República Checa

Mthalane, et al. (2008) conducted a study to assess the impact of site accidents and notes that besides the human cost of suffering accidents, the economic effects can be far more surpassing. Accidents in the work environment are financially costly, they interrupt the flow of work and cause human suffering (Lehto and Salvendy, 1991). The costs associated with equipment damage and injuries, as well as the financial loss as a result of schedule disruptions, worker compensation and insurance hikes, all negatively affect the profitability of

- 39 -

any operation, the cost of replacing labour and that of investigations after the accident (Zwi, et al., 1988; Haslam, et al., 2005; Abudayyeh, et al., 2006). Agumba and Haupt (2008) reveal a shocking report that construction accidents in South Africa are liable for about 3.5% of its gross domestic product (GDP), which translates to about R30 billion. However, according to SACPCMP (2012), the cost of accidents in South Africa is estimated between R2.6 – R3.5 billion per year. Agumba and Haupt (2008) assert that occupational diseases and accidents in construction result in huge costs on South Africans.

Mthalane, et al. (2008) highlight that construction accidents have adverse economic and social impacts on both the employers and workers alike. These costs might be avoided or reduced through effective safety practices on construction sites. Abudayyeh, et al. (2006) argue that injuries can directly affect the individuals involved in the accident and on the work itself. The effects include the suffering of the accident victims, delays in construction, losses in productivity, higher insurance premiums as a result of the injuries, as well as the possibility of liability lawsuits for all individual parties involved in the construction project. On the other hand, there are also indirect effects, for instance, the late delivery of the project implies that the contractor might lose revenue. On the part of the workers, reduced morale might result in low productivity. Thus, the cost implications associated with illnesses and injuries can hugely affect the construction organisation. The fact is that organisations cannot afford to insure against all the costs associated with accidents. However, preventing accidents from happening is possible, which would save the organisation in terms of finance, time and causing harm (Haupt and Pillay, 2008). It is important to note that clients are responsible for bearing the costs associated with accidents.

Haupt and Pillay (2008) observe that a lot of research investigated the costs associated with ill-health and occupational accidents and not much has been done in terms of assessing the economic benefits of health and safety. Haupt and Pillay (2008) thus argue that accidents are avoidable. Preventing accidents yields positive results in terms of performance and economic benefits.

Considering the fact that designers are mostly concerned with optimising value, it means they should also contribute to efforts towards the mitigation of accidents (Smallwood and Haupt, 2005). The cost of accidents (CoA) can either be direct or indirect, thus, collectively constituting the total CoA. The CoA refers to the monetary measure that relates to all stakeholders, as it can be calculated as a percentage of organisation business volume or the value of the completed construction (Smallwood and Haupt, 2005; Pillay and Haupt, 2008;

- 40 -

CIDB, 2009a). The direct and indirect costs of accidents are explained in the section that follows.

2.8.2 Direct and Indirect Costs

Direct costs are those directly attributed to or associated with injuries. They are typically the costs covered by workers’ compensation insurance premiums. For example, direct costs entail medical, ambulance service, treatment, hospitalisation, disability benefits, etc. Direct costs are well comprehended and can be quantified with some degree of accuracy (Smallwood and Haupt, 2005; Hinze, 2006; CIDB, 2009a). Contrary to direct costs, indirect costs are the responsibility of the contractors and are the most elusive component of the costs of construction worker injuries. Indirect costs can be considered as those that are hidden, or for which no historical record is kept. Smallwood and Haupt (2005) report that research done in South Africa determined the indirect costs to be 14.2 times the direct costs. Unfortunately, there are no means of retrieving the information, so as to precisely associate them with injuries. The most obvious indirect costs are those associated with the injured construction worker. When a worker sustains an injury, it is standard practice for the injured worker to continue to earn his wages whilst undergoing treatment. Upon return to work, it is very likely that consequent to the injury, the worker would not function at maximum productivity. For example, indirect costs include the cost of lost time of injured worker, reduced productivity due to anxiety by other workers, cost of lost time by management attending to the accident, cost of overhead, loss of profit due to reduced worker productivity, litigation costs, investigation time, etc. (Hinze, 2006; Mthalane, et al., 2008; Pillay and Haupt, 2008; CIDB, 2009a). The occurrence of accidents on site has inevitably the potential damage to a company’s reputation.

Haslam, et al. (2005) argue that the issue of safety in the construction industry has been a concern for a long time. In this view, the country still has a lot to learn from the past. In the construction industry, accidents result in continuous costs to the workers, employers and the society as a whole. In determining the CoA, Pillay and Haupt (2008) confirm that indirect costs surpass direct costs associated with accidents and therefore pointed that in reality, these costs are just but a slice of the costs involved. The next section presents the key legislation on health and safety in South Africa.

- 41 -