How can HR Managers Support ‘Zero Harm’ in Construction - A Research Article

Introduction 

Workplace Health and Safety (WHS) is particularly acute in the context of the construction industry due to the high-risk nature of the work, and the historically high rate of injuries and fatalities throughout time (Kamardeen, 2019). Considerable lobbying by workers unions and subsequent legislation has brought safety in construction to the forefront of the strategic objectives of the majority of construction companies (Nankervis et al., 2022). This aligns the financial objectives with the ethical objectives of an organisation to cause ‘zero harm’ to the workforce throughout operations. 

There has been significant focus on improving safety in construction, primarily through the discipline of risk management. This has influenced the creation of the position of Safety Manager and Safety Advisor who are solely tasked with managing and advising on the safety risks on construction projects. Many of the outcomes of risk management in the engineering field leads to risk mitigation in the form of various processes and procedures. The research concludes however that safety culture is a more influential factor in reducing injury frequency rates (Ostrom et al., 1993; Vredenburgh, 2002). Safety culture, which is defined as the collective norms, attitudes, and beliefs of the individuals within an organisation regarding safety (Vredenburgh, 2002), is of paramount importance (Sunindijo et al., 2012). Human Resource (HR) Managers have many of the tools needed to positively influence and drive safety culture within an organisation. By using these tools, the HR Manager can align their policies and procedures with the strategic objectives of the organisation, namely, to strive towards ‘zero harm’. 

The purpose of this essay is to use the frameworks within Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the research behind safety culture, to derive implications and recommendations to HR Managers, as to how best align HR policies and practices to improve safety culture, and ultimately to improve safety performance. This essay will first discuss the contextual background of Workplace Health and Safety (WHS), specifically how it relates to the construction industry. The essay will then discuss WHS in an ethical context, using several ethical frameworks to discuss the objective of zero harm, and how these fit into the real-world organisational context. A discussion of the drivers of safety performance and more specifically safety culture will follow. Research into the precedents of safety culture will then be presented followed by the implications for HR Managers and concluding with recommendations.  

Contextual Background 

In Australia Work Health & Safety (WHS) has grown in prominence in terms of legislation, organisational policy, and societal focus. This focus has increased over time, accelerating over the last several decades (Nankervis et al., 2022). WHS is everyone’s responsibility, and in the context of construction it is generally managed by a dedicated department. However, WHS naturally aligns with HRM due to the focus of WHS being the health and safety of the “Human Resource”. WHS is particularly acute in the construction context due to the high-risk nature of the work with studies showing globally, construction workers are three times more likely to die and two times more likely to be injured at work than the average worker (Sousa et al., 2014). Statistics indicate that, in Australia, construction fatalities are decreasing from 57% at the 2007 peak to 35% in 2012 (Worksafe Queensland, 2023). These statistics imply that the focus on construction safety collaboratively by unions, governments, and organisations are yielding positive results. 

The typical construction workplace has many hazards and hazardous jobs, occurring in a dynamic and changing environment (Oguz Erkal et al., 2021). Safety in construction is thought of to have become a significant consideration during the construction of the Golden Gate Bridge, where measures such as safety nets were implemented to reduce the number of deaths from falls (Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District, 2019). Comparatively, today organisations have policies, systems, processes, and procedures in place to methodically manage safety risks inherent in performing every aspect of the works (Oguz Erkal et al., 2021). 

Theoretical Background 

Ethical viewpoint 

The importance of WHS to the modern construction organisation is largely a result of the legislative requirement to comply with minimum standards, the financial incentive to maintain a good safety record, alongside the ethical and moral imperative to ‘do no harm’. Ensuring the health and safety of the employees of an organisation holds ethical validity from both the deontological and consequential perspective. The deontological perspective, best known in the works of both Emmanuel Kant and W.D Ross, discusses ethics in terms of duty. Kant’s (Bowie, 2017) categorical imperative and Ross’s (2002, 2011) prima facie duty of non-maleficence both describe the moral duty that one must ensure the health and safety of their employees. Kant sees this duty as an absolute and without exception (Bowie, 2017), whereas Ross sees the duty as a prima facie duty that applies unless outweighed by another duty of higher moral significance (Skelton, 2022). The consequentialist school of thought measures the moral value of an action based on the result rather than the action. The dominant consequentialist theory is utilitarianism, where the moral act is the one that maximises the net ‘good’ in the outcome (Mill, 2009). 

Rossian ethics and Utilitarianism both serve as better models for analysing the various complex decision making and prioritisation in the organisational context. For example, if human life were to be considered worth protecting absolutely and without exception, society would accept all highways to be reduced to a 20km/hr speed limit to reduce car crashes and fatalities. However, the reality is that there is a complex balance of opposing duties and weighing of the outcomes in decision making that would presumably lead the common person to reject the notion of 20km/hr highways. 

Freeman’s (2010) stakeholder theory was developed to challenge Friedman’s (2007) shareholder theory. As opposed to Shareholder theory, Freeman states that an organisation has a duty to all stakeholders, including but not limited to; shareholders, employees, clients and customers, suppliers and subcontractors, financers, governments, communities in which they operate, society at large, the environment, and more (Freeman, 2010). A stakeholder can be defined as “Any individual or group who can affect or is affected by the actions, decisions, policies, practices or goals of the organization” (Carroll, 1993, p. 60). Furthermore, stakeholders can be divided into primary and secondary stakeholders, where “primary stakeholders are those who have a formal, official, or contractual relationship, and all others are classified as secondary stakeholders” (Carroll, 1993, p. 62). Within this context, the employee is a primary stakeholder to which the organisation holds a moral duty to. In the modern context, legislation imposes heavy financial and sometimes criminal penalties for non-compliances with WHS, and lost time injuries, and workers compensation impact an organisations bottom line and thus impact shareholders as well.  

HR & Construction Safety 

The health and safety of employees is a vital objective of construction companies due to the high-risk profile of the industry, alongside the alignment of ethical and financial considerations towards improving WHS. Strategic HRM (SHRM) is a framework of HRM that acts to align the policies and procedures of HRM with the strategic objectives of the organisation. Therefore, the HR department of a construction company should align their policies to enhance WHS outcomes.  

There are many contributing factors to answering the question of ‘What reduces safety incidents in construction?’.  Research suggests that less than 10% of safety incidents are due to unsafe mechanical or physical conditions (Vredenburgh, 2002). Therefore, it can be surmised that the remaining 90% are due to either not identifying hazards, not implementing procedures, or not following procedures. Whilst it may be tempting for organisations to rid themselves of liability by attributing the incident to human error or negligence by the employee, studies show that most incidents are in fact the end-event of many interacting factors at multiple levels (Vredenburgh, 2002).  

Within the construction field the safety policies, systems, and procedures are typically developed and managed by specialised safety managers, rather than the HR department (Sunindijo et al., 2012). Whilst the creation of policies, systems, and procedures are no doubt important; they are only effective if they are implemented and adhered to. Safety is particularly difficult to manage in construction due to the dynamic and changing environment (Yadav, 2022). This requires all employees at all levels to play a vital role in hazard identification, risk assessment, and mitigation implementation. Without this engagement at all levels, the efficacy of the safety management is severely compromised. Ostrom et al., (1993) and Vredenburgh, (2002) support this through their research findings that observed safety performance to be related to the social transmission of beliefs and attitudes towards safety throughout the organisation.  

Peter Drucker’s (2006) quote, “Culture eats strategy for breakfast”, famously draws attention to the observation that process, and strategy are only effective if followed by the individuals of an organisation. One can draw parallels to safety processes and procedures. A strong safety culture, defined as; “An organisation’s norms, beliefs, roles, attitudes, and practice concerned with minimising exposure of employees to workplace hazards” (Turner, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002), is vital to safety performance. The literature largely supports the view that safety culture is far more influential to the organisation’s safety record than any other measure (Kletz, 1993; Siehl and Martin, 1990; Vredenburgh, 2002). 

The study of safety culture first came to prominence during the investigation into the causes of the Chernobyl disaster, where it was concluded that a severely lacking safety culture led to a multitude of compounding missteps, resulting in a nuclear disaster (Meshkati, 2007). Additionally, a case study into the large oil company Amoco, had the then CEO attribute the vast improvement of their safety record to a companywide improvement of safety culture (Lee, 2010).  The literature largely concludes that six HRM practices are attributed to implementing and driving a safety culture including reward systems, training, selective hiring, communication and feedback, participation, and management support (Cohen & Cleveland, 1983; Pidgeon, 1991; Turner, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002; Zohar, 1980; Lai et al., 2011). 

Managerial Implications 

HR Managers are in a unique position to help drive culture within organisations with many of the tools used to implement and drive culture being within the scope of SHRM. Therefore, it is recommended that HR managers, take the following considerations into account when designing and developing HR policies and practices. 

Vredenburgh (2002), argues that culture is learned through a connection between behaviours and consequences, suggesting that a reward system can be used drive safety performance. Peavey (1995) points out that any rewards program should aim to reward behaviours rather than to punish after an incident occurs. Such a system that focusses incentives and punishments on outcomes may lead to a culture of cover ups and under reporting of incidents (Peavey, 1995). Furthermore, as unsafe behaviours do not necessarily always result in an incident, such a program would not adequately make the connection with behaviour they wish to influence. Thus, the reward program should aim to incentivise safe behaviours, such as hazard identification, or safety-based conversations and safety planning.  

Safety training comes in many shapes and forms and is applicable to all level and roles. Training could range from safe machinery usage to risk identification, categorisation, and mitigation, to effective workforce engagement and motivation. Training should be specific to the role and be followed by goal setting and performance feedback to realise the full benefit (Cohen & Jensen, 1984; Vredenburgh, 2002). Safety training can be either external or internal on the organisation procedures and processes. HR Managers should keep up to date records of the status of training across all employees to identify what training or re-training may be required. 

An organisation’s culture is somewhat the culmination of the attitudes and beliefs of the individuals that make up the organisation (Turner, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002). Furthermore, the attitudes and beliefs of each individual has the potential to influence other employees. It is evidently important to both selectively hire those with attitudes and beliefs that support a safety culture. The selection criteria for prospective employees should include safety attitudes (Lai et al., 2011). Once a positive safety culture is established, and the image of the company reflects this, recruitment of safety conscious people will be made easier as the company will attract like minded applicants (Turner, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002). 

Communication and feedback are essential tools in reinforcing good behaviours, attitudes, and beliefs, as well as correcting the wrong ones (London, 2003). HR managers can influence this by including safety within the performance review templates for all positions, prompting line managers to discuss safety with individual employees. A balanced scorecard could provide a way to achieve this. Furthermore, HR managers can arrange for specific training to middle management on how to address safety performance with employees to promote positive attitudes. This includes dissuading managers from playing the ‘blame game’ when incidents occur (Lai et al., 2011). Such attitudes can produce bad will within the workforce, and create the perception that liability is the utmost concern (London, 2003).   

The roles of various specialist workers in construction vary considerably, so it would be impractical to expect management to be able to identify or understand the nature of every task and the hazards therein. The workers performing the tasks are the best suited and qualified to identify any hazards, as well as make suggestions to the risk mitigation and possible safety improvements (Vredenburgh, 2002). The literature suggest a positive correlation between worker participation and positive WHS outcomes (Lai et al., 2011; Rivilis et al., 2006). It is therefore recommended that all risk management efforts, involve workers at all levels, using safety committees and other worker involvement in safety planning and management. Incentives can be used to promote worker participation and involvement. This is seen as a WHS specific form of employee ‘voice’, which is fostered when employees are confident that raising safety issues will not result in negative impacts for them (Farr et al., 2019). 

Safety culture is driven by attitudes and behaviour at all levels (Vredenburgh, 2002). This is all the more significant for upper management, who’s attitudes and behaviours influence those below them in the organisation (Zohar, 1980). The support of managers towards the safety objectives of the organisation are important. Management involvement in safety committees, management discussing safety in meetings and speeches, as well genuine concern, and interests in matter of safety help to set the priorities for the organisation. Insincere rhetoric about safety is likely to be seen for what it is and to negatively influence safety culture (Turner, 1991; Vredenburgh, 2002). HR Managers can support senior management with provision of expert advise and recommendation on how to best display this support. 

Conclusion 

This essay used the frameworks within Strategic Human Resource Management (SHRM) and the research behind safety culture, to derive implications and recommendations to HR Managers, as to how best align HR policies and practices to improve safety culture, and ultimately to improve safety performance.  

The essay showed that the construction industry has a significantly higher risk factor with regards to worker safety. Furthermore, it was shown that through union lobbying, governmental legislation, and changes in societal expectations, organisations have placed more focus on improving construction safety, yielding results. The ethical value in assigning focus and resources to improve construction safety was then analysed using several ethical frameworks. Superficially, all frameworks support the ethical value in doing no harm. However, further analysis revealed that the modern context of the industry aligns the financial outcomes with the safety outcomes, thus, simplifying any opposing ethical duties or moral evaluation of outcomes. It was then established that improving construction safety is likely a chief strategic objective to the modern construction organisation, and thus, adopting the SHRM model, an objective of HR Managers. It was then proposed that safety culture is an imperative factor in WHS, and a factor that can be particularly influenced by the HR department. Research and discussion of the literature concluded that there were six HRM practices that could influence a strong safety culture, including reward systems, training, selective hiring, communication and feedback, participation, and management support. These practices were each elaborated on, and implications discussed with recommendation to HR Mangers. 

References 

Bowie, N. E. (2017). Business Ethics: A Kantian perspective (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 

Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business & society: Ethics and stakeholder management (2nd ed.). College Division, South-Western Pub. 

Farr, D., Laird, I., Lamm, F., & Bensemann, J. (2019). Talking, listening and acting: Developing a conceptual framework to explore “worker voice” in decisions affecting health and safety outcomes. New Zealand Journal of Employment Relations, 44(1), 79–100. 

Freeman, R. E. (2010). Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

Friedman, M. (2007). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 

Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District. (2019, December 19). Construction. https://www.goldengate.org/bridge/history-research/bridge-construction/construction 

Kamardeen, I. (2019). Preventing workplace accidents in construction: Data mining and analytics strategies. Routledge.  

Lai, D. N. C., Liu, M., & Ling, F. Y. Y. (2011). A comparative study on adopting human resource practices for safety management on construction projects in the United States and Singapore. International Journal of Project Management, 29(8), 1018–1032. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2010.11.004 

Lee, T. J. (2010, August 20). How BP can change its safety culture: A case study in leadership. Rainbows Typepad. https://rainbows.typepad.com/blog/2010/08/how-bp-can-change-its-safety-culture.html  

London, M. (2003). Job feedback: Giving, seeking, and using feedback for performance improvement (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410608871 

Meshkati, N. (2007). Lessons of the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident for Sustainable Energy Generation: Creation of the Safety Culture in Nuclear Power Plants Around the World. Energy Sources. Part A, Recovery, Utilization, and Environmental Effects, 29(9), 807–815. https://doi.org/10.1080/00908310500280934 

Mill, J. S. (2009). Utilitarianism. The Floating Press. 

Nankervis, A., Baird, M., Coffey, D. J., & Shields, J. (2022). Human Resource Management, (11th Ed.). Cengage Learning.  

Oguz Erkal, E. D., Hallowell, M. R., & Bhandari, S. (2021). Practical assessment of potential predictors of serious injuries and fatalities in construction. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 147(10) 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0002146 

Ostrom, C., Wilhelmsen, O. C., & Kaplan, B. (1993). Assessing safety culture. Nuclear Safety, 34(2), 163-172. 

Ross, W. D. (2002). The right and the good. Oxford. Clarendon Press. 

Ross, W. D. (2011). Foundations of ethics. Read Books Ltd. 

Rivilis, I., Cole, D. C., Frazer, M. B., Kerr, M. S., Wells, R. P., Ibrahim, S. (2006). Evaluation of a participatory ergonomic intervention aimed at improving musculoskeletal health. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 49(10), 801–810. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20382 

Sunindijo, R. Y., & Zou, P. X. W. (2012). Political Skill for Developing Construction Safety Climate. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 138(5), 605–612. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000482 

Skelton, A. (2022). William David Ross. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved July 18th, 2023, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/william-david-ross   

Sousa, V., Almeida, N. M., & Dias, L. A. (2014). Risk-based management of occupational safety and health in the construction industry – Part 1: Background knowledge. Safety Science, 66, 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.02.008 

Vredenburgh, A. G. (2002). Organizational safety: Which management practices are most effective in reducing employee injury rates? Journal of Safety Research, 33(2), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(02)00016-6 

Worksafe Queensland. (2023). Construction Industry Stats:  The good and bad news.  https://www.worksafe.qld.gov.au/news-and-events/newsletters/esafe-newsletters/esafe-editions/esafe-construction/march-2023/construction-industry-stats-the-good-and-the-bad-news 

Yadav, B. P. (2022). Advances in construction safety: Proceedings of HSFEA 2020. Springer.