Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. X, No.

Y, XXXX

Construction site safety in small construction

companies in Saudi Arabia

Murat S. Erogul* and Mohsen Mania Alyami

School of Business and Economics,
Department of Marketing, International Business and Entrepreneurship,
Thompson Rivers University,
900 McGill Road, Kamloops,
BC, V2C-0C8, Canada
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Construction site safety concerns in small construction projects in

Saudi Arabia are alarming due to the large number of accidents per year. The
purpose of this research is to explore construction worker’s perceptions
regarding construction site safety climate. An integrative model of workplace
safety has been utilised to design and administer a questionnaire to workers in
five small residential construction sites in the city of Najran. The results
demonstrate a lack of adherence to occupational health and safety regulations
by employers, a need for construction site safety protocols and enhanced
external inspection systems, an unawareness among participants in regards to
the safety measures endorsed by their companies, and indications of leniency
due to favouritism by external inspectors. In conclusion, the study contributes
to construction science and practice by identifying factors contributing to
construction worker perception of safety which may help employers enhance
the safety climate of small construction sites.

Keywords: residential construction; construction site safety; safety regulations;

Saudi Arabia.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Erogul, M.S. and Alyami,
M.M. (20XX) ‘Construction site safety in small construction companies in
Saudi Arabia’, Int. J. Management Practice, Vol. x, No. y, pp.xx–xx.

Biographical notes: Murat Sakir Erogul is an Associate Professor at

Thompson Rivers University in the Department of Marketing, International
Business and Entrepreneurship. His research interests are in entrepreneurship,
family business, and organisational development.

Mohsen Mania Alyami is a Research Assistant at Thompson Rivers University

in the School of Business and Economics completing his Masters in Business
Administration. Prior to joining academia, he worked for the communication
department of the Saudi Arabia Air Force.

Copyright © 200X Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

1 Introduction

Approximately 18 years ago, Jannadia and Assaf (1998) evaluated the safety procedures
on a construction job site in Saudi Arabia (SA). The results of their study showed that
safety levels differed according to project size. Large projects constructed by large
international firms have much better safety records than smaller or domestic projects.
Evidence suggests that almost after two decades much has not changed, safety concerns
in small sized residential construction firms are still lagging behind, particularly in
smaller cities of SA, where there is less technical expertise (Ikediashi et al., 2014) and
opportunity for formal inspections (Mosly, 2015). Although the contribution of the Saudi
Arabian construction industry to the growth of the Saudi economy has been
unprecedented over the past three decades (Ikediashi et al., 2014), the topic of
construction site safety is a pressing concern (Panuwatwanich et al., 2016). The large
number of accidents that occur on Saudi construction sites each year (Almutairi, 2012)
indicate the need for wider and stricter implementation and enforcement of occupational
health and safety requirements in the small domestic construction sites.
To achieve this goal of creating a safe work environment, three specific guidelines
have been identified by the Saudi Arabian government, which include firstly, the
protection of workers and promotion of safe work environments, secondly, the
enhancement of working conditions, and thirdly, the creation of safety groups within the
workplace (Khasawneh, 2014). These guidelines provide space for the utilisation of an
integrative model of construction site safety which suggests that safety climate is an
important precursor to construction site safety outcomes (Christian et al., 2009). It
suggests that management commitment is an important element, along with safety systems,
supervision, support and internal group processes (ibid). We examine the implementation
and awareness of construction site safety standards in five small construction sites to
comprehend employees’ perspectives of the safety climate.
We contribute to the call for more research investigating the problems of
occupational safety in smaller size workplaces that do not receive sufficient attention
from researchers (Cunningham et al., 2014). Traditional safety performance measurement
approaches using statistical analysis often solely focus on the number of accidents or
incidents which are insufficient as they fail to capture all the lead and lag indicators of
safety performance (Alolah et al., 2014). We contribute to construction science and
practice by providing factors influencing construction worker perception of safety
climate and in doing so, provide factors that require attention to enhance quality of safety
climate and worker’s health.
The paper begins with an overview of the relevant literature, followed by a
description of the survey research methodology, an analysis and discussion of the survey
results and a conclusion with implications of the key findings for construction company
management and government authorities in SA.

2 Literature review

Evidence indicates that owner/operators in small enterprises do not engage in preventive

activities due to resource deficiency, isolation, low probability of inspection, and
inaccurate perceptions about illness and injury incidence rates (Cunningham et al., 2014;
Ikediashi et al., 2014; Mosly, 2015). Every year, a considerable amount of time is lost
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

due to work related health issues and site accidents (Shamsuddin et al., 2015). Every
effort must be taken to bring up the level of consciousness among the workers as well as
management about the importance of health and safety at work sites (Hemamalinie et al.,
2014). The International Labor Organization (ILO) estimates approximately 2 million
occupational fatalities across the world annually (Somavia, 2003). In 2009, the total
number of workplace injuries reported in SA was 93,285. Of those, 3675 cases ended
with disability, and 646 ended with death (Almutairi, 2012). Although, the SA General
Organization of Social Insurance (GOSI) has implemented systems to ensure that
occupational health and safety requirements are met, in order to protect workers, many
employers are lax in implementing occupational health and safety systems and in
protecting workers’ rights (Badwylan, 2014).

2.1 Role of management practice and public policy

The most influential factor driving safety performance in the construction industry is the
organisation’s policy towards safety (Sawacha et al., 1999; Siu et al., 2004;
Panuwatwanich et al., 2016). Safety issues and concerns are perceived as a joint
responsibility of workers and management (Siu et al., 2004). For instance, all contractors
employing five or more people are recommended to have a written safety policy
(Sawacha et al., 1999). Similarly, having a reward system in place along with a
consistent training strategy has been found to increase the safety climate in construction
sites (Charehzehi and Ahankoob, 2012). Moreover, ensuring management commitment
to the implementation of a safety culture and contractor compliance to safety regulations,
by providing safe equipment and tools, and taking responsibility to report accidents not
only helps change some of the negativity toward the construction industry, but helps
create a safer work environment (Ibid). Others have found that safety motivation could
positively influence safety behaviour through safety climate, which plays a mediating
role for this mechanism (Panuwatwanich et al., 2016). Overall, both positive and
negative attitudes towards safety in the workplace held by management and the employer
have great impact on workers’ behaviour (Neal and Griffin, 2002; Gillen et al., 2003).
This has been found to increase or decrease the number of accidents (Kevin, 2008) as
most accidents are caused by human factors rather than working conditions (Wilkins,
2011). Professional development and training plays an important role in reducing the
number and severity of accidents that occur in the workplace (Heath, 1982). It is believed
that organisations should endeavour to foster and maintain a safety climate by ensuring
that safety in the workplace is viewed as a high priority and is valued across all levels of
the workforce (Panuwatwanich et al., 2016).
Lauver (2007) found that management has the ability to show employees that safety
is more important than performance especially when employees are working under
pressure to get the job done quickly as possible due to project deadlines. In parallel,
compensation for safety plays an important role in emphasising and motivating
employees to support safety practices (Ibid). Also, prior work experience is positively
associated with safety outcomes along with not discouraging employees from reporting
injuries. Lastly, having in place risk analysis in the design stage (Charehzehi and
Ahankoob, 2012) and expanding the use of sound HR practices is found to help improve
overall safety (Lauver, 2007).
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

2.2 Construction site safety in Saudi Arabia

Saudi employers have been found to either unintentionally or otherwise ignore their legal
and ethical obligations to protect the safety and the health of their employees
(Khasawneh, 2014). The lack of clear national policies, systems, and programs makes it
challenging to specifically address these problems. Alasamri et al. (2012) cite several
studies about enhancing and improving the safety culture on Saudi construction sites.
They note that SA is amongst the poorest performers in terms of the rates of major
injuries and fatalities. In SA, applying health and safety standards remains a challenge
compared to seven benchmark countries (i.e., Jordan, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab
Emirates, the USA, the UK and Australia). The study shows that the rate of fatal injuries
per 100, 000 employees in 2008 was as follows: UK 3.4%, Australia 5.9%, the United
Arab Emirates 6.7%, the USA 9.7%, Kuwait 10.4%, and SA 28.2%. SA was at the top of
the list of selected countries in terms of the rate of fatal and non-fatal major injuries,
which indicates a very serious and worrying situation (Alasamri et al., 2012). With these
results, it is clear that the Saudi Arabian government is in need of a specialised governing
body to manage health and safety issues. Saudi Arabia requires clear, concise legislation
that strictly oversees the area of health and safety in construction workplaces. Yet, the
results of Panuwatwanich et al. (2016) study confirm that safety behaviour could predict
safety outcomes within the context of the Saudi construction industry. They explain that
to improve safety outcomes, organisations should focus on the implementations of
programmes and initiatives that are geared towards the inculcation of safety motivation
into their employees (Ibid).
Accidents at work happen either due to lack of knowledge, training or supervision,
lack of carrying out a task safely, errors in judgement, laziness or negligence (Sawacha
et al., 1999). It has been found that safety at construction projects across Saudi Arabia
highlighted some alarming statistics: 25% of contractors did not give new workers a
safety orientation; 25% did not provide personal protective equipment; 25% did not
provide first-aid on site; and 38% had no trained safety personnel (Berger, 2008). The
concept of safety is not firmly established among construction contractors in SA. One
precaution on an individual level can be the use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)
on construction sites, which includes wearing hard hats, gloves, and boots, as well as
checking the safety performance of equipment (Al-Kaabi and Hadipriono, 2003).
Panuwatwanich et al. (2016) explain that the presence of a safety climate, which is a
necessary precursor to achieving desired safety behaviour among employees. When
achieved, this desired level of safety behaviour will help minimise accidents and safety-
related incidents within the workplace.

3 Theoretical framework

Christian et al. (2009) reviewed the extent conceptual and methodological advances in
behavioural safety research to integrate past and recent research findings. This provided
Christian et al. (2009) the means to build on theoretical models of worker performance
and work climate to integrate the safety literature by meta-analytically examining ‘person
and situation-based’ antecedents of safety performance behaviours and safety outcomes
(i.e., accidents and injuries). They found that safety knowledge and safety motivation
were most strongly related to safety performance behaviours, closely followed by
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

psychological safety climate and group safety climate. With regard to accidents and
injuries, however, group safety climate had the strongest association. In addition, tests of
a meta-analytic path model provided support for the theoretical model that guided their
overall investigation (Christian et al., 2009, p.1103).
In this theoretical model, situation-related factors such as safety climate and
leadership, combined with person-related factors influence safety knowledge and safety
motivation. Thus, safety knowledge and safety motivation are combined to influence
overall safety performance, which is comprised of safety compliance and safety
participation. Safety performance, in turn, influences overall safety outcomes, including
the prevalence of accidents and injuries. According to Christian et al. (2009, p.1106),
safety climate is an individual’s perspective on safety policies, measures and procedures
regarding safety concerns, which affect an individual’s personal construction site safety.
When these concerns are addressed and shared among a group of individuals within a
specific work environment, it is known as group-level safety climate. Safety climate
creates positive influences on safety performance behaviour by reflecting on safety
knowledge and motivation. This means that a positive safety climate is more likely to
encourage better safety practices by providing appropriate rewards for safety behaviour.
A positive safety climate will enhance safety knowledge because information will be
delivered through training, meetings and informal discussions, both in and around the
workplace (Christian et al., 2009, p.1106).
The integrative model of construction site safety (Christian et al., 2009) provides a
way to think about which elements are important in creating positive safety outcomes.
Many of the elements of safety climate are influenced by, or a result of, the actions of
management. Since the research question in this paper suggests that construction sites in
SA may be lacking a sufficiently positive safety climate, the Christian et al. (2009)
integrative model provides a means of highlighting which elements are important in a
safety climate.
In order to better understand the health and safety concerns in construction
companies in SA, the following research methodology was developed.

4 Methodology

A qualitative research method was selected to examine the proponents of the integrative
model of constriction site safety. A questionnaire survey was used to assist with the
collection of data from individuals at construction sites. The self-administered paper and
pencil questionnaire was designed to address the research question. To ascertain its face
validity, the developed questionnaire was pre-tested using an Arabic and English
language questionnaire, which was designed and used initially in the first site with ten
workers. From the pilot survey, six of them were completed in Arabic and four in English
to examine each item in the questionnaire to ensure each one effectively measured the
intended construct. The questionnaire was adjusted based on the results of the reviewers’
feedback. After receiving the completed pre-test questionnaires and asking participant
reviewers for feedback, two revisions were made in the Arabic survey and one revision in
the English survey. All revisions were related to mechanics and wording of the questions.
Some items were reworded and rephrased to suit local working practices and culture. The
piloted questionnaires which were distributed to ten participant reviewers in the first
construction site have not been included into the study results.
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

Workers who were unable to read Arabic or English were excluded from the study.
The survey evaluated the safety climate based on the conceptual framework of the
integrative model of workplace safety proposed by Christian et al. (2009). This included
an examination of the safety level in residential construction projects and adherence to
occupational health and safety regulations.

4.1 Sampling procedure

The data were collected through a convenience sample in the city of Najran, a small city
in SA. The population of Najran is 568,631, and the total population of SA is 30,770,375
(Central Department of Statistics and Information, 2014). The research is not interested
in repeated sampling but an expandable ‘X larger 1’ Bayesian approach where the data
may not be considered a sample from the larger population. The design process, centres
on the principle of ‘x>1’ to emphasise that new approaches are required for mapping
observations in construction site safety. As so the research is not claiming that there is a
population of people, for instance a population of construction site workers in Saudi
Arabia, it is rather exploring the experiences of construction site workers in Saudi Arabia
in relation to this population, it is an exploration of perceptions and experiences.
Ten construction companies operating in Najran was selected from the Najran
Chamber of Commerce website. The ten companies were contacted, and the research was
conducted with employees of the first five companies out of the ten that agreed to
participate in the research. Each construction company was comprised of 30 to 100
employees involved in working on residential building projects. The survey was
administered to a total of 180 construction workers at five different construction
companies identified as Company A, B, C, D and E to ensure confidentiality (see Table
1). 100 surveys were returned fully completed.
Table 1 Participating companies

Company No. of employees No. of surveys distributed No. of surveys returned

Company A 77 48 30
Company B 71 39 23
Company C 43 36 22
Company D 33 30 15
Company E 30 27 10
Total 254 180 100

To ensure confidentiality, the surveys were completed at the residential construction sites
so that the employers could not witness the participation of employees. The data were
collected during the months of December 2014 and January 2015.

4.2 Instrument for data collection

The study focused on collecting data to measure the safety climate as outlined in the
Christian et al. (2009) integrative model of workplace safety. Questionnaire items were
developed from the integrative model to measure workers’ awareness of regulations in
the industry, and measure workers’ perception of their employer’s adherence to safety
regulations. The questionnaire was comprised of questions about health and safety
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

measures within the residential construction companies, such as enforcement of health

and safety rules by the company (e.g., proper safety equipment, first aid arrangements, or
wearing safety gear at work) and whether work safety training or first aid training is
provided to employees. The questionnaire also addressed whether employees are
encouraged to follow the company’s safety policy, either by being rewarded for acting
safely or receiving penalties for unsafe behaviour. Questions relating to safety
inspections, monitoring, and meetings for awareness about safety measures in the
company were also asked. Lastly, the frequency of workplace injuries and policies about
these injuries, such as wages for missed work due to injury, as well as whether or not
employees feel intimidated to voice their concerns about health and safety policies were
investigated. The full questionnaire is provided in the Appendix.
The results obtained from the survey questionnaire were analysed using both
qualitative methods. Data collected from the survey was entered into Excel. The
descriptive qualitative analysis examined the awareness of, and adherence to, health and
safety regulations. We then used thematic analysis procedures, identifying all the data
into themes through relating patterns (Aronson, 1994) identified based on the
participant’s experiences. A theme is said to capture something important about the data
in relation to the participant’s experiences and represents some level of patterned
narrative or meaning within the data set (Braun and Clarke, 2006, p.82). We
independently coded them into NVIVO the qualitative software. The themes and patterns
were drawn out of topics to construction site safety. We summarised the overall
experiences under each category that was connected to the various questions in the
survey. Statistical testing was not within the intention or parameters of the research
design. The purpose of the study is to contextualise the experiences and perceptions of
construction site workers in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia to better
understand qualitatively the current state of construction site safety in small construction
sites of up to 100 workers.

5 Findings

Construction workers who responded to the survey were from Bangladesh, India,
Pakistan, Philippines, Korea, Syria, Yemen, and Egypt. There were no Saudi construction
workers on the jobsite. The findings of the study will be examined under person-related
factors and situation-related factors to then explore and discuss how these influence
overall safety performance and climate.

5.1 Number of years in construction

Safety knowledge is an important aspect of person-related factors (Christian et al., 2009).
Approximately one-third of the 100 construction worker participants have been working
in construction sites for more than 10 years (34%) as seen in Table 2. And 87% of the
participants have more than 3 years of construction work experience. However,
68 workers mentioned that they did not know where to acquire safety information and
61 workers indicated that they did not know the appropriate person to talk to for safety
related information.
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

Table 2 Length of service in the construction industry, in %

Years working in construction industry Number Percent

1–2 13 13%
3–5 34 34%
6–10 19 19%
10+ 34 34%
Total 100 100%

5.2 Feeling safe at work

Individuals perceptions on safety has a significant effect on an individual’s personal
workplace safety (Christian et al., 2009) to explore this we asked, “Do you feel safe at
work?” the response was that 72% of the participants feel safe. An example of the open-
ended responses about this question is as follows:
“Because of the experience we have in the building houses, we look after
ourselves and other coworkers in the workplace to avoid any accidents”.
A review of the literature on ‘team process and safety of workers’ resulted in the
identification of the ‘Big Five’ components of teamwork (Salas et al., 2005) which are
‘team leadership, mutual performance monitoring, backup behaviour, adaptability and
team orientation’ (Ibid). In this case, respondents of this study adhere to some of the
elements that make up teamwork: the ability to develop common understandings of the
team environment, accurately monitor teammate performance and anticipate other team
members’ needs. This suggests that the workers are confident about doing their work
safely without employer or management intervention. However, one of the elements
‘team leadership’ appears to be lacking in small sized construction companies, safety
practices are based on the personal experience and attitudes of the employees. We found
that participants perceive to have enough experience, as well as the intention to look out
for one another within their working environment.
Workers mentioned that their goal is to continue working where they are and keep
their opportunity to stay in the country. 93% considered safety risks involved in the job
to be small or insignificant to them in regards of not continuing to work. Survey results
showed that 28% of the respondents mentioned the issue of losing their jobs and feeling
unsafe in their workplace due to job insecurity. The employees emphasised that in order
to maintain their positions, they must simply disregard the risks involved, complete their
assigned tasks, and look out for one another, in order to avoid losing their jobs or being
sent back to their home country. Although respondents lack team leadership that should
be provided by management, workers realise their performance improvement potential
and also in their case, their ability to keep their job relies on how they coordinate certain
things among each other such as, an understanding of the organisational structural
relationships, a mutual trust that they will all perform their roles as best as they can, and
the importance of communication among one another (Salas et al., 2005) are the
mechanisms they learn to cooperate on and coordinate their behaviours to. For instance,
according to the open-ended responses, reasons for feeling unsafe are related to stress
and worry. Respondents mentioned that if they do not get the job done, or if they get
injured or come across health issues, the employer will deport them back to their home
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

country. This is a significant concern for workers, because they want to remain in their
jobs. Therefore, workers try to maintain healthy relationship with one another. However,
we found that health issues related to the nature of their hard work, especially in the
summer months when the temperatures are very high are frequent, moreover, many of the
respondents also mentioned high amounts of stress due to the tough work environment
they are in. This was an important finding among construction workers in other parts of
SA (Enshassi and AlSwaity, 2015). Respondents commented on these issues in the
following manner:
“The manager does not provide food or water during the work hours. We have
been told to bring our food and have break for 1 hour to pray and eat, usually
at 1:00 p.m., and we usually work from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.”.
“We do not have money to buy or prepare lunch, so we got lots of health
issues”.
“Most of the time the owner of the house or one of the neighbours kindly
provides us with tea, water, sometimes lunch”.

5.3 Accidents in the workplace

In relation to a situation-related factor concerning accidents the survey results showed
that 50% of the employees had been injured at their workplace at some time in the past
and, of these, 82% of the injuries required first aid. Also, 44% of the respondents
indicated that they have witnessed an injury at work. These substantial numbers suggest
that injuries within the workplace are a norm whereby safety and prevention issues are
often overlooked. Table 3 provides a breakdown of accidents in the workplace. Among
the respondents, 44% have witnessed an accident on the jobsite. One-tenth of workers
lost pay for missing work due to an injury, and 11% have been told not to report an
injury. One of the participants commented that they “do not know where to report the
injury” and that the “employer does not listen to their complaints”.
Table 3 Number of accident in the construction industry, in %

Number of accidents Yes

Have you ever been injured at work? 50%
Did any of these injuries require first aid? 82%
Did you ever lose pay for missing work due to injury? 10%
Have you ever been told not to report an injury? 11%
Have you ever witnessed an accident at work? 44%

Some of the workers have also indicated that building houses of one or two levels is
considered safer than other types of construction work that might be undertaken by larger
construction companies.

5.4 Organisational safety policy

Another situation-related factor in relation human resource management practices in
safety climate (Lauver, 2007) revealed that 58% of the respondents indicated that their
companies have an organisational safety policy. However, among the 58% who said their
companies have a safety policy, 24% had issues or concerns about the safety policy.
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

Lauver (2007) mentioned that leadership’s role and what it communicates to employees
is closely associated with employee injuries. Some of the comments related to
organisational safety policy are as follows:
“Safety is written in company’s policy but I do not see any of the policy applied
when needed”.
“They write the company’s safety policy in Arabic and most of us do not speak
or read in Arabic”.
“They just showed me where to sign my contract and they did not give me
chance to read it”.
“I could not understand any of the company policy, all what I know I have to
get the job done or I will be back to my country”.
“The safety is not the company priority”.
These person-related experiences demonstrate that some residential construction
companies do not view safety as an important issue. Yet, safety climate fosters
constructive effects on safety behaviour and performance which appears to be overlooked
by management.

5.5 Preventative measures, safety training and equipment

Workers safety compliance and participation relies on providing safety knowledge and
safety motivation (Heath, 1982; Gillen et al., 2003; Christian et al., 2009; Wilkins, 2011;
Panuwatwanich et al., 2016). In regards to preventative measures, 77% of respondents
stated that not all workers wear safety gear, 78% of employees are not equipped for their
jobs, and 79% do not have resources available to them to complete their work safely.
These staggering numbers bring into question the employees’ understanding of safety
and highlight how employers are not fulfilling their safety obligations. It also points to
the need for a larger governmental role in enforcing safety measures within the
workplace. To clarify further, the percentage of workers who received formal safety
training in the participating firms is only 39%. Apparently, majority of workers do not
receive training on health and safety related issues to their job. Although, 76% of
respondents did mention receiving first aid training only 29% indicated that they had
access to first aid kits at work. Only 22% of workers felt they were properly equipped to
perform their job. Moreover, only 21% had all the resources needed to complete their
work safely. Furthermore, only 23% reported that all members of the organisation wear
safety gear (Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) such as hard hats, safety glasses,
gloves, face shields, etc.).
When workers were asked, “Why you do not wear safety gear?” the responses were
as follows:
“The company did not provide us with any of PPE”.
“Old employees they have their own PPE and they share it with us because
when I got hired they did not give me”.
“The tools they provide me were not the right size and fit, actually it makes my
work even more difficult and slow, so I decide to not wear them”.
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

5.6 Safety meetings and inspections

Participants were asked if they attend safety meetings or if they are allowed to be on a
safety committee. None of the participants attended safety meetings or sat on safety
committees, and many indicated it was the first time they had heard about this idea.
The respondents were asked about the frequency of safety inspections conducted by
either the employers or the project manager to ensure that conformity to OHS at the
construction site. The results show that 5% of the firms conduct these inspections
weekly, 1% monthly, 5% semi-annually, 9% annually, 9% always, and 71% never. The
results show that the majority of the employers do not conduct safety inspections.

5.7 Safety incentives and penalties

A positive safety climate is found to encourage better safety practices by rewarding
safety behaviour (Neal and Griffin, 2002; Gillen et al., 2003; Christian et al., 2009;
Panuwatwanich et al., 2016). Along these lines, the respondents were asked to indicate
whether or not their firms rewarded or penalised them for their safe or unsafe behaviour.
32% said that the firms encourage them to complete their job safely. 25% indicated that
they are encouraged to follow the company’s safety policy. 35% of the firms’ reward
workers for acting safely and/or penalise them for violating safety instructions.

6 Discussion

In many cases, the finding of this study are consistent with the extent literature of
construction site safety (Heath, 1982; Jannadia and Assaf, 1998; Gillen et al., 2003;
Lauver, 2007; Kevin, 2008; Christian et al., 2009; Wilkins, 2011; Alasamri et al., 2012;
Badwylan, 2014; Enshassi and AlSwaity, 2015; Khasawneh, 2014; Mosly, 2015;
Panuwatwanich et al., 2016) in SA. For instance, as Badwylan (2014) mentioned the
leniency of employers towards implementing a safe and healthy environment and the
lack of concern to protect worker’s rights is also discovered from the experiences of
workers in these construction sites. They indicate that they do not know what safety
measures the company endorses. There are no indications of safety meetings, training or
safety equipment provided for the workers. Respondents clearly indicate that employers
have ignored many forms of safety policies or procedures. Participants’ responses reveal
that employers generally believe that workers should be responsible for themselves,
hence, there is no need to emphasise safety because it is in the workers’ best interest to
take their own precautionary measures to ensure personal safety. This environment as
indicated by Enshassi and AlSwaity (2015) would contribute to a stressful environment
harmful to workers health and safety.
There seems to be little consideration regarding risks or precautionary/safety
measures during the design stages of construction projects, which saves employers the
costs that would be associated with instituting safer procedures (Badwylan, 2014). Our
findings indicate that as long as employees complete their tasks and the project is
completed successfully, employees keep their jobs and continue to the next project;
therefore, employers focus on completing the job rather than instituting safety standards.
The employer’s main focus is the company’s economic health, not the health and well-
being of its employees. Since the owners and managers of these family-owned
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

construction companies generally inherit their positions, their lack of focus on safety
educational measures is based on learning from the past practice of their fathers or other
senior family members.
Although employers and managers were not asked to complete this survey, results
from the employee respondents suggested that employers do not enforce or advocate
safety within their firms. Charehzehi and Ahankoob (2012) had found that management
commitment ensures the implementation of a positive safety culture. However, this
commitment was not found by the employers of these five construction sites. Although
employers are well aware that all their employees are foreigners, they do not provide
safety policies to their workers in their native languages. They employ guest workers as
construction employees with little or no education and do not offer further education in
regards to company policy on safety measures. A total of 42% of respondents indicated
that they have not read and understood the company’s safety policy. A total of 76% of
respondents stated that they have issues and concerns about safety policies, and 61% of
the employees were not trained on health and safety issues. While 76% of the employees
were trained on first aid procedures, 71% did not have access to first aid kits while at
work, which suggests another area where employers did not meet their safety obligations.
In terms of routine and timely safety inspections, Jannadia and Assaf (1998) had
found that small construction sites worse safety records compared to large projects. A
lack of enforcement has been found to play an important role in safety climate
sustainability (Heath, 1982; Gillen et al., 2003; Christian et al., 2009; Wilkins, 2011). We
found that 71% of the employees indicated that their employers had never performed any
sort of safety inspection and 11% of employees stated that they had been told to not
report an injury. These staggering numbers only amplify the carelessness and neglect of
employers. Finally, 65% of respondents stated they were not rewarded for safe acts or
penalised for unsafe behaviour at their workplace, 68% indicated that they were not
encouraged to complete the job safely, and 75% were not encouraged to follow safety
policies. Employers should be a positive influence that supports the workers, and an
overall role model for the company. By disregarding or neglecting employee safety and
threatening workers’ job security, employers are failing to uphold the personal health and
safety of their employees. The only way to assist these employees and protect them from
physically unsafe environments may be through government regulation enforced upon
employers; however, even this form of protection seems to be lacking in Najran.
The Ministry of Labour is entitled to govern, regulate and enforce construction site
safety by overseeing health and safety laws in Saudi Arabia. The ministry lacks an
investigative team and relies on the local police to investigate any workplace accident. A
serious problem with this system is that the police are not specifically qualified or trained
on international standards of workplace health and safety. Moreover, results of the
research suggest that inspectors are not sufficiently present in the sites which means that
the regulation and enforcement of laws is not under any form of surveillance. Without
regular enforcement or penalties for breaking laws, along with perceptions of
favouritism, small construction companies in Najran choose whether or not to implement
the stated laws within their field of work. Rotation of inspectors is necessary as this
leniency often means health and safety risk for workers.
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

7 Conclusion

This paper explored worker’s views across five small construction sites to explore their
perceptions of the safety climate of their workplaces and understand whether or not their
employers tend to follow construction safety regulations or not. We conclude that
worker’s experiences demonstrate that workplace health and safety regulations are not
systematically enforced, largely due to lack of an adequate system of workplace
inspection. Findings suggest that some of the major factors contributing to the lack of
enforcement of legislation and the lack of implementing precautionary safety measures in
the construction workplace environment is related to the fact that workplaces often
consist of a multicultural environment largely comprised of outsourced workers, with no
local Saudi Arabian citizen in the construction work force. These guest workers mainly
speak other languages and have limited understanding of the national language of the
country. However, companies reap the benefits as this outsourced labour is cheap. These
workers have little or no education, their employment options are limited and job security
is the workers’ main concern. They need their jobs in order to survive and send money
home to their families in other countries. Although aware of the circumstances they work
in, their focus is not creating problems, performing their tasks quickly and efficiently,
and making sure they have strong relationships with other workers, which is crucial to
safety, performance and remaining employed. Many of the elements of a safe work
climate are related to management and supervisory activities. We conclude that job risk
is influenced by management practices, depending on how the work is organised by
management.
Our findings contribute to construction science and practice by providing factors on
how workers feel about these elements of the safety climate. Workers’ perceptions and
experiences in these work sites may help researchers, policy makers, construction
company owners and managers not only better understand the current situation of the
small construction safety climate, but facilitate change at the micro and macro levels of
the environment. Since the overall organisational climate is an important precursor to
safety motivation, knowledge, performance, and safety outcomes then studying the safety
climate from the perspective of the one’s working in it, and who are affected the most is
an important first step towards understanding and taking precautions to improve
construction site safety in small construction sites.

8 Limitations of study and future research

There were several limitations within this research. Firstly, the location of the research in
Najran, Saudi Arabia represents a convenience sample, meant to more generally
represent small and medium sized cities in Saudi Arabia. It is possible that findings might
be different if the survey were administered in other cities. Secondly, the research
focused only on residential construction sites. This is a very small sample and not
representative of the available construction sites in SA. If other types of construction
sites had been selected, different results might have occurred. Thirdly, the survey
instrument was available only in Arabic and English. Workers who could not read either
of these two languages were excluded from the study, so the results may not be
representative.
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

Future research should validate the findings of this research in similar construction
site companies in other cities across Saudi Arabia. It would be interesting to see if the
perceptions and experiences of construction site workers in this study would be similar in
other settings. In addition, this study included five construction sites, gathering more
insight from workers in different construction sites in different cities of Saudi Arabia
would be an interesting research opportunity. Finally, using the integrative model of
workplace safety in a comparative analysis of the current findings with those reported in
the literature for other countries and other construction environments is an opportunity
for future research.

References
Alasamri, H., Chrisp M.T. and Bowles G. (2012) ‘A framework for enhancing and improving the
safety culture on Saudi construction sites’, in Smith, S.D. (Ed.): Proceedings 28th Annual
ARCOM Conference, Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
3–5 September, Edinburgh, UK.
Al-Kaabi, N. and Hadipriono, F. (2003) ‘Construction safety performance in the United Arab
Emirates’, Civil Engineering and Environmental Systems, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp.197–212.
Almutairi, S. (2012) ‘GOSI’s adoption of occupational health and safety’, Paper presented at the
International Seminar of Social Security: Coping With the Challenges of Sustainability, Saudi
Arabia.
Alolah, T., Stewart, R.A., Panuwatwanich, K. and Mohamed, S. (2014) ‘Developing a
comprehensive safety performance evaluation framework for Saudi schools’, International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, Vol. 63, No. 4, pp.446–476.
Aronson, J. (1994) ‘A pragmatic view of thematic analysis’, The Qualitative Report, Vol. 2, No. 1,
Spring. Available online at: http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html
(accessed on 16 September 2015).
Badwylan, B. (2014) ‘Representative of the international union of engineers: 90% of the projects in
the kingdom without safety engineers’, Almadina Newspaper. Available online at:
http://www.al-madina.com/node/563759 (accessed on 25 October 2014).
Berger, H. (2008) Study finds safety poor on KSA sites. Available online at: http://www.
arabianbusiness.com/507489-study-finds-safety-poor-on-ksa-sites (accessed on 15 March
2015).
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) ‘Using thematic analysis in psychology’, Qualitative Research in
Psychology, Vol. 3, pp.77–101.
Central Department of Statistics and Information (2011) Census results. Available online at:
http://www.cdsi.gov.sa/2010-07-31-07-00-05/cat_view/31-/138----/342---1431-2010/300
(accessed on 1 March 2015).
Charehzehi, A. and Ahankoob, A. (2012) ‘Enhancement of safety performance at construction
site’, International Journal of Advances in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 5, pp.303–312.
Christian, M.S., Bradley, J.C., Wallace, J.C. and Burke, M.J. (2009) ‘Workplace safety: a meta-
analysis of the roles of person and situation factors’, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 94,
No. 5, pp.1103–1127.
Cunningham, T.R., Sinclair, R. and Schulte, P. (2014) ‘Better understanding the small business
construct to advance research on delivering workplace health and safety’, Small Enterprise
Research, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.148–160.
Enshassi, A. and AlSwaity, E. (2015) ‘Key stressors leading to construction professional’s stress in
the Gaza Strip Palestine’, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 20, No. 2,
pp.53–79.
 Construction site safety in small construction companies in Saudi Arabia

Gillen, M., Kools, S., McCall, C., Sum, J. and Mouldenc, K. (2003) ‘Construction manager’s
perceptions of construction safety practices in small and large firms: a qualitative
investigation’, Journal of Prevention, Assessment and Rehabilitation, Vol. 23, No. 3,
pp.233–243.
Heath, E.D. (1982) ‘Requirements for employers to provide training and education in occupational
safety and health for workers’, Training & Development Journal, Vol. 36, No. 9, p.74.
Hemamalinie, A., Jeyaarthi, A.J. and Ramajeyam, L. (2014) ‘Behavioural based safety culture in
the construction industry’, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced
Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.45–50.
Ikediashi, D.I., Ogunlana, S.O and Alotaibi, A. (2014) ‘Analysis of project failure factors for
infrastructure projects in Sadi Arabia: multivariate approach’, Journal of Construction in
Developing Countries, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp.35–52.
Jannadia, M.O. and Assaf, S. (1998) ‘Safety assessment in the built environment of Saudi Arabia’,
Safety Science, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp.15–24.
Kevin, S. (2008) ‘The effects of leadership in the high hazard construction sector: injuries and
fatalities an issue of leadership and not hazard’, Journal of Leadership and Management in
Engineering, April, pp.72–76.
Khasawneh, A. (2014) ‘Improving occupational health and workplace safety in Saudi Arabia’,
International Journal of Development and Sustainability, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.261–267.
Lauver, K.J. (2007) ‘Human resource safety practices and employee injuries’, Journal of
Managerial Issues, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp.397–413.
Mosly, I. (2015) ‘Safety performance in the construction industry of Saudi Arabia’, International
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp.238–247.
Neal, A. and Griffin, M.A. (2002) ‘Safety climate and safety behavior’, Australian Journal of
Management, Vol. 27, pp.67–76.
Panuwatwanich, K., Al-Haadir, S. and Stewart, R.A. (2016) ‘Influence of safety motivation and
climate on safety behaviour and outcomes: evidence from the Saudi Arabian construction
industry’, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, DOI:
10.1080/10803548.2016.1235424.
Salas, E., Sims, D.E. and Burke, C.S. (2005) ‘Is there a “Big Five” in teamwork?’ Small Group
Research, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp.555–599.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S. and Fong, D. (1999) ‘Factors affecting safety performance on construction
sites’, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 17, No. 5, pp.309–315.
Siu, O., Phillips, D. and Leung, T. (2004) ‘Safety climate and safety performance among
construction workers in Hong Kong. The role of psychological strains as mediators’, Accident
Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 36, No. 3, pp.359–366.
Shamsuddin, K.A., Ani, M.N.C., Ismail, A.K. and Ibrahim, M.R. (2015) ‘Investigation the Safety,
Health and Environment (SHE) protection in construction area’, International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp.624–636.
Somavia, J. (2003) Safety in numbers, International Labour Organization. Available online at:
http://www.ilo.org/legacy/english/protection/safework/worldday/report_eng.pdf (accessed on
25 October 2014).
Wilkins, J.R. (2011) ‘Construction workers’ perceptions of health and safety training programmes’,
Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 29, No. 10, pp.1017–1026.
 M.S. Erogul and M.M. Alyami

Appendix
1. How many years have you been working in construction?
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More than 10
2. Were you trained on health and safety standards? YES NO
3. Have you read and understood the company’s safety policy? YES NO
4a. Do you have any issues or concerns about the company’s safety
YES NO
policy?
4b. If yes, please comment:
5a. Does your company enforce health and safety rules? YES NO
5b. If yes, how?
6a. Do you have access to first aid kits at work? YES NO
6b. If yes, do you know where they are? YES NO
7a. Did you receive first aid training? YES NO
7b. If yes, what level was it? LEVEL 1 LEVEL 2 LEVEL 3
8a. Have you ever been injured at work? YES NO
8b. If yes, how many times? 1 2 3 4 More than 4
8c. Did any of these injuries require first aid? YES NO
8d. Did you ever lose pay for missing work due to injury? YES NO
9. Have you ever been told not to report an injury? YES NO
10a. Have you ever witnessed an accident at work? YES NO
10b. If yes, what happened?
11. Do you attend safety meetings? YES NO
12. Does your employer complete monthly safety inspections? YES NO
13. Are you allowed to be on a safety committee? YES NO
14. How often does your Weekly Monthly Semi-annual Annual Always
employer perform safety
inspections?
15. Do you ever feel intimidated to voice your concerns? YES NO
16. How often have you Weekly Monthly Semi-annual Annual Always
reported safety hazards?
17. Are you encouraged to complete your job safely? YES NO
18. Are you encouraged to follow the company’s safety policy? YES NO
19. Is there a reward for acting safely or a penalty for unsafe
YES NO
behaviour?
20. Are you properly equipped to perform your job? YES NO
21. Do you have all the resources to complete your work safely? YES NO
22a. Do all members of the organisation wear safety gear? YES NO
22b. If not, why?
23. Do you feel safe at work? YES NO