Comparative Study of Health and Safety on Construction Sites in Canada and China

ByGabriel Lavoie

1st Cohort: 2011-2013

Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

II. Methodology .............................................................................................................................

6

III. Comparison of Theoretical Norms in Construction Health and Safety ……………....................... 7

III.1 Governing Bodies ....................................................................................................... 7

III.2 Safety Training ........................................................................................................... 8

III.3 Inspection .................................................................................................................. 9

III.4 Enforcement ........................................................................................................... 10

III.5 Standards ..................................................................................................... ............ 11

IV. Comparison of Practical Observations on Construction Health and Safety .......................... 12

IV.1 Safety Training ……………........................................................................................... 12

IV.2 Heights Safety .......................................................................................................... 14

IV.3 Environmental Safety ...............................................................................................

16

IV.4 Safety Equipment .....................................................................................................

19

IV.5 Inspections and Corruption ..................................................................................... 22

V. Summary of Findings .............................................................................................................. 23

References .................................................................................................................................. 25

Annex 1: Sample Interview Sheet ………………………….................................................................... 27

Annex 2: Sample Observation Checklist ………………….................................................................. 29

Be they houses, temples or palaces, buildings are one of the fundamental expressions of

civilization. Requiring cooperation among many to achieve a common goal, they are, in and of

themselves, a testimony to human ingenuity and cooperation.

However, when one walks through the dome of a cathedral, stands atop a tall skyscraper, or

walks besides a ruined fortification, it is easy to be so amazed by the scale of the building, by the genius

of the engineering that went into the structure, that one forgets about the humans behind it, the

dozens, hundreds or ever thousands who labored, bled and sometimes even died to achieve what we

see before us.

Throughout the ages, the value of human life has varied greatly, from nearly worthless to having

immeasurable value. Despite this, loss of human life is rarely beneficial; after all, loss of experienced and

qualified labor is never good for either productivity or for the final quality of a work. As such, for as long

as humans have been putting their lives in danger to build things, they have been trying to ensure that

they survive the experience. However, it is not until the rise of syndication in the West that a

generalized movement towards ensuring worker safety appeared. This movement, originally based

around the syndicates themselves, was, in many states, eventually absorbed into the state's health

policies, leading to the present day structure of national and even international regulations on health in

safety on construction sites.

Indeed, today in the West, ensuring the continued health and safety of the workforce is one of

the primary concerns of most corporations. Although it could be said that this is mostly the result of the

growing concern for human life that began in Occident during the Enlightenment, simple economics, as

well as basic human nature, seems to point to a rather more mundane motivation, profit. As could be

expected, the unplanned reduction of the qualified workforce through accidents is not profitable for any

corporation, as it results in a loss of productivity and, often, other associated consequences such as

disability pay, lawsuits and bad publicity. This is the primary reason for safety measures within the

corporate environment itself, particularly for any safety measures going beyond what is dictated by the

state. Indeed, at least in the West, the moral imperative behind ensuring health and safety falls mostly

upon the state itself, whose values, including the preservation of human life and the elimination of

needless suffering, are those shared, at least theoretically, by a majority of the population due to

widespread education based on a post-Enlightenment, Christian valued system. Public pressure is

therefore the primary motivation behind the creation of state based regulation on health and safety.

From a Western point of view, it is therefore easy to think that developing countries, which, on

average, have less stringent safety norms, also attribute less value to human life than developed ones.

Although this might be true, as in many of them there was no major social revolution which drastically

increased the perceived value of human life amongst the general population, this would be dismissing

the most probable reason for this discrepancy: the relatively small size of the educated labour force.

Indeed, as was the case during the Industrial Revolution in the West, the value of uneducated and

unqualified labour is relatively unimportant; accidents cause little loss in productivity, as the labour can

easily be replaced, and minimal monetary loss, as the individuals are either too poor or lack sufficient

education to conduct legal action against the corporation. Furthermore, the uneducated proletariat is

often ineffective as political forces due to its inability to critically evaluate information provided to it and

to organise itself into effective pressure groups, and is therefore more or less powerless to force their

governments to create new legal norms, and even more so when contrasted to the large socio-economic

influence the corporations they oppose exert on the governments.

Because of this, the worksite health and safety of workers only improves when doing so results

in an increase in profit for the corporations, including when striking and other forms of protest result in

too large a loss of productivity, or when a third party becomes involved in the situation, be it local

intellectuals or foreign influence. With the rise of an educated middle class in the developing world,

resulting in the increase of costs associated with accident and an increase in the socio-political influence

of the workforce, as well as the globalisation of the economy and the growing social awareness in most

of the world (resulting in loss of profit when customers refuse to associate with corporations who

mistreat their employees), it is probable that a dramatic increase in the stringency of security norms will

soon be observed in the developing world, and this tendency is already evident in places such as China,

where many corporations are actively enforcing stricter regulations than the national ones in an effort to

improve their image and limit bad press associated with worksite accidents. Indeed, although there is

room for improvement, the situation is often not as bad as what is believed in the Western world, which

is an image influenced solely by the worst cases, which are the only ones of sufficient magnitude to be

publicized outside of China.

With that said, accidents still happen. Indeed, in both nations, construction remains one of the

most accident prone industries, with construction being the industry with the largest proportion of

worksite accidents in Canada with around 24.4 accidents per 1000 workers per year (slightly more than

manufacturing sector with 24/1000 workers) and second most in China based on governmental

evaluation, with the only industry having a worst ratio being manufacturing, largely due to the public

nature of the former making accidents all the more evident in the public eye, and therefore, all the more

damaging for a company’s image.

The purpose of the present document will therefore be to provide a summary and comparison

of the state of health and safety on construction sites in Canada and the People’s Republic of China. This

analysis will be conducted in two segments: first, an analysis of the norms and regulations in place in

both nations forming the groundwork of worksite health and safety, and second, an analysis of the

practical application of these norms, based on practical observations and interviews with local experts in

the field of health and safety.

II. Methodology

This analysis and comparison of health and safety within the construction industries of Canada

and China is divided into two segments, a theoretical and a practical one. In both cases, the relevant

information was obtained through three processes, namely analysis of theoretical documents,

interviews with experts within the field and practical observations on construction sites.

First, to find the basic information required for the theoretical analysis, the primary documents

from both nations, including their respective labour codes and occupational safety regulations where

analysed, thereby providing basic information relative to the governing bodies, the enforcement

methods, the legal obligations of employers and employees and the various standards in each nation.

Furthermore, this was complemented by analysis of said standards, including those related to the

various specifications of protective equipment, fire and electrical safety as well as scaffold assembly.

Moreover, information relating to the different health impacts of hazards found in construction,

including sound, asbestos and volatile solvents, was obtained from the websites of the World Health

Organisation and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as from other published articles. Finally,

some information that proved difficult to find through written sources, such as the manner in which

safety inspections and training were conducted in each state, as well as how different groups in each

nation influenced the creation of regulations, were obtained through interviewing experts in both

nations. An example of the set of questions asked during these interviews is presented in Annex 1.

Second, to conduct the practical comparison, factual evidence from different sites was obtained

primarily through direct observations of different construction sites in each nation. Most of these were

conducted on a formal basis, using the observation checklist presented in Annex 2, allowing for

observation of the application of the different standards, especially those relating to the wear of safety

equipment and to ensuring a safe working environment through building safe structures (including

scaffolding) and limiting potential exposure to dangers including fire, electric and chemical hazards.

Additionally, some observations were conducted informally, without use of a full checklist, because the

conditions did not allow for a full observation of a site, often because only a few tasks were being

conducted or could be observed on said site. However, taken as a whole, the sum of these observations

allowed for the practical analysis of the application of health and safety norms on the smaller types of

sites, including renovation and rural project. Finally, when practical information could not be observed,

such as that related to the relative frequency of corruption amongst the inspectors or to the actual

quality of the safety equipment used, it was obtained during the interviews with each nation’s experts.

III. Comparison of Theoretical Norms in Construction Health and Safety

As in all things relating to legal matters, there is, in construction health and safety, a distinction

between what should theoretically be done, and what is actually done in reality. Indeed, no matter what

the actual state of health and safety in either nation is in practice, the system of rules and regulations

which codifies and enforces it remains an integral part of the health and safety system, representing in a

way the ultimate objective that the nation sets for itself, and therefore, a global comparison between

states must include discussion on this aspect. Thus, this section represents a rapid comparison of the

primary theoretical elements for health and safety in construction in both Canada and China.

III.1 Governing Bodies

To begin, before concrete analysis of health and safety standards on construction sites and

Canada and China can be conducted, it is important to note what group, or series of groups, are

responsible for these policies in both nations. Indeed, in both states, worksite health and safety are

state based concerns, and, as such, ultimately under jurisdiction of their respective governments, which

are the primary source of regulations and the final arbitrator and enforcer of said regulations within

their borders. However, distinctions exist in how the regulation system is structured, as well as in how

the responsibility is shared between the different levels of government in each nation.

Indeed, in China, rather distinctively to most other state, there is no single central database for

the regulation system, and no general background law to support the regulations themselves, as the

China Workplace Safety Law only deals with the general and legal aspects of health and safety in every

industry, and the Construction Law of the People’s Republic of China mostly only covers the safety of a

building after it has been built as well as regulations regarding the elimination of the possible health

impacts of building on the surrounding populations, while only mentioning that the corporations are

responsible for the health and lives of the employees on their sites, and that said employees are allowed

to make suggestions for improvements and to press charges in the event of an accident.

Due to this, ensuring proper health and safety on construction sites in China is therefore based

solely on the application of individual standards, which are approved by the Ministry of Construction.

These standards are often inspired by, or taken wholly, from the standards of other states, and can be

further modified or clarified in their application by policy announcements. However, due to the

structure of the Chinese government, more than a dozen governmental agencies (including the

overarching State Council as well as the provincial and city governments and their individual

Construction Committees) can make these modifications on any single standard and, due to the

impossibility of maintaining perfect communication in such a large bureaucracy, these modifications can

sometimes be contradictory or remain largely unpublicized even within the same city.

This structure is in direct contrast to that of Canada, where the primary document for health

and safety in construction (and in any other field) is a single, formal document, known as the Canada

Occupational Health and Safety Regulation (OHSR). This document, published by the government of

Canada and regularly updated, provides both the basic health and safety regulations on any given field,

such as the minimal equipment or conditions required for conducting various operations, as well as

basic regulations on first-aid in industry in addition to providing a list of what standards and regulations

apply for each sector of industry. It does not, however, contain information pertaining to the legal

aspect of worksite incidents, which is itself described under part II of the Canada Labour Code (CLC),

which pertains to the legal obligations of both employees and employers relative to health and safety,

and any legal sanctions that may come from breaching said obligations. However, because health and

labour are both provincial concerns, every province can add to any federal document, creating their own

set of regulations, such as the Occupational Health and Safety Act of Ontario and the Loi sur la Santé et

Sécurité au Travail of Quebec.

As for the standards used in Canada, they are, similarly to China, usually adopted on the national

level, and tend to closely model those used in the United-States. However, some aspects of the

standards used in construction (and therefore, health and safety in said field) can vary between

provinces, as the building code is also unique to each of them, and although the differences are usually

minimal, some oddities can appear, such as the fact that Quebec’s regulation on the maximal sound

intensity one is allowed to be exposed to for a period of 8 hours (85 db) is lower than the Canadian

federal standard (87 db), itself being lower than the standard of all other provinces (90 db). Due to this,

safety equipment is often rated to the highest standard across the nation.

Moreover, in both states, pressure groups, including industrial lobbies and worker groups or

unions (of which there is only one in China, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions) also exert

considerable influence on the adoption of new policies, both through direct pressure on the State and

through influencing the public opinion. As could be expected, the actual influence wielded by each of

these groups varies immensely, but, taken as a whole, they represent one of the primary factors

influencing how governments shape their health and safety policies.

III.2 Safety Training

The basis of any functioning legal system is circulation of information; if individuals are to follow

norms, they must first learn what behaviours they have to avoid or favor to respect it. As such, training

is a central pillar of health and safety, and the principal manner in which prevention is conducted.

In China, officials are obligated to follow regular training course to keep up to date on evolving

regulations, and to inform workers under them of any relevant information. Furthermore, workers have

to be trained in the safe use of any equipment they are expected to use in their work, and any employer

is forced to divulge any and all probable hazards that a worker may face when on a site, as well as to

provide information relative to preventive and emergency measures. The situation is similar in Canada,

where employers are forced to provide complete safety training for any task carried out by their

employees, as well as to inform them of any potential hazards to their health. However, only field

supervisors are required to follow safety training, with higher executives not needing to follow any kind

of safety training unless they intend to inspect or work on a construction site. Furthermore, employers

in both nations are obligated by law to freely provide (and enforce the wear of) any required safety

equipment for their workers, and this safety equipment must conform to the standards in place.

III.3 Inspection

Next, in both states, the primary, and arguably most efficient, method of enforcing the

regulations is inspection, and although both states have had scandals in the past related to the quality of

said inspections, the overall importance of inspection remains unchanged, and it is still an important

factor in preventing incidents and injuries, both for the workers and future users of a building.

In China, inspections are conducted at three different levels. First, the corporations themselves

maintain inspectors within their personnel, who inspect the worksites daily or weekly to ensure that the

work is being conducted adequately and safely for the rest of the personnel. They generally remain on a

single large site and keep records of every inspection, to facilitate tracking the evolution of issues and to

identify recurring problems for future training needs. As could be expected, these individuals do not

issue fines to their own corporations, but simply make recommendations to solve issues. Second,

regional inspectors intermittently visit the sites under their jurisdiction, conducting a general inspection

of the sites and penalizing breaches in the regulations, usually by giving an ultimatum to solve the issue

before giving the corporation a fine. Finally, national inspectors go around the country, doing surprise

visits of sites more or less at random (corporations with a history of bad practices tend to be visited

more often than others), and although they wield the same legal power as the regional inspectors, they

represent the ultimate authority on the matter.

Canada follows a similar system, although construction inspection is mostly a provincial matter.

Indeed, although federal regulation forms the basis, as each province maintains its own construction

and labour code, the highest level of enforcement is provincial. As in China, inspectors visit corporations

mostly at random, and enforce the regulations through fines and ultimatums. Moreover, city inspectors

in Canada fulfill much the same role as regional inspectors in China, having the right to suspend the

construction permit for any worksite under their jurisdiction, and to levy fines in the event of non-

compliance with the law. Finally, unlike China, very few construction corporations in Canada maintain a

detachment of trained inspectors, relying more on the expertise of the trained personnel on each site.

III.4 Enforcement

As mentioned above, enforcement of health and safety (as well as general construction

regulations) is done in an identical manner in both states, through stopping work on a site and the use of

ultimatums and fines until matters are resolved, as well as with direct fines in the event of accidents.

However, the subjects, as well as the amount, of the fines differ in both states, and ever within them.

Indeed, in Canada, although removal of the construction permit until matters are solved is often

the preferred course of action, fines can also be levied, both for actions that contravene the health and

safety regulations and for actions that directly endanger the health or lives of individuals, with the latter

being subject to harsher fines. Moreover, Canada distinguishes between a physical person and a moral

person, with the latter being subject to larger fines. Finally, although the CLC prescribes maximal fines

and sentences ($1,000,000 and/or two years of imprisonment) that can be levied for failure to respect

health and safety norms, the fines themselves are a provincial matter, and so vary across Canada.

China, on the other hand, usually only fines employers (but does not distinguish between

individuals and corporations), although some infractions, such as refusing to provide funds for ensuring

safety or signing a contract exempting the employer from liability in the event of an accident, may result

in fines to the corporation as well as all investors on a given project, regardless of their knowledge or

approval of the actions. However, the fines themselves tend to be much smaller in China, with fines

ranging from 20,000¥ to 200,000¥ (the exchange rate from the Renminbi to the Canadian dollar is

around 6:1), and although individuals may be forced to step down from their positions, they cannot be

imprisoned unless their actions also constitute a criminal act.

III.5 Standards

As for the standards and regulations themselves, in theory, the standards in China are often

quite similar to those in place in Canada. This could come as a surprise, seeing as the accident rate

(especially for fatal ones) is greater in China, but the latter is due more to differences in how they are

enforced than to any real difference in standards, which have improved dramatically in China in the last

years as public pressure, both internal and foreign, has forced industries and the government to bring

them up to international levels.

Indeed, from the standpoint of construction, the basic standards related to health and safety,

including the obligation of employers to provide adequate protective equipment whose rating matches

or exceeds that demanded by the standards, are similar in both nations. Therefore, helmets, work boots

(usually with steel toe and sole protectors) and work gloves are required in most construction work in

both states, with China being slightly less stringent on who needs to wear certain pieces of equipment,

notably protective footwear, which is only required for some trades, including bricklaying, masonry, iron

working and steel fixing, rather than for everyone on a construction site.

Moreover, more specialised pieces of equipment, including air filters, eye protection, insulated

clothing as well as hearing protection are required in both states for specialized tasks involving exposure

to noise, flying debris, high temperature or high concentrations of airborne particles, such as

jackhammering, indoor painting, sanding and welding. However, here again, China is slightly less

demanding: hearing protection is never a required piece of equipment for any task in China (although

noise exposure regulations make it required for some tasks), and insulated welding equipment is only

required for arc welding rather than for all types. The safety standards the equipment are required to

meet are also similar, with only some small differences in the magnitude of the forces the equipment

needs to be able to safely absorb.

Furthermore, other basic safety norms, such as requiring railing and toe boards on scaffolding

over a certain height (2m in China and 3m in Canada), requiring safety nets on construction sites at a set

interval (no more than 4.6 or 30 m under a construction level for most of Canada and China respectively)

as well as requiring the indication of possible environmental hazards through clear and evident signage,

are similar in both nations, and it is evident that the purpose of these regulations is the same in both

cases, with only some differences in the specific requirements of the law.

IV. Comparison of Practical Observations on Construction Health and Safety

Although it can be said that in theory the legislation for health and safety regulations of Canada

and China are quite similar, their actual application often differs greatly, and is far from consistent even

within the same nation. Indeed, most serious work accidents are the result of a dramatic increase in the

consequences of otherwise benign human accidents due to improper application of the safety

regulations in place. As such, serious work accidents tend to be more common and more severe on sites

where either the work itself is willingly conducted in an unsafe manner, or the inspections are not

carried out adequately, thereby allowing involuntary breaches in the safety regulations to persist.

Because of this, although analysis of the theoretical laws in regulations in place in both nations

can provide some information about the relative state of health and safety in both nations, they cannot,

by themself, provide a complete comparison on the status of health and safety on construction sites in

both nations. It is therefore logical that another point of comparison between both states concern how

health and safety regulations are followed in practice rather than on the regulations themselves. The

primary practical elements of comparison between health and safety in the Chinese and Canadian

construction industries will therefore be the practical application of the most important areas of

regulation, namely the nature of the safety training given to employees, the application of heights safety

and protective equipment regulations, the presence of environmental dangers and the quality of

inspections. Please note however that this comparison is a generalisation based solely upon anecdotal

evidence collected from my observations as well as those of health and safety experts and other

individuals of the construction industry from both China and Canada, and therefore only represents a

rough indicator of the relative health and safety practices of both nations.

IV.1 Safety Training

As was mentioned earlier, one of the primary tasks of employers in both nations is providing

safety training for their employees. In Canada, the great majority of construction corporations provide

training for their employees, to ensure proper use of safety equipment and adequate knowledge of

potential dangers on a construction site. This training mostly concerns safety from the standpoint of the

tasks conducted by a given employee as well as general construction site safety norms, and is often

done in an unofficial manner through pairing and communication with more experienced workers or

supervisors, and, although the training can be inconsistent at times, it is for the most part effective in

limiting accidents, as the practical context facilitates integration of knowledge and techniques and the

mentor role encourages experienced workers to work in a safer manner to be good models. In addition

to this, larger corporations in Canada also hold training seminars for employees to ensure that they

remain up to date on safety practices, especially if the regulations have changed, and to provide safety

information on unusual scenarios that employees may not have experience facing, including safety

protocols for working (or ceasing work) in dangerous weather including high winds, hail or freezing rain.

Large corporations in China follow a similar method, with employees being trained on-site based

on the needs of their specific work as well as on basic safety regulations relative to the construction site

environment. However, in China, as the law requires that employees be trained by safety experts, the

training tends to be of a more theoretical than practical nature, although the latter is often gained over-

time through working with more experienced workers. Nevertheless, because this practical training is

entirely informal, young workers often also perpetuate bad habits taken from older workers, who do not

feel they are responsible for the training. Interestingly, many large Chinese corporations also regularly

test the basic safety knowledge of all their workers through written exams, with individuals failing said

exams being forbidden from working on a construction site until they obtain additional safety training

and pass the test again.

However, in China, smaller corporations, especially those operating in rural areas, tend not to

provide any safety training to their employees. This is further compounded by the relative lack of

education amongst the rural and migrant workers that compose a large segment of the workforce of

smaller corporations, which reduces both their awareness to potential dangers and their willingness to

seek training. As could be expected, this often leads to disproportionately high rates of accidents.

Another element of general safety on construction site is the creation and communication of

emergency plans. Indeed, both in Canada and in China, the great majority of construction corporations

establish at least a single, but usually a few to account for different events, basic emergency plans for

their worksites, which include standard emergency measures such as evacuation planning and

containment protocol for any potentially dangerous compounds stored or used on site, and these plans

are then taught to every worker on any given site. In addition, most corporations ensure that at least

some individuals on each worksite are trained in first aid to provide basic assistance in the event of an

accident. However, here again, smaller corporations in China tend to not invest as much into emergency

planning, which, combined with the lack of safety training, results in relatively minor incidents such as

small fires having disproportionately large consequences.

IV.2 Heights Safety

Both in Canada and in China, the primary source of accidents on construction sites are falls from

elevated positions and impacts from falling objects, with the great majority of these occurring either

when working on or erecting scaffolds or when conducting roofing work. Indeed, although both nations

have extensive regulations on the safe erection and use of construction scaffolds, including standards for

everything from the minimal height of toe boards to the maximal amount of mass that can be supported

by a standard sized wooden board, scaffolding remains one of the segments of construction work with

the greatest proportion of infractions, possibly due to their ubiquitous nature on construction sites,

although it is important to note that there is a clear difference in the quality (and safety) of scaffold

work based on the nature of the company which conducts it and on the scale of the work, with major

construction companies and larger sites often having safer installations.

Indeed, in China, most large construction corporations, especially those working on sky scrapers

and other forms of very large urban installations, tend to take heights safety very seriously, as these

construction sites, and therefore the corporations working on them, are often in the eyes of the media

and the population, making any accidents (and especially avoidable ones) or delays due to inspectors

finding procedural errors particularly bad for their reputation. Due to this, scaffolding on these sites is

usually made of good material, almost always metal (bamboo scaffolding is legal in China, and is

cheaper, although it is harder to install correctly), and properly maintained, in contrast to rural areas

and renovation projects in which the scaffolds are either made of hastily assembled bamboo or old

material bought off from larger corporations, making their solidity inconsistent and therefore prone to

unexpected material failures. Scaffold walkways in China are uniformly made of weaved bamboo fibres,

whose quality varies but is usually decent to good on all but the most unsafe sites. Furthermore, the

scaffold installations themselves on large sites almost universally follow the prescribed standards as far

as form and presence of reinforcement components including interior and exterior bracing, while those

on smaller sites tend to forgo most of the unnecessary bracing and reinforcements to cut costs, thereby

weakening the structure, especially in the event of partial failure, in which case the remaining structure

often becomes inadequate to support the stress placed on it, and, in turn, eventually collapses.

As far as safety devices present on the scaffolds and buildings themselves, most large

corporations again follow the established regulations for installing railing on all levels that are being

worked on and properly maintained safety netting at regular intervals, while smaller sites tend to forgo

railing and netting on many sites, or include netting that provides inadequate protection, either because

it is damaged or poorly installed, hampering the even distribution of stress loads. However, strangely

enough, although all other forms of safety measures are at least present in some form on most larger

sites, toe boards, despite being mandatory on any scaffolding or working level over 8m in height, are

conspicuously absent from the great majority of sites, including world class construction projects such as

the Shanghai Tower, and although the presence of safety nets does make them more or less redundant,

the fact remains that falling objects can be extremely deadly, especially considering that horizontal

safety netting is only required every 30m in China. For instance, a standard concrete block, of a nominal

size of 8" by 8" by 16", weighs about 30 lbs.; if it falls 15 m, the impact energy is 2.0 kJ, more than the

energy of a 0.223 caliber bullet (the standard round for NATO assault rifles, with around 1.7 kJ of

energy), a painful, and probably deadly impact even if a helmet is worn due to spinal or cerebral trauma.

As for Canada, similarly to those of larger firms in China, the great majority of construction sites

maintain scaffolding of at least adequate quality, almost universally made of steel, although lighter

aluminium scaffolding is gaining in popularity amongst smaller firms. The material itself is largely made

of good quality and well maintained steel, normally of a single grade to limit miscalculations, and the

installation is at minimum up to the established standards. Indeed, the primary difference between

Canadian and Chinese scaffolds is the flooring material of choice; the Canadian construction industry

favors wood for platforms, either as timber planks or plywood, as they are relatively cheap, require little

maintenance, and give good indication of degradation (wood will visibly, and often also audibly, warp or

crack before failure). The wood essences of choice are softwoods of the spruce, pine or fir families as

well as the Douglas fir, due to their high strength to mass ratio and relatively affordable cost.

Concerning additional safety equipment, most Canadian construction sites maintain railing on all

exterior faces of worked on levels or on the adjoining scaffolding, and this railing usually integrates a toe

board at the bottom to stop unattended objects from falling onto lower levels. The exception to this are

renovation or personal work sites, which often forgo some of the railing, and rarely include a toe board

unless masonry work is being conducted. Construction sites of sufficient size also maintain safety netting

within 15 ft. of the bottom of any worked on floor, to further limit the damage caused by falling objects

and to prevent injuries in the case of falls. As could be expected, due to the much smaller maximal

distance between a work floor and a safety net, the danger posed by falling objects in Canada tends to

be lessened; for instance, using the same concrete block as the previous example, even at the maximal

possible height, the impact energy would only be 0.6 kJ, an assuredly unpleasant impact, but

nonetheless survivable with little to no long-term consequences if a helmet is worn.

IV.3 Environmental Safety

Another primary source of worksite incidents in construction is the literal mass of possible

environmental dangers, both natural and artificial, that are present on a construction site. These

represent a truly immense variety of hazards which include everything from live electrical wires, to

aerosolised dust, to dangerous chemicals, and even reckless drivers. As accounting for all these

elements is both impossible and ultimately unimportant, this document will focus on the most

important ones and the ones on which there is a clear distinction between Canada and China. Namely,

these include fire hazards, electrical hazards, dangerous atmosphere and hazardous conduct.

First, as could be expected from an industry that often deals with both flammable material and

multiple, often unsupervised, ignition sources, fires have always been, and still are, a very serious threat

in the construction industry. However, for the most part, construction sites in China and Canada apply

fire prevention norms well enough, ensuring some protection from accidental fires and greatly reducing

the consequences of such an event, both in terms of material and human costs. Indeed, on the vast

majority of sites, most flammable material is kept stored away from the general construction site until

its use is required (although this is usually due to its sensitivity to the elements in general), and any

debris is kept separate from the rest of the site, often in specially made metallic bins for ease of

disposal. Additionally, any flammable or explosive compounds (such as acetylene in welding tanks) are

usually kept away from the main construction zones, and, in larger sites in China, are even kept locked in

specially made sheds that are off the premises of the construction site itself when not in use. Moreover,

for the most part, smoking is forbidden inside any building in construction both in Canada and in China,

and these regulations are followed on the great majority of sites. The primary difference is that although

most Canadian provinces permit smoking while outside of buildings or on buildings that are not yet

enclosed (the notable exception being Prince-Edward Island), most sites in China forbid smoking not

only while on or near a building under construction, but also while anywhere on the construction site

proper. The only major exceptions to this are small construction corporations in rural areas, which tend

to permit smoking nearly everywhere, even in clearly dangerous circumstances such as while welding or

painting. In Canada, possible sources of ignition, including sparks from welding or cutting metal, are kept

under control by limiting them to controlled environments usually devoid of exposed combustible

materials. However, this is often not the case in China, where welding is often done without covering

any potentially flammable material underneath, and, worse, sometimes over other workers not

protected against the shower of superheated metal.

Next, electrical hazards represent one of the more insidious threats on constructions sites,

which inevitably have to deal with the dangers of partially exposed (and possibly damaged) wiring and

large concentration of both manpower and conductive elements including tools, scaffolds and structural

elements. To limit the probability of accidental damage to the main electrical systems, the majority of

large construction sites in Canada and China maintain temporary electrical boxes on the periphery of

construction sites with easy access to power cut-offs, and keep the primary wiring away from heavy

circulation. Furthermore, in China, many sites keep all outside electrical wiring elevated on poles to keep

it from coming in contact with most machinery, although this makes maintenance more difficult and

facilitates accidental contacts with machinery too large to fit underneath, as workers pay little attention

to the presence of the wires, leading to accidental electrocutions, which, due to the large amperage

needed on construction sites, are often fatal. Additionally, inside construction sites, electrical work is

only conducted by, or under supervision of, trained electricians wearing appropriate safety equipment,

and the majority of potentially live wires are regularly inspected and kept insulated from conductive

surfaces through capping. The notable exceptions are smaller sites in both nations, which often conduct

electrical work without a trained electrician and often skimp on conducting full inspections of the wiring.

Another frequent source of hazards on construction sites are dangerous compounds present in

the atmosphere. The most common of these are the many types of volatile organic solvents found in

paint, varnishes and many other chemical products, mostly cyclical hydrocarbons such as xylene,

toluene and benzene, that can cause irritation of the eyes and respiratory systems as well as serious

damage to the nervous system including polyneuropathy (peripheral nerves malfunction), atrophy of the

optical nerve (causing progressive loss of sight), dysfunction of the pyramidal and cerebellar brain cells

as well as other forms of brain lesions if inhaled in large quantities. Indeed, due to their volatile nature,

these compounds can accumulate in rooms during and after work, and remain there for long periods of

time if the environment is poorly aerated. Therefore, in China and in Canada, most construction projects

require that any worker doing extensive paint work inside a structure be equipped with an air filter and

sealed protective glasses to limit exposure, and that the environment be well aerated. However, on

smaller sites, particularly private home construction or renovation projects in both nations as well as on

rural construction sites in China, protective equipment is rarely available, and although the small scale of

the work limits the exposure, long term consequences can still occur, especially if paint work is

conducted regularly. To prevent this, some corporations as well as many independent individuals in

Canada are beginning to favor VOC-free paints, to limit the danger from any accidental exposure.

Other forms of airborne contaminants include asbestos, which can cause hardening of the

pleura, scarring and thickening of the pulmonary alveoli (reducing the elasticity of the lungs, and

therefore, the volume of inhalations), as well as cancer in most types of lung cells due to the size of the

asbestos particles being similar to that of human chromosomes, hampering mitosis. Although its use is

now entirely illegal in Canada, and severely regulated in China, it is still found in older construction

projects and can be exposed during renovations. To limit its danger, in both nations, asbestos is usually

manipulated with care and only in well aerated environments while wearing air filters and eye

protection. Finally, even something as simple as concrete dust, generated during demolition operations,

can have serious health impact if inhaled, causing inflammation of the respiratory system and, if it

contains silica, silicosis, leading to serious inflammation and scarring of the upper pulmonary lobes. In

Canada, most workers dealing with large amounts of dust usually wear enclosed safety glasses and air

filters, while in China, it is very rare for additional protection to be worn when working in environments

filled with dust, despite the fact that state regulation requires both eye protection and air filters.

Finally, the last major source of safety hazards on constructions sites, reckless conduct, is

common in both nations, although some acts are much more common in China than in Canada. In

Canada, the most common types of reckless conduct are not using available movement restricting or fall

arrest systems when working at heights without the benefits of railings (such as when an individual is

installing the railing on a given level), and leaving equipment and material unattended, especially when

at heights. China faces similar issues, with workers often ignoring available safety harnesses when in a

rush or when dexterity is required and leaving many unattended objects when departing a site,

especially for the morning break. Indeed, despite efforts by the respective governments of each nation

and multiple deaths each year, these reckless habits remain relatively common as, for the most part,

they make life easier for the workers. Furthermore, China also faces an additional safety issue, caused

by that nation’s drivers. Indeed, while truck and machinery drivers on construction sites in Canada

usually drive carefully, and with the aid of signalers to avoid hazards, their Chinese homologues favor a

more aggressive style of driving. Namely, although they do not drive extremely fast, they do not tend to

adapt their driving to the characteristics of the road, resulting in frequent skidding and loss of control on

wet or icy roads. Moreover, as indicating one’s intents when driving a motor vehicle is all but unheard of

in China, it is difficult for pedestrians to anticipate how vehicles around them will be moving, a danger

further compounded by the general disregard for pedestrians in groups of less than five exhibited by

most Chinese drivers, including heavy machinery operators.

IV.4 Safety Equipment

No matter the amount of precautions taken, accidents are bound to happen in any industry

where a human element remains present. The construction industry is definitely not exempt from this,

and the even-changing nature of the work environment within the industry, combined with the

omnipresence of multiple sources of distraction and the physically demanding nature of the work, make

accidents in the construction industry particularly frequent and dangerous. In light of this, it is

understandable that the wear of adequate protective equipment be one of the primary elements of

health and safety regulation. However, inadequate protective equipment is also one of the primary

causes of serious injuries in accidents, as otherwise minor incidents become much more severe. Again,

as there are dozens of different pieces of protective equipment, each regulated by their own set of

standards, this comparison will focus on the most common ones.

Before we start however, it is important to note that the quality of the protective equipment in

Canada and in China, although usually adequate by itself, is by no means always so. Although this is

infrequent in Canada, as the North-American equipment industry is made up of a few larger

corporations, with very little import of cheap imitations, and so the product quality can easily be

controlled by the industry and the government both during production and field use, it is a major

problem in China, where cheap knock-offs providing inadequate protection represent a large segment of

all safety equipment sold and worn, as they are usually available at a much cheaper price, making them

a compelling choice for unscrupulous corporations, although large enterprises often favor quality

equipment to ensure conformity with regulations. This issue is further worsened by the lack of quality

testing in China; there are more than a thousand legal equipment producers, and untold more that

operate outside governmental control, but only 15 institutes authorized to conduct safety testing.

Verification of all, or even most, commercial products on the market is therefore impossible, and testing

of equipment used on actual construction sites is all but unheard of except amongst the largest

corporations who send in samples for testing in order to conform to the law.

On to the actual equipment itself, assuredly the most ubiquitous piece of protective equipment

in the construction industry in China and Canada is the safety helmet, or hard hat, whose wear is all but

compulsory in both nations. Indeed, in China, despite only being mandatory for individuals working on

the outside of structures, safety helmets, almost universally of the front-brimmed variety, are worn on

larger sites by nearly everyone from the moment they step onto a construction site to the moment they

leave it. The only major exceptions are workers on smaller renovation sites, who tend to forgo helmets

due to working almost exclusively indoors where they are not required, and corporate executives

viewing construction sites from afar, although the latter group usually takes to wearing hard hats when

doing close-up inspections. The situation is similar in Canada, although it is even rarer for individuals on

a construction site to be found without a helmet, with the only major exception being individuals

conducting finishing work on the inside of structures after exterior construction is complete. As always

however, some cases of negligence do happen, and, in both nations, it is not unheard of for individuals

to enter construction sites without helmets when not actively working on it, be it to communicate with

individuals on the site or simply to cross through it, sometimes resulting in fatal incidents.

Nearly as ubiquitous as helmets and just as important in protecting the health of workers in the

construction industry, work boots are another universal piece of protective equipment in Canada.

Indeed, regulation approved steel-toed boots with both toe and sole protection are universally worn by

the great majority of individuals within the construction industry in Canada from the moment they step

on any construction site, regardless of size or importance. Moreover, in difficult working conditions,

including frigid weather and floods, reinforced work boots, albeit specially adapted to these conditions,

are still worn. In China however, this is not the case; work boots incorporating steel protection are very

rarely worn, even on larger sites, despite being part of the mandatory equipment for many trades.

Indeed, workers, no matter the specific requirements of their trades, tend to favor either normal shoes

or rubberized boots if the working conditions are wet. Inspectors are amongst the only segments of the

worker population who regularly wear protective boots, although even amongst them it is not a

universal practice. This practice, combined with the lack of toe boards on most Chinese structures,

results in a dramatic increase in the amount of feet injury, including broken bones and amputated toes,

while also increasing the frequency of other types of leg injuries, such as sprained ankles, due to poor

ankle support when working in potentially slippery and uneven terrain.

Another important element of basic safety in the construction industry are work gloves. As could

be expected, their primary function is twofold: to protect workers against minor cuts and abrasions as

well as against harmful compounds in the environment, and to improve the worker’s grip on tools and

material. Nearly as universal as work boots in Canada, they are worn by almost all individuals conducting

some form of physical work on construction sites, with some variations based on the needs of specific

trades (some are water resistant, some are heavily insulated against heat or electricity, etc.). There is

however a minority of individuals who work without gloves, especially amongst trades requiring good

manual dexterity, as gloves do hamper fine motor control and reduce manual feedback. The situation on

larger sites in China is similar, with most workers wearing gloves when doing physical labour, particularly

when doing work that frequently exposes the hands to danger such as welding. Despite this, the gloves

themselves are rarely specifically made for the task at hands, reducing their effectiveness against some

hazards. Furthermore, individuals on smaller sites are often not provided with gloves, and so must make

do without them or acquire a pair on their own.

In addition to the basic security equipment, many trades in construction require additional

protective equipment. Most frequently, this is to ensure protection of the essential organs on the face,

which are not otherwise protected. As such, in Canada, protective glasses and air filters are worn by the

great majority workers doing work with any kind of chemicals (including painting) or in an environment

where they are exposed to large concentrations of suspended dust, such as concrete mixing and

demolition. Moreover, welders universally wear at least protective welding glasses, if not full welding

masks. This is in contrast with China, where, although the general population is often seen wearing cloth

masks to prevent contamination by disease and overexposure to the polluted air in cities, the majority

of construction workers do not wear them, even if their task requires it. For instance, despite

governmental regulations, workers will jackhammer concrete for extended periods of time without

wearing a mask or protective glasses (or any safety equipment beyond a helmet for that matter),

exposing both their eyes and lungs to particles of dust. The notable exceptions are the welders, who

almost universally wear welding masks, with some favouring smaller goggles instead.

Finally, a last set of important pieces of safety equipment are fall arrest and movement limiting

systems, intended to protect wearers from falls when railing is impossible or impractical to install. Here,

the situation is nearly identical in Canada and in China, and so, on larger sites, individuals doing early

structural work, both on primary structures and on scaffoldings, rarely tie themselves despite it being

mandatory in both states (anyone who is standing on a platform more than 3 m off the ground lacking

railing must be tied down to prevent dangerous falls), and although this enables them to have more

manoeuvrability while working (and is a tradition amongst most ironworkers), it exposes them to

additional dangers. Furthermore, individuals rapidly moving to and from the edges of buildings, without

stopping to conduct any extensive work, including inspectors, rarely tie themselves down, as it would

not be time efficient. Interestingly however, most individuals doing later work, including structural

welders, often tie themselves down. Despite this, on smaller sites and renovation projects, it remain

extremely rare for individuals in either nations to tie themselves down, as the expenses associated with

most suspension or fall arrest systems usually make them economically unviable on smaller sites.

IV.5 Inspections and Corruption

The final point of comparison for health and safety in the construction industries of Canada and

China is the quality and reliability of the inspections conducted in both nations. Indeed, although they

may still respect most, if not all, safety regulations, many corporations in both these nations conduct

acts of dubious legality to influence any inspector visiting their sites or inspection their equipment, in an

effort to have them be more lenient in their evaluation, thereby allowing the corporations to bypass

fines and the loss of public image associated with them. This, in turns, reduces the reliability of the

inspections, which do not necessarily reflect the actual quality and safety of the work conducted.

In China, corruption is very widespread amongst construction industry inspectors. Indeed, as

many corporations do not respect at least some of the health and safety or construction regulations in

place, and so often pay off inspectors to ignore infractions, with direct monetary payments, almost

universally in cash, being by far the most frequent method. This is so common that some corporations

go even further, bribing inspectors as a matter of fact, without even waiting for them to detect issues.

This not only results in unsafe buildings that are poorly constructed, but also in more accidents that tend

to be more severe, as inadequate safety equipment is not reported. Moreover, this travesty also

extends to the inspectors inside the corporations themselves, which often falsify inspection reports or

fail to report incidents in order to make it seem that their sites are safer than they are, both in the eyes

of the public and those of their foreign investors. Furthermore, the quality of the inspections in China is

further reduced by the general lack of competence of the inspectors themselves, who are often not

qualified to make comprehensive evaluations of all practices and safety equipment observed on a site.

The situation in Canada is similar, with non-negligible segments of the construction industry

routinely bribing inspectors to ignore breaches in regulations. However, this is often to disguise small

breaches to the construction code made to save costs, rather than major structural dangers or serious

health and safety infractions, for which bribes are rarely accepted, although the later certainly does

happen on larger sites. Moreover, due to the difficulty of moving large sums of money for illegal

purposes without leaving an obvious trail, payments in Canada, especially minor ones, are often made

through indirect and often perishable means such as hockey tickets, although the traditional direct

transfer of cash remains popular. Furthermore, the quality of the inspections in Canada tends to be high,

with inspectors being for the most part qualified and up to date on pertinent regulations. This means

that although there are some infractions to the regulations that are discovered and remain unpunished,

these are mostly minor ones, with the more severe ones usually being found and corrected.

V. Summary of Findings

Upon analysis of the information gathered through the research conducted on the state of

health and safety in the construction industry of China and Canada, a few conclusions can be made

about its relative state in both nations. Indeed, although the two states are theoretically similar on this

matter, there exists a noticeable distinction in practice due to poor enforcement in China.

As such, if only analysed from a theoretical standpoint, China and Canada have, at the

fundamental level, very similar health and safety systems. Indeed, in both nations, the basis of the

system rests on a series of standards that are approved by a central state authority and, if needed, latter

modified to conform to progressively more stringent norms as the organisational scale goes from the

general to the specific. Moreover, the standards themselves are often quite similar, and although there

are still some areas, most notably on the topic of minimal requirements for safety equipment, where the

Chinese standards remain less stringent than those in Canada, the intent behind the regulations is the

same. The primary distinction as far as the standards are concerned reside in how they are enforced; in

China, the fines for non-compliance tend to be proportionately much smaller than in Canada, and can

usually only be levied against corporate entities rather than particular individuals. Despite this, there

also remain some important distinctions between the organisation of health and safety in both states;

the most important ones being the differences in the organisational structure behind the creation and

enforcement of regulations. Indeed, the Chinese state is much more centralised than the Canadian one,

in which the provinces are mostly independent in their application and enforcement of regulations,

mostly due to the fact that the construction industry is a provincial concern in Canada rather than a

national one as is the case in China. In the end however, although the centralised nature of the Chinese

system does lend itself to loss of productivity and additional corruption through bureaucratic red tape,

the structural differences between the two systems do not modify in any great way the manner in which

the system should work in theory.

However, as it happens in many things, reality does not conform itself to theory, and so despite

being theoretically similar, the practical application of the health and safety norms in Canada and China

differ somewhat in practice. Indeed, despite the regulations being similar, they are important

differences in how they are applied by the construction industry in both nations. Most importantly, the

frequency with which standards are entirely ignored, both from a personal and corporative level, is

much greater within the Chinese industry, with some regulations being all but inexistent in practice,

leading to an increase in both the frequency and severity of accidents on constructions sites.

Furthermore, even when the standards and proper practices appear to be applied correctly, the

equipment used in China may be inadequate due to poor quality control. Finally, although corruption is

present (and even frequent) in the construction industry of both states, it is more common and more

flagrant in China, which further hampers the application of the health and safety regulations. In

conclusion, despite being similar in theory, it can be observed that in practice, the state of health and

safety within the construction industry in China is worse than that in Canada due to inadequate

enforcement and quality control, which leads to disregard for the regulations, both amongst the

workers and the employers.

With this being said, it is important to note that the state of health and safety in the

construction industry in China has progressed immensely within the last few years, and its progression

could best be likened to that seen at the start of the 20th century in the West following the rise of

unionization. Indeed, due to the growing pressure from both worker groups within the industry and

foreign influence, the gap between the theoretical norms and what is seen in reality is steadily

diminishing. Of course, it is likely that the norms will never be fully applied, but it is probable that major

progress will continue to be made in the next decades.

References

American National Standards Institute. A10.11-1979 - American National Standard for Safety Nets Used During Construction, Repair and Demolition Operations. Aug 7 1979. Print.

---. Z89.1-2009 – Safety Requirements for Industrial Head Protection. 2009. Print.

Centre canadien d'hygiène et de sécurité au travail. "Limites d'exposition au bruit au Canada." 07 April 2011. Web. 01 May 2013. <http://www.cchst.ca/oshanswers/phys_agents/exposure_can.html>.

Canada. Ministry of Justice. Canada Labour Code. 2013. Web. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/L-2/>.

---. Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations. 2012. Web. <http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-86-304/FullText.html>.

Canadian Standards Association. Z94.1-M1977 - Industrial Protective Headwear. April 1982. Print.

---. Z195-M1984 - Protective Footwear. March 1984. Print.

Other Canadian standards in print or electronic form

Environmental Protection Agency. "Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)." Indoor Air Quality. 9 July 2012. Web. 15 May 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/iaq/voc.html>.

IHLO. "Health and Safety in China: Hats, shoes, gloves and masks….." IHLO. International Trade Union Confederation Hong Kong Liaison Office. Jan 2007. Web. 3 May 2013. <http://www.ihlo.org/LRC/WC/300107.html>.

Infrastructure, Health & Safety Association. Construction Health and Safety Manual. Toronto: 2010. Web. <http://www.ihsa.ca/resources/health_safety_manual.cfm>.

JGJ Standards. JGJ 45 - Technical code for safety of temporary electrification on construction site. 2005. Print.

---. JGJ 186 – Standard for outfit and use of labour protection articles on construction sites. 2009. Print.

---. JGJ 202 - Technical code for safety of implementation scaffold practice in construction. 2010. Print.

Other Chinese standards in print or electronic form

Ontario. Ministry of Labour. Occupational Health and Safety Act. 2011. Web. <http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90o01_e.htm>.

People's Republic of China. Ninth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. Law of the People's Republic of China on Work Safety. 2002. Web. <http://www.chinalawblog.org/law-topics/employment-law/194-occupational-workplace-safety>.

---. Tenth National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China. Labor Contract Law of the People's Republic of China. 2008. Web. <http://www.fdi.gov.cn/pub/FDI_EN/Laws/GeneralLawsandRegulations/BasicLaws/P020070831601380007924.pdf >.

Prince Edward Island. Ministry of Labour. Occupational Health and Safety Act Fall Protection Regulation. 2012. Web. <http://www.gov.pe.ca/law/regulations/pdf/O&01-01-1.pdf>.

Quebec. Ministry of Employment and Social Solidarity. Loi sur la santé et sécurité du travail. 2013. Web. <http://www2.publicationsduquebec.gouv.qc.ca/dynamicSearch/telecharge.php?type=2&file=/S_2_1/S2_1.html>.

Singh, Jas. "Occupational Exposure Limits (OEL’s) in China and India." Golder Associates. 2012. Web. 8 May 2013. <http://www.ioha.net/assets/files/Paper6chinaandindia.pdf>.

Sultan A., Meo. "Health Hazards of Cement Dust." Saudi Medical Journal. 59.9 (2004): 1153-9. Web. 23 May. 2013. <http://repository.ksu.edu.sa/jspui/bitstream/123456789/2857/1/HEALTH HAZARDS OF CEMENT DUST.pdf>.

World Health Organisation. "Asbestos: elimination of asbestos-related diseases." World Health

Organisation Media Center. July 2010. Web. 15 May 2013.

<http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs343/en/>.

Annex 1: Sample Interview Sheet

Please note that indented lines are additional questions, to be asked based on the answer to the earlier

question, and usually represent additional precisions.

Questions Interview Health and Safety

State:

What regulates health and safety?

Are there any official documents?

What organisation is responsible for creating the regulations on health and safety in worksites?

Is regulation created on a general (or national) basis, or is it industry or corporation based?

Is there an organisation responsible for ensuring the regulations are upheld?

Are worker unions allowed to demand modifications in the application of regulations regarding health and safety?

Are the regulations followed on most sites?

Are the regulations followed to the minimal acceptable level or to a higher standard?

When the regulations are not followed, is the responsibility normally on the employee’s or the employer’s part?

Are the employees trained in the proper use of protective equipment?

Are employers forced to inform the employees of any and all dangers they may be exposed to while working on a site?

Are there legal measures on both sides to ensure respect of health and safety measures?

Are there any legal measures for compensation in the case of accidents related to health and safety incidents?

Questions about specific health and safety measures to compare

Annex 2: Sample Observations Checklist

Please note that again, indented lines are additional questions, to be asked based on the answer to the

earlier question, and usually represent additional precisions.

Observations Checklist

Site:

Theoretical:

Training on safety protocols

Training on emergency procedures

Employees up to date

Presence of an emergency plan

Up to date

Known by the workers

Presence of safety personnel

Not reachable in adequate delay

Environmental:

Presence of direct physical danger (fire, live wire, rock avalanche, etc.)

Non-indicated

Workers not/inadequately protected

Presence of hazardous materials (toxic, corrosive, radioactive)

Non-indicated

Workers not/inadequately protected

Presence of dangerous atmosphere (gas composition, particles in suspension)

Non-indicated

Workers not/inadequately protected

Presence of indirect environmental dangers (high winds, wet or icy surface, etc.)

Non-indicated/unknown to workers

Workers not adequately equipped

Human:

Dangerous practices (ignored safety equipment, reckless driving, unattended objects, etc.)

Ordered by the administration

Unhealthy work environment (work hours, psychological and social environment, stress)

Created by the administration