Client Safety Roles in Small and Medium Construction Projects in Australia

Abstract

Although research has been done to investigate construction safety and its importance, most has focused on construction organizations and workplace safety. There is still a need to investigate this issue by looking at stakeholders higher in the supply chain, particularly the ones who have the economic power to facilitate safety implementation. As such, this research has investigated the roles of construction clients on influencing safety performance. Data were collected using questionnaire surveys from employees working in small and medium construction projects in Australia. The findings of the research have not only confirmed the importance of clients in implementing safety, but also determined specific client roles that influence the development of safety climate in construction projects. It is recommended that clients should focus on the following six safety roles: participate in site-based safety program; review and analyze safety data; appoint safety team; select safe contractors; specify how safety is to be addressed in tenders; and perform regular checks on plant/equipment. Some clients may not consider safety as important as other traditional objectives, such as time, cost, environment, and quality. As such, they need to recognize the economic benefit of safety, thus becoming willing and committed to integrating safety into day-to-day business decisions.

Full text

Client Safety Roles in Small and Medium Construction Projects in Australia
1
Simon Votano1 and Riza Yosia Sunindijo2
2
1Honours, Student, Bachelor of Construction Management and Property, Faculty of the Built
3
Environment, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
4
5
2PhD, Lecturer, Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW 2052,
6
Australia
7
8
How to cite: Votano, S. and Sunindijo, R. (2014). ”Client Safety Roles in Small and Medium
9
Construction Projects in Australia.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management,
10
140(9), 04014045. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000899
11
12
Abstract
13
Although research has been done to investigate construction safety and its importance, most has
14
focused on construction organizations and workplace safety. There is still a need to investigate
15
this issue by looking at stakeholders higher in the supply chain, particularly the ones who have
16
the economic power to facilitate safety implementation. As such, this research has investigated
17
the roles of construction clients on influencing safety performance. Data were collected using
18
questionnaire surveys from employees working in small and medium construction projects in
19
Australia. The findings of the research not only has confirmed the importance of clients in
20
implementing safety, but has also determined specific client roles that influence the development
21
of safety climate in construction projects. It is recommended that clients should focus on the
22
following six safety roles: participate in site-based safety program; review and analyze safety
23
data; appoint safety team; select safe contractors; specify how safety is to be addressed in
24

tenders; and perform regular checks on plant/equipment. Some clients may not consider safety as
25
important as other traditional objectives, such as time, cost, environment and quality. As such,
26
they need to recognize the economic benefit of safety, thus they are willing and committed to
27
integrate safety into day-to-day business decisions.
28
Keywords: Client safety roles, construction, small and medium organizations, safety climate
29
30
Introduction
31
Despite its role in global and national economies, the construction industry is unfortunately
32
infamous for its reputation as being dangerous. Although safety performance has improved
33
considerably over the past decades, the construction industry still has one of the highest rates of
34
accidents and fatalities worldwide (Choudhry et al., 2008), indicating that a change of safety
35
culture in the construction industry is needed. Efforts have been made to improve safety, but
36
many barriers remain and those related to economic reasons are particularly dominant. For
37
example, Kheni (2008) explained that uncertainty of demand was a key issue that compels
38
contractors to rely on casual labor and subcontractors. Unfortunately, this subcontracting practice
39
intensifies safety risks as economic pressures and intense competition penalize those who try to
40
do the ‘right thing’ due to their higher tender prices (Mayhew and Quinlan, 1997). Limited
41
financial capability is constantly considered as one of the main barriers in implementing safety,
42
particularly for small contractors (Ahasan, 2001; Loosemore and Andonakis, 2007; Tam et al.,
43
2006). To further exacerbate the situation, the industry is also subjected to cyclical economic
44
downturns (Dainty et al., 2001) and generally has a low and unreliable rate of profitability (Egan,
45
1998). As a result, decisions in relation to safety provisions may actually not be based upon
46
ethical considerations and basic rights to safety at work, but upon economics. This eventually
47

leads to long hours of work, low concern for safety, and shortcuts in construction safety practices
48
(Loosemore and Andonakis, 2007).
49
50
On the positive side, safety investment and management is able to generate economic advantages
51
for construction organizations. A construction safety risk prevention and reduction program may
52
yield as much as 46% of return on investment (Zou et al., 2010), while lack of safety has an
53
adverse impact on the economic performance of a construction project because an accident may
54
cost up to AUD1.6 million (Sun and Zou, 2010). Furthermore, since safety is enforceable in law,
55
lack of safety may lead to prosecution and claims which will incur extra costs, delay the project,
56
cause adverse publicity, and threaten the financial health of the organization (Holt, 2005). The
57
company’s reputation is also at stake when it does not implement proper safety measures to
58
protect the safety and wellbeing of its employees (Lingard et al., 2005).
59
60
Due to these economic reasons, the roles of clients are crucial for implementing safety in the
61
construction industry. Clients are in the best position to drive the cultural change needed to bring
62
about safety improvements as they initiate project development (Lingard and Blismas, 2013).
63
They make key decisions concerning budget, project objectives, timelines, and performance
64
criteria which can create pressures and constraints on safety implementation. Research also
65
shows that in large projects better safety performance is achieved when clients are proactive and
66
involved in setting safety objectives, selecting safe contractors, and participating in safety
67
management during construction (Huang and Hinze, 2006).
68
69
Most research in construction safety has focused on contractors and workplace safety. The
70
abovementioned economic reasons demonstrate the need to investigate safety issues by looking
71

at stakeholders higher in the supply chain, particularly clients who have the economic power to
72
facilitate safety implementation. Furthermore, generally the focus of research efforts has been on
73
large construction organizations within the supply chain of construction business. Today these
74
market leaders have established safety management systems and their performance is
75
significantly better than the national average (Sun, 2010). However, the bulk of the construction
76
industry worldwide consists of small and medium businesses. For example, 97% of Australian
77
construction organizations are small businesses, i.e., employing less than 20 people (ABS, 2013).
78
As such, focusing on the performance of small and medium construction organizations is
79
essential to make progress in safety. The aim of this research, therefore, is to investigate the roles
80
of clients in influencing the safety performance of small and medium construction organizations
81
in the Australian construction industry.
82
83
Client Roles in Safety
84
85
Construction clients still generally focus on traditional project objectives, such as cost, time, and
86
quality, as opposed to safety. As explained previously, clients should recognize that safety
87
complements quality and schedule. Ultimately, client involvement in safety will lead to a
88
reduction in construction costs. Although small clients may not have the resources and expertise
89
to undertake comprehensive safety interventions, nothing precludes them from enquiring about a
90
contractor’s safety performance and making reference to safety during the course of a project
91
(Smallwood, 1998).
92
93
Some research studies have been done to argue the roles of clients in safety in the construction
94
industry. Business Roundtable (1990) suggested that clients should familiarize themselves with
95

the costs of accidents so that they are committed to financially support contractors’ efforts to
96
promote safety. They should also include safety requirements in their pre-qualification and
97
tendering processes. In order to further demonstrate their commitment, they should be more
98
directly involved in safety activities of their construction projects by providing safety guidelines,
99
requiring a formal safety program, requiring the use of permit systems for hazardous activities,
100
requiring contractors to designate a safety supervisor, and conducting safety audits regularly. It is
101
also necessary to include safety as one of the topics in periodic reporting and meetings between
102
clients and contractors.
103
104
Sperling et al. (2008) identified communication as a key feature in achieving client-led safety
105
initiatives. This communication includes communicating safety messages for the overall project
106
direction and also regular participation in on-site activities such as inductions, safety meetings,
107
inspections, and safety walks. Huang and Hinze (2006) found that clients can contribute to safety
108
by being involved in a constructability review, selecting safe contractors, incorporating safety
109
requirements in contracts, and being active in managing safety during the construction stage.
110
111
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE, 2012), in their Policy Statement 350 on
112
Construction Site Safety, states that clients have responsibility for:
113
 Assigning overall project safety responsibility and authority to a specific organization or
114
individual, (or specifically retaining that responsibility).
115
 Designating an individual or organization to develop a coordinated project safety plan
116
and monitor safety performance during construction.
117
 Designating responsibility for the final approval of shop drawings and details through
118
contract documents.
119

 Including prior safety performance as a criterion for contractor selection.
120
121
In Australia, a model client framework was developed to drive safety in projects through
122
procurement and project management practices. Based on this framework, clients should
123
undertake some key management actions and entrench these actions into their safety culture in
124
order to become a complete model client (Lingard et al., 2009). The model client resources are
125
available from: http://www.fsc.gov.au/. Due to the thoroughness of the framework and its
126
applicability in the Australian construction industry context, the key management actions in this
127
framework have been adopted into the client safety roles in this research.
128
129
Safety Climate as Safety Performance Indicator
130
131
The aim of the research is to establish the relationship between client safety roles and safety
132
performance. Accident and incidence rates are commonly used as safety performance indicators.
133
However, assessing safety performance based on the rate of reported accidents poses a
134
fundamental issue. Organizations that diligently report and investigate accidents are
135
disadvantaged in comparison to careless organizations that do not always report accident
136
occurrences. As a result, it is hard to motivate organizations to accurately report their numbers of
137
accidents. Another indicator is the experience modification rating (EMR) which reflects the cost
138
that organizations have to pay for workers’ compensation insurance. It is the ratio between actual
139
claims filed and expected claims for a particular type of construction. EMR poses some problems
140
in its application because its formulae are quite complex and different versions of calculation
141
exist in practice. Furthermore, EMR is based on the running average results over several years,
142

which cannot reflect the latest safety performance of an organization (Hughes and Ferrett, 2007;
143
Ng et al., 2005).
144
145
Due to the limitations of these measurement tools, safety climate has become an alternative to
146
assess safety performance. Safety climate can be defined as shared employee perceptions of how
147
safety management is being operationalized in the workplace, at a particular moment in time
148
(Cooper and Phillips, 2004). As an indicator of safety performance, it offers some advantages.
149
First, it is a leading indicator, thus able to identify safety problems before they manifest
150
themselves into accidents. Second, by measuring different safety climate dimensions,
151
construction organizations have a mechanism to identify problematic areas and optimize
152
investment on safety-related improvements. Third, it is a valuable tool to identify trends in safety
153
performance and to establish both internal and external benchmarks. Fourth, it is economical and
154
easy to be administered. Fifth, safety climate survey involves all employees in the process, which
155
help identify key issues throughout the organization (Davies et al., 2001; Seo et al., 2004).
156
Studies have also demonstrated the reliability of safety climate in measuring safety-related
157
outcomes (Glendon and Litherland, 2001; Johnson, 2007; Varonen and Mattila, 2000). Due to
158
these reasons, safety climate was used as a safety performance indicator in this research.
159
160
Research Methodology
161
162
Quantitative research methodology was adopted in this research as it is appropriate to answer the
163
questions about relationships among measured variables with the purpose of explaining,
164
predicting, and controlling phenomena (Leedy, 2001). As such, quantitative methodology allows
165
a systematic approach to measure the degree of relationship between client safety roles and
166

safety climate. Data were collected using a questionnaire which consists of three sections. The
167
first section is to collect background information outlining a research participant’s age, gender,
168
role in the construction industry, and years of work experience. The second section consists of 17
169
key management actions which represent client safety roles as identified in the client model
170
framework (Lingard et al., 2009). This section measured the level of agreement to the extent of
171
their implementation in a current project by the client or client representatives. The third section
172
consists of 20 safety climate items to measure the level of safety climate in the project. These
173
safety climate items have undergone thorough psychometric tests in the Australian construction
174
industry context in previous studies conducted by the researchers (Sunindijo and Zou, 2012).
175
176
Convenience sampling was used because it is the most feasible approach due to budget and time
177
constraints of the research. A total of 300 questionnaires were sent out to construction
178
professionals working in 20 small and medium-sized construction organizations in Sydney,
179
Australia. In total, 45 responses were received from five companies (all had fewer than 100
180
employees), although five had to be discarded due to incomplete responses. This represents a low
181
response rate at about 7.5%. Different construction professionals have participated in the survey
182
including building cadets, tradesmen, contract administrators, estimators, engineers, project
183
managers, and safety officers. Although both male and female professionals participated, 87.5%
184
of the participants are males, indicating the typical male-dominance characteristic of the
185
industry. The work experience of the respondents is fairly distributed where 22.5% had less than
186
three years of experience, 25% has worked for three to five years, 32.5% had six to ten years of
187
experience, and 20% has worked for more than 11 years.
188
189
Data Analysis and Discussion
190

191
Table 1 shows the perceptions of the respondents about the extent to which their clients have
192
performed their safety roles. In general, clients have performed their safety roles into a certain
193
extent as indicated by the total average of 3.57. This number, however, hovers between ‘neutral’
194
and ‘agree’, indicating that in small and medium-sized construction projects, clients need to be
195
far more involved in safety than they currently do. Clients perform best in evaluating project
196
performance which is understandable because they want to get what they pay for. Clients simply
197
want the project to meet the requirements that they have set for their contractors. The lowest item
198
is ‘appoint a safety team’, indicating that clients still have a concept that safety is not their
199
responsibility. They do not see the necessity of appointing a safety team as this is the
200
responsibility of the contractors. This is also supported by item 5 which shows that client
201
participation in site-based safety program still leaves much to be desired. Item 15 also shows that
202
clients do not specify how safety should be addressed during the tender stage, which indicates
203
either their lack of expertise or they simply aim to shift all safety responsibilities to the
204
contractors. Some standard deviation values are also relatively big, indicating that clients of
205
small and medium-sized construction projects perform their safety roles inconsistently. In this
206
case, particular attention should be given to the following roles: include safety in contract
207
documents (item 3), perform regular checks on plan/equipment (item 17), select safe contractors
208
(item 13), conduct design safety reviews (item 2), and record risk information (item 1). A wide
209
range of factors may cause this inconsistency, such as the size of client organizations, the
210
availability of client safety staff, and safety culture in client organizations. Research is needed to
211
investigate preceding factors that affect the extent of client safety roles.
212
213
Table 1 is here
214

215
Table 2 shows the perceptions of the respondents on safety climate in their project. The level of
216
safety climate is relatively high as indicated by the total average of 3.75. There are several items
217
that require attention. First, item no 3 ‘top management evaluates (give rewards/discipline)
218
employees’ safety performance’ is the lowest among the rest. This indicates that safety is not
219
considered as one of the key indicators in the employee performance evaluation review, which
220
may affect employees’ safety motivation negatively. Second, item 4 shows that more power and
221
authority should be given to site safety personnel to directly address safety issues on site. Third,
222
item 16 ‘safety is one of my priorities when I do my job’ is the highest. This positive attitude
223
towards safety is critical for improving safety performance in the construction industry. Now it is
224
a matter of providing a work environment conducive to safety so that this positive safety attitude
225
can be reflected in daily activities, both at the organizational and project level. Some safety
226
climate items have large standard deviation values, indicating that safety climate levels vary
227
rather significantly in small and medium-sized construction projects. In general, items related to
228
management commitment and safety communication are key aspects that are inconsistently
229
applied in this context.
230
231
Table 2 is here
232
233
In order to determine the influence of client safety roles on safety climate, the respondents were
234
classified into two groups based on their safety climate scores. Since the safety climate average
235
is 3.75, group 1 consists of respondents with safety climate score lower than 3.75 while group 2
236
consists of respondents with safety climate score higher than 3.75. Due to the non-normal
237
distributions of the groups, the Mann-Whitney U non-parametric test was used to find the
238

significant difference between the two groups. As shown in Table 3, out of the 17 client safety
239
roles, 11 are considered as significant (p<0.05). Based on the analysis, the client safety roles that
240
influence the level of safety climate are: record risk information; conduct design safety reviews;
241
include safety in contract documents; set project safety targets; participate in site-based safety
242
program; review and analyze safety data; appoint safety team; select safe designers; select safe
243
contractors; specify how safety is to be addressed in tenders; and perform regular checks on
244
plant/equipment. Integrating this result with Table 1, it is recommended that clients of small and
245
medium-sized construction projects in Australia should focus on improving their performance on
246
the following six roles: (1) participate in site-based safety program (item 5); (2) review and
247
analyze safety data (item 6); (3) appoint safety team (item 9); (4) select safe contractors (item
248
13); (5) specify how safety is to be addressed in tenders (item 15); and (6) perform regular
249
checks on plant/equipment (item 17).
250
251
Table 3 is here
252
253
Table 4 presents the correlation analysis between client safety roles and safety climate items. The
254
correlation analysis provides a deeper insight on the potential impacts of client safety roles on
255
safety climate. For example, when clients perform the recommended six safety roles (CR5, 6, 9,
256
13, 15, 17), they have a potential to encourage contractors’ top management to consider safety as
257
equally important as production and profit (SC1). By appointing a safety team in the project
258
(CR9), clients may promote the involvement of site supervisors/managers (SC8) and other
259
employees on safety (SC17). Furthermore, client roles no 13, 15, and 17 may positively
260
influence multiple safety climate items.
261
262

Table 4 is here
263
264
One limitation of this research is worth mentioning. The research used convenience sampling
265
approach, thus the results are exploratory in nature and have to be interpreted cautiously.
266
267
Conclusion
268
269
This research has determined client safety roles that influence the safety performance, i.e., safety
270
climate, of small and medium construction organizations in the Australian construction industry.
271
Although there are 11 roles that influence safety climate, based on existing level of performance,
272
clients should initially focus on the following six roles: (1) participate in site-based safety
273
program; (2) review and analyze safety data; (3) appoint safety team; (4) select safe contractors;
274
(5) specify how safety is to be addressed in tenders; and (6) perform regular checks on
275
plant/equipment. There is a tendency that clients of small and medium construction projects may
276
not consider safety as important as other traditional objectives, such as time, cost, environment
277
and quality. They may also feel that safety is not their main responsibility, but is the
278
responsibility of contractors. In this case, clients should realize that without their supports,
279
contractors would face a lot of constraints in implementing safety measures, especially given the
280
competitive nature of the industry. Clients should also understand the economic benefit of safety,
281
thus safety can be integrated into day-to-day business decisions.
282
283
References
284
285

ABS (2013). Counts of Australian Businesses, including Entries and Exits. Australian Bureau of
286
Statistics, Canberra.
287
288
ASCE (2012). Policy Statement 350 - Construction Site Safety. American Society of Civil
289
Engineers, Reston.
290
291
Ahasan, R. (2001). “Legacy of implementing industrial health and safety in developing
292
countries.” Journal of Physiological Anthropology and Applied Human Science, 20(6), 311-319.
293
294
Business Roundtable (1990). Improving Construction Safety Performance, Report A-3. The
295
Business Roundtable, Washington.
296
297
Choudhry, R.M. and Fang, D. (2008). “Why operatives engage in unsafe work behaviours:
298
Investigating factors on construction sites.” Safety Science, 46(4), 566-584.
299
300
Cooper, M.D. and Phillips, R.A. (2004). “Exploratory analysis of the safety climate and safety
301
behavior relationship.” Journal of Safety Research, 35(5), 497-512.
302
303
Dainty, A.R.J., Millet, S.J., and Briscoe, G.H. (2001). “New perspectives on construction supply
304
chain integration.” Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 6(4), 163-173.
305
306
Davies, F., Spencer, R., and Dooley, K. (2001). Summary Guide to Safety Climate Tools. HSE
307
Books, Norwich.
308
309

Egan, J. (1998). Rethinking Construction. Department of Trade and Industry, London.
310
311
Glendon, A.I. and Litherland, D.K. (2001). “Safety climate factors, group differences and safety
312
behaviour in road construction.” Safety Science, 39(3), 157-188.
313
314
Holt, A.S.J. (2005). Principles of Construction Safety. Blackwell Science, Oxford, UK.
315
316
Huang, X. and Hinze, J. (2006). “Owner’s role in construction safety.” Journal of Construction
317
Engineering and Management, 132(2), 164-173.
318
319
Hughes, P. and Ferrett, E. (2007). Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction, 2nd ed.
320
Elsevier, Oxford, UK.
321
322
Johnson, S. (2007). “The predictive validity of safety climate.” Journal of Safety Research,
323
38(5), 511-521.
324
325
Kheni, N.A. (2008). Impact of health and safety management on safety performance of small and
326
medium-sized construction business in Ghana. PhD Thesis, Department of Civil and Building
327
Engineering, Loughborough University.
328
329
Leedy, P. (2001). Research Planning and Designing, 4th ed. Sage, London.
330
331

Lingard, H. and Blismas, N. (2013). Client OHS leadership: An evaluation of client leadership in
332
occupational health and safety in the Australian construction industry. Melbourne: RMIT
333
University.
334
335
Lingard, H., Blismas, N., Cooke, T., and Cooper, H. (2009). “The model client framework:
336
Resources to help Australian government agencies to promote safe construction.” International
337
Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 2(1), 131-140.
338
339
Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. (2005). Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Project
340
Management. Spon Press, Oxon.
341
342
Loosemore, M., and Andonakis, N. (2007). “Barriers to implementing OHS reforms – The
343
experiences of small subcontractors in the Australian construction industry.” International
344
Journal of Project Management, 25(6), 579-588.
345
346
Mayhew, C. and Quinlan, M. (1997). “Subcontracting and occupational health and safety in the
347
residential building industry.” Industrial Relations Journal, 28(3), 192-205.
348
349
Ng, S.T., Kam, P.C., and Skitmore, R.M. (2005). “A framework for evaluating the safety
350
performance of construction contractors.” Building and Environment, 40(10), 1347-1355.
351
352
Seo, D., Torabi, M., Blair, E., and Ellis, N. (2004). “A cross-validation of safety climate scale
353
using confirmatory factor analytic approach.” Journal of Safety Research, 35(4), 427-445.
354
355

Sperling, L., Charles, M.B., Ryan, R., and Brown, K. (2008). “Driving safety: Enhancing
356
communication between clients, constructors and designers.” Third International Conference of
357
the Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) for Construction Innovation – Clients Driving
358
Innovation: Benefiting from Innovation, 1-15, 12-14 March, Gold Coast, Australia.
359
360
Sun, C. (2010). An Analysis of Return on Investment on Safety Management Program in
361
Construction Project. Master Thesis, The University of New South Wales.
362
363
Sun, A.C.S. and Zou, P.X.W. (2010). “Understanding the true costs of construction accidents.”
364
CIB World Congress, 11-13 May, Salford Manchester UK.
365
366
Sunindijo, R.Y. and Zou, P.X.W. (2012). “Political skill for developing construction safety
367
climate.” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), 605-612.
368
369
Tam, C.M., Tong, T.K.L., and Chan, K.K. (2006). “Rough set theory for distilling construction
370
safety measures.” Construction Management and Economics, 24(11), 1199-1206.
371
372
Varonen, U. and Mattila, M. (2000). “The safety climate and its relationship to safety practices,
373
safety of the work environment and occupational accidents in eight wood-processing
374
companies.” Accident Analysis & Prevention, 32(6), 761-769.
375
376
Zou, P.X.W., Sun, A.C.S., Long, B., and Marix-Evans, P. (2010). “Return on investment of
377
safety risk management system in construction.” CIB World Congress, 11-13 May, Salford
378
Manchester UK.
379
380

Table 1 Client safety roles
381
No
Client role and responsibility in safety
Average
Standard
deviation
1
Record risk information
3.75
1.214
2
Conduct design safety reviews
3.55
1.339
3
Include safety in contract documents
3.73
1.485
4
Set project safety targets
3.55
1.26
5
Participate in site-based safety program
3.33
1.118
6
Review and analyze safety data
3.4
1.057
7
Conduct safety inspections/audits
3.6
0.955
8
Evaluate project performance
4.05
0.846
9
Appoint safety team
3.2
1.181
10
Undertake a feasibility study
3.43
1.152
11
Establish project brief and design requirements
3.9
0.81
12
Select safe designers
3.5
1.198
13
Select safe contractors
3.4
1.355
14
Review safe work method statements
3.5
1.086
15
Specify how safety is to be addressed in tenders
3.28
1.154
16
Perform project completion review
3.98
0.8
17
Perform regular checks on plant/equipment
3.48
1.358
Total average
3.57
1.14
Note: 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree
382
383

Table 2 Safety climate
384
No
Safety climate item
Average
Standard
deviation
1
Top management considers safety as equally important as
production and profits
3.68
1.328
2
Top management acts decisively when a safety concern or
problem is raised or occurred
4.03
0.947
3
Top management evaluates (give rewards/discipline)
employees’ safety performance
3.13
1.285
4
Site safety personnel have sufficient power and authority
3.40
1.081
5
Top management requires each manager/department to
improve/maintain safety performance
4.00
0.816
6
My supervisor or line manager follows safety procedures in
every situation, e.g., during deadline, behind schedule, planning
stage
3.60
1.355
7
My supervisor or line manager is committed and shows interest
towards safety
3.63
1.079
8
My supervisor or line manager considers my safety
performance
3.70
1.114
9
My construction project site is a safe place to work
3.78
1.250
10
Supportive working relationships exist in the project when it
comes to safety
3.78
1.209
11
The company encourages and acts upon feedback from
employees on safety issues
3.63
1.314
12
The company frequently holds safety campaigns or safety
awareness programs
3.55
1.260
13
Safety rules and procedures are enforced in the project
3.93
1.207
14
I have received enough training to perform my job safely
3.75
1.214
15
My safety training provides sufficient knowledge to identify
potential safety risks and hazards
3.73
1.198
16
Safety is one of my priorities when I do my job
4.23
0.800
17
I am involved to improve safety performance in the project
3.65
1.167
18
Company’s safety policy, information, and issues are available
to everyone involved
4.00
0.987
19
The safety rules and procedures in the project/ company are
practical, realistic, and appropriate
3.90
1.057
20
It is easy to access safety rules, procedures and information
when required
3.90
0.982
Total average
3.75
1.13
Note: 1 = strongly disagree, 3 = neutral, 5 = strongly agree
385
386

Table 3 Client roles that influence safety climate
387
No
Client role
Group 1:
Safety Climate
< 3.75
Group 2:
Safety Climate
> 3.75
Mann-Whitney U
p Value
1
Record risk information
2.92
4.15
.019*
2
Conduct design safety reviews
2.54
4.04
.004*
3
Include safety in contract documents
2.46
4.33
.001*
4
Set project safety targets
2.62
4.00
.005*
5
Participate in site-based safety program
2.77
3.59
.049*
6
Review and analyze safety data
2.77
3.70
.013*
7
Conduct safety inspections/audits
3.23
3.78
.177
8
Evaluate project performance
4.00
4.07
.754
9
Appoint safety team
2.54
3.52
.016*
10
Undertake a feasibility study
3.08
3.59
.207
11
Establish project brief and design requirements
3.54
4.07
.135
12
Select safe designers
2.77
3.85
.027*
13
Select safe contractors
2.31
3.93
.002*
14
Review safe work method statements
3.00
3.74
.052
15
Specify how safety is to be addressed in tenders
2.38
3.70
.002*
16
Perform project completion review
3.69
4.11
.197
17
Perform regular checks on plant/equipment
2.38
4.00
.001*
388

Table 4 Correlation analysis between client safety roles and safety climate items
389
Spearman’s Rho
SC1
SC2
SC3
SC4
SC5
SC6
SC7
SC8
SC9
SC10
SC11
SC12
SC13
SC14
SC15
SC16
SC17
SC18
SC19
SC20
CR1
Coefficient
.439*
.485*
.391
.236
.260
.425*
.418*
.218
.272
.267
.358
.156
.512*
.445*
.376
.149
.259
.356
.501*
.469*
Significance
.005
.002
.013
.143
.105
.006
.007
.177
.090
.096
.023
.337
.001
.004
.017
.358
.106
.024
.001
.002
CR2
Coefficient
.576*
.499*
.456*
.424*
.381
.606*
.540*
.513*
.366
.430*
.537*
.297
.583*
.551*
.496*
.210
.429*
.501*
.559*
.489*
Significance
.000
.001
.003
.006
.015
.000
.000
.001
.020
.006
.000
.063
.000
.000
.001
.194
.006
.001
.000
.001
CR3
Coefficient
.654*
.554*
.381
.344
.253
.403*
.634*
.481*
.378
.449*
.514*
.344
.673*
.499*
.454*
.387
.550*
.387
.408*
.346
Significance
.000
.000
.015
.030
.116
.010
.000
.002
.016
.004
.001
.030
.000
.001
.003
.014
.000
.014
.009
.029
CR4
Coefficient
.588*
.512*
.337
.457*
.298
.473*
.506*
.485*
.323
.432*
.483*
.272
.616*
.503*
.444*
.267
.408*
.439*
.456*
.373
Significance
.000
.001
.034
.003
.062
.002
.001
.002
.042
.005
.002
.090
.000
.001
.004
.095
.009
.005
.003
.018
CR5
Coefficient
.426*
.281
.370
.208
.210
.366
.331
.397
.255
.235
.329
.323
.308
.294
.274
.199
.378
.314
.354
.291
Significance
.006
.079
.019
.198
.194
.020
.037
.011
.112
.144
.038
.042
.053
.066
.087
.219
.016
.049
.025
.069
CR6
Coefficient
.448*
.281
.339
.356
.224
.376
.372
.357
.209
.240
.332
.260
.376
.331
.326
.178
.351
.270
.377
.344
Significance
.004
.079
.032
.024
.166
.017
.018
.024
.195
.137
.036
.105
.017
.037
.040
.273
.027
.092
.016
.030
CR7
Coefficient
.261
.092
.135
.036
.210
.245
.279
.282
.113
.057
.169
.161
.179
.151
.121
.098
.128
.167
.246
.184
Significance
.104
.574
.405
.823
.194
.127
.081
.078
.486
.728
.296
.322
.270
.351
.458
.548
.431
.304
.126
.255
CR8
Coefficient
.290
.415*
.103
.020
.199
.219
.132
.077
.153
.222
.177
-.105
.246
.320
.037
-.111
-.054
.143
.290
.195
Significance
.069
.008
.528
.904
.219
.175
.418
.637
.346
.169
.275
.518
.127
.044
.820
.495
.739
.377
.070
.229
CR9
Coefficient
.413*
.235
.300
.378
.073
.347
.392
.445*
.291
.267
.312
.329
.360
.224
.303
.285
.467*
.304
.311
.206
Significance
.008
.145
.060
.016
.656
.028
.012
.004
.068
.096
.050
.038
.023
.165
.058
.075
.002
.056
.051
.201
CR10
Coefficient
.283
.356
.364
.344
.225
.568*
.503*
.419*
.293
.383
.438*
.255
.445*
.420*
.234
-.041
.223
.492*
.535*
.417*
Significance
.077
.024
.021
.030
.163
.000
.001
.007
.066
.015
.005
.112
.004
.007
.146
.800
.166
.001
.000
.007
CR11
Coefficient
.409*
.325
.101
.336
.193
.250
.345
.237
.126
.390
.276
.045
.333
.407*
.264
.067
.151
.147
.180
.177
Significance
.009
.040
.537
.034
.232
.120
.029
.141
.438
.013
.085
.784
.036
.009
.099
.679
.351
.366
.267
.275
CR12
Coefficient
.386
.372
.363
.486*
.128
.387
.438*
.496*
.151
.499*
.353
.229
.375
.486*
.482*
.305
.526*
.443*
.335
.312
Significance
.014
.018
.021
.001
.430
.014
.005
.001
.353
.001
.025
.154
.017
.001
.002
.056
.000
.004
.035
.050
CR13
Coefficient
.586*
.485*
.521*
.467*
.105
.484*
.390
.462*
.317
.451*
.464*
.318
.495*
.568*
.601*
.386
.601*
.273
.285
.326
Significance
.000
.002
.001
.002
.518
.002
.013
.003
.046
.004
.003
.045
.001
.000
.000
.014
.000
.089
.075
.040
CR14
Coefficient
.190
.188
.211
.239
-.063
.125
.120
.136
.089
.019
.058
.191
.231
.088
.222
.082
.299
.195
.204
.207
Significance
.239
.245
.190
.137
.700
.442
.460
.401
.585
.907
.722
.239
.151
.588
.169
.613
.060
.227
.206
.201
CR15
Coefficient
.456*
.368
.534*
.279
.103
.376
.452*
.351
.276
.238
.351
.412*
.513*
.360
.370
.186
.515*
.278
.407*
.403*
Significance
.003
.019
.000
.081
.526
.017
.003
.027
.085
.139
.027
.008
.001
.022
.019
.250
.001
.083
.009
.010
CR16
Coefficient
.302
.343
.206
.062
.313
.400
.446*
.356
.098
.133
.280
.140
.379
.459*
.131
-.070
.008
.331
.386
.339
Significance
.059
.030
.201
.704
.049
.011
.004
.024
.549
.413
.080
.390
.016
.003
.422
.668
.959
.037
.014
.032
CR17
Coefficient
.528*
.437*
.551*
.467*
.188
.582*
.525*
.501*
.397
.460*
.476*
.406*
.552*
.491*
.646*
.330
.603*
.426*
.485*
.443*
Significance
.000
.005
.000
.002
.245
.000
.001
.001
.011
.003
.002
.009
.000
.001
.000
.037
.000
.006
.002
.004
Notes: * = correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed); CR = client role; SC = safety climate
N (no. of respondents) = 40 for all correlations
390