Design for safety (DfS) is an important mechanism for addressing accidents in construction. In the main, DfS studies have largely focussed on various regions of the world other than sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Through a questionnaire survey, this study investigated the DfS awareness and practice amongst architects in the Ghanaian construction sector. Data analysis revealed that there is a low engagement in DfS practice despite a high level of awareness of DfS amongst architects. There is a high interest in DfS training juxtaposed against a low engagement in DfS training. DfS practice is not associated with: awareness of the concept of DfS; engagement in DfS professional development training; receipt of DfS education; membership of professional body; years of experience in role; and the company size. Concerted efforts by industry stakeholders, including clients, educational institutions and design professional bodies would be required to encourage the application of DfS amongst architects and other design professionals within the Ghanaian construction environment. Furthermore, more studies on DfS within the SSA context are required in order to profile DfS awareness and practice amongst design practitioners and other industry stakeholders within the region.

Purpose Against the backdrop of the contribution of design to the occurrence of occupational injuries and illnesses in construction, design for occupational safety and health (DfOSH) is increasingly becoming prominent in the construction sector. To ensure that design interventions are safe for construction workers to build and maintain, design firms need to have the appropriate organisational capability in respect of DfOSH. However, empirical insight regarding the attributes that constitute DfOSH organisational capability is lacking. The purpose of this paper, which trailblases the subject of DfOSH organisational capability in construction, is to address two key questions: what organisational attributes determine DfOSH capability? What is the relative priority of the capability attributes? Design/methodology/approach The study employed three iterations of expert focus group discussion and a subsequent three-round Delphi technique accompanied by the application of voting analytic hierarchy process. Findings The study revealed 18 capability attributes nested within six categories, namely: competence (the competence of organisation’s design staff); strategy (the consideration of DfOSH in organisation’s vision as well as the top management commitment); corporate experience (organisation’s experience in implementing DfOSH on projects); systems (systems, processes and procedures required for implementing DfOSH); infrastructure (physical, and information and communication technology resources); and collaboration (inter- and intra-organisational collaboration to implement DfOSH on projects). Whilst these categories and their nested attributes carry varying weights of importance, collectively, the competence-related attributes are the most important, followed by strategy. Originality/value The findings should enable design firms and other key industry stakeholders (such as the clients who appoint them) to understand designers’ DfOSH capability better. Additionally, design firms should be able to prioritise efforts/investment to enhance their DfOSH capability.

The findings are thus symptomatic of the prevalence of influential DfS implementation barriers within the construction sector. Industry stakeholders should seek to raise the profile of DfS practice within the sector. Furthermore, similar empirical studies in the construction sector of other developing countries would be useful in shedding light on the status of DfS in these countries.

No abstract

The construction sector is notorious for accounting for numerous occupational deaths, injuries and illnesses in many countries. In emerging economies this situation could be direr, and health and safety (H&S) management by contractors is important to tackling this. This study investigated the H&S management practices of contractors in three South East Asian countries (Malaysia, Vietnam, and Cambodia) with the view to highlighting implementation issues. A questionnaire instrument containing 40 H&S management practices was administered to contractors in the three countries. Analysis of the data revealed that in each of the three countries there are at least seven practices that are not commonly implemented by contractors. Whilst the study further suggests this to be acute in Malaysia and Cambodia, it also elucidates that the apparent situation could be due to inter alia: a significantly greater proportion of the contractors in the Malaysia sample being micro size firms; and also the effect of two national occupational H&S programmes implemented in Vietnam from 2006 to 2015. Overall, the findings offer an opportunity for contractors and key industry stakeholders (e.g. state authorities) to reflect on their approach/initiatives to improving H&S management in construction. Further studies which could offer additional empirical realities are also suggested.

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractSubcontracting is noted for its adverse health and safety (H&S) influence in construction.Using interviews with five of the top 20 UK contractors and one medium-sized contractor, this study explored how main contractors manage the H&S influence of subcontracting with a focus on their in-house measures. Some in-house measures found are: restricting the layers of subcontractors on projects; working with a regular chain of subcontractors; implementing a H&S reward scheme for subcontractors; and insisting on non-working subcontractor foremen who have direct responsibility for the safety of workers in their trade. These measures appear to be influenced by clients, industry peer groups, and the moral justification for occupational H&S, and they offer inter-organisational learning opportunities for contractors in devising measures to mitigate the H&S influence of subcontracting. These findings should also allay concerns that removing some of the legislative hurdles in connection with on-going red tape debate will result in poorer H&S.

Design for safety (DfS), also known as prevention through design, is a prominent means for tackling work-related illnesses and injuries in construction. However, the available DfS studies in construction have paid very limited attention to developing countries. Consequently, there is limited insight into DfS implementation in many developing countries including Palestine. This study therefore investigates DfS implementation among design professionals in the Palestinian construction industry. A questionnaire survey was used to obtain data from design professionals and the data was analysed using inferential statistics (i.e. analysis of variance and t-test) and descriptive statistics. The results revealed that the extent of engagement in DfS practices among the design professionals is very low despite a high awareness and positive attitude towards the concept of DfS. Additionally, while there is a great interest in undertaking DfS training, the designers' participation in training is low. Additionally, awareness of DfS, DfS education and training, professional body affiliation, level of education, years of experience, and size of organisation were found to have limited association with the extent of engagement in DfS practices by the designers. These findings suggest the presence of DfS implementation barriers/challenges, which are undermining the implementation of DfS by the design professionals in Palestine. Collaborative efforts are required by the construction industry stakeholders to improve DfS implementation. Furthermore, the findings mirror the outcomes of similar studies in other developing countries and thus highlight an urgent need for additional studies within developing countries to ascertain the barriers/challenges to DfS implementation in those geographic contexts.

Purpose: Decisions made during the design stage of construction works can significantly reduce the risk of occurrence of occupational accidents, injuries and illnesses. Moreover it has been established that design is one of the major contributors of accidents and injuries. Design for safety (DfS) studies within construction have highlighted factors affecting the implementation of DfS, amongst which are: designer attitude; DfS knowledge/awareness and education; availability of DfS tools including guidance; client's influence and motivation; and legislation. The main objective of this study is to carry out an in-depth literature review of DfS studies within construction to explore the extent to which existing DfS research have looked at the above listed DfS implementation factors. Design/methodology/approach: A review of 164 journal articles related to design for safety in construction (published from 1990 to 2017) within built environment, engineering and multi-disciplinary safety journals was undertaken. Findings: The findings indicate that around 60% of the journal articles reviewed address designer knowledge/awareness and education issues; about 27% looked at DfS implementation tools to assist designers to undertake DfS; about 23% studied client influence/motivation; about 16% studied designers attitudes towards DfS implementation; and approximately 16% looked at the role of legislation in DfS implementation. The literature points that client influence/motivation and legislation are very influential DfS implementation factors despite a limited number of studies in these areas. Originality/value: Overall, the findings provide an indication of areas of DfS implementation, particularly client influence/motivation and legislation, where more research would be needed to promote DfS in construction in order to help mitigate the occurrence of accidents and injuries.