Next Article in Journal
The Resilience of a Resettled Flood-Prone Community: An Application of the RABIT Framework in Pasig City, Metro Manila
Previous Article in Journal
RAID: Robust and Interpretable Daily Peak Load Forecasting via Multiple Deep Neural Networks and Shapley Values
Previous Article in Special Issue
The ISO/IEC 27001 Information Security Management Standard: How to Extract Value from Data in the IT Sector
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing CSR Reports of Top UK Construction Companies: The Case of Occupational Health and Safety Disclosures

by
Stefanos Fotiadis
1,
Konstantinos I. Evangelinos
1,*,
Foteini Konstantakopoulou
2 and
Ioannis E. Nikolaou
3
1
Department of Environment, School of Environment, University of the Aegean, 81100 Mitilini, Greece
2
Engineering Protect Management (DCHT), School of Science and Technology, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patra, Greece
3
Department of Environmental Engineering, Polytechnic School, Democritus University Thrace, 69100 Komotini, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(8), 6952; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086952
Submission received: 31 October 2022 / Revised: 27 March 2023 / Accepted: 31 March 2023 / Published: 20 April 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Quality Management and Sustainability)

Abstract

:
As health and safety in construction is a major concern worldwide, this paper examines the occupational health and safety (OHS) disclosures of leading companies. A composite disclosure index was devised, based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Standards for Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Reporting, and focuses on the information found in such reports of corporations pertaining to the United Kingdom (UK) construction industry, in an attempt to identify trends in OHS reporting from a sample of fifteen corporations. The results disclose that construction companies fall short in reporting OHS objectives. The prevention and mitigation measures of OHS impacts and occupational health services are the only indicators in which companies reach medium to good performance. In contrast, issues of young workers exposed to hazards pertaining to suppliers are not reported by the sample. Five sample firms were identified as not revealing any information on OHS, while there was no disclosure by at least nine companies.

1. Introduction

Corporate social responsibility (CSR) has gained ground in the business sector and scientific community due to their common target, which is a continuous effort to achieve a new sustainable model applicable to all economies in the world [1]. Apropos the construction sector, CSR is of top priority, which is probably due to the fact that it requires an increasing number of workers [2] to implement and carry out all the activities during a construction project [3]. CSR and OHS issues are integrated in recent years since CSR standards focus on OHS aspects to protect workers and promote decent conditions [4].
Construction companies are well known for their high-risk and severe working conditions, which in turn lead to a series of OHS accidents and work-related ill-health incidents [2,5]. In order to cope with the constantly increasing needs of the industry, many companies often put profit as the top priority, setting aside environmental and social parameters such as the protection of the local environment or providing safe working conditions [2,6]. Work-related ill health is a fundamental topic in construction companies. In the UK, there are approximately 4000 health-related worker deaths annually (compared to an average of 39 due to accidents) and 80,000 people suffering some type of disability [7]. Deaths are mostly due to cancers particularly those related to asbestos exposure; breathing disorders such as silicosis and COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) are also widespread. This situation as described above appears in many countries around the world. The aforementioned causes of death occur throughout the construction sector within the European Union, as well as throughout the world [8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16].
Organizational OHS and issues of organizational learning and knowledge management are growing in prominence as a core agenda in the literature [17,18,19,20]. Knowledge is one of the main determinant factors in the implementation of a rigorous OHS management system [19,21,22,23], especially in the construction sector. Developing a culture of knowledge transfer in the construction sector faces many difficulties because of the specific nature of project activities. The existence of many cultures and differing opinions in project operations from other organizations across the supply chain complicates matters [24]. All these professionals have a different point of view when approaching a project or a work plan or focus on issues less important to others. This means that although they receive safety information from a plethora of sources, they behave differently depending upon the project team culture [25].
Although several legal frameworks on OHS objectives exist [19], there is a need to specify and divide them into categories depending on which working environment or industry is their focus. Organizational learning of OHS will not be fully covered from governmental general legal frameworks. Context related safety experience and cognitive skills of employees, give an extra added value to safety, promoting innovation and attracting new highly skilled employees [18]. Additionally, other groups of stakeholders such as investors and financial institutions (e.g., banks and stock-exchanges) require information for OHS to anticipate potential accidents and avoid financial losses [26].
Culture is an organizational mindset with great influence over procedures, protocols, ethics, and human capital, impacting on employees by disseminating knowledge and experience [27]. Cultural change is the prerequisite in order for construction companies to enact improvements in OHS performance [27]. In order to ensure stability in OHS and achieve success in the fragmented supply chain, it is necessary to share accountability for the transmitted information and knowledge on OHS among all stakeholders [25].
Despite the importance of informing stakeholders about various issues relating to construction companies, previous studies have highlighted the limited number of methods for informing stakeholders about various topics [28]. In particular, ref. [29] identified that the construction industry displays poor disclosure behavior about OHS information very important for stakeholders’ decisions. There is a need for a comprehensive CSR system to evaluate and guide the construction industry to assess CSR (including OHS) performance scientifically in order to inform stakeholders, to gain legitimacy and increase levels of accountability [3]. Ref. [30] have highlighted the limited nature of OHS information disclosed by the construction industry which could play a critical role in socioeconomic costs.
The lack of OHS disclosure information from the construction industry stems from the limited number of evaluation tools informing stakeholders. Additionally, there is no uniform and standard system to inform stakeholders about the OHS performance of the construction industry creating unsafe conditions for stakeholders and the industry itself. The low degree of construction industry accountability creates conditions of liability for the participants in the construction market since extreme incidents of OHS will create financial problems for the participants. To overcome such problems, this paper suggests a methodology to extract information regarding the OHS performance of the industry from CSR reports. This methodology aims to respond to the limited research exploring the accountability of OHS information towards the stakeholders in the construction industry. The following research questions will be addressed:
(A)
What types of OHS information are disclosed by the construction industry?
(B)
Is the OHS information disclosed in the sustainability reports complete and high quality?
As previously mentioned, this information is extracted from CSR reports prepared under standards and internationally accepted guidelines and principles (e.g., GRI, SASBs and IR). These principles help in some way to prepare information that is reliable and follows commonly accepted standards. The suggested methodology is also based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) guidelines and scoring/benchmarking systems in order to prepare indicators to evaluate OHS information in order to develop a uniform framework to retrieve comparative information from any construction company. It was applied to a sample of 50 CSR reports published by large companies (based on the 2017 revenue performance) from the UK construction sector. Some interesting findings show that many items of OHS have been reported, including the following: management approach, worker participation, hazard identification and management systems.
The rest of the paper includes four sections. The first section provides information regarding the theoretical background of sustainability reporting and OHS. It gives a general picture of OHS information presentation in CSR reports. Then, the methodology follows describing the approach implemented to assess the reports. Finally, the results, discussion and conclusion are presented.

2. Literature Review

2.1. CSR Reports and Rating Systems

Today, the business community has placed Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) issues (including OHS information) at the centre of their daily management. Although there is no commonly accepted definition for CSR since many terms are utilized (e.g., corporate citizenship, corporate sustainability, corporate responsibility), most scholars in the field agree that its content includes three dimensions: (a) the economy, (b) the environment and (c) society [31,32]. The priority given to CSR issues is either due to mandatory or voluntary reasons [33]. The former implies that specific regulatory requirements enforce firms to adopt CSR strategies [33] and the latter that voluntary motivations persuade firms to implement CSR projects [34].
Many scholars have tried to clarify the content of CSR and make it more user-friendly by classifying it into different aspects related to the economy, environment and society [35]. They incorporate CSR under the umbrella of sustainability. These methodologies are based on benchmarking systems to incorporate economic (e.g., strategy weight, project cost, profitability, client satisfaction, and timeliness), environmental (e.g., sustainable site, water efficiency, energy and atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality) and social criteria (impact on community, resources consumed, internal human resources, external population, stakeholder participation) to measure the CSR performance of the construction industry [36]. Similarly, Ref. [37] identified 82 sustainability indicators relating to construction projects, 27 of which were classified as economic, 18 as environmental and 37 as social indicators. Similarly, Ref. [38] develop a measurement system based on the triple bottom line approach with economic indicators (e.g., to measure management and organizational performance, financial performance, and external perception), environmental indicators (e.g., to measure environmental practices and performance), and social indicators (e.g., to measure internal and external social practices and performance).
The permanent questions in the CSR field are why and how firms inform stakeholders about their performance on CSR topics [39]. To answer the first question, a number of studies, explaining why firms disclose CSR information, have been conducted using the stakeholder theory [40], the legitimacy theory [41] and the institutional theory [42]. To respond to the second question, the existing studies analyse the content of disclosed information from different sectors of firms. The findings show variability in the disclosed CSR information between sectors [43], countries [44], the size of firms [45] and ownership [46].
One significant factor that explains the focus of sustainability reporting of firms is the sensitivity of the sector regarding environmental or social issues. For example, environmentally sensitive sectors (e.g., chemical and mining) disclose much information regarding the protection of the natural environment [47], while sectors sensitive to workplace accidents provide more information on health and safety issues [48]. Although the majority of firms adopt GRI to disclose CSR information, there is not a consistent manner of disclosing this information. Great variability is evident among the types of information disclosed, as well as its quality, materiality and measurement units.
To extract systematic and comparative information from CSR reporting, many scholars have suggested rating systems based on commonly accepted standards and guidelines such as the GRI [49,50]. It is worth mentioning that the Global Reporting Initiative propose the GRI guidelines in order to assist firms in preparing and disclosing information regarding CSR performance in economic, environmental and social aspects. These systems could be classified into two categories: content analysis and scoring/benchmarking systems. The former category includes methodologies to measure different types of information by estimating the number of sentences, paragraphs and pages that refer to specific information [51]. The second category focuses on scoring/benchmarking systems which provide a rating system to measure the quantity and quality of information disclosed for each CSR item [52]. These systems suggest a measurement system from 0 for non-disclosure of information to 4 or 5 according to the qualitative or quantitative character of information.

2.2. OHS Information in CSR Reports

Construction companies are considered health and safety sensitive companies since their operations are associated with many risks and potential accidents [53]. Construction projects without safety terms might have an enormous impact on the employees and residents of local communities. Dealing with these problems has been a major priority for construction companies in recent times, either to comply with current legislation or as a voluntary initiative to satisfy the demands of interested groups.
One significant topic for construction companies and stakeholders is the level of accountability regarding OHS issues. According to the International Labor Organization (ILO) the term OHS includes issues regarding the prevention of work-related injuries (e.g., accidents, injuries) and diseases (e.g., sickness) as well as to promote the mental, physical and social well-being of employees. Many groups of stakeholders require OHS information before offering the ‘social license to operate’, while other stakeholder groups demand OHS information to eliminate potential risks in order to collaborate with the construction industry. The former includes local communities and the labor market which require safety measures from the construction industry to protect their employees and avoid accidents. The latter includes financial stakeholders which need OHS information to eliminate potential penalties due to accidents which might translate into financial losses for them [29].
To meet these needs, quality information regarding the OHS issues of construction companies are needed. Such types of information are disclosed either from standalone safety reports to estimate risks of accidents or from CSR reports. Currently, OHS thematic objectives are inextricably linked to the CSR plan of action and CSR reports. Many guidance documents have driven forward OHS topics in the context of CSR management practices. In particular, the Green Paper of the European Commission [54] for “promoting a European framework for Corporate Social Responsibility” categorically points out that the CSR agenda should be assessed in the context of CSR motivating enterprises to commit to voluntary initiatives and achieve OHS targets which exceed the standard statutory provisions. Many voluntary tools and frameworks have been recommended to support companies in handling OHS topics such as the Swedish TCO labelling scheme, the Dutch Safety Contractors checklist and OHSAS 18,001 [55,56].
Business entities do their best to not be involved in difficult situations related to the working environment (e.g., work accidents) which could bring about undesirable consequences to their reputation and lead to fines or disciplinary sanctions [57]. From this perspective, many large firms, especially those which come up against a rising number of risks link to occupational accidents, because of the nature of their activities, (e.g., the chemical, mining, construction, oil and gas industries) [58,59], have embraced and included OHS voluntary tools and topics into their CSR strategies. Furthermore, the continuous increasing focus on OHS issues, is also backed up by the quantity and the quality of information disclosed in many CSR reports [48,60].
There have been many statements supporting the need of increasing the effectiveness of OHS through CSR [61,62] such as the natural environment. However, these fall short of knowledge about how employee affairs are presented in CSR reporting. OHS accounting and reporting is associated with the gathering, processing, and disclosure of specific information in order to speed up organizational leadership and managerial effectiveness, and strengthening stakeholder decision-making [63]. Many research studies have focused on OHS disclosure (OHSD) in the framework of wider corporate non-financial reporting procedures e.g., [64,65,66,67]. Research results indicate that the providing of OHS information can result to direct positive effects in the workplace [68,69], attracting new, high-skilled employees [70], building and maintaining customer loyalty [71,72], along with reputational and credibility benefits [73]. Even so, OHS information disclosed in CSR reports has received limited attention in sustainability reporting research [60,74,75,76] although poor OHS conditions have an effect on workforce well-being [77] and may result in a variety of negative socioeconomic consequences [78,79].
Limited research exists and that which does presents a small number of OHS information disclosures in CSR reports. In particular, ref. [80] examined the CSR reports from the Jordanian public shareholding and found that less than 10% of the information was relevant to OHS concerns. Ref. [60] focused on CSR (CSR reports) and highlighted a small number of OHS issues. Such issues are associated with human resources, work–life balance, human rights and safety and public health issues. Ref. [48] revealed that about 11% of a CSR report related to OHS information and underlined that a principal part of OHS information refers to occupational health (44%) with less than 22% focused on employee well-being.
A small number of research studies identified that companies perform well in disclosing OHS information in CSR reports. Ref. [81] examined eight Australian companies, which integrate thorough OHS disclosures. In addition, ref. [82] pointed out that OHS information disclosures occupied a major part of CSR reports. Additionally, some researchers e.g., [26,82] emphasized that high risk industries with workplace safety concerns, such as mining, and oil and gas, achieve a more satisfactory level of OHS information disclosure than those pertaining to less hazardous sectors such as banks.
In line with the above, there are several studies which state that the frequency of OHS information on such aspects as employment conditions is high [83,84]; however, the understanding of such disclosures is still at a non-satisfactory level and allows companies to report, or not, as many aspects as they want [85,86]. Many researchers confirm the shortage of consistency and understanding across enterprises regarding voluntary OHS information disclosure [85,87,88,89].
Increasing pressures and efforts from several interested parties can redirect and emphasize the need for OHS organizational policies. Local communities and workers use all means of pressure on hazardous industrial sectors to respond to OHS demands in an effective manner [90,91]. As such, the publication of OHS information, either by independent OHS reports or CSR reports, comes from companies’ efforts to build trustworthy relations with local stakeholders in order to avoid receiving negative feedback. Indeed, in many cases the integration of OHS strategies and policies by companies depends on the location in which they do business. Companies improve their OHS indicators in order to comply with the legal framework and adhere to the measures and procedures emerging from the institutional requirements of each country [53].

3. Sample and Methodology

In order to extract OHS information from the CSR reports of the construction industry, a methodological framework was designed based on four steps (Figure 1). The first step describes the research questions of this study emerging from the literature review. A literature review was carried out to highlight information on the scientific gaps in the field of OHS information and the construction industry. Two streams of literature have been analyzed: one is related to OHS and the construction industry and the other on corporate reporting evaluation of OHS information and CSR reporting. The second step analyzes the scoring technique based on the GRI guidelines to determine specific items and the current literature to underscore experience from existing scoring evaluation systems. The main task in this step was to examine the current benchmarking systems from relevant literature and the GRI guidelines. The former analysis assists in identifying the strengths and weaknesses in previous scoring/benchmarking systems which could be useful to prepare the suggested methodology. The latter analysis is made in order to extract useful information regarding OHS from the GRI guidelines and indicators. As previously mentioned, GRI provides uniform information to measure different aspects of sustainability and the CSR performance (including OHS information) of organizations. The next step focuses on selecting suitable CSR reports from the construction industry in the GRI database. At this stage, some criteria will be introduced in order to identify valuable and applicable reports from the construction industry (more details are presented in the next sections). The final step analyzes the findings. This step describes the main results of the suggested scoring/benchmarking systems through evaluation of the reports selected. The findings provide feedback relating to relevant literature mainly on OHS issues in the construction industry, CSR reporting regarding the construction industry and general CSR and scoring benchmarking systems.

3.1. Research Questions

Some important research issues in the existing literature are why firms disclose OHS information, how they do so and in what degree they achieve it. The first topic (why) has been a main research question for many years in the field of sustainable reporting [53] and by extension in the topics of OHS which are mainly voluntary initiatives of businesses [92]. One significant reason to explain why firms disclose OHS information on a voluntary basis is to gain legitimacy [93] and, obviously, the higher level of accountability implies higher level of legitimacy among the stakeholders of firms [94]. One way to measure accountability of firms in OHS topics is to identify what types of information the firms disclose. For this reason, the first research question is:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What types of OHS information are disclosed by construction companies?
Another important topic in order to examine the degree of accountability of firms in relation to OHS disclosures is their quality. Despite the significance of the number of disclosures, the quality of this information is also very important. The quality of OHS disclosures implies that accurate, complete, comparative and quantitative information is disclosed by firms. This leads to the following research question:
Research Question 2 (RQ2): Is the OHS information disclosed in the sustainability reports complete and high quality?

3.2. Rating System

In order to assess the comprehensiveness of reported information, a composite disclosure index was devised for each corporation j, in line with the structure and rationale of previous rating schemes suggested in the literature [30,95,96,97]. This measure was derived from specific disclosure requirements of the GRI Standards—the first global standards for sustainability reporting—that refer to firm-specific OHS management and performance reporting objectives (Table 1). These items, presented in Table 2, were rated on a five-point scale and the generic scoring scheme applied to the assessment is outlined in Table 3 Based on the defined ti OHS topics criteria (i = 1, 2, …, 10), the proposed composite OHSD index for corporation j was constructed as follows:
OHSD j = j = 1 4 t j
where tj equals to zero for non-disclosure, 1 if the organization i discloses vague information on the jth topic, 2 if it provides relevant but inadequate information/data, 3 if the coverage is comprehensive and 4 if it is fully in line with the GRI Standards’ implementation manual. This results in an index with a maximum score of 44 points. These disclosure scores are expressed in percentages. The assessment was performed independently by two researchers with previous experience of relevant coding schemes and content analysis assessment. The assessment was carried out in two phases. The first was held between March and May 2020 and the second started one month later, June 2020 lasting until August 2020 where all organizations’ disclosure scores were re-evaluated in order that discrepancies, issues of inter-coding errors and any needs for further emphasis on such material topics to be eliminated.
For reliability and validity reasons, each report was evaluated from two independent researchers. The discrepancies in the rating scores between the two researchers were insignificant, a fact that justifies the use of all reports in our sample.

3.3. Data Selection

To respond to the research questions of this paper, our sample, encompassing fifteen out of one hundred of the largest corporations (based on revenue in 2017) from the UK construction industry, was gathered from reliable UK website lists, ‘the construction index’ and ‘Construction News’ in 2018 (Table 3 and Table 4). In particular, the first fifty companies of the former source were crosschecked with the latter. Those entities that were not found in the second, were excluded from the evaluation. The selection of the particular industrial sector was based on Eurostat’s two remarkable observations in the EU-28 in 2017 [98]: The first was that the industry had the highest incidence of non-fatal accidents at work, with 2876 per 100,000 people employed. The second was that fatal accidents were most common in construction, with 733 people killed, 20.6% of the total. As such, it is important to shed light on the OHS challenges the industry faces as well as well as the lack of the UK industry-level evidence on trends in voluntary OHS-specific corporate disclosure. The focus was on CSR reports or any official document including CSR affairs published by these firms in 2017 or 2018 with reference to performance achievements of 2017.
Table 3. Sample of firms‘ descriptive information.
Table 3. Sample of firms‘ descriptive information.
Rank According to Theconstructionindex.co.ukRank According to Constructionnews.co.ukFirmsReporting
Period
Turnover (£m) 2017 According to Firms’ Financial or Official
Reports and Websites
11Balfour Beatty plc17 December8234
22Kier Group plc17 June4282.30
33Interserve plc17 December3250.80
46Galliford Try plc17 June2820.20
55Morgan Sindall17 December2793
67Amey UK plc17 December2581.30
88Mace17 December2036.90
94Laing O’Rourke plc17 March2.00
109Skanska UK plc17 December1802.70
1111Costain Group plc17 December1728.90
1210ISG plc17 December1708.80
1312Wates Group Ltd.17 December1530.22
1414Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd.17 December1296.41
1515Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd.17 December1155.40
1616BAM Construct UK Ltd.17 December953
1717Sir Robert McAlpineOctober 17942.5
1818Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd.17 August928.3
2119Vinci plc17 December870.7
2220VolkerWessels UK Ltd.17 December870
2327Lendlease17 June800.4
2523J Murphy & Sons Ltd.17 December711.9
2631Eurovia UK Ltd.17 December486.2
2725ENGIE2 * (Keepmoat)17 March423.2
2824BAM Nuttall Ltd.17 December673.8
2928McLaren Construction Group plc17 July600.3
3022Robertson Group (Hodlings) Ltd.17 March579.9
3129Renew Holdings plc17 September560.8
3213Bouygues (U.K.) Ltd.16 December -
3330Carey Group plc17 March549.2
3432NG Bailey Group Ltd.18 February481
3533Winvic Group Ltd.17 January461.8
3634Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd.17 December423
3761John Sisk & Son Ltd.16 December239.4
3835Keltbray Group (Holdings) Ltd.October 17417.5
4138Northstone (NI) Ltd.16 December375
4239Ardmore17 September370
4340Imtech17 December368
4541Osborne17 March348.1
4742McAleer & Rushe17 December334.1
4843SSE Contracting Ltd.17 March330
4944Byrne Group plc17 May321.7
5045T Clarke plc17 December311.2
5246Watkin Jones plc17 September301.9
5347Lakehouse17 September299.5
5448North Midland Construction plc17 December291.8
5549Higgins Group plc17 July290.6
5658FM Conway Ltd.17 March290.2
5750RG Carter Group16 December286.4
5853Ogilvie Group17 June216
5951Severfield plc17 March274.2
* The item was adapted to fit the purpose of this study.
Table 4. Information pertinent to CSR, GRI and OHS objectives.
Table 4. Information pertinent to CSR, GRI and OHS objectives.
CompaniesType of (Basic) Report including the Examined DisclosuresReports in GRI Database including 2017 InformationReports in GRI Database without including 2017 InformationReports Are Not found in GRI DatabaseType of Standards followed by Companies to Compile Their CSR ReportsNominative OHS Systems/Standards within Report
Balfour Beatty plcCSR--Non-GRI Report-
Kier Group plcCSR--GRI Standards-
Interserve plcAnnual--Non-GRI Report
Galliford Try plcAnnual--Non-GRI Report
Morgan SindallCSR--GRI Standards
Amey UK plcCSR--Non-GRI Report-
MaceAnnual--Non-GRI Report-
Laing O’Rourke plcAnnual--Non-GRI Report-
Skanska UK plcAnnual--GRI Standards
Costain Group plcCSR--GRI Standards
ISG plcCSR--Non-GRI Report
Wates Group Ltd.Annual--Non-GRI Report-
Willmott Dixon Holdings Ltd.Annual- Non-GRI Report-
Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd.CSR--Non-GRI Report
BAM Construct UK Ltd.Integrated--GRI Standards
Sir Robert McAlpineCSR--Non-GRI Report-
Bowmer & Kirkland Ltd.2016–2017 Group Accounts--Non-GRI Report
Vinci plcAnnual--Non-GRI Standards-
VolkerWessels UK Ltd.Annual--Non-GRI Standards-
LendleaseAnnual -Non-GRI Standards-
J Murphy & Sons Ltd.Business Review--Non-GRI Standards
Eurovia UK Ltd.CSR--Non-GRI Standards-
ENGIE2 (Keepmoat)Annual and Financial--Non-GRI Standards-
BAM Nuttall Ltd.Report and Accounts--Non-GRI Standards
McLaren Construction Group plcAnnual Report and Financial Statements--Non-GRI Standards-
Robertson Group (Hodlings) Ltd.Annual and Accounts--Non-GRI Standards-
Renew Holdings plcAnnual and Accounts--Non-GRI Standards-
Bouygues (U.K.) Ltd.CSR--Non-GRI Standards-
Carey Group plconline--Non-GRI Standards-
NG Bailey Group Ltd.CSR--Non-GRI Standards
Winvic Group Ltd.Financial statements--Non-GRI Standards-
Buckingham Group Contracting Ltd.Financial statements--Non-GRI Standards
John Sisk & Son Ltd.Directors’ and Financial statements--Non-GRI Standards-
Keltbray Group (Holdings) Ltd.Sustainable Development--Non-GRI Standards-
Northstone (NI) Ltd.Annual and Financial--Non-GRI Standards-
ArdmoreProfile--Non-GRI Standards-
ImtechCSR- Non-GRI Standards
OsborneSustainability Strategy--Non-GRI Standards-
McAleer & RusheFinancial statements--Non-GRI Standards
SSE Contracting Ltd.Directors’ and Financial statements--Non-GRI Standards
Byrne Group plcH&S Statement Policy --Non-GRI Standards
T Clarke plcAnnual Report and Financial Statements--Non-GRI Standards-
Watkin Jones plcAnnual Report and Financial Statements--Non-GRI Standards-
LakehouseAnnual--Non-GRI Standards-
North Midland Construction plcAnnual--Non-GRI Standards
Higgins Group plcAnnual--Non-GRI Standards
FM Conway Ltd.CSR--Non-GRI Standards-
RG Carter GroupAccounts--Non-GRI Standards
Ogilvie GroupHealth and Safety Statement of Intent--Non-GRI Standards-
Severfield plcAnnual Report--Non-GRI Standards
Note: √ denotes that the information is in line with the description of the column title; - denotes that no information is provided or found.

4. Results

The results are presented in terms of individual GRI items (Figure 2) in the UK construction industry, as well as overall (OHS) scores of individual items per company (Figure 3). In addition, the overall (OHSD) scores assigned to each report with an attempt to summarize trends both among companies and GRI indicators are addressed in Figure 4.
Taking into account industry trends per GRI Standards (Figure 2 and Figure 3), it was found that reports from the examined sector reveal a low level of sensitivity to OHS issues. Overall, the construction sector only provides a good level of performance in prevention and mitigation measures (403-7), describing companies’ approaches to preventing or mitigating significant negative occupational health and safety impacts that are directly linked to its operations. Likewise, they present almost comprehensively that occupational health services (403-3) contribute to zero high-risk incidents. Indeed, twenty-nine reports fully complied with the former item and eighteen with the latter.
The remaining construction reports show many gaps in coverage. Among the remaining GRI Standards, there is room for improvement concerning worker participation and formal joint management–worker health and safety committees (403-4); a big part of their tasks is to be authorized to make decisions about OHS, among other workplace decisions. This group of information is reported by 76% of the sample, thirteen of which reach 100% of coverage. Construction companies indicate almost similar scores, providing slightly less information on OHS management approach (103), hazard identification, risk assessment and incident investigation (403-2), as well as on OHS management system (403-1). Between the three, major shortcomings are detected in the OHS information for the implementation of the management system due to legal requirements or standards/guidelines and the reasons of workforce and activities covered by it. This means that 74% of sample firms reported this item, whereas 82% and 86% exhibit information for 403-2 and 103 GRI Standards, respectively. It is worth mentioning that there was no OHS indicator found reported by all the firms sampled.
In addition, the construction sector falls short in describing any OHS training provided to workers, including generic training as well as training on specific work-related hazards, hazardous activities or hazardous situations (403-5). Only three reports sufficiently or fully present (greater than or equal to 75%) the information provided. As far as the two main quantitative indicators of this study are concerned (work-related injuries (403-9) and work-related ill health (403-10)), our sample demonstrates gaps in reporting them. The main gaps are associated with the latter, where just seven sustainability reports reveal information, while none of them exceeded 50% accountability on this topic. This indicates that extremely little information is provided regarding the specific reporting requirements of this topic: the number of fatalities as a result of work-related ill health, the number of cases of recordable work-related ill health, the main types of work-related ill health, the work-related hazards that pose a risk of ill health and any useful contextual information, such as if any workers have been excluded from this disclosure, including the types of worker excluded.
Companies have a very limited level of response in seeking external assurance on the OHS information reported (102-56), pointing out deficiencies in revealing firms’ policies and practices with regard to seeking external assurance for the report, references to the external assurance report, the relationship between the organization and the assurance provider and how senior executives are involved in seeking external assurance for the organization’s sustainability report. Yet, they totally fail to report operations and suppliers considered to have significant risk for incidents of young workers exposed to hazardous work (408-1).
Taking into consideration the total (OHSD) yields per corporation (Figure 4), the construction sector seems to identify OHS issues, but fails to present it adequately, as is evident from the fact that sustainability reports have serious gaps in coverage (average score: 34.59%). In particular, the majority of the assessed corporations (35) scored under 50%, with 16 less than 25%. In contrast, only two firms provide enough and clear information (≈73% and 75% accordingly) and have developed the necessary systems and processes for data collection on OHS topics and attempt to present it in a consistent manner. Furthermore, no company report can be characterized as ‘full’, addressing all the OHS GRI Standards and their reporting requirements 100%. Finally, it is worth mentioning that five companies do not include any information relevant to OHS affairs.
Finally, in order to examine the potential association between the OHSD index and the descriptive variable of revenue, a scatter plot was constructed with respect to the UK construction industry (Figure 5). Visual inspection of the scatter plot between OHSD and revenue indicates no association.

5. Discussion

Based on the results, our paper is in line with recent research studies associated with OHS information [30,48,53] revealing that the extent of the published OHS items is poor. Likewise, many differences between firms within the UK construction industry are recognized among the eleven contributors of our proposed OHSD index. This also aligns with the findings of a previous study [30] regarding problems in cross-comparing performance and in evaluating OHS implementations by stakeholders (i.e., information asymmetry). Sample firms have a propensity to place emphasis on moderation measures reflecting negative OHS impacts or in cases where some have no control over both the work and workplace, it still has a responsibility to make additional efforts about them, including exercising any leverage they might have, but lag behind major quantitative indicators. This is also confirmed by the study of [75], which identifies considerable information regarding injuries and training issues in OHS. Similarly, the study of [99] shows poor disclosure levels for OHS information years, 2018 and 2019. They identify that sample firms only cover 33% of the benchmark score (16.5). As shown in [100], this might be explained by the fact that some executives in construction firms lack sufficient knowledge about health and do not assume the responsibility for health risks as they do for safety. OHS issues regarding young workers exposure to risk developed by operation and suppliers were not reported at all. In contrast to [30], OHS information associated with seeking external assurance for the report or topics disclosing the relationship between companies and assurance providers are underreported. For the same issue, [101] highlight that the assurance of reports is achieved through utilizing the GRI guidelines which encourage some specific and useful principles to prepare sustainability reports such as clarity, materiality, accuracy, comparability and reliability. This implies that OHS issues emerging from sustainability reports are based on similar principles and assurance. However, the credibility of sustainability reporting is strengthened in the case where disclosed information is confirmed from certification systems. As seen in this study, the majority of assessed reports (29), as outlined in Table 3, did not include any externally developed management standards (e.g., OHSAS 18001; ISO 45001 [102]).
OHS training/learning is highlighted as a material aspect for the construction industry as it contributes to reducing accidents [103]. This outcome is not in line with our results. According to research assessment, OHS training objectives including information such as: how training needs are assessed, how the training is designed and delivered, whether the training is provided free of charge and how the effectiveness of the training is evaluated seem to be of little importance in the UK sector. It is obvious from our sample that these companies consider occupational health services as an issue of interest as they explain in a comprehensive way how each of them ensures the quality of these services (e.g., whether the services are provided by competent individuals with recognized qualifications and accreditations, and whether it complies with legal requirements and/or recognized standards/guidelines) and facilitates workers’ access to them (e.g., whether it provides these services at the workplace and during working hours; whether it arranges transport to health clinics or expedites service there; whether it provides information about the services, including in a language easily understood by workers; and whether it adjusts workloads to allow workers to make use of these services).
Although OHS has been underlined as a key priority area in most of the assessed corporations, there appears to be a clear antithesis when it comes to disclosure scores. The reported OHS performance in management approach, worker participation (including, inter alia, information on formal participation based on legal requirements; participation through engagement with formally recognized workers’ representatives; direct participation, particularly by affected workers; the use of committees, and how these committees are established and operated; participation in the occupational health and safety management system; how obstacles to participation are identified and removed), hazard identification and management systems (regarding details about the type of OHS responsible for the management system and how the continual improvement of the management system is achieved) designate that the examined thematic group of disclosures are not consistent with this level of materiality.
This is a significant finding since regulatory compliance and workers collective bargaining due to the fact that GRI promote such issues. The low level of OHS disclosures to these issues could be explained as a result of the focus of sustainability reporting mainly being on environmental and social issues. Although the standard clearly mentions the recording of information on the legal commitments of companies in matters of the health and safety of employees and on their right to develop OHS committees and collective labor bargaining, it seems that most companies emphasize the environmental issues that are daily issues of society over the last decade.
Finally, as far as the managerial implications are concerned, this research is fully in line with a growing number of studies [10,24,69,104,105,106,107,108,109] on the contribution of inclusive OHS information reporting in respect of many corporate dimensions (e.g., consumers, working conditions, brand image and reputation, business strategy, employee–management and consumer–company dialogue and fruitful engagement) and on the fact that this group of disclosures are underreported [110].

6. Conclusions

Our research contributes to previous studies concentrating on significant issues of CSR reporting with special attention on OHS topics. Our main research objective was to evaluate these kinds of reports from fifty leading companies in the UK construction industry.
Based on our sample, some useful principal conclusions can be drawn concerning OHS disclosures. Overall, the construction sector reveals a low level of sensitivity to OHS issues. Despite prevention and mitigation measures and occupational health services for which firms show medium to good accountability to their stakeholders, all the remaining disclosures imply clear and major gaps in reporting, implying the necessity to be more accurate, detailed and comprehensive. Furthermore, although the specific group of disclosures is a top priority area for almost all the sample firms, some reports were found with no reference on it. Moreover, our results highlighted that good financial performance is not connected with better accountability.
Specifically, it is identified that the majority of sample firms surpassed the average score of the rating system (62.5%) regarding business prevention and mitigation impacts for OHS (GRI 403-7). Many of the sample firms (35%) achieved a score below 20% of the maximum rating score. This means not many ad hoc practices are adopted by firms to protect their staff. Similarly, many firms achieved a high score over the average of the maximum rating score for OHS services (GRI 403-3) and only 30% of the sample firms scored below the average. Finally, the majority of the sample firms achieved a very low score regarding OHS management systems and external assurance on OHS.
The low score of firms regarding assurance and OHS management systems could be associated with the type of sustainability reports which place more emphasis on environmental issues and the regulatory regime of the country and sector where the sampled firms operate. This finding requires further examination in order to identify if tough regulatory regime if more effective compared to voluntary strategy (such as OHS management systems) and create more trust for stakeholders.
The study has three main limitations. First, only hard copies of official documents of firms (i.e., annual or CSR reports, OHS statements, leaflets, etc.) with reference to OHS issues in 2017 were assessed. This means that, for instance, any documents signed or revised after 2017 (e.g., 2019) and that did not provide any information about the year launch, that is, 2017 or earlier, were not taken into consideration during the assessment period. Second, online sources such as companies’ official websites were not considered for the purposes of this research, as the vast majority only included the current or previous year’s OHS information. Third, our results cannot be generalized as representative of all OHS reporting in the construction industry. This research serves as a starting point for the further analysis of OHS reporting in the industry from different countries. The need for further OHS reporting is also reinforced by the fact that research on OHS reporting is very limited.

Author Contributions

Methodology, I.E.N.; Formal analysis, S.F.; Data curation, F.K.; Supervision, K.I.E. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data can be found on the companies’ websites and the processed data in the authors’ archives.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ward, H.; Wilson, E.; Zarsky, L. CSR and developing countries. Sustain. Dev. Innov. Brief 2007, 1, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  2. Lu, W.; Ye, M.; Flanagan, R.; Ye, K. Corporate Social Responsibility Disclosures in International Construction Business: Trends and Prospects. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2016, 142, 04015053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Zhao, Z.-Y.; Zhao, X.-J.; Davidson, K.; Zuo, J. A corporate social responsibility indicator system for construction enterprises. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 29–30, 277–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Şahin, M.; Bayramoglu, G. Decent work in the context of corporate social responsibility. J. Adv. Manag. Sci. 2015, 3, 162–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sawacha, E.; Naoum, S.; Fong, D. Factors affecting safety performance on construction sites. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 1999, 17, 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Jiang, W.; Wong, J.K. Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry: A study of China. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 850–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. HSE. Construction Statistics in Great Britain. 2018. Available online: http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/construction.pdf (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  8. Arndt, V.; Rothenbacher, D.; Daniel, U.; Zschenderlein, B.; Schuberth, S.; Brenner, H. Construction work and risk of occupational disability: A ten year follow up of 14 474 male workers. Occup. Environ. Med. 2005, 62, 559–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Biswas, G.; Bhattacharya, A.; Bhattacharya, R. Occupational health status of construction workers: A review. Int. J. Med. Sci. Public Health 2017, 6, 669–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Borup, H.; Kirkeskov, L.; Hanskov, D.J.A.; Brauer, C. Systematic review: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and construction workers. Occup. Med. 2017, 67, 199–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Boschman, J.S.; Van Der Molen, H.F.; Sluiter, J.K.; Frings-Dresen, M.H. Occupational demands and health effects for bricklayers and construction supervisors: A systematic review. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2011, 54, 55–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Van der Molen, H.F.; de Vries, S.C.; Stocks, S.J.; Warning, J.; Frings-Dresen, M.H.W. Incidence rates of occupational diseases in the Dutch construction sector, 2010–2014. Occup. Environ. Med. 2016, 73, 350–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Quinn, P.S.; Welch, L.; Ringen, K.; Dement, J.; Bingham, E.; Dong, X.S. Risks of a lifetime in construction. Part II: Chronic occupational diseases. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2014, 57, 1235–1245. [Google Scholar]
  14. Stocks, S.J.; Turner, S.; McNamee, R.; Carder, M.; Hussey, L.; Agius, R.M. Occupation and work-related ill-health in UK construction workers. Occup. Med. 2011, 61, 407–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Wang, X.; Dong, X.S.; Choi, S.D.; Dement, J. Work-related musculoskeletal disorders among construction workers in the United States from 1992 to 2014. Occup. Environ. Med. 2017, 74, 374–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. West, G.H.; Dawson, J.; Teitelbaum, C.; Novello, R.; Hunting, K.; Welch, L.S. An analysis of permanent work disability among construction sheet metal workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 2016, 59, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Nesheim, T.; Gressgår, L.G. Knowledge sharing in a complex organization: Antecedents and safety effects. Saf. Sci. 2014, 62, 28–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Podgórski, D. The Use of Tacit Knowledge in Occupational Safety and Health Management Systems. Int. J. Occup. Saf. Ergon. 2010, 16, 283–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Shereihiy, B.; Karwowski, W. Knowledge management for occupational safety, health, and ergonomics. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2006, 16, 309–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Wahlstrøm, B. Organizational learning—Reflections from the nuclear industry. Saf. Sci. 2011, 49, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Dingsdag, D.P.; Biggs, H.C.; Sheahan, V.L. Understanding and defining OH&S competency for construction site positions: Worker perceptions. Saf. Sci. 2008, 46, 619–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Törner, M.; Pousette, A. Safety in construction—A comprehensive description of the characteristics of high safety standards in construction work, from the combined perspective of supervisors and experienced workers. J. Saf. Res. 2009, 40, 399–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Pryor, P. Developing the core body of knowledge for the generalist OHS professional. Saf. Sci. 2019, 115, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Auch, F.; Smyth, H.J. The cultural heterogeneity of project firms and project teams. Int. J. Manag. Proj. Bus. 2010, 3, 443–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Duryan, M.; Smyth, H.; Roberts, A.; Rowlinson, S.; Sherratt, F. Knowledge transfer for occupational health and safety: Cultivating health and safety learning culture in construction firms. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2020, 139, 105496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. O’Neill, S.; Flanagan, J.; Clarke, K. Safewash! Risk attenuation and the (Mis)reporting of corporate safety performance to investors. Saf. Sci. 2016, 83, 114–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Wamuziri, S. Factors that contribute to positive and negative health and safety cultures in construction. In Proceedings of the CIB W099 Conference Prevention–Means to the End of Construction Injuries, Illnesses and Fatalities, Washington, DC, USA, 24–26 August 2011. [Google Scholar]
  28. Yang, J.; Shen, Q.; Ho, M. An overview of previous studies in stakeholder management and its implications for the construction industry. J. Facil. Manag. 2009, 7, 159–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Mavroulidis, M.; Vouros, P.; Fotiadis, S.; Konstantakopoulou, F.; Fountoulakis, G.; Nikolaou, I.; Evangelinos, K. Occupational health and safety of multinational construction companies through evaluation of corporate social responsibility reports. J. Saf. Res. 2022, 81, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Evangelinos, K.; Fotiadis, S.; Skouloudis, A.; Khan, N.; Konstandakopoulou, F.; Nikolaou, I.; Lundy, S. Occupational health and safety disclosures in sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2018, 25, 961–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Sarkar, S.; Searcy, C. Zeitgeist or chameleon? A quantitative analysis of CSR definitions. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 135, 1423–1435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Dahlsrud, A. How corporate social responsibility is defined: An analysis of 37 definitions. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2008, 15, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gatti, L.; Vishwanath, B.; Seele, P.; Cottier, B. Are We Moving Beyond Voluntary CSR? Exploring Theoretical and Managerial Implications of Mandatory CSR Resulting from the New Indian Companies Act. J. Bus. Ethics 2019, 160, 961–972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Isaksson, L.; Mitra, N. To legislate or not: That is the question—Comparing CSR intent and effects in economies with voluntary CSR and legislated CSR. In International Dimensions of Sustainable Management; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 35–51. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lima, L.; Trindade, E.; Alencar, L.; Alencar, M.; Silva, L. Sustainability in the construction industry: A systematic review of the literature. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 289, 125730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Presley, A.; Meade, L. Benchmarking for sustainability: An application to the sustainable construction industry. Benchmarking Int. J. 2010, 17, 435–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stanitsas, M.; Kirytopoulos, K.; Leopoulos, V. Integrating sustainability indicators into project management: The case of construction industry. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 279, 123774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mahmoudi, M.; Parviziomran, I. Reusable packaging in supply chains: A review of environmental and economic impacts, logistics system designs, and operations management. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 2020, 228, 107730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Gamerschlag, R.; Möller, K.; Verbeeten, F. Determinants of voluntary CSR disclosure: Empirical evidence from Germany. Rev. Manag. Sci. 2011, 5, 233–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Prado-Lorenzo, J.M.; Gallego-Alvarez, I.; Garcia-Sanchez, I.M. Stakeholder engagement and corporate social responsibility reporting: The ownership structure effect. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2009, 16, 94–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Fernando, S.; Lawrence, S. A theoretical framework for CSR practices: Integrating legitimacy theory, stakeholder theory and institutional theory. J. Theor. Account. Res. 2014, 10, 149–178. [Google Scholar]
  42. Campbell, J.L. Why would corporations behave in socially responsible ways? An institutional theory of corporate social responsibility. Acad. Manag. Rev. 2007, 32, 946–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wanderley, L.S.O.; Lucian, R.; Farache, F.; Filho, J.M.D.S. CSR Information Disclosure on the Web: A Context-Based Approach Analysing the Influence of Country of Origin and Industry Sector. J. Bus. Ethics 2008, 82, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cahan, S.F.; de Villiers, C.; Jeter, D.C.; Naiker, V.; Van Staden, C.J. Are CSR Disclosures Value Relevant? Cross-Country Evidence. Eur. Account. Rev. 2016, 25, 579–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Mahmood, Z.; Uddin, S. Institutional logics and practice variations in sustainability reporting: Evidence from an emerging field. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2021, 34, 1163–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hickman, L.E. Information asymmetry in CSR reporting: Publicly-traded versus privately-held firms. Sustain. Account. Manag. Policy J. 2020, 11, 207–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lock, I.; Seele, P. Analyzing Sector-Specific CSR Reporting: Social and Environmental Disclosure to Investors in the Chemicals and Banking and Insurance Industry. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2015, 22, 113–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Koskela, M. Occupational health and safety in corporate social responsibility reports. Saf. Sci. 2014, 68, 294–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Tsalis, T.A.; Nikolaou, I.E.; Konstantakopoulou, F.; Zhang, Y.; Evangelinos, K.I. Evaluating the corporate environmental profile by analyzing corporate social responsibility reports. Econ. Anal. Policy 2020, 66, 63–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nikolaou, I.E.; Tsalis, T.A. Development of a sustainable balanced scorecard framework. Ecol. Indic. 2013, 34, 76–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Torelli, R.; Balluchi, F.; Furlotti, K. The materiality assessment and stakeholder engagement: A content analysis of sustainability reports. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2020, 27, 470–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hąbek, P. Evaluation of sustainability reporting practices in Poland. Qual. Quant. 2014, 48, 1739–1752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Tsalis, T.A.; Stylianou, M.S.; Nikolaou, I.E. Evaluating the quality of corporate social responsibility reports: The case of occupational health and safety disclosures. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 313–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. European Commission. Green Paper: Promoting a European Framework for Corporate Social Responsibility. 2001. Available online: https://libguides.library.usyd.edu.au/c.php?g=508212&p=3476096 (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  55. Abad, J.; Lafuente, E.; Vilajosana, J. An assessment of the OHSAS 18001 certification process: Objective drivers and consequences on safety performance and labour productivity. Saf. Sci. 2013, 60, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Safety climate in OHSAS 18001-certified organisations: Antecedents and consequences of safety behaviour. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2012, 45, 745–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Nikolaou, I.E. Occupational health and safety within corporate social responsibility context: A balanced scorecard dynamic decision making model. Int. J. Decis. Support Syst. 2016, 2, 54–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Grote, G. Safety management in different high-risk domains–all the same? Saf. Sci. 2012, 50, 1983–1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Hudson, P. Applying the lessons of high risk industries to health care. BMJ Qual. Saf. 2003, 12 (Suppl. S1), i7–i12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Montero-Simo, M.J.; Araque, R.A.; Rey, J.M. Occupational health and safety in the framework of corporate social responsibility. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 1440–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Granerud, L. Social responsibility as an intermediary for health and safety in small firms. Int. J. Work. Health Manag. 2011, 4, 109–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Zwetsloot, G.I.; van Scheppingen, A.R.; Bos, E.H.; Dijkman, A.; Starren, A. The Core Values that Support Health, Safety, and Well-being at Work. Saf. Health Work. 2013, 4, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Rikhardsson, P.M. Accounting for the cost of occupational accidents. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2004, 11, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Campbell, D.; Rahman, M.R.A. A longitudinal examination of intellectual capital reporting in Marks & Spencer annual reports, 1978–2008. Br. Account. Rev. 2010, 42, 56–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Holcomb, J.L.; Upchurch, R.S.; Okumus, F. Corporate social responsibility: What are top hotel companies reporting? Int. J. Contemp. Hosp. Manag. 2007, 19, 461–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Li, N.; Toppinen, A.; Tuppura, A.; Puumalainen, K.; Hujala, M. Determinants of sustainability disclosure in the global forest industry. Electron. J. Bus. Ethics Organ. Stud. 2011, 16, 33–40. [Google Scholar]
  67. Toppinen, A.; Li, N.; Tuppura, A.; Xiong, Y. Corporate Responsibility and Strategic Groups in the Forest-based Industry: Exploratory Analysis based on the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Framework. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2012, 19, 191–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Jain, A.; Leka, S.; Zwetsloot, G.I.J.M. Corporate Social Responsibility and Psychosocial Risk Management in Europe. J. Bus. Ethics 2011, 101, 619–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Williams, S.J.; Adams, C.A. Moral accounting? Employee disclosures from a stakeholder accountability perspective. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2013, 26, 449–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Earle, H.A. Building a workplace of choice: Using the work environment to attract and retain top talent. J. Facil. Manag. 2003, 2, 244–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Dixon, S.M.; Nordvall, A.-C.; Cukier, W.; Neumann, W.P. Young consumers’ considerations of healthy working conditions in purchasing decisions: A qualitative examination. Ergonomics 2017, 60, 601–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Neumann, W.P.; Dixon, S.M.; Nordvall, A.C. Consumer demand as a driver of improved working conditions: The ‘Ergo-Brand’ proposition. Ergonomics 2014, 57, 1113–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Mäkelä, H. On the ideological role of employee reporting. Crit. Perspect. Account. 2013, 24, 360–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Behm, M.; Schneller, A. Externally reported occupational health & safety data among U.S. manufacturing firms. J. Saf. Health Environ. Res. 2011, 7, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  75. Cahaya, F.R.; Porter, S.; Tower, G.; Brown, A. Coercive pressures on occupational health and safety disclosures. J. Account. Emerg. Econ. 2017, 7, 318–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Kent, P.; Zunker, T. Attaining legitimacy by employee information in annual reports. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2013, 26, 1072–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Takala, J.; Hämäläinen, P.; Saarela, K.L.; Yun, L.Y.; Manickam, K.; Jin, T.W.; Heng, P.; Tjong, C.; Kheng, L.G.; Lim, S.; et al. Global Estimates of the Burden of Injury and Illness at Work in 2012. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2014, 11, 326–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rose, L.M.; Orrenius, U.E.; Neumann, W.P. Work Environment and the Bottom Line: Survey of Tools Relating Work Environment to Business Results. Hum. Factors Ergon. Manuf. Serv. Ind. 2013, 23, 368–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Tompa, E.; Culyer, A.J.; Dolinschi, R. Economic Evaluation of Interventions for Occupational Health and Safety: Developing Good Practice; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
  80. Al-Hamadeen, R.; Badran, S. Nature and determinants of CSR disclosure: Experience of the Jordanian public shareholding companies. Eur. J. Bus. Manag. 2014, 6, 18–34. [Google Scholar]
  81. Deegan, C.; Islam, M.A. Corporate Commitment to Sustainability—Is it All Hot Air? An Australian Review of the Linkage between Executive Pay and Sustainable Performance. Aust. Account. Rev. 2012, 22, 384–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Roca, L.C.; Searcy, C. An analysis of indicators disclosed in corporate sustainability reports. J. Clean. Prod. 2012, 20, 103–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Islam, M.A.; Deegan, C. Motivations for an organisation within a developing country to report social responsibility information. Account. Audit. Account. J. 2008, 21, 850–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sotorrio, L.L.; Sαnchez, J.L.F. Corporate social reporting for different audiences: The case of multinational corporations in Spain. Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Manag. 2010, 17, 272–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Jones, M.J. The nature, use and impression management of graphs in social and environmental accounting. Account. Forum 2011, 35, 75–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Walker, M.; Parent, M.M. Towards an integrated framework of corporate social responsibility, responsiveness, and citizenship in sport. Sport Manag. Rev. 2010, 13, 198–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Bouten, L.; Everaert, P.; Van Liedekerke, L.; De Moor, L.; Christiaens, J. Corporate social responsibility reporting: A comprehensive picture? Account. Forum 2011, 35, 187–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Brown, J.; Butcher, F. Reporting on occupational health and safety in annual reports: A look at disclosure practices in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Employ. Relat. 2005, 30, 335–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Searcy, C.; Dixon, S.M.; Neumann, W.P. The use of work environment performance indicators in corporate social responsibility reporting. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 2907–2921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Chen, J.K.; Zorigt, D. Managing occupational health and safety in the mining industry. J. Bus. Res. 2013, 66, 2321–2331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Page, K.M.; LaMontagne, A.D.; Louie, A.M.; Ostry, A.S.; Shaw, A.; Shoveller, J.A. Stakeholder perceptions of job stress in an industrialized country: Implications for policy and practice. J. Public Health Policy 2013, 34, 447–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Vouros, P.; Nomikos, S.; Halkos, G.; Evangelinos, K.; Sfakianaki, E.; Konstandakopoulou, F.; Fotiadis, S.; Karagiannis, I.; Skouloudis, A.; Nikolaou, I.E. Introducing fundamental accountability principles in sustainability reporting assessment: A cross-sectoral analysis from the Greek business sector. Environ. Qual. Manag. 2020, 29, 33–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Silva, S. Corporate contributions to the Sustainable Development Goals: An empirical analysis informed by legitimacy theory. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 292, 125962. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Vitolla, F.; Raimo, N.; Rubino, M.; Garzoni, A. The impact of national culture on integrated reporting quality. A stakeholder theory approach. Bus. Strat. Environ. 2019, 28, 1558–1571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Evangelinos, K.; Skouloudis, A.; Jones, N.; Isaac, D.; Sfakianaki, E. Exploring the status of corporate social responsibility disclosure in the UK building and construction industry. Int. J. Glob. Environ. Issues 2016, 15, 377–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Halkos, G.; Skouloudis, A. Exploring the current status and key determinants of corporate disclosure on climate change: Evidence from the Greek business sector. Environ. Sci. Policy 2016, 56, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Skouloudis, A.; Jones, K.; Sfakianaki, E.; Lazoudi, E.; Evangelinos, K. EMAS statement: Benign accountability or wishful thinking? Insights from the Greek EMAS registry. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 128, 1043–1049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Eurostat. Accidents at Work-Statistics by Economic Activity. 2020. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Accidents_at_work_-_statistics_by_economic_activity (accessed on 30 March 2023).
  99. Ali, F.H.; Liaqat, F.; Azhar, S.; Ali, M. Exploring the quantity and quality of occupational health and safety disclosure among listed manufacturing companies: Evidence from Pakistan, a lower-middle income country. Saf. Sci. 2021, 143, 105431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Jones, W.; Gibb, A.; Haslam, R.; Dainty, A. Work-related ill-health in construction: The importance of scope, ownership and understanding. Saf. Sci. 2019, 120, 538–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Mariappanadar, S.; Maurer, I.; Kramar, R.; Muller-Camen, M. Is it a sententious claim? An examination of the quality of occupational health, safety and well-being disclosures in global reporting initiative reports across industries and countries. Int. Bus. Rev. 2022, 31, 101922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. ISO 45001; Occupational Health and Safety Management. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2018.
  103. Endroyo, B.; Yuwono, B.E.; Mardapi, D. Soenarto Model of Learning/Training of Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) Based on Industry in the Construction Industry. Procedia Eng. 2015, 125, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Bolis, I.; Brunoro, C.M.; Sznelwar, L.I. Mapping the relationships between work and sustainability and the opportunities for ergonomic action. Appl. Ergon. 2014, 45, 1225–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  105. Hunter, M.L.; Van Wassenhove, L.N. Hayleys PLC: Corporate responsibility as stakeholder relations. J. Manag. Dev. 2011, 30, 968–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Mason, C.; Simmons, J. Forward looking or looking unaffordable? Utilising academic perspectives on corporate social responsibility to assess the factors influencing its adoption by business. Bus. Ethics A Eur. Rev. 2011, 20, 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Porter, M.E.; Kramer, M.R. Strategy and society: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2006, 84, 78–92. [Google Scholar]
  108. Randall, D.C. An Exploration of Opportunities for the Growth of the Fair Trade Market: Three Cases of Craft Organisations. J. Bus. Ethics 2005, 56, 55–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Zink, K.J.; Fischer, K. Do we need sustainability as a new approach in human factors and ergonomics? Ergonomics 2013, 56, 348–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Dixon, S.M.; Searcy, C.; Neumann, W.P. Reporting within the Corridor of Conformance: Managerial Perspectives on Work Environment Disclosures in Corporate Social Responsibility Reporting. Sustainability 2019, 11, 3825. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Structure of research.
Figure 1. Structure of research.
Sustainability 15 06952 g001
Figure 2. Occupational health and safety disclosure (OHS) scores per Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Disclosures OHS-specific indicator according to the UK construction sector. Results per GRI-G4 OHS-specific item/indicator (%). * means that the item was adapted to fit the purpose of this study. ** All the three sub-categories of this dis-closure (103-1, 103-2, 103-3) were taken into consideration and adapted accordingly. *** Second parts of b and c reporting requirements are excluded.
Figure 2. Occupational health and safety disclosure (OHS) scores per Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Disclosures OHS-specific indicator according to the UK construction sector. Results per GRI-G4 OHS-specific item/indicator (%). * means that the item was adapted to fit the purpose of this study. ** All the three sub-categories of this dis-closure (103-1, 103-2, 103-3) were taken into consideration and adapted accordingly. *** Second parts of b and c reporting requirements are excluded.
Sustainability 15 06952 g002
Figure 3. Occupational health and safety (OHS) sustainability reporting scores of individual corporations per GRI Disclosure OHS-specific item/indicator. The orange line indicates the OHS scores per item: (Results in %). * means that the item was adapted to fit the purpose of this study. ** All the three sub-categories of this dis-closure (103-1, 103-2, 103-3) were taken into consideration and adapted accordingly. *** Second parts of b and c reporting requirements are excluded.
Figure 3. Occupational health and safety (OHS) sustainability reporting scores of individual corporations per GRI Disclosure OHS-specific item/indicator. The orange line indicates the OHS scores per item: (Results in %). * means that the item was adapted to fit the purpose of this study. ** All the three sub-categories of this dis-closure (103-1, 103-2, 103-3) were taken into consideration and adapted accordingly. *** Second parts of b and c reporting requirements are excluded.
Sustainability 15 06952 g003aSustainability 15 06952 g003bSustainability 15 06952 g003cSustainability 15 06952 g003dSustainability 15 06952 g003eSustainability 15 06952 g003fSustainability 15 06952 g003gSustainability 15 06952 g003hSustainability 15 06952 g003iSustainability 15 06952 g003jSustainability 15 06952 g003k
Figure 4. Total occupational health and safety disclosure (OHSD) scores of individual corporations. The orange line indicates the average OHSD score: 34.59%.
Figure 4. Total occupational health and safety disclosure (OHSD) scores of individual corporations. The orange line indicates the average OHSD score: 34.59%.
Sustainability 15 06952 g004
Figure 5. Scatter plot of the association between the occupational health and safety disclosure (OHSD) index and revenue.
Figure 5. Scatter plot of the association between the occupational health and safety disclosure (OHSD) index and revenue.
Sustainability 15 06952 g005
Table 1. Components comprising the proposed OHSD index.
Table 1. Components comprising the proposed OHSD index.
GRI DisclosuresDescription
102-56 *External assurance on occupational health and safety
103 **Management approach on occupational health and safety
403-1Occupational health and safety management system
403-2 ***Hazard identification, risk assessment, and incident investigation
403-3Occupational health services
403-4Worker participation, consultation, and communication on occupational health and safety
403-5Worker training on occupational health and safety
403-7Prevention and mitigation of occupational health and safety impacts directly linked by business relationships
403-9Work-related injuries
403-10Work-related ill health
408-1 *Operations and suppliers considered to have significant risk for incidents of young workers exposed to hazardous work
* The item was adapted to fit the purpose of this study. ** All the three sub-categories of this disclosure (103-1, 103-2103-3) were taken into consideration and adapted accordingly. *** Second parts of b and c reporting requirements are excluded. The provided information is irrelevant to this paper.
Table 2. Basic rating qualification scale.
Table 2. Basic rating qualification scale.
PointsRating Qualifications/Requirements
0The report does not include any information relevant to the specific GRI topic/indicator. No coverage
1The report provides generic or brief statements, without specific information on the organization’s approach to the topic/indicator
2The report includes valuable information on the topic/indicator but there are still major gaps in coverage. The organization identifies the assessed issue, but fails to present it sufficiently
3The provided information is adequate and clear. It is evident that the reporting organization has developed the necessary systems and processes for data collection on the assessed topic/indicator and attempts to present it in a consistent manner
4Coverage of the specific issue can be characterized as ‘full’ in the report. It provides the organization’s policy, procedures/programs, and relevant monitoring results for addressing the issue. The organization meets the GRI OHS-specific requirements, allowing comparison with other organizations
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Fotiadis, S.; Evangelinos, K.I.; Konstantakopoulou, F.; Nikolaou, I.E. Assessing CSR Reports of Top UK Construction Companies: The Case of Occupational Health and Safety Disclosures. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6952. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086952

AMA Style

Fotiadis S, Evangelinos KI, Konstantakopoulou F, Nikolaou IE. Assessing CSR Reports of Top UK Construction Companies: The Case of Occupational Health and Safety Disclosures. Sustainability. 2023; 15(8):6952. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086952

Chicago/Turabian Style

Fotiadis, Stefanos, Konstantinos I. Evangelinos, Foteini Konstantakopoulou, and Ioannis E. Nikolaou. 2023. "Assessing CSR Reports of Top UK Construction Companies: The Case of Occupational Health and Safety Disclosures" Sustainability 15, no. 8: 6952. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086952

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop