ExploringSafetyManagementChallengesforMulti-NationalConstruction

Workforces:AUKCaseStudy

DavidChristopherOswald,MEngPhD(1)

FredSherratt,BScPhDCBuildEMCABEMCIOBFHEA(2)

SimonDavidSmith,BEngPhDCEngFICE(3),and

MatthewRyanHallowell,BS,MS,PhD(4)

1RMITUniversity,CityCampus,Melbourne,Vic3001,Australia

2AngliaRuskinUniversity,BishopHallLane,Chelmsford,CM11SQ,UK

3UniversityofEdinburgh,SchoolofEngineering,InstituteforInfrastructureandEnvironment,King’sBuildings,WestMainsRoad,Edinburgh,EH93FG,UK

4UniversityofColoradoBoulder,DepartmentofCivil,EnvironmentalandArchitecturalEngineering,Boulder,CO80309-0428,USA

Abstract

Largeconstructionprojectsfrequentlyoperatewithmulti-nationalworkforces,utilisingmigrant

workerstoprovidebothskilledandunskilledlabour.Multi-nationalworkforcesarealsobrought

togetherthroughjointventures,ascompaniesfromdifferentcountriescollaborateandsharetheir

expertisetoconstructlargeandcomplexconstructionprojects.Amulti-nationaljointventureinthe

UKprovidesthecasestudyforanexaminationofthesafetymanagementchallengesfoundonsuch

projects.Whilstlanguageandcommunicationissuesamongstworkersaretypicallyprimary

concerns,heretheyhavenotbeenprioritised.Instead,findingsarepresentedthatilluminatemore

nuancedandunquantifiableproblemsthatfacedthesafetymanagementteam.An

ethnographically-informedapproachwasmobilised,withtheleadresearcherspendingthreeyears

onthesitewiththesafetyteamgatheringdata.Analysisrevealedseveralchallenges:problemswith

non-UKcompanycompliancewithUKlegislationandstandards;differencesinworkingpractices

amongstbothnon-UKworkersandtheirmanagers;differencesassociatedwithnationalcultures;

andproblemsofpoorworkerwelfare.Itissuggestedthatawarenessofthesechallengesshould

informboththewayinwhichsuchprojectsareinitiallycontracted,aswellasthedevelopmentof

moresophisticatedsafetymanagementsystemsthatbettersupportmulti-nationalconstruction

projectsinpractice.

Keywords:Ethnography,migrantworkers,multi-nationalproject,safety.

Introduction

Itiscommoninmanypartsoftheworldforlargeconstructionsitestooperatewithmulti-national

workforces,Thecompetitive,irregularandperipateticnatureoftheworkhasledtoarelianceon

cheapandflexiblemigrantlabour,oftennecessitatedbyalackofskilledworkersinhostcountries

(Fellinietal.2007)andsupplementedbythegrowthconstructionglobalisation–Ngowietal.

(2005:135)commentingthat‘politicalbordersbecomeincreasinglymoreirrelevant’.Workersfrom

manydifferentnationalitiesandethnicgroupsarebroughttogetheronsuchsites,eitheras

traditionalmigrantlabourorlabourlocaltooneoftheinternationalprojectpartners.Whilstmany

migrantworkersarelegallyemployed,itisalsoworthyofnotethatdespiteeffortsaroundregulation

andcontrolintheprocessesofworkermigration,therearestillillegalmigrantworkersinmany

countries(ParedesGilandWerna2009).Migrantlabourisalsocloselyassociatedwithinformalityin

thelabourmarketand,asTuttetal(2013)revealed,migrantlabourmovementintheUK

constructionindustryoftenoccursthroughinformalrecruitmentpracticessuchaswordofmouth

andotherknownnetworks,whichcancircumventformalemploymentpractices.Suchinformality

hasconsequencesforworkerwelfare,andasParedesGilandWerna(2009)note,eventhoselegally

employedcanstillbeatriskofexploitation,suchasdeprivationofunionmembershiporother

workerrights.Therefore,whilstanomadicmulti-nationalworkforcemaybereadilyabletomeet

theUKconstructionindustry’slabourdemands,suchworkcanalsoleavemigrantsvulnerableand

compromisetheirwelfareinavarietyofways,includingtheirsafetyatwork.

Literaturehassuggestedthatmigrantworkersexperiencelargernumbersofaccidentsthannative-

bornworkerscomparedtotheiremploymentlevels(GoodrumandDai2005,CentreforConstruction

ResearchandTraining2008,CentreforCorporateAccountability2009,OrreniusandZavondy2009).

Forexample,intheUSAtheconstructionindustryaccountsfor35%oftotalHispanic/Latinoworker

fatalities,withtherelativedeathsofworkersonsitesas74%foreign-bornvs.26%native-born(Byler

2013);whilstin2009migrantworkersmadeuponly8%oftheUKconstructionworkforce,but

accountedfornearly17%ofthetotalindustryfatalities(CentreforCorporateAccountability2009).

ItisimportanttonotethatwhiledataonUKaccidentssuggestalargeincreaseinforeign

constructionworkers’deaths(fromtwoin2002-3to12in2008-9),numbersaretoolowtobe

significant(Meardietal.2012).Nevertheless,thesafetyrisksareprobablyhigherformigrant

workers(Ibid).Thereasonsforthisarecomplex,andtostatisticallydeterminecausalityinsuch

relationshipswouldbechallengingifnotimpossible,becauseofthevarietyofinfluencingfactors

suchasworktaskallocation,levelsoftrainingandsupervision,employmenttermsandsecurity,and

thepotentialforillegalorothervulnerableworkerstowillinglyacceptdangerousworkinexchange

forawage.However,despitethefactthattherearepotentiallymanyreasonsforinequalities

betweenmigrantandnative-bornworkers,itmustberecognisedthattheconsequencesofthese

inequalitiesintheformofincreasedaccidentsandincidentsstillremain.

Constructionsafetyresearchhasdulyexploredthistrend,butinunpickingsuchcausalityitis

perhapsunsurprisingthatattentionhasfocusedonlanguagebarriersandcommunication(e.g.

TrajkowskiandLoosemore2006,Sells2007,Bustetal.2008,Hareetal.2012,Tuttetal.2011,

Guldenmundetal.2013,Oswaldetal.2015)asthedominantsafetymanagementchallenge

(HallowellandYugar-Arias2016).However,thepotentialproblemsfacingsafetymanagementin

thiscontextarearguablymuchmoresubtle.Indeed,aUKstudybytheHealthandSafetyExecutive

(2013)suggestedinexperience,alackofunderstandingofUKHealthandSafetystandardsand

culturaldifferencestoalsobeproblematic,althoughthesephenomenaareoftenmuchmore

nuancedandunquantifiableandthereforehardertoilluminateusingtraditionalresearch

approaches.

Thispaperpresentsselectedfindingsfromalongitudinalresearchstudy,theoverarchingaimof

whichwastoexploreunsafeactsonalargemulti-nationalconstructionproject.Overaperiodof

threeyears,theleadresearcherhadtheopportunitytoessentiallybecomeamemberofthesite

healthandsafetymanagementteamonthecasestudyproject(ofvalue+£500m)locatedintheUK,

andwaspresentonthesiteforbetweenoneandthreedaysperweek.Takingonthis‘participant-

observer’roleenabledthemobilisationofanethnographicapproachtodatacollection,including

observationsfromsite‘walk-arounds’andinspections,conversationswithworkersandsafetyteam

members,andattendingsitesafetymeetings.Throughthisexploratoryapproach,varioussafety

managementproblemsotherthanlanguageandcommunicationissuesemergedthatcouldbe

readilyassociatedwiththemulti-nationalworkforcefoundonthesite.Thereforetheaimofthe

workpresentedhereisbetterarticulatedastheexplorationofthechallengesfacedbythosetasked

withthesafetymanagementofamulti-nationalworkforceonalargeconstructionproject.

Despitetheresearchbeinglimitedtoonecasestudyproject,variouscharacteristicsoftheproject

andtheconstructionindustryitselflendsupporttoclaimsofgeneralisation,orrathertransference

andfittoothersuchprojectsassuggestedbyLincolnandGuba(1985).Further,therichnessofthe

datacollectedpromotesexceptionalinternalandecologicalvalidity.Theprojectinducted

approximately250multi-nationalworkersduringtheresearchstudy,eachofwhombroughtwith

themtheirownbackground,experiencesandperspectives,makingthemindividualunitsofanalysis

withinthecollectivesiteworkforce.Furthermore,theperipateticnatureofconstructionworkers

essentiallycreatesaninherentleveloftransferability,asthenomadicworkforceestablishesandre-

establishesverysimilarsiteenvironmentsoneachnewconstructionproject.Therefore,itisargued

thatthefindingsherearereadilyabletomakeanempiricalcontributiontothisgrowingareaof

researchandcontributetothedevelopmentofeffectivesafetymanagementsystemsspecificallyfor

multi-nationalprojects(ascalledforbyBustetal.2008andTuttetal.2011),byrevealingthemore

subtlechallengesthatsitalongsidestraightforwardlanguagebarrierstocommunicationwhen

managingconstructionsafetyinthiscontext.

Method

TheCaseStudyProject

Whilethereisnouniversallyacceptedfigureforthenumberofmulti-nationalmigrantworkersinthe

UKconstructionindustry,ithasbeenestimatedtorepresentaround12%(240,000)ofthesite-based

workforce(McMeeken2015).Inadditiontothis,recentdevelopmentsamongstlargeconstruction

companies,mainlyfromdevelopedcountries,haveseenthemadoptinternationalisationstrategies

thatenablethemtobenefitfromtheglobalmarketplace(Hortaetal.2013)andresultedinan

increaseintruly‘multi-national’projects.Onsuchprojects,companiesfromdifferentcountries

collaborate,oftencreatingjointventurepartnershipsorotherproject-specificvehiclestocombine

theirexpertiseinordertowinworkofalargescaleand/orcomplexnature(Ngowietal.2005).This

processhadoccurredforthecasestudyproject:amulti-nationaljointventurehadbeencreated

betweenfourorganisations(basedinEuropeandNorthAmerica)todeliverthe+£500mvalue

project,whichresultedinworkerslocaltotheparticipatingcompanies’hostcountriestravelingto

theUKtodelivertheworkonsite.Thiscasestudyprojectinvolvedapproximately100multi-

national(ormorespecificallynon-UK)workersatanyonetime,predominantlyfromtheCzech

Republic,Spain,Portugal,andtheUSA;buttherewerealsoworkersfromRomaniaandPoland.

Migrantworkersundertookrolesatavarietyoflevelswithintheproject’shierarchalstructure

includingprojectmanagement,safetymanagement,foremenandworkers,withasimilar

distributiontothatnormallyfoundwithinsuchhierarchies,meaningtherewerefarmore

multinationalworkersontheprojectthan,forexample,projectmanagers.Thiscasestudyproject

providesanidealrepresentativecontexttoexplorethesafetymanagementofamulti-national

workforceinpractice.

AnEthnographicApproach

Dominantmethodswithinconstructionmanagementresearchremainrootedinpositivisttraditions

(Dainty2008,Zouetal.2014)thathaveenabledfocusedbutarguablynarrowadvancesin

knowledge(PhelpsandHorman2010)giventhesocialnatureoftheindustryanditsworkpractices.

Suchapproacheshavelimitedresearchers’abilitiestograspthemeaningofsocialactionfromthe

perspectiveoftheactorsinvolved(Dainty2008)andthereforestruggletorevealandilluminate

morenuancedinteractionsandsocialprocessesatplaywithintheconstructionsitecontext.Indeed,

therehavelongbeencallsforaparadigmaticshiftfromthetraditionalmethodsappliedin

construction(Seymouretal.1997,Dainty2008,Zouetal.2014)tobetterrevealandilluminatesuch

phenomena.

Onesuchmethodthathasprovedfruitfulforsuchresearchwithintheconstructioncontextisthatof

ethnography(seeforexampleTuttetal.2011,Pinketal.2012).Whilestillanunconventionaland

littleunderstoodapproachinconstructionmanagementresearch,ethnographicapproachescan

engagewiththeoriesofpractice,knowingandaesthetics,andproposemoretheoretically

sophisticatedwaysofunderstandingworkonconstructionsites(Pinketal.2012).Indoingso,they

provideanunder-utilisedandpowerfulresearchtoolforprojectsthataimtomakeapplied

interventionsinactualconstructionworkprocesses(ibid).Consideringethnographyisawritten

representationofculture,orofselectedaspectsofculture(VanMaanen2011),thisisafitting

approachtoexploringtheproblemssurroundingsafetymanagementforamulti-national,orrather

multi-cultural,workforce.

Ethnographyisamethodthatmobilisesparticipantobservationasadatacollectiontool.In

participantobservationtheresearcherentersanenvironment,forexampleattendingasitesafety

meetingorjoiningthesafetyteamonawalk-around,andlearnsprincipallythroughtheinstruction

ofothermembersofthosesettings(Rookeetal.2004).Forthisproject,theleadresearcherspent

threeyearsasaparticipantobserverfollowingthecasestudyproject’sJVhealthandsafety

managementteam,spendingbetweenoneandthreedaysperweekonthesite.A‘moderate’

participantobservationapproachwasimplemented,whichDeWaltandDeWalt(1998)arguecan

provideagoodbalanceofessentialinvolvementandnecessarydetachmenttoremainobjective.

Ratherthanpassiveparticipation(purelyobserverrole)orcompleteparticipation(activitiesare

observedinthesettingwithcompleteparticipationintheculture),moderateparticipationinvolved

undertakingactivitieswithalmostcompleteparticipation.Forexample,duringsafetywalk-arounds

theresearcherwouldparticipatebyraisinganddiscussingpotentialsafetyissueswiththesafety

advisor(aswouldbeexpectedbyallthoseparticipatinginasitesafetywalk-around);butwasnot

directlyinvolvedinanysafetyinterventionthatoccurredbetweenthesafetyadvisorandthe

workers,insteadtakingontheroleofobserverinsuchsituations.

Datawerecollectedinavarietyofways,includingobservationsmadeduringsitesafetywalk-

arounds,talkinginformallytoworkerson-site,attendingsafetymeetings,andthroughdiscussions

andobservationsofthesitesafetyteambothonsiteandintheirowndesignatedofficespace.Field

notesweremadeeitherduringorassoonaspossibleafterrelevantinteractions(PoleandMorrison

2003:26),andaninteractionprotocol,developedspecificallyfortheproject(seeOswaldetal.

2014a).Thisprotocolimplementedtoensureconsistencyinthestepsinvolvedinthecollectionand

recordingofanyinteractionsandobservationsinthefield,andtoreducetherisksofreactivity,such

astheHawthorneeffect.Furtherdatawascollectedintheformofprojectdocuments,suchas

lessonlearnedreports,incidentreports,sitesafetysurveyresponses(fromthecontractor-ledsite

safetyclimatesurveywhichwasnotanempiricalpartofthisresearchproject),safetyobservation

reportsandmeetingminutes.Thesesupplementarydatasourceshavethecapacitytorevealtothe

researcherdetailsaboutthecontextandsocialworldtheywerecreatedin(Pole&Morrison2003).

Duringthethree-yearstudy,over1500hourswerespentattheresearchsetting,over200fieldnote

recordswerewrittenandapproximately150unitsofdocumentarydatawerecollected.

Ethnographicapproachesareoftenchallengedintermsoftheirreliabilityandvalidity,wherethe

verynatureandarguablystrengthofthemethodcanalsobecomeitsmajorflaw:whilstthe

researchercangatherrelevantandvaluabledataby‘beingthere’,theyalsoneedtobeableto

ensurethat‘there’istherightplaceandtherighttimeforrelevantandtypicalmanifestationsofthe

phenomenaunderexamination–inethnographicterms,wherethe‘action’is(Goffman2005)–and

thattheyareabletorecordandanalysethisdatafromasobjectiveapositionaspossible.Although

itmustbeacknowledgedthatethnographicallyinformedresearchistosomeextent‘…inherently

partial–committedandincomplete’(Clifford1986:7),andresearcherbiascanneverbetotally

eliminated,thisdoesnotdiscountitsabilitytoproviderelevantinsightsandilluminationsof

phenomenain-situwhenappropriatemitigationmeasuresareemployed.Forthisstudy,internal

reliabilitywascritical,andsothetriangulationofmultipledatasources(Freebody2003),e.g.

conversationsandobservations,collectedandcomparedatdifferentphasesofthefieldworkand

involvingdifferentparticipantsandcontexts(HammersleyandAtkinson2007:183)wasusedto

ensurethiscriteriawasmet.Thisdatatriangulationwassupplementedbytheuseof‘participant

researchers’,whereinformantsfromthefieldwereaskedtodiscussandcommentonethnographic

interpretationsastheyweredeveloped.

Withregardstovalidity,LeCompteandGoetz(1982)arguethatthisisactuallyethnography’smajor

strength.Theynotethatbeingamongstparticipantsandundertakingdatacollectionforextensive

periodsinthefieldallowsforcontinualdataanalysisandrefinement.Thissupportstheresearcher

inthemitigationofanybias,astheygrowinexperienceandknowledgeoftheirresearch

environment,andbecomeabletomakeeffectivejudgementstofollowtheactionandsoreinforce

anddevelopinsights,ratherthancompromisethem(Shiptonetal.2014).Indeed,suchlongevityin

thefieldalsolendscredencetoargumentsofconstructandinternalvalidity,thegrowing

experiencesoftheresearcherenablingthemtocheckandre-checkinferencesmadeinthefieldas

thebodyofdataalsogrowsthroughtheperiodofthefieldwork.LeCompteandGoetz(1982)also

notethatasparticipantobservationisconductedinanaturalsetting,thisreflectstherealityofthe

participantlifeexperiencesmoreaccuratelythancontrivedsettings,therebymakingastrong

argumentfortheecologicalvalidityoftheapproach.

Withregardtoexternalvalidity,ithasalreadybeennotedthatthegeneralisationofthisresearch

methodisrealisedthroughtheevidencedtransferabilityofthecasestudycontext(LincolnandGuba

1985).ManyoftheUKandnon-UKmanagershadvastconstructionindustryexperience,and

revealedcomparisonsofthisprojectwithothers,whichhelpedapproachexternalvalidity.For

example,amigrantprojectmanagerdrewuponhisexperienceonconstructionprojectsofdifferent

sizesinSpain,explainingthatthesafetystandardsweremuchhigherintheUK(seeOswaldetal

2014b).HoweverithasalsobeensuggestedbyPinketal.(2010:657)that‘thesituatednatureof

ethnographyneednotprecludethegenerationofrecommendationsforinformingpractice,solong

astheycanbeappropriatedinwaysthatreflectthenuancesofthecontextsinwhichtheyare

subsequentlyapplied.’Consequentlyduringtheprocessofanalysisofthedatacollectedforthis

study,specificcharacteristicsofthesitehavebeenmutedenablingthefindingsand

recommendationsofthisworktoinstead‘…highlightpertinentinsightsorareasofpromising

practice’.

Thedataanalysisitselfinvolvedaqualitativethematicapproach(Guest2012),whichconsistedofsix

stages:familiarisationwiththedata,generatinginitialcodes,searchingforcommonthemes,

reviewingthem,definingandnamingthemesandproducingafinalreport(Braun2006).The

analysiswasconductedbytheleadresearcher,whomobilisedaniterative-inductiveapproachto

datacollectionandanalysis(O’Reilly2009),theongoinganalysisabletosupportorchallengethe

findingsastheyemerged.Fromthevastvolumeofdataandanalysisgeneratedfromthethree-year

study,thefindingsabletobetterilluminatethechallengesandproblemssurroundingthesafety

managementofamulti-nationalworkforcehavebeendrawnouthere.Fourkeythemesemerged:

rulesandregulations;differentworkingpractices;differentmanagementpractices;workerwelfare.

Thesefindingshavebeenpresentedalongsidethewiderliteraturewhererelevant,intheformofa

themeddiscussionillustratedbyrepresentativequotationswhereappropriate,tobetterillustrate

theirempiricalandtheoreticalcontributiontothisspecificfieldofsafetymanagementresearch.

Wherenameshavebeenusedthesearepseudonyms,andforthepurposesofclaritytheterm‘non-

UKworkers’hasbeenusedtoidentifythosewhohadtravelledtotheUKtoworkspecificallyonthis

project.ItmustberecognisedthattheUKconstructionworkforceisitselfinherentlydiversein

termsofcharacteristicssuchasworkerethnicityandnationality,andthereforeincludesmany

workersnative-borninothercountriesyethavebeenpartoftheUKconstructionindustryformany

years.

FindingsandDiscussion

RulesandRegulations

SafetymanagementwithintheUKconstructionindustryisfirmlygroundedinasignificantamountof

workplacelegislation.Alongsidetheall-industryapplicablerequirementsoftheHealthandSafetyat

WorkActetc.1974(whichsetsrequirementsforthemanagementofsafeworkplaces)andthe

ManagementofHealthandSafetyatWorkAct1999(whichlegallyformalisestherequirementsfor

riskassessmentsforhazardouswork),sitmanyotherspecificlegislativerequirements.Forexample,

thisincludesregulationsaroundliftingoperations,workequipment,workatheight,andthe

Construction(DesignandManagement)Regulations2015,whicharespecifictoconstructionactivity.

However,forthoseseekingtomanagesafetyonthismulti-nationalproject,thisrobustframework

oflegislationdidnotprovideasupportingmechanismtoassisttheminanypro-activesafety

management,butrathershiftedtheirroletooneofstraightforwardenforcementandcompliance.

AsoneUKsafetyadvisornoted:

Insomeplacesintheworld,regulationssuchasCDMarejustlikethreelettersonascrabble

board

EvenforworkersfromcountrieswheretheEuropeanUnionDirective92/57/EECthatunderliesthe

UK’sConstruction(DesignandManagement)Regulationsisalsolegallyinforce,thisdidnotdirectly

translatetoequityinworkingpractices.Forexample,whileintheUK,managementinvolvement

andworkerengagementinthedevelopmentoftheirownsafetyprocessesisexpected,such

regulatorycompliancewasdealtwithinotherwaysbythenon-UKcontractors:

In[EUCountry]thesafetyadvisorisexpectedtodoallthepaperworkandeverythingsafety

related...alltheRAMS,presentations,meetingminutes,disciplinaryaction,everything,but

thatisnothowitisdoneintheUK.

Thiscreatedfrustrationamongstthesafetyteamastheywerefacedwithaconstantbattletoensure

compliancetoUKRegulationsinanumberofways,includingensuringrobustmanagement

approachestosafety,plantandequipmentrequirementsandstandards,andultimatelytoworker

behaviouronthesite.EvencompliancewithUKstandardsforbasicconstructionequipmentwas

problematicforthesafetymanagementteam:

TheladdersyouareusingarenotUKcompliant.Ithasbeenmonthsnow.Whenareyou

gettingladdersthatcomplywiththeUKregulations?

AswasensuringsiteworkersmetbasicUKPersonalProtectiveEquipment(PPE)standards:

Itwasclearfromdayonethatthereweregoingtobeissueswhentheyturnedupwithno

steel-toecapboots,andwestillhaveproblemstoday–theyfindtherulesstricterthanthey

areusedto.

Issuesaroundregulatorycompliancedidnotgounrecognisedbythenon-UKsite-basedworkers,

whoacknowledgedthatthelackofconformitytoUKstandardswascausingproblemsforthehealth

andsafetymanagementteam.Indeed,theworkersoftenrespectedandappreciatedtheemphasis

placedonhealthandsafetyintheUK.Asonenon-UKforemannoted:

Safetyin[EUCountry]isverydifferent.Theydonotcareaboutsafety.EvenforsafetyPPE

suchasglasses,theyareveryreluctanttopurchase,andiftheygetscratchedordamaged,

youwouldhavetobuyanotherpairyourself.

Yet,despitetheabilityofthesafetymanagementteamtodevelopsuchpositiverelationshipswith

theworkersonthesite,theyfrequentlyfacedproblemswhenrequestingsimilarcompliancefrom

non-UKcompanymanagement,asthisdiscussionbetweenaUKconstructionmanagerandnon-UK

subcontractormanagerillustrates:

Thisbasicsafetydesignhadbeenrequestedformonths,yetwhenatemporarydesign

changewasneededforaconcretepourtocommence,itisreadyintwohours.Whatdoes

thistellus?Thatconcretepoursaremoreimportantthansafety?Whycanyounotgetusthis

safetydesign?

DespitethefactthatalackofunderstandingofUKstandardshasbeenhighlightedasaproblemfor

migrantworkers(e.g.bytheHealthandSafetyExecutive2013),itshouldbenotedthatonthis

projecttheproblemwasnotonlyoneofworkermisunderstandingorlackofawareness,butmuch

moresignificantlyalsooneoforganisationalcompliance.Thisisafindingthatcannotbereadily

reducedtolanguageorcommunicationissues,giventhatthesecompanieshadreadilyenteredinto

contractsforthisproject.Rather,itsuggeststhatthosetaskedwiththepreparationandfinalisation

ofsuchcontractsshouldhaveplacedmuchmoreemphasisontheneedtocomplywithUKhealth

andsafetypracticepriortotheirfinalisation,andperhapsevenspeltoutsuchrequirementswithin

theirclauses.

Overtime,thevolumeandconstancyoftheproblemswithcompliancetoUKregulationsinevitably

hadanimpactonthesafetyteam.Itmetamorphosedintoadesultoryover-relianceonrulesand

control,amanifestationofthe‘bureaucracyofsafety’(Dekker2014)whereapettyfocuson

compliancewiththesafetyrulesbecomesmoreimportantthansafepracticeitself.Thiswas

perhapsaninevitableconsequenceofthepositionthesafetyteamfoundthemselvesin;the

frustrationandfrequencywithwhichtheyhadtodealwithcomplianceresultingintherigid

enforcementofrequirementsbecomingthenorm,asthisconversationbetweenaUKprincipal

contractor’smanagerandUKsafetyadvisorshows:

Manager‘Theyareusingascaffoldsystemthatwehaveneverseen.Theyhaveallthe

requireddocumentationandexpertisetodemonstratetheyarecompetenttocarryoutthe

workinthisway.Butthethingis,Iknowwehavetomonitorthem,buthowdowecheck

competencewhenwedon’tknowwhattheyaredoing?’

SafetyAdvisor:‘TheyneedtouseasystemthatisrecognisedintheUK.Iknowthatisnotthe

answertheywillwanttohear,butthat’smyadvice.’

AlthoughUKregulationdoesnotspecifytypesofscaffoldsystemsthatcanbeusedonUKsites,and

indeedthelegislationisintendedtobeflexiblewithinitsownparametersgivendueattentiontorisk

assessmentandotherstandards,heretheUKsafetyadvisorwasnotwillingtoevenconsideran

unfamiliarconstructionsystemsuggestedbythenon-UKcompany.Thisisyetanothermanifestation

ofDekker’s(2014)bureaucratisationofsafety,inwhichinnovationisfrequentlystifledandnew

approachessafeworkingareimmediatelyrejected,beforetheadvantagesanddisadvantagesof

alternativeapproachesarecloselyconsidered.Inthiscase,theresistancefromtheprincipal

contractordidnotmanifestfromsafetyconcerns,butinsteadfromtheirlegalresponsibilityto

monitortheworks,andtheirconcernsofdoingsoinasystemthatwasunknowntothemWhilst

thiscannottrulybeassociatedwithcompliancetoUKregulations,thefrustrationsborneofa

continuedneedtoenforceregulationsatthesitelevelwhichshouldarguablyhavebeendealtwith

duringthetenderstagesoftheproject,andtheconsequentialemergenceofabureaucratic

approachtosafetycanperhapsbemorereadilyunderstood.Thatcompanieswereunwillingor

unabletomeetUKrequirementsdespiteworkingonaUKprojectiscertainlycauseforconcern,yet

inturnthisalsodidnotfacilitatethedevelopmentofasupportivesafetyapproachfromthesite

safetyteam.Indeed,themagnitudeofthefrustrationsinhavingtodealwithsuchproblemsatthe

sitelevelwasfrequentlyevident,onequeryregardingalackofwillingtocomplywiththesafety

ruleswasmetwiththefollowingresponsefromaUKsafetyadvisor:

Thentheycanpacktheirbagsandgetoutofhere-thisishowweworkhereandifyoudon't

likeit,thengoworksomewhereelse.

DifferentWorkingPractices

Afurtherphenomenoncloselyassociatedtothatofregulatorycompliancewasidentifiedasthe

safetymanagementchallengessurroundinggeneralworkingpractices.AsoneUKsafetyadvisor

noted:

Whatweabsolutelyneedisanacceptableagreementonwhatisunsafeoutthere.

Otherwiseitistorture.

Ideasofacceptableworkingpracticescanbecloselylinkedtothosearoundculture.Waysof

thinkingandactionsaredictatedbyhiddenandunconsciousvalues,includingforexampletheway

individualsapproachcarryingoutatask,theirattitudestowardsauthority,communicationpatterns,

concernforefficiencyandlearningstyles(Tirmizi2008,Johnsonetal.2009).Itmustbenotedthat

inthemajorityofcasesitisnotthatonecultureisrightandanotherwrong,butratherthereisa

sharedviewofwhatisconsideredrightorwrong,logicalandillogical,fairandunfair(Ochiengetal.

2013).Safetyisitselfonesuchsharedconcept,althoughcreatinganacceptedsharedviewofwhat

issafeandwhatisnotisoftenasignificantchallengeonconstructionprojectswhereenvironments

rapidlychangeandthereisthepotentialforthingstobecome‘justabitunsafe’(Sherratt2016:77).

Withinamulti-nationalworkforce,theroleofnationalculturesinevitablyhasbearingonhowshared

ideasofsafetyfitwithacceptedworkingpractices.Indeed,HelmreichandMerrit(1998)notedthe

relationshipbetweensafetyandnationalculture,whilstSeymenandBolat(2010)claimeditis

necessarytomanagetheinteractionbetweennationalcultureandorganisationalcultureefficiently

toformapositiveorganisationalsafetyculture.WorkcarriedoutbyHallowellandYugar-Arias

(2016)intheUSAfoundthatHispanicmigrantworkersonconstructionsitesbroughtwiththem

severalnationalcharacteristicsthatinfluencedtheirapproachtosafetyincludinganinternal

pressuretoworkquickly,afearofchallengingauthority,areadinesstoacceptunfairwork

assignmentswithoutcomplaint,toignorecriticism,tomakecarelessdecisionsanddefysafetyrules.

Thatmulti-nationalworkforceshavethepotentialtobringwiththemsuchdifferentnational

characteristicsisdulynoted,andwhilstthisstudywasnotintendedtoexplorenationalcultures

individuallywithspecificreferencetosafety,theconsequencesofsuchinfluencesincreating

challengesforthesafetymanagementteamwerereadilyapparent.

Forexample,workingpracticesthatweredeemedunsafeforUKculturewereoftenidentifiedonthe

project,eitherduringsafetyteamwalk-aroundsorreportedthroughthesitesafetyobservation

reportingsystem.Risktakingandotherbehaviouralconcernswerefrequentlynoted,andovertime

thesebecameassociatedbythesafetyteamwiththedifferentnon-UKworkersonthesite,for

exampleafterwitnessingaworkerwalkalongasteelbeamwithoutafall-preventionharness,one

UKsafetyadvisornoted:

Typical[Country]steelworker,hethinkshecanfloatinmid-air.

Awarenessofsuchpoorworkingpracticeswerealsodulyacknowledgedbythenon-UKworkers

themselves,asonenon-UKsupervisorwhowasmakingeffortstoensurehisteamwerefollowing

acceptedUKpracticesnoted:

Ifweturnedablindeyetheywouldfinishthisprojectveryquickly,theywillmonkeyaround

scaffolds,andthatisanacceptedmethodofworkthere,butpeopleonthisjobwouldhavea

heartattack.

However,whilesuchworkingpracticesnotonlycreatedproblemsforthesafetyteambecauseofthe

potentialriskstotheworkers’ownsafety,theywerealsoeasilywitnessedbyotherworkersonthe

projectthusleadingtowiderproblemsaroundtheconsistencyofdisciplineandpunishmentfor

breakingsafetyrules.Theneedforajustcultureisacknowledgedasessentialforthedevelopment

ofapositivesafetyculture(Dekker2007),wherethereissharedagreementofwhatconstitutes

unacceptablebehaviourandtherecognisedneedforpunishmentwhereappropriate(Remawi

2011),yetonthissitethesafetyteamstruggledtoensuresuchconsistencyinpractice.Asone

safetyadvisornoted:

TheguywascaughtjumpingfromMEWP*toMEWP.Everyoneknowswhathedidbutthe

foremanwouldn'tdismisshimbecausetheworkisnearlydoneandtheyareleavingsoon

anyway.Itstillsendsoutthewrongmessagethough.

*MobileElevatedWorkingPlatform

Thestrugglebetweenproductivityandsafetyiswell-documented(Sherratt2016)andsoits

manifestationonthissiteisperhapsunsurprising.However,theusualchallengesthisbringsfor

safetymanagementwerefurtherexacerbatedbythedifferencesinworkingpracticesofthenon-UK

workforce,andtheinabilityofthesafetyteamtoensureconsistencyinenforcement.The‘politics’

oftheproject,particularlywithrelationtothenon-UKcompaniesinvolvedandthedifferencesin

theirmanagementoftheirnativeworkforcescreatedmanyproblemsforthesafetyteam,mainly

because,asonenon-UKmanagernoted:

Peopledon'twanttodisciplineorremovetheirownmen.

Theestablishmentofsuch‘protectionist’stancesbetweenthenon-UKcompanieswasafurther

challengetosafetymanagementseekingtoresolveandbringinlinedifferentworkingpractices,as

wellasanegativeinfluenceonthesitesafetycultureasawhole.

Attimestheneedtochallengesuchbehaviourswasinevitable,andagaincreatedconflictaround

safetyonthesite.Thisevenledtobreakdownsintherelationshipsbetweenthesafetyteamand

differentnon-UKcompaniesandtheirworkgroups.Asonesafetyadvisornoted:

Ihadtostopthework…theworksmanagerwentmentalforstoppingtheworks.Hewas

shoutingandswearingsayingthatthisishowtheyhavealwaysdonethis.Isaidjustcause

thisisthewayyouhavealwaysdonedoesnotmeanitistherightwaytodoit.Formonths

therewastensioneverytimeIsawhim,butI’vefoundafewcommoninterestswithhim

sinceandourrelationshiphasimproved.

Againthesafetyteamhadtonegotiatebetweensafetyandproductivity,anddrawonpeople

managementskillstoensurethejobprogressedwithintherequiredacceptableUKsafeworking

parameters.Thisinsightsuggeststhattheroleofthesafetyadvisorsonthismulti-nationalsite

developedbeyondthatofsimpleenforcerstopositionsthatshouldbedulyrecognisedascritical

mediatorsbetweensafetyandproductivity,enablingthechallengesofdifferentworkingpracticesto

beovercome.

DifferentManagementPractices

Alongsidedifferencesinworkingpractices,thesitesafetyteamalsofacedchallengesindealingwith

thenon-UKcompanymanagement,andspecificallyhowtheymanagedthesafetyoftheirown

workforcesonthesite.IntheUK,safetyleadershipandworkerengagementareconsideredcritical

tothedevelopmentofapositivesafetyculture(Wamuziri2011),yetdifferencesinhow

managementandworkersinteracthavebeenidentifiedatthenationallevel.Inhisseminalwork,

Hofstede(1980)identifiedfourdifferentdimensionsrelatingtoculture:powerdistance,uncertainty

avoidance,individualism/collectivismandmasculinity/femininity.Althoughtherehavebeen

debatesandcriticsonHofstede'sculturaldimensions,hisworkhasremainedinfluential(Mearnsand

Yule2009)andfoundtobeapplicabletopractice(HallowellandYugar-Arias2016).Withregardto

safetymanagement,thedimensionofpowerdistancehasbeenfoundtobehighlyinfluentialasthe

largerpowerdistancebetweenworkersandmanagement,thelowertheworkers'awarenessand

beliefsregardingsafety(Mohamedetal.2009).Onthecase-studyproject,thisdimensionemerged

fromthedataasasafetymanagementchallenge.WithoutawarenessofHofstedehimself,itwasall

tooapparenttothesafetyteam,asonenon-UKadvisornoted:

Itdoesn’tsitwiththemculturally.Youcanseethatdividebetweenmanagementand

workersismuchbiggerthanyouwouldexpectfromaUKworkforcebutthisnormal,itisa

culturething.Themanagersmaketherulesandpoliciestokeepthemsafe,andtheworkers

acceptthem.Itisnotatwo-wayconversation.

Thisadvisorwastalkingaboutacompanywithahighpowerdistancedimension(Hofstede1980),

wheresuperiorsareexpectedtoexercisepowerandsubordinatesareexpectedtobepassive,

includingdecisionsmadearoundsafety(GyekyeandSalminen2006).Indeed,thefactthatworkers

werereluctanttospeakoutaboutpoorworkingpractices,unsafetyorputforwardanycriticismof

theirmanagerswasasignificantmanagementchallengeforthesafetyteamandtheyconsequently

struggledtodevelopacultureofworkerengagementwithsafetyamongstthenon-UKworkforce.

Theteamalsofacedproblemsinengagingnon-UKseniormanagementwithsafety,asonenon-UK

safetyadvisornoted:

Frederichasneverbeenonasafetywalk-around.Ihavetriedtodraghimandotherofhis

managementstafftocomeonsite,butitisnothappening.

Thisledtofurtherfrustrationsforthesafetyteam.FromtheUKperspective,acountrywithlow

powerdistance,workerengagementiscommonplace,anditiswellrecognisedthatsenior

managementinvolvementinworker’ssafetywelfare,madevisiblethroughsuchsitewalk-arounds,

isvitalinimprovingacompanyorconstructionsite’ssafetycultureoverall(Mohamed2002).

Indeed,Reason(1997),arguesthatinalowPDcountryan‘efficient’safetyculturecanberealised

througheagerandactiveparticipationfromemployees,whichmakesalowPDcultureamore

convenientstructureforthedevelopmentofapositivesafetyculture.Thisinsighttherefore

providesfurtherempiricalsupportoftheinfluencethetheoreticalpowerdistancedimensionhas

withregardtoconstructionsitesafety,frombothworkerandmanagementperspectives.Yet

althoughthesafetyteamwereabletorecognisesuchdifferencesbetweenthemanagement

practicesofthenon-UKcompaniesworkingonthesite,thisawarenessdidnot,initself,enablethem

toovercomethechallengestheycreatedinpractice.

WorkerWelfare

Thewelfareofmigrantworkerswithintheconstructionindustryhaslongbeenrecognisedascause

forconcern.Forexample,Holmes(2006)concludedthatstructuralracismandanti-immigrant

practicesdeterminethepoorworkingconditions,livingconditions,andhealthofmigrantworkersin

theUSA,whilsttherecentprojectfortheFIFAWorldCupinQatarhasalsohighlightedserious

concernsaroundthewelfareofthemigrantworkersonthestadiumsites(AmnestyInternational

2016).Poorworkerwelfare,includingaccommodationandwageprovision,hasbeenlinkedtopoor

safetyperformanceinpractice(Loosemoreetal.2010),andcanthereforebringchallengestosafety

management.ForaconstructionprojectintheUK,wheretheindustrypridesitselfonhighlevelsof

CorporateSocialResponsibility(RawlinsonandFarrell2010),itwouldperhapsbeassumedthatthe

welfareofallworkersonthissitewasamanagementpriority,yetthiswasnotfoundtobethecase.

ItbecameapparentthatdespiteworkingonaUKconstructionsite,manyofthenon-UKworkers

werenotabletosecureequalitywiththeUKworkers,asoneUKsafetyrepnoted:

Theyareoncoppers…

SuggestingtheywereearninglessthantheirUKcounterparts.Itiswelldocumentedthatmigrant

workersareoftenpreparedtotakeonworkatwagesandconditionsthatmanyUKworkerswould

notconsider(Anderson2010),simplytosecuresomeformofemployment.Indeed,manyofthe

non-UKworkersonthesitehadtravelledfromcountrieswithveryhighunemploymentrates

(Eurostat2014)andsowereperhapsevenlesslikelytocomplain.Yetonthisprojectlongevityof

workwasnotassured;whenthenon-UKworkersarrivedonthesitetheywereinitiallyplacedin

temporaryaccommodation,suchaslocalhotelsandhostels,accommodationswhichareoften

themselvescrampedandunsuitable.Itbecameapparenttothesafetyteamthanthenon-UK

companieswereemployinga‘probationaryprocess’fortheworkers,asthisnon-UKworker

explained:

Wehavebeentoldthattheywillbehereforaminimumof3months,andiftheyaregood

theywillstay,andifnottheywillbesenthome.

However,highratesofnon-UKworkerturnovermayalsobeassociatedwithotherpotentialfactors.

Aspreviouslydiscussed,culturalconstraintsaroundchallengingseniorityforsomeofthenon-UK

workerswithreferencetoworkpractices,worktypeorevensafety(HallowellandYugar-Arias2016),

mayhaveresultedinworkerspreferringtoleavethejobandreturnhome,asidentifiedinworkby

Roelofsetal.(2011)intheirstudyofHispanicworkersintheUS.Inaddition,morepersonalfactors

shouldalsobeconsidered,asonenon-UKworkernoted:

Itismuchmoreexpensive[here]thanhomeaswell,someoftheguysarefindingithard

beingawayfromwivesandgirlfriends,andareconsideringbringingthemover,butitishard

tofindsuitableaccommodation.

Suchfundamental‘humanfactors’havealsobeenacknowledgedinpreviousresearchofmigrant

workers,andindeedonthisprojectitwassuggestedthattemporaryaccommodationwasinitially

providedforexactlythesereasons.

Theseissuesaroundworkerwelfareresultedinseveraldifferentchallengesforthesafetyteam,as

theytriedtobuildrelationshipsandrapportwiththeworkersinordertosupportsafeworkingon

thesite.Whenthenon-UKworkersfirstarrivedonthesite,theywerekeentodemonstratetheir

worthtotheirmanagersinordertopassthroughprobationandretaintheirplaceontheproject.

Yettheexploitationofeconomicdisadvantageisoftenassociatedwiththedisparityinmigrant

workerinjuryrates(e.g.Pranskyetal.2002)andastriveforindividualproductivitylinkedtopoor

safetypracticessuchasrisktaking,over-exertionandfatigue,whichthesafetyteamsubsequently

hadtomanage.AsoneUKworkersuggested:

Theonesthatstayarehard-working.Ithinktheyfearfortheirjobs.

Thehighlevelsofturnoverwithinthenon-UKworkforceontheproject,eitherasaresultofworkers

leavingvoluntarilyorotherwise,alsocreatedfrustrationforthesafetyteam,astheytriedtodevelop

acoherentsafetycultureontheproject.Arelativelystableworkforcehasbeenlinkedtolow

accidentrates(GherardiandNicolini2002),yetforthisprojectthiswasnevertrulyrealisedamongst

thenon-UKworkforce.

Onefurtheraspectofinterestthatemergedwithrelationtoworkerwelfarewasthat,asonesafety

advisornoted:

Someofthemigrantworkershavebeentoldthatiftheyhaveanaccidenttheywillbegone,

sotheyarebeingverycautious.

Safetyherewasbeingusedasa‘threat’,yetanotherconsiderationfortheworkerstomanagein

ordertoensuretheiremploymentontheproject.However,whenthisisconsideredalongsidethe

otheraspectsdiscussedwithinthispaper,suchasthelackofcompanycompliancetoUKsafety

regulationsandstandards,thedifferencesinnormalworkingpracticesandthelackofmanagement

engagementwithsafety,andtheinevitableneedtobalancesafetyandproductivity,sucha

‘promotion’ofsafetyseemsratherhollowinpractice.

Conclusions

Anethnographicapproachwasusedtoexplorethechallengesfacedbythosetaskedwiththesafety

managementofamulti-nationalworkforceonalargeconstructionproject.Thefindingspresented

herehavedeliberatelyignoredtheobvioussafetymanagementchallengesthataroseasa

consequenceoflanguageandcommunicationandinsteadsoughttogobeyondthiswell-

documentedfactorforconsiderationwhenseekingtomanagethesafetyofmulti-national

workforces.Thekeyfindingsfromthisworkarefoundbelow,withadditionalrecommendations

whereappropriate,andsummarisehowthisapproachmadeavalidempiricalcontributiontothe

bodyofknowledgeinthisspecificcontext.

Issueswiththerulesandregulationsofsafetywerefoundtobeasignificantsafetymanagement

challengeonthecasestudyproject.AlthoughalackofawarenessofUKsafetylegislationhas

previouslybeennotedasproblematicamongstmulti-nationalworkforces,thisstudywasableto

revealthatlegislativeunawarenesswasalsoaproblemfornon-UKcompanies,asaresultofeither

ignoranceornegligence,andsubsequentlyinfluencedtheirmanagementapproachtosafeworking.

Theconsequencesofthisforsafetymanagementwereconsiderable;thesafetyteamfound

themselvesintheroleofenforcersratherthanfacilitators,frequentlyhavingtostopworkand

punishingworkersfortheirlackofcompliance,evenwhenitwasnotnecessarilytheirfault,creating

conflictanddamagetoworkingrelationshipsandstiflingthedevelopmentofanypositivesafety

cultureonthesite.Thatthecompaniesandsub-contractorsfromoutsideoftheUKfrequentlydid

notmeetevenbasiclegislativecompliancerequirementsiscertainlycauseforconcern,andcreated

asignificantfrustrationforthesitesafetymanagementteam.Afurtherconsequenceofthis

challengewastheemergenceofanover-bureaucratisationofsafetyontheprojectbythesafety

teamthemselves,perhapsunderstandablegiventheirfrustrations,butwhichwasagainnot

conducivetoopenandpro-activesafetydialogueandpracticesonthesite.Itisthereforesuggested

thathost-nationsafetystandardsshouldbeclearlyexplicatedwithincontractualdocumentationto

ensurebothawarenessandcompliancelongbeforeworkscommenceonanymulti-nationalproject

site.

Thedifferencesinbothworkingandmanagementpracticesasaconsequenceofdifferencesin

nationalcultureswasalsorevealedbytheresearch.AlthoughHofstedearguablypaintswithavery

broadbrush,andpotentialvariationsincultureandtheirsubsequentmanifestationsaroundsafety

havebeenpreviouslyexploredinmuchmorefocuseddetail,herethefindingsarestillabletomakea

contributionwithregardstowidersafetymanagementpractices.Theneedtoestablish‘whatsafety

lookslike’wasessentialforthesitesafetyteam,andtheirroleherewasoneoffacilitators,seeking

toencouragebothnon-UKworkerandmanagementengagementwithsafetyinordertosupportthe

developmentofapositivesafetycultureonthesite.Althougharguablyunsuccessfulforthiscase

study,thesefindingsarestillabletoilluminatetheneedforabetterunderstandingoftheskills

requiredbyasafetyadvisoronsuchaproject,andthe‘softer’managementtoolsandknowledge

requiredtobridgetheconsequencesofpowerdistancedimensions(amongstothers)onmulti-

nationalprojects.Suchinsightsarealsoabletocontributetothedevelopmentofsafety

managementsystemsspecifictomulti-nationalprojects,wheredifferencesinnationalculture

shouldbedulyacknowledged.However,itiscertainlynotsuggestedthatworkerengagementas

foundintheUKisthe‘best’or‘right’wayforward,andinsteadafully-flexibleapproachshouldbe

developedthatisabletofitwiththedifferentculturalcharacteristicsofaspecificprojectteams,yet

abletoharmonisewiththehost-countrylegislativerequirements.

Finally,thestudyrevealedthatworkerwelfareshouldalwaysbeaparamountconcernonanymulti-

nationalproject,evenindevelopedcountriessuchastheUKwhichconsiderthemselves‘world-

leaders’incorporatesocialresponsibility.Poorworkerwelfare,intermsofwages,accommodation

andsecurityofemploymentwasfoundonthecasestudyproject,raisingfurthersafetymanagement

challengesasworkerstookrisksandover-exertedtoeithersecureorretaintheiremployment.The

needtoacknowledgethepotentialforhighturnover,bothasaconsequenceofsuchprobationary

practicesormorefundamentalmigrantworkerunhappiness,shouldalsoinformtheshapingofany

safetymanagementsystemformulti-nationalprojectstoseektoenhanceitseffectivenesswithin

suchaturbulentandchallengingworkforceconditions.

Itissuggestedthatthelongitudinal,ethnographically-informedapproachmadewithinthisresearch

hasbeenabletorevealandbetterilluminatemanyofthesafetymanagementchallengesthatare

uniquetomulti-nationalconstructionprojects.Theseempiricalfindings,whenconsideredalongside

relevanttheory,arelikelyabletofindfitwithinmanyothernationalandprojectcontexts.Their

strengthslieintheecologicalvalidityofthemethodasmobilised,andthepotentialfortransference

tootherprojects.Thatsaid,itshouldbenotedthattheextensionofthefindingsofthispaperto

othergeographicregions,projectcontextsandotherdomainsistheoreticalonly.Furtherresearchis

suggestedtoexploretheextenttowhichthefindingspresentedherearegeneralizableelsewhere.

Theresearchersmadeeveryefforttoremoveresearcherbias;however,itistosomeextent

inevitablewithinethnographicwork,andsolimitationsaroundinternalvalidityandconstruct

validitymayremain.Itisthereforerecommendedthatfurtherresearchbecarriedoutthatisableto

overcometheselimitationsbyadoptingother,complementarymethodsofenquiry.Itisalso

recommendedthatfurtherresearchofanethnographicnaturebemobilisedtocontinuethe

explorationofsuchcomplexandnuancedphenomenawithrelationtoconstructionsafety,inorder

tobetterinformandsupportthedevelopmentofsuitableandeffectivesafetymanagementsystems

formulti-nationalprojects.

Acknowledgements

ThisworkwassupportedbytheUKEngineeringandPhysicalSciencesResearchCouncil’sDoctoral

TrainingScheme.

References

AmnestyInternational,2016.TheUglySideoftheBeautifulGame–ExploitationofMigrantWorkers

onaQatar2022WorldCupSite.London:AmnestyInternationalLtd.

Anderson,B.,2010.Migration,immigrationcontrolsandthefashioningofprecariousworkers.Work,

EmploymentandSociety,24(2),300-317.

Authorreference,2014.

BylerC.G.,2013.FatalInjuriestoHispanic/LatinoWorker,USA.DepartmentofLabor. MonthlyLabor

Review(February2013).

Braun,V.,2006.Usingthematicanalysisinpsychology.QualitativeResearchinPsychology,3(2):93.

Bust,P.D.,Gibb,A.G.,andPink,S.,2008.Managingconstructionhealthandsafety:Migrantworkers

andcommunicatingsafetymessages.SafetyScience,46(4),585-602.

CenterforConstructionResearch,andTraining(CPWR),2008.Theconstructionchartbook—TheU.S.

constructionindustryanditsworkers,4thEd.SilverSpring,MD:CPWR.

CentreforCorporateAccountability,2009.Migrants’workplacedeathsinBritain.London:Irwin

MitchellandtheCentreforCorporateAccountability.

Clifford,J.,1986Introduction:partialtruths.In:J.CliffordandG.E.Marcuseds.WritingCulture:The

PoeticsandPoliticsofEthnography.UniversityofCaliforniaPress:London,1-26.

Dekker,S.W.A.,2007.JustCulture–BalancingSafetyandAccountability.Aldershot:Ashgate

PublishingLimited.

Dekker,S.W.A.,2014.Thebureaucratizationofsafety,SafetyScience,70,348-357

DeWalt,K.M.andDeWalt,B.R.,1998.Participantobservation.In:H.RussellBernarded.Handbook

ofMethodsinCulturalAnthropology.WalnutCreek:AltaMiraPress,259-300.

Dainty,A.,Green,S.andBagilhole,B.,2007.PeopleandCultureinConstruction:AReader.Oxon:

TaylorandFrancis.

Dainty,A.,2008.Methodologicalpluralisminconstructionmanagementresearch.In:A.Knightand

L.Ruddockeds.AdvancedResearchMethodsintheBuiltEnvironment.Oxford:Wiley-Blackwell,1–

13.

Eurostat,2014.NewsReleaseApril,EuropeanCommission.

Fellini,I.,Ferro,A.andFullin,G.,2007.Recruitmentprocessesandlabourmobility:theconstruction

industryinEurope.Work,EmploymentandSociety,21(2),277-298.

Gherardi,S.andNicolini,D.,2002.Learningthetrade:Acultureofsafetyinpractise.Organisation,9,

191-223.

Gyekye,S.A.andSalminen,S.,2006.Theself-defensiveattributionhypothesisinthework

environment:Co-workers’perspectives.SafetyScience,44(2),157-168.

Goffman,E.,2005.Wheretheactionis.In:E.Goffmaned.InteractionRitual:EssaysinFace-to-Face

Behaviour.Brunswick,NJ:TransactionPublishers,149-270.

Goodrum,P.M.andDai,J.,2005.Differencesinoccupationalinjuries,illnesses,andfatalitiesamong

Hispanicandnon-Hispanicconstructionworkers.JournalofConstructionEngineeringand

Management,131(9),1021-1028.

Guest,G.,2012.Appliedthematicanalysis.ThousandOaks,California:SagePublicationsLimited.

Guldenmund,F.,Cleal,B.andMearns,K.,2013.Anexploratorystudyofmigrantworkersandsafety

inthreeEuropeancountries.SafetyScience,52,92-99.

Hammersley,M.andAtkinson,P.,2007.Ethnography:principlesinpractice(3rded.).Routledge:

Abingdon.

Hallowell,M.R.andYugar-Arias,I.F.,2016Exploringfundamentalcausesofsafetychallengesfaced

byHispanicconstructionworkersintheUSusingphotovoice.SafetyScience,82,199-211.

Hare,B.,Cameron,I.,Real,K.J.,andMaloney,W.F.,2012.Exploratorycasestudyofpictorialaidsfor

communicatinghealthandsafetyformigrantconstructionworkers.JournalofConstruction

EngineeringandManagement,139(7),818-825.

Helmreich,R.L.andMerrit,A.C.,1998.CultureatWorkinAviationandMedicine;National,

OrganisationalandProfessionalInfluences.Aldershot:AshgatePublishingLimited.

Hofstede,G.,1980.Culture'sConsequences.London:SagePublications.

Holmes,S.M.,2006.AnethnographicstudyofthesocialcontextofmigranthealthintheUnited

States.PLoSMedicine,3(10),e448.

Horta,I.M.,Camanho,A.S.,Johnes,J.andJohnes,G.,2013.Performancetrendsintheconstruction

industryworldwide:anoverviewoftheturnofthecentury.JournalofProductivityAnalysis,39(1),

89-99.

HealthandSafetyExecutive,2013.MigrantWorkers[online].HealthandSafetyExecutive.Available

from:http://www.hse.gov.uk/migrantworkers/construction.htm[Accessed3April2014]

Johnson,S.K.,Bettenhausen,K.andEllieGibbons,E.,2009.Realitiesofworkinginvirtualteams:

affectiveandattitudinaloutcomesofusingcomputer-mediatedcommunication.SageJournal:Small

GroupResearch,40(6),623-649.

Lincoln,Y.S.andGuba,E.G.,1985.NaturalisticInquiry.London:SagePublicationsLimited.

Loosemore,M.,Phua,F.,Dunn,K.andOzguc,U.,2010.ManagingculturaldiversityinAustralia

constructionsites.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,28(2),177-188.

McMeeken,R.,2015.CrossingtheLine.BuildingMagazine.

Meardi,G.,Martín,A.,andRiera,M.L.,2012.Constructinguncertainty:Unionsandmigrantlabour

inconstructioninSpainandtheUK.JournalofIndustrialRelations,54(1),5-21.

Mearns,K.,andYule,S.,2009.Theroleofnationalcultureindeterminingsafetyperformance:

Challengesfortheglobaloilandgasindustry.SafetyScience,47(6),777-785.

Mohamed,S.,2002.Safetyclimateinconstructionsiteenvironments.JournalofConstruction

EngineeringandManagement,128(5),375-384.

Mohamed,S.,Ali,T.H.andTam,W.Y.V.,2009.NationalCutureandSafeWorkBehaviourof

ConstructionWorkersinPakistan.SafetyScience,47,29-35.

NgowiA.,PienaarE.,TalukhabaA.,andMbachuJ.,2005.Theglobalisationoftheconstruction

industry-areview.BuildingandEnvironment,40(1),135–141.

Ochieng,E.G.,Price,A.D.F.,Ruan,X,Egbu,C.O.andMoore,D.,2013.Theeffectofcross-cultural

uncertaintyandcomplexitywithinmulticulturalconstructionteams.Engineering,Constructionand

ArchitecturalManagement,20(3),307–324.

O’Reilly,K.,2009.KeyConceptsinEthnography.SagePublications:London,UK.

OrreniusP.M.andZavodnyM.,2009.Doimmigrantsworkinriskierjobs?Demography,46(3),535-

551.

Oswald,D.,Sherratt,F.,andSmith,S.,2014a.HandlingtheHawthorneeffect:Thechallenges

surroundingaparticipantobserver.ReviewofSocialStudies,1(1),53-73.

Oswald,D.,Smith,S.andSherratt,F.,2014bASpanishsubcontractorinaUKcultureIn:Raiden,AB

andAboagye-Nimo,E(Eds)Procs30thAnnualARCOMConference,1-3September2014,

Portsmouth,UK,AssociationofResearchersinConstructionManagement,259-268

Oswald,D.,Smith,S.andSherratt,F.,2015.Doingthe'funkychicken'tocommunicateon

multinationalprojects.In:A.B.Raidén,andE.Aboagye-Nimoeds.Procs31stAnnualARCOM

Conference,7-9September2015,Lincoln,UK,AssociationofResearchersinConstruction

Management,589-598.

ParedesGil,M.andWerna,E.2009.LocalAuthoritiesandtheConstructionIndustry,inLawrence,R.

andWerna,E.(Eds)LabourConditionsforConstruction:Buildingcities,decentwork&theroleof

localauthorities,51-81.

Phelps,A.andHorman,M.,2010.Ethnographictheory-buildingresearchinconstruction.Journalof

ConstructionEngineeringandManagement,136,58-65.

Pink,S.,Tutt,D.andDainty,A.R.J.,2012.EthnographicResearchintheConstructionIndustry.

London:Routledge.

Pransky,G.,Moshenberg,D.,Benjamin,K.,Portillo,S.,Thackrey,J.L.andHill-Fotouhi,C.,2002.

Occupationalrisksandinjuriesinnon-agriculturalimmigrantLatinoworkers.AmericanJournalof

IndustrialMedicine,42(2),117-123.

Rawlinson,F.andFarrell,P.,2010UKconstructionindustrysitehealthandsafetymanagement:An

examinationofpromotionalwebmaterialasanindicatorofcurrentdirection.Construction

Innovation,10(4),435-446.

Remawi,H.,2011.TherelationshipbetweentheimplementationofaSafetyManagementSystem

andtheattitudesofemployeestowardsunsafeactsinaviation.Thesis(PhD).GriffithUniversity.

RoelofsC.,Sprague-MartinezL.,BrunetteM.andAzaroff,L.,2011.Aqualitativeinvestigationof

Hispanicconstructionworkerperspectivesonfactorsimpactingworksitesafetyandrisk.

EnvironmentalHealth,10(1),84.

Sells,K.,2007.SafeInEveryLanguage.TheBuilder,11(3),14-15.

Seymen,O.A.andBolat,O.I.,2010.Theroleofnationalcultureinestablishinganefficientsafety

cultureinorganisations:anevaluationinrespectofHofstede’sculturaldimensions.EurasiaBusiness

andEconomicSociety(EBES)Conference,Athens.

Sherratt,F.,2016.UnpackingConstructionSiteSafety.Chichester:JohnWileyandSons.

Shipton,C.,Hughes,W.andTutt,D.,2014.Changemanagementinpractice:andethnographicstudy

ofchangestocontractrequirementsonahospitalproject.ConstructionManagementand

Economics,32(7-8),787-803.

Tirmizi,S.A.,2008.Effectivemulticulturalteams:theoryandpractice.AdvancesinGroupDecision

andNegotiation,3,1-20.

Trajkovski,S.andLoosemore,M.,2006.Safetyimplicationsoflow-Englishproficiencyamong

migrantconstructionsiteoperatives.InternationalJournalofProjectManagement,24(5),446-452.

Tutt,D.,Dainty,A.,Gibb,A.,andPink,S.,2011.Migrantconstructionworkersandhealthandsafety

communication.King’sLynn:CITB-ConstructionSkills.

Tutt,D.,Pink,S.,Dainty,A.R.J.,andGibb,A.,2013.Buildingnetworkstowork:anethnographic

studyofinformalroutesintotheUKconstructionindustryandpathwaysformigrantup-skilling.

Constructionmanagementandeconomics,31(10),1025-1037.

Rooke,J.,Seymour,DandFellows,R.,2004.Planningforclaims:Anethnographyofindustryculture.

ConstructionManagementandEconomics,22(6),655-62.

Seymour,D.,Rooke,J.andCrook,J.,1997Theroleoftheoryinconstructionmanagement:Acallfor

debate.ConstructionManagementandEconomics,15(1),117–119.

VanMaanen,J.,2011.Talesofthefield:Onwritingethnography.Chicago:UniversityofChicago

Press.

Wamuziri,S.,2011.FactorsthatContributetoPositiveandNegativeHealthandSafetyCulturesin

Construction.ProceedingsoftheCIBW099Conference:Prevention-MeanstotheEndof

ConstructionInjuries,IllnessesandFatalities.24–26August,WashingtonDC.CIB,Rotterdam.Zou,

P.X.W.,Sunindijo,R.Y.andDainty,A.R.J.,2014.Amixedmethodsresearchdesignforbridgingthe

gapbetweenresearchandpracticeinconstructionsafety.SafetyScience,70,316–326.