (E-mail); Simon Petrou (E-mail);
Steve Chaplin (E-mail); Steve Cooke (E-mail); Steve Davies (E-mail); Steve
Fleming (E-mail); Steve Hall (E-mail); Steve Keelty (E-mail); Steve Kinsey (E-
mail); Steve Longdin (E-mail); Steve Malocco (E-mail); Steve Rawson (E-
mail); Steve Searle (E-mail); Steve Teboe (E-mail); Steve Wood (E-mail);
Terry Mitchell (E-mail); Terry Willis (E-mail); Tim Neild (E-mail); Tommy Doy
(E-mail); Tony Adcock (E-mail); Tony Leach (E-mail); Tony Williams (E-mail);
Trevor Lilley (E-mail); Wafiq D’Kadik (E-mail); William Hunt (E-mail)
Subject: Dissertation
Safety Dissertation
Questionna...
Dear All
First of all I would like to introduce myself to those who do not know me. My
name is Bill Wootton and I am the Safety Manager for Globe Construction
Management. I am currently undertaking a MSc in Construction Health and
Safety Management at Liverpool John Moores University.
In part fulfilment of the above degree I have to research a topic area and
produce a dissertation. The topic I have chosen is Health & Safety
Management: Factors Affecting Implementation.
The following factors are being investigated:
General motivators
Cost of safety management measures
Time pressures affecting implementation of safety management measures
Integrated safety management
Client pressure
I would be extremely grateful if could complete the attached questionnaire and

return it by email.
Please note – no individuals or their companies will be identified. Any persons
wishing to receive a copy of the finished dissertation please indicate when
replying.
Regards
Bill Wootton
Globe Construction Management Ltd
Email :- mailto:bill.wootton@globe-cm.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
96
Questionnaire Related to Factors Affecting Implementation of Health & Safety Management
Position in Company:
Please place a tick or cross in the relevant box opposite the statement
Please Note- All responses will be treated with strict confidence and no persons or companies will be
identified.
Part 1a – General External Motivators

Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly No
Disagree Agree Opinio
n
Prosecutions will occur for not complying with health

& safety law.
Compliance with regulations is undertaken out of
fear of adverse publicity.
Compliance with regulations is undertaken out of
fear of prosecution.
Compliance with regulations should be made as a
matter of principle.
Implementation of health & safety management is
Part 1b – General Internal Motivators

n
Health & safety improvements are a cost rather than

an investment.
Accident statistics motivate a company to ensure
health & safety measures are implemented.
Improved health & safety management increases
employee morale.
A healthier workforce increases productivity for a
company.
Working in a safe environment increases productivity
for a company
Part 2 – Costs associated with Implementing Health & Safety Management

n
Costs of implementing health & safety management

are excessive compared to accident costs incurred
by a company.
Costs associated with health & safety management
are proportionate to the risks encountered.
Health & safety management costs are omitted
during tender to remain competitive
Pressure during construction to keep costs down
affects health & safety management implementation.
Health & safety management costs are an integral
part of sound business practice.
97
Part 3 – Time Pressure Affecting Implementation of Health & Safety Management
Negotiation period = time before start of project Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly No
Disagree Agree Opinion
Time allowed during negotiation period to assess

and plan health & safety management is insufficient.
Time is limited during construction to assess and
plan health & safety management effectively
During construction there is limited time to implement
requirements of a health & safety management
system.(e.g., Health & Safety Plan)
Site delays increase the likelihood of not
implementing health & safety management.
Health & safety management implementation
decreases when deadlines/programmes are tight.
Part 4 – Integrated Health & Safety Management

Health & safety should be enrolled into management

Health & safety should be integrated within general
quality systems.(e.g., BS 5750)
Internal non-conformance notices would increase
health & safety management implementation.
Integrating health & safety with other management
systems will improve health & safety implementation.
Integrating health & safety with other management
systems will improve overall business performance

In this section client also means their representatives/agents. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly No
Clients give health & safety equal importance to

other factors (e.g., cost, time) during the negotiation
period.
Clients give health & safety equal importance to
other factors (e.g., cost, time) during construction.
Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during
construction.
Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings
during a project.
Clients lay down strict requirements for health &
98
APPENDIX 2
RAW DATA
99
Table 21 Raw Data from Questionnaire
Question Number
Freq Resp 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
1 D 5 2 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 3 4 5 4 4 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 2 4
2 D 5 2 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 3 4 5 4 4 2 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 2 4
3 D 5 4 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
4 D 2 5 4 5 2 2 4 5 5 5 1 2 4 5 3 4 2 4 5 5 4 2 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 2
5 D 5 4 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
6 D 5 4 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
7 D 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 5 4 5 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2
8 D 4 2 2 5 2 1 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4
9 D 4 2 5 4 2 2 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 5 4 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2
10 D 4 2 2 5 5 2 2 5 5 5 2 2 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4
11 D 4 2 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 2 3 4 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 4
12 D 4 4 2 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 2 2 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 5 5 4 4 1 5 5 4 4
13 D 4 4 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 5 5 5 5 5 2 4 2 2 4
14 PE 4 4 5 2 2 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 5 2 2 1 2 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 4
15 PE 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 5 5 5 3 3 2 3 5 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
16 PE 4 2 4 4 2 2 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2
17 PE 4 1 2 4 1 2 2 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 2
18 PE 4 5 5 5 2 2 2 4 5 5 2 4 5 4 5 4 2 1 2 2 5 5 5 3 4 2 2 5 1 2
19 PE 5 1 2 5 1 1 4 5 5 5 1 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 3 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4
20 PE 2 4 5 4 2 2 2 4 4 2 1 2 2 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 5 3 2 2
21 PE 4 2 4 5 1 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4
22 PE 4 2 2 2 5 5 1 2 2 5 2 4 3 5 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
23 PE 5 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 4 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2
24 PM 4 4 4 5 5 2 4 5 5 5 1 4 2 4 5 2 2 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 2 2 4
25 PM 1 2 4 4 2 2 5 5 5 1 1 4 2 4 5 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 5 4 2 2 4 2 2
26 PM 4 2 2 4 2 2 2 3 4 3 3 3 2 3 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 3 3 4 4 4
27 PM 4 4 4 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 4
28 PM 2 2 4 4 2 1 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4 5 5 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2
29 PM 2 1 4 5 5 1 5 4 5 4 1 4 2 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 5 4 5 4 2 4
30 PM 5 2 2 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
31 PM 5 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4
32 PM 4 5 2 5 3 3 5 3 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 5 3 4 5 4 2 2 4
33 PM 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 5 5 4 2 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
34 PM 4 4 5 5 2 1 5 5 5 5 1 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4
35 PM 5 2 5 5 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 5 5 4 5 4 2 4 4 2 2
36 PM 2 2 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 1 1 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 2
37 PM 2 2 2 5 4 2 5 2 5 5 4 2 4 2 4 5 4 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 3 4
38 PM 5 4 5 5 2 2 1 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 2 4 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 2 2 2 4
39 PM 4 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 3 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 1 1 2 2 2
40 PM 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
41 PM 4 4 4 5 3 2 4 5 5 5 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 2 4 1 1 1
42 PM 5 1 2 4 2 2 4 5 5 5 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4
43 PM 4 4 5 5 1 1 5 4 5 5 1 4 2 1 5 4 4 4 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4
44 PM 5 5 5 5 5 1 2 4 5 4 2 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 2 2 2 4 2
45 PM 4 2 2 5 4 1 2 5 5 5 1 4 2 1 5 4 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 2 2 1 1 1
46 PM 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3
47 PM 4 4 5 5 1 1 5 4 5 5 1 4 2 1 5 4 4 4 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4
48 Sa M 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 5 5 5 1 2 2 4 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 2 2 3 2
49 Sa M 3 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 3 4 3 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 2 3
50 Sa M 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 5 5 5 1 2 2 4 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 2 2 3 2
51 Sa M 5 2 1 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
52 Sa M 4 2 2 5 4 2 5 4 5 5 3 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 5 4 4 2 4 1 1 1
53 Sup 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 3 3 3 1 2 2 4 3 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 3 2 2 3 3
54 Sup 4 4 5 5 4 2 4 4 5 5 1 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 2 2 2 4
55 Sup 5 4 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 5 2 4 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 2 2
56 Sup 4 4 5 5 1 1 5 4 5 5 1 4 2 1 5 4 4 4 4 2 5 5 4 4 4 2 2 4 2 4
57 Sup 5 4 4 5 4 2 4 5 4 5 2 4 5 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
102
58 Sup 5 4 5 5 4 2 4 5 5 5 1 4 4 4 2 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 2 2 2 2 4
59 Sup 4 4 4 4 2 2 4 4 2 3 2 4 2 2 4 2 3 2 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 1 1 1 3 3
60 Sup 4 4 4 5 5 2 4 4 5 5 2 2 4 4 4 5 2 5 2 5 4 5 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 3
61 Sup 5 5 5 5 4 1 4 4 4 4 1 1 1 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4
62 Sup 5 4 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 5 2 4 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 2 2
63 Sup 5 4 5 5 5 4 2 4 4 5 2 4 2 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 2 4 4 2 2 2
64 Sup 5 4 4 5 4 2 4 5 4 5 2 4 5 4 2 4 5 4 4 4 5 4 5 4 4 2 2 2 2 5
65 Sup 5 2 2 4 2 2 4 5 4 5 1 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 1 1 5
66 Sup 5 2 2 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 4
67 Sup 5 2 2 2 5 5 1 2 2 4 2 4 3 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
68 Sup 5 5 4 5 2 4 5 4 4 4 1 4 4 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 3 1 1 2 1 2
69 Sup 5 5 4 5 1 5 4 5 5 5 1 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 5 1 1 2 1 2
70 Sup 4 1 2 4 1 2 4 4 4 4 1 4 2 2 5 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
71 Sup 5 1 4 1 2 2 2 5 5 4 1 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 3 2 2 4 4 4
72 Sup 4 2 2 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 1 4 2 2 5 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 1 2 2 2 1
73 Sup 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 5 2 4 3 5 4 5 4 2 2 5 5 5 4 4 5 1 2 2 2 4
74 QS 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 5 2 4 4 3 4 2 3 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 4
75 QS 4 2 2 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 5 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2
76 SA 5 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 4
77 SA 4 2 2 5 5 2 4 5 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 2 2 1 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 4 2 4
78 SA 4 2 2 5 4 2 4 4 4 5 1 4 2 2 5 4 2 2 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4
79 SA 4 2 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 5 4 2 4 4 4 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 2
80 CM 4 4 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 1 1 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 2 2 2 4 2 4 4
81 CM 4 1 1 5 1 2 2 4 5 5 3 3 4 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 4 4
82 CM 4 4 2 4 2 2 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 2 2 2 2 4 4 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 4
83 CM 5 4 4 4 2 2 5 5 5 5 1 2 2 2 5 4 2 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 1 4 4 2 4 5
84 CM 5 2 2 5 2 2 5 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 4 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
85 CM 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 2 2 1 2 4
86 CM 2 2 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 2 4 2 4 4 4 2 4 4 4 4 2 4 4 2 2 4 2 4
103
APPENDIX 3
TOTALS OBTAINED FOR EACH
QUESTION
Figure 8 Totals for Question 1
50
45 43
40
35
32
30
25
20
15
10 8
5
2
1
0
Strongly Agree Agree 1
No Opinion Disagree Strongly Disagree
40
35
35 34
30
25
20
15
10 9
8
0
0
106
Figure 10 Totals for question 3
40
35 34
30
26
25
22
20
15
10
5 4
0
0
107
60
50
50
40
31
30
20
10
4
1
0
0
Strongly Agree Agree No Opinion
1 Disagree Strongly Disagree
108
45
40 39
35
30
25
22
20
15
13
10
10
5
2
0
109
70
61
60
50
40
30
20
11
10 9
0
0
110
Figure 14 Totals for Questions 7
60
50 48
40
30
20
20
15
10
3
0
0
111
60
55
50
40
30
23
20
10
6
2
0
0
112
60
50 48
40
33
30
20
10
0 0
0
113
40
38
37
35
30
25
20
15
10
6
5 4
1
0
114
50
45 43
40
35
30
27
25
20
15
10 9
7
0
0
115
60
51
50
40
30
24
20
10 9
2
0
0
116
50
45 44
40
35
30
30
25
20
15
10
5 5
5
2
0
117
50
45
45
40
35
30
25 24
20
15
10 9
6
5
2
0
118
50
45 43
40
35
32
30
25
20
15
10 8
5
2
1
0
119
50
46
45
40
35
30
27
25
20
15
11
10
5
2
0
0
120
40
38
35
33
30
25
20
15
12
10
5
3
0
0
121
45
41
40
35 34
30
25
20
15
10
7
5 4
0
0
122
45
40
40
36
35
30
25
20
15
10
7
5
2
1
0
123
60
50 49
40
30
20 19
15
10
2
1
0
124
70
60
60
50
40
30
20 18
10
4
3
1
0
125
50
45
45
40
35
30
25
25
20
15
11
10
5 4
1
0
126
60
53
50
40
30
20 18
13
10
2
0
0
127
60
57
50
40
30
20
14
10 8
6
1
0
128
60
54
50
40
30
20
13
11
10
6
0
129
60
50 49
40
30
20
20
10
10
4
3
0
130
45
41
40
35
31
30
25
20
15
10
7
6
5
1
0
131
50
45
45
40
35
30 29
25
20
15
10 8
5
2 2
0
132
60
56
50
40
30
20
16
10 8
6
0
0
133
60
50 48
40
30
25
20
10
5
4 4
0
134
APPENDIX 4
RESPONSE TOTALS TO EACH
SECTION
Figure 38 Part 1a General External Motivators
180
164
160
140
126
120
112
100
80
60
40
25
20
3
0
Figure 39 Part 1b General External Motivators
250
197
200
150
114
98
100
50
15
6
0
137
Figure 40 Part 2 Costs Associated with Implementing Health and Safety Management
200
178
180
160
143
140
120
100
80
60
46
38
40
25
20
0
138
Figure 41 Part 3 Time Pressures Affecting Implementation of Health and Safety Management
250
202
200
157
150
100
56
50
8 7
0
139
Figure 42 Part 4 Integrated Health and Safety
300
269
250
200
150
100 88
47
50
21
5
0
140
Figure 43 Part 5 Client Pressure
250
216
200
150 144
APPENDIX 5
100
RANK CORELLATION OF CATEGORIES
50
37
16 17
0
141
APPENDIX 5
RANK CORELLATION FOR
SUBJECT CATEGORIES
Table 22 Rank Corellation of Construction Managers and Supervisors
Construction Managers and Supervisors Compared CM Sup di

1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 16 20 -4 16
2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 8.5 12.5 -4 16
3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 13 15 -2 4
5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 1 6.5 -5.5 30.25
6 Time allowed during negotiation period to assess and plan 5.5 6.5 -1 1
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 13 8 5 25
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 16 9 7 49
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 5.5 1 4.5 20.25
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 5.5 4 1.5 2.25
14 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 5.5 5 0.5 0.25
16 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 16 17.5 -1.5 2.25
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 18.5 17.5 1 1
construction.
19 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a 10.5 19 -8.5 72.25
project.
Total Di2 669.5
143
Table 23 Ranking of Construction Managers and Project Managers
Construction Managers and Project Managers Compared CM PM di

2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 8.5 9 -0.5 0.25
3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 13 16.5 -3.5 12.25
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 13 10.5 2.5 6.25
16 Clients give health & safety equal importance to other factors 16 18 -2 4
construction.
project.
Total Di2 370
144
Table 24 Ranking of Construction Managers and Project Engineers
Construction Managers and Project Engineers Compared CM PE di

11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 3 4 -1 1
construction.
project.
Total Di2 714.5
145
Table 25 Ranking of Construction Managers and Quantity Surveyors
Construction Managers and Quantity Surveyors Compared CM QS di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 13 6.5 6.5 42.25
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 16 3.5 12.5 156.25
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 5.5 6.5 -1 1
construction.
19 Clients regularly attend health & safety meetings during a 10.5 13.5 -3 9
project.
Total Di2 1320
146
Table 26 Ranking of Construction Managers and Safety Managers
Construction Managers and Safety Managers Compared CM SaM di

13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 5.5 5.5 0 0
14 Integrating health & safety with other management systems will 5.5 2.5 3 9
construction.
project.
Total Di2 728
147
Table 27 Ranking of Construction Managers and Site Agents
Construction Managers and Site Agents Compared CM SA di

1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 16 19.5 -3.5 12.25
12 Health & safety should be integrated within general quality 5.5 15 -9.5 90.25
construction.
project.
Total Di2 842
148
Table 28 Ranking of Supervisors and Project Engineers
Supervisors and Project Engineers Compared Sup PE di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 15 15 0 0
4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 12.5 4 8.5 72.25
5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 6.5 1 5.5 30.25
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 10 16.5 -6.5 42.25
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 9 11 -2 4
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 4 6 -2 4
construction.
project.
Total 499.5
Di2
149
Table 29 Ranking of Supervisors and Project Managers
Supervisors and Project Managers Compared Sup PM di

4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 12.5 15 -2.5 6.25
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 10 13 -3 9
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 4 4 0 0
construction.
project.
Total Di2 188.5
150
Table 30 Ranking of Supervisors and Site Agents
Supervisors and Site Agents Compared Sup SA di

construction.
project.
Total Di2 842
151
Table 31 Ranking of Supervisors and Safety Managers
Supervisors and Safety Managers Compared Sup SaM di

4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 12.5 5.5 7 49
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 4 5.5 -1.5 2.25
construction.
project.
Total Di2 375
152
Table 32 Ranking of Supervisors and Quantity Surbeyors
Supervisors and Quantity Surveyors Compared Sup QS di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 15 6.5 8.5 72.25
5 Health & safety management costs are an integral part of 6.5 10 -3.5 12.25
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 10 10 0 0
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 14 10 4 16
Total Di2 898
153
Table 33 Ranking of Quantity Surveyors and Project Engineers
Quantity Surveyors and Project Engineers Compared QS PE di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 6.5 15 -8.5 72.25
6 Time allowed during negotiation period to assess and plan 13.5 13.5 0 0
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 17.5 18 -0.5 0.25
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 3.5 8 -4.5 20.25
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 3.5 4 -0.5 0.25
construction.
project.
Total Di2 926.5
154
Table 34 Ranking of Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers
Quantity Surveyors and Project Managers Compared QS PM di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 6.5 16.5 -10 100
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 17.5 10.5 7 49
8 During construction there is limited time to implement 10 13 -3 9
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 3.5 7.5 -4 16
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 3.5 2 1.5 2.25
construction.
project.
Total Di2 1128.5
155
Table 35 Ranking of Quantity Surveyors and Safety Managers
Quantity Surveyors and Safety Managers Compared QS SaM di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 6.5 16.5 -10 100
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 17.5 13.5 4 16
9 Site delays increase the likelihood of not implementing health 3.5 8.5 -5 25
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 3.5 4 -0.5 0.25
construction.
project.
Total Di2 1067.5
156
Table 36 Ranking of Quantity Surveyors and Site Agents
Quantity Surveyors and Site Agents Compared QS SA di

3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 6.5 15 -8.5 72.25
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 17.5 15 2.5 6.25
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 3.5 2 1.5 2.25
11 Health & safety should be enrolled into management 3.5 7.5 -4 16
construction.
project.
Total Di2 1235.5
157
Table 37 Ranking of Project Managers and Project Engineers
Project Managers and Project Engineers Compared PM PE di

2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 9 10 -1 1
10 Health & safety management implementation decreases when 7.5 8 -0.5 0.25
13 Internal non-conformance notices would increase health & 4 6 -2 4
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 13 12 1 1
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 10.5 13.5 -3 9
Total Di2 331.5
158
Table 38 Ranking of Project Managers and Safety Managers
Project Managers and Safety Managers Compared PM SaM di

2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 9 13.5 -4.5 20.25
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 10.5 13.5 -3 9
18 Clients carry out regular health & safety audits during 13 19 -6 36
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 10.5 18 -7.5 56.25
Total Di2 346
159
Table 39 Ranking of Project Managers and Site Agents
Project Managers and Site Agents Compared PM SA di

1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 20 19.5 0.5 0.25
2 Costs associated with health & safety management are 9 7.5 1.5 2.25
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 10.5 7.5 3 9
Total Di2 775.5
160
Table 40 Ranking of Site Agents and Project Engineers
Site Agents and Projects Engineers Compared SA PE di

1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 19.5 20 -0.5 0.25
3 Health & safety management costs are omitted during tender 15 15 0 0
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 7.5 13.5 -6 36
Total Di2 574
161
Table 41 Ranking of Site Agents and Safety Managers
Site Agents and Safety Managers Compared SA SaM di

1 Costs of implementing health & safety management are 19.5 20 -0.5 0.25
4 Pressure during construction to keep costs down affects health 7.5 5.5 2 4
7 Time is limited during construction to assess and plan health & 15 13.5 1.5 2.25
construction.
project.
20 Clients lay down strict requirements for health & safety 7.5 18 -10.5 110.25
Total Di2 572
162
Table 42 Ranking of Safety Managers and Project Engineers
Safety Managers and Project Engineers Compared SaM PE di

construction.
project.
Total Di2 246
163

Health &amp; Safety Management

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Health &amp; Safety Management

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Health and Safety Management:

Factors Affecting Implementation

William James Wootton

William James Wootton

This dissertation is submitted to the School of the Built Environment of

Liverpool John Moores University in part fulfilment of the requirements

for the MSc in Construction (Health & Safety) Management.

William James Wootton

Figure 1 Summary of losses identified+ 18

Table 1 Differences in safety management systems 12

William James Wootton

The survey revealed that:

Rationale for the Research

! Safety inspections carried out by the Principal Contractors site

The objectives of the research is to:

! To provide a general overview of the principles of health and safety

! To survey the project management teams identified in the aim and

! The costs of health and safety

! Time pressures affecting health and safety.

! Integrated health and safety

! To test whether various members of the project management teams have

A method of encompassing the principles into one coherent system is needed

! Management demonstrates visible commitment to safety

He goes on to say that effective motivation and communication has to be

The primary measure of safety The primary measure of safety

Incident investigation focuses on root Incident investigation focuses on

Management safety evaluation is based Management safety evaluation is

Activities are orientated toward Activities are orientated to physical

Behaviour based safety practices are Safe practices are developed in

Group recognition is based on improving Group recognition is based on safe

A normal part of business

Industry is committed to the advancement of standards in health and safety

“Policies that reduce the frequency and severity of industrial

They go on to state that:

Wooden and Vandenheuvel (1999)29 carry a similar notion in his article

Table 2 Costs associated with accidents

Uninsured Costs (indirect) Insured Costs (direct)

Total Loss Annualised loss Representing

In contrast to Larcher and Sohail, Laufer (1987)37 conducted a study of

The risks encountered by employees in their work situations vary according to

Comparing the costs of health and safety to the risks encountered by

Another example of economic analysis is given by Friend (1992)40 who

Cost is considered to be a major resource when managing projects. Contract

! Safety performance compromised because of inadequate tendering

! Explicitly addressing safety would increase cost of tender.

“ There was no obvious positive inducement for companies to

Whittington et al (1992) carried out a survey on factors that undermine health

The survey undertaken by the Institution of Civil Engineers, mentioned

Nichols and Armstrong (1973)52 concluded similar thoughts in their analysis of

This notion of integrating health and safety management into other

Quality management, health &safety and environmental protection are

! Truly help safe and efficient operations

! Are user friendly and accepted by all parties

! Do not require excessive bureaucracy

! Can provide a disciplined framework for best practice exchange

! Will involve the workforce, providing method statements within activity

! Creates seamless activities, rather than ‘silos’ containing parts only of an

The issue of developing a policy of integrating health and safety is discussed

“They are not backed up by company-wide quality style

! Product and customer focus

! Organisational and employee knowledge

! Employee responsibility and excellence

! Long range view point

! Concentrate on the long-range goals of developing world class systems

Health & Safety Management

Health & Safety Management