Assuring health and safety performance on construction projects: Clients' role and influence Peer reviewed

Abstract

This article presents findings from an investigation conducted in Botswana and South Africa on how construction clients could influence health and safety (H&S) performance on construction projects. The continued poor state of construction H&S and the inability of designers and contractors to influence an industry-wide H&S culture change motivated the article. It was also recognised that one of the reasons the construction industry continued to lag in H&S performance was the way in which H&S implementation and management was organised. The article proposes a client-centred model for H&S performance improvement. The conceptual model and its factors were developed from both literature and a Delphi survey. Structural equation modelling was applied to data collected from a questionnaire survey to design a best fit model. The key finding was that, generally, client H&S culture impacted on project H&S performance. The influence of clients was found to be statistically significant when commitment, communication and H&S procedures were evident. This finding was encouraging as it specifically shows how clients could influence performance. However, it remains to be seen whether these results could be replicated in other datasets. If indeed that is the case, then this article contributes significantly to the body of knowledge.

Full text

71
Innocent Musonda, Jan-Harm Pretorius & Theo Haupt
Assuring health and safety performance
on construction projects: Clients’ role and
inuence
Peer reviewed
Abstract
This article presents ndings from an investigation conducted in Botswana and
South Africa on how construction clients could inuence health and safety
(H&S) performance on construction projects.
The continued poor state of construction H&S and the inability of designers and
contractors to inuence an industry-wide H&S culture change motivated the
article. It was also recognised that one of the reasons the construction industry
continued to lag in H&S performance was the way in which H&S implementation
and management was organised. The article proposes a client-centred model
for H&S performance improvement.
The conceptual model and its factors were developed from both literature and
a Delphi survey. Structural equation modelling was applied to data collected
from a questionnaire survey to design a best t model.
The key nding was that, generally, client H&S culture impacted on project H&S
performance. The inuence of clients was found to be statistically signicant
when commitment, communication and H&S procedures were evident. This
nding was encouraging as it specically shows how clients could inuence
performance. However, it remains to be seen whether these results could
be replicated in other datasets. If indeed that is the case, then this article
contributes signicantly to the body of knowledge.
Keywords: Botswana, construction, culture, health and safety, improvement,
inuence, performance, South Africa
Mr. Innocent Musonda, Senior Lecturer, Department of Construction Management
and Quantity Surveying, University of Johannesburg, PO Box 17011, Doornfontein,
Johannesburg 2028, South Africa. Phone: +27 11 559 6655, email:<imusonda@uj.ac.za>
Prof. Jan-Harm Pretorius, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of
Johannesburg, PO Box 17011, Doornfontein, Johannesburg, 2028, South Africa. Phone:
+27 11 559 3377, email:<jhcpretorius@uj.ac.za>
Prof. Conrad Theodore Haupt, Part-time Professor, Department of Construction
Management and Quantity Surveying, University of Johannesburg, Unit D1, Millenium
Park, Stellenberg Close, Parrow Industria 7493, South Africa. Phone: +27 21 931 4840,
email:<pinnacle.haupt@gmail.com>

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
72
Abstrak
Hierdie artikel gee bevindinge weer van ‘n ondersoek wat in Botswana en Suid-
Afrika gedoen is oor hoe konstruksie-kliënte ‘n invloed kan hê op die uitvoering
van beroepsgesondheid en veiligheid in konstruksieprojekte.
Die aanhoudende swak toestand waarin konstruksie beroepsgesondheid en
veiligheid verkeer asook die onvermoë van ontwerpers en kontrakteurs om die
beroepsgesondheid en veiligheidskultuurverandering industriewyd te beïnvloed,
het die ondersoek in hierdie artikel gemotiveer. Dit is ook erken dat een van die
redes vir die konstruksie-industrie se gebrek aan beroepsgesondheid en veiligheid
optrede is die manier waarop beroepsgesondheid en veiligheidsimplimentering
en bestuur georganiseer word. Die artikel stel ‘n kliëntgesentreerde model voor
om beroepsgesondheid en veiligheidsoptrede te verbeter.
Die konsepmodel en die faktore is ontwikkel uit literatuur asook ‘n Delphi-
opname. Gestruktureerde vergelykingsmodellering is toegepas om data uit
‘n vraelysopname te versamel om sodoende ‘n model te ontwerp wat die
beste pas.
Die sleutelbevindinge was dat kliënt beroepsgesondheid en veiligheid ‘n
impak het op projek beroepsgesondheid en veiligheid. Die invloed van
kliënte het duidelik uitgestaan ten opsigte van toevertroue, kommunikasie
en beroepsgesondheid en veiligheidsprosedures. Hierdie bevinding wys waar
kliënte optrede mag beïnvloed. Nietemin, dit moet nog gesien word of hierdie
resultate gerepliseer kan word in ander datastelle. Indien wel, lewer hierdie
artikel ‘n beduidende bydrae tot die liggaam van kennis.
Sleutelwoorde: Botswana, konstruksie, kultuur, beroepsgesondheid en veiligheid,
verbetering, invloed, optrede, Suid-Afrika
1. Introduction
The construction industry has for a long time been considered the
most hazardous industry (Bomel, 2001: 0.5; CIOB, 2009: 6; McDonald,
Lipscomb, Bondy & Glazner, 2009: 53). Accidents cost national
economies nearly 4% of gross domestic product (GDP) and there is
consequently a dire need for improvement in terms of health and
safety (H&S) performance (ILO, 2003: 15). Construction workers are
more at risk of an accident, ill health and/or even a fatality at work
than other manufacturing-based industries (Loughborough & UMIST,
2003: Vii; Hoonakker, Loushine, Carayon, Kallman, Kapp & Smith,
2005: 461). Generally, construction sites are still one of the most
dangerous workplaces, because of the high incidence of accidents
(Hoonakker et al., 2005: 461; Teo, Ling & Chong, 2005: 329; Kines,
Spangenberg & Dyreborg, 2007: 53).
The risk of a fatality in construction is at least ve times more likely
than in other manufacturing-based industries (Sawacha, Naum
& Fong, 1999: 309; Loughborough & UMIST, 2003: Vii). According
to Bomel (2001: 0.5), the construction industry is a hazardous
environment where workers have direct exposure to heights, forces,
and power. Workers face these risks every day of their working lives.

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
73
Of great concern, therefore, is the exposure of workers to hazards in
construction projects.
The nature and organisation of the construction industry have
partly compounded the problem. H&S performance improvement
in the construction industry has been made difcult as a result.
The construction sector is a complex industry (Teo et al., 2005:
329), and the complexity is compounded by the extensive use of
sophisticated plant, equipment, methods of construction, as well
as multidisciplinary and multitasked project work force. It is this
complex nature that shapes the industry’s way of functioning and
performance (Sawacha et al., 1999: 309; Dubois & Gadde, 2001: 2).
Furthermore, the construction industry has the following unique
characteristics that contribute to its complexity and pose a
challenge to performance improvement:
• An industry that offers temporary employment (Pellicer &
Molenaar, 2009: 44);
• Work locations for any group of workers often changing (Riley
& Brown, 2001: 150; McDonald et al., 2009: 53);
• Temporary work sites where workers are employed by different
employers but work alongside each other (Chan & Chan,
2004: 203; Pellicer & Molenaar, 2009: 44; Misnan, Mohammed,
Mahmood, Mahmud & Abdullah, 2008: 1902);
• An industry comprised mostly of small employers (Pellicer &
Molenaar, 2009: 44). For example, in the United Kingdom, 98%
of the registered companies employ 24 workers or less in their
companies (Dainty, Briscoe & Millet, 2001: 163);
• Large numbers of people are employed in this industry
and have to combine a diverse range of skills to complete
a project (Bomel, 2001: 2.4; Dainty et al., 2001: 163; Riley &
Brown, 2001: 150; Pellicer & Molenaar, 2009: 44);
• A large number of subcontractors (Bomel, 2001: 2.4; Riley &
Brown, 2001: 158; Pellicer & Molenaar, 2009: 44);
• Construction projects with short periods (Bomel, 2001: 2.4;
Dainty et al., 2001: 163; Riley & Brown, 2001: 150);
• Sites evolving as construction proceeds, resulting in changing
the hazards that workers face weekly (Bomel, 2001: 2.3; Riley
& Brown, 2001: 150);
• A fragmented industry (Egan, 1998: 8; Chan & Chan, 2004:
203). Dainty et al., (2001: 163) argue that the proliferation in

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
74
subcontracting has further complicated the situation, causing
further fragmentation of the production process;
• An industry subjected to cyclical economic downturns (Egan,
1998: 9; Dainty et al., 2001: 163), and
• An industry with a low and unreliable rate of protability
(Egan, 1998: 7; Pellicer & Molenaar, 2009: 44).
In addition, Winch (2000: 142) observed that the construction
industry is largely operationalised through a professional system
which requires that designs be fully specied at tender stage. Yet
the assumptions regarding the competence of designers in the
technical details of a wide range of construction technologies and
the ability of the client to keep requirements xed over a period of
time compromise the effectiveness of the professional system. The
fact is that designs are rarely fully specied (Winch, 2000: 145). This
system has also contributed to the industry’s lack of cooperation
and integration. Egan (1998: 13) observed that the construction
industry was basically an industry typically dealing with the project
process as a series of sequential and largely separate operations
undertaken by individual designers, contractors and suppliers who
have no stake in the long-term success of the project and therefore
do not have any commitment to it. Therefore, changing this culture
is fundamental if performance improvement is to be realised.
Consequently, the culture of clients could offer an opportunity for
addressing the problem of H&S performance (Bomel, 2001: 5.5).
The impetus for change lies with the clients of construction projects,
because clients can inuence contractors’ H&S performance
(Smallwood, 1998: 182; Bomel, 2001: 9.7; Lingard, Blismas, Cooke &
Cooper, 2009: 132). The client has been overlooked in most studies
with emphasis placed on the contractor or the construction process.
H&S during the construction process is conventionally considered
to be the contractor’s responsibility. When construction accidents
occur, perceived factors of causation are mostly associated with
management failures on the part of the contractor or failures of
site operatives to control unsafe site conditions or unsafe actions
(Abdelhamid & Everett, 2000: 55; Suraji, Sulaiman, Mahyuddin &
Mohamed, 2006: 49). The general perception is that construction
H&S is a matter of construction management rather than the
management on the part of clients and other participants in the
construction process. Studies concentrating on factors that relate to
the contractor create the impression that the main problem lies with
contractors and, therefore, H&S performance improvement can
only be achieved by addressing contractor issues. It is, however,

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
75
unlikely that H&S performance improvement can be achieved in
the industry by only focusing on the construction stage and the
contractor specically. This is partly due to the difcult conditions
in which contractors operate, including constraints and actions of
designers and clients (Suraji et al., 2006: 59).
The current study investigated the inuence of clients on construction
project H&S performance. The following hypothesis is to be tested:
The H&S culture of clients dened by leadership, involvement,
procedures, commitment, communication and competence
impacts on project H&S performance.
Client-centred H&S performance improvement has not been
investigated in sufcient detail (Lingard et al., 2009: 132). The study
by Huang & Hinze (2006) in the U.S.A. investigated the inuence of
owners or clients on construction H&S performance by using the
number of accidents to measure performance. To the contrary,
the current study used leading indicators which better reect
H&S performance and are proactive (Carder & Ragan, 2003:
163; Jafri, Ahmad & Kamsah, 2005: 703; Cameron & Duff, 2007:
870) to characterise H&S performance. Examples are the use of
indicators such as evidence of H&S inspections and audits to dene
performance. In addition, this study was not restricted to projects
with good H&S performance only, but included other construction
projects within South Africa and Botswana. In addition, the study
investigated specically the inuence of the H&S culture of clients
on H&S performance.
Therefore, the current study builds on Huang & Hinze’s (2006) study
and uses an alternative method to model the inuence of client
H&S culture on project H&S performance. This method involved a
Delphi study and a eld questionnaire survey. In addition, structural
equation modelling (SEM) (Kline, 2005: 83) was used to reliably
model how clients could inuence project H&S performance.
2. Research
The study was conducted using both qualitative and quantitative
data-collection methods. For the qualitative part, a Delphi
technique was used, whereas a eld questionnaire survey was used
for the quantitative part. The Delphi survey was conducted with 11
H&S experts drawn from different parts of the world. The output from
the Delphi technique was a conceptual model and the factors of
client H&S culture. As for the quantitative approach, a questionnaire
survey was conducted among construction professionals based in

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
76
Botswana and South Africa on the practice of H&S in the construction
industry.
The analysis of the quantitative data was done using a structural
equation modelling (SEM) software, Mplus version 6.0. The conceptual
model analysed in the current study evolved as an output from both
the literature review and the Delphi process. The conceptual model
was thereafter tested using SEM of the questionnaire survey results.
The SEM process was therefore undertaken as a conrmatory factor
analysis (CFA) of the conceptual model.
2.1 Delphi study
The Delphi study involved 11 invited panellists who had been
identied from three sources. The rst source was the CIB W099
register of members on the CIB W099 website. The CIB W099 is a
working commission, an international forum of researchers working
on construction H&S. The second source was CIB W099 conference
proceedings from 2005 to 2009. Individuals who had frequently
appeared as authors or keynote speakers were identied as
potential participants in the study. The third source was identifying
individuals working in the area of H&S in the Southern African
construction industry.
The Delphi panel consisted of two members from South Africa,
three each from the United States of America (USA) and the United
Kingdom (UK), and one each from Singapore, Hong Kong and
Sweden. Of these, one of the panellists had a Doctor of Science
(DSC) degree, six had Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) degrees, two had
Master of Science (MSc) degrees, one had a Bachelor of Science
(BSc.) degree, and one had a Diploma in Safety Management. All
the panellists specialised in construction H&S. In terms of their current
occupation, three of the panellists were employed by contracting
organisations, one by a consulting organisation, and six by universities.
All panellists held very senior positions in their organisations and were
involved in community service.
The panel had a cumulative total of 243 years of experience.
The lowest number of years of experience for an individual was
seven and the highest was 45 years. The median number of years
of experience was 15 years. Experience was an important factor
in determining who an expert was and, therefore, the minimum
number of years was set to be ve. In terms of publications, 10 of
the panellists had published in peer-reviewed journals, conference
proceedings and books. Between them, they had published 57
books and monographs, 19 chapters in books, 187 peer-reviewed

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
77
academic journals, 345 recent conference papers and 341 other
publications comprising articles in professional journals, technical
reports, policy papers, expert witness documentation and keynote
addresses (Table 1). In addition, the panel had led and managed
108 funded research projects. Three panellists served on the editorial
boards of 43 peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.
Table 1: Panellists’ publications
Panel publications No. of publications
Books and monographs 57
Chapters in books 19
Peer-reviewed journals 187
Peer-reviewed conference proceedings 345
Funded research 108
Other publications 341
Editorial board membership 43
Referee for journals 22
Referee for conference proceedings 30
2.1.1 Delphi process
A questionnaire was developed from literature and distributed
electronically to all panel members. The questions related to
the importance of the various factors of client H&S culture and
the signicance of client inuence. The panel was asked to rate
the importance of these factors on contractor and designer H&S
performance. The importance of each factor was based on a
10-point rating scale ranging from 0 representing 0% or negligible or
low impact to 10 representing 100% or very high impact.
The panel also rated the likelihood that contractor H&S performance
would improve if the identied client culture H&S factors were
evident. The likelihood or probability scale ranged from 1 to 10,
representing 0% to 100%. The impact signicance of each factor
was thereafter obtained as a product of the rated likelihood and
severity, as illustrated in equation 1.
Impact Signicance = Likelihood factor x Severity factor
Equation 1

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
78
The Delphi process involved three iterative rounds to achieve
consensus between the panel members regarding the extent
of the client’s inuence on both contractor and designer H&S
performance.
Apart from the panel rating the likelihood and severity of various
factors, they were also requested to make comments on their
ratings, especially if the ratings differed from those of other panel
members. Comments were also made about what other factors or
issues needed to be included or omitted from the theorised model.
2.1.2 Delphi ndings
The average impact signicance of all factors of client H&S culture
on contractor H&S performance was found to be 6.60 while that
on designer H&S performance was determined to be 6.45 (Figure
1). The signicance of the impact of various factors associated
with the client was categorised as being either critical, major,
moderate, minor or low. A rating of one and below was considered
to be low while that of seven to ten was considered to be critical
(Table 2). According to the rating scale, the value of 6.60 indicated
that the level of clients’ impact and inuence on contractors’ H&S
performance was of ‘major impact signicance’. Similarly, a rating of
6.45 on designers H&S performance was determined to be ‘major’.
All the factors of client H&S culture had an impact signicance
of more than 5.0, with client involvement being rated higher for
designer H&S performance. The rating of 7.31 was considered to be
‘critical impact signicance’.
Table 2: Impact signicance and severity rating scale
0>1 1>3 3>5 5>7 7>10
Low/negligible Minor Moderate Major Critical
On the other hand, client leadership had major impact signicance
on contractor H&S performance (Figure 1). Client competence had
the least impact signicance on contractor H&S performance, with
a rating of 6.20. Similarly, client competence was also considered
to have lower impact on designer H&S performance. The impact
signicance of client competence on designer H&S performance
was determined to be 5.20. However, the rating of client
competence was deemed to be of ‘major impact’ signicance
although, in comparison to other factors, client competence was
considered to be the least signicant (Table 2).

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
79
8.00
6.30
6.70
7.31
6.50
5.42
6.20
6.75
7.00
Impact signicance
Client culture aspect
Designer
Ave = 6.45
SD = 0.80
Contractor
Ave = 6.60
SD = 0.34
Commitment Involvement Competence Leadership
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
On designers
On contractor top
management
Figure 1: Impact signicance of factors of client H&S culture on contractor and
designer H&S performance
The mean likelihood of contractors and designers implementing
various H&S elements due to client inuence was 83% and 78%,
respectively (Figure 2). This nding suggested that the implementation
of H&S elements by contractors was ‘very likely to occur’ with client
inuence whereas that of designers was considered to be ‘likely to
occur’.
The Delphi study ndings indicated that clients could signicantly
inuence both contractor and designer H&S performance, given
that contractors and designers were more likely to implement H&S
elements with client inuence. In addition, when the client H&S
culture was evident in a project, a major impact on contractor and
designer H&S performance was likely. Other aspects of H&S culture
such as H&S programmes, goals, policies, rules and communication
were important and would have a signicant impact on both
contractor and designer H&S performance.
Considering these ndings, it was conceptualised that client H&S
culture impacted on overall project H&S performance. In addition,
aspects of client H&S culture such as leadership (CLLP), involvement
(CLIP), procedures (CLPP), communication (CLNP), commitment
(CLTP) and competence (CLCE) had to be evident in client

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
80
organisations for the client to have a signicant inuence on project
H&S performance.
Likelihood of element being implemented
Contractor
Ave = 83%
SD = 0.03
Designer
Ave = 78%
SD = 0.04
Design for H&S/Contractor
commitment
Establish & implement H&S
Policies, procedures & goals
Hazard identication & risk
assessment
Conduct H&S audits and
inspections
Employ permanent H&S staff
Involve Contractors in design
reviews/involve workers
Consult & communicate H&S
information to stakeholders
Develop staff competency
on H&S
85%
85%
83%
83%
78%
83%
83%
80%
85%
85%
73%
75%
75%
75%
65% 70% 75% 80% 85% 90%
78%
83%
By contractor
top
management
By designers
0>20% 20>40% 40>60% 60>80% 80%>100%
Very unlikely Unlikely May occur half
the time
Likely to
occur
Very likely to
occur
Figure 2: Likelihood of contractors and designers implementing H&S elements due to
client inuence
2.1.3 Conceptual model of client H&S inuence on project H&S
performance
The conceptual model in Figure 3 depicts the relationships between
client H&S culture, contractor, designer, and overall project H&S
performance. The postulated relationships in the conceptualised
model were that:
H1 client H&S culture has a direct positive inuence on
contractor H&S performance;
H2 client H&S culture has a direct positive inuence on
designer H&S performance;
H3 client H&S culture has a direct positive inuence on
project H&S performance;
H4 contractor H&S performance has a direct positive
inuence on project H&S performance, and

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
81
H5 designer H&S performance has a direct positive inuence
on project H&S performance
The second stage of model development entailed testing
or validating this conceptualised model by means of a eld
questionnaire survey and analysing the data using SEM in order to
achieve a desirable level of both internal and external validity.
Figure 3: Conceptual model – Client H&S culture inuence on project H&S
performance
2.2 Field questionnaire survey
A questionnaire survey was conducted among 281 construction
professionals in South Africa and Botswana. Raw data from the
questionnaire survey was analysed using structural equation
modelling (SEM) with EQS and MPlus software packages. The
measurement model was analysed using EQS version 6.1, while the
full structural model was analysed using MPlus version 6.0. According
to Kline (2005: 15), a sample size of 281 is classied as large. A small
sample of less than 100 cases tended to be problematic when it
came to SEM analysis (Kline, 2005: 5).
Designer H&S
performance
Project H&S
performance
Contractor H&S
performance
Client H&S culture

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
82
CLLP Cont. perf
Proj. perf
Desg. perf
CLIP
CLPP
CLTP
CLNP
CLCE
V1
V1
V1
H1a
H1b
H1c
H1d
H1e
H1f
H3a
H3b
H3c
H3d
H3e H3f
H2a
H2b
H2c
H2d
H2e
H2f
V1
V2
V2
V3
V3
V4
V4
V5
V5
V6
V6
V7
V7
V8
V8
V9
V9
V3
V3
V5
V5
V7
V7
V9
V9
V11
V11
V13
V13
V15
V15
V17
V17
V2
V2
V4
V4
V6
V6
V8
V8
V10
V10
V12
V12
V14
V14
V16
V16
V18
V19
Client H&S
culture
H4
H5
Figure 4: SEM model for client H&S culture inuence on project H&S performance
The pre-analysis statistics of the data revealed that there were some
missing values and the distribution characteristics indicated non-
normality. The values of Mardia’s coefcient, as shown in Table 3,
for all constructs were found to be high. Table 3 shows that Mardia’s
coefcient for client culture was the highest with 443.7814, while
that of contractor H&S performance was the lowest with 41.029.
Consequently, a more robust analysis method, the robust maximum
likelihood (RML), was selected for the analysis of the data. The RML
gives several robust t indices that take care of the distribution
characteristics of the data (Bartholomew, Loukas, Jowers & Allua,
2006: 72). According to Byrne (2006: 22), one of the outputs from
the RML estimation method is the robust chi-square statistic (x2),
referred to as the Satorra-Bentler scaled statistic (S – Bx2), and the
robust standard errors which are corrected for non-normality in large
samples. SEM is based on the assumption that the data is normal.

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
83
3. Questionnaire survey results
3.1 Structural model pre-analysis results
Results from the analysis of the measurement models indicated that
all measurement models worked well and satised the requirement
that the models should be over-identied. It is also a requirement
for SEM analysis that the conditions of model identication are met.
Boomsma (2000: 486) argues that it is the duty of a researcher to
examine whether a model is theoretically identied or not. Kline
(2005: 105) explains that a model is said to be identied if it is
theoretically possible to derive a unique estimate of each parameter.
Consequently, it is desirable to have an over-identied model. Byrne
(2006: 31) explains that an over-identied model is one in which the
number of parameters to be estimated is less than the number of
data variances and covariances of the observed variables, resulting
in a positive degree of freedom.
The signicance of model over-identication is that it allows for a
model to be rejected, rendering it of scientic value (Byrne, 2006:
31). A just-identied model cannot be rejected and it is impossible
to obtain a solution for an under-identied model.
Examination of the results in Table 3 indicated that the lowest value
for the degree of freedom was 24 and the highest was 137. These
values were indicative of a positive value of degree of freedom and
suggestive of an over-identied model.
Table 3: Measurement model statistics on distribution and t
Construct Mardia’s
coefcient
S – Bx2Df CFI SRMR RMSEA RMSEA
90% CI
Client culture 443.7814 219.323 137 0.979 0.025 0.047 0.035:
0.058
Contractor
H&S
performance
41.0290 25.0664 24 0.999 0.009 0.013 0.000:
0.051
Designer H&S
performance
225.6381 35.6033 24 0.994 0.010 0.042 0.000:
0.070
Project H&S
performance
179.4860 294.515 119 0.923 0.048 0.075 0.064:
0.086
In addition, the results revealed that there were no convergence
problems in the analysis, because all parameter estimates for
client H&S culture, designer H&S performance, contractor H&S
performance and project H&S performance constructs stabilised

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
84
in fewer than 10 iterations each. The desired circumstance is
the situation whereby only a few iterations are needed to reach
convergence and these should not exceed the value of 30 (Byrne,
2006: 102). According to Byrne (2006: 102), the number of iterations
exceeding 30 results in non-convergence and the output may not
be trusted.
The measurement model specications were also found to be
adequate. Fit indices presented in Table 3 indicated that the
measurement models worked well. All the t indices fell within the
acceptable limits for a good t. The minimum comparative t index
(CFI) was 0.923 for the project H&S performance construct. A value
greater than 0.900 is acceptable and a value greater than 0.950 is
described as being good t (Bartholomew et al., 2006: 73; Schreiber,
Stage & King, 2006: 330; Dion, 2008: 367). The CFI values for client
culture, contractor and designer H&S performance constructs were
all above 0.95 (see Table 3). Similarly, the root mean square error
of approximation (RMSEA) values for all constructs fell within the
acceptable limits. A good t model has RMSEA values of less than
0.050, while values of less than 0.080 indicate an acceptable model
t (Hu & Bentler, 1999: 27; Kline, 2005: 139; Bartholomew et al., 2006: 73;
Dion, 2008: 367). The ranges for RMSEA with 90% condence interval
were also not large, indicating acceptable approximations. In
addition, the standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) values
were all less than 0.050 and, therefore, the models were considered
to be of good t (Kline, 2005: 141; Schreiber et al., 2006: 330).
It was necessary to ensure that the measurement models worked
well before the structural model could be analysed. Therefore,
having been satised that the pre-analysis test of SEM assumptions
result did not reveal any signicant problems, the full structural
model was analysed.
3.2 Structural model’s goodness-of-t statistics
The structural model, as presented in Figure 4, was analysed using
MPlus software. The indicator variables for the client H&S culture,
contractor and designer H&S performance were analysed in
parcels, while those of project H&S performance were analysed as
individual indicator variables. From a total sample of 281 responses,
259 cases were analysed. The number of cases that were skipped
was 22, because they had missing variables. Only complete cases
were analysed for the model. The model was analysed using the
robust maximum likelihood method. The covariance matrix was
analysed as opposed to the correlation matrix.

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
85
As shown in Table 4, the sample data yielded a chi-square statistic
(x2) of 2,966.661 with 1,342 degrees of freedom. The associated
p-value was determined to be 0.000. From these values, the
normed chi-square value was determined to be 2.211. The normed
chi-square is the procedure of dividing the chi-square by the
degrees of freedom. The normed values of up to 3.0 or even 5.0
are recommended. Therefore, since the value of 2.211 obtained for
the postulated model was lower than 3.0, the result suggested an
acceptable t of the model. However, the chi-square statistic is only
indicative of t and, therefore, other goodness-of-t indices were
reviewed.
Table 4 presents the t indices for the postulated model. The root
mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) with 90% condence
interval was found to be 0.068 (lower bound value = 0.065 and
upper bound value = 0.072). The RMSEA index was just above the
upper limit value of 0.050 for the model to be described as having a
good t. However, a value of 0.068 was indicative of an adequate
t. A model with RMSEA values of up to 0.080 is considered to be
acceptable (Hu & Bentler, 1999: 27; Kline, 2005: 139; Bartholomew
et al., 2006: 73; Dion, 2008: 367). In addition, the upper condence
interval of 0.072 did not exceed the upper acceptable value of
0.08, as recommended by Hu & Bentler (1999: 27).
In addition, the standardised root mean square residual (SRMR)
was found to be 0.045. The SRMR of 0.045 was much lower than
the cut-off value of 0.05. Therefore, the SRMR value also indicated
that the postulated model had a good t. On the other hand, the
comparative t index (CFI) yielded a value that was close to the
lower limit value of 0.90 at 0.88. The CFI index was not greater than
0.90 which is the lower limit value for model acceptance if the CFI is
considered in the combination rules. However, in the current study,
a two statistic model t evaluation strategy, as proposed by Hu
& Bentler (1999: 16), was followed. The decision on model t was,
therefore, based on the SRMR and the RMSEA t indices.
An evaluation of the SRMR, RMSEA and the CFI t indices indicated
that the postulated model reasonably ts the sample data.
Therefore, having been satised with the model t to the sample
data, it was feasible to evaluate the statistical signicance of the
hypothesised relationships between the factors of client H&S culture
and the overall project H&S performance. The results are presented
in Table 4.

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
86
Table 4: Robust t indices for the postulated model
Fit index Cut-off value Model 1.0 Comment
x22966.661
Df 01342 Acceptable
CFI 0.9 acceptable
0.95good t
0.88 Barely acceptable
SRMR 0.08acceptable
0.05 good t
0.045 Good t
RMSEA 0.08acceptable
0.05good t
0.068 Acceptable
RMSEA 90% CI 0.08 0.065:0.072 Acceptable range
3.3 Hypotheses testing
Rejection of the hypotheses depended on how reasonable the
parameter estimates were in terms of their magnitude, signs and
statistical signicance. In addition, if in the output there were
estimates that had correlation values greater than 1.00, had negative
variances and the correlation or covariances were not denitely
positive, they were said to be exhibiting unreasonable estimates
(Byrne, 2006: 103). In addition, the test statistic had to be greater
than 1.96 based on the p-value of > 0.005 before the hypothesis
could be rejected (Byrne, 2006: 103). The test statistic reported in
this study was the parameter estimate divided by its standard error
and, therefore, it functioned as a Z-statistic to test that the estimate
was statistically different from zero. The signicance test was used to
evaluate the general hypotheses H1 to H5.
3.3.1 Testing the direct inuence of client H&S culture on
contractor H&S performance
It was generally hypothesised that client H&S culture had a direct
positive inuence on contractor H&S performance. Specically, the
hypotheses, which collectively formed hypothesis H1, were:
H1a leadership, had a direct positive inuence on contractor
H&S performance;
H1b Involvement, had a direct positive inuence on contractor
H&S performance;
H1c procedures, had a direct positive inuence on contractor
H&S performance;

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
87
H1d commitment, had a direct positive inuence on
contractor H&S performance;
H1e communication, had a direct positive inuence on
contractor H&S performance, and
H1f competence, had a direct positive inuence on
contractor H&S performance.
Results from the conrmatory factor analysis of the full structural model,
presented in Table 5, yielded support for hypothesis H1c (procedures)
and H1d (commitment) but did not support the hypothesis H1a
(leadership), H1b, (Involvement), H1e (communication) and H1f.
(competence). The relationship between the factor, procedures,
and contractor H&S performance was found to be signicant at the
probability level of 5% (λ = 0.494, Z = 4.407 and P = 0.000). Similarly,
the hypothesised relationship between the factor, commitment,
and contractor H&S performance was found to be statistically
signicant. That relationship yielded signicant parameter estimates
at 5% probability level with λ = 0.616 (parameter estimate), Z = 2.393
and P = 0.017.
On the other hand, although the hypothesised relationship between
the factor involvement and contractor H&S performance was
signicant at 5% probability level (λ = -0.663, Z = -2.402, P = 0.016),
the direction was not positive denite. The result seemed to indicate
that, with the increase in client H&S involvement, contractor H&S
performance decreased by 0.663 units. This result was interesting,
because it was expected that, with an increase in client involvement,
there would be an increase in contractor performance. However,
the measurement model on client H&S culture revealed high
collinearity between commitment and involvement factors of
client H&S culture. The high collinearity may probably explain the
unreasonable parameter estimate exhibited for hypothesis H1b,
(involvement).
The inuence of other factors, namely client leadership, communi-
cation and competence, on contractor H&S performance was
found to be evident despite these relationships not being statistically
signicant. The parameter estimates for these relationships were
found to be as follows: between the client competence factor and
contractor H&S performance (λ = 0.081, Z = 0.675 and P = 0.500),
leadership factor and contractor H&S performance (λ = 0.204, Z =
1.720, P = 0.086), and communication factor and contractor H&S
performance (λ = 0.026, Z = 0.212, P = 0.832). Therefore, although
the relationships between these client factors and contractor H&S

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
88
performance were evident, they were found to be not statistically
signicant and consequently meant that the postulated specic
hypotheses for these relationships were not supported. However,
since inuence from these factors was evident, the relationship was
considered to be practically signicant.
Therefore, the general hypothesis H1, which postulated that client
H&S culture had a direct positive inuence on contractor H&S
performance, could not be rejected, because two of the six specic
hypotheses were found to be statistically signicant and were
positive. In addition, the other specic hypotheses were found to be
practically signicant, because the inuence was evident albeit not
statistically signicant.
3.3.2 Testing the direct inuence of client H&S culture on designer
H&S performance
The second general hypothesis was that client H&S culture had a
direct positive inuence on designer H&S performance. Specically,
the hypotheses were that the factors of client H&S culture, namely:
H2a leadership, had a direct positive inuence on designer
H&S performance;
H2b involvement, had a direct positive inuence on designer
H&S performance;
H2c procedures, had a direct positive inuence on designer
H&S performance;
H2d commitment, had a direct positive inuence on designer
H&S performance;
H2e communication, had a direct positive inuence on
designer H&S performance, and
H2f competence, had a direct positive inuence on designer
H&S performance.
Results from the conrmatory factor analysis of the full structural
model, presented in Table 5, yielded support for H2c (procedures)
and H2e (communication), but did not support the hypothesis
H2a (leadership), H2b (Involvement), H2d (commitment) and H2f
(competence). The relationship between the procedures factor
and designer H&S performance was found to be signicant at 5%
probability level with λ = 0.439 (factor loading), Z = 3.009 and P = 0.003.
Similarly, the hypothesised relationship between the communication
factor and designer H&S performance was found to be statistically

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
89
signicant. This relationship yielded signicant estimates at the 5%
probability level of λ = 0.348, Z = 3.346 and P = 0.001. The parameter
estimates for the two factors of client H&S culture, namely procedures
and communication, indicated that, with an increase of one unit in
procedures, designer H&S performance increased by about 0.439.
Similarly, an improvement of one unit in client communication
caused an improvement of 0.348 in designer H&S performance.
The insignicant relationships were found to be those between the
competence factor and designer H&S performance (λ = -0.196,
Z = -1.747, P = 0.081), the leadership factor and designer H&S
performance (λ = 0.182, Z = 1.618, P = 0.106), and the commitment
factor and designer H&S performance (λ = 0.188, Z = 0.681, P = 0.496).
The strength of these relationships was not statistically signicant,
although the ndings revealed that there was evidence of
relationship. In addition, the factors competence and involvement
were found to have a negative relationship with designer H&S
performance. This result was surprising, because it was expected
that an increase in client competence and involvement would
result in an increase in designer H&S performance.
Nonetheless, the general hypothesis H2, which postulated that
client H&S culture had a positive direct inuence on designer H&S
performance, could not be rejected, because two of the six specic
hypotheses were found to be statistically signicant. In addition,
the four other specic hypotheses were found to be practically
signicant, because the inuence was evident albeit not statistically
signicant.
3.3.3 Testing the direct inuence of contractor H&S performance
on project H&S performance
Results of the SEM analysis yielded support for the hypothesis that
contractor H&S performance had a direct positive inuence on
project H&S performance. The test statistics were found to be
signicantly different from zero (λ = 0.546, Z = 8.02, P = 0.000). Given
these results, the hypothesis H4 could not be rejected, because
contractor H&S performance had a direct positive inuence on
project H&S performance. The parameter estimate between
contractor H&S performance and project H&S performance
indicated that, for every unit improvement in contractor H&S
performance, project H&S performance would improve by 0.546
units. The contractor in this case referred to upper management.

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
90
Table 5: Parameter estimates and test statistic for model 2.0
Hypo-
thesis Parameter
Un-standardised Standardised
estimates
Estimate
(λ)
Z-
statistic
Estimate
(λ)
Z-
statistic
P
value
H1a
H1b
H1c
H1d
H1e
H1f
H2a
H2b
H2c
H2d
H2e
H2f
H3a
H3b
H3c
H3d
H3e
H3f
H4
H5
CLLP→ CONT
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLIP→ CONT
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLPP→ CONT
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLTP→ CONT
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLNP→ CONT
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLCP→ CONT
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLLP→ DESG
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLIP→ DESG
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLPP→ DESG
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLTP→ DESG
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLNP→ DESG
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLCP→ DESG
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLLP→ PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLIP→ PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLPP→ PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLTP→ PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLNP→ PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
CLCP→ PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
CONT → PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
DESG → PROJ
H&S PERFORMANCE
0.228
-0.608
0.474
0.618
0.024
0.090
0.188
-0.132
0.388
0.175
0.298
-0.202
0.018
-0.137
0.127
0.219
0.033
0.095
0.518
0.163
1.738
-2.348
4.282
2.324
0.212
0.675
1.665
-0.538
2.744
0.674
3.299
-1.750
0.270
-0.968
1.359
1.481
0.442
1.122
7.124
2.636
0.204
-0.663
0.494
0.616
0.026
0.081
0.182
-0.155
0.439
0.188
0.348
-0.196
0.016
-0.158
0.139
0.231
0.038
0.090
0.546
0.159
1.720
-2.402
4.407
2.393
0.212
0.675
1.618
-0.540
3.009
0.681
3.346
-1.747
0.270
-0.965
1.371
1.502
0.445
1.141
8.021
2.582
0.086
0.016
0.000
0.017
0.832
0.500
0.106
0.589
0.003
0.496
0.001
0.081
0.787
0.334
0.171
0.133
0.656
0.254
0.000
0.010
(Robust statistical signicance at 5% level)

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
91
3.3.4 Testing the direct inuence of designer H&S performance on
project H&S performance
The results from the SEM analysis yielded support for the hypothesis
that designer H&S performance had a direct positive inuence
on project H&S performance. The test statistics were found to be
signicantly different from zero (λ = 0.159, Z = 2.582, P = 0.010).
Therefore, the hypothesis H5 could not be rejected, given these
parameter estimates. The parameter estimate between designer
H&S performance and project H&S performance indicated that,
for every unit improvement in designer H&S performance, project
H&S performance would improve by 0.159. This coefcient was,
however, lower than the desired 0.400. Nonetheless, the relationship
was found to be signicantly different from zero, indicating that
designer H&S performance had a signicant inuence on project
H&S performance.
3.3.5 Testing the direct inuence of client H&S culture on project
H&S performance
The general hypothesis was that client H&S culture had a direct
positive inuence on construction project H&S performance.
Specically, the hypotheses, which collectively formed the
hypothesis H3, were that the factors of client H&S culture, namely:
H3a leadership, had a direct positive inuence on project H&S
performance;
H3b involvement, had a direct positive inuence on project
H&S performance;
H3c involvement, had a direct positive inuence on project
H&S performance;
H3d commitment, had a direct positive inuence on project
H&S performance;
H3e communication, had a direct positive inuence on
project H&S performance, and
H3f competence, had a direct positive inuence on project
H&S performance.
The results for these specic hypotheses, presented in Table 6, did
not yield support for all hypothesised direct relationships between
the factors of client H&S culture and project H&S performance. The
test statistics revealed that the direct relationships between the
factor leadership and project H&S performance had a parameter

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
92
coefcient λ = 0.016 and the test statistic Z = 0.270. The probability P
was found to be 0.787 for this relationship. The relationship between
the factor involvement and project H&S performance yielded λ
= -0.158, Z = -0.965 and P = 0.334. On the other hand, parameter
estimates for the relationship between the factor procedures and
project H&S performance were λ = 0.139, Z = 1.371 and P = 0.171.
The relationships between the factor commitment and project
H&S performance (λ = 0.231, Z = 1.502, P = 0.133) and between
communication and project H&S performance (λ = 0.038, Z = 0.445,
P = 0.656) were also not signicantly different from zero or the null
hypothesis. Therefore, the general hypothesis (H3) that client H&S
culture had a direct positive inuence on project H&S performance
was rejected.
3.3.6 Testing indirect inuence of client H&S culture on project H&S
performance
An indirect relationship is said to exist between two variables if the
direct relationship between the two is completely insignicant or
tends to diminish in the face of an increased indirect signicance.
The direct relationship between client H&S culture and project H&S
performance was found to be insignicant (Table 6). However, the
direct relationship between client H&S culture and contractor H&S
performance was found to be signicant. Similarly, the relationship
between client H&S culture and designer H&S performance was
also signicant. In addition, the direct inuences of contractor and
designer H&S performance on project H&S performance were found
to be signicant (Table 6).
The indirect effects on project H&S performance by three factors
of client H&S culture, namely involvement, procedures and
commitment, mediated by contractor H&S performance, were found
to be signicant at 5% probability level. The standardised indirect
effects of the involvement factor yielded parameter estimates λ =
-0.362, Z = -2.335 and P = 0.020. As for the factor procedures, the
estimates were λ = 0.270, Z = 3.877 and P = 0.000, indicating that
the effect was signicant. The specic standardised indirect effects
of the commitment factor on project H&S performance, mediated
by contractor H&S performance, yielded parameter estimates
λ = 0.337, Z = 2.303 and P = 0.021. These estimates indicated a
signicant effect. The effects of three factors of client H&S culture,
namely communication, leadership and competence, were found
to be statistically insignicant when client inuence on project
H&S performance was mediated by contractor H&S performance
(Table 6).

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
93
CLLP Cont. perf
Proj. perf
Desg. perf
CLIP
CLPP
CLTP
CLNP
CLCE
H1a
H1b
H1c
H1d
H1e
H1f
H3a
H3b
H3c
H3d
H3e H3f
H2a
H2b
H2c
H2d
H2e
H2f
Client H&S
culture
H4
H5
Signicant inuence at P = 0.05
Not signicant at P = 0.05
Figure 5: Inuence of factors of client H&S culture
Further examination of the indirect inuence of client H&S culture
on project H&S performance, mediated by designers, revealed
that two relationships were signicant. The indirect effect of the
factor communication on project H&S performance, mediated
by designer H&S performance, was found to be signicant. The
standardised parameter estimates of the indirect relationship were λ
= 0.055, Z = 1.977 and P = 0.048. The indirect effect of the procedures
factor had un-standardised parameter estimates of λ = 0.063, Z =
1.968 and P = 0.049. However, the standardised estimates for the
factor procedures were found to be insignicant (Table 6).
The sum of indirect effects of client H&S culture on project H&S
performance revealed that two factors, namely procedures and
commitment, had a statistically signicant total indirect effect on
project H&S performance. This indirect effect was mediated by
both contractor and designer H&S performance. The standardised

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
94
estimates for the total indirect effect were found to be λ = 0.340, Z
= 4.619 and P = 0.000 for the procedures factor. The standardised
estimates of the total indirect effect of the commitment factor were
found to be λ = 0.366, Z = 2.052 and P = 0.040.
The nding on the indirect effect of client H&S culture on project
H&S performance conrmed the mediatory role that contractor
and designer H&S performance played in the postulated model. In
addition, the ndings also conrmed that, although the client H&S
culture did not exhibit a direct positive inuence on project H&S
performance, its indirect inuence on project H&S performance was
signicant.
Therefore, the hypothesis that client H&S culture generally had
an indirect positive inuence on project H&S performance,
mediated by contractor and designer H&S performance, could
not be rejected. Specically, the inuence of the procedures and
commitment factors was found to be statistically signicant at 5%
probability level and the indirect inuence of the other factors was
found to be evident.
Table 6: Specic indirect effects of client H&S culture on project
H&S performance
Parameter
Un-standardised Standardised estimates
Indirect
effect
(λ)
Z-
statistic
P
value
Indirect
effect
(λ)
Z-
statistic
P
value
CLLP→ CONT →PROJ. H&S
CLIP→ CONT →PROJ. H&S
CLPP→ CONT →PROJ. H&S
CLTP→ CONT →PROJ. H&S
CLNP→ CONT →PROJ. H&S
CLCE→ CONT →PROJ. H&S
CLLP→ DESG →PROJ. H&S
CLIP→ DESG →PROJ. H&S
CLPP→ DESG →PROJ. H&S
CLTP→ DESG →PROJ. H&S
CLNP→ DESG →PROJ. H&S
CLCE→ DESG →PROJ. H&S
0.118
-0.315
0.245
0.320
0.012
0.047
0.031
-0.021
0.063
0.028
0.049
-0.033
1.738
-2.258
3.748
2.216
0.211
0.667
1.412
-0.533
1.968
0.662
1.999
-1.488
0.082
0.024
0.000
0.027
0.833
0.505
0.158
0.594
0.049
0.508
0.046
0.137
0.111
-0.362
0.270
0.337
0.014
0.044
0.029
-0.025
0.070
0.030
0.055
-0.031
1.738
-2.335
3.877
2.303
0.211
0.667
1.413
-0.534
1.948
0.665
1.977
-1.427
0.082
0.020
0.000
0.021
0.833
0.505
0.158
0.593
0.051
0.506
0.048
0.153

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
95
4. Discussion
4.1 Inuence of client H&S culture on contractor H&S
performance
The ndings suggested that client H&S culture had an inuence on
the H&S performance of the upper management of contractors.
Two of the six specic hypotheses, which collectively formed the
hypothesis that client H&S culture had a direct positive inuence
on contractor H&S performance, were found to be statistically
signicant. The two hypotheses related to the inuence of client
H&S culture, namely procedures and commitment. The indicator
variables for the factor procedures were for the client to:
• have programmes to monitor and analyse H&S
implementation;
• have clear project H&S goals;
• schedule H&S as a key contract prequalication criterion for
all parties to be involved in a project;
• schedule H&S in all contracts;
• conduct regular H&S performance measurement;
• have their own H&S committee, and
• conduct hazard identication and risk assessments (HIRAs).
The study found the inuence of the procedures factor of client H&S
culture on contractor H&S performance to be statistically signicant.
This nding supports those of the study by Huang & Hinze (2006: 171)
who observed that projects where owners or clients tracked the
individual H&S performances of each contractor on their project site
had signicantly better H&S performances.
Although Huang & Hinze (2006: 171) only referred to one indicator
variable, namely performance measurement, their study supports the
current study nding that clients needed to have clear procedures
if they were to inuence contractor H&S performance. The indicator
variables for the commitment factor were for the client to:
• demonstrate a positive H&S attitude;
• actively promote H&S;
• provide adequate resources for H&S implementation;
• put in effort to routinely evaluate H&S in all work schedules;
• set up incentives for good H&S behaviour;
• set H&S as a major agenda item in project meetings;

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
96
• actively monitor H&S programmes;
• always attend H&S meetings on the construction site;
• conduct H&S inspections and audits, and
• be involved always in accident or incident investigations.
The commitment factor of client H&S culture had a statistically
signicant inuence on contractor H&S performance. The ndings
of this study support the observations made by Toellner (2001:
47), Wiegmann, Zhang, Thaden, Sharma & Mitchell (2002: 11),
Mohamed (2003: 82), Ng, Cheng & Skitmore (2005: 6), Cameron &
Duff (2007: 870), and Choudry, Fang & Mohamed (2009: 209) who
found that management commitment was key to H&S performance
and culture. To date there have been few studies on evaluating the
effect of client commitment on contractor H&S performance.
The inuence of leadership, involvement, communication and
competence were found to be statistically insignicant. This nding
was surprising, because these factors were expected to have an
inuence on contractor H&S performance. In addition, the Delphi
panel found them to have high impact signicance. However, since
statistical signicance can be greatly affected by the sample size
and the type of population that is sampled, it would be useful to
learn whether the results would be different in another study with a
different sample type and size. Notwithstanding this, the inuence
of these factors was found to be evident and therefore practically
signicant.
Client involvement was found to have a negative relationship with
contractor H&S performance. Client involvement was dened by
the following indicator variables which required the client to:
• personally be active in critical project H&S activities;
• always be present in project H&S meetings;
• contribute to H&S training;
• actively oversee H&S on critical operations;
• constantly stay in touch on H&S issues;
• always communicate information on H&S to all parties, and
• conduct regular audits and inspections.
The study found that, if clients increased their involvement in activities
that dened client involvement, the H&S performance of contractors
deteriorated. However, it was realised during the study that there
was a thin differentiating line between the factors involvement and
commitment. The current study reported high collinearity between

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
97
these two factors. The involvement factor had a correlation value
higher than 0.9 with the commitment factor. Therefore, it was
speculated that the unreasonable result where client involvement
caused deterioration in contractor H&S performance may probably
have been a result of the high collinearity between the two factors.
This may, in fact, be the reason why some authors use and refer
to the two factors as being one factor, namely commitment and
involvement (Mohamed, 2003: 82).
The ndings relative to the hypothesis that client H&S culture had a
direct positive inuence on contractor H&S performance entailed
that the minimum that the client could do in order to signicantly
inuence contractor H&S performance was to have procedures in
place and to be committed to H&S performance.
The ndings offer a minimum requirement that could be used by
clients seeking to inuence contractor H&S performance. A checklist
of items dening the factors of procedures and commitment could
ensure that clients satised the basic required criteria to inuence
contractor H&S performance.
4.2 Inuence of client H&S culture on designer H&S performance
Client H&S culture was found to have an inuence on designer
H&S performance. Two of the six specic hypotheses, which
collectively formed the hypothesis that client H&S culture had a
direct positive inuence on designer H&S performance, were found
to be statistically signicant. The two specic hypotheses were that
the procedures and communication factors had direct positive
inuence on designer H&S performance.
The nding in the current study validated a proposal by Bomel (2004:
149) that designers could design for H&S with the mobilisation of client
inuence. It would appear that, if clients had clear programmes on
H&S, it would be easier for designers to perform their H&S obligations.
The communication factor was dened by the client having to:
• have formal reporting system of incidents and accidents;
• involve all parties in planning for H&S on the project;
• involve all parties to review H&S;
• provide timely feedback on reported accidents and
incidents;
• communicate risk ndings to all parties on the project;
• have clearly outlined H&S roles and responsibilities;

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
98
• have clearly communicated expected performance on H&S
to all, and
• provide information on H&S risk control to all parties.
The effect on designer H&S performance by the client communicating
was found to be statistically signicant.
The ndings relative to the hypothesis that client H&S culture had
a direct positive inuence on designer H&S performance entailed
that the minimum that the client could do in order to signicantly
inuence designer H&S performance was to have procedures in
place and to provide effective communication on H&S. However,
although the inuence of leadership, involvement, commitment and
competence factors was not statistically signicant, their inuence
was evident and therefore practically signicant.
The ndings only offer a minimum requirement that could be used by
clients seeking to inuence designers’ H&S performance. A checklist
of items dening the factors, procedures and communication,
could ensure that clients satised the basic required criteria to
inuence designer H&S performance. Designer H&S performance,
especially designing for H&S, was critical to the overall project H&S
performance (Bomel, 2004: X).
4.3 Inuence of client H&S culture on project H&S performance
Client H&S culture was found to have an indirect positive inuence
on project H&S performance. This inuence was mediated by
contractor and designer H&S performance. The effects on project
H&S performance of procedures and commitment were found to
be statistically signicant. However, the direct positive inuence
of client H&S culture on project H&S performance was found
to be statistically insignicant. None of leadership, involvement,
procedures, commitment, communication and competence
factors had a statistically signicant direct positive inuence on
project H&S performance.
The study found that client H&S culture was important to project
H&S performance, particularly procedures and commitment. The
nding that client H&S culture had an indirect positive inuence on
project H&S performance validated an observation made by Bomel
(2004: 102) that clients’ culture offered an opportunity upon which
H&S performance could be improved on construction projects.
The ndings also suggested that project H&S performance and
improvement may not be achieved by focusing only on one party
such as the contractor, or designer, or indeed the client. However,

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
99
the ndings seemed to suggest that the participation of all parties
was critical to achieving the desired H&S performance. The inuence
of client H&S culture on project H&S performance was found to be
an indirect one and was mediated by both designer and contractor
H&S performance.
In addition, although the direct inuence of designers and
contractors was found to be signicant, the results suggested that
these two factors also needed inuence from client H&S culture. In
order to continuously achieve or improve project H&S performance,
client H&S culture was found to be necessary.
The importance of having conducted a structural equation
modelling analysis to determine the inuence of client H&S culture
on the contractor, designer and project H&S performance was that
it was possible to identify specically which factors of client H&S
culture had a statistical signicant causal effect and direction of
that effect as opposed to a general blanket statement that client
H&S culture had an inuence on project H&S performance. With this
analysis, it was easier to operationalise in terms of what the client
needed to do in order to assure project H&S performance.
4.4 Inuence of contractor and designer H&S performance on
project H&S performance
Contractor H&S performance in terms of upper management had
a direct positive inuence on project H&S performance. This nding
was consistent with the Lin & Mills (2001: 135) study which found that,
when contractors scored highly in management responsibility and
H&S system elements, their total H&S standards tended to be higher.
The study ndings highlighted the role of contractors to inuence
overall project H&S performance. It also highlighted that it was
benecial for H&S performance improvement to commence with
the involvement and commitment of the upper management of
contractors as opposed to concentrating on factors found during
the construction stage only. This signicance was also highlighted by
Jaselkis, Anderson & Russell (1996: 69) who argued that management
characteristics, H&S meetings and budget allocations improved H&S
performance. These aspects had to do with upper management.
Designer H&S performance had a direct positive inuence on
project H&S performance. This nding was consistent with that of
Behm (2006: 7) and Gambatese, Behm & Hinze. (2005: 1035) who
found a link between the design and construction site injury and
fatality incidents and concluded that designing for H&S was a viable
intervention in the construction industry.

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
100
The current study highlighted the role of designers to inuence
overall project H&S performance. This nding conrmed a typical
lack of understanding by some designers as to the extent of their
inuence on H&S performance (Gambatese, 1997: 32; Toole,
2005: 206). Therefore, the nding that designers have a signicant
inuence on project H&S performance was noteworthy in that it
provides designers with the knowledge that they had an inuence
on H&S performance.
For clients, who were employers of designers, designer H&S
performance could constitute a checklist of activities to supervise
designers to ensure project H&S performance. Similarly for designers,
they could know which activities needed to be implemented or
engaged with by them to ensure project H&S performance. These
activities could also constitute leading indicators for all stakeholders
involved in a project.
5. Conclusions
A model was developed based on ndings from a review of
literature and the Delphi study. The conceptual model postulated
that client H&S culture had an inuence on construction project H&S
performance. The model further postulated that client H&S culture
had an inuence on contractor and designer H&S performance.
The postulated model was analysed using EQS version 6.1 and
Mplus version 6.0 SEM software packages. The t statistics for the
measurement and structural models had an adequate t to the
sample data. The nal model, presented in Figure 5, showed that
client H&S culture had an inuence on contractor, designer and
project H&S performance. Specically, the factors of procedures
and commitment were found to have a statistically signicant
inuence on contractor H&S performance, while the factors of
procedures and communication had a statistically signicant
inuence on designers. Client H&S culture was found to have an
indirect inuence on project H&S performance. This inuence
was mediated by contractor and designer H&S performance.
Procedures and commitment had a statistically signicant inuence
on project H&S performance.
The ndings had theoretical value, because respondents were drawn
from client, contractor, designer and subcontractor organisations.
Respondents had working knowledge of the projects on which they
were reporting. In addition, the questionnaire survey, whose results
were modelled using the SEM, validated the conceptual model

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
101
developed from synthesised theories established from literature
and, more importantly, from the Delphi study. The current study was
supported by other studies that had used other research methods
on the inuence of clients on project H&S performance. However,
the current study utilised a robust modelling method of SEM to
specically identify client H&S factors with signicant inuence.
Designer H&S
performance
Project H&S
performance
Contractor H&S
performance
Client H&S culture
Figure 6: Final model of client inuence on project H&S performance
The study found that better project H&S performance was possible
when the factors of client H&S culture were evident. The inuence
of client H&S culture assured contractor, designer and project H&S
performance. It would seem that project H&S performance would
be assured by ensuring that the client H&S culture remained positive
and that all the factors of client H&S were evident.
References list
Abdelhamid, T.S. & Everett, J.G. 2000. Identifying root causes of
construction accidents. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management, 126(1), pp. 52-60.
Bartholomew, J.B., Loukas, A., Jowers, M.E. & Allua, S. 2006. Validation
of the physical activity self-efcacy scale: Testing measurement
invariance between Hispanic and Caucasian children. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 3, pp. 70-78.

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
102
Behm, M. 2006. An analysis of construction accidents from a design
perspective. Silver Spring: CPWR.
Bomel. 2004. Improving health and safety in construction. Phase
2: Depth and breadth. Volume 5 - falls from height. Understanding
causes and risk control in the construction industry. Norwich: HSE
Books.
Bomel. 2001. Improving health and safety in construction. Phase 1:
Data collection, review and structuring. Norwich: HSE Books.
Boomsma, A. 2000. Reporting analyses of covariance structures.
Structural Equation Modelling, 7(3), pp. 461-483.
Byrne, B.M. 2006. Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic
concepts, applications and programming. 2nd edition. Mahwah:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Cameron, I. & Duff, R. 2007. Use of performance measurement and
goal setting to improve construction managers’ focus on health
and safety. Construction Management and Economics, 25(8), pp.
869-881.
Carder, B. & Ragan, P.W. 2003. A survey based system for safety
measurement and improvement. Journal of Safety Research, 34(2),
pp. 157-165.
Chan, A.P.C. & Chan, A.P.L. 2004. Key performance indicators for
measuring construction success. Benchmarking: An International
Journal, 11(2), pp. 203-221.
Choudhry, R.M., Fang, D. & Mohamed, S. 2009. Closure to
“Developing a model of construction safety culture” by Raq
M. Choudhry, Dongping Fang and Sherif Mohamed. Journal of
Management in Engineering, 25(1), pp. 45-47.
CIDB. 2009. Construction health and safety in South Africa - Status
and recommendations. Pretoria: Construction Industry Development
Board.
CIOB. 2009. Health and safety in the construction industry 2009.
Berkshire: Chartered Institute of Building.
Dainty, A.R.J., Briscoe, G.H. & Millet, S.J. 2001. New perspectives on
construction supply chain integration. Supply Chain Management:
An International Journal, 6(4), pp. 163-173.
Dion, P.A. 2008. Interpreting structural equation modeling results:
A reply to Martin and Cullen. Journal of Business Ethics, 83(3), pp.
365-368.

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
103
Dubois, A. & Gadde, L.E. 2001. The construction industry as a loosely
coupled system: Implications for productivity and innovativity.
Conference proceedings of the 17th IMP Conference, held in Oslo,
9-11 September. IMP.
Egan, J. 1998. Rethinking construction. London: Department of
Trade and Industry.
Gambatese, J.A., Hinze, J. & Haas, T. 1997. Tool to design for
construction worker safety. Journal of Architectural Engineering,
3(1), pp. 32-41.
Gambatese, J.A., Behm, M. & Hinze, J.W. 2005. Viability of designing
for construction worker safety. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 131(9), pp. 1029-1036.
Haslam, R.A., Hide, S.A., Gibb, A.G.F., Gyi, D.E., Pavitt, T., Atkinson,
S. & Duff, A.R. 2005. Contributing factors in construction accidents.
Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), pp. 401-415.
Hoonakker, P., Loushine, T., Carayon, P., Kallman, J., Kapp, A. & Smith,
M.J. 2005. The effect of safety initiatives on safety performance: A
longitudinal study. Applied Ergonomics, 36(4), pp. 461-469.
Hu, L. & Bentler, P.M. 1999. Cut-off criteria for t indexes in covariance
structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives.
Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), pp.1-55.
Huang, X. & Hinze, J. 2006. Owner’s role in construction safety. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(2), pp.164-173.
Husin, H.N., Jusoff, K. & Adnan, H. 2008. Management of safety for
quality construction. Journal of Sustainable Development, 1(3), pp.
41-47.
ILO. 2003. Safety in numbers: Pointers for a global safety culture at
work. Geneva: ILO.
Jafri, H., Ali, M.W., Ahmad, A. & Kamsah, M.Z. 2005. Effective
occupational health and safety performance measurements.
ICCBPE/SOMChE, pp. 702-708.
Jaselkis, J.E., Anderson, D.S. & Russell, S.J. 1996. Strategies for
achieving excellence in construction safety performance. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 122(1), pp. 61-70.
Kines, P., Spangenberg, S. & Dyreborg, J. 2007. Prioritizing
occupational injury prevention in the construction industry: Injury
severity or absence? Journal of Safety Research, 38(1), pp. 53-58.

Acta Structilia 2012: 19(1)
104
Kline, B.R. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation
modelling. 2nd edition. New York: The Guilford Press.
Lin, J. & Mills, A. 2001. Measuring the occupational health and safety
performance. Facilities, 19(3/4), pp. 131-138.
Lingard, H., Blismas, N., Cooke, T. & Cooper, H. 2009. The model client
framework - resources to help Australian government agencies
to promote safe construction. International Journal of Managing
Projects in Business, 2(1), pp. 131-140.
Loughborough University & UMIST. 2003. Causal factors in construction
accidents. Norwich: HSE Books.
McDonald, M.A., Lipscomb, J.H., Bondy, J. & Glazner, J. 2009. Safety
is everyone’s job: The key to safety on a large university construction
site. Journal of Safety Research, 40(1), pp. 53-61.
Misnan, M.S., Mohammed, A.H.B., Mahmood, W.Y.W., Mahmud,
H.S. & Abdullah, N.M. 2008. Development of safety culture in the
construction industry: The leadership and training roles. Conference
proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Built Environment
in Developing Countries 2008 (ICBEDC) held in Pulau Pinang. USM.
Mohamed, S. 2003. Scorecard approach to benchmarking
organizational safety culture in construction. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management, 129(1), pp. 80-88.
Ng, S.T., Cheng, K.P. & Skitmore, M. 2005. A framework for evaluating
the safety performance of construction contractors. Building and
Environment, 40(10), pp.1347-1355.
Pellicer, E. & Molenaar, K.R. 2009. Discussion of “Developing a model
of construction safety culture” by Raq M. Choudhry, Dongping,
Fang and Sherif Mohamed. Journal of Management in Engineering,
25(1), pp. 44-47.
Riley, M.J. & Brown, D.C. 2001. Comparison of cultures in
construction and manufacturing industries. Journal of Management
in Engineering, 17(3), pp.149-158.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. & Fong, D. 1999. Factors affecting safety
performance on construction sites. International Journal of Project
Management, 17(5), pp. 309-315.
Schreiber, J.B., Stage, K.F. & King, J. 2006. Reporting structural
equation modeling and conrmatory factor analysis results: A
review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99(6), pp. 323-337.

Musonda et al • Assuring health and safety performance
105
Smallwood, J. 1998. Client inuence on contractor health and safety
in South Africa. Building Research & Information, 26(3), pp.181-189.
Suraji, A., Sulaiman, K., Mahyuddin, N. & Mohamed, O. 2006.
Rethinking construction safety: An introduction to total safety
management. Journal of Construction Research, 1(1&2), pp. 49-63.
Teo, E.A.L., Ling, F.Y.Y. & Chong, A.F.W. 2005. Framework for project
managers to manage construction safety. International Journal of
Project Management, 23(4), pp. 329-341.
Toellner, J. 2001. Improving safety and health performance:
Identifying and measuring leading indicators. Professional Safety,
September, pp. 42-47.
Toole, T.M. 2005. Increasing engineers’ role in construction
safety: Opportunities and barriers. Journal of Professional Issues in
Engineering Education & Practice, 131(3), pp. 199-207.
Wiegmann, D.A., Zhang, H., Thaden, T.V., Sharma, G. & Mitchell, A.
2002. Safety culture: A review. Savoy: Federal Aviation Administration
Atlantic City International Airport.
Winch, G.M. 2000. Institutional reform in British construction:
Partnering and private nance. Building Research & Information,
28(1), pp. 141-155.