STAKEHOLDER’S PERCEPTIONS ON THE SIGNIFICANT FACTORS AFFECTING SAFETY MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION AT CONSTRUCTION SITES

Full text

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 68
STAKEHOLDER’S PERCEPTIONS ON THE SIGNIFICANT
FACTORS AFFECTING SAFETY MANAGEMENT
IMPLEMENTATION AT CONSTRUCTION SITES
Tiffany Valarie Kerry1, Nor Haslinda Abas1, Haryanti Mohd Affandi2 and Syahirah Md. Amin3
1Jamilus Research Centre, Faculty of Civil Engineering and Built Environment,Universiti Tun Hussein
Onn Malysia, 86400 Batu Pahat, Johor, Malaysia.
2Department of Engineering Education, Faculty of Engineering and Built Environment, The National
University of Malaysia, Bangi, 43600, Malaysia.
3RAF Consult, Jalan Pulai Perdana 11/1, Taman Sri Pulai Perdana, 81110 Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia.
Abstract
One of the factors of high number of accidents in construction industry is due to the lack of
safety management that is closely related to the poor safety awareness among stakeholders.
Previous studies had emphasized the role of stakeholders in affecting entire project
performance. This paper aims to investigate the significant factors affecting safety
management implementation at construction sites based on the perceptions of different
construction stakeholders. A total of 112 questionnaires was received from respondents of
various construction stakeholders such as consultants and contractors who are working at
construction sites in Johor Bahru. The factors affecting safety performance that formed the
questionnaire are commonly accepted physical safety management performance factors that
were derived from previous studies involving accident rates and the satisfaction of construction
stakeholders. An average mean index analysis was conducted, and the result indicated that
proper handling of equipment, proper installation and dismantling of heavy devices, and site
inspection and supervision conducted by supervisors closely contribute to the factors affecting
safety management at the construction sites. Further analysis on the similarity/dissimilarity
perceptions on the factors affecting safety management at construction sites for within
(Intraclass-Correlation Coefficient (ICC)) and between (Kruskal-Wallis) groups of respondents
were analysed. The findings of the present study revealed a high similarity of OSH risk
perception within and among stakeholder groups. This paper offers an important contribution
by providing significant information that benefits the construction stakeholders to further
facilitate the benchmarking process and various initiatives that can improve the safety
performance of construction industry as a whole.
Keywords: Construction; safety performance; safety management; safety performance factor.
INTRODUCTION
Construction is a major industry that has become the main focus today but remains
plagued with constant challenges, such as accidents and death. Laws and regulations have
been introduced to establish a good quality of safety management in many countries (Mehta
and Agnew, 2010). However, the number of accidents is still high in construction industry,
which has resulted in negative impacts in terms of reputation and safety performance.
Various construction projects are being undertaken at an increasing rate and complexity,
which influence workplace safety management. In 2000–2009, the Social Security
Organisation (SOCSO) reported a total of 42,775 accidents in the construction industry in
Malaysia, with an average annual mean incident of 19.3 per 100,000 by sector (Ganesh and
Krishnan, 2016). The most critical causes of accidents in the construction industry are falls,
specifically being hit by falling or moving objects (17%) and falling from height (28%)
(Ganesh & Krishnan, 2016).

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 69
The construction sector has earned a negative reputation due to its high accident rates.
The rates of fatal and non-fatal injuries and illnesses are relatively high and have not dropped
significantly during the past 10 years (Abudayyeh, Frederick, Butt & Shaar, 2006). These
problems in safety management are affected by the ‘poor safety awareness among
stakeholders, lack technical guidance and lack of supervision to monitor the reckless
operations’ (De Silva, Rajakaruna & Bandara, 2008).
Stakeholder management has a considerable influence on construction projects
(Loosemore, 2006). Ng, Cheng & Skitmore (2005) stated that it is an extra advantage for
stakeholders to involve in the small-scale construction projects, which require low-quality
standards, low cost and minimum time, thereby regarding safety as the lowest priority. The
factors listed in this research are human, equipment, management and technical factors, which
strongly prove that stakeholders have a poor record in safety management.
Factors affecting safety management have been researched by Kanachana and
Karunasena (2018), Yiu, Sze and Chan (2018), Zhao, Kazemi, Liu and Zhang (2018) and
Tam, Zeng and Deng (2004), but their studies were conducted in countries other than
Malaysia. Several studies have been published in the form of journals, theses, books and
online data indicating the safety factors involved. In Malaysia, there is a lack of research in
this field, and the perceptions of construction stakeholders have not been examined despite
the several case studies that have been made.
Stakeholders substantially influence project complexity and interactions. According to
Salancik and Pfeffer (1974), stakeholders are a major factor affecting the entirety of project
performance. This statement was underlined by Yang and Shen (2014): stakeholders have the
power of compromise and adaption in project strategies. Project outcomes can indicate the
influence of the stakeholders in project making (Aaltonen & Sivonen, 2009) and the project
phases (Herazo & Lizarralde, 2016).
Therefore, this study intends to investigate the significant factors affecting safety
management at construction sites from construction stakeholders’ perspectives. Furthermore,
the collected data were examined for any similarity in perception about these factors.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Construction Safety Management
Construction safety management deals with the actions of the management in all
organisational levels to create a structured organisation platform with which employees are
going to be trained and motivated to perform safe and productive construction work (Hassan
et al., 2009; Levitt & Samelson, 1993). In addition, safety management is an effective system
of removing and minimising the forces that injure workers and damage facilities and
equipment at construction sites. Therefore, safety management is an organisational function
that identifies safety risks to ensure safety (Jokkaw & Tongthong, 2016).
Project site safety is related to the process of safety management in terms of controlling
safety policies, procedures and practices. According to Cheng, Li, Fang and Xie (2004), the
desired goals can be achieved through a dynamic process. However, Ming (1994) concluded

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 70
that safety, health and environments should first be managed in all aspects of a construction
business to manage safety management systems, such as policies, organisations, management
controls and resources.
Moreover, the actions of engineers, contractors and subcontractors influence jobs at
construction sites. Among these important personnel, engineers should be the most ethical;
they should prioritise safety and health at construction sites. According to Hinze and Raboud
(1988), the intervention of top management can help reduce accident rates. This finding
supports the view of Heinrich’s Domino Theory, in that 98% of accidents can be prevented
through the involvement of safety management. Heinrich’s theory can be the platform on
which monitoring systems can be started and feedback on effective safety management can
be provided (Chi & Han, 2013).
Contractors and subcontractors in the construction industry tend to ignore the safety
management requirements stated in standards produced by OSHA and legislations (Bakri,
Zin, Misnan & Hakim, 2006). This is supported by Abdullah and Chai (2010) who suggested
that it was the employer’s negligence that was responsible for the occurrence of accidents
within the construction sector. According to Lingard and Rowlinson (1997), subcontractors
do not prioritise the importance of worker safety and violate safety practices to ensure
adherence to project schedules. Although the subcontractors in Lingard and Rowlinson’s
study are from small to medium sized company, some subcontractors do not implement safety
management at construction sites to stay within the budget of the contracting company. In
addition, they also found that subcontractors have poor safety awareness and do not
communicate sufficiently with the workers at their construction sites due to the unavailability
of safety resources on these sites.
A successful safety management plan of action must be underpinned by the commitment
of top management; such support is essential for reducing the accident rates at construction
sites. In addition, management systems have been introduced into industrial undertakings
(Bakri et al., 2006). The application of safety management systems should be clear to identify,
understand and control injury hazards and reduce incidents. The implementation of safety
management requires employers to conduct daily inspection to create awareness and show the
advantages of safety management systems. Therefore, this study adopted the framework of
Zhao et al. (2018), whose findings outlined safety management supervision under the five
significant factors.
Factors Affecting Safety Management
The factors affecting safety management implementation at construction site are
discussed by category.
Human Factors
Human factors include the human activity involved in the operation, production or
construction of equipment and systems. According to Garrett and Teizer (2009), ‘human has
the strong relationship influence each other in the same work of environment situation’. This
statement is supported by the finding that 88% of accidents are caused by human factors
(Heinrich & Peterson, 1931). Catastrophic accidents are caused by human factors (Bridges &

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 71
Tew, 2016). The deficiencies in these factors include the safety attitudes of workers (Hassan,
Chew & Chandrakantan, 2009; Siu, Philips & Leung, 2003) and supervisors (Fang, Wu &
Wu, 2015; Kanachana & Karunasena, 2018) and lack of safety training received by workers
(Olutuase, 2014), effective communication and cooperation (Zin & Ismail, 2012; Zohar
(2002), safety experience and skills of contractors and supervisors (Ghani, hamid, Zain,
Rahim, Kamar & Rahman, 2010; Wong, Chan, Tse & Love, 2000) and site safety inspection
and supervision conducted by supervisors (Fang et al., 2015; Choudry & Fang, 2008).
Equipment Factors
Equipment factors are dangerous because they involve human beings working with
machines to complete tasks. According to the National Bureau of Statistics, mechanical
equipment causes five major injuries to humans, namely, falling injuries, crane machine
accidents, object strikes, electric shocks and collapse. The key factors that must be properly
selected and used according to standard operation procedures to reduce life-threating
situations are personal protective equipment (PPE) (Zin & Ismail, 2012; Guo, Li, Chan &
Skitmore, 2012), proper installation and dismantling of heavy devices (Beavers, Moore,
Shapira & Lyachin, 2009) and proper handling of equipment (Teo, Ling & Chong, 2005).
Environmental Factors
Environmental factors influence the performance of a project and involve the lack of good
knowledge about successful safety management. Akanni, Oke and Akpomiemie (2014) stated
that the environmental factors in safety management should be taken into account in
managing the development of construction sites to reduce unpredictability and add potential
effects. This is also supported by Kartam, Flood and Koushki (2000) that adverse weather
condition is one of the causes that forbid construction stakeholders to actively pursue effective
ways to maximize the achievement of safety goal.
Management Factors
Management factors refer to the failure of the management in all organisational levels to
promote workplace safety performance through safety management. Any organisation
management that fails to promote safety management might contribute to management
factors. The key elements influencing the management factors of safety management are
safety meetings (Tam, Fung & Chan, 2001), safety management commitment (Michael,
Evans, Jansen & Haight, 2005; Baxendale & Jones, 2000), health and safety files (Baxendale
and Jones, 2000), safety regulation and plan enforcement (Baxendale & Jones, 2000; Ning,
Wang & Ni, 2010; Tan and Nadeera, 2104 2014?), budget allocated for safety management
(Tan & Nadeera, 2104) and safety management systems that adhere to legislations, codes and
standards (Bakri et al., 2006; Kartam, Flood & Koushki, 2000).
Technical Factors
Technical factors refer to the improper handling of equipment and the use of wrong
techniques by workers at construction sites (Abdul Hamid, Yusuf & Singh, 2008). The key
elements of the technical factors influencing safety management are safety risk identification
and analysis (Malekitabar, Ardeshir, Sebt & Stouffs, 2016; Choe and Leite, 2016), first aid

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 72
training and emergency preparedness (Ali et al., 2012), complexity type of construction
(Suraji et al., 2001) and behaviour-based safety techniques (Oostakhan, 2012; Tavakol &
Dennick, 2011).
METHODOLOGY
The factors affecting safety management implementation were obtained through a
literature review of published journals, theses, books and internet articles published from the
year 2000 to 2019. Next, the obtained data that relevant were selected and collated on the
basis of the identification of the factors affecting safety management implementation at
construction sites. The researcher designed the questionnaire by incorporating the five factors
influencing safety management at construction site, i.e. human, technical, management,
environmental and equipment factors.
Next, the questionnaire was reviewed by 3 panels of expert to validate and check the
content reliability of its design. The experts were selected among those who had more than
10 years experience in managing safety and health at construction sites. The questionnaire
was revised several times regarding the importance of the collated attributes before being
distributed to the selected stakeholders. The authors solicited responses from several
construction sites throughout Johor Bahru. The data collected from the questionnaire were
analysed using analyses of the average mean index, intragroup (intraclass correlation
coefficient) and intergroup comparison (Kruskal–Wallis) to measure the five factors that are
significantly related to construction safety management. Conclusions and recommendations
were made on the basis of the analysis findings.
Questionnaire Development
The data on the perceptions of multiple stakeholders at construction sites were collected
through questionnaires to enable an objective and cost-effective investigation. First, a
comprehensive list of safety factors was screened through a pilot study to ensure that all items
in the questionnaire were valid, reliable and significant. . The questionnaire contained two
sections. The first section explored the backgrounds of the respondents, and the second
section consisted of the 23 safety factors listed in Table 1. These are the factors that could
affect safety management at construction sites. The questionnaire adopted Likert scales
ranging from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 5 (absolutely agree).
Table 1. Factors Affecting Safety Management
Factors
Item
Key Items
Human Factors
HF1
Safety attitude of workers
HF2
Safety training received by workers
HF3
Safety experience and skills of contractors and supervisors
HF4
Safety attitude of supervisors
HF5
Site safety inspection and supervision conducted by supervisors
HF6
Effective communication and cooperation
Equipment Factors
EQF1
PPE
EQF2
Proper installation and dismantling of heavy devices
EQF3
Proper handling of equipment
Environmental
Factors
ENF1
Complexity of geology and hydrology
ENF2
Frequency of adverse weather

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 73
Factors
Item
Key Items
Management
Factors
MF1
Safety meetings
MF2
Safety management commitment
MF3
Health and safety files
MF4
Safety regulation and plan enforcement
MF5
Safety and health awareness
MF6
Budget allocated for safety management
MF7
Safety management system with adherence to legislations, codes and standards
MF8
Safety behaviour toward training and education by top management
Technical
Factors
TF1
Safety risk identification and analysis
TF2
First aid training and emergency preparedness
TF3
Complexity type of construction
TF4
Behaviour-based safety techniques
Population and Sampling
The participants were the construction stakeholders who were fully involved in the
construction sites in the Johor Bahru area. The respondents were labelled ‘unknown
population sample’ due to the unknown exact number of them working in Johor. The
questionnaire was answered in a voluntary and anonymous manner with the strong support
and coordination of the project owners. In total, 120 questionnaires were distributed, and 112
valid questionnaires were retrieved (93.33% response rate). The 6.3% invalid questionnaires
either had incomplete answers or were not filled out by the respondents they were sent to.
Figure 1 shows pie charts of the respondents’ stakeholder type, designation type and working
experience.
Figure 1. Demographic of Respondents
Measures for Data Analysis
After the data collection, non-parametric methods were used to analyse the safety factors
affecting safety management implementation at construction sites. The data were analysed
with spreadsheets to estimate the mean value for the factors. The software Statistical Package
for the Social Sciences (SPSS) was utilised for the following techniques: (1) reliability test,
(2) intragroup comparison using the intraclass correlation coefficient and (3) intergroup
comparison using the Kruskal–Wallis test.

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 74
Instrument for Reliability Test
A reliability test was conducted to check the reliability of the results and the overall
consistency of the entire survey. Cronbach’s alpha was used to measure the instrument’s
reliability (i.e. internal consistency). Factor analysis theory (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011)
indicates that an alpha value greater than 0.6 shows acceptable reliability. According to Koo
and Li (2016), good internal consistency is expressed by an alpha value of at least 0.70.
Average Index Analysis
Average index analysis was used to compute the mean scores of the significant factors
affecting safety management. The rating groups of the average indices that represented the
appropriate classification suggested by Majid & McCafer (1997) are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Average Index Rating Group
Likert Scale
Score Value
Strongly Disagree
1.00 ≤ Average Value ≤ 1.50
Disagree
1.50 ≤ Average Value ≤ 2.50
Neutral
2.50 ≤ Average Value ≤ 3.50
Agree
3.50 ≤ Average Value ≤ 4.50
Strongly Agree
4.50 ≤ Average Value ≤ 5.00
Intragroup Comparison
An intragroup comparison was performed using the ICC test to identify any similarity or
difference within the groups regarding the safety factor in safety management. Specifically,
intraclass correlation measures the reliability of scales or measurements for clusters of data
collected or sorted into groups. As stated by Koo and Li (2016), an ICC less than 0.5 signifies
low similarity among the same group, 0.5 to 0.75 indicates moderate similarity, 0.75 to 0.9
indicates high similarity, and 0.9 indicates the most excellent similarity among the same
group.
Inter-Group Comparison
The purpose of inter-group comparison was to check whether there are similarities or
differences between and among the groups of stakeholders regarding the risk perceptions
related to all of the cases. The Kruskal-Wallis test was employed in the present study with the
aim of determining whether all of the four stakeholder groups as a whole had any
disagreements on risk perceptions. Next, the post-hoc test (Anova 1-way test) was carried out
to test the pairwise comparisons between stakeholder groups regarding any significant
discordance of risk perception regarding each scenario.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The data were analysed using Microsoft Excel and SPSS. The outcomes from the software
provided the results for the reliability test, average mean index and intragroup and intergroup
comparisons, which are presented here in the form of tables.

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 75
Reliability of the Survey Instrument
A reliability test was done to ensure good internal consistency. The stakeholders involved
in this reliability test were technical/management, safety and design teams involved in the
construction sites. Table 3 shows the results of the reliability test for all groups of respondents,
which is 0.952. Therefore, the degree of agreement is uniformly reliable (high reliability)
(Cronbach & Shavelson, 2004, Koo & Li, 2016).
Table 3. Reliability Test Results
Groups
Cronbach’s Alpha
Number of item
Number of particpants
Technical/ Management team
Safety team
0.952
23
112
Design team
Average Index Analysis of the Survey Results
An average index analysis was performed to determine the significant factors affecting
safety management that were gathered through the given Likert scale. The results in Table 3
show that the design team has a higher mean rating score compared with the safety team. This
finding is in line with Zhao, McCoy, Kleiner, Mills and Lingard (2016), who stated that the
‘design team have lack of knowledge about hazards awareness involved at the construction
site’. Moreover, Ning et al. (2010) postulated that design teams have little responsibility on
the on-site practice and management, hence unconvinced about the factors. Meanwhile, the
safety team has the lowest mean rating score, probably because its members have a good
understanding of their responsibilities and ability to control the crucial safety factors
occurring at their construction sites. This result is in line with that of Zhao et al. (2016), who
stated that whoever controls the working environment directly influences the perception of
existing factors.
Table 4. Mean Values Indicated by Groups of Construction Stakeholders
Factor
ID
Technical/
Management Team
Safety
Team
Design
Team
Mean for All
Groups
HF1
4.22
4.12*
4.26**
4.20
HF2
4.24
4.15*
4.32**
4.25
HF3
4.29
4.18*
4.34**
4.28
HF4
4.15*
4.36
4.37**
4.30
HF5
4.17*
4.42
4.32**
4.31
HF6
4.37**
4.21*
4.26
4.29
EQF1
4.32
4.15*
4.45**
4.30
EQF2
4.32
4.21*
4.45**
4.31
EQF3
4.27*
4.27*
4.47**
4.32
ENF1
3.76
3.55*
3.84**
3.72
ENF2
3.73*
3.73*
3.82**
3.74
MF1
3.85*
4.03
4.13**
4.02
MF2
4.12*
4.18
4.24**
4.19
MF3
3.88
3.85*
3.97**
3.91
MF4
4.15*
4.18
4.24**
4.19
MF5
4.24
4.15
4.11*
4.18
MF6
4.07
3.97*
4.21**
4.07

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 76
Factor
ID
Technical/
Management Team
Safety
Team
Design
Team
Mean for All
Groups
MF7
4.12*
4.24
4.42**
4.28
MF8
4.24
4.03
4.32**
4.21
TF1
4.12*
4.12*
4.16**
4.15
TF2
4.20
4.09*
4.32**
4.23
TF3
4.12**
4.00*
4.11
4.10
TF4
4.05
3.91*
4.16**
4.04
*Indicates lowest mean perception among the teams.
**Indicates highest mean perception among the teams.
From Table 4, it could be seen that the most significant factor affecting safety
management implementation at construction site is EQF3 (proper handling of equipment),
followed by HF5, EQF2, HF6, HF3, MF7 and TF2. Meanwhile, the least factors perceived by
the stakeholders are ENF1, ENF2 and MF3. Design team tend to perceive most of the factors
(20 out of 23 factors) the highest compared to other stakeholder groups, whilst safety team
tend to perceive most of the factors (15 out of 23 factors) the lowest compared to other groups.
The findings also suggested that the mean of design team was greater than the mean of all
participants for all factors, except HF6 (effective communication and cooperation).
Meanwhile, the perceived factors of safety team was lower than the mean of all participants
for all factors.
It is interesting to note that all stakeholder groups tend to perceive 2 key items under
‘Equipment’ factor, which are EQF2 (proper installation and dismantling of heavy devices)
and EQF3 (proper handling of equipment), among the top 5 factors that influencing safety
management implementation at construction sites. According to Teo et al.(2005), proper
handling of equipment and other equipment-related factors are related to the process of
carrying out works by workers that may eventually be harmful to their safety and health. Some
organisations and individuals had committed to unsafe act unknowingly while carrying out
their tasks (Dedobbeler & Beland (1991), which may result in the difficulty in implementing
safety management at construction site. Therefore, all plant, tools and equipment should be
handled, maintained and repaired by qualified personnel (Teo et al., 2005).
Intragroup Comparison
The pairwise intragroup comparison among the technical/management, safety and design
teams was analysed using the ICC. Table 5 shows the results. The safety team has the highest
ICC regarding the factors affecting safety management (ICC = 0.958, p < 0.001). The ICC of
the technical/management team is 0.943, and the lowest ICC among these groups is that of
the design team, which is 0.940. Although the design team has the lowest value of ICC, its
value still indicates an excellent similarity (the value of the ICC demonstrates homogeneity
within a group). These results indicate a high mean perception among the teams.
Table 5. Mean Values Indicated by Groups of Construction Stakeholders
Groups
ICC
Significance Value
Technical / Management Team
0.943
< 0.001
Safety Team
0.958
< 0.001
Design Team
0.940
< 0.001

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 77
Intergroup Comparison
The intergroup comparison was analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis test to measure the
disagreement (if any) among these three groups of construction stakeholders as a whole
regarding the significant factors. The results of the pairwise intergroup comparison from the
Kruskal–Wallis test demonstrate that all of the stakeholders perceive the factors
homogenously (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, a post hoc test (one-way ANOVA) was not needed
because no contradiction existed between the groups.
CONCLUSION
The current research presents an experimental study that investigated construction
stakeholders’ (technical/management, safety and design teams) perceptions of the factors
affecting safety management at construction sites. Twenty-three safety factors (human,
equipment, environment, management and technical factors) were investigated, and the
similarities and differences in the stakeholder groups’ perceptions were measured. The design
team had the highest mean score among all groups.
Furthermore, all of the stakeholders produced high, significant values (more than 0.005),
indicating that all of them perceive the factors homogeneously. Meanwhile, the SPSS findings
revealed that the design team was likely to give higher ratings compared with the other groups
of stakeholders because, as stated by Zhao et al. (2016), ‘design team focusing point is to
ensure the satisfactory of building performance in their design and calculation often lead to
uncertainties’.
The safety team had the lowest mean rating score, possibly because its members had a
good understanding of their responsibilities and ability to control the crucial safety factors
occurring at their construction sites. This is in line with Krallis and Csontos (2006), who stated
that ‘who control over the working environment will directly influence to perception of the
existing factors’.
The present study contributes to the existing body of knowledge in construction safety by
providing evidence of the similarities and differences in stakeholders’ perceptions,
particularly those who are site-based. The method employed in this study refers to previous
works but provides a new approach to investigating the factors affecting safety management
at construction sites.
In view of this, future research can be improved by detailing out the reason why each of
the stakeholder groups chose the provided rating for each factor. The goal is to identify
significant factors precisely, thus enhancing the safety management factors. Finally, future
studies should widen the research scope and increase the number of respondents by covering
different states in Malaysia.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Education Malaysia for supporting this
research under Fundamental Research Grant Scheme Vot No.
FRGS/1/2016/SS03/UTHM/03/2 and partially sponsored by University Tun Hussein Onn

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 78
Malaysia. The author would also like to thank all industry individuals who participated in the
survey.
REFERENCE
Aaltonen, K. and Sivonen, R. (2009) Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in global
projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag., 27(2): 131–141.
Abdel Hamid, A. R., Yusuf, W. Z. W. and Singh, B. (2008) Hazards at construction sites.
Proceedings of the 5th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference
(APSEC), 26-28 Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
Abdullah, D. N. M. A. and Chai, G. M. W. (2011) An analysis of accidents statistics in
Malaysian construction sector. International Proceedings of Economics Development &
Research, 3: 1-4.
Abudayyeh O., Fredericks T. K., Butt S. E. and Shaar A. (2006) An investigation of
management’s commitment to construction safety. International Journal of Project
Management, 24(2): 167–174.
Akanni, P. O., Oke, A. E. and Akpomiemie, O. A. 92014) Impact of environmental factors on
building project performance in Delta State, Nigeria. HBRC Journal, 11(1): 91–97.
Ali, R., Shaharudin, R., Omar, A. and Yusoff, F. (2012) Workplace injuries and risk reduction
practices in Malaysia. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Health., 18(4): 299-306.
Bakri, A., Zin, R. M., Misnan, S. and Hakim, M. (2006) Occupational safety and health (OSH)
management systems: towards development of safety and health culture. Proceedings of
the 6th Asia-Pacific Structural Engineering and Construction Conference (APSEC 2006).
Baxendale, T. and Jones, O. (2000) Construction design and management safety regulations
in practice - progress on implementation. Int. J. of Project Management, 18(1): 33–40.
Beavers, J. E., Moore, J. R., Rinehart, R. and Schriver, W. R. (2006) Crane-related fatalities
in the construction industry. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 132(9): 901–910.
Bridges, W. and Tew, R. (2010) Human Factors Elements Missing from Process Safety
Management (PSM). Congr. Process Saf., 1–25.
Cheng, E. W. l., Li, H., Fang, D. P. and Xie, F. (2004) Construction safety management: An
exploratory study from China. Constr. Innov., 4(4): 229–241.
Chi, S. and Han, S. (2013). Analyses of systems theory for construction accident prevention
with specific reference to OSHA accident reports. Int. J. of Project Management, 31(7):
1027-1041.
Choe, S. and Leite, F. (2016) Assessing safety risk among different construction trades:
Quantitative approach. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 143(5):4016133.
Choudhry, R. M. and Fang, D. (1982) Why operatives engage in unsafe work behavior:
Investigating factors on construction sites. Saf. Sci., 46(4): 566–584.
Cronbach, L. J. and Shavelson, R. J. (2004) My current thoughts on coeefficient alpha and
successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(3): 391-418.
De Silva N., Rajakaruna R. W. D. W. C. A. B. and Bandara K. A. T. N. (2008) Challenges
faced by the construction industry in Sri Lanka : perspective of clients and contractors,
Proc. Int. Conf. Build. Educ. Res. Univ. Salford, UK, pp. 158–169.
Dedobbeler, N. and Beland, F. (1991) Risk acceptance and safety performance on
construction sites. J Occup Med, 29: 863-868.
Fang, D., Wu, C. and Wu, H. (2015) Impact of the Supervisor on Worker Safety Behavior in
Construction Projects. Journal of Management in Engineering, 31(6): 04015001.

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 79
Ganesh C. S. and Krishnan R. (2016). A review of occupational injury research in Malaysia.
Med. J. Malaysia, 71(June): 100–104.
Garrett, J. W. and Teizer, J. (2009) Human factors analysis classification system relating to
human error awareness taxonomy in construction safety. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 135(8):
754–763.
Ghani, M. K., Hamid, Z. A., Zain, M. Z. M., Rahim, A. H. A., Kamar, K. A. M. and Rahman,
M. A. A. (2010) Safety in Malaysian construction: the challenges and initiatives. Kuala
Lumpur: Jurutera, 12 pp.
Guo, H., Li, H., Chan, G. and Skitmore, M. (2012) Using game technologies to improve the
safety of construction plant operations. Accid. Anal. Prev., 48: 204–213.
Hassan, A., Chew, N. A. A., Chandrakantan, S. (2009) Management practice in safety culture
and its influence on workplace injury: an industrial study in Malaysia. Disaster Prevention
and Management 2009, 18(5): 470-477.
Heinrich, H. and Petersen, D. (1931) Industrial accident prevention: A safety management
approach. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Herazo, B. and G. Lizarralde, G. (2016). Understanding stakeholders’ approaches to
sustainability in building projects. Sustain. cities Soc., 26: 240–254.
Hinze, J. and Raboud, P. (1988) Safety on large building construction projects. J. Constr. Eng.
Manag., 114(2): 286–293.
Jokkaw N. and Tongthong T. (2016) Factors influencing on safety management status and
evaluation of safety management status in construction projects in Cambodia. ASEAN
Eng. J. Part C, 5(1): 34–48.
Kanachana, G. H. and Karunasena, G. (2010) Factors Affecting Construction Safety
Management in Sri Lanka, International Research Conference on Sustainability in Built
Environment, pp.192-197.
Kartam, N. A., Flood I. and Koushki, P. (2000) Construction safety in Kuwait: issues,
procedures, problems, and recommendations. Safety Science, 36(3), 163-184.
Koo, T. K. and Li, M. Y. (2016) A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation
coefficients for reliability research. J. Chiropr. Med.,15(2):155–163.
Krallis, D. and Csontos, A. (2006) From risk perception to safe behavior. Enterp. Risk Serv
Levitt R. E. and. Samelson N. M (1993). Construction safety management 2nd Edition, Neww
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. (1997) Behavior-based safety management in Hong Kong’s
construction industry. J. Safety Res., 28(4): 243–256.
Loosemore M. (2006) Managing project risks. Manag. complex Proj. A Relatsh. approach,
pp. 187–204.
Majid, M. Z. A. and McCaffer, R. (1997) Assessment of work performance of maintenance
contractors in Saudi Arabia. J. Manag. Eng., 13(5): 91.
Malekitabar, H., Ardeshir, A., Sebt, M. H. and Stouffs, R. (2016) Construction safety risk
drivers: A BIM approach. Saf. Sci., 82: 445–455.
Mehta R. and Agnew M.J. (2010) Analysis of individual and occupational risk factors on task
performance and biomechanical demands for a simulated drilling task.
International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 40(5): 584-591.
Michael, J. H., Evans, D. D., Jansen, K. J. and Haight, J. M. (2005) Management commitment
to safety as organizational support : Relationships with non-safety outcomes in wood
manufacturing employees. 36: 171–179.

MCRJ Special Issue Vol. 13 | No. 2 | 2021 80
Ming, K. T. (1994) Application of a quality management system approach to health, safety
and environment. Proceedings of the 10th Conference and Exhibition World Trade
Centre, 739–745.
Ng S. T., Cheng K.P. and Skitmore R. M. (2005) A framework for evaluating the safety
performance of construction contractors. Build. Environ., 40(10): 1347–1355.
Ning, D. C., Wang, J. P. and Ni, G. D. (2010) Analysis of factors affecting safety management
in construction projects. 2010 International Conference on Management and Service
Science. China. 1–5.
Olutuase, S. O. A Study of Safety Management in the Nigerian Construction Industry. IOSR
J. Bus. Manag., 16(3): 1–10.
Oostakhan, M., Mofidi,A. and Talab, A. D. (2012) Behavior-based safety approach at a large
construction site in Iran. Iran. Rehabil. J., 10: 21–25.
Salancik G. R. and Pfeffer J. (1974) The bases and use of power in organizational decision
making: The case of a university. Adm. Sci. Q., pp. 453–473.
Shapira, A. and Lyachin, B. (2009) Identification and analysis of factors affecting safety on
construction sites with tower cranes. J. Constr. Eng. Manag., 135(1): 24–33.
Siu, O. L., Phillips, D. R. and Leung, T. W. (2003) Age differences in safety attitudes and
safety performance in Hong Kong construction workers. J. Safety Res., 34(2): 199–205.
Suraji, A., Duff, A. R. and Peckitt, S. J. (2001) Development of causal model of construction
accident causation. Journal of construtcion Engineering and Management, 127(4).
Tam C. M., Zeng S. X. and Deng Z. M (2004) Identifying elements of poor construction safety
management in China. Safety Sci., 42(7): 569–586.
Tam, C. M., Fung, I. W. H. and Chan, A. P. C. (2001) Study of attitude changes in people
after the implementation of a new safety management system: the supervision plan.
Constr. Manag. Econ., 19(4): 393–403.
Tan, C. K. and Nadeera, A. R. (2014) Case studies on the safety management at construction
site. J. Sustain. Sci. Manag., 9(2): 90–108.
Tavakol, M. and Dennick, R. (2011) Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int. J. Med. Educ.,
2: 53–55.
Teo, E. A. L., Ling, F. Y. Y. and Chong, A. F. W. (2005) Framework for project managers to
manage construction safety. Int. J. Proj. Manag., 23(4): 329–341.
Wong, F. K. W., Chan, S. C. M., Tse, R. Y. C. and Love, P. E. D. (2000) Improving safety
knowledge through training-the case of Hong Kong. J. Constr. Res., 6(2): 169-175.
Zin, S. M. and Ismail, F. (2012) Employers’ Behavioural Safety Compliance Factors toward
Occupational, Safety and Health Improvement in the Construction Industry. Procedia -
Soc. Behav. Sci., 36(June 2011): 742–751.
Yang R. J. and Shen G. Q. P. (2014) Framework for stakeholder management in construction
projects. J. Manag. Eng., 31(4): 4014064.
Yiu N. S. N., Sze N. N. and Chan D. W. M. (2018) Implementation of safety management
systems in Hong Kong construction industry – A safety practitioner’s perspective. J.
Safety Res., 64: 1–9.
Zhao T., Kazemi S. E., Liu W., and Zhang M. (2018) The Last Mile: Safety Management
Implementation in Construction Sites. Adv. Civ. Eng., 2018: 1–15.
Zhao, D., McCoy, A. P., Kleiner, B.M., Mills, T. H. and Lingard, H. (2016) Stakeholder
perceptions of risk in construction, Saf. Sci., 82: 111–119.
Zohar, D. (2002) Modifying supervisory practices to improve subunit safety: a leadership-
based intervention model. J. Appl. Psychol., 87(1): 156.