Tenir capacitat per ajustar les propostes al nivell maduratiu dels infants

Within the context of the construction industry, Zohar and Luria (2003) define safety as a state of wellbeing and a guarantee that health of workers are secured before, during and after the completion of a particular piece of construction work. Different countries also have different safety policies that they use. Stranks (2005) saw that the UK for example has been known to use regulations made under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Six Pack Regulations, which spell out almost the same set of regulations for all organised construction firms. Holt (2005) also indicate that in the US, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration spells out Health and safety standards that must be followed by all organisations, both public and private. The different policies can be grouped into government-induced policies and privately induced policies. On the part of government induced policies, Cameron and Quinn (2009) noted that the General Environmental Law (GEL), which was enacted in 2001 and the Environmental Protection Standards (EPS), which was enacted in 1982 have been used to govern activities that could have any impact on the environment, including construction works.

There are existing researches on how safety has been applied at various levels within the construction industry across the globe, particularly in the Middle East. Two researches were conducted in this regard. Zhu, Di, Gui and Clissold (2010) argued for the enactment of a uniformly accepted international safety and health standard and Yule, Flin and Murdy (2011) said that the existing system where safety and health standards are limited to individual countries is the best. In the first study, Cooper (2000) saw that the phenomena of trade liberalisation, globalisation and internationalisation have increasingly proved that an

Page 86 of 334

international standard on safety and health practice within the construction industry is the way forward. In a like manner, Yule, Flin and Murdy (2011) indicated that the merit with this school of thought is that it would consolidate the ideal of a global village and ensure that the enforcement of safety regulations are better backed by stronger institutions which are currently missing. On the other side of the argument, it is said that each country is particular in its own ways and thus has its own safety and health issues within the construction industry. For this reason, Fishback and Kantor (2010) advised that instead of standardising a global principle on health and safety, it is better to allow countries to regulate their own industries according to their history, specialised needs and projections.

As discussed by Flin and colleagues (2000), common qualities on safety climate covered reports from the 1980s to the late 1990s and based on these reports, common themes related to the safety climate included management, safety risks, competence, procedures, and work pressure. In the study by Guldenmund (2000), similar reports revealed issues on safety in terms of management, risk, procedures, work pressure, as well as training. In the study by Glendon and Litherland (2001), they were able to indicate some elements of safety relating to work pressure, relationships, the use of PPEs, communication, as well as rules on safety. Related elements on safety were also pointed out by Mohamed (2002) where the author was able to identify the value of communication, commitment, safety rules, supervisory environments, personal appreciation of risk, as well as work pressure and competence in ensuring worker safety in the construction workplace.

Cox and Flin (1998) indicated in the study that, the safety climate was considered a manifestation of the safety culture. Sawacha and colleagues (1999) discussed how the safety

Page 87 of 334

climate has a favourable impact on worker safety as well as behaviour. In the study by Neal and colleagues (2000), the authors were able to present an understanding of the organisational culture and safety climate while applying the structural equation on modelling. While the study by Glendon and Litherland (2000) was able to present a link between individual safety behaviour and road construction safety, the study did not establish a link between the safety climate and a worker’s individual actions and behaviour. The study by Mohamed (2002) was able to establish a link between the safety climate and safe work behaviour. Different researches were able to correlate safety climate assessments with safety practices and injury prevention policies (Cox and Cox, 2001; Clarke, 2006). There was also a significant link made between personal qualities and personal safety actions and behaviour (Fang, et.al., 2004). In the study by Ali (2006), he was also able to evaluate the relationship of worker attitudes, perceptions, and their actual internal beliefs and actions. There seems to be a statistically significant link between the perception of the workers and their actual preferences in actions and behaviour (Ibrahim, et.al., 2012).

In carrying out studies on the safety climate in the construction industry, variables like age, gender, educational attainment and work experience have been considered important elements (Ibrahim, et.al., 2012). Such factors seem to have an effect on the safety climate, thereby impacting and influencing the safety behaviour (Ministry of Labour, 2003). In the study by Lee and Harrison (2000) where they evaluated the risk perceptions on safety in nuclear power stations in the UK. They were able to note how significant differences were observed when considering the variables like age, gender, shift, workdays and work areas for the respondents (Ibrahim, et.al., 2012).

Page 88 of 334

Glendon and Litherland (2001) were able to establish and compare construction and maintenance workers in relation to the applied safety climate. The authors were able to note differences on the safety climate in terms of subgroups including safety rules and relations. In the study by Siu and colleagues (2003), the authors evaluated safety attitudes and performance among Hong Kong construction workers comparing these with Chinese construction workers. They established that the older workers seemed to show more favourable attitudes in relation to safety. In the study by Fang, et.al., (2006), they identified age, marital status, educational attainment, alcohol drinking, and the violation of safety policies as part of the safety climate. Cooper and Philips (2004) also indicate how various kinds of work activities including site conditions seem to be more crucial in studies related to climate as compared to demographic variables. Such results seem to be understandable with the safety climate often gravitating towards the management of employee perceptions on site safety (Cooper and Philips, 2004). The climate of safety does not assess the general safety climate impact in terms of individuals and their work experiences or their age (Ibrahim, et.al., 2012). Still, personal qualities are needed in order to ensure that the safety climate studies would progress further (Ismail, et.al., 2012). The safety climate, including related demographic elements have been assessed above and now provide structure for this study in terms of the safety culture in the construction industry in Saudi Arabia (Ibrahim, et.al., 2012).

It was mentioned earlier, the 2001 General Environmental Law (GEL) with its 2003 Implementing Regulations and the 1982 Environmental Protection Standards serve as the governing policies to the different activities in the construction industry of Saudi Arabia. (Husein, 2013) These policies indicate activities, which are not safe for the environment

Page 89 of 334

based on different related terms. The policies highlight the fact that all of the people of Saudi Arabia have a firm duty to also observe reasonable care (Hussain, et.al., 2014). Based on environmental policies including other parties undertaking construction activities, the duty is for the parties to apply the most appropriate technology, especially with materials which would not cause much contamination (Hussain, et.al., 2014). Another duty is to consider the sufficient steps in order to reduce the effect of the activity on the environment (Husein, 2013).

The construction site and workplace is a workplace fraught with dangers and hazards. In western countries, safety has been set forth as a priority for the construction sites with different agencies regulating the workplace (Jannadi and Assaf, 1998). In fact, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) agency has indicated different rules and policies in order to ensure the safety and health of workers on site (Jannadi and Al-Sudairi, 1995; Goetsch, 2013). In Saudi Arabia, however, their safety in the construction industry is not under management by a clear government agency (Fullman, 1984; Hinze, et.al., 2013). Accident prevention seems to fall on the managers of the organisation. Construction companies have understood the value of decreasing rates of accident mostly for humanitarian reasons as well as to secure financial benefits (Jannadi and Al-Sudairi, 1995). Some companies also do not have clear guidelines in terms of expectations on safety behaviour. As such, major repercussions and unfortunate accidents have been observed in the construction workplace (Jannadi and Assaf, 1998; Hinze, et.al., 2013).

In general, safety expectations seem to require that all supervisors, engineers, and labourers must be familiarized with different aspects of safety and related practices in order to prevent

Page 90 of 334

accidents and injuries (Jannadi and Bu-Khamsin, 2002; Zhou, et.al., 2012). The requirements for safety on most construction projects also have to be embraced by the different individuals involved, including the architects, the owner of the site or project, the contractor, and most especially the labourers (Jannadi and Bu-Khamsin, 2002; Bansal, 2011). The owner has to check on the designs for the safety of the project and implement such safety plans during the conduct of the project. The architect can help design safety by designing both temporary and permanent safety procedures within the site (Jannadi and Assaf, 1998; Ismail, et.al., 2012). Temporary safety translates to access in an out of the construction site and permanent safety relates to the stability of the project for the users. Contractors also have to ensure worker safety by complying with all the safety requirements on the site, from the start to the end of the project (Jannadi and Bu-Khamsin, 2002). Safety performance has to be assessed based on failure of safety in the workplace. There are some methods in assessment safety in the workplace, mostly with the safety audit with issues identified providing clues on what improvements can be made on site (Kavianan and Wentz, 1990). Profiling can also improve safety in the construction workplace, especially in terms of the general safety performance of the company (Jannadi and Al-Sudairi, 1995; Cheng and Teizer, 2013).