Content uploaded by Eric Kodzo Adzivor
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Eric Kodzo Adzivor on Oct 11, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
Indicators for safety culture in
SME construction firms: a Delphi
study in Ghana
Eric Kodzo Adzivor
Department of Civil Engineering, Central University of Technology, Bloemfontein,
South Africa and Department of Building Technology,
Ho Technical University, Ho, Ghana
Fidelis Emuze
Department of Built Environment, Central University of Technology,
Bloemfontein, South Africa and
Department of Construction Management,
Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Port Elizabeth, South Africa, and
Dillip Kumar Das
Department of Civil Engineering, Central University of Technology,
Bloemfontein, South Africa
Abstract
Purpose –The purpose of this article is to determine safety culture indicators that can improve the health
and safety performance of small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) contractors in Ghana.
Design/methodology/approach –A three-round Delphi method was used. The first round consisted of
31 experts out of which 18 of them rated their agreements with a set of 87 potential safety culture indicators
using a 10-point Likert scale of importance (1 = important and 10 = very important) and the 16 experts who
completed the final round were given the opportunity to suggest other indicators. The 87 indicators were
categorised into 14 core health and safety elements. Indicators that attained a group median value of 5–10 for
50% or more expert ratings were accepted.
Findings –At the end of the third round, a consensus was reached on the indicators when they attracted
median scores of 5–10 forat least 50% ormore of the health and safety experts rated the indicatorsbetween 5
and 10. Out of a total of 87 indicators at the start of the Delphi process, the consensus was reached on 70 that
were retained.
Research limitations/implications –The health and safety experts were not given the opportunity to
add new indicators to the structured questionnaire until the third round.
Originality/value –This is the first study, to the best of the authors’knowledge, to have a
consensus by health and safety experts on leading indicator metrics of positive culture of
construction safety in Ghana for improved SME construction company’s health and safety
performance in Ghana. If these indicators are adopted and used effectively in Ghana, they would
ensure positive culture of construction safety and subsequently help to protect construction
workers.
Keywords Construction, Ghana, Health and safety, Safety culture
Paper type Research paper
Special thanks to all the H&S experts in Ghana who took part in the Delphi Survey.
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
Received 13 April2022
Revised 5 June 2022
11 September 2022
Accepted 14 September2022
Journal of Financial Management
of Property and Construction
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1366-4387
DOI 10.1108/JFMPC-04-2022-0020
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/1366-4387.htm
Introduction
The construction industry is a major driver of every country’s economic growth by
injecting substantial amounts of capital into the development of infrastructure.
According to Owusu-Manu et al. (2019), US$4tn, representing about 4% of the world’s
gross domestic product (GDP), is needed annually to meet the infrastructure
requirements of the world. In the context of developing countries alone, an estimated US
$1.5tn per year must be provided until 2030 for infrastructure developments. According
to Mistri et al. (2020), the huge investment in the sector is necessary because of the
continuous growth of population and economy that takes place in both developed and
developing countries, which creates massive demand for shelter. Zhang et al. (2019)
indicated that the global GDP has increased 59 times from US$1.367tn in 1960 to US
$80,684tn in 2017, with construction playing a major role in this unprecedented
increment. The average growth rate of the global construction industry in the year 2020
was expected to be 67% or 5.2% per annum (Onat and Kucukvar, 2020).
However, in spite ofall these economic achievements, theindustry still remains one of the
most hazardous industries globally because workers constantly have to work under
different working conditions in different geographical locations as well as working with new
co-workers on a daily basis, which leads to injuries, accidents and fatalities (Choi et al., 2019;
Hanna and Markham, 2019). The health and safety (H&S) of construction workers has
become a major concern for both practitioners and academics. A high rate of accidents and
fatalities in the industry has had a negative impact on the sector by deterring a large
number of young people from joining construction (Aburumman et al.,2019).
The construction industry in Ghana has an image problem as far as the H&S of the
workforce is concerned as Bavafa et al. (2018) indicated that the number of accidents are
relatively high. According to Bavafa et al. (2018), the unique characteristics that distinguish
the construction industry from other industries include dynamic work environments,
extensive use of sophisticated plant and heavy equipment and the multiplicity of
construction operations on site. According to Simpson and Sam (2020), the last workmen
compensation report covering the periods from 2010 to 2016 revealed that in Accra and
Kumasi, the construction industry recorded 558 cases of accidents. Amissah et al. (2019)
revealed that out of 902 occupational accidents that took place, 56 were victims involved in
construction. They went on to indicate that, in 2012 alone, an estimated amount of GHC 1.8m
was lost from the economy as a result of occupational injuries, accidents and fatalities.
The poor H&S performance of the Ghanaian construction industry has been attributed to
several factors such as lack of workers’self-protection and awareness, ineffective H&S laws
and regulations, insufficient communication of safety programmes, contractors ignoring
safety because of the time pressure of the project schedule, poor personal attitudes towards
H&S and lack of enforcement of safety laws and regulations (Agyekum et al.,2018). When
injuries, accidents and fatalities occur on construction sites, they have both direct and
indirect financial implications for the contractors as well as the victims. The direct cost
includes payment of compensations to the accident victims, treatment costs and many
others. Agyekum et al. (2021) identified the following as some of the indirect costs: reduction
in productivity from the injured worker, replacement, clean-up, stand-by, overtime,
administration, replacement worker orientation, delay, supervision and transportation costs
together with wages paid while the injured worker is idle.
Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) play a major role in the economic
development of countries. Governments worldwide have recognised the important role
SMEs play through economic growth, including employment opportunities (Ivanova Ruffo
et al.,2020). Heidt et al. (2019) acknowledged that SMEs alone have globally constituted over
JFMPC
90% of all enterprises thereby increasing economic growth. SMEs are currently responsible
for 60% of total global employment and up to 40% contribution to GDP (Dabi
cet al.,2020).
In the USA, for example, 99% of all firms are SMEs generating 65% of new jobs (Inekwe,
2016) while in the European Commission (EU) economy, they are responsible for 99.8% of all
enterprises in the non-financial sector in the EU28 generating 58% GDP, accounting for
67% of total employment (Gaganis et al., 2019).
SMEs are involved in several construction activities such as erecting, repairing,
alteration, demolishing civil engineering works and many similar functions regarded as
being dangerous (Asante et al., 2018). Gyensare et al. (2019) opine that SME construction
companies are more burdened with illnesses, injuries, accidents and fatalities than other
firms because of lack of proper health and safety management strategies. Tremblay and
Badri (2018) revealed that injuries, accidents and fatalities are eight times higher within
SMEs construction companies and 50% or more as regard non-fatal accidents. The negative
safety culture among these SME contractors in Ghana is because of lack of essential
resource capacity to comply with health and safety regulations as well as safety activities.
They further explained that in the midst of all these huge economic contributions by SMEs
to the Ghanaian economic growth, the sector is finding it difficult to grow and expand as a
result of impediments such as specific health and safety regulations that can guarantee and
safeguard the health and safety of their workforce. Ghana as it stands has no single
regulation that is specifically meant to protect the health and safety of all construction
workers across the country. Mustapha et al. (2016) have observed that the absence of proper
health and safety regulation in Ghana is the major cause of non-compliance to health and
safety practices among most SME contractors in the country.
To address the above challenges, it is important that SME contractors in Ghana establish
a positive culture of construction safety within their organisations. After extensive literature
review, there was no consensus on a leading indicator of a positive culture of construction
safety for improved SME contractor performance in Ghana as in the case of South Africa. To
address the above gap in research, the current research presents an indicator of a culture of
positive safety that would lead to health and safety performance improvement among SME
construction firms in Ghana. This would help construction stakeholders and health and
safety researchers to improve the poor H&S image that has bedevilled the industry for so
many decades throughout both developed anddeveloping countries, including Ghana.
The absence of positive culture of construction safety creates room for construction
workers to be involved in injuries, accidents and fatalities. This statement is supported by
Tremblay and Badri (2018) that the absence of positive culture of construction safety is
responsible for errors and violations of safety rules and regulations that lead to accidents in
SME construction companies. Olcay et al. (2021) stated that 98% of construction sites
accidents and diseases can be prevented within SME construction companies only where
there is positive culture of construction safety. According to Adaku et al. (2021),Schulman
(2020),Guasta and Lauriski (2019) and Loosemore and Malouf (2019), when there is health
and safety partnership between managers and employees and between employees
themselves, it is a sign of positive culture of construction safety that creates a sense of
collective responsibility for safe works among construction workers.
Literature review
Safety culture
Asad et al. (2021) opined that injuries, accidents and fatalities are common among SMEs
because of a lack of safety culture. Safety culture is receiving considerable attention because
researchers and construction stakeholders have recognised the positive impact on reducing
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
injuries, accidents and fatalities in the construction industry. The concept was first
introduced in 1986 after the Chernobyl accidents. Lack of safety culture has been identified
as the primary cause of major occupational accidents such as the North Sea oil production
platform “Piper Alpha”in 1988 and the King’s Cross underground fire in London in 1987
(Çalısand Küçükali, 2019). According to Stemn et al. (2019), safety culture is the most
important theoretical development that has taken place in the H&S of workers. It is essential
as a safety performance improvement strategy introduced to fight the high rates of an
accident in the workplace. Safety culture is a significant component of organisational culture
because its main objective is to build a positive environment that provides management and
employees with the opportunity to be wary of accidents.
Management and quality leadership are two critical elements in developing a strong
positive safety culture within SMEs (Byrnes et al.,2022). According to Olcay et al. (2021),
98% of occupational accidents and diseases are preventable only when SME construction
companies have a positive safety culture. Aburumman et al. (2019) suggested that the
absence of a safety culture provides room for errors and violations of rules in a construction
company, exposing the weaknesses of management’s effort to protect employees. A
construction site with poor safety culture is often characterised by management’s failure to
acknowledge or address the gaps within their safety systems (Aburumman et al.,2019). A
large number of injuries, accidents and fatalities in the construction industry compared to
developed and developing countries indicate developing countries do not have enough
safety culture. High-risk industries such as the construction industry have recognised the
vital role safety culture plays in fighting accidents. Hence, many of these industries across
the globe have accepted the concept of a safety culture to reduce the occurrence of potential
accidents (Olcay et al.,2021). In line with the above understanding, an “ideal”safety culture
can be considered “the engine”that will drive the system to reduce the rates of injuries,
accidents and fatalities in the construction industry. In spite of many years of research into
safety culture in the construction industry, there is no single definition for safety culture and
its measurement (Al-Bayati et al., 2019). Several authors have defined the term “safety
culture”, as shown in Table 1. It is believed that culture helps people to behave in the same
way for an extended period without the need for formal, written rules or regulations. Hence,
if safety were turned into a culture within an organisation, it would create an environment of
H&S that would enable every worker to become safety conscious without necessarily
writing down safety rules. Safety culture is the manifestation of individuals’and
organisations’commitment to take personal responsibility for safety, act to recognise and
communicate safety concerns, adapt and modify behaviour based on lessons learned from
previous mistakes and how they are rewarded (Al-Mekhlafiet al., 2021). According to Çalıs
and Küçükali (2019), safety culture:
refers to values shared among all group or organisation members;
deals with formal safety issues, supervision and management process in an
organisation;
concerns everyone from the lowest rank to the highest;
is effective in modifying the behaviour of employees in the workplace;
is reflected in a commitment reward system informed by safety performance; and
is reflected in the organisational desire to develop and learn from mistakes, events
and accidents.
In the context of this study, safety culture is defined as the set of share values and beliefs of
personal and collective attitudes and behavioural patterns that determine SME construction
JFMPC
companies commitment, willingness, styles and ability to manage health and safety issues
for improved SME contractor health and safety performance.
Measurement of positive construction safety culture
The occurrence of errors and violations of safety rules and practices within a construction
company is a clear indicator of poor safety culture (Aburumman et al., 2019). This suggests that
the managers of these construction companies are not genuinely committed to H&S-related
issues within the organisations. According to Aburumman et al. (2019) and Choudhry et al.
(2007), positive safety culture in construction is the surest way of mitigating injuries, accidents
and fatalities. Furthermore, once a positive safety culture is maintained, there will be a
significant improvement in H&S matters in a company. Rubin et al. (2020) argue that positive
safety culture predicts safety performance, compliance and participation better. When safety
culture has become a norm among SME construction companies in Ghana, workers will follow
safety protocols religiously. Applying a safety culture in the construction industry among SME
construction companies in Ghana for accident reduction is more critical now because Ghana
has no specific legislation addressing the H&S of its construction workers. At this stage, all
construction workers’hearts and minds must be addressed by instituting positive safety
culture within the SME construction companies. Stemn et al. (2019) argue that installing a
positive safety culture that appeals to the hearts and minds of all construction workers and
management alike will go a long way to reducing the occurrences of accidents in the
construction industry. Adzivor et al. (2019) and Choudhry et al. (2007) believed that the
Table 1.
Definition of safety
culture
References Definition of safety culture
Al-Bayati et al. (2019) Safety culture is considered the values of a construction company that
indicate the underlying beliefs and principles that guide safety decision-
making
Aburumman et al. (2019) Safety culture is described as the “shared values (i.e. what is important) and
beliefs (i.e. how things work) that interact with an organisation’s structures
and control systems to produce behavioural norms (i.e. the way we do things
around here)
Stemn et al. (2019) It is defined as the values and beliefs of an organisation specific to H&S
Guldenmund (2000) Groups share safety-related norms (or underlying assumptions), values and
practices
Musa and Isha (2021) Safety culture is characterised by the principles, values, attitudes and the
resulting actions expressed by members of the community, association or
organisation
Al-Bayati (2021) The construction safety culture represents the policies and principles that
guide safety decision-making
Al-Mekhlafiet al. (2021) Safety culture is considered the result of personal and collective attitudes,
beliefs and behavioural patterns. It determines organisations’commitment,
willingness, styles, and ability to manage health and safety issues
Institution of Occupational
Safety and Health (IOSH)
(2015)
Safety culture is shared values (what is important) and beliefs (how things
work) that interact with an organisation’s structure and control systems to
produce behavioural standards (the way things are done)
Health and safety executive
(HSE) (2021)
An organisation’s safety culture is the product of individual and group
values, attitudes, perceptions, qualifications and behaviour patterns that
determine the commitment and style and competence of an institution
regarding health and safety management
Source:Adapted and modified from Adzivor et al. (2019)
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
importance of safety, workers’involvement at all levels, the role of safety staff, caring trust,
openness in communication, belief in safety improvements and integration of safety into the
organisation are the essential components of safety culture. According to Grebenšek and Kosel
(2015), evidence of the following depicts a sign of negative safety culture:
when staff concerns about safety are not consistently addressed;
when staff does not learn from past events;
when safety cases indicate that the system is safe, but the operational team believes
that the accident was inevitable; and
when there is a belief that safety is the responsibility of someone else.
According to Trinh and Feng (2020), psychological, contextual and behavioural safety-
related factors that constitute a practical framework can measure safety culture that will
provide insights into the relationship between safety culture and safety outcome measures.
Yari et al. (2019) argue that positive construction safety culture creates an atmosphere where
everything relating to safety is considered most important. Iqbal et al. (2019) admit that
safety culture is difficult to measure because it is not a tangible concept. Still, they indicate
that its assessment requires selecting the appropriate model, data gathering and techniques
to arrive at measurable and repeatable evaluation results. Choudhry et al. (2007) identified
five critical components of a positive safety culture that can be used in its measurement.
These include management commitment to safety, management concerns for the workforce,
mutual trust and credibility between management and employees, workforce empowerment
and, finally, continuous monitoring, corrective action, review of the system and continual
improvements to reflect the safety of a worksite. Vecchio-Sadus and Griffiths (2004)
stipulated that positive safety culture can be promoted through management commitment,
changing attitudes and behaviours, employee involvement, promotional strategies, training
and seminars and unique campaigns. Wiegmann et al. (2004) identified five critical
components according to which safety culture can be assessed, namely, organisational
commitment, management involvement, employee empowerment, reward systems and,
finally, reporting systems. Piers et al. (2009) also identified six main components, which they
named the characteristics of safety culture as follows: commitment, behaviour, awareness,
adaptability, information and justness. For this research study, the following six main
components were considered in measuring safety culture:
(1) Adaptability was used to measure the willingness of employees and management
to learn from past experiences and take corrective actions necessary to enhance the
level of safety within the organisation.
(2) Behaviour was used to measure the extent to which every level of the organisation
behaves in a way that maintains and improves the level of safety.
(3) Information was used to measure how information on safety issues is distributed
to the right people at the right time in the organisation.
(4) Commitment was used to measure the extent to which every level of the
organisation has a positive attitude towards safety and recognises its importance.
(5) Justness was used to measure how people are encouraged to behave safely, report safety
issues and how they are rewarded for reducing unsafe behaviour within the organisation.
(6) Awareness was used to measure how aware both management and employees are
about the risks for themselves and any other person involved in the organisation’s
operations.
JFMPC
According to Tear et al. (2020), safety culture measurement is often carried out through
employee surveys. It is essential to measure safety culture because the outcomes are
necessary to monitor safety changes that have taken place within the organisation over
time. Some authors believe that safety culture cannot be measured, while others think it can
be measured and improved over time (Musonda et al.,2021). This study also believes that
safety culture in SME construction companies can be measured using the right tools, as
discussed in this study. We believe that measurement is critical. When safety culture is
measured, it provides SMEs with a tangible indicator of the current status of H&S and the
opportunity to establish new strategies for improving protection to prevent accidents
(Musonda et al., 2021). Safety culture measurement is essential because it helps to track
progress and devise new strategies to enhance the culture of safety among SMEs. In line
with the above understanding, the researchers of this current study have identified 70
leading indicator metrics that should be used to install positive safety culture among SME
construction companies in Ghana. To the researchers’best knowledge, none of such leading
indicator metrics has been developed to measure safety culture within SME construction
companies in Ghana.
Research method
Data collection
An online database and Web search, a literature review of journal articles, conference and
government documents were used in the literature review. To establish a positive culture of
safety within SME construction companies in Ghana, 87 leading indicator metrics were
identified from the literature. All 87 indicators were grouped under management concerns,
worksite norms, safe work procedure, collective responsibility, job satisfaction, equipment
and plant, hazard and risk, adaptability and flexibility, education and training, reporting,
information sharing, management contributions, worker contributions and, finally,
supervisor contributions (14 core elements), as shown in Table 2. H&S experts in Ghana
rated the importance of the 87 indicators in establishing a positive safety culture within
SME construction companies in Ghana using a Likert-type scale where 1 and 2 =
unimportant, 3 and 4 = slightly important, 5 and 6 = neutral, 7 and 8 = important and 9 and
10 = very important.
Delphi method
The Delphi method was used in this study to obtain the opinions of H&S experts in Ghana
on each of the identified indicators in the literature. According to Slade et al. (2014), the
Delphi method is a practical and structured method of obtaining opinions on a given
question from a range of experts, and it is commonly used to gain consensus among the
group of experts or informed respondents that make up the Delphi panel. Since its
development by Olaf Helmer and Norman Dalkey in 1953 at the Rand Corporation, the
technique has become the first choice for the authors of books and journal articles
throughout the world (Lang, 1998). Hasson et al. (2000) explained that the Delphi approach is
an iterative multi-stage process designed to combine opinions with group consensus. The
method has become the preferred method for researchers who aim to obtain consensus
among a group of specialists regarding a complex problem (Massaroli et al.,2017).
According to Mustapha et al. (2018), the technique is based on structured surveys and makes
use of the intuitively available information of experts in their various fields. It is an
appropriate choice of technique when there is lack of agreement, incomplete knowledge,
uncertainty or lack of evidence. Goodman (1987), as cited in Trevelyan and Robinson (2015),
identified four main characteristics of the Delphi method, namely, anonymity among
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
Construct Source Core elements Indicator metrics
Safety
commitment
Piers et al. (2009) Management
concerns
(Choudhry et al.,
2007)
1. Safe working conditions enforced
2. Zero tolerance for safety violations
3. Monitor and correct safety errors
4. Safety first is applied to all at work
5. Safety resources are prioritised
6. Safe operations are prioritised
7. Well-being of workers is prioritised
8. Health of workers is prioritised
Safe work
procedure
(Janjua, 2013)
1. At-risk work is flagged by co-workers
2. Safety instructions are reinforced on site
3. Unsafe acts are monitored and corrected
4. Unsafe conditions are corrected
5. Fatigue is monitored and managed
6. Work pressure is monitored and managed
7. Safety audits are conducted regularly
8. Safety inspections are conducted regularly
9. Method statements comply with SWP
10. Task execution complies with SWP
11. Work is completed in a safe manner
12. New workers are taught to follow SWP
Safety
behaviour
Piers et al. (2009) Worksite norms
(Brett and Lisa,
2008)
1. Equipment, tools and plants are used safely
2. Safety is improved continuously
3. Hazard awareness and control are executed
4. Risk awareness and control are executed
5. Accidents and near-miss incidents are mitigated
6. Workers make safety suggestions
7. Workers contribute to safety improvement
8. Workers are involved in safety planning
Job satisfaction
(Piers et al., 2009)
1. Work is inspiring and fulfilling
2. Work uses skills and talents
3. Achievements and progress are rewarded
4. Motivation to improve SWP at work
5. Work is done purely for salaries and wages
Safety
awareness
Piers et al. (2009) Equipment and
plant (Geller,
1996)
1. Suitable plant and equipment are available
2. Routine upkeep is performed on plants
3. Operators are trained to use equipment
Hazard and risks
(Piers et al., 2009)
1. Safety rules and policies are clear
2. Workplace SWP is understood
3. Unsafe acts and conditions are mitigated
4. Hazard reporting is encouraged on sites
5. The collective undertakes safety analysis
Safety
information
Piers et al. (2009) Reporting (Piers
et al., 2009)
1.Blame game does not hinder incident reports
2. Reporting lines and systems are clear
3. Reports lead to reviews and improvements
4.Incident reporting is nurtured and rewarded
5. Incident reporting leads to better SWPs
6. Workers are willing to report incidents
Information
sharing (Cox and
Cheyne, 2000)
1. SWP information is shared timely
2.Safety information is in multiple languages
3.Voluntary safety information-sharing exists
4.New safety regulations are shared timely
5.Safety concerns receive timely attention
(continued)
Table 2.
Indicators of positive
safety culture in
construction
JFMPC
participants, which allows views to be expressed and changed privately; iteration, with
controlled feedback of group opinions, which allows communication between the
participants and for perceptions to be shared; statistical aggregation of group responses,
which allows for data to be analysed and interpreted; and expert input, which means that
each participant is informed about the study area. Agumba (2013), however, stated that the
Delphi technique is generally based on two key conventions: the first is that group decisions
made by experts in the field of study are more effective than those made by individuals, and
the second is that during direct inter-personal interaction, over-assertive members of the
group might affect the consensus reached by the group, or there might be group bias
involved.
Therefore, the Delphi method was used to validate the 87 indicators that would lead to
the establishment of a positive culture of safety among SME construction companies in
Ghana. The opinions of the chosen experts in Ghana were re-submitted in three consecutive
rounds until a satisfactory consensus was reached. The experts examined the influence of
Construct Source Core elements Indicator metrics
Education and
training
(Vecchio-Sadus
and Griffiths,
2004;Wu et al.,
2010)
1. Safety inductions are detailed and timely
2. Tool-box talks are enriched with examples
3. Safety information is provided regularly
4. Training covers SWPs and regulations
Safety
adaptability
Slade et al. (2014) Adaptability and
flexibility (Filhoa
and Waterson,
2018)
1. Workers use SWP to execute tasks
2. Safe equipment and plant are used on sites
3. Safety promotions are embraced on sites
4. Mindfulness in relation to safety exists
Collective
responsibility
(Brother’s keeper;
Vecchio-Sadus
and Griffiths,
2004)
1. Co-workers often discuss safety hazards
2. Co-workers care for the safety of each other
3. Co-workers care about equipment safety
4. Co-workers discuss accident prevention
5. Work pressure does not violate safety
6. Co-workers report safety violations
7. Co-workers raise alerts to SWP violation
Safety
performance
Piers et al. (2009) Management
contributions
(Vecchio-Sadus
and Griffiths,
2004)
1. Regular safety inspection is expedited
2. Safety equipment is functional
3. Safety equipment is accessible and available
4. Safety first is applied under work pressure
5. Overtime work is controlled
6. Blame game is prohibited
7. Regular safety inspection is expedited
Worker
contributions
(Vecchio-Sadus
and Griffiths,
2004)
1. Workers encourage one another to be safe
2. Workers keep worksite clean
3. Workers ignore safety rules
4. Workers take short-cut to complete tasks
5. Workers use SWPs to complete the job
6. Workers keep worksite clean
7. Workers do not ignore safety rules
Supervisor
contributions
(Thompson et al.,
1998)
1. Supervisors allow safety suggestions
2. Supervisors disallow safety violations
3. Supervisors prioritise productivity
4. Supervisors do not ignore SWP deviations Table 2.
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
the indicators and their core elements on a positive culture of safety among SME
construction companies in Ghana. Between each questionnaire iteration, every group
member was informed about the opinions and judgements of each anonymous member
through a controlled feedback.
Panel and panel size
According to Hasson et al. (2000), panel selection is the most important part of the entire
Delphi process. In this study, all the experts were selected from Ghana because of their
knowledge of, and experience in, Ghana. According to Mustapha et al. (2018), the experts in
a Delphi study must have the following attributes: exhibit a high degree of knowledge in the
subject matter, and be representatives of the profession so that their suggestions may be
adaptable or transferrable to the population. The selection of the experts for this study was
based on any five of the following minimum criteria: residence, knowledge, academic
qualification, experience, employment, influence and recognition, authorship, research,
teaching, membership and willingness to participate. This was in line with the assertion by
Keeney et al. (2001) that, if the experts selected do not have the necessary knowledge,
qualification and the required experience, the desired result would not be achieved (Ameyaw
et al., 2016). Alyami et al. (2013) argued that a researcher should not be over-concerned about
the number of panelists but rather select panel members based on their capability,
knowledge, professional qualifications and relevant experience in thefield of study.
Agumba et al. (2014) observed that previous studies in which the Delphi method was
used, the size of panels were limited to between 10 and 50 panelists, while Mustapha et al.
(2018) stated that over 60 experts were used in some studies. In the current study, the panel
size was limited to 31 experts, all from Ghana. Out of the 31 experts who were invited to
participate in the Delphi process, 18 (58% response rate) accepted voluntarily to participate
in the process. The remaining 13 gave no reasons for declining to participate. The Delphi
process ended in Round 3 with 16 experts.
Consensus
According to Chun and Nam (2019), it is important to reach an acceptable level of consensus
to move from one Delphi round to another. The notion of consensus is essential in all Delphi
studies, yet what constitutes a consensus is not clearly stated (Diamond et al.,2014). As a
result, researchers have resorted to the use of different approaches in defining what
constitutes consensus such as formal measures of agreement, degree of uncertainty around a
point estimate, decreases in variance of group responses or the proportion of participants
agreeing to a particular viewpoint. Diamond et al. (2014) reported that the most common
definition of consensus is a percentage agreement where the median threshold for
determination of consensus is 75% (range 50%–90%). Boulkedid et al. (2011), as cited by
Agumba et al. (2014), reiterated that median and percentage response have become one of
the most used criteria in the determination of consensus in most Delphi studies. Agumba
et al. (2014) were of the opinion that a consensus is reached whenever 80% of subjects’votes
fall within two categories on a seven-point scale, and at least 70% of the Delphi experts need
to rate three or higher on a four-point Likert scale with a minimum median value of 3.25. In
line with the above proposal, the median and percentage were used to determine consensus
in the current study. Consensus was reached in this study when each indicator attracted a
final median score of importance of 5–10 and more than 50% of the experts rated each
indicator between 5 and 10 median values.
JFMPC
Number of Delphi rounds
Since the inception of the Delphi method, no researcher has proposed specific guidance on
the number of rounds, leaving each researcher to settle on a different number of rounds.
After reviewing 88 papers that used the Delphi method, Ameyaw et al. (2016) stated that
consensus was attained in 45% of the papers reviewed within two to three rounds. Dalkey
et al. (1970) observed that the most accurate results of the Delphi process are obtained after
two iterations. The longer the number of rounds used in the Delphi technique, the more
likely it is that participants will start to drop out of the process because of fatigue, attrition
rates, time and cost (Zartha Sossa et al.,2019;Xia et al., 2011). Consensus was attained in the
current study after three rounds (Figure 1).
First Delphi round. The six-page survey questionnaire was sent to 31 identified H&S
experts in Ghana via e-mail in June 2019. A detailed instruction was given on the first page
to guide experts in completing the open-ended questionnaire. A ten-point Likert scale from
(1) unimportant to (10) very important was used to measure the importance of each
indicator. Out of the 31 experts, 18 responded, giving a response rate of 58% and 13 experts,
representing 42%, did not respond without giving any reasons. The group median was
calculated using Excel 2019 and sent back to the experts for the second round of survey. In
all, 87 leading indicators formed part of the questionnaire, measuring 14 core elements.
Second Delphi round. In the second round, the completed surveys of the first round were
sent to each panelist via e-mail with the group median values. This gave the experts the
Figure 1.
Delphi process
31 Experts were invited to First Round
Structured quesonnaire was sent to
each parcipant by e-mail
18 Experts completed First Round
Median score was calculated and result
added to Second Round survey for
parcipants
17 Experts completed Second Round
Second Round results summarised and
presented with Third Round survey for
parcipant reflecon
13 Experts did not reply
No reasons were given
1 Expert did not complete
Second Round
No reasons were given
1 Expert did not complete
Third Round
No reasons were given
16 Experts completed Third Round
Results analysed for consensus of
agreement or disagreement per
component of importance
Source: Modified from Whitaker et al. (2020)
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
opportunity to compare and review their own responses with those of the entire group of
experts. The experts were also allowed to give reasons if they decided to change their
ratings by 2 units more or less than the group median. Theround began with 18 experts and
ended with 17 experts representing a 94% response rate. The only absentee gave no reasons
for withdrawing.
Third Delphi round. The third Delphi round started with 17 experts and ended with 16,
representing a response rate of 94%. No reason was given by the only expert who did not
complete the round. In this round, the experts were allowed to reflect on their own results
compared with the group median before they repeated the same scoring process as in the
second round or change their minds. Spaces were provided for the experts to give reasons if
their rating was 2 units more or less than the group median. They were given the
opportunity to add to the indicators, but none was added. In all, the experts considered 80
indicators to be important in establishing a positive culture of safety to improve the safety
performance of SME construction contractors in Ghana.
Results and interpretation
Delphi expert panel
A three-round Delphi was completed by 16 of the 31 experts who were invited to take part,
representing a 52% response rate. Participants came from seven different geographical
locations in Ghana. The profiles of the experts are summarised in Table 3. The panel
comprised 4 females (13%) and 27 males (87%), confirming male dominance of the
construction industry. Based on the academic qualifications coupled with the professional
affiliations and practices of the experts, there was no doubt about their confirmation of the
80 indicators as being important in establishing a positive culture of safety in construction
that would lead to an improved performance of SME contractor H&S in Ghana.
Analysis of the indicators
A total of 87, potential, H&S indicators were included in the first, second and third rounds.
After three rounds of the Delphi process, the 80 indicators were finally accepted based on
consensus (were rated as “unimportant”or “important”by 50% or more of panellists). This
list comprised the following 14 core elements (refer to Tables 2 and 4): management
concerns (n= 8), worksite norms (n= 8), safe work procedure (n= 12), collective
responsibility (n= 7), job satisfaction (n= 4), equipment and plant (n= 3), hazard and risk
(n= 6), adaptability and flexibility (n= 4), education and training (n= 4), reporting (n=6),
information-sharing (n= 5), management contributions (n= 6), worker contributions (n=3)
and supervisor contributions (n= 4). The seven indicators that did not attain consensus are
highlighted in italics in Table 4.
Discussion
To the best of the authors’knowledge, this is the first set of safety culture indicators to be
developed specifically to establish a positive culture of safety among SME construction
companies in Ghana. A total of 80 positive safety culture indicators were accepted by the
experts that could be used to reduce the occurrence of accidents in the construction industry.
A positive culture of safety in construction is the surest means by which accidents in the
construction industry can be reduced. A poor safety culture among SMEs is fertile ground
for accidents. To prevent the occurrence of these accidents, there is a need for construction
SMEs in Ghana to establish positive safety culture that will improve their safety
performances, especially considering that, currently, there were no H&S regulations in the
construction industry in Ghana. According to Piers et al. (2009), there are six main
JFMPC
S/N Employer City
Professional
affiliation
Academic
qualification Professional category
1 Government of
Ghana
Kumasi IET GhIS Doctorate Built environment consultant
Built environment researcher
Professional construction manager
2 Ho Technical
University
Ho CIOB Doctorate Construction H&S researcher
Professional construction manager
3 University of
Education,
Winniba
Winniba GhIS, GOIC Doctorate Construction H&S researcher
Built environment researcher
Professional construction manager
4 University of
Mines and
Technology
Tarkwa GhISEP Doctorate H&S consultant
Professional engineer
5 Cape Coast
Technical
University
Cape Coast CIOB (UK)
GIOC
Doctorate Construction H&S researcher
Built environment consultant
6 Free Lancer Kumasi MGhIS Doctorate Construction H&S researcher
Professional construction manager
7 PC Accra GhISEP Masters H&S practitioner
Certified safety professional
8 Takoradi IOSH, GhISEP,
IRCA
Masters H&S practitioner
9 OLAM Ghana
Limited
Accra GhISEP, IOSH Masters H&S practitioner
10 Model H&S
Limited
Kumasi GhISEP Masters H&S practitioner
Certified safety professional
11 SDD University
of Business and
Integrated
development
Studies
WA GhIS Masters Built environment researcher
12 University of
Mines and
Technology
Tarkwa GhISEP,
OSHAfrica
Masters H&S consultant
Construction H&S researcher
Professional construction manager
Professional engineer
13 Ho Technical
University
Ho GhIS, CIOB
GBCDA
Masters Construction H&S researcher
Built environment researcher
Professional construction manager
(continued)
Table 3.
Profile of experts
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
characteristics that are important in ensuring a positive safety culture within an
organisation, as follows: commitment, behaviour, awareness, adaptability, information and
justness. For the purposes of the current study, commitment, behaviour, awareness,
adaptability and information were used.
The results shown in Table 4 indicated that all eight indicators that were identified to
measure management concerns attained consensus and were retained. The highest rated
indicator was “health of workers is prioritised”with a median value of 9 and rated as very
important by 94% of the experts. Therefore, the experts believed that all eight indicators are
very important in measuring the concerns of management towards the H&S of their
employees. Additionally, all eight indicators measuring worksite norms were considered to
be very important by the experts in establishing a positive culture of safety in SME
construction companies in Ghana. Their median importance was 8 as rated by more than
50% of the experts.
Safe work procedures were measured using 12 indicators. Experts rated all 12 indicators
as being important. All the indicators measuring collective responsibility were accepted as
having a positive impact on safety culture. These results concurred with the finding in
literature that when safe work procedures are installed and followed with collective
responsibility in an organisation, this will lead to a considerable reduction in the occurrence
of accidents in the construction industry.
As shown in Table 4, two indicators identified to measure job satisfaction were not
retained. “Work is repetitive and boring”and “work is done purely for salaries and wages”
had median ratings of 5.5 and 6, respectively, which were within the importance band of 5–10,
and rated by the experts as important. These factors were expected to have a median score
less than the 5–10 threshold because of their nature. Accident rates would be likely to increase
in the construction industry if JS1 and JS6 attained a higher median mark more than 5. As
shown in Table 4, JS3 (work uses skills and talents) was rephrased to JS3 (workers use skills
and talents), JS4 (achievements and progress is rewarded) was also rephrased to JS4
(achievements and progress are rewarded) as well as JS5 (motivation to improved SWP at
work) has been changed to JS5 (motivation to improve SWP at work). The highest rated factor
was JS5, as 75% of the experts rated it as being very important, with a median score of 7.
Equipment and plant had three indicators which all attained consensus and were retained.
Over 94% of the experts rated all three to be very important, with a median value of 9. These
findings concurred with the literature that, if all equipment and plant are available, well-kept
and the operators are trained, this would lead to improvement in safety culture within SME
construction companies.
S/N Employer City
Professional
affiliation
Academic
qualification Professional category
14 PW Ghana
Limited
Accra Masters Construction H&S researcher
Certified safety professional
15 BCM
International
Tarkwa Masters Construction H&S researcher
Notes: GhIS: Ghana Institute of Surveyors; CIOB: Chartered Institute of Building; IOHS: Institute of
Occupational Safety and Health; OSHAfrica: Occupational Safety and Health Africa; GhISEP: Ghana
Institute of Safety and Environmental Professionals; IRCA: International Register of Certificated Auditors;
UK: United Kingdom and IET: Institute of Engineering and Technology
Table 3.
JFMPC
Element ID
Positive construction safety culture
core elements and indicators (5–10)% Mean Median
Management concerns (MC)
MC1 Safe working conditions enforced 87.5 7.6 8
MC2 Zero tolerance for safety violations 87.5 7.3 8
MC3 Monitor and correct safety errors 81.3 6.9 7
MC4 Safety first is applied to all at work 81.3 7.3 7.5
MC5 Safety resources are prioritised 81.3 6.8 7
MC6 Safe operations are prioritised 81.3 7.3 7.5
MC7 Well-being of workers is prioritised 93.8 7.7 8
MC8 Health of workers is prioritised 93.8 8.3 9
Worksite norms (WN)
WN1 Equipment, tools and plants are used safely 100 7.4 8
WN2 Safety is improved continuously 87.5 7.7 8
WN3 Hazard awareness and control are executed 93.8 7.7 8
WN4 Risk awareness and control are executed 93.8 7.8 8
WN5 Accidents and near misses are mitigated 93.8 7.8 8
WN6 Workers make safety suggestions 87.5 7.5 8
WN7 Workers contribute to safety improvement 87.5 7.6 8
WN8 Workers are involved in safety planning 87.5 7.5 8
Safe work procedure (SWP)
SW1 At-risk work is flagged by co-workers 93.8 7.2 7
SW2 Safety instructions are reinforced on site 93.8 7.9 8
SW3 Unsafe acts are monitored and corrected 93.8 7.9 8.5
SW4 Unsafe conditions are corrected 93.8 7.8 8.5
SW5 Fatigue is monitored and managed 87.5 7.6 8
SW6 Work pressure is monitored and managed 87.5 7.3 8
SW7 Safety audits are conducted regularly 93.8 8.0 8.5
SW8 Safety inspections are conducted regularly 93.8 8.0 9
SW9 Method statements comply with SWP 87.5 7.1 8
SW10 Task execution complies with SWP 93.8 7.6 8
SW11 Work is completed in a safe manner 93.8 8.0 8
SW12 New workers are taught to follow SWP 87.5 8.1 9
Collective responsibility (CR)
CR1 Co-workers often discuss safety hazards 81.3 7.5 8.5
CR2 Co-workers care for the safety of each other 87.5 7.7 8
CR3 Co-workers care about equipment safety 81.3 7.5 8
CR4 Co-workers discuss accident prevention 81.3 7.1 8
CR5 Work pressure does not violate safety 81.3 7.2 8
CR6 Co-workers report safety violations 87.5 7.6 8
CR7 Co-workers raise alert to SWP violation 93.8 7.3 7.5
Job satisfaction (JS)
JS1 Work is repetitive and boring 62.5 5.0 5.5
JS2 Work is inspiring and fulfilling 75.0 6.4 7
JS3 Workers use skills and talents 81.3 6.4 6.5
JS4 Achievements and progress are rewarded 87.5 6.5 6.5
JS5 Motivation to improve SWP at work 75.0 6.7 7
JS6 Work is done purely for salaries and wages 75.0 6.0 6
(continued)
Table 4.
Indicators of a
positive culture of
safety in
construction
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
Element ID
Positive construction safety culture
core elements and indicators (5–10)% Mean Median
Equipment and plant (EP)
EP1 Suitable plant and equipment is available 93.8 7.9 9
EP2 Routine upkeep is performed on plants 100 8.1 8.5
EP3 Operators are trained to use equipment 93.8 8.3 8.5
Hazard and risk (HR)
HR1 Safety is ignored to get the job done 56.3 4.7 5
HR2 Prohibited work activities are expedited 62.5 5.1 5
HR3 SWP is violated to get the job done 43.8 4.8 4
HR4 Drift to safety violation is allowed 56.3 4.6 5
HR5 Safety rules and policies are clear 93.8 7.7 8
HR6 Workplace SWP is understood 93.8 7.6 7.5
HR7 Unsafe acts and conditions are mitigated 93.8 7.6 8
HR8 Hazard reporting is encouraged on sites 81.3 7.3 8
HR9 The collective undertake safety analysis 87.5 7.0 7.5
Adaptability and flexibility (AF)
AF1 Workers use SWP to execute tasks 87.5 7.2 7.5
AF2 Safe equipment and plant are used on sites 100 7.8 8
AF3 Safety promotions are embraced on sites 87.5 7.7 8
AF4 Mindfulness in relation to safety exists 87.5 7.8 8.5
Education and training (ET)
ET1 Safety inductions are detailed and timely 87.5 8.1 9
ET2 Tool-box talks are enriched with examples 87.5 7.9 9
ET3 Safety information is provided regularly 87.5 7.9 9
ET4 Training covers SWPs and regulations 87.5 7.6 8.5
Reporting (R)
R1 Blame game does not hinder incident reports 93.8 7.9 8
R2 Reporting lines and systems are clear 93.8 7.6 8
R3 Reports lead to reviews and improvements 93.8 7.4 8
R4 Incident reporting is nurtured and rewarded 81.3 7.4 7
R5 Incident reporting leads to better SWPs 87.5 7.6 8
R6 Workers are willing to report incidents 87.5 7.6 8
Information-sharing (IS)
IS1 SWP information is shared timeously 75.0 7.2 8
IS2 Safety information is in multiple languages 75.0 6.7 7.5
IS3 Voluntary safety information-sharing exists 75.0 6.5 7.5
IS4 New safety regulations are shared timeously 75.0 7.2 8
IS5 Safety concerns receive timely attention 81.3 7.6 8.5
Management contributions (MCP)
MCP1 Regular safety inspection is expedited 81.3 7.3 8
MCP2 Safety equipment is of adequate quality 93.8 7.7 8
MCP3 Safety equipment is accessible and available 93.8 7.7 8
MCP4 Safety first is applied under work pressure 87.5 7.1 7.5
MCP5 Overtime work is controlled 93.8 7.6 8
MCP6 Blame game regarding accidents is prohibited 93.8 7.7 8
(continued)
Table 4.
JFMPC
Hazard and risks were measured using nine factors out of which six attained consensus and
were retained. HR1, HR2 and HR4 each attained a median score of 5, which was within the
median range of 5–10 of the current study. However, the nature of these indicators was such
that, if they had been rated as being very important with a median value within 5–10, they
would have a negative impact on safety culture in the SME construction companies.
Although 44% of the experts rated HR3 with a median value of 4, it was retained. If “safety
is ignored to get the job done”,“prohibited work activities are expedited”and “drift to safety
violation is allowed”, this would create more room for accidents within SME construction
companies, and result in a negative safety culture. HR5, HR7 and HR8 were rated by 93% of
the experts with a median value of 8 each, the highest in this category. However, experts
agreed that all four indicators measuring adaptability and flexibility of H&S would lead to a
positive culture of safety among SME construction companies in Ghana. This implied that,
if managers and employees of SMEs were mindful of safety-related issues in their daily
activities, safety culture would be upheld firmly in these companies.
Over 80% of the experts considered the four indicators measuring education and training
as being very important with a median score of 9. These results concurred with the literature
that education and training of workers are very necessary in addressing the negative H&S
records of the construction industry in Ghana, because educating and training employees
will improve their safety behaviours significantly (Wu et al., 2010). Likewise, all six
indicators measuring reporting attained consensus and were retained. These indicators
received a higher median score of 7–8, confirming the opinions and judgements of the
experts that, if accidents and near-misses were reported early and actions were taken at the
right time, this would lead to considerable reductions in accidents on construction sites.
The information-sharing of H&S was indicated as a factor that would improve a positive
culture of safety in construction among SMEs. All five indicators measuring information-
sharing attained consensus and were retained. Over 75% of the experts acknowledged that
these indicators are very important with median values between 7 and 8. This affirmed the
opinions of the experts that, if information sharing were well addressed, it would promote a
positive culture of safetywithin the construction industry.
All six indicators measuring management contributions were rated by 82% of the
experts as being very important with a median value within the 5–10 median band. The
factor MC2, “safety equipment is off adequate quality”was edited to “safety equipment is of
adequate quality”. The high rating of all six indicators by the experts was a confirmation of
the importance of management’s contributions towards enhancing H&S performance
Element ID
Positive construction safety culture
core elements and indicators (5–10)% Mean Median
Worker contributions (WC)
WC1 Workers encourage one another to be safe 81.3 7.3 8
WC2 Workers keep worksite clean 87.5 7.9 8.5
WC3 Workers ignore safety rules 56.3 5.3 5.5
WC4 Workers take short-cut to complete tasks 68.8 5.8 6.5
WC5 Workers use SWPs to get the job done 93.8 7.4 8
Supervisor contributions (SC)
SC1 Supervisors allow safety suggestions 81.3 7.4 8
SC2 Supervisors disallow safety violations 87.5 7.0 7
SC3 Supervisors prioritise productivity 75.0 6.6 7
SC4 Supervisors ignore SWP deviations 75.0 5.6 6 Table 4.
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
among construction SMEs. In the case of worker contributions, five indicators were used to
measure the component with three attaining consensus and were retained. The two
indicators “workers ignore safety rules”and “workers take short-cut to complete tasks”did
not reach consensus andtherefore were dropped even though they had median scores within
the acceptable range. These results meant that, if workers ignore safety rules and take short-
cuts in completing tasks on construction sites, the rate of accidents would be high and a sign
of negative safety culture.
Supervisor contributions had four indicators with all four being rated by the experts as being
very important. The indicator “supervisors allow safety suggest”was edited to “supervisors
allow safety suggestions”. Experts therefore confirmed that supervisors’involvement in safety
performance by allowing safety suggestions from workers and employees disallowing safety
violations on construction sites would increase safety performance tremendously among SME
construction firms in Ghana. However, there is additional future work to be done. For instance,
the core H&S elements and their leading indicator metrics will be used to develop a positive
construction safety culture framework for improved construction SMEs safety performance in
Ghana. This framework will be tested using senior construction employees together with
directors of SME construction companies in Ghana to develop a “best fit”framework that will
lead to a positive safety culture in construction.
Conclusions
A set of 87 indicators were identified from the literature and broadly reviewed using the
Delphi method of consultation. After three Delphi rounds, the feedback from 16 H&S experts
in Ghana and the values of the pertinent statistical data were analysed. No new indicators
were added by the experts at the end of the third round, even though they were given the
opportunity to do so. A total of 87 factors were analysed and categorised into 14
magnitudes. At the end of the Delphi process, 80 indicators attained consensus and were
retained. Seven factors, JS1 (work is repetitive and boring), JS6 (work is done purely for
salaries and wages) measuring job satisfaction, HR1 (safety is ignored to get the job done),
HR2 (prohibited work activities are expedited), HR4 (drift to safety violations is allowed)
measuring hazard and risks, WC3 (workers ignore safety rules) and WC4 (workers take
short-cut to complete tasks) measuring workers contributions, were dropped. Some experts
stated after reviewing the results of the first round, that they did not understand the concept
clearly and called for further explanations. One expert commented:
The variation in my response to group mean may probably be because of individual professional
experience and the level of importance each respondent attached to crucial elements of safety
culture. For example, the safety curve indicates that the first of safety has to do with enforcement.
Thus, enforcement of safety measures at the early stages of a programme is crucial for the
development of safety culture and this cannot be compromised. How the group mean score 7.5 out
of 10 baffles me.
In the current study, the Delphi technique gave the researchers the opportunity to repost all
the leading indicator metrics to the experts throughout the Delphi rounds 1–3 without
removing those indicators that did not attain consensus in successive rounds. It is evident
from the Delphi study that all the H&S experts believed when all these 14 H&S core
elements together with their leading indicator metrics are well implemented within SME
construction companies in Ghana, it will have a major impact on their efforts to fight the
occurrences of injuries, accidents and fatalities in the Ghanaian construction industry. This
is supported by literature that when there is strong positive culture of construction safety,
the rates of occurrences of diseases and accidents on construction sites will reduce
JFMPC
drastically. Construction SMEs in Ghana can now be confident that they have the safety and
health of their workers covered once they incorporate the above positive culture of
construction safety 14 core elements and their corresponding leading indicator metrics into
their business activities.
References
Aburumman, M., Newman, S. and Fildes, B. (2019), “Evaluating the effectiveness of workplace
interventions in improving safety culture: a systematic review”,Safety Science, Vol. 115,
pp. 376-392, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2019.02.027.
Adaku, E., Ankrah, N.A. and Ndekugri, I.E. (2021), “Design for occupational safety and health: a
theoretical framework for organisational capability”,Safety Science, Vol. 133, p. 105005, doi:
10.1016/j.ssci.2020.105005.
Adzivor, E.K., Emuze, F. and Das, D. (2019), “A framework for positive construction safety culture for
improved SME contractor performance in Ghana”,14th international postgraduate research
conference 2019, Contemporary and FutureDirections in the Built Environment, pp. 118-127.
Agumba, J.N. (2013), “A construction health and safety performance improvement model for South
African small and medium enterprises”, Unpublished PhD (Engineering Management) thesis,
Johannesburg. University of Johannesburg, available at: //ujcontent.uj.ac.za/vital/access/
services/Download/uj:7810/CONTENT1
Agumba, J.N., Haupt, T.C. and Pretorius, J. (2014), “Important health and safety performance
improvement indicators for small and medium construction enterprises in South Africa: eliciting
expert opinion using the Delphi technique”,Ergonomics SA, Vol. 26 No. 2, pp. 3-22.
Agyekum, K., Simons, B. and Botchway, S. (2018), “Factors influencing the performance of safety
programmes in the Ghanaian construction industry”,Acta Structilia, Vol. 25 No. 2, pp. 39-68, doi:
10.18820/24150487/as25i2.2.
Agyekum, K., Ghansah, F.A., Tettey, P.A. and Amudjie, J. (2021), “The role of project managers (PMs)
in construction health and safety implementation in Ghana”,Journal of Engineering, Design and
Technology, Vol. 19 No. 1,pp. 245-262, doi: 10.1108/jedt-04-2020-0122.
Al-Bayati, A.J. (2021), “Impact of construction safety culture and construction safety climate on safety
behavior and safety motivation”,Safety, Vol. 7 No. 2, p. 41,doi: 10.3390/safety7020041.
Al-Bayati, A.J., Albert, A. and Ford, G. (2019), “Construction safety culture and climate: satisfying
necessity for an industry framework”,Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction,
Vol. 24 No. 4, p. 4019028, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)SC.1943-5576.0000452.
Al-Mekhlafi, A.-B.A., Isha, A.S.N., Chileshe, N., Abdulrab, M., Kineber, A.F. and Ajmal, M. (2021),
“Impact of safety culture implementation on driving performance among oil and gas tanker
drivers: a partial least squares structural equation modelling (PLS-SEM) approach”,
Sustainability, Vol. 13 No. 16, p. 8886, doi: 10.3390/su13168886.
Alyami, S.H., Rezqui, Y. and Khan, A. (2013), “Developing sustainable building assessment scheme for
Saudi Arabia: Delphi consultation approach”,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
Vol. 27, pp. 43-54, doi: 10.1016/j.rser.2013.06.011.
Ameyaw, E.E., Hu, Y., Shan, M., Chan, A.P.C. and Le, Y. (2016), “Application of Delphi method in
construction engineering and management research: a quantitative perspective”,Journal of Civil
Engineering and Management, Vol. 22 No. 8, pp. 991-1000, doi: 10.3846/13923730.2014.9459.
Amissah, J., Agyei-Baffour, P., Badu, E., Agyeman, J.K. and Badu, E.D. (2019), “The cost of managing
occupational injuries among frontline construction workers in Ghana”,Value in Health Regional
Issues, Vol. 19, pp. 104-111, doi: 10.1016/j.vhri.2019.06.002.
Asad, M., Kashif, M., Sheikh, U.A., Asif, M.U., George, S. and Khan, G.U.H. (2021), “Synergetic effect of
safety culture and safety climate on safety performance in SMEs: does transformation
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
leadership have a moderating role?”,International Journal of Occupational Safety and
Ergonomics, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1942657.
Asante, J., Kissi, E. and Badu, E. (2018), “Factorial analysis of capacity-building needs of small- and
medium-scale building contractors in developing countries: Ghana as a case study”,Benchmarking:
An International Journal, Vol. 25 No. 1, pp. 357-372, doi: 10.1108/BIJ-07-2016-0117.
Bavafa, A., Mahdiyar, A. and Marsono, A.K. (2018), “Identifying and assessing the critical factors for
effective implementation of safety programs in construction projects”,Safety Science, Vol. 106,
pp. 47-56, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.02.025.
Boulkedid, R., Abdoul, H., Loustau, M., Sibony, O. and Corinne, A. (2011), “Using and reporting the
Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: a systematic review”,PLoS ONE,
Vol. 6 No. 6, p. e20476, doi: 10.1371/journal.prone.0020476.
Brett, M. and Lisa, B. (2008), “Safety culture: a multilevel assessment tool for the construction industry”,
in Brown, K., Pillay, J., Hampson, K. and Brandon, P. (Eds), Clients Driving Construction
Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation, CRC Construction Innovation, Australia, Queensland,
Brisbane, p. 1-24.
Byrnes, K.P., Rhoades, D.L., Williams, M.J., Arnaud, A.U. and Schneider, A.H. (2022), “The effect of a
safety crisis on safety culture and safety climate: the resilience of a flight training organization
during COVID-19”,Transport Policy, Vol. 117, pp. 181-191, doi: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.009.
Çalıs, S. and Küçükali, U.F. (2019), “The work safety culture as a subculture: the structure of work
safety culture in Turkey”,Procedia Computer Science, Vol. 158, pp. 546-551, doi: 10.1016/j.
procs.2019.09.08.
Choi, S.D., Guo, L., Kim, J. and Xiong, S. (2019), “Comparison of fatal occupational injuries in
construction industry in the United States, South Korea, and China”,International Journal of
Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 71, pp. 64-74.
Choudhry, R.M., Fag, D. and Mohamed, S. (2007), “The nature of safety culture: a survey of the state of
art”,Safety Science, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 903-1012, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.003.
Chun, S. and Nam, K. (2019), “A public health scape framework for assessing geriatric long-term care
public hospitals in South Korea by a Delphi expert consultation”,Building and Environment,
Vol. 10, pp. 62-91, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2019.10.
Cox, S.J. and Cheyne, A.J.T. (2000), “Assessing safety culture in offshore environments”,Safety Science,
Vol. 34 Nos 1/3, pp. 111-129.
Dabi
c, M., Maley, J., Dana, L.-P., Novak, I., Pellegrini, M.M. and Caputo, A. (2020), “Pathways of SME
internationalization: a bibliometric and systematic review”,Small Business Economics, Vol. 55
No. 3, pp. 705-725, doi: 10.1007/s11187-019-00181-6.
Dalkey, N., Brown, B. and Cochran, S. (1970), “Use of self-ratings to improve group estimates”,
Technological Forecasting, Vol. 1 No. 3, pp. 283-291, doi: 10.1016/0099-3964(70)90029-3.
Diamond, I.R., Grant, R.C., Feldman, B.M., Penccharz, P.B., Ling, S.C., Moore, A.M. and Wales, P.W.
(2014), “Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for
reporting of Delphi studies”,Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 67 No. 4, pp. 401-409, doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.12.002.
Filhoa, A.P.G. and Waterson, P. (2018), “Maturity models and safety culture: a critical review”,Safety
Science, Vol. 105, pp. 192-211.
Gaganis, C., Pasiouras, F. and Voulgari, F. (2019), “Culture, business environment and SMEs’
profitability: evidence from European countries”,Economic Modelling, Vol. 78, pp. 275-292, doi:
10.1016/j.econmod.2018.09.023.
Geller, E.S. (1996), The Psychology of Safety: how to Improve Behaviours and Attitudes on the Job,
Chilton Book Company, Radnor, PA.
Goodman, C.M. (1987), “The Delphi technique: a critique”,Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 12 No. 6,
pp. 729-734, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.1987.tb01376.x.
JFMPC
Grebenšek, M.V. and Kosel, T. (2015), “Safety culture assessment-optimization of existing practice”,
International Journal for Traffic and Transport Engineering, Vol. 5 No. 4, pp. 360-370, doi:
10.7708/ijtte.2015.5(4).02.
Guasta, L. and Lauriski, D.R. (2019), “Productive, safe, and responsible operations are not possible
without visible safety leadership”,Advances in Productive, Safe, and Responsible Coal Mining,
Elsevier, WoodheadPublishing, Duxford, pp. 53-61, doi: 10.1016/B978-0-08-101288-8.00008-0.
Guldenmund, F.W. (2000), “The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research”,Safety
Science, Vol. 34 Nos 1/3, pp.215-257, doi: 10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00014-X.
Gyensare, M.A., Anku-Tsede, O., Boakye, K.O., Twumasi, E. (2019), “Occupational health and safety
and employee engagement: evidence from the SMEs sector in Ghana”, in Arezes, P.M.F.M. (Ed.),
Advances in Safety Management and Human Factors, Springer International Publishing,
Vol. 791, pp. 202-216, doi: 10.1007/978-3.
Hanna, E.S. and Markham, S. (2019), “Constructing better health and wellbeing? Understanding
structural constraints on promoting health and wellbeing in the UK construction industry”,
International Journal of Workplace Health Management, Vol. 12 No. 3, pp. 146-159, doi: 10.1108/
ijwhm-03-2018-0031.
Hasson, F., Keeney, S. and McKenna, H. (2000), “Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique”,
Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 32 No. 4.
Health and safety executive (HSE). (2021), available at: www.grdconstruction.ca/wpcontent/
uploads/2015/07/9432fc_54d0a60e28e44482972e48a068f9656c.pdf or www.hse.gov.uk/
humanfactors/topics/common4.pdf
Heidt, M., Gerlach, J.P. and Buxmann, P. (2019), “Investigating the security divide between SME and
large companies: how SME characteristics influence organizational IT security investments”,
Information Systems Frontiers, Vol. 21 No. 6, pp. 1285-1305, doi: 10.1007/s10796-019-09959-1.
Inekwe, J.N. (2016), “Financial distress, employees’welfare and entrepreneurship among SMEs”,Social
Indicators Research, Vol. 129 No. 3, pp. 1135-1153, doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-1164-6.
Institution of Occupational Safety and Health (IOSH) (2015), “Promoting a positive culture: a guide to
health and safety culture”, IOSH, Leicestershire.
Iqbal, H., Waheed, B., Haider, H., Tesfamariam, S. and Sadiq, R. (2019), “Mapping safety culture attributes
with integrity management program to achieve assessment goals: a framework for oil and gas
pipelines industry”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 68, pp. 59-69, doi: 10.1016/j.jsr.2018.12.010.
Ivanova Ruffo, O., Mnisri, K., Morin-Esteves, C. and Gendron, C. (2020), “Judgements of SMEs’
legitimacy and its sources”,Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 165 No. 3, pp. 395-410, doi: 10.1007/
s10551-018-4063-3.
Janjua, B. (2013), “Safe work procedure policy: CEO GRD construction limited”.
Keeney, S., Hasson, F. and McKenna, H.P. (2001), “A critical review of the Delphi technique as a
research methodology for nursing”,International Journal of Nursing Studies, Vol. 38 No. 2,
pp. 195-200, doi: 10.1016/S0020-7489(00)00044-4.
Lang, T. (1998), “An overview of four futures methodologies”, available at: www.futures.hawaii.edu/j7/
LANG.html
Loosemore, M. and Malouf, N. (2019), “Safety training and positive safety attitude formation in the
Australian construction industry”,Safety Science, Vol. 113, pp. 233-243, doi: 10.1016/j.
ssci.2018.11.029.
Massaroli, A., Martini, J.G., Lino, M.M., Spenassato, D. and Massaroli, R. (2017), “The Delphi method as
a methodological framework for research in nursing”,Texto Contexto Enferm, Vol. 26 No. 4,
pp. 1-9, doi: 10.1590/0104-07072017001110017.
Mistri, A., Bhattacharyya, S.K., Dhami, N., Mukherjee, A. and Barai, S.V. (2020), “A review on different
treatment methods for enhancing the properties of recycled aggregates for sustainable
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
construction materials”,Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 233, p. 117894, doi: 10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.117894.
Musa, M. and Isha, A.S.N. (2021), “Holistic view of safety culture in aircraft ground handling:
integrating qualitative and quantitative methods with data triangulation”,Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 92, p. 102019, doi: 10.1016/j.jairtraman.2021.102019.
Musonda, I., Lusenga, E. and Okoro, C. (2021), “Rating and characterization of an organization’s safety
culture to improve performance”,International Journal of Construction Management, Vol. 21
No. 2, pp. 181-193, doi: 10.1080/15623599.2018.1512030.
Mustapha, Z., Aigbavboa, C. and Thwala, W. (2016), “Health and safety regulation and its compliance
among small and medium-sized enterprises contractors in Ghana”, in Arezes, P. (Ed.), Advances
in Safety Management and Human Factors, Springer International Publishing, Los Angeles,
California, Vol.491, pp. 243-249, doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41929-9_23.
Mustapha, Z., Aigbavboa, C. and Thwala, W.D. (2018), “Contractors’organisational culture towards
health and safety compliance in Ghana”, in Chau, K., Chan, I., Lu, W. and Webster, C. (Eds),
Proceedings of the 21st International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management
and Real Estate. Springer, Singapore.
Olcay, Z.F., Temur, S. and Sakalli, A.E. (2021), “A research on the knowledge level and safety culture of
students taking occupational health and safety course”,Cypriot Journal of Educational Sciences,
Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 187-200, doi: 10.18844/cjes.v16i1.5519.
Onat, N.C. and Kucukvar, M. (2020), “Carbon footprint of construction industry: a global review and
supply chain analysis”,Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Vol. 124, p. 109783, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2020.109783.
Owusu-Manu, D.G., Jehuri, A.B., Edwards, D.J., Boateng, F. and Asumadu, G. (2019), “The impact of
infrastructure development on economic growth in Sub-Saharan Africa with special focus on
Ghana”,Journal of Financial Management of Property and Construction, Vol. 24 No. 3,
pp. 253-273, doi: 10.1108/jfmpc-09-2018-0050.
Piers,M.,Montijn,C.andBalk,A.(2009),“Safety management system and safety culture working
group: guidance on organizational structure, ECAST component of ESSI (European
strategic safety initiative)”,Safety Science, Vol. 45 No. 10, pp. 993-1012, doi: 10.1016/j.
ssci.2006.09.003.
Rubin, M., Giacomini, A., Allen, R., Turner, R. and Kelly, B. (2020), “Identifying safety culture and safety
climate variables that predict reported risk-taking among Australian coal miners: an exploratory
longitudinal study”,Safety Science,Vol.123,p.104564,doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2019.104564.
Schulman, P.R. (2020), “Organizational structure and safety culture: conceptual and practical
challenges”,Safety Science, Vol. 126, p. 104669, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104669.
Simpson, K.B. and Sam, A. (2020), “Strategies for health and safety management in Ghana”,Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 18 No. 2, pp.431-445, doi: 10.1108/JEDT-07-2019-0189.
Slade, S.C., Dionne, C.E., Underwood, M. and Buchbinder, R. (2014), “Standardised method for reporting
exercise programmes: protocol for a modified Delphi study”,BMJ Open, Vol. 4 No. 12,
pp. 1008-1015, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006682.
Stemn, E., Bofinger, C., Cliff, D. and Hassall, M.E. (2019), “Examining the relationship between safety
culture maturity and safety performance of the mining industry”,Safety Science, Vol. 113,
pp. 345-355, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.12.008.
Tear, M.J., Reader, T.W., Shorrock, S. and Kirwan, B. (2020), “Safety culture and power: interactions
between perceptions of safety culture, organisational hierarchy, and national culture”,Safety
Science, Vol. 121, pp. 550-561, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2018.10.014.
Thompson, R.C., Hilton, T.F. and Witt, L.A. (1998), “Where the safetyrubber meets the shop Xoor: a con
Wrmatory model of management in Xuence on workplace safety”,Journal of Safety Research,
Vol. 29 No. 1, pp. 15-24.
JFMPC
Tremblay, A. and Badri, A. (2018), “Assessment of occupational health and safety performance
evaluation tools: state of the art and challenges for small and medium-sized enterprises”,Safety
Science, Vol. 101, pp. 260-267, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2017.09.016.
Trevelyan, E.G. and Robinson, N. (2015), “Delphi methodology in health research: how to do it?”,European
Journal of Integrative Medicine, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 423-428, doi: 10.1016/j.eujim.2015.07.00.
Trinh, M.T. and Feng, Y. (2020), “Impact of project complexity on construction safety performance:
moderating role of resilient safety culture”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 146 No. 2, p. 4019103, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001758.
Vecchio-Sadus, A.M. and Griffiths, S. (2004), “Marketing strategies for enhancing safety culture”,Safety
Science, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 601-619, doi: 10.1016/j.ssci.2003.11.001.
Whitaker, J. Nepogodiev, D. Leather, A. and Davies, J. (2020), “Assessing barriers to quality trauma care in low
and Middle-income countries: a Delphi study, injury”,doi:10.1016/j.injury.2019.12.035.
Wiegmann, D.A., Zhang, H., von Thaden, T.L., Sharma, G. and Gibbons, A.M. (2004), “Safety culture:
an integrative review”,The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, Vol. 14 No. 2,
pp. 117-134, doi: 10.1207/s15327108ijap1402_1.
Wu, T., Lin, C. and Sen-Yu Shiau, S. (2010), “Predicting safety culture: the roles of employer, operations
manager and safety professional”,Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 41 No. 5, pp. 423-431.
Xia, B., Chan, A.P.C. andYeung, J.F.Y. (2011), “Developing a fuzzy multicriteria decision-making model
for selecting design-build operational variations”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 137 No. 12, pp. 1176-1184, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000381.
Yari, S., Naseri, M.H., Akbari, H., Shahsavari, S. and Akbari, H. (2019), “Interaction of safety climate
and safety culture: a model for cancer treatment centers”,Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer
Prevention, Vol. 20 No. 3,pp. 961-969, doi: 10.31557/APJCP.2019.20.3.961.
Zartha Sossa, J.W., Halal, W. and Hernandez Zarta, R. (2019), “Delphi method: analysis of rounds,
stakeholder and statistical indicators”,foresight, Vol. 21 No. 5, pp. 525-544, doi: 10.1108/fs-11-
2018-0095.
Zhang, Y., Chen, X., Wu, Y., Shuai, C. and Shen, L. (2019), “The environmental Kuznets curve of
CO
2
emissions in the manufacturing and construction industries: a global empirical
analysis”,Environmental Impact Assessment Review, Vol. 79, p. 106303, doi: 10.1016/j.
eiar.2019.106303.
Further reading
Adini, B., Cohen, O., Eide, A.W., Nilsson, S., Aharonson-Daniel, L. and Herrera, I.A. (2017), “Striving to
be resilient: what concepts, approaches and practices should be incorporated in resilience
management guidelines?”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 121, pp. 39-49, doi:
10.1016/j.techfore.2017.01.020.
Campbell, S.M. and Cantrill, J.A. (2001), “Consensus methods in prescribing research”,Journal
of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Vol. 26 No. 1, pp. 5-14, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-
2710.2001.00331.x.
Chan, A.P.C., Yung, E.H.K., Lam, P.T.I., Tam, C.M. and Cheung, S.O. (2001), “Application of Delphi
method in selection of procurement systems for construction projects”,Construction
Management and Economics, Vol. 19 No. 7, pp. 699-718, doi: 10.1080/01446190110066128.
De Loë, R.C., Melnychuk, N., Murray, D. and Plummer, R. (2016), “Advancing the state of policy
Delphi practice: systematic review evaluating methodological evolution, innovation, and
opportunities”,Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Vol. 104, pp. 78-88, doi: 10.1016/
j.techfore.2015.12.
Delbecq, A.L., Van de Ven, A.H. and Gustafson, D.H. (1975), Group Techniques for Program Planning:
A Guide to Nominal Group and Delphi Processes, Scott, Foresman, Glenview, IL, p. e006682, doi:
10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006682.
Safety culture
in SME
construction
firms
Hallowell, M.R. and Gambatese, J.A. (2010), “Qualitative research: application of the Delphi method to
CEM research”,Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 136 No. 1,
pp. 99-107, doi: 10.1061/(asce)co.1943-7862.0000137.
Mayze, B.R. and Lisa, B.M. (2008), “Safety culture: a multilevel assessment tool for the construction
industry”,Third International Conference of the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for
Construction Innovation –Clients Driving Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation,Gold Coast,
Vol. 12, No. 14.
Montes, J., Vargas, E., Hoyos, J., Palacio, J., Acevedo, J., Rojas, G. and Zartha, J. (2017), “Priority
technologies and innovations in the fishing agribusiness by the year 2032. Foresight study
through the Delphi method”,Revista Lasallista de Investigacion, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 105-120.
Okoli, C. and Pawlowski, S.D. (2004), “The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
consideration and applications”,Information and Management, Vol. 42 No. 1, pp. 15-29, doi:
10.1016/j.im.2003.11.002.
Palacio, J., Hern
andez, R., Rı¨os, A. and Zartha, J. (2016), “Estudio de prospectiva: aplicacion del método
delphi en cafés especiales en Colombia al 2025”,Revista Espacios, Vol. 37 No. 4.
Powell, C. (2003), “The Delphi technique: myths and realities”,Journal of Advanced Nursing, Vol. 41
No. 4, pp. 376-382, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2003.02537.x.
Rajendran, S. and Gambatese, J.A. (2009), “Development and initial validation of sustainable
construction safety and health rating system”,Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, Vol. 135 No. 10, pp. 1067-1075, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2009)135:10(1067).
Rowe, G. and Wright, G. (1999), “The Delphi technique as a forecasting tool: issues and analysis”,
International Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 353-375, doi: 10.1016/S0169-2070(99)
00018-7.
Skulmoski, G.J., Hartman, F.T. and Krahn, J. (2007), “The Delphi method for graduate research”,Journal
of Information Technology Education, Vol. 6 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Corresponding author
Eric Kodzo Adzivor can be contacted at: eadzivor@htu.edu.gh
For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
JFMPC
