BEHAVIOURAL SAFETY AMONGST CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SUPPLY CHAIN CONTRACTORS Shelley Stiles 1,2, David Golightly 1 and John R. Wilson 1,3. 1 Human Factors Research Group, University of Nottingham 2 2020 SHE Solutions Ltd 3 Ergonomics Specialist Team, Network Rail The view that behavioural safety programmes focus amongst Principal Contractors only, and are not embraced by contracting organisations within the supply chain is explored. Two baseline surveys have been undertaken to determine the extent of such programmes within the supply chain, whether the programme contents are supportive of literature, and are considered effective at improving safety performance. The paper appraises the behavioural safety programmes within infrastructure engineering sector, and makes recommendations for future research. The UK Construction Industry Infrastructure Engineering Sector The UK Construction industry employs over two million people, the majority within small to medium sized enterprises (SME s). The construction industry contributes to more than 1billion to the UK economy and employs 4% of UK workforce across a variety of sectors (Office for National Statistics 2011) with the workforce working across 170-200,000 firms (DTI 2011). Almost 90% are working in SME s employing less than 10 people (HSE 2009). Approximately one third of the construction industry activities is within the design, construction, maintenance, enhancement, repair and demolition of transport infrastructure i.e. roads and rail. This paper focuses on this sector. The overall safety performance of the construction industry is relatively poor in comparison with other UK industries. There were 50 fatal injuries in the UK construction industry in 2010/11 period (29% of all fatal injuries across the main industries), which is a rate of 2.4 fatalities per 100,000 workers (HSE 2011a). The main measure of safety performance is derived from lagging indicators such as
total days lost (absence), accident incidence rate and accident frequency and fatality rates. In accordance with CDM 2007 projects are delivered on behalf of client organisations by Principal Contractors (PCs). PCs in turn procure second and third tier subcontractors to deliver specialist works often referred to as the supply chain. This is an important characteristic of the industry as research has shown that SME s typically have less adequate control and arrangements for health and safety (Walters and James 2009). A project delivery organisation is established with a number of companies co-ordinated via contractual obligations, for a determined period of time. This study considers a typical PC and supply chain hierarchy, common across the infrastructure engineering sector referred to as project delivery organisation (PDO) for the remainder of this paper. Whilst there is considerable research on the contents of behavioural safety programmes (referred to as BSPs for the remainder of this paper), research to date does not consider how the interfaces and relationships between PCs and their supply chain impacts on safety behaviours. This study appraises the view that BSPs focus amongst PCs only, and are yet to be embraced by the second and third tier contracting organisations within the supply chain. SME s Contribution to Safety Performance It is recognised through previous research that companies employing less than 100 people have a tendency for higher accident rates, indicative of poor safety performance (Vickers et al 2003, Fairman and Yapp 2005). Construction industry studies by HSE showed that companies within this sector employing less than 400 people have significantly poorer safety performance than larger organisations (HSE 2011). Traditionally a company employing less than 250 people was considered to be a SME as defined by the European Commission in 1996. It can be concluded that whilst there is no uniform consensus on the employee thresholds for being classified as a SME; those organisations employing fewer people tend to have poorer safety performance, but why? Typical characteristics include (Walters and James 2009): less financial security which impacts on money allocated to safety e.g. resources, training, investment in safety equipment etc; a lack of full time and/or internal health and safety personnel appointed by the company resulting in a reduced awareness of safety requirements and a lack of ownership and leadership to improve safety; informal safety arrangements as opposed to formal safety management systems, which directs the management of safety throughout day to day operations. Such characteristics reside within the supply chain, and when these organisations are procured as part of a PDO, they bring their safety behaviours and subsequent performance with them.
Behavioural Safety and the Supply Chain Research has shown that 90% of accidents are attributed to human behaviour (Heinrich et al 1980) subsequently the industry is focusing safety improvements on behaviour. Over the last decade PCs have been implementing BSPs, following on from their reported success in other industries; oil and gas etc (Fleming and Lardner 2000). A BSP is a wide term for any activity focused on changing workplace behaviours that cause (or are believed to cause) accidents. Whilst there are a number of different BSPs, many of them have similar principals; some programmes focus on one or more of the elements listed below (Fleming and Lardner 2000). Visible safety leadership where senior management show their commitment to safety; Two way communication throughout the organisation, and a means for obtaining feedback from the workforce; Engagement, involvement and inclusion of everyone in safety decision making; Peer observation of working practices to identify safe and unsafe behaviours during specific tasks; Use of coaches to promote good safety behaviours in the workplace; Assessment of safety culture or climate through use of attitude and perception surveys; Awareness training of psychological principles that describe how and why people behave in particular ways; Accident investigation techniques involving human factors, undertaken in a manner which avoids a desire to attribute blame. There have been a number of papers reviewing and comparing such programmes across a breadth of industries. Whilst all of the research states that there is no one way of achieving behavioural change, they consider that using behavioural safety techniques helps improve safety performance (Fleming and Lardner 2000). There has been limited research undertaken to assess the effectiveness of behavioural safety within the UK construction industry (Marsh et al 1995 and Cooper et al 1993), although there has been studies in other countries (Glendon and Litherland 2001, Mohammed 2002 and McDonald and Hrymak 2002). None of the research addresses the impact of SME s on safety behaviour within UK construction. There is anecdotal evidence within the infrastructure engineering sector that behavioural safety improves safety performance, but research to date has found limited evidence to support this, particularly in relation to a reduction in accident statistics. Therefore this section provides a qualitative review of factors that may impact on the effectiveness of a BSP within the supply chain. Many of the principal components of a BSP listed previously are common with the characteristics of an organisation with a positive safety culture. Indeed research
(Dingsdag et al 2006, Cooper and Phillips 2004) consider that in order for a BSP to work a positive safety culture needs to be in place. Therefore a PDO s safety culture may be affected by the high proportion of outsourcing particularly as the majority of work is delivered by SME s (Winkler and Irwin 2003). A summary outsourcing impacts are dependent on the safety attitude, leadership and commitment of PC, involvement, allocation of responsibilities and access to health and safety resources of SME, established communication and trust-based relationships between both parties. With reference to these, it is clear that there are a number of impacts which do not align with organisations who have a positive safety culture. For example: 360 communication and involvement on safety related matters but PDO s have unclear lines of communication; A stable workforce but the supply chain has contract uncertainty and lack job security, undermining trust within relationships; Access to competent health and safety advice, but the supply chain has limited access to resources. Therefore it can be concluded that as the structure of a PDO being made up of a significant number of SME s, it should be expected that safety performance is negatively affected. The industry characteristics of creating PDO s based on outsourcing, indicate that there are many challenges to be tackled for BSPs to be effective. Yet behavioural safety is given priority across the industry as a means of improving safety performance amongst PCs. This study appraises the implementation of BSPs within PDO s to determine whether their focus is amongst PCs only, and whether such programmes are yet to be embraced by the supply chain. Survey Methods Employed As part of this study two surveys have been carried out within the infrastructure engineering sector to understand: Objective 1 - the extent of BSPs within the supply chain; Objective 2 - whether the supply chain BSP contents are supportive of the literature on this subject; Objective 3 - whether the BSPs are considered to be effective at improving safety performance (a reduction in accident statistics). Each survey was undertaken for two different PCs who work within the road and rail sectors, and their supply chain; identified as Supply Chain A and B. Both PCs had their own BSP in place. All of the PCs were involved in the communication of the hardcopy questionnaire survey to their supply chains, and requested their participation. Completed questionnaires were returned anonymously and analysed qualitatively by the author. Text fields and comments were coded prior to analysis. The development of the questionnaire made reference to the work of Fleming and Lardner (2000).
Analysis of Results For the two questionnaire surveys the response rates were: Supply chain A = 88 questionnaires issued, response rate of 56.8% (N50) Supply chain B = 121 questionnaires issued, response rate 12% (N15) Table 1: Summary of results Objective Survey Question(s) Supply Chain A 1 Do you have a BSP in place? Have you been requested to follow other Clients and PC s BSPs? 2 Do you have specific objectives for your programme? Is your programme applied to subcontractors, suppliers and or/other supply chain organisations within your business? Does your company have a nominated champion for behavioural safety? Have you delivered any training for behavioural safety in your company? 3 Have there been any key successes of your own/another organisation s BSP? 16% (N8) 40% (N20) 75% (N6) 75% (N6) 87.5% (N7) 100% (N8) Supply Chain B 40% (N5) 72% (N10) 80% (N4) 50% (N2) 75% (N3) 50% (N2) 85% (N17) 86% (N6) BSP Objectives Table 2: Objective 2 detailed results BSP Champions Code Explanation Total Code Explanation Total Visible safety leadership 10% (N2) Directors 4% (N3) Improved safety management 5% (N1) Managers 72% (N61) Improved safety culture 19% (N4) Organisational alignment 14% (N3) Personal responsibility for safety 14% (N3) Engagement on safety 14% (N3) No injuries or deaths 14% (N3) Health and Safety Reps Support functions External people 13% (N11) 6% (N5) 5% (N4)
Safety first prioritise safety 10% (N2) Objective 1 It is concluded that there is a small proportion of the supply chain that have a BSP in place, even though many had been requested to follow other Clients/PCs BSPs. Objective 2 It is concluded that the contents of BSPs within the supply chain are varied, and although they do support literature there is not one standard approach. A qualitative analysis of the comments provided on the questionnaires has identified that the most common objectives were to improve safety culture. The most common groups of people appointed as champions were managers and health and safety representatives (refer to table 2). Objective 3 It is concluded that there is a perception amongst a large percentage of supply chain that BSPs are beneficial at improving safety performance. The main successes were noted as increased awareness of behavioural safety (25%), increased engagement within the company and an improvement in accident statistics (20% each). Discussion This study has appraised the application of BSPs within the supply chain of the infrastructure engineering industry to understand the interfaces and relationships between PCs and their supply chain in relation to behavioural safety. Research has shown that PCs are focusing on behavioural safety as a means of improving safety performance of the PDO. Indeed a number of PCs are requesting the supply chain follow their BSP (supply chain A 40% and B 72%). Therefore it would be expected that BSPs are prevalent amongst the supply chain. This study identified only a small proportion of this group had a BSP (supply chain A 16% and B 33%), supporting the view that BSPs are yet to be embraced within the supply chain. A review of the literature may provide explanation of this imbalance. As the supply chain are SME s, they are associated with financial insecurity, a lack of dedicated health and safety resources and informal safety arrangements (Walters and James 2009). In addition the supply chain having a BSP was not included as a contractual requirement from PC s within this study. It has already been identified that visible safety leadership and management commitment are an important component of a BSP (Fleming and Lardner 2000, Winkler and Irwin 2003). The statutory responsibility for managing safety of a PDO lies with the PC, yet this study has identified a leadership and commitment gap as PC s are not addressing BSP requirements within their contracts. It is recommended for further research to identify the significance of PC s leadership influence on BSP amongst their supply chains.
However, both surveys identified 85% and 86% of respondents noting particular success of their own/third party BSPs with increased awareness, engagement and improved accident statistics. This would suggest that whilst there may be a requirement to have a BSP there are factors preventing application; resources, cost, time, awareness and understanding. As one of the successes was increased awareness, there may be a lack of understanding of the benefits of such a programme amongst this group; particularly considering the small proportion of the supply chain who actually have a BSP. Existing behavioural safety research has identified a number of key principles for a BSP which this study appraised for second and third tier contractors in the infrastructure engineering sector. Those BSPs that are in place within the supply chain are aligned to literature to a greater or lesser extent. The setting of objectives for improving safety culture, nomination of champions to lead behavioural safety in the workplace, and the delivery of behavioural safety awareness training are all included within their programmes. However this study has found that there is not one standard approach across all of the supply chain. It is recommended that further research is undertaken to better understand the relevance of behavioural safety key principles for SME s in the infrastructure engineering sector. Potential Limitations The sample included within the study is considered to be representative of both road and rail sectors of a PC s supply chain with organisations of varying disciplines, and size being invited to participate. Due to the anonymous nature of the surveys it is not possible to identify demographic trends amongst the respondents. This may be worthwhile pursuing in further studies. The method chosen for the distribution of the survey was via letter and hard copy. Although completion of paperwork may have reduced the number of responses, the questionnaire was very short. Even though the sample for supply chain B is small in number, across the two surveys 209 questionnaires were issued with an overall response rate of 31% (N65). As there was an above average response rate across the two surveys, this potential limitation is not considered significant. To overcome this, the study could have surveyed the supply chains of other PC s. Conclusion This study has found that whilst PCs are implementing BSPs their effectiveness may be diluted by the supply chain with their non-application of behavioural safety. It is recommended that further research is undertaken to confirm the significance of SME s BSPs within this sector of industry and to gain a greater understanding of the factors that influence such organizations to establish BSPs. Consideration may also be given to how the effectiveness of BSPs is measured.
References Cooper, M.D. and Phillips, R.A. (2004) Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety behaviour relationship Journal of Safety Research Vol 35 Pages 497 512 Dingsdag, Donald, P and Sheahan, Vaughn L, and Biggs, Herbert, C, (2006) Safety Culture in the Construction Industry: Changing behaviour through enforcement and education? In Proceedings Clients Driving Innovation: Moving Ideas into Practice. The Second International Conference of the CRC for Construction Innovation DTI (July 2011) Chapter 3 Structure of the Construction Industry London, The Stationary Office Fairman, R, and Yapp, C. (2005) Making an impact on SME compliance behaviour: An evaluation of the effect of interventions upon compliance with health and safety legislation in small and medium sized enterprises HMSO London Fleming, M. And Lardner, R. (2000) Behaviour modification programmes establishing best practice HSE Glendon, A.I. and McKenna, E.F. (1995) Human Safety and Risk Management Chapman and Hall London Glendon, A.I. and Litherland, D.K. (2001) Safety climate factors, group differences and safety behaviour in road construction Safety Science Vol 39 Iss 3 Pages 157-188 Heinrich, H.W. Peterson, D. and Ross, N. (1980) Industrial Accident Prevention: A Safety Management Approach. Mc-Graw Hill Book Co. New York. HSE (2009) HSE Construction Intelligence Report - Analysis of construction injury and ill health intelligence HSE Pages 6, 8 HSE (2011a) http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm HSE (2011b) Targeting Worker involvement Initiatives HSE Marsh, T.W. Robertson, I.T. Duff, A.R. Phillips, R.A. Cooper, M.D. and Weyman, A. (1995) Improving safety behaviour using goal setting and feedback Leadership and Organisation Development Journal Vol 6 Iss1 MCB University Press Ltd Pages 5-12 McDonald, N. and Hrymak, V. (2002) Safety Behaviour in the Construction Industry OSHII Mohamed, S. (2002) Safety climate in construction environments Journal of Construction Engineering and Management Vol 128 Iss 5 Pages 375-384 Office for National Statistics (2011) Output in the construction industry - 1st quarter 2011 Vickers, I. Baldock, R. Smallbone, D. James, P. and Ekanem, I. (2003) Cultural influences on health and safety attitudes and behaviour in small businesses HMSO, London Walters, D. and James, P. (2009) Understanding the role of supply chains in influencing health and safety at work IOSH Winkler, C. and Irwin, J.N. (2003) Contractorisation aspects of health and safety in the supply chain HMSO