See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/223941455

Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior: Investigating factors on

construction sites

Article in Safety Science · April 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027

CITATIONS READS

699 7,457

2 authors:

Rafiq M. Choudhry Dongping Fang

Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University Tsinghua University
69 PUBLICATIONS 3,934 CITATIONS 150 PUBLICATIONS 8,096 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rafiq M. Choudhry on 29 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584
www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior:

Investigating factors on construction sites
Rafiq M. Choudhry *,1, Dongping Fang
Construction Safety Research Center, School of Civil Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China

Abstract

This work discusses empirical research aimed at why construction workers engage in unsafe
behavior. Interviews were conducted in Hong Kong with workers who had been accident victims.
Both Chinese and non-Chinese operatives recorded their safety experiences when working on con-
struction sites. Participants’ information such as age, experience and work environment was docu-
mented. Seven individual accidents and resulting injuries as reported by the injured operatives are
described. Work-in-progress is briefly reported in an attempt to acquire and disseminate knowledge
as to why operatives performed work in an unsafe behavior at construction sites. In-depth semi-
structured interviews provided a rich data base allowing a grounded theory approach to be adopted
to identify emerging themes during data analysis. The findings indicated that workers were involved
in unsafe behavior because of: a lack of safety awareness; to exhibit of being ‘tough guys’; work pres-
sure; co-workers’ attitudes; and other organizational, economic and psychological factors. The
results substantiate the significant role of management; safety procedure; psychological and eco-
nomic factors; self-esteem; experience; performance pressure; job security; and education as well
as safety orientation and training. The influences of these factors on the safety behavior of workers
are discussed along with implications of the research for management of the construction industry.
Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Construction safety; Operative; Safety climate; Worker behavior; Hong Kong

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 10 62795113; fax: +86 10 62773661.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (R.M. Choudhry), [email protected] (D. Fang).
1
Faculty Member, National Institute of Transportation, National University of Sciences & Technology,
Pakistan. Tel.: +92 923 631211; fax: +92 923 631594.

0925-7535/$ - see front matter Ó 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.027
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 567

1. Introduction

The construction industry in Hong Kong has a history of and a reputation for poor
safety performance, particularly in the eighties and early nineties. Lingard and Rowlin-
son (1994) revealed that the annual accident rate in 1991 was 374 per 1000 workers,
which is 25 times worse than Japan and Singapore. However, a number of initiatives
have been put in place to promote safety and health in the workplace in the form of
legislation, law enforcement, safety promotion, and training which have reduced the
number of industrial fatalities in the construction industry to 17 in 2004 in Hong Kong,
the lowest figure ever recorded (LD, 2005). Nonetheless, the Hong Kong construction
industry is still very risky in comparison to that of developed countries. Overall, further
evidence has been documented around the world that construction has the highest rate
of accidents among industries (Koehn et al., 1995; Sawacha et al., 1999; Ahmed et al.,
2000).
The safety of workers is a complex phenomenon. Construction is always risky because
of outdoor operations, work-at heights, complicated on-site plants and equipment opera-
tion coupled with workers attitudes and behaviors towards safety. The nature of the con-
struction industry’s rapidly changing conditions, associated work hazards, and the
characteristics of construction organizations further aggravate the situation. Mechanistic
or automatic organizations are designed to function under relatively stable environments
while organic types are best suited to unstable ones (Wilson, 1989). Mechanistic organiza-
tions allow for the exclusion of decision-making roles, and rules and procedures to be fol-
lowed while organic types rely on decision-making roles, the use of the workforce, and
training facilities for workers to carry out non-standardized operations. Construction falls
under the organic type of organizations where the nature of the work, working environ-
ment, and job site conditions change rapidly.
In 2004, the Tsinghua – Gammon Construction Safety Research Center was invited to
carry out research at the construction sites of a well-established construction company and
a market leader in the Hong Kong construction industry (hereafter called ‘the company’).
The company had implemented good safety, health and environment management systems
on its more than 40 construction sites. Nonetheless, despite implementing up dated safety
management systems (SMS), serious accidents still occurred on the company’s construc-
tion projects. One example is an accident that occurred on 12 June 2005 at the job of a
subcontractor at the Shenzhen Western Corridor project when a worker died on 7 July
2005 after suffering severe injuries. There were many subcontractors performing work
on-site, at all projects of the company. An estimated 70% of all their construction work
in Hong Kong was being performed by subcontractors. Normally, subcontractors are
responsible for their own work volume. Nevertheless, when a safety lapse occurs in their
work, the accident is immediately charged to the primary contractor, the company.
Researchers from Tsinghua University advised the company about the occurrences of
these accidents so that prevention efforts could be directed in the form of an effective acci-
dent prevention program.
According to Chan et al. (2005) accidents happen due to a random combination of
many contributing factors. Traditionally, they are categorized due to unsafe conditions
and unsafe practices. Health and Safety Executives (HSE, 2002, p. 38) concluded that
human behavior is a contributing factor in approximately 80% of the accidents. Many
studies revealed that the majority of accidents and resulting injuries are attributed to
568 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

unsafe work practices of the workers rather than unsafe working conditions (e.g. Garavan
and O’brien, 2001). Some studies (e.g. Mullen, 2004) reveal that organizational and social
factors are not to be overlooked because these factors influence safety behaviors. The
argument in favor of this is that if unsafe conditions are present, it becomes the normal
practice of workers to perform construction activities by accepting the risks associated
with the work. In this situation, construction site accidents cannot be solely attributed
to the unsafe work practices of workers. It gives the impression that rather than attribut-
ing the blame for accidents and injuries to construction workers, one must pay attention to
and view the injury from the worker’s perspective. In construction, little to no attempt has
been made to understand the organizational and operational factors from the workers
viewpoint, which might contribute to the increased risk of accidents. The main objective
of this research is to suggest recommendations for improving site safety on the company’s
construction projects by listening to the viewpoints of the subcontractor’s workers. Specif-
ically, the following objectives are identified:

1. To understand the workers viewpoint as to why accidents happen within subcontrac-

tors’ employees by conducting in-depth interviews with workers who have suffered an
injury.
2. To gain understanding of why construction workers engage in unsafe work behavior on
construction sites.
3. To identify factors that influences the safety behavior of operatives at construction
projects.

2. Literature review

Accident investigation techniques and reporting systems in construction identify what

type of accidents occur and how they occur (Abdelhamid and Everett, 2000). Why the
accident has occurred, generally, is not addressed. To understand this, one has to be aware
of the theories of accident causation and theories of human error. Usually, an accident
investigation stops at a premature level but should be required to be firmly based on the-
ories of accident causation and human error (Brown, 1995). A pioneered researcher, Hein-
rich H. W. presented the accident causation theory or domino theory in 1930. Heinrich
(1959) revealed the accident causation theory that the interaction between man and
machine, the relation between severity and frequency, the reasons for unsafe acts, the role
of management in accident prevention, the cost of accidents, and the effect of safety on
efficiency were interlinked. Heinrich et al. (1980) defined accident prevention as ‘‘an inte-
grated program, a series of coordinated activities, directed to the control of unsafe per-
sonal performance and unsafe conditions, and based on certain knowledge, attitudes,
and abilities.’’ Petersen (1982) describes the work of Heinrich in two important points.
First, people are the fundamental reason behind accidents. Second, management has the
ability and is responsible for the prevention of accidents.
Petersen (1971) introduced the concept of multiple causation under which multiple fac-
tors combine in random fashion creating the cause of accidents. Hinze (1997) reveals that
according to OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), accident fatalities
are attributable to five groups of falls, struck-by, electric shock, caught in or between, and
other. While identifying root causes of construction injuries Hinze et al. (1998) suggested
that these five causes are to be coded into 20 possible categories. These categories include
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 569

‘falls from elevation, falls from ground level, electrocution (power lines), electrocution
(building power), electrocution (faulty facility wiring), electrocution (faulty construction
tool/wiring), electrocution (other), struck by equipment, struck by falling material, struck
by material (other than falling material), caught in/between equipment, caught in/between
material, cave-in, explosion, fire, explosion/fire, asphyxiation, drowning, natural causes
and other’. To avoid accidents, Petersen (1971) stressed the need to improve inspection
procedures, and training, make better assignment of responsibilities, and pre-task plan-
ning by supervisors.
Abdelhamid and Everett (2000) proposed that accidents in construction occur due to
three root causes. First, failing to identify an unsafe condition that existed before an activ-
ity was started or that developed after an activity was started. Second, deciding to proceed
with a work activity after the worker identifies an existing unsafe condition. Third, decid-
ing to act unsafely regardless of initial conditions of the work environment. The accident
root cause tracing model (ARCTM) presented by Abdelhamid and Everett (2000) indi-
cated that unsafe conditions were due to four causes: (1) management actions or inactions;
(2) unsafe acts of workers or co-workers; (3) non-human-related events(s); and (4) an
unsafe condition being a natural part of the construction site.
When investigating an accident two vital questions are important (Suraji et al., 2001).
They are, (i) how do accidents happen and (ii) why do accidents happen? Suraji et al.
(2001) explained that the client is under a number of economic, social, and political pres-
sures in the conceptual development of a project. The client response will provide many of
the constraints, within which the project management and design participants have to
operate. Subsequently, their response will provoke construction management responses,
subcontractors’ constraints, and subcontractor responses. This cause-and-effect process
has the potential to increase operative constraints directly or indirectly through inappro-
priate construction planning or inappropriate construction control procedures, lead to
inappropriate site conditions, inappropriate operative actions, or inappropriate construc-
tion operations (Suraji et al., 2001). Suraji et al. explained how inappropriate conditions
are created and how inappropriate construction operations are carried out where workers
have to work sometimes results in inappropriate worker actions. This research, which con-
ducted interviews with workers, planned to focus on the operatives own safety experiences
at work rather than actions observed by others.
Human error theories are better addressed in behavior models (e.g. Reason, 1990) that
understand the blame for accidents does not fall on human unsafe behavior alone, but on
the design of workplace tasks that did not consider human limitations (HSE, 2003). The
human factors approach stresses the need for better-designed tasks, tools, and workplaces
while paying attention to the limitations of human, physical, and psychological capabili-
ties. While comparing legislation, engineering approaches, safety awareness, and safety
training, Cooper (1994) demonstrated that implementing a behavior-based-safety (BBS)
program achieved better results for improving site safety. Jannadi (1996) explained that
to reduce the incidence of injuries on construction sites, top management must be account-
able and committed to the corporate safety policy. Based on the safety policy, the effective-
ness of safety plans and safety performance are to be discussed in board of directors
meetings and in all subordinate departmental meetings. The management team is duty
bound to create safety awareness throughout their organization. In construction, few stud-
ies have examined the mechanism through which organizational factors influence individ-
ual safety behavior at work (Griffin and Neal, 2000). For example, researchers have
570 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

examined factors associated with safety climates (e.g. Mohamed, 2002) within construc-
tion organizations and have suggested the need for a fundamental shift in our understand-
ing of how safety is to be managed. This literature review is carried out to check that it
tackled important research in terms of construction in particular. The literature review
shows that very few researchers have examined whether workers are conscious of the risks
associated with their construction activities and whether they understand the implications
of performing the work unsafely. This paper will describe how the workers narrate these
issues.

3. Research method

This research commenced by reviewing the relevant literature on construction safety

from academic journals. Formal safety, health and environmental management system
of a leading construction company in Hong Kong was reviewed by studying how this sys-
tem was implemented on-site. The first author resided full time for two months on the
company projects in Hong Kong and observed how communications flows from top to
frontline workers of subcontractors. For instance, a safety management team of the pri-
mary contractor comprising of a safety manager, safety advisors and supervisors ensure
implementation of the safety management system on each construction project of the firm.
In addition, the number of safety advisors and safety supervisors vary from project to pro-
ject depending upon how big the contract is.
The qualitative research method of interviewing was used in order to gain a diversity of
experiences from the operatives who exhibited unsafe behaviors and performed unsafe
work practices. A questionnaire was developed to further carry out the quantitative
research in the next stage. At this stage, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted
to obtain the operatives’ own work safety experiences. It was decided to conduct interviews
with Chinese as well as with non-Chinese workers who had been accident victims. The inter-
views were focused on the causes of accidents and the attitude of operatives about safety
on-site. For the purposes of this research, operative means a skilled or unskilled frontline
worker or a welder, steel fixer, ganger, carpenter, craftsman, or a foreman.

3.1. Research participants

Four safety managers of the company also assisted the authors for conducting these
interviews. To avoid the problem of bias, it was decided that each interviewed operative
must not be employed at the site of the safety manager conducting the interview along
with the authors. Since most accidents occurred in subcontractors’ work volume, the cri-
terion was that the operative must not be an employee of the prime contractor or the com-
pany. Each interviewee must be an employee of a subcontractor and all interviews are to
be conducted away from the worker’s job site. The workers or the operatives were
requested to express their views freely and were informed that all responses would be trea-
ted in strict confidence. The duration of each interview was approximately 45 min to 1 h
and 15 min. The semi-structured format of the interviews allowed the questions to be
asked in varying sequences. This helped the resulting issues to emerge naturally during
conversations with the operative. The interview guide was utilized to ensure that impor-
tant questions were raised to gain meaningful understanding of construction safety on-site.
All interviews were recorded by using a voice recorder and transcribed into English. After
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 571

recording seven interviews with the operatives, saturation was reached and efforts were
diverted towards management interviews and analysis. Table 1 lists the personal informa-
tion and the work environment of all the operatives who participated in this research. The
trade of the interviewee, age, gender, married or not, family members to support, educa-
tion, work experience, and work environment were recorded.
The interview guide had been developed earlier and comprised 15 questions that would
help understand the worker’s safety behaviors. Appendix A lists the designed interview
guide items used to understand operatives’ safety behavior at construction sites. The
approach used by Mullen (2004) in designing the questionnaire framework allowed
respondents to tell their own story in their own way and style. Floating questions having
repeated key words that operatives may prefer were used such as ‘‘Tell me about the cause
of injury you suffered the last time.’’ If a topic of interest did not emerge during the inter-
view, the pre-planned questionnaire was then used. In total, twelve interviews were
recorded including seven operatives, two site engineers, two safety managers and one pro-
ject manager. All seven operatives were subcontractors’ employees who personally suffered
an accident. Site engineers, safety managers, and project manager were employees of the
prime contractor. Table 2 lists the personal information and the work environment of all
five management personal who participated in this research. The first author conducted
management interviews with the two site engineers, two safety managers, and one project
manager. The interview guide was developed consisting of six questions for these manage-
ment interviews and is listed in Appendix B. Management interviews were of short dura-
tion ranging from 30 to 45 min. They were conducted to get a broad understanding of the
industry, operative’s issues and their site safety. The safety managers and particularly the
project manager had extensive management experience as well as far-reaching experience
in safety issues, and provided valuable information to the researcher. The operative’s ques-
tionnaire was lengthy, and so they were interviewed for a longer time than the managers.
When describing the research results, emphasis was kept on operatives’ narrations rather
than management interviews.

3.2. Investigating factors

The interviews provided a rich data base that helped answer the question why workers
work unsafely. To identify emerging themes during the data analysis, a grounded theory
approach (Corbin and Strauss, 1990) was adopted as it was useful in developing context-
based descriptions and explanations (Orlikowski, 1993). Related particular pieces of con-
versation were identified and the common elements were placed under a separate theme. A
short detail of each accident reported by the seven operatives is listed in Table 3. Each
individual described circumstances in which they performed the work in an unsafe man-
ner. Major accident causes were reported as inadequate supervision, inadequate training,
inadequate planning, employee error, and accident beyond ones control. It is important to
mention that different factors were not expressed equally by respondents, nor did they play
an equal role in shaping one’s safety behaviors.

4. Research findings and analysis

Unsafe behaviors seem to be a combination of many factors, which include both the
human and situational or environmental aspects involved in performing construction task.
572 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

Table 1
Operative participant information and work environment
Work type Personal information Work environment
1 Steel Age: 54 years, male, Chinese, married, three Subcontractor employee
bender family members to support, below primary Exposure to steel cutting, bending and fixing re-
education, eight years work experience bars
Personal protective equipment includes safety
gloves, safety helmet, safety boots and safety
glasses
2 Scaffolder Age: 45 years, male, non-Chinese, married, two Subcontractor employee
family members to support, eight years Exposure to fixing of metal scaffolding, working
education, two years work experience platforms, fixing guardrails and toe boards
Safety equipment includes safety gloves, safety
helmet, safety boots, safety glasses, safety
harness and safety belts
3 Concreter/ Age: 31 years, male, Chinese, married, one Subcontractor employee
Foreman family members to support, primary education, Exposure to concrete, cement and cement burns
seven years work experience Personal protective equipment includes safety
gloves, safety helmet, safety boots and safety
waistcoats
4 Ganger Age: 41 years, male, non-Chinese, married, two Subcontractor employee
family members to support, eight years Exposure to gas welding, flame cutting,
education, 11 years work experience dangerous gases of confined spaces, and
chemical handling
Personal protective equipment includes safety
gloves, safety helmet, safety boots and eye
protectors, wearing face mask, breathing
apparatus
5 Skilled Age: 43 years, male, Chinese, married, two Subcontractor employee
Worker family members to support, primary education, Exposure unpredictable situations, changing
ten years work experience work environments
Personal protective equipment includes safety
gloves, safety boots etc.
6 Welder Age: 37 years, male, Chinese, married, three Subcontractor employee
family members to support, below primary Exposure to welding sparks, etc. Accident
education, five years work experience occurred on a rainy day
Personal protective equipment includes safety
gloves, safety helmet, safety boots and
eyeglasses etc.
7 Carpenter Age: 55 years, male, Chinese, married, three Subcontractor employee
family members to support, primary education, Exposure to cutting wood, hammering,
15 years work experience operating saw and fixing wood strips, wedge
and nails
Personal protective equipment includes safety
gloves, safety helmet, safety boots and safety
glasses

The interviews revealed that unsafe behaviors were evident in the daily practices of oper-
atives. The participants provided insights into the type of work environment that supports
unsafe behavior. As mentioned in the methodology, interview transcripts were analyzed
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 573

Table 2
Management participant information and work environment
Work type Personal information Work environment
1 Project Manager Age: 43 years, male, Chinese, married, 18 Primary contractor employee
years work experience including four Responsible for planning, organizing,
years as project manager leading and controlling all construction
activities of the project in an efficient and
economic manner with all parties involved
paying due regard to quality and safety
2 Safety Manager-I Age: 35 years, male, Chinese, married, 13 Primary contractor employee
years work experience including ten years Responsible for ensuring safety on his
in construction safety project by having coordination with the
project management team and with all
subcontractors. Also responsible for
implementing safety regulations and to
provide personal protective equipment to
all employees and workers on-site
3 Safety Manager-II Age: 33 years, male, Chinese, married, Primary contractor employee
nine years work experience in safety Responsible for ensuring the
implementation of safety, health and
environment management system on his
project by following rules and regulations
of the Labor Department involving the
project management team and all
subcontractors
4 Site Engineer-I Age: 24 years, male, Chinese, single, two Primary contractor employee
years nine months construction site work Responsible for coordination with sub-
experience contractors on his section of the project
and to run the site activities whilst paying
attention to safety regulations, and to
prevent accidents
5 Site Engineer-II Age: 23 years, male, Chinese, single, one Primary contractor employee
year work experience on construction site Responsible for running the site activities
on a section of the project while paying
attention to safe operation of his site by
coordinating with sub-contractors and
following safety management system

systematically through iterative and repeated re-readings of them. It was possible to gain
an increasingly profound understanding of each interview’s viewpoint, perspective and
contradictions within and across interviews. Both operatives and management interviews
yielded rich data about safety factors which management might pay attention to for
improving site safety. Support available from previous research was mentioned in the
respective identified factors. Following the grounded theory approach, all identified fac-
tors are described here.

4.1. Management

Interviewees revealed that management involvement and toolbox talks are the most
effective factors for site safety. Workers believe that nothing is possible without the
574 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

Table 3
Accidents as reported by operatives
Accident Description by the injured person
Accident 1 (Steel The first interviewee revealed, ‘‘The accident was happened on 14 July 2005. I was trying
Bender) to bend a steel bar with the help of bar bending machine. Something jumped out from the
bar and hit my right eye. I was hospitalized and it took more than one month to recover. I
was wearing leather gloves, safety helmet and safety shoes but no eye goggles.’’ When
asked why not goggles? The answer was that the lenses of the goggles were made of plastic
and got scratched. It was too dirty to wear.
Accident 2 The second interviewee revealed, ‘‘I was clearing rubbish on a slope. I was using safety
(Scaffolder) harness but the independent lifeline was broken and I fell down from an approximate 6
meter height. This accident happened in September 2004. I suffered a serious injury to my
neck.’’ Have you inspected the lifeline before work? No, it was normal to use the rope as a
lifeline, he said. The operative was quite clear about the consequences of work injuries as
he explained that he might have lost his life or could not work anymore.
Accident 3 The third interviewee revealed that he was going to the bridge just after a heavy rain to do
(Concreter) concrete work. On the way, he slipped on the inclined ground and fractured his arm. The
accident happened in July 2004. ‘‘I am lucky that it has healed and does not cause much of
a problem to me,’’ he said. The interviewee provided good information. He said, ‘‘if I did
not use PPE, I might be fined or punished by the site staff or even lose my job. It is
essential to use PPE and it is provided to us free of charge.’’
Accident 4 On 2nd July 2005, I was using an electric mixer to mix epoxy at site. Something was wrong
(Ganger) with the mixer and it would not stop running. Some epoxy splashed on my clothes and
some splashed into my left eye. I was wearing eyeglasses but when I tried to stop the
mixer, the spectacles fall down. I have received Green Card training, rigging training, gas
welding and flame cutting training, confined space training, and many on-site training
sessions such as toolbox and site work cycle. Also, the operative said that management
was doing a lot for them including making arrangement for job-specific training,
providing personal protective equipment and implementing the safety management
systems. However, this is my first job where I had to mix epoxy. I have recovered. Now, I
take care of safety matters for myself and for my co-workers.
Accident 5 (Skilled Another interviewee told his story that his right foot received a serious injury while he was
Worker) trying to lift a heavy metal plate of about 30 kg. He explained that he slipped and lost his
balance and the metal plate edge struck his right foot. While explaining the cause of
accident, he said that the access was not proper to the place where the metal plate was
lying. The metal plate was on a slope. When asked about safety shoes, he said that he was
wearing shoes but not the proper safety shoes.
Accident 6 (Welder) The interviewee revealed that accident resulting in a head and finger injury happened on 9
September 2004. At the time of accident, the injured person was climbing to fix bolts in the
new office building which was in the erection stage. He explained that he was climbing to
the mobile working platform but suddenly he slipped and lost his balance. The left side of
his head above the ear was struck on the adjacent cross bracing of the platform and his
right thumb was injured. He said that the root cause of the accident was the slippery
surface after the rain. He pointed out that the step height is perhaps more than 75 cm
above the ground level.
Accident 7 The interviewee revealed that the accident happened on 14 December 2004 when he was
(Carpenter) cutting a wooden strip with a handheld circular saw. The wooden strips are part of the
formwork panel for the pier head. The wooden strip attached to the plywood did not fit
the required size and the operative used the handheld circular saw to shorten the wooden
strip. While cutting the strip, the saw plate trapped in between the wooden strip. He
explained that he tried to get the saw out but the saw lacerated his right knee. He said,
‘‘too much material such as timber and rebar has accumulated at the job site allowed less
space for the cutting operation.’’
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 575

involvement of management. Management is responsible for implementing the safety

management systems including planning, organizing, providing safety policies and work-
ing procedures (ref. accident 4). Management is providing personal protective equipment
free of charge to workers. Several studies show that management’s support, involvement
and commitment in safety is the factor of utmost importance for a satisfactory safety level
(Jaselskis et al., 1996; Sawacha et al., 1999; Mohamed, 2002).

4.2. Safety procedure

On construction projects, the site management teams learn from safety policies and
safety management systems while the workforce learns more from toolbox talks and
morning site safety cycles. During interviews, one site engineer pointed out that resources
must be made available for implementing and monitoring the safety management systems.
An interviewee said that when workers become members of the organization they receive
orientation training and become familiar with organizational policies and practices.
According to Mohamed (2002), rules and procedures are the core component of safety
management systems.

4.3. Psychological feature

Workers explained that they feel comfortable with supervisors who care for their safety.
Langford et al. (2000) indicated that the more relationship-oriented supervisors were, the
more likely it was that operatives will perform safely. Supervisors are to be advised to rec-
ognize safe behaviors of workers and pay attention to their psychological problems. Safety
managers said that the living conditions of workers might be improved on-site.

4.4. Economic feature

Most operatives stated that productivity bonuses led workers to achieve higher produc-
tion at the cost of safety. ‘‘If you pay us more for productivity, we have to produce more
and then why would we pay attention to safety,’’ said a worker. This verifies that people
tend to commit unsafe acts because they have been rewarded for doing so (Sawacha et al.,
1999). Mullen (2004) postulates that operatives always compare the positives (e.g. money)
against the negatives (e.g. perceived potential health risks). As long as these positives out-
weigh the negatives, operatives are more likely to continue to engage in unsafe behaviors.
For that reason, production incentives needed to be applied compatible with good safety
performance.

4.5. Self-esteem

An interviewee revealed that all workers like to behave safely during training. But on-
site they want to prove they are ‘tough guys’. They are not scared of getting hurt. Another
interviewee revealed that workers having more site experience did not feel comfortable fol-
lowing safety procedures. On-site, workers perform risky jobs to exhibit their self-esteem.
In most of these cases, co-workers encourage them to undertake risky construction tasks
that are unsafe. Another interviewee revealed that subcontractor’s workers choose not to
use personal protective equipment to avoid being teased by their co-workers. In cases
576 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

where co-workers extended support to safety, the frequency of wearing PPE was increased
among the crew workers; reported interviewees. This aspect requires the need for close safe
supervision by supervisors and site engineers. Additionally, an operative’s motivation to
losing a desired position and not being promoted may contribute to the occurrence of
unsafe work practices. To become prominent in the eyes of the boss, operatives engage
in some sort of unsafe behaviors that go against safe procedures. An interviewee said that
foremen took greater risks in order to obtain a high position within the organization. In
addition, subcontractor’s operatives always take extra risks particularly to improve their
image.

4.6. Experience

Most interviewees said that young workers are more prone to accidents than old work-
ers. This result suggested that with the passage of time workers get more experience and
are thus aware of safety requirements. The best trained construction workers ‘learned
by doing’ or by gaining experience. New workers watch what experienced workers do
and then copy them. Nevertheless, it is a continual learning process and one’s perception
of doing the work can be changed or modified by subsequent experiences. Wilson (1989)
revealed that pooling of knowledge and experiences of a group provides more options in
solving problems. There is also plenty of indication that experience does not necessarily
influence safety, one example is Geller (2000) ‘‘Psychology of safety handbook’’. Experi-
ence has its own dangers, such as formation of rigid routines. A study in the Italian con-
struction industry reveals that experience tends to reduce carefulness, while it increases
confidence in one’s ability to deal with any eventuality (Gherardi and Nicolini, 2002).

4.7. Performance pressure

Operatives revealed that there simply is not enough time to perform work safely. An
interviewee stated that workers often took shortcuts while performing their tasks. He said,
‘‘The boss is in the habit of saying ‘‘hurry up’’ and workers even have no time to wear
gloves. Consequently, subcontractor’s workers have to perform the task quickly in order
to get the job done rather than work safely.’’ Several researchers (e.g. Flin et al., 2000;
Mohamed, 2002) have discussed the influence of work pressure on safety behaviors and
here it appeared to be one of the major causes. The value of safety over performance pres-
sure remains to be an important message that must be communicated by top management
and the site management team including site engineers and supervisors.

4.8. Perceived risk

A majority of interviewees were aware of the risks involved in their work. In some
cases, perceived risks were reported as low and were underestimated. In this study, oper-
atives were well aware that they could be injured, become disabled or experience the pos-
sibility of death. Nevertheless, perceptions of risk are important. If workers are not
knowledgeable or their experience is limited, then they may be at greater risk. Perceptions
of risk differ from one person to another and may differ time to time even within one per-
son. Workers think that they are more vulnerable than senior employees (supervisors,
engineers and or office staff). Wilson (1989) described that people are often put at risk
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 577

mainly through ignorance or failure to follow safety procedures. Managers are often not
aware of all the variables that affect their calculations of risk. It is more important to
increase a person’s knowledge of associated hazards and how to avoid them (Wilson,
1989).

4.9. Working environment

Proper training in risky job categories is to be ensured along with refresher training for
plant operators. Workers revealed that working at heights is very dangerous. An intervie-
wee revealed, ‘‘I might have died but now I am very careful to check all personal protective
equipment (PPE) especially safety harness and independent lifeline before starting work.’’
Workers view some categories of work as more dangerous. These include access to heights,
scaffolding, steel erection, and working with chemicals such as asbestos, epoxy and explo-
sives. The use of mechanical plant and equipment were also expressed to be sources of
accidents. In addition, managers view a site as safe that has proper access, walkways, traf-
fic routes, material and storage handling, electric and mechanical workshops, equipment
repair, site offices, services and facilities. This also includes proper security of the job site,
guarding machinery, and prohibiting access to certain areas. Previous research has shown
that a tidy and well planned (layout) site was more likely to provide a high level of safety
performance (Sawacha et al., 1999).

4.10. Job security and education

One manager revealed that on construction projects they have directly-employed staffs
who are employees of the company. Direct staff understands the company’s rules and reg-
ulations. The prime contractor’s employees believe that they will be employed by the com-
pany for their lifetime. Subcontractors’ staffs are sometimes not familiar with the rules and
regulations of the prime contractor. They have the feeling that they have to find another
job when the project finishes. Then, there are cultural and language problems. An intervie-
wee revealed that, interestingly enough, he had found that the accident rates among for-
eign operatives were less when compared to local workers. He believed that this was
because the overall education level of foreign operatives is higher than the corresponding
local labor. This finding relates to the fact that the accident rate for imported labor on an
airport platform was less than that for local labor (Rowlinson, 2003, p. 170).

4.11. Safety orientation and training

Referring to safety training, an interviewee revealed that training was a waste of time
because he could not understand its contents. The worker said that he did not know about
the scheduling of safety meetings. When and where were safety meeting held? No one
invited me. He could not make sense of what was discussed in the safety meetings. He
explained that he was an uneducated person and could only write his name. I cannot read
safety material, he said. When asked how his workmates react to safety training, he
responded they just sign their names on the training sheet and then walk away, saying
‘‘it is boring and wastes their time.’’ This indicates that workers’ attitude to training is
not positive. The authors consider that during orientation training, the focus should be
how to change workers’ attitude and then move on the technical parts of safety training.
578 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

Another interviewee said that he has received Green Card training, worker registration
training, and on-site induction training. He used to attend safety meetings, toolbox talks
and morning assembly on-site. Overall, operatives consider training as one of the key ele-
ments to prepare workers to avoid accidents. Wilson (1989) described that workers learn
by ‘doing’ or by following the co-workers or by ‘trail and error’. One of the problems with
training is that it does not represent actual working environments. When a trainee enters
the construction site, he has to face completely different conditions, for example, weather,
temperature, heat, humidity, or confined workspace, etc. While referring to training, one
interviewee said that the site job is different. The job site is quicker, site conditions are dif-
ferent, and even sometimes site conditions are completely opposite of training. Neverthe-
less, most workers expressed the strong desire to learn more about job associated hazards
and how to avoid them. This shows that there is definitely a need for more job-specific for-
mal training. It appears that more research is required to conduct effective training that
changes workers’ belief and attitude to safety. Mohamed (2002) revealed that training
enables workers to have the skill to perform a particular job safely. Nevertheless, training
is to be focused on changing attitudes of workers to safety.

5. Discussion

In this section, the influence of factors on safety behaviors will be discussed along with
their application to the construction industry. The identified factors may be useful for the
prime contractor to improve its safety climate and safety performance. Workers might
behave unsafely consciously or unconsciously. More attention should be paid to workers’
view on safety. One worker explained, ‘‘It is harsh to wear goggles under heat or sunlight
and it is even difficult to see with grubby or mucky goggles. Thus, I discard them.
Although, I was told to wear goggles but it was ‘ok’ to work on site without eyeglasses.’’
When asked that how the injury affect him. The worker explains, ‘‘I have lost my income.
My eye is very sensitive to light. I cannot work for long periods of time or overtime. I have
to use eye drops and they are troublesome for me. I am afraid of work injuries. I don’t
want to work unsafely after suffering an accident. I think, if I work unsafely, I can lose
the opportunity to work anymore. My family is already in trouble because of less income
and this makes me upset.’’ When asked whether his boss promotes safety on-site, he said,
‘‘I don’t think so. You know the boss is always looking for profit. Why will boss promote
safety? Are you kidding? Workers need to work for money.’’ What is his co-workers’ atti-
tude about safety, he was asked. He replied, ‘‘More or less the same.’’ When another oper-
ative was asked how the injury affected his life. His response was, ‘‘The injury has affected
my life seriously, as I have to attend medical therapy periodically for my neck. Although, I
got some compensation but my family is suffering as I cannot earn enough money because
of work holidays.’’
A worker (see accident 3) mentioned, ‘‘If I did not use PPE, I might be fined or pun-
ished by the site staff or even lose my job. It is essential to use PPE and it is provided
to us free of charge.’’ This is an interesting statement which shows that the worker has
not realized the importance of wearing PPE for the safety of his own life and health
but rather he sees it more important to keep the job. This is a fundamental problem that
operatives have – they view PPE only as a job requirement. They do not accept the concept
that they should be motivated to wear PPE for their own safety. Further, the worker’s
statement is a reflection of what these operatives think and believe. Another interviewee
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 579

disclosed, ‘‘About 50% of workers do not work safely on-site. New workers always suffer
more accidents because they have no idea about potential hazards and what are the prob-
lems on the construction site.’’ One common problem reported on subcontractors’ sites
was the use of PPE at low levels as compared with workers of the prime contractor (see
accident 5). There are various reasons that explain why workers continue to engage in
unsafe work behaviors, some of which are listed below:

1. Ignorance and lack of safety knowledge.

2. Failure to follow safety procedures and attitudes towards safety that include not wear-
ing safety helmets or working when tired or with insufficient sleep.
3. Work environment that supports unsafe behavior for example, performance pressure.
4. Financial incentives offered at the cost of safety such as production incentives without
giving necessary time and resources for completion of an activity in hand.
5. Psychological factors such as poor living conditions, social or domestic pressure.
6. Exhibiting ‘tough guys’ in performing risky jobs on-site and co-workers encouragement
to undertake tasks that are unsafe. This also includes engaging in behavior that goes
against safe procedures with a view to gain a promotion or to become prominent in
the eyes of the boss.
7. Lack of skill or safety training or absence of job-specific training and incompatible
training to site conditions.
8. The nature of the task in hand including the workers failure to identify an unsafe con-
dition that exists or develops after a task was started. This includes the design of work
that did not consider human limitations and for that management is responsible to
identify the unsafe conditions in advance for each new task.

When an unsafe condition exists before or develops after a worker starts a construction
task, the worker either succeeds or fails in identifying the unsafe condition. When a worker
identifies an unsafe condition, an evaluation of risk must be made. Depending on the risk
involved, workers must be allowed to stop work until the unsafe conditions are corrected.
If a worker fails to identify the unsafe condition, he/she will continue the work and in this
case management is responsible to investigate unsafe conditions. Often, unsafe conditions
are not possible to be identified by workers. The authors postulate that management is
responsible to identify the unsafe conditions associated with each construction activity
in advance including new tasks. On a construction project, thorough evaluation and
step-by-step job safety analysis followed by the development of written safe operating pro-
cedures can influence workers to improve their safety behaviors when performing work
tasks.
Nevertheless, participants were aware, at least to some degree of the risks associated
with their work. To avoid unsafe acts, workers need to be required to be guided in a pro-
active manner. Management needs to reinforce the value and importance of safety among
operatives. Workers are required to change their attitude towards safety by obtaining
training and knowledge about their jobs and should not behave unsafely if they want to
be accident-free. The safety supervisors are required to watch workers when they are per-
forming construction activities on-site. Did workers or co-workers know the correct safety
procedures for performing site work? In cases where the worker did not know, a training
problem is likely to exist. If the worker knew the safety procedures well, a worker attitude
and behavior problem likely exists. In this case, behavior-based-safety intervention is to be
580 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

warranted. In cases where workers or co-workers occasionally act unsafely when perform-
ing work, a problem with safety procedures exists. Management is then required to review
and revise safe working procedures after detecting the cause of unsafe acts.
Additional information obtained from management interviews revealed that subletting
construction work to many subcontractors was causing problems in communication, coor-
dination, safety planning, and allocating safety responsibility in Hong Kong. When a
manager was asked why the company was subletting seventy percent (70%) of its construc-
tion work, the answer he gave was that, to complete the project to the satisfaction of the
owner, it was necessary to employ specialized contractors who have expertise in specific
jobs. The manager replied that his organization takes the responsibility for safety mea-
sures that are included in the subcontractor’s contract. Nonetheless, subcontractors with
as few as five or six employees on building sites pay little or no attention to safety.
On construction sites, often incidents or near misses make workers realize the impor-
tance of safety and reinforce safe work practices. The authors postulate that there is a need
to share these near misses more effectively among the workers through toolbox talks. Also,
management can help workers to improve safety behaviors through the influence of rules
and regulations, training and increased communication. Further action is to be directed
towards the psychology of workers and what could make a worker think before perform-
ing a task. Additionally, it is one of the problems facing new engineers, for example, who
enter the construction industry. These new engineers were taught engineering discipline
but have little knowledge and training about site safety. There is a definite need for safety,
health and accident prevention training on construction sites. Some identified factors were
supported by the previous research in construction, for example, management by Jaselskis
et al. (1996), Sawacha et al. (1999), Mohamed (2002). Safety procedures were supported by
Mohamed (2002), similarly psychological by Langford et al. (2000), economic factors by
Sawacha et al. (1999), experience by Wilson (1989), orientation and training by Mohamed
(2002). This research disclosed that despite the knowledge accumulated through safety cli-
mate research, there still remain other variables that explain why workers engage in unsafe
behaviors that should be considered. The present study suggests that other important fac-
tors, for example psychological, self-esteem, and performance pressure and job security
should be studied. The results provide support for the idea that the influence of perfor-
mance pressure on safety behavior is to be reduced by ensuring operatives have the nec-
essary time, are provided with resources, and have the training to perform their site
tasks. Additionally, communication between the prime contractor and subcontractors
must be enhanced to improve safety on-site. However, despite acquiring knowledge and
understanding, the study is not without limitations. Due to the size of the sample, the
results cannot be generalized across or within the construction industry. Further explora-
tion of unsafe behaviors and factors is necessary.

5.1. Company specific recommendation

Orientation training is required to be provided to every subcontractor’s worker, as they

are most vulnerable to accidents on construction sites. This places more responsibility on
the safety managers, safety engineers, and supervisors. According to Kartam et al. (2000),
they need to conduct a waste-disposal program daily, secure specific access and safe roads
on the job site, and post warning and hazards signs. Workers are to be trained to follow
safety instructions. Interviews have shown that victims of accidents have worked without
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 581

the supervision or control of a supervisor. More safety coordination with subcontractors is

required. Worker involvement in all safety programs is to be ensured. It is imperative that
subcontractor’s workers use the requisite PPE for their jobs. Only trained workers having
education in safety regulations and procedures are to be allowed to execute risky tasks.
The company may involve project owners to provide additional funding for training of
subcontractor’s workers. It is essential that workers realize the need for safe work prac-
tices. Further recommendations include the following:

1. Proper safety training is essential to do construction work and to prevent accidents. All
workers including subcontractors should receive safety training about the hazards asso-
ciated with their construction tasks. An example of the existing shortcomings is acci-
dent 4 where an operative said that this was the first job time he had been asked to
mix the epoxy. The statement reflects that the worker was asked to do the job out of
his skilled area. The management needs to pay attention to such things.
2. Safe and unsafe conditions need to be assessed in advance. Attention must be given to
safe and unsafe acts. A database of unsafe behaviors should be gathered to provide
learning.
3. There is a large gap of safety knowledge between safety managers and site engineers.
This gap may be narrowed if site engineers practically consider safety as their first
responsibility.

6. Conclusion

This research has provided insight into why construction workers engage in unsafe
work behavior, based on a qualitative sample of operatives on Hong Kong construc-
tion projects. The theories of accident causation and of human error are briefly
described. In-depth semi-structured interviews were recorded both with Chinese and
non-Chinese workers who had been accident victims. Seven individual accidents and
their resulting injuries as reported by the injured operatives were documented. The dis-
cussions were focused on the causes of accidents and the attitude of operatives towards
safety on-site during the twelve interviews. A rich data base on why workers work
unsafely was recorded and a grounded theory approach was adopted to identify emerg-
ing accident trends by identifying particular pieces of conversation and placing com-
mon elements under a separate theme. This research has investigated 11 factors
which can have an influence on worker’s safety behavior at construction sites. The
identified factors are (1) management; (2) safety procedure; (3) psychological feature;
(4) economic feature; (5) self-esteem; (6) experience; (7) performance pressure; (8) per-
ceived risk; (9) working environment; (10) job security and education; and (11) orien-
tation and training.
Management involvement and toolbox talks were found to be the most effective factors
for encouraging and facilitating site safety. Workers feel more comfortable with supervi-
sors who care for their safety. The study suggested that on-site production incentives
needed to be applied compatible with good safety performance. Workers on-site perform
risky jobs sometimes to show that they are tough guys. Co-workers even encourage them
to perform risky construction tasks. Workers do not use personal protective equipment to
avoid being teased by their co-workers. The study found that the use of personal protec-
tive equipment was low among subcontractors’ workers.
582 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

Operatives view some categories of work as more dangerous including access to heights,
scaffolding, steel erection, and working with chemicals such as asbestos, epoxy and explo-
sives. The prime contractor’s employees and subcontractor employees have different views
about their jobs. The prime contractor employees like to be with the company for a life-
time of employment. While subcontractors’ employees felt that they needed to find
another job when the project was completed. The study indicated that the accident rate
among foreign operatives is less when compared to local workers. Almost all operatives
believed that the lack of skill was the main cause of unsafe behaviors on-site. There is a
strong need to strengthen the safety training, skill and safety knowledge of workers.
The living condition of workers needs to be improved on-site to minimize psychological
problems facing workers. Safety training of site engineers and supervisors can improve
safety awareness on-site and would lead to improved safety on construction projects.
The prime contractor is required to regularly review safety programs and update safety,
health and environmental management systems while communicating properly to workers
on-site. This research may generate discussion among researchers and safety practitioners
and contribute to the ultimate goal of identifying a comprehensive framework that
explains why operatives engage in unsafe work behaviors. The findings may provide useful
information to safety practitioners and project managers in making their sites safer and
also enlighten the safety culture of the construction industry.

Acknowledgements

The first author would like to express his appreciation to the Higher Education Com-
mission, Government of Pakistan for granting a Ph.D. scholarship to undertake this
study. Financial support from National University of Sciences and Technology, Pakistan
is also gratefully acknowledged. Acknowledgements are also addressed to Gammon Con-
struction Limited, Hong Kong and its employees, including subcontractors, for support-
ing and participating in this research.

Appendix A. Why operatives engage in unsafe work practices – interview guide

Q1. Please introduce yourself including your trade and nature of job, age, married or
unmarried and number of children to support.
Q2. Tell me about your education background. What types of things do you do in your
job? Describe your job in detail mentioning how you were got injured on-site.
Q3. Tell me about the injury cause you suffered last time.
Q4. Tell me about personal protective equipment (PPE), you were using at the time of
accident. What type of safety mechanism do you wear at work? What do you think
that you should be wearing for safety equipment?
Q5. Do you know how to check the PPE you are using? Have you inspected the lifeline
before work? Has anyone told you to check the lifeline before work? Did your
supervisor know that your lifeline was damaged or broken? Also, tell me about
the cause of the accident occurring.
Q6. Tell me why you or co-workers do not wear safety goggles. Has anyone told you to
use goggles at work? Did your supervisor know that you discarded goggles?
Q7. Tell me how you think about the consequences of work injuries? Please explain
short-term as well as in long-term consequences of work injuries.
 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584 583

Q8. Why workers engage in unsafe work behavior? When you are performing your job,
do you try to do it safely?
Q9. Do you knowingly perform work unsafely? Are you aware of the consequences of
your actions? Do you like to use the PPE you have?
Q10. Tell me how your co-workers like to perform their work on-site. Do they perform
site activity in a safe way?
Q11. Tell me about the training you have received so far. Have you received training
about your trade? Have you learned anything about safety at work? Was safety
issues discussed at group meetings?
Q12. Tell me about health and safety risks in your construction job. Do you know that
you may seriously be injured at work? What could happen to you because of your
job? Explain you idea.
Q13. Tell me about the formal safety training that you have received during your job.
How did you react to the safety training? How did your classmates react to the
safety training?
Q14. Does your supervisor promote safety during work tasks? Do your co-workers pro-
mote safety on-site?
Q15. Tell me that how does the injury affect you. How do you act in order to prevent
similar accidents from happening again? Would you like to share your safety expe-
rience with us?

Appendix B. Management interview guide

Q1. Please shed some light on the construction industry of Hong Kong and its subcon-
tracting system.
Q2. Please explain the reasons that why workers engage in unsafe work behaviors.
Q3. Briefly explain the safety orientation and training for site engineers and employees of
the company.
Q4. Express your views on job site education and training provided to workers and
supervisors.
Q5. Is safety and productivity receiving equal attention during site operation? How is the
pressure for productivity managed on-site?
Q6. How is the safety of subcontractors’ workers managed on-site? Do they practice
safety management systems? How they use and follow safety standard as well as pro-
cedures on-site?

References

Abdelhamid, T.S., Everett, J.G., 2000. Identifying root causes of construction accidents. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 126 (1), 52–60.
Ahmed, S.M., Kwan, J.C., Weiming, F.Y., Pui Ho, D.C., 2000. Site safety management in Hong Kong. Journal
of Management in Engineering 16 (6), 34–42.
Brown, I.D., 1995. Accident reporting and analysis. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (Eds.), Evaluation of Human
Work. Taylor & Francis, London.
Chan, A., Wong, F., Yam, M., Chan, D., Ng, J., Tam, C.M., 2005. From Attitude to Culture – Effect of Safety
Climate on Construction Safety, Construction Safety Research Group. Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
Hong Kong.
584 R.M. Choudhry, D. Fang / Safety Science 46 (2008) 566–584

Cooper, M.D., 1994. Implementing the behavior based approach to safety: a practical guide. The Safety and
Health Practitioner 12 (11), 18–23.
Corbin, J., Strauss, A., 1990. Grounded theory research: procedures, canons and evaluative criteria. Qualitative
Sociology 13, 3–21.
Flin, R., Mearns, K., O’Connor, P., Bryden, R., 2000. Measuring safety climate: identifying the common features.
Safety Science 34, 177–192.
Garavan, T.N., O’brien, F., 2001. An investigation into the relationship between safety climate and safety
behaviors in Irish organizations. Irish Journal of Management 22 (1), 141–170.
Geller, E.S., 2000. The Psychology of Safety Handbook, second ed. CRC, USA.
Gherardi, S., Nicolini, D., 2002. Learning the trade: a culture of safety in practice. Organization 9 (2), 191–223.
Griffin, M.A., Neal, A., 2000. Perceptions of safety at work: a framework for linking safety climate to safety
performance, knowledge, and motivation. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5, 347–358.
Heinrich, H.W., 1959. Industrial Accidents Prevention. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Heinrich, H.W., Peterson, D., Roos, N., 1980. Industrial Accidents Prevention. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hinze, J., 1997. Construction Safety. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Hinze, J., Pederson, C., Fredley, J., 1998. Identifying root causes of construction injuries. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 124 (1), 67–71.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2002. Strategies to Promote Safe Behavior as Part of a Health and Safety
Management System, Contract Research Report 430/2002, UK.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2003. Causal Factors in Construction Accidents, Contract Research Report
156/2003, UK.
Jannadi, O.M., 1996. Factors affecting the safety of the construction industry. Building Research and
Information 24 (2), 108–111.
Jaselskis, E.J., Anderson, S.D., Russell, J.S., 1996. Strategies for achieving excellence in construction safety
performance. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 122 (1), 61–70.
Kartam, N., Flood, I., Koushki, P., 2000. Construction safety in Kuwait: issues, procedures, problems, and
recommendations. Safety Science 36 (3), 163–184.
Koehn, E.E., Kothari, R.K., Pan, C.-S., 1995. Safety in developing countries: professional and bureaucratic
problems. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 121 (3), 261–265.
Langford, D., Rowlinson, S., Sawacha, E., 2000. Safety behavior and safety management: its influence on the
attitudes in the UK construction industry. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management Journal
7 (1), 133–140.
Labour Department (LD), 2005. Accidents in the Construction Industry of Hong Kong (2000-2004), Accident
Analysis and Information Division, Labor Department, HKSAR, December. <www.hkca.com.hk/sitesafety/
2005_1202ld.pdf>.
Lingard, H., Rowlinson, S., 1994. Construction site safety in Hong Kong. Construction Management and
Economics 12, 501–510.
Mohamed, S., 2002. Safety climate in construction site environments. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 128 (5), 375–384.
Mullen, J., 2004. Investigating factors that influence individual safety behavior at work. Journal of Safety
Research 35 (3), 275–285.
Orlikowski, W.J., 1993. CASE Tools as organizational change: investigating incremental and radical changes in
systems development. MIST Quarterly 17 (3), 309–340.
Petersen, D., 1971. Techniques of Safety Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Petersen, D., 1982. Human Error – Reduction and Safety Management. STPM Press, New York.
Reason, J.T., 1990. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, New York.
Rowlinson, S., 2003. Hong Kong Construction – Safety Management and the Law. Sweet & Maxwell Asia, Hong
Kong.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S., Fong, D., 1999. Factors affecting safety performance on construction sites.
International Journal of Project Management 17 (5), 309–315.
Suraji, A., Duff, A.R., Peckitt, S.J., 2001. Development of casual model of construction accident causation.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 127 (4), 337–344.
Wilson, H.A., 1989. Organizational behavior and safety management in the construction industry. Construction
Management and Economics 7, 303–319.

View publication stats