Next Article in Journal
pH-Dependent Leaching Characteristics of Major and Toxic Elements from Red Mud
Next Article in Special Issue
Determination of Waste Industrial Dust Safety Characteristics
Previous Article in Journal
Players’ Physical Performance Decreased After Two-Thirds of the Season: Results of 3 Consecutive Seasons in the German First Bundesliga
Previous Article in Special Issue
Issue of Compliance with Use of Personal Protective Equipment among Wastewater Workers across the Southeast Region of the United States
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 16
Issue 11
10.3390/ijerph16112045
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector

by
Álvaro Romero
1,*,
María de las Nieves González
1,*,
María Segarra
2,
Blasa María Villena
1 and
Ángel Rodríguez
3
1
Departamento de Construcciones Arquitectónicas y su Control, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28007 Madrid, Spain
2
Department of Civil Engineering & Construction, University of Castile-La Mancha, 16071 Cuenca, Spain
3
Department of Architectural Constructions & Construction Engineering and Land, University of Burgos, 09001 Burgos, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16(11), 2045; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112045
Submission received: 24 April 2019 / Revised: 3 June 2019 / Accepted: 7 June 2019 / Published: 10 June 2019
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Safety and Analysis)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The aim of this paper is to analyze the reality of risk prevention in construction sector companies in Spain, from the perspective of training, management, and risk prevention, as well as the amount of resources that are allocated to those budget headings. An in-depth comparative review has been conducted, using the data obtained from two focus groups that were expressly created for the study, in conjunction with the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emergent Risks (ESENER-2) and its Spanish counterpart (ESENER-2 Spain). The focus groups were formed with agents and entrepreneurs involved in the construction sector, from both the public and the private sector, in order to provide greater impartiality to the resulting data. The principal strategic indicators that served as a guideline for the moderators of the different focus groups were analyzed. The results obtained show great similarity between the data from the focus groups and the data from ESENER-2 and ESENER-2 Spain; which demonstrates the idiosyncrasies that surround this productive sector in the European setting, so badly treated by the economic crisis. All of these points highlight the imperative need to professionalize the construction sector, implementing a “risk prevention culture” among all of the agents involved in the constructive-preventive processes that surround construction activities.

1. Introduction

Historically, construction activities have always assumed a special role in the stimulation and development of the Spanish economy, mainly due to their capacity to activate other ancillary productive sectors, especially those related to the supply of materials and equipment [1]. Due to the characteristics of the Spanish economy, construction activities are strategic because of the multiplying effect that they have on industrial activity, generating investment and employment in multiple sectors, and boosting the growth of the economy as a whole [2]. Despite the property crisis that occurred between the years 2006 and 2016, the construction sector in Spain has continued to have a significant weight in the economy, greater than in other European countries [3]. With the end of the economic recession, the growth expectations in the construction sector are extremely encouraging, contributing towards the recovery of the Spanish economy as a whole [4].
This invigorating effect on construction activities is an essential factor in the generation of wealth and employment. Indeed, employment in the construction sector in Spain reached its highest level ever in 2004, with a total of 2,455,700 workers [5]. A situation to which small and medium enterprises (SMEs) [6,7] and self-employed workers contributed more than any other segment. The majority of these companies participate directly in projects related to the subcontracting of construction activities in civil works and large-scale building work, in the renovation and restoration of buildings, and in the provision of ancillary services to the construction sector [8,9].
In 2007, with the onset of the economic crisis in Spain, the sector’s accident rates steadily reduced, due principally to the drop in construction activities. This situation led to the collapse of companies and an enormous loss of both direct and indirect employment [10]. In this context of economic downturn, there was a significant setback to gross national production in which the construction sector had always played a leading role [11], which also affected its ancillary industries [12].
Another effect that the economic crisis has had on construction companies has been the inevitable reduction of production costs, in an attempt to improve competitiveness, due essentially to falling revenues in a more competitive scenario. On the one hand, investments in technical, professional and risk prevention training were also affected, with the consequence of heightened risks for worker safety [13].
On the other hand, the basic model of construction companies in Spain, mostly found in the segment of SMEs [14], has no stable organizational structures that guarantee appropriate preventive process management [15,16]. This structural deficit is also a determining factor when the economic crisis threatens the very survival of companies, leaving them with insufficient resources to assume these tasks. In this respect, employee training is a key factor in occupational risk prevention, particularly in the construction sector.
Construction activities, due to the complexity and diversity of tasks that must be carried out either simultaneously or successively, are especially susceptible to accidents at work, despite the efforts of the public authorities to promote safety measures in construction companies through the design and implementation of strategic sectoral plans, allocating significant resources to professionalize workers in the sector and to train them in risk prevention matters [17].
Without specific organizational structures committed to safety management, whether this is because of a lack of resources or due to a lack of “risk prevention culture”, most SMEs outsource these activities to external risk prevention services (EPS) [18].
It is unquestionable that working towards the integration of risk prevention in the management structures of firms is a guarantee of success [19]. A circumstance that, in the case of construction SMEs, would make it possible to control safety in productive processes, integrating direct communication with the workers involved in such processes [20].
Accordingly, it is evident that the “risk prevention culture” of construction companies is a critical factor in the reduction of accident rates [21], and that the preventive management model of the company dictates corporate interest in security and the level of training of its workers [13].
For all of these reasons, it is necessary that the principal agents involved in construction processes, that is companies and their employees, assume their commitments and responsibilities. Company managers must integrate occupational risk prevention in their corporate management systems, and the employees must acquire further skills and expertise in their work through specialist training. It is important to create a “risk prevention culture” amongst all of the agents involved in construction activities.
As a result, the objectives of this research are to refute or reject, using verified data, whether the symptomatology displayed by Europe in respect of the construction sector, is similar to that displayed by Spain, and ultimately establish possible solutions to this issue by analyzing a series of indicators that make this sector the productive sector with the highest rate of accidents at work.

2. Preventive Organization and Training: Literature Review

Construction activities are particularly critical from a safety point of view, since the changing environments, subcontracting, and nature of the activities make it impossible to perform systematic process management [22,23,24]. In order to successfully deal with health and safety in construction, the research carried out has highlighted, by way of comparative advantages, management leadership in companies and employee training. Table 1 and Table 2 contain various bibliographical references which have served to disseminate research in this context.

3. Methodology

The working methodology used in this research is the prospective-qualitative technique of the focus group. A technique that permits information to be gathered from opinions and experiences contributed by a previously selected group of suitable agents, in a context of debate led by a moderator, in the twin roles of chairperson and timekeeper [56].
The quality of information provided by this technique depends to a large extent on participant experience and commitment; in this particular case, the participants were previously selected in accordance with their involvement in construction processes, such as the case of the administrators and managers of the companies, the workers’ union representatives and those responsible for the administrative bodies in charge of supervising occupational activities and labor relations. The heterogeneity of the group guarantees that different opinions can emerge in the debates, a reflection of the different points of view and appreciations of the same reality as seen from different perspectives [57,58].
Likewise, the focus group technique permits researchers to generate a debate for subsequent analysis that is better oriented to the purpose of the investigation, stimulating the dialogue between agents that hold different points of view on the same matter under discussion [56,59]. If a trusting atmosphere is established, the information contributed to the debate is authentic and of good quality, making it possible to evaluate representative opinions from different perspectives within a short time [60], which means that the results may be managed in a simple manner.
The results obtained from the focus groups were validated through a comparison with the study conducted by the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EU-OSHA) and the results of the “Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks” (ESENER-2) [61], in conjunction with the conclusions from the “National Survey of the Occupational Risks in Firms” (ESENER-2 Spain) [62], of the Spanish National Institute for Health and Safety at Work [Instituto Nacional de Seguridad e Higiene en el Trabajo] (Spanish acronym: INSHT).

3.1. Design of the Focus Groups

Two focus groups were designed for the purposes of this paper (Table 3), formed by agents involved in the management processes of construction sector companies and in the monitoring and control of safety routines in construction works and their productive systems.

3.2. Reference Indicators

In a first phase, the round tables of the different focus groups were designed, and then led and moderated by a member of the research team. The functions of the moderator ranged from the organization and timing of the interventions by the participants, to active encouragement in favor of participation and debate [57,63].
In line with the research objectives, a set of indicators to introduce the topics under debate were established, in accordance with the criteria of the moderator. The indicators used in the discussions of focus group 1 (Table 3) are detailed below:
  • Regulatory framework that operates in the construction sector and characteristics of the sector.
  • Resources allocated to risk prevention training and the quality thereof.
  • Entry barriers due to the singularities of the construction sector.
  • The “risk prevention culture” in the construction sector.
As a corrective measure, no new indicators were identified for the debates established in focus group 2 (Table 3), instead similar indicators were used to those applied by the first Focus Group, giving the participants total freedom to be able to recount their professional and personal experience as construction firms, in relation to the work environment in which their activity took place [64].

4. Results

4.1. Results of Focus Group 1

In the following sections, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7 provide extracts of the most relevant results referring to the first, second, third, and fourth indicators (Section 3.2), respectively, both from the debate established as a consequence of the focus group, and the conclusions drawn from ESENER-2 Spain [62] and ESENER-2 [63].
A clear analogy is appreciated between the data obtained from the discussion groups and the conclusions from ESENER-2 Spain and ESENER-2. This highlights the relevance of the problem, existing in a sector as complex as the construction sector, which cannot and neither should it be treated in the same way as other productive sectors, due to the special casuistry of its operations [19,65].

4.1.1. Compliance with the Regulations

With regard to compliance with the regulations in force, the General State Administration, represented by the Spanish Labor and Social Security Inspectorate [Inspección de Trabajo y Seguridad Social] (Spanish acronym: ITySS), argued that, in general, there is formal compliance with the regulations (Table 4), because the companies strive to meet all legal requirements in matters of risk prevention. Nevertheless, there is no direct match between this “formal compliance” and the reality of the enforcement processes, where the inspectorate has detected serious shortcomings in matters of risk prevention.
The entrepreneurs from the sector argued that the regulations are very complex and full compliance with them is difficult, because there are many demands and the SMEs do not have sufficient administrative structures for their compliance and management. To compensate for these shortcomings, it is common practice to outsource these activities to the EPS. Additionally, the economic crisis leaves no margin to assume the costs that are generated by management.
The workers’ representatives indicated that greater control should be demanded, because compliance with the obligatory requirements of the regulations is not observed, especially with reference to investment in safety equipment.
The COAATIE (College of Technical Architects and Building Engineers (Spanish acronym)) representatives indicated that the formal requirements are numerous and it is difficult to control all of the legal requirements, especially with respect to the requirements for subcontracting companies and their workers. As a result, it was observed that the site foremen and the HSCs assumed responsibility for these matters that, at times, they were unable to control or worse still, were not sufficiently well trained to do [66].
The LFC (Labor Foundation Construction) indicated that greater professionalization in construction sector companies is needed, both with respect to the administrators, the technical managers, and the workers themselves [67]. Special attention has been given to the training of manual workers to which large amounts of resources have been allocated [68], but not to managers, administrators, and intermediate staff in the company [69].
The EPS representative admitted that they usually compensate the shortcomings of the SMEs in matters of risk prevention, but that their follow-up of the processes is not continuous. The contracting of their services is occasional and for specific needs, but no monitoring of the construction processes is established throughout the project [70].

4.1.2. Quality of the Training

It is necessary to improve the training of technicians and workers involved in constructive-preventive processes, because they are the real safety managers (Table 5) on construction sites. The ITySS also considers that the training of workers must be more intense and committed [71].
The resources assigned to training in matters of occupational risk prevention are insufficient in the opinion of the workers’ representatives [72]. Moreover, resources would have to be assigned for the improvement of technical knowledge pertaining to constructive activity, by way of continuous and professional training of workers in the sector. The introduction of the professional construction permit [Tarjeta Profesional de la Construcción] (Spanish acronym: TPC) was positively valued.
The ITySS has detected weaknesses in technical and specialized training for workers, because the construction sector has traditionally been a “refugee sector” [73], which welcomes workers from all sectors without either technical specialization or specific training in constructive-preventive processes. Hence, the workers are unaware of the dangers that construction activities involve, which is a contributory factor to such a high accident rate [21,74], if compared with other productive sectors.
The representatives of the LFC argued the need to professionalize the construction sector. The TPC is a good instrument so that firms can understand and familiarize themselves with the experiences of construction sector workers, their professional qualifications and technical and preventive training acquired throughout their working careers. In this respect, companies should commit themselves to employing workers that hold the TPC. This permit documents the training that the worker has received in occupational risk prevention and other technical and professional qualifications.
The business associations argued that most training resources have above all been assigned to manual workers from the construction sector, leaving aside the business entrepreneurs, who in many cases are entrepreneurs with neither training nor specific knowledge of construction processes. Therefore, it would be advisable to organize more specific training programs for entrepreneurs and managers of SMEs [75].

4.1.3. Barriers to Entering the Construction Sector

In this section, singular aspects were discussed, specific to construction activities, placing special emphasis on the way of organizing places of work and difficulties with their management.
The ITySS indicated that the number of places of work and their distribution are circumstances that do not help when enforcing satisfactory management controls, above all in SMEs [76], which have neither organizational structures nor sufficient human resources and materials (Table 6).
This way of working is usual in the construction sector, from the entrepreneurs’ point of view, because the main characteristic of construction works is their high temporality, limited to the completion of the construction process. It is evident that the workload obliges contracting in accordance with the production needs, which is why a degree of staff flexibility is necessary. The entrepreneurs certainly recognized that this flexibility would not favor long-term attachment to the firm and empathy towards it.
The workers’ representatives affirmed that the system of contracting has always been that way, but that working conditions have improved with the new Subcontracting Law [77], and job insecurity has decreased, although a lot remains to be done in that field.
Temporary employment gives rise to situations of fluctuating risk [78], for the managers of the HSCs, which directly affects risk prevention management at the places of work. The regulations should give a greater role to the EPS, because their actions are at present limited to formal compliance with risk prevention duties.
The COAATIE representative, the site foremen, and the HSCs have to manage critical situations, with additional difficulties, as well as those pertaining to responsibility for technical implementation processes. The method of contracting by work or service does not facilitate the continuity of workers in the company [79], a circumstance that complicates the management of works in general, and the risk prevention obligations in particular.
Temporary contracts would not have to be a problem, in the opinion of the LFC, if workers were well trained, with regard to technical skills and risk prevention matters [80,81]. The professionalization of the sector would resolve many of the problems of works, especially with regard to accidents at work.

4.1.4. The “Risk Prevention Culture”

All the participants in the discussion group considered that risk prevention should be a personal and professional value that must be promoted in all available training.
Risk prevention activities constitute the best strategy for achieving more efficient processes, with no accidents and with greater staff satisfaction for the personnel associated with them for the representative of the HSCs (Table 7). Investing in risk prevention is a competitive advantage for construction entrepreneurs, even though investments have fallen over the years of economic crisis.
Companies with good management systems can, in the opinion of the ITySS, apply risk prevention measures in the processes they carry out with greater efficiency. Inspections and site visits may be seen as positive follow-up for compliance with legal requirements, rather than coercive measures.
The COAATIE representatives pointed to the difficulties that the site foremen and the HSCs have when the construction project is underway, because in addition to technical controls over the works, they have to conduct follow-up of risk prevention obligations, a circumstance that can give rise to significant responsibilities for which they are not sufficiently well trained. It is necessary to assign resources for the ongoing training of Site Foremen and HSCs [71].
The LFC argues that each worker should be responsible for applying the risk prevention knowledge acquired in training procedures [82]. The law determines that risk prevention must be led by the entrepreneur, but it also constitutes a collective duty in which all of the agents that participate in construction site work are involved [83].
The collective of entrepreneurs defended compliance with the risk prevention obligations, such as medical examinations, the company risk prevention plan, the health and safety plan, and training programs. In the case of SMEs, these activities are outsourced as they have neither their own management structures nor risk prevention or staff training resources. They consider that construction companies, despite the crisis, continue investing in risk prevention resources, especially in individual and collective safety equipment. They recognize that the public authorities allocate significant resources to training [75,84], without which the SMEs could not take on these sorts of risk prevention training activities.

4.2. Results of Focus Group 2

The discussions between the representatives of the construction companies concerned topics highlighting the principal difficulties that SMEs from the construction sector face in the “processes of integration of risk prevention management in the general management system of the company”, in relation to the tasks that they perform, mainly as subcontracting firms (Table 8).
These difficulties can mainly be summarized by saying that SMEs have insufficient means with which to integrate risk prevention management in the general management system of the company. As risk prevention management is a technical-administrative activity, most firms outsource it through an agency or through an External Prevention Service (EPS). They likewise consider the regulation to be excessively complex and difficult to interpret, finding that their organizational structures are insufficient to assimilate so many normative regulations, after having outsourced them. By doing so, the entrepreneur loses the perspective of legal relevancy.
Many of the entrepreneurs from SMEs are workers with manual and technical but no administrative and management training. Hence, more resources have to be allocated to provide management training for these managers.
In the management of the outsourcing processes of construction activities, significant shortcomings are observed in the communication between the contracting and the contracted firm. Clear and defined protocols must be established for the delivery of and access to health and safety plans, incident books, and subcontracting books.
It is necessary to establish similar protocols across the national territory that clearly specify the documentation that has to be delivered by the contracting firm in subcontracting activities, as there is a greater disparity of criteria in this respect, depending on the area in which the works are located.
The entrepreneurs were unanimous when arguing that the requirements of ITySS are oriented more towards formal compliance with the regulatory requirements, than to testing the scope and the quality of their content. The most evident case is that of the health and safety plan, which only requires the approval of the HSCs during the implementation phase, without valuing whether its content has been adjusted to meet the specific aspects and singularities of the work that they will inspect.
Risk prevention activities require important resources. The drop in company revenues because of the effects of the economic crisis, are of no help in this respect. The LFC, the organization dedicated to training and risk prevention in the construction sector, has also reduced its training activity.

5. Discussion

If the results of the first indicator, regulation and level of compliance in matters of occupational risk management (Table 4) are analyzed, a clear analogy is observed between what is expressed by the representatives of Business Associations in focus groups 1 and 2, when considering that the regulation of risk prevention matters is “excessive, disperse, and complex to apply”. The opinion of entrepreneurs from the sector, focus group 2 (Table 8), on the excessive complexity of the regulations was also corroborated in the ESENER-2 report, where “for three out of every ten establishments, the circumstances that act as barriers or impediments to risk prevention activity are: the complexity of legal requirements (36.3%), the lack of personnel or the lack of awareness of the employees” (Table 6). In accordance with the ESENER-2 Spain report, “bureaucracy and paperwork are excessive” for 28.7%. In the majority of cases, the regulations are observed, because they are legal obligations, to avoid sanctions in case inspections conducted in Spain (85.4%) and in Europe (77.9%) (Table 4).
Equally, in accordance with ESENER-2 Spain, “83.1% of the companies inspected considered that their main reason for risk prevention activity was to avoid fines and sanctions from the Inspectorate”, which to a great extent coincided with the message from the ITySS on the coercive nature of the inspections to confirm compliance with risk prevention in companies.
In the case of European companies, the concern about “prestige and company reputation” is a reason for their compliance (77%), while the motivation in Spain in that respect is something smaller (65.9%) (Table 4). Likewise, compliance to “satisfy the expectations of their own workers” is higher in Europe (78%) than it is in Spain.
Regarding the second indicator, quality of training, both the participants of focus group 1, and those of focus group 2, were aware of the need to increase the resources assigned to the risk prevention training of entrepreneurs, technicians, and workers from the construction sector. The economic crisis in Spain has meant fewer resources for training, a circumstance that is also noted in the ESENER-2 Spain survey, where it states that “14.5% of companies claim to have reduced resources available for risk prevention in the last three years because of economic difficulties” (Table 5), although there are many companies that state they have a specific budget for risk prevention activities in Spain (68.4%).
The assertion that SMEs have fewer resources to invest in risk prevention, among other reasons because of the structural crisis of the construction sector (focus group 1 and focus group 2), is also corroborated in the ESENER-2 report, where it is affirmed that there are significant differences in matters of preventive training, confirming that “this training is more frequent in workplaces with over 50 workers than in those with fewer staff” (Table 5), and that it is higher in Spain than it is in Europe.
Unlike what was stated in focus group 1, where the need for the training of implementation managers and HSCs in project implementation was pointed out, “82% of the workplaces with a staff of over 19 workers have facilitated training to the Team Managers and Production Managers on how to manage risk prevention” (Table 8), this activity being especially significant in “construction, waste management, water and electricity supply, where the highest percentage is observed”, particular attention being paid to the risk prevention training for site foremen (91.4%).
The third indicator under study, barriers to entering the construction sector, reflects the concerns about risk prevention voiced by entrepreneurs and corroborated by the ITySS itself and COAATIE representatives in focus groups 1 and 2. These concerns are also in harmony with the results of the ESENER-2 report, because it is an entrepreneurial concern of directors and managers of sectors such as “construction, waste management, water and electricity supply” in 75% of companies. Nevertheless, in accordance with the ESENER-2 Spain report, the degree of integration of occupational risk prevention is greater “the larger the size of the workplace”, standing at 79% in large firms as opposed to 43% in SMEs (Table 5).
Factors such as high temporality and job insecurity do not encourage the attachment and empathy of workers towards their company, although they may have improved their working conditions following the publication of the Subcontracting Law. High temporary employment does not favor correct risk prevention management in the workplace either.
The “risk prevention culture”, the fourth indicator of the study, underlines the imperative need of all the participants to understand risk prevention as a personal and professional value of attachment that has to be promoted at all levels. It is known that investment in risk prevention implies a competitive advantage for entrepreneurs making those investments, but it is directly affected by the lack of resources needed to maintain a stable organizational structure, forcing the majority of construction firms to turn to external risk prevention managers (focus group 1). This is also corroborated in the ESENER-2 Spain report, where it states, for example, “for the completion of risk evaluations, 78% of workplaces use an external risk prevention service and only 12%, in-house services”, leaving Spain among the countries that have opted for greater outsourcing of risk prevention management (Table 7). However, the results of the ESENER-2 survey show higher worker involvement in risk prevention assessments (81%), in comparison with Spain (42.8%).

6. Conclusions

In general, the results obtained in focus groups 1 and 2 are in line with the conclusions of ESENER-2 [64] and ESENER-2 Spain [65]; a symptom that shows that the construction sector is not a typical productive sector, but rather a sector that features a high level of complexity, which complicates the management and supervision of preventive processes.
In the area of regulatory compliance, the lack of preventive culture has a direct impact on the sector’s accident rate due to significant and evident breaches, making specific actions such as the implementation of awareness/training programs concerning the benefits of integrating risk prevention in all aspects of the company necessary, paying particular attention to the employees who have decision-making responsibility. In order to achieve this, it is necessary that the risk prevention services experts are familiar with the construction process, which implies that these experts should have a professional profile suitable for being an HSC, since it is only when you know the complexity of the sector in depth that you are competent to work in it (Table 4).
The construction sector brings together a group of low-qualified workers, which makes it more difficult to successfully implement preventive measures, and means that all efforts should be focused upon professionalization, with both companies and employees being committed to achieving professional excellence. This field is where training plays a fundamental role, which is why raising the job entry requirements is considered to be a priority, asking for a minimum level of studies and risk prevention training, with a requirement that the latter be continued over time with high-quality training, creating customized training plans for companies, depending on their activity, resources, and size (Table 5).
If we add the lack of personal allegiance to the company’s corporate structure, due to factors such as temporariness and the provisional nature of contractual bonds, to the lack of training, we find ourselves facing great difficulty when it comes to controlling certain situations of risk derived from the lack of roots and empathy with the said company. This means that the management of psychosocial risks represents a fundamental role along with the promotion of campaigns to ensure the correct implementation of related measures, as well as the need to boost staff rotation, with the clear objective of being able to attach the most suitable conditions possible to the job role for the employee occupying the position (Table 6).
In addition to all of the above, it is necessary to encourage greater employee collaboration and participation when assessing the job role, pushing us to ensure that both the presence of the preventive resource and the prevention specialists end up becoming effective (Table 7).
Finally, in order to be able to address all of the above, a “commitment to risk prevention” is needed from the boards of directors, as the involvement of directors in risk prevention matters constitutes a key factor for the correct integration and subsequent application of prevention in firms along with the implementation of a “culture of risk prevention” among all the agents involved in the constructive-preventive processes that surround construction activities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero), M.d.l.N.G., M.S. and B.M.V.; Data procurement, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero) and B.M.V.; Formal analysis, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero), M.d.l.N.G., M.S., B.M.V. and Á.R. (Ángel Rodríguez); Funding acquisition, M.d.l.N.G., M.S. and Á.R. (Ángel Rodríguez); Research, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero) and B.M.V.; Methodology, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero), M.d.l.N.G. and M.S.; Project administration, M.d.l.N.G. and M.S.; Supervision, M.d.l.N.G. and M.S.; Validation, M.d.l.N.G., M.S. and Á.R. (Ángel Rodríguez); Visualization, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero) and B.M.V.; Writing—original draft, Á.R. (Álvaro Romero) and B.M.V.; Writing—review & editing, M.d.l.N.G., M.S. and Á.R. (Ángel Rodríguez).

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank all the public and private bodies that were consulted for their assistance: Business Associations, Professional Colleges, EPS and entrepreneurs involved in the construction sector; and particularly, the Labor Foundation for Construction for its involvement; especially the delegations of Castile-La Mancha and Castile-Leon.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Spanish Economic and Social Council. The Role of the Construction Sector in Economic Growth: Competitiveness, Cohesion and Quality of Life. Available online: http://www.ces.es/documents/10180/3557409/Inf0216.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  2. Taltavull, P.; Pérez, R. Construction, housing and credit. Relevance for the Spanish Economy. Rev. Estud. Empres. 2015, 2, 73–95. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alonso, M.; Furió, E. The Spanish economy. In Notebooks of Spanish Contemporary Civilization; Laboratoire 3L.AM: Angers, France, 2010; Volume 6. [Google Scholar]
  4. Spanish Company of Export Credit Insurance. Sectoral Report of the Economy. 2016. Available online: http://www.spainglobal.com/files/2016/informe_sectorial_2016.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  5. Eurostat-Official EU Statistics. Chapter 15: Construction, Statistical books. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/3217494/5611452/KS-BW-06-001-15-EN.PDF/67c620a8-ca8e-4d2f-8fd5-96f823e74eec?version=1.0 (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  6. Circle of Entrepreneurs. The Spanish Médium-Sized Company. 2014 Annual Report; Círculo de Empresarios: Madrid, Spain, 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ministry of Economy, Industry and Competitiveness. Monthly Statistics for Small and Medium-Sized Companies in Spain. 2017. Available online: http://www.ipyme.org/es-ES/publicaciones/Paginas/estadisticaspyme.aspx (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  8. Paramio, A. The Issue of Subcontracting in Construction: Legal Analysis and Practical Solutions; Lex Nova: Valladolid, Spain, 2009. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ministry of Employment and Social Security. Registry of Accredited Companies. Construction Sector in Spain. 2017. Available online: http://rea.mtin.gob.es/rea/ (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  10. Muñoz, J.F. The relationship between the construction crisis and the accident rate on building sites (Period 2002–2010). Revista Gestión Práctica de Riesgos Laborales 2011, 83, 14–18. [Google Scholar]
  11. INSHT. Report on the State of Occupational Health and Safety in Spain, 2013; NIPO: 272-14-050-9; National Institute of Health and Safety at Work, Ministry of Employment and Social Security: Madrid, Spain, 2014.
  12. INE. Industrial survey of companies, CNAE 09—Year 2014; National Institute of Statistics: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
  13. Kagan, P.B.; Komissarov, S. Improving methods of flow chart formation in construction. Internet-Vestnik VolgGASU 2013, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar]
  14. Ministry of Industry, Energy and Tourism. SME Statistics, Evolution and Indicators nº14. Spain. 2016. Available online: http://www.ipyme.org//Publicaciones/ESTADISTICAS-PYME-2015.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  15. Bottani, E.; Monica, L.; Vignali, G. Safety management systems: Performance differences between adopters and non-adopters. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 155–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cagno, E.; Micheli, G.J.L.; Jacinto, C.; Masi, D. An interpretive model of occupational safety performance for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 2014, 44, 60–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. INSHT. Spanish Strategy for Health and Safety at Work 2007–2012; National Institute of Health and Safety at Work, Ministry of Employment and Social Security: Madrid, Spain, 2007.
  18. Lyons, T.; Skitmore, M. Project risk management in the Queensland engineering construction industry: A survey. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2004, 22, 51–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Regional Department of Economy and Employment for the Government of Castile and León. Sectoral Study of the Different Risk Prevention Management Formulas and the Integration of Risk Prevention in Each Preventive Model Depending on the Activity; Government of Castile and León: Valladolid, Spain, 2010.
  20. Fernández-Muñiz, B.; Montes-Peón, J.M.; Vázquez-Ordás, C.J. Relation between occupational safety management and firm performance. Saf. Sci. 2009, 47, 980–991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Segarra, M.; Villena, B.M.; González, M.N.; Romero, A.; Rodríguez, A. Occupational risk prevention diagnosis: A study of construction SMEs in Spain. Saf. Sci. 2017, 92, 104–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Rozenfeld, O.; Sacks, R.; Rosenfeld, Y.; Baum, H. Construction job safety analysis. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 491–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jannadi, M.O. Factors affecting the safety of the construction industry. Buil. Res. Informat. 1996, 24, 108–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Romero, A.; Villena, M.B.; Segarra, M.; González, M.N.; Rodríguez, A. Analysis and diagnosis of risk prevention training actions in the Spanish construction sector. Saf. Sci. 2018, 106, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hadikusumo, B.H.; Jitwasinkul, B.; Memon, A.Q. Role of organizational factors affecting worker safety behavior: A Bayesian belief network approach. Procedia Eng. 2017, 171, 131–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Jitwasinkul, B.; Hadikusumo, B.H. Identification of important organisational factors influencing safety work behaviours in construction projects. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2011, 17, 520–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Kim, N.K.; Rahim, N.F.A.; Iranmanesh, M.; Foroughi, B. The role of the safety climate in the successful implementation of safety management systems. Saf. Sci. 2019, 118, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Windapo, A.O. Relationship between degree of risk, cost and level of compliance to occupational health and safety regulations in construction. Constr. Econ. Build. 2013, 13, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Jiang, Z.; Fang, D.; Zhang, M. Understanding the causation of construction workers’ unsafe behaviors based on system dynamics modeling. J. Manag. Eng. 2014, 31, 04014099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Cheng, C.W.; Leu, S.S.; Lin, C.C.; Fan, C. Characteristic analysis of occupational accidents at small construction enterprises. Saf. Sci. 2010, 48, 698–707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mohammadi, A.; Tavakolan, M. Construction project risk assessment using combined fuzzy and FMEA. In Proceedings of the 2013 Joint IFSA World Congress and NAFIPS Annual Meeting (IFSA/NAFIPS), Edmonton, AB, Canada, 24–28 June 2013; pp. 232–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Esteban, J.; Chávarri, F.D.B.; Lucas Ruiz, V. Study of the integration of risk prevention in the project drafting phase. In Proceedings of the 4IAU 4th International Seminars on Research in Architecture and Town Planning, Valencia, Spain, 1–3 June 2011. [Google Scholar]
  33. Bavafa, A.; Mahdiyar, A.; Marsono, A.K. Identifying and assessing the critical factors for effective implementation of safety programs in construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 106, 47–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Marzuki, P.F.; Permadi, H.; Sunaryo, I. Factors affecting job satisfaction of workers in Indonesian construction companies. J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 2012, 18, 299–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Newaz, M.T.; Davis, P.; Jefferies, M.; Pillay, M. Using a psychological contract of safety to predict safety climate on construction sites. J. Saf. Res. 2019, 68, 9–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Seo, H.C.; Lee, Y.S.; Kim, J.J.; Jee, N.Y. Analyzing safety behaviors of temporary construction workers using structural equation modeling. Saf. Sci. 2015, 77, 160–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Azhar, S.; Ahmad, I.; Sein, M.K. Action research as a proactive research method for construction engineering and management. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. 2009, 136, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grill, M.; Nielsen, K. Promoting and impeding safety—A qualitative study into direct and indirect safety leadership practices of constructions site managers. Saf. Sci. 2019, 114, 148–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Stiles, S.; Ryan, B.; Golightly, D. Evaluating attitudes to safety leadership within rail construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 110, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Wu, C.; Fang, D.; Li, N. Roles of owners’ leadership in construction safety: The case of high-speed railway construction projects in China. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1665–1679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Wu, C.; Li, N.; Fang, D. Leadership improvement and its impact on workplace safety in construction projects: A conceptual model and action research. J. Proj. Manag. 2017, 35, 1495–1511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yanar, B.; Amick, B.C., III; Lambraki, I.; D’Elia, T.; Severin, C.; Van Eerd, D. How are leaders using benchmarking information in occupational health and safety decision-making? Saf. Sci. 2019, 116, 245–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yukl, G. Effective leadership behavior: What we know and what questions need more attention. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 2012, 26, 66–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Zhang, L.; Chen, H.; Li, H.; Wu, X.; Skibniewski, M.J. Perceiving interactions and dynamics of safety leadership in construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 106, 66–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Loosemore, M.; Malouf, N. Safety training and positive safety attitude formation in the Australian construction industry. Saf. Sci. 2019, 113, 233–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Manu, E.; Ankrah, N.; Chinyio, E.; Proverbs, D. Trust influencing factors in main contractor and subcontractor relationships during projects. Int. J. Proj. Manag. 2015, 33, 1495–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Xu, Q.; Chong, H.Y.; Liao, P.C. Collaborative information integration for construction safety monitoring. Autom. Constr. 2019, 102, 120–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. He, Q.; Dong, S.; Rose, T.; Li, H.; Yin, Q.; Cao, D. Systematic impact of institutional pressures on safety climate in the construction industry. Accid. Anal. Prev. 2016, 93, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tie-Min, L. Work system construction for work safety. J. Saf. Sci. Technol. 2008, 5, 5–7. [Google Scholar]
  50. Başağa, H.B.; Temel, B.A.; Atasoy, M.; Yıldırım, İ. A study of the effectiveness of occupational health and safety training for construction workers in Turkey. Saf. Sci. 2018, 110, 344–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Oswald, D.; Sherratt, F.; Smith, S.; Dainty, A. An exploration into the implications of the ‘compensation culture’ on construction safety. Saf. Sci. 2018, 109, 294–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shi, Y.; Du, J.; Ahn, C.R.; Ragan, E. Impact assessment of reinforced learning methods on construction workers’ fall risk behavior using virtual reality. Autom. Constr. 2019, 104, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Gao, R.; Chan, A.P.; Lyu, S.; Zahoor, H.; Utama, W.P. Investigating the difficulties of implementing safety practices in international construction projects. Saf. Sci. 2018, 108, 39–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gao, Y.; Gonzalez, V.; Yiu, T.W. The effectiveness of traditional tools and computer-aided technologies for health and safety training in the construction sector: A systematic review. Comput. Educ. 2019, 138, 101–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. Poh, C.Q.; Ubeynarayana, C.U.; Goh, Y.M. Safety leading indicators for construction sites: A machine learning approach. Autom. Constr. 2018, 93, 375–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Edmunds, H. The Focus Group Research Handbook; NTC/Contemporary Publishing Group: Chicago, IL, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  57. Juan, S.; Roussus, A. The Focus Group as a Qualitative Research Technique; Research Department, University of Belgrano: Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2010; Available online: http://www.ub.edu.ar/investigaciones/dt_nuevos/254_Roussos.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  58. Kitzinger, J. Qualitative research. Introducing focus groups. BMJ-Br. Med. J. 1995, 311, 299–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Mella, O. Nature and Theoretical—Methodological Guidelines for Qualitative Research; Education Research and Development Centre, Editorial CIDE: Santiago de Chile, Chile, 1998; Available online: http://www.reduc.cl/reduc/mella.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  60. Mejía, J. El muestreo en la investigación cualitativa. Investigaciones Sociales 2000, 4, 165–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. ESENER-2. Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emergent Risks (ESENER-2), 2014; European Agency for Health and Safety at Work (EU-OSHA), European Union: Bilbao, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  62. ESENER-2 Spain. National Survey of Occupational Risk Management in Companies (ESENER-2 Spain), 2014; NIPO 272-15-074-9; National Institute of Health and Safety at Work, Ministry of Employment and Social Security: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
  63. Morgan, D.L. Reconsidering the Role of Interaction in Analyzing and Reporting Focus Groups. Qual. Health Res. 2010, 20, 718–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Ipsen, C.; Gish, L.; Poulsen, S. Organizational-level interventions in small and medium-sized enterprises: Enabling and inhibiting factors in the PoWRS program. Saf. Sci. 2015, 71, 264–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. BOE. Law 32/2006, of 18 October, regulating subcontracting in the construction sector. Official State Gazette, 250, 19/10/2006. Available online: https://www.global-regulation.com/translation/spain/1446168/law-32-2006%252c-of-18-october%252c-regulating-the-subcontracting-in-the-construction-sector.html (accessed on 10 June 2019).
  66. Tripartite Foundation. Training Survey for Employment in Construction Companies. 2011. Available online: https://www.fundaciontripartita.org/Observatorio/Pages/Encuesta_empresas.aspx (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  67. Barber, H.M. Characteristics of Construction Safety Trainers, the Challenges They Experience, How They Meet These Challenges, and the Relationships between Selected Characteristics of Safety Trainers and Accident Rates Experienced by Their Trainees. Ph.D. Thesis, The Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA, 2003. Available online: http://diginole.lib.fsu.edu/islandora/object/fsu:175628/datastream/PDF/view (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  68. Agnello, M. The formation and the information of the prevention and safety in construction. Giornale Italiano di Medicina del Lavoro ed Ergonomia 2006, 28, 117–119. [Google Scholar]
  69. Cabañas, A. Safety Training Deficiencies. Technical and Technological Convention of Technical Architecture; CONTART: Albacete, Spain, 2009; Available online: http://www.fundacionmusaat.musaat.es/files/Ponencia_20.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  70. Ozmec, M.N.; Karlsen, I.L.; Kines, P.; Andersen, L.P.S.; Nielsen, K.J. Negotiating safety practice in small construction companies. Saf. Sci. 2015, 7, 275–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Ministry of Employment and Social Security. Professional Training Survey for Company Employment. 2010. Available online: http://www.empleo.gob.es/estadisticas/efpc/welcome.htm (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  72. Sørensen, O.H.; Hasle, P.; Bach, E. Working in small enterprises—Is there a special risk? Saf. Sci. 2007, 45, 1044–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Foment del Treball Nacional (National Employment Promotion). The Impact of Immigration on the Construction Sector with Regard to Occupational Risk Preventions. Research Study; Foment del Treball Nacional (National Employment Promotion), Risk prevention office for SMEs: Barcelona, Spain, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  74. Camino, M.A.; Ritzel, D.O.; Fontaneda, I.; González, O. Construction industry accidents in Spain. J. Saf. Res. 2008, 39, 497–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Peláez, F.J. Assessment of the Effectiveness of the “Preferential Action Plans (PAP)” Created by the Autonomous Regions in the Period 1999–2005, with the Objective of Reducing the Frequency of Injuries Due to Accidents at Work; Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs (FIPROS 1005-39): Madrid, Spain, 2006. Available online: http://www.seg-social.es/prdi00/groups/public/documents/binario/097544.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
  76. Official Journal of the European Union. Commission recommendation of 6 May 2003 concerning the definition of micro, small and medium-sized enterprises. (notified under document number C (2003) 1422) (2003/361/EC). Official Journal of the European Union, 25 May 2003. [Google Scholar]
  77. BOE. Royal Decree 1109/2007, of 24 August, which implements Law 32/2006, of 18 October, which regulates subcontracting in the Construction Sector. Official State Gazette, 25 August 2007. [Google Scholar]
  78. García Ninet, J.I. Subcontracting in the construction sector or the misuse of subcontracting and the growth in the sector’s accident rate. TS 2006, 191, 5–14. [Google Scholar]
  79. González-Díaz, M.; Arruñada, B.; Fernández, A. Causes of subcontracting: Evidence from panel data on construction firms. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2000, 42, 167–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. BOE. Decision of 8 November 2013, by the Directorate-General for Employment, registering and publishing the record of the agreements on the procedure for the standardization of occupational risk prevention training activities, as well as on the regulation of conditions for the maintenance of the standardization of occupational risk prevention training activities in accordance with the provisions of the 5th Collective Agreement for the construction sector. Official State Gazette, 22 November 2013. [Google Scholar]
  81. Bahn, S.; Barratt-Pugh, L. Safety training evaluation: The case of construction induction training and the impact on work-related injuries in the Western Australian construction sector. Int. J. Train. Res. 2014, 12, 148–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Reinhold, K.; Järvis, M.; Tint, P. Practical tool and procedure for workplace risk assessment: Evidence from SMEs in Estonia. Saf. Sci. 2015, 71, 282–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. BOE. Law 31/1995, of 8 November, on Occupational Risk Prevention. Official State Gazette, 269, 10/11/1995. Available online: https://www.insst.es/InshtWeb/Contenidos/Documentacion/FichasPublicaciones/LegisNormalizacion/TextosLegales/Ficheros/lprw-lprl-en-consolidado%20-CON%20CARATULA%20SIN%20NIPO.pdf (accessed on 10 June 2019).
  84. Huete, L. The Action of the Prosecution Service in Accidents at Work: A Practical Guide; Prosecutor’s Office of the Ciudad Real Provinicial Court: Ciudad Real, Spain, 2007; Available online: http://www.fremap.es/pdf/prevencion/guiafis.pdf (accessed on 24 April 2019).
Table
Table 1. Bibliographical references concerning research into corporate leadership and the integration of risk prevention in company system.
Table 1. Bibliographical references concerning research into corporate leadership and the integration of risk prevention in company system.
Organization IndicatorsBibliography
Engagement of company directorsHadakisumo et al., 2017 [25]
Jitwasinkul and Hadakisumo, 2011 [26]
Kim et al., 2019 [27]
Rozenfeld et al., 2010 [22]
Windapo, 2013 [28]
Jiang et al., 2014 [29]
Fulfillment of safety regulationsCheng et al., 2010 [30]
Mohammadi and Tavakolan, 2013 [31]
Preventive actions in design phase and drafting of projectJiang et al., 2015 [29]
Esteban et al., 2012 [32]
Mohammadi and Tavakolan, 2013 [31]
Communication and dialogue with employeesBavafa et al., 2018 [33]
Kim et al., 2019 [27]
Marzuki et al., 2012 [34]
Newaz eta al., 2019 [35]
Seo et al., 2015 [36]
Leadership of company managersAzhar et al., 2009 [37]
Grill and Nielsen, 2019 [38]
Stiles et al., 2018 [39]
Wu et al., 2015 [40]
Wu et al., 2017 [41]
Yanar et al., 2019 [42]
Yulk, 2012 [43]
Zang et al., 2018 [44]
Collaboration and dialogue with subcontracted companiesLoosemore et al., 2019 [45]
Manu et al., 2015 [46]
Xu et al., 2019 [47]
Table
Table 2. Bibliographical references concerning employee training in safety and risk prevention.
Table 2. Bibliographical references concerning employee training in safety and risk prevention.
Training IndicatorsBibliography
Professionalization of the Construction SectorHe et al., 2016 [48]
Romero et al., 2018 [24]
Tie-min, 2008 [49]
Performance quality and professional competenceBaşağa et al., 2018 [50]
Losemore et al., 2019 [45]
Marzuki et al., 2012 [34]
Xu et al., 2019 [47]
Safety cultureNevaz et al., 2019 [35]
Oswald et al., 2018 [51]
Seo et al. 2015 [36]
Learning methodologiesShi et al., 2019 [52]
Gao et al., 2018 [53]
Gao et al., 2019 [54]
Poh et al., 2018 [55]
Table
Table 3. Position of the intervening parties/experience in years, duties of the moderator, debate content and duration.
Table 3. Position of the intervening parties/experience in years, duties of the moderator, debate content and duration.
PartiesModeratorContent/Time
  • Provincial Chief of the Labor Inspectorate and Social Security (10 years).
  • Provincial Chief of Health and Safety at Work Service (14 years).
  • Risk Prevention Specialist at the Spanish Confederation of Business Organizations (9 years).
  • Area head at the Labor Foundation Construction (LFC) (22 years).
  • Risk Prevention Specialist at the Construction Labor Foundation (8 years).
  • Director of an ORP company (12 years).
  • Legal advisor of a Professional College of Technical Architects and Building Engineers (Spanish acronym: COAATIE) (21 years).
  • Head of the Risk Prevention Service of a big Spanish company with more than 250 employees (12 years).
Propose the topics to be addressed.
 
Promote participation and desire for discussion.
 
Control the progression of the speeches so that they remain relevant.
 
Provide statistical data from national and European studies concerning the topics to be addressed.
  • Regulatory framework that operates in the construction sector and characteristics of the sector.
  • Resources allocated to risk prevention training.
  • Complexity of the sector, associated risks and their assessment, preventive structures.
  • Consultation and participation.
Focus Group 1: Experts
Total:8 150 min
  • Company specializing in renovations and restorations (30 years).
  • Company specializing in waterproofing (12 years).
  • Company specializing in new constructions and renovations (15 years).
  • Company specializing in civil and building works (18 years).
  • Company specializing in public works (20 years).
  • Company specializing in the assembly and rental of scaffolding (25 years).
  • Company specializing in electricity (22 years).
  • Resources allocated to risk prevention training.
  • Difficulties in integrating risk prevention in their companies, in accordance with the reference standards in force.
  • Personal opinion of the content set out in focus group 1.
Focus Group 2: Entrepreneurs
Total:71 120 min
Table
Table 4. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its Spanish and European versions), referring to the first indicator (regulation in matters of occupational risk prevention in the construction sector and level of compliance) used as a guide in discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Table 4. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its Spanish and European versions), referring to the first indicator (regulation in matters of occupational risk prevention in the construction sector and level of compliance) used as a guide in discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Focus Group 1ESENER-2 SpainESENER-2 EuropeProposal
Formal compliance with the regulations, in other words, compliance is by obligation even though the participants may not believe in them.
 
Excessive yet patchy regulation that is complex to apply.
 
The site foremen and health and safety coordinators (HSC) assume responsibilities for which they are not trained.
 
Greater commitment is needed from workers.
Greater support from external risk prevention services (EPS) [Servicios de Prevención Ajenos] is necessary.		The regulations are fulfilled because they are considered legal obligations, to avoid possible administrative sanctions (85.4%).
 
The legal requirements are complex and difficult to interpret.
 
Lack of material measures to manage prevention correctly.
 
Lack of resources to carry out frequent visits from the inspectorate.
 
Excessive bureaucracy and procedures for the management of risk prevention in firms.		The regulation is only fulfilled because it is a legal obligation (77.9%), as well as because of the prestige and the reputation of the organization (77.0%).
 
Normative compliance to satisfy the expectations of workers.		Awareness/training programs concerning the benefits of integrating risk prevention in companies.
 
Risk prevention specialists to be better trained in construction, desirable figures being architects, technical architects, engineers, and technical engineers (acceptable professions for the role of HSC).
Table
Table 5. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its Spanish and European versions), referring to the second indicator (quality of training of personnel linked to the construction companies) used as a guide in discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Table 5. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its Spanish and European versions), referring to the second indicator (quality of training of personnel linked to the construction companies) used as a guide in discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Focus Group 1ESENER-2 SpainESENER-2 EuropeProposal
Improve technical training, more professionalization of workers (87.5%).
 
Increase the training of workers in matters of health and risk prevention.
It is necessary to professionalize the construction sector (100%).
 
Workers should be required to hold the professional construction permit.
 
More resources must be assigned to the training of managers in construction firms.		A larger percentage is assigned to training in matters of risk prevention in Spain than in Europe.
 
Training in risk prevention for site foremen (91.4%).
 
Training in the management of risk prevention for site foremen (82.0%).
 
Training in risk prevention for delegates and entrepreneurs (96.4%).
 
Training is more common in workplaces with over 50 workers.		Training in management for site foremen (82.0%).
 
Fewer resources are allocated to training in matters of risk prevention.
 
The larger the company, the easier it is to access preventive training.		Increase the job entry requirements. Minimum level of studies and risk prevention training.
 
Recurring training instead of one-off training that lasts for a lifetime and does not need to be updated.
Table
Table 6. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its European and Spanish versions), referring to the third indicator (barriers to entering due to the singularities of the construction sector) used as a guide in the discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Table 6. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its European and Spanish versions), referring to the third indicator (barriers to entering due to the singularities of the construction sector) used as a guide in the discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Focus Group 1ESENER-2 Spain ESENER-2 EuropeProposal
Geographic dispersion of places of work.
Need for flexibility of staff. 		Lack of awareness of employees and to a lesser extent, of the entrepreneurs themselves.
 
Need for flexibility in the sector, because of lack of time and personnel. 		Construction is a sector with infinite risks associated with its activity and its processes.Increased presence and assessment of psychosocial risks in construction works and promotion of campaigns aimed at their correct implementation.
 
Increase staff rotation on lengthy building projects which may result in family-work conflicts.
The worksite is a living organism, in constant change, which implies different risks.
Lack of empathy and attachment of the workers towards their company.
Professionalization would solve many current problems in the sector.
Table
Table 7. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its European and Spanish versions), referring to the fourth indicator (the “risk prevention culture” in the construction sector) used as a guide in the discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Table 7. Conclusions drawn from focus group 1 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its European and Spanish versions), referring to the fourth indicator (the “risk prevention culture” in the construction sector) used as a guide in the discussion groups. Source: [61,62].
Focus Group 1ESENER-2 SpainESENER-2 EuropeProposal
Investment in risk prevention implies a competitive advantage for the firm (87.5%).
 
The technicians assume responsibilities for those who are not properly trained (75.0%).
 
The required risk prevention documentation is prepared, such as risk evaluations and health and safety plans.
 
The firms comply with their preventive obligations (100.0%).
 
External prevention services (EPS) are contacted in the majority of cases (100.0%).
 
Risk prevention is the responsibility of all the agents that are involved, not only of a few.		Risk assessments are performed in the construction sector.
 
EPS are contacted in the majority of cases for risk prevention management.
 
Lower involvement of workers in risk assessments (42.8%).
There is a s  
pecific budget for risk prevention (68.4%).
 
The entrepreneurs involve themselves in the risk prevention of the company (75.0%).
 
Personnel discuss risk prevention topics (62.6%).
Reduction of resources allocated to risk prevention (18.0%).		Major participation and collaboration of workers in risk assessment (81.0%).
The majority of companies periodically complete risk assessments.
 
Major presence of in-house risk prevention services (18.6%), as opposed to EPS.
 
Low participation of risk prevention experts (52.0%).
Risk assessments contribute to safety (90.0%).		Awareness campaigns and effective implementation of the figure of the preventive resource in building works, as added value with regard to risk prevention in construction works.
 
Greater presence of building specialists, which implies monthly visits by EPS specialists.
Table
Table 8. Conclusions drawn from focus group 2 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its Spanish and European versions), referring to risk prevention management in construction sector companies. Source: [61,62].
Table 8. Conclusions drawn from focus group 2 and the Second European Survey of Enterprises on New and Emerging Risks (ESENER-2, in both its Spanish and European versions), referring to risk prevention management in construction sector companies. Source: [61,62].
Focus Group 2ESENER-2 SpainESENER-2 EuropeProposal
Excessive, very dispersed regulations that are difficult to interpret.
 
Lack of measures for the correct integration of risk prevention in the management of the company.
 
More resources need to be dedicated to company training managers (71.4%).
 
Need to increase the resources in risk prevention training.
 
Broader and better communication must be established between contractors and subcontractors (85.7%).
 
Unification of the management protocols with the subcontractors is imperative.
 
The current regulations are oriented towards formal compliance with risk obligations (100%).		Firms make use of an external prevention service (EPS) for the organization of risk prevention.
 
Lack of measures for the correct integration of risk prevention in the management of the company.
 
Serious difficulties are found when applying the regulations.
 
82% of places of work with a staff of over 19 workers provide training to team and production managers on how to manage prevention.
 
Lack of “risk prevention commitment” among the entrepreneurs and the workers on the integration of risk prevention in the company.
 
The involvement of directors in risk prevention constitutes a key factor for boosting risk prevention in places of work.		Personnel are more involved in risk assessments and in risk prevention activities.
Companies are concerned about their image and reputation.
 
90% of firms make a document available to workers that explains the responsibilities and the procedures in Health and Safety matters.
 
A specific annual budget is set for the measures and health and safety equipment (41%).
 
The participation of directors in health and safety is an essential factor for the application of measures in that field.		Simplify preventive documentation, even replacing it with sheets that set out the construction processes and list the potential risks.
 
Supplement the documents with informative chats and regular training courses that reinforce prevention.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Romero, Á.; González, M.d.l.N.; Segarra, M.; Villena, B.M.; Rodríguez, Á. Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2045. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112045

AMA Style

Romero Á, González MdlN, Segarra M, Villena BM, Rodríguez Á. Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2019; 16(11):2045. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112045

Chicago/Turabian Style

Romero, Álvaro, María de las Nieves González, María Segarra, Blasa María Villena, and Ángel Rodríguez. 2019. "Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 16, no. 11: 2045. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112045

APA Style

Romero, Á., González, M. d. l. N., Segarra, M., Villena, B. M., & Rodríguez, Á. (2019). Mind the Gap: Professionalization is the Key to Strengthening Safety and Leadership in the Construction Sector. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(11), 2045. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16112045

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