Within the industry there is a commonality of events and causal factors that can contribute indirectly to an accident (Baxendale and Jones 2000). In a special issue of the ‘Proceedings of the institution of Civil Engineers’ Civil Engineering’ journal several leading authors investigated case studies of engineering failures. The authors point out that with ever-increasing
specialisation in civil engineering projects, communication and understanding at every point are vital to preserving safety (Mann 2008). Others have suggested that more attention could be paid to the psychological aspects of learning from failure (Kletz 2008). An interesting message relayed is that just as ‘problems’ have been rebranded as ‘challenges’, perhaps ‘failure’ should be replaced with something less emotionally charged. But after almost all of the incidents reported, opportunities for the industry to improve safety are missed (Byfield 2008).
Protecting construction workers and others against risks to health and safety arising from work activities, requires a firm set of procedures, protocols and criteria for assessing successes and failures. The HSE’s philosophy for securing the health, safety and welfare of persons at work is set out in “Reducing Risk Protecting People”. The document commonly referred to as “R2P2” (HSE 2001), sets out the basis and criteria by which the HSE, in complying with its functions, decides upon the degree and form of regulatory control that it believes should be put in place for addressing occupational hazards. It considers the way scientific evidence (or the lack of it) and uncertainties are taken into account and how the balance is struck between the benefits of
adopting a measure to avoid or control the risks, and its disadvantages. The findings of the R2P2 investigation studies reveal a combination of factors for each fatal accident of which the most frequently cited are:
a) the incidence of training factors, experience; b) information and advice deficiencies;
c) risk perception;
d) rescheduling of work without planning; e) minor / one-off jobs;
f) compliance; and
g) equipment operability, space, personal protective equipment (PPE) issues and tools not designed to fit the user / task.
Government departments have paid considerable attention to these findings (Donaghy 2009). However given the speed at which the industry is subject to change (technology, process and procedure), stakeholders must review practice, change and review in the context of future safety challenges.
In a detailed study of 100 construction accidents, (Haslam et al. 2003a, 2003b; Gibb et al. 2005, 2006) identified where safety on construction projects is compromised and why. Illustrating the hierarchy of influences in construction accidents through 13 broad causal factors (see Table 1). Gibb et al. 2005 also point to failings in education, training and the industry’s lack of a safety culture typified by only a superficial appreciation of health and safety considerations from workers both on and off sites. The authors conclude that stakeholders responsible for the
immediate accident circumstances, shaping factors and originating influences must all work hard to remove flaws in their safety systems to ensure that accidents are reduced (Haslam et al. 2003a, 2003b; Gibb et al. 2005, 2006). It should be noted that the accidents studied were not major accidents although the research team did attempt to evaluate the likely outcomes if the accident conditions had been slightly different, with many of the incidents having the potential for major injuries or fatalities, although generally not multiple fatalities which are the focus of this research.
Table 1: Results and implications for the industry (Gibb et al. 2005; 2006)
Workers
Problems arising from workers or the work team, especially worker actions or behaviour and worker capabilities, were judged to have contributed to over two thirds (70%) of the accidents. These problem points to inadequate supervision, education and training. Communication Poor communication within work teams contributed to some accidents, due to the physical distance between work colleagues or high levels of background noise. Non –construction
activity
Many accidents occurred when those involved were not actually performing a construction task (e.g. moving around site).
Workplace factors
Workplace factors, notably poor housekeeping and site layout and space availability problems, were considered to have contributed in half (49%) of the accident studies. Standards of housekeeping and workplace layout are low in construction compared to other industrial sectors.
Poor analysis of causality factors
Despite poor weather often being cited as one of the reasons for construction’s poor safety record, there was little evidence in support of this.
Equipment
Shortcomings with equipment, including personal protective equipment (PPE), were identified in over half (56%) of the incidents. Poor equipment design and inappropriate use of equipment for the task were prominent aspects. Designers, suppliers and purchasers of equipment appeared to give insufficient attention to the safety of users.
Material
Deficiencies with the suitability and condition of materials, including packaging, featured in more than a quarter (27%) of incidents. The operation of the supply/purchase appeared to act as a barrier to innovation as far as safety is concerned.
Risk management
Originating influences, especially inadequacies with risk management, were considered to have been present in almost all (94%) of the accidents. Frequently, no risk assessment had been undertaken covering the circumstances involved in the accident. Where a risk assessment had been carried out, it was often found to be superficial and unlikely to have prevented the accident.
Design
It was judged that up to half of the accidents could have been mitigated through a design change and it was found that, despite the CDM regulations, many designers were failing to address the safety implications of their designs and specifications.
Investigation protocols
Accident investigation by employers or supervising contractors was frequently superficial and of little value to improving safety. HSE investigations seemed to focus on safety failures in the activity being undertaken, without capturing the upstream influences upon these.
Client safety consciousness
The influence from clients on safety appeared limited in the construction sectors predominant in this research (civil engineering, major building, residential). This was, again, despite the responsibilities on clients imposed by CDM.
Generic safety risks
Many of the incidents were caused by commonplace hazards and activities that will continue to occur on site whatever design changes might be made. The widespread presence of the many generic safety risks accompanying construction needs to be tackled before the benefits of design improvements will be realised.