Communicative Framework Development for Construction Risk Governance: An Analysis of Risk and Trust Perception for Organizational Sustainability

Abstract

In the construction industry, risk governance stems from the standardization of safety policies and procedures. Safety governance is typically communicated and enforced through a top-down, command-and-control approach. Procedures and policies are created at the top level and cascaded down to the work. Individual discretion in the workplace permits a choice for worker adherence to safety procedures. Through a literature review, this study identified risk perception as a significant variable in regulatory compliance and fidelity. Individual hazard assessments and risk behaviors are often based on subjective cognitive risk perceptions rather than organizational governance policy. In the current governance system, there is a misalignment of risk perceptions and failure in trust between the workforce and the regulatory process. This study examines the impact of risk perceptions on safety compliance and promotes a more participative risk governance process for sustainable construction practices. A participative framework model is proposed to help align worker risk perceptions with organizational governance through policy creation, policy compliance and stakeholder participation and feedback. Utilizing proper discourse and cyclical communication, the proposed framework aims to increase safety fidelity, compliance, and trust in the construction industry through a more inclusive and collaborative governance strategy.

1. Introduction

Construction is a high-risk industry [1]. Risk is defined as the potential of harm or loss due to hazards. Construction hazards are abundant in daily tasks and the impacts of the hazards can be life threatening. Workplace hazards like working from heights, electrical exposure, excessive noise, and pinch points, among many others, cause concern for personal safety along with legal and financial liabilities for construction organizations [2]. In the construction industry, the Project Management Institute [3] defines risk as “an uncertain event or condition that, if it occurs, has a positive or negative effect on a project’s objectives” [4] (p. 1). Other authors emphasize the uncertainty of events and their “impact on project objectives” [4] (p. 1). Siraj, Fayek and Robinson [4] provide a risk classification system developed from their comprehensive review of the construction risk literature, including economic and financial; technical; political; environmental; site conditions; resource-related; and construction. Examples of specific risks are provided:

• Unpredicted changes in the inflation rate (economic and financial risk);
• Design errors and poor engineering (technical risks);
• Changes in government laws, regulations, and policies affecting the project (political);
• Adverse weather conditions (continuous rainfall, snow, temperature, wind) (environmental);
• Unpredicted adverse subsurface conditions (site conditions);
• Unavailability of a sufficient amount of skilled labor in the project region (resource-related);
• Force majeure (natural disasters that are beyond the firm’s control, e.g., floods, thunder and lightning, landslide, earthquake, hurricane, etc.) (environmental);
• Poor workmanship and construction errors leading to rework (construction);
• Unanticipated engineering and design changes (technical);
• Unavailability or shortage of expected materials (resource-related);
• Project funding problems (economic and financial) [4] (p. 4).

This comprehensive scheme draws attention to the range of potential hazards. Drawing upon Al-Bahar and Crandall [5] and Lam et al. [6], these authors point out that risk has three integral components, including “the risk event (what might happen to the detriment or in favor of the project), the uncertainty of the event (the chance of the event occurring), and the potential loss or gain (the consequence of the event happening)” [4] (p. 1).

The process for risk analysis has key steps, as outlined by Nigel Smith [7]:

• Identifying the total risk exposure;
• Identifying the main risk contributors;
• Establishing a risk management plan;
• Initiating follow-up actions to reduce the negative effects of risk and exploit opportunities [7] (p. 186).

The first two stages involving risk identification and mapping of risk exposure and drivers are among the most complex. Various models have been developed to guide analysis including the risk plane analysis technique [8], which is specifically designed for construction risk analysis, and Monte Carlo Simulation, which is a more general model for risk analysis that can be adapted to the construction industry [9].

The range and complexity of risks associated with construction jobs and tasks necessitate rules and regulations surrounding safety on jobsites. In construction, where there are small profit margins, large market fluctuations, and an increased priority on costs, schedule, and production [10], attention must be placed on risk governance strategies that can help sustain organizations long term.

Risk governance, and more specifically safety governance in construction, is typically a top-down, command-and-control approach. Regulatory agencies create processes and procedures, which are then executed through organizational management to the construction workforce. Governance occurs through imposed standards, which are enforced through sanctions, such as fines or penalties. The expectation regarding risk is that regulatory agencies create and govern industry standards. Organizations are then liable for implementing and enforcing safe work environments, and workers are held responsible for understanding and complying with the standards. Ideally, compliance with safety standards results in decreased safety risks, injuries, and fatalities on construction jobsites. Yet, workers are continuing to face injury and death on worksites. In fact, the construction industry has one of the highest fatality rates of any industry in the United States [11].

Take for instance fall hazards, one of the top four construction hazards as defined by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA has over 20 standards related to fall protection specifically for the construction industry [12]. The standards cover a multitude of preventative measures from fall protection equipment to ladders, scaffolding, stairways, cranes, and training requirements. The risk of falling on construction sites has been clearly identified by regulatory agencies, and standards have been created to help reduce the hazards on jobsites. In 2022, fall protection, standard 29 CFR 1926.501, was the most frequently cited OSHA standard [12,13], and in 2020, 1034 fatal work injuries occurred in construction from falls, slips, and trips [14]. Although falls are recognized as a hazard by the construction industry, and many standards have been formulated to reduce the risk of falling, they are still a main threat to personal safety and violation of regulation. One explanation for the continuation of violation would be that workers are choosing not to comply with safety standards. This study, however, examines the idea that workers’ subjective risk perceptions and an imbalance in top-down governance interfere with organizational safety compliance, fidelity, and trust.

In construction governance, there has been minimal attempt to understand factors that may contribute to safety accidents from a worker’s perspective [15]. This is important as misalignment of safety risks can have severe impacts on the wellbeing of construction workers. This study examines risk perception as one contributing factor and proposes a more cyclical communication strategy to enhance stakeholder involvement across multiple levels of engagement. A more participative governance in construction can help align worker perceptions and behaviors with policies to reduce safety risks. In instances where regulation is defined and actively enforced, organizational focus should be placed on enhancing worker fidelity, trust, understanding, and implementation of safety standards through more participative communication. In instances where new regulation is proposed, focus should be placed on stakeholder collaboration and discourse to increase cyclical communication between decision makers and the workforce.

2. Materials and Methods—Literature Review

To evaluate the significance of perception in risk governance, a literature review was conducted to identify prominent risk perception factors that may influence worker compliance, trust, and fidelity toward safety procedures. Preliminary documentation searches were conducted in multiple databases including Science Direct, JSTOR, and Google Scholar, with a primary focus on articles published since 2000. Materials from multiple referenced sources were also reviewed and incorporated into the research if applicable. Sources that were inclusive of research related to construction risk perception, construction risk governance and trust, risk communication, and construction safety were emphasized. In total, over 50 English-language sources were referenced for this study.

To develop a risk governance communication model for construction, insights and recurring themes from the literature review led to the identification and evaluation of two prominent communication theories [16,17]. These frameworks were analyzed from a risk governance and construction lens. Through a synchronization of concepts, the theories helped to form the foundational constructs for the proposed risk governance communication model. Insights extracted from the literature contributed to the connection, identification, and formation of framework components.

2.1. Risk Governance and Trust

Safety governance in construction is intended to mitigate hazardous situations and occupational risks. Yet, the industry continues to be plagued with regulation violations and a lack of compliance across jobsites. Trust in risk governance is essential to garnering stakeholder participation and compliance. Stakeholders must perceive the governance institution or organization, as well as the regulation itself, as a legitimate and reliable source to foster cooperative compliance [18]. Unfortunately, the traditional command-and--control regulatory and compliance approach has often failed to achieve stakeholder compliance, fidelity, and participation. Rather, this type of regulatory approach is often counterproductive and inadvertently promotes adversarial relations, mutual distrust, and conflict [19]. Much of the regulatory failures can be attributed to an overall lack of stakeholder involvement, which often leads to standards and mandates that are created with unrealistic expectations for use in the field, and a general mistrust of regulatory requirements [20]. This mistrust in the system causes interference in safety compliance as uncertainty, misunderstanding, and misinterpretation can distort the base intent of safety mitigation controls.

Stakeholder disenfranchisement from regulatory processes increases potential for misunderstanding and misapplication in onsite risk governance. A failure to recognize and include the experience, knowledge, values, and concerns of affected stakeholders can have negative impacts on the legitimacy and quality of risk mitigation efforts. Negative impacts include non-compliance with risk management strategies, reduced public trust, and increased risk behaviors by workers [21]. Regulation that is not trusted and perceived as illegitimate is inevitably ineffective. If regulation is ineffective, then the standardization of safety controls will also be ineffective in improving safety cultures and safety behaviors in construction.

The success of regulatory standards, communication, and campaigns intended to improve occupational safety may be determined, in part, by the perceived trustworthiness and legitimacy of the delivering source [20,22]. Factors that have been shown to influence trust in construction include competency, reliability, effective collaboration, communication, and integrity [23,24]. These factors and the associated perceptions on behalf of regulatory organizations can influence response to risk communications. To reach optimal compliance and participation in construction risk governance, the perception of trust between stakeholders and regulatory organizations must be considered.

2.2. Risk Governance and Behavioral Factors

Risk perceptions and cognitive behavioral factors of workers are often overlooked in a top-down risk governance model [15]. Through data and quantitative means, workplace hazards are identified, analyzed, and tracked. Policies are then created to mechanize and standardize safety activities. One of the issues with this process is that risks and the subsequent standards that are developed do not necessarily translate to the same risk perception, identification, and behaviors within the workforce. The abstract, legalistic, and prescriptive aspects of regulatory creation typically fail to acknowledge the psychological pressures that influence human behaviors and the social and moral contexts of risk perception [25,26]. Consequently, in the current top-down policy process, there is a gap between regulatory standards and safety behaviors, fidelity, trust, and participation. Individual risk discretion within the workforce provides a channel for open interpretation and implementation of policy. Standards are therefore often perceived more as optional guidelines, which workers adhere to based on their own, subjective perception of risk. Mismanaged and miscalculated risk unfortunately increases the probability of subsequent safety accidents on jobsites [27,28]. Yet, oversight should not be assumed as intentional defiance on behalf of the workforce. While some safety violations may be intentional deviations of policy, safety oversights do not always reflect intentional violation of safety policy and hazard mitigation controls. Rather, a lack of compliance may also derive from a lapse in awareness, hazard identification, mistrust in the system, or a difference in risk perception that drives alternative behavior [29,30]. Construction workers must be able to identify a hazard or unsafe condition as salient and actionable for effective hazard analysis and risk identification to occur [31]. While data and qualitive analytics are certainly important factors in standardizing safety procedures, the subjective factors and risk interpretations of the workforce are equally as important to ensure policies are followed in order to be effective hazard mitigation controls.

2.3. Risk Perception

Risk perception is crucial to achieving safety performance as no infrastructure succeeds without a system-wide ability to perceive and interpret risk; the entire risk analysis process begins with perception [25]. Risk perception has no commonly accepted definition, but framed at the individual level, it is a reflection of a person’s judgment toward risk. More specifically, some scholars define risk perception as an assessment of inherent risk, or an intuitive risk judgment to evaluate hazards [32,33]. Others consider risk perception as more than just an assessment of risk, and argue that it takes into consideration the frequency, severity, and consequence of risk [33,34,35]. For this study, Bohm and Harris’ [27] explanation of risk perception was preferred. Risk perception implies people not only have knowledge and understanding of hazards but also consider the likelihood, severity, and consequences of an accident.

A key element when discussing risk perception in relation to risk governance is that risk perception in workaday life is largely subjective and driven by experience and cognitive factors [32,36,37,38,39]. Subjective judgments and evaluations shape cognitive responses to external risks, impacting risk decisions and behaviors [40]. Workers’ ability to identify, measure, and understand workplace hazards is shaped by their experience and influenced by social, cultural, and political factors, including local workplace cultural norms and informal codes of conduct [41]. This is significant to consider as the subjective component of risk perception, shaped by individual perceptions and workplace culture, contrasts with the formal processes of risk governance in construction, which is largely based on quantitative, objective data and the risk heuristics of engineering “experts”.

Hence, there is a gap between experts’ standardized and quantitative risk assessments and lay workers’ experiential and workplace-specific risk assessment processes. When discussing safety compliance, it is therefore important to understand that at large, the construction workforce is not using quantitative risk analysis in evaluating occupational risks in the course of daily work routines. Rather, the workplace risk culture is delimited primarily by individual experience and knowledge grounded in the collective experience of the workforce [41].

Consequently, a lack of sufficient information or technical understanding can adversely impact workaday judgments and attitudes toward risk. Workers’ experiential risk perceptions can be subject to distortion due to variety of social influences [41]. Yet, it is important to acknowledge that experts’ standardized approaches to measuring and assessing risk are also subject to cultural and/or professional biases in the identification and valuation of hazards. Both lay and expert risk assessments are shaped by cultural, social, and/or political forces, and the gaps between experiential and standardized formulations can result in highly differentiated risk perceptions between those making the rules and those who have to follow the rules [29,42].

This disparity can also lead to gaps in trust and affect the perceived legitimacy of institutionalized organizations [18]. An accepted risk factor on behalf of policy makers does not guarantee the same level of acceptance from the workforce. Unless the workforce and governance organizations can “jointly agree to a coordinated safety strategy, neither is likely to gain the benefits of safer production” [43] (p. 699). This is especially true if risks, and the associated governance, are perceived differently throughout the system. As long as there are conflicting understandings of risk, there will continue to be conflicting involvement and participation across the various parties [21]. This is especially significant when considering sustainable organizational practices and the legitimacy of communicated regulations. Construction projects are largely multidimensional, with interdisciplinary workforces, varying cultural backgrounds, and circumstances shaped by various social systems, where complexities can be difficult to navigate. All parties must commit to increased standardization of work processes, materials, costs, and production schedules to maximize the longevity of construction projects and organizations. This requires increased alignment on overall production and risk reduction. If project participants are not fully committed to commonly perceived project initiatives, and risk reduction strategies, conflicting participation among the parties will impact overall profit and project success efforts.

2.4. Influences of Risk Perception

Workforce risk perception is a significant factor in many construction injuries [35,44]. Numerous studies have evaluated the factors that influence risk perception in construction and subsequent safety behaviors. These studies have identified many economic, social, psychological, and situational influences [15,27,29,32,33,34,40,45,46]. In the literature reviewed for this study, seven reoccurring influences were identified:

• National culture and cultural norms;
• Organizational safety climate;
• Management;
• Emotions;
• Work experience;
• Masculinity;
• Training.

2.4.1. National Culture and Cultural Norms

National culture and cultural norms impact behavior through variations in values, beliefs, uncertainty avoidance, collectivism, and priorities. Cultural norms and beliefs can drive levels of risk aversion, performance motivation, and beliefs about the value of production versus safety [33,44]. Underlying personal beliefs play a role in shaping worker trust and risk perception and influence compliance with, or resistance toward, regulatory requirements and authority [33]. Cultural beliefs are a significant influence as the construction industry is highly diverse with varying perceptions of priorities, collaboration priorities, and societal norms. For example, East Asian people have a higher rate of risk aversion behaviors that are more discreet, conservative, and unadventurous than people from European and American countries [47]. When faced with the same hazard on a construction jobsite, Americans and Europeans would likely tolerate a higher level of risk based on their cultural background than a counterpart from China.

2.4.2. Organizational Safety Climate

Safety climate is defined as the perceived emphasis placed on safety by organizations and serves as a proxy for site safety [26,34]. Organizational safety climate influences safety regulation, compliance, trust, and overall perception of hazards and risks on jobsites. Safety climates are not consistent across construction organizations. Differences in attitudes and perceptions of risk can vary between organizations but also within organizations among workers with different roles, compensation, and shifts [34]. Safety climate can influence the priority level of production over performance and can impact the level of safety training, motivation, and overall knowledge. Workers must be able to identify risks and hazards in order to evaluate the perceived severity and consequence of overall risks. Without proper knowledge, risks in the workplace cannot be identified. Pandit et al. found that “variability in hazard recognition and safety risk perception can be explained by the differences in safety climate in workplaces”, and that safety climate has a positive correlation with hazard recognition and safety risk perception [45] (p. 51).

2.4.3. Management

Much like an organization’s safety climate, organizational managers have a major influence on worker safety compliance, trust, perception, and behavior. Simplistically, if direct supervisors set the expectation that safety behavior is important and provide proper training and education, subordinates are likely to follow suit. Workers are more inclined to address safety issues when their trusted peers and supervisors are concerned with the same issues and encourage them to do so [36]. Front-line managers are also more likely to take an active role in safety management if they feel their direct subordinates are at higher risk [39]. Mutual effort and investment into safety policies and behaviors between workers and their direct supervisors are influential factors in risk and trust perception and cognitive risk behavior.

The mutual safety investment and level of trust existing between workers and their direct supervisors do not necessarily extend to higher organizational managers and decision makers. Studies have found that there is a disconnect between those who make the rules, or higher management within an organization, and those who the rules are intended for [33,34]. Hallowell explains that there is a statistically significant difference between managers’ risk tolerance and those in the workforce. He notes that this difference indicates there are different attitudes toward safety rules and differing perceptions of the level of acceptable risk [34]. Much like worker perceptions, the differences in perceived risks among decision makers in an organization can be based on experience, education, personal beliefs, and culture [33]. Decision makers and higher management policies may clash with worker perceptions in the field. Even more importantly, managers should consider that direct supervisors and field managers are realistically the driving force behind safety behavior. How workers evaluate risks is heavily influenced by their supervisors’ own risk perception, education, and hazard awareness and has a direct influence on accident and injury rates [34]. Organizations should therefore aim for consistency in perception and attitudes across all employees to influence the likelihood that workers will comply with policies.

2.4.4. Emotions

Risk perceptions in construction workers are mainly subjective insights based on personal experiences, value orientations, attitudes, and taken-for-granted modes of conduct. Xia et al. [39] conducted a study analyzing the rational and emotional aspects of risk perspective in construction workers. What they concluded was safety behavior among workers relied mainly on emotional perception, which directly influenced safety actions and behavior [39]. This is significant in relation to risk governance as decision makers are heavily driven by quantitative and objective data when making policy, which differs from the subjective rationale used to assess the same risks faced by those on construction sites. The misalignment of quantitative versus subjective judgment not only impacts safety compliance but can be dangerous. Misjudgment of risks by regulatory agents or workers in the field can cause inappropriate decisions, unsafe behavior, and consequently, human error and harm [27]. As a result, employers and policy makers need to “adapt more holistic tactics and approaches which focus not only on improving the physical working environment but also on employee’s behaviors, attitudes and beliefs which lead to safety behavior and ultimately safety shaping compliance” [48] (p. 743).

2.4.5. Work Experience

In construction, work experience also contributes to risk perception and behavior. Studies have shown conflicting results as to whether work experience makes workers escalate or reduce risk activities. One argument is that more work experience and knowledge contribute to a higher level of risk acceptance. High risk tolerance can result from complacency, job comprehension, and the hazards of the task being performed. Choudhry and Fang [15] state that a higher level of knowledge and experience may reduce carefulness while increasing confidence. An increase in confidence allows for a greater ability to deal with risk. Perlman et al. [46] note that familiarity with tasks can lead to a decreased level of hazard perception and a desensitization of associated risks, suggesting that less experienced workers are more risk-averse. According to Wang et al. [33], people tend to fear activities or risks they are not familiar with, which means less experienced workers are more likely to avoid risky tasks. These arguments support the idea that an increase in work experience results in a higher level of risk tolerance, and less risk avoidance.

Other studies have seen that more work experience can increase the understanding of the consequences and severity of risk tasks and behaviors. More experience, in this case, would result in increased hazard avoidance and risk mitigation. In a study by Man et al. [49], it was found that younger workers are more unaware of risk consequences and subsequently engage in more frequent risk-taking behaviors. According to Man et al., habituation and working experience account for about half of the internal facilitators of risk-taking behaviors [49]. What differs is whether the habits are beneficial safety behaviors or negative risk behaviors. While there is no general consensus regarding the impact of work experience on safety behavior, it has been confirmed through these studies that experience and overall knowledge do impact a worker’s risk perception.

2.4.6. Masculinity

Like work experience, a higher level of masculinity and self-esteem in construction workers can reflect a higher level of confidence and risk tolerance. Perceptions of health and safety on jobsites have been shown to be influenced by hegemonic masculinity [49]. In a study conducted by Habibnezhad and Esmaeili [44], results showed that people with higher masculinity have a lower risk perception for fatal accidents or perceive less risk than people with lower masculinity. A study by Choudhry and Fang [15] mirrored this evaluation with an assessment more centric to reputation and self-esteem. According to interviewed construction workers, it was common on construction sites to find workers who wanted to prove they were tough and not scared of getting hurt. Unfortunately, in most cases, this tough-guy mentality resulted in unsafe, risky behaviors. The tough-guy mentality tends to produce workers who knowingly reject safety standards in order to improve their image [15]. While policy makers cannot necessarily overcome the reputational and tough-guy image that is prevalent in the construction industry, this type of subjective outlook and attitude toward risk behavior should be considered when preparing policy and expecting compliance.

2.4.7. Training

Much like work experience, the amount and level of training can impact a person’s perspective toward risk. A higher level of training can increase a person’s knowledge and increase their ability to identify hazards in the workplace. In the construction industry, there is a high focus on preventative safety measures. There is no shortage of training, certification programs, support, and resources available.

A study performed by McDonald and Hrymak investigating construction safety behaviors in Dublin, Ireland, revealed a lack of appropriate training on worksites. It was discovered that only 50 percent of subject operatives received a site induction course, and only 11 percent of their sample received safety training that lasted more than one day [30]. It was noted that safety training was viewed as necessary, but the intent of the training was perceived as a precautionary step to reduce future organizational liabilities, rather than educational purposes [30]. A similar perspective from the workforce was reflected in a study conducted by Choudhry and Fang [15] that investigated why construction workers in Hong Kong engaged in unsafe work behaviors. When asked about safety training, workers’ responses regarding the training were not positive, as training was perceived as boring and a waste of time. In this case, workers did not find the training useful, and participation went only as far as signing the training sheet [15].

An important insight from the Choudhry and Fang [15] study was that training does not represent actual working environments. Conditions like weather, climate, and confined workspaces are represented completely differently in the field and are not replicated effectively in training. If safety training is regarded as merely a place to sign an attendance sheet, the organizational investment in the training only goes as far as to meet regulatory compliance, and if training does not reflect actual work environments, then it is likely that workers are unprepared to identify hazards and risks in the workplace.

In terms of risk perception, those with inadequate training are more likely to participate in risky tasks as they lack the ability to identify hazards and risks. To prevent this, training emphases should shift toward behavioral motivators and risk-reducing behaviors. If administered correctly, safety training should educate on the dangers of risk-taking behaviors and enhance the perception and awareness of negative consequences. Safety training is one of the most effective ways to educate the workforce and reduce safety failures [49]. Therefore, a focus should be placed on collaboration and investment in training by those in the workforce. To create safe work environments in construction, effective safety training and safety knowledge must be facilitated. This does not happen through top-down, compliance-driven, command-and-control regulation, but through an organizational investment into safety practices and a reciprocal investment from workforce personnel.

3. Analysis: New Governance

Through a literature review, this study identified seven reoccurring influences of risk perception that reinforce the gap between workplace risk behaviors and formal compliance measures. A striking detail was that none of the reviewed studies identified risk governance or regulatory standards as an influential factor in worker risk perception. While governance plays a role in workplace health and safety, regulatory standards and policies have not been identified as a largely impactful consideration in how risks are perceived by individuals on construction sites. Safety rules and associated standards are intended to set a basis for how risks are handled, including identification, awareness, and training processes. Workers in the construction industry often do not take regulatory information or compliance into account when evaluating their own occupational risk situations. Risk is evaluated independently and inconsistently across the multiple levels of governance engagement. Since subjective perceptions and personal experience are the main drivers of safety behaviors, enhanced safety compliance can only occur if governance better aligns with individualized risk perceptions. Notably, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to understanding risk perception in construction as a whole, but organizations must consider how construction workers perceive risks and how those perceptions influence safety behavior. As an improvement on the current top-down regulatory process, a more collective, cohesive, and cyclical governance approach is proposed.

3.1. Communication: Solutions

Governance communication in the construction industry has typically taken place in a top-down approach with information flowing selectively to the top and decisions flowing down to the front-line workers through traditionally rigid parameters. Decisions are conventionally made by a small group of people who rely heavily on data and are often detached from the workforce [19]. Consequently, this type of regulatory model often results in adversarial relations, mutual distrust, and conflict [19]. Specifically, there is a lack of consideration for human elements, including the perception and interpretation of risk. To help alleviate conflict and increase consideration of risk perception, attention should be turned to a more participative governance process inclusive of collaborative communication practices, with a goal of increased safety compliance, participation, trust, and fidelity. Participative governance in risk management has been discussed for many years. Scholars have proposed a ‘new governance’ vision, which focuses on increased participation and joint operation from public and private sectors [19,41]. The goal of this collaboration would be to develop and change the norms of safety behaviors and reduce conflicting relationships and mistrust [19]. To achieve this level of collaboration in construction, a more cyclical and participative communication structure is required, inclusive of stakeholder feedback and discourse. Additionally, receiving input directly from stakeholder collaborations can help policy makers ensure varying risk perspectives are considered and that ideas are shared that can create better outcomes, secure social approval, and reduce mistrust and conflict [25]. The benefit of more collaborative communication would be increased compliance through the alignment of worker safety perceptions and behaviors.

To facilitate a more cyclical and collaborative communication process, with consideration of risk perception, two theoretical communication models were referenced. First, Schramm’s model of communication [16] was used as a basis for the standardization of messaging transmission. As a simplistic theoretical example of message sending and receiving, Schramm’s model helps demonstrate the significance of intended messaging between a sender and receiver, and the potential noise that can obstruct a message. Additionally, Schramm’s model exemplifies a cyclical communication process, where messages flow reciprocally between the sender and receiver. In construction safety governance, message transmission, message interference, and feedback are all essential elements to consider when evaluating the interpretation and compliance of safety policies.

In addition to governance messaging, stakeholder communication and feedback in the risk governance process are important to help understand risk perceptions of the workforce and how those perceptions can deter compliance, trust, and fidelity. Varying risk perceptions held by workers, managers, and policy makers signal a need for discourse to maximize a participative and collaborative governance process. Habermas’ Communicative Action Theory [17] facilitates these objectives by modeling the ideal speech situation, which is a normative set of procedures aimed at achieving common understandings and consensus on policy. Habermas’ approach to communicative action guides the development of reciprocal processes of communication among an expansive field of stakeholders.

3.1.1. Schramm’s Model of Communication and Risk Management

Schramm’s model of communication [16] revolves around the idea that participants reach commonness through informational exchange. The model is cyclical where communication is a continuous process amongst participants and allows for variation in messaging due to changing variables and environments. There are five main elements to the model, as illustrated in Figure 1:

• The sender or source;
• The destination or receiver;
• The message;
• Feedback;
• Noise or interference.

The sender encodes information and shares that information via message. For effective communication and commonness to occur, the destination participant must receive that message and decode the information as intended by the sender. The receiver must then provide feedback to the sender to acknowledge that the message was received as intended. Factors influencing or interfering with the communication between the sender and the receiver are considered noise. Noise may occur as the original message or feedback is transmitted, leading to distortion of the intended message.

In construction risk governance, the communication participants include policy creators, enforcing organizations, and the construction workforce. Organizations act as the sender when policies are introduced and enforced. Safety standards are passed to the workforce through messaging channels. In the current governance process, the workforce is expected to receive the policy information exactly as intended and abide by the policy as stated. Compliance and fidelity are expected as policies are created and communicated with the intent to keep workers safe. Yet, consideration of how the policy messaging is decoded or interpreted on behalf of the workforce is lacking. Unlike Schramm’s model, current top-down governance communication is linear and lacks a comprehensive feedback loop from the workforce. The lack of feedback from stakeholders is important because effective risk communication not only requires recipients to understand the message but also accept it as relevant and significant to their personal circumstances [28]. To ensure understanding, buy-in, and organizational trust in policy, reciprocal communication among stakeholders is key. The creation of feedback loops in the current governance process would enable policy makers to articulate standards in language and practice that resonate with workers’ experience, knowledge, and biases. Feedback loops would also allow for consideration of risk perception.

3.1.2. Communicative Action Theory and Safety

German philosopher Jürgen Habermas argues through his Communicative Action Theory that people can come to “rational” socially agreed-up decisions regarding risk if they are provided with procedural norms for full and inclusive stakeholder communication [17]. Habermas distinguishes a two-sphere concept as part of the Communicative Action Theory; the lifeworlds sphere and the systems sphere are illustrated in Figure 2.

Lifeworlds are the social arenas that exist among people, in this case construction workers. They include interactions between people and involve personal attributes, including morals, beliefs, and ethics that are shaped by social influences, separate from the system sphere. Communication within the lifeworld sphere occurs through interpersonal and group communication, which, according to Habermas, can lead to rational decisions, understood as decisions that reflect the values, reasoned understandings, and intentions of interlocutors. The systems sphere comprises institutions and organizations, which are primarily driven by abstracted codes, such as power, money, and economical aspects. Technical communications through mass communication channels prevail in the information transfer by systems to the lifeworld sphere. What sets lifeworld conversations apart from the systems sphere is that the lifeworld conversations are not meant to optimize outcomes such as profits or systemic objectives; rather, they are grounded in experiences and social relations. Trust and consensus in the lifeworld require the belief that social principles are intuitively valid, resonate with individuals as part of their social heritage, and prove to be convincing even in situations where self-interest might be violated.

Formal and technical safety communications originate primarily from abstracted social systems, such as government agencies. Consequently, misunderstandings and disagreements are likely to arise between system-generated communications and worksite safety cultures shaped by lifeworld norms and beliefs. What makes this problem of incommensurability more complex is that systems and lifeworlds, as described by Habermas [17], are not homogeneous, so rationality regarding risks varies considerably between and within systems and lifeworlds. In a top-down, command-and-control governance system, there is a lack of dedicated arenas in which workers are able to share safety experiences and risk communication. This leads to complex and fractured spheres, which are exemplified in the varying safety cultures and climates across the industry.

Participatory avenues for resolving fractured understandings and attitudes toward safety policies are lacking. Given this deficit, “rational” communicative action in the multifold of technical and lifeworld rationalities, as described by Habermas, offers an untried but likely impactful approach to improved risk governance. Risk governance authors Rosa, McCright, and Renn state that while “risk may be interpreted differently depending on the perspective of each actor, this does not preclude the possibility that all actors can enter into a rational discourse about risk” [41] (p. 112). It is important that stakeholders are provided opportunities to share experiences and identify and discuss fractures in safety culture values and risk perceptions. Stakeholder engagement and deliberation create arenas in which all relevant perceptions, arguments, and positions can be represented. This deliberation should be aimed at the exchange of positives and negatives and distilling the arguments that resonate with all groups [51]. Discourse conversations do not need to take place merely to resolve conflict or competing claims, but rather for the establishment of common and agreeable social norms or values, in this case construction safety norms [41]. Higher levels of communication and participation are required amongst all levels of the governance system and those individuals and organizations impacted by the standards, so rational decisions regarding risk can be achieved and value-aligned.

3.2. Stakeholder Engagement: Solutions

The gap in risk perception and imbalance between the governance system and workforce have created a void and misalignment in safety compliance, trust, and fidelity. To address this gap, there are two distinct levels of engagement that should be considered. Where regulation is defined and enforced, the focus on behalf of regulatory organizations should be increasing worker fidelity, understanding, and implementation in the lifeworld. In instances where new regulation is proposed, the focus should be on stakeholder collaboration and discourse to increase cyclical participation and communication with system-level stakeholders.

3.2.1. Workforce Fidelity

In instances where rigid regulation exists and there is no opportunity for stakeholder involvement or influence in the adaptation of current policies, alignment is needed at the lifeworld or grassroots and organizational levels to meet and maintain fidelity and compliance. Jobsites are complex and multidisciplinary in nature, requiring adaptation to meet jobsite initiatives. The means and methods by which safety standards are implemented and organizationally enforced vary considerably across jobsites. Safety climates and cultures stem from the organizational level and the boots on the ground. Risk perceptions are greatly influenced by organizational safety climates and management. To enhance safety performance and compliance, discourse, adaptation, and implementation of regulatory standards need to be driven by the localized personnel and engage worker stakeholders directly.

One solution to facilitate alignment in the lifeworld could be the use of quality circles or dedicated peer groups that focus on regulatory compliance. Quality circles are defined as a small, structured group of employees who are actively involved in joint problem solving through the identification of job-specific problems and recommendation of solutions [52]. Weekly or monthly meetings of peers would provide arenas for discourse among lifeworlds and an avenue for problem solving to help alleviate discrepancies between safety perceptions and behaviors related to safety policies. Dedicated jobsite representatives could focus on finding solutions that adhere to the multidimensional workplace factors that are specific to each construction jobsite. Unions, general contractors, owners, subcontractors, and applicable site stakeholders should work together to create safety cultures that support the utilization of fully compliant equipment and procedures and find solutions to any cost or material barriers to implementation. Communication between local trade and organizational representatives would be beneficial to create safety climates that drive organizational and worker compliance and trust from the bottom up. Quality circles would allow for dedicated time, resources, and participative discourse to build solutions and reduce the number of safety violations and failures each year.

Another solution to help drive compliance and better align risk identification at the governance and workforce levels would be the use of a risk analysis tool, like the one proposed by Jannadi and Almishari [53]. The proposed risk assessor model, or a similar automated risk assessment tool, could be used at the organizational level to help managers and workers estimate jobsite risks through a more objective assessment of risk activities. Providing jobsite-specific risk data can help eliminate some of the variations in individualized risk assessments and hazard identification. The inclusion of a computerized analysis tool that considers specific jobsite factors can better align standardized safety requirements with the real environments in which people work. Analysis tools can provide a means to help drive decisions and allocations toward safety actions and behaviors, so site-specific decisions are not based on subjective perceptions alone. A risk analysis tool like the one proposed can help mend the gap between quantitative data and individual perceptions of the same risks to better align variations in risk rationality between governance and workforce levels.

3.2.2. Workforce Participation

The secondary level of regulatory engagement that needs to be addressed is the collaboration and participation of stakeholders in the regulatory process. A rulemaking process that incorporates two-way communication, inclusive of cyclical communication among the workforce and construction organizations, would create a more inclusive and participative rulemaking environment with the intention of garnering more buy-in from stakeholders. Workers should be viewed as “norm-generating subjects involved in the process of developing and changing the norms of behavior” [19] (p. 5), rather than the current governance model in which personnel are the objects of regulation. Each phase of the rulemaking process should include a discourse process with representatives from each stakeholder group, and confirmation of message receipts when feedback is provided. An example solution would be monthly in-person meetings and online discourse forums. Further, to help facilitate a better understanding of proposed standards, data sharing related to specific risk identification and assessments would be beneficial. Creating public resources such as websites or apps with easily accessible data would help stakeholders navigate their own risk decisions and perceptions based on the same information that is used to generate policies at the governance level.

A feedback loop between the workforce and policy makers would help reduce the misalignment of intentional behaviors on jobsites and help stakeholders understand the reasoning and intent behind applicable standards. Stakeholder collaboration can also provide bottom-up assessments and management of emerging challenges, which may include information that would be absent from a typical data analysis approach [25]. A better understanding of regulations and perceived risk at the organizational level would help reduce uncertainty and mistrust on jobsites and provide more informed avenues for workers to reach compliance.

Additionally, the rulemaking process should directly address variations in risk perceptions and current risk behaviors throughout the industry. These items should be discussed and addressed in all phases of the rulemaking processes in order to best consider the subjective perceptions and norms of the workplace. An example of more collaborative and responsive governance would be the creation of safety training templates that foster participation at the organizational level and create incentive programs for company engagement. The goals would be to create training that is participative and inclusive of organizational and site-specific feedback, encourages localized discourse, and facilitates problem solving and safety adaptations on jobsites. The objective of an enhanced training and incentive program would be to steer organizations away from training that is meant primarily to prevent organizational liability. Rather, training should engage the workforce with participative content, so it becomes more beneficial than signing an attendance sheet. If top-down decision making is ultimately necessary in the construction safety regulatory process, regulatory groups should initiate training and materials that emphasize desired safety perceptions to facilitate alignment between risk governance and subjective risk experience.

In alignment with ‘new governance’ theories, an increase in stakeholder involvement and a governing process that allows for two-way, cyclical communication are recommended, rather than the current command-and-control approach. Risk perception, rather than risk regulation and governance, is what drives safety behavior on construction sites. Therefore, what is required is not more regulation in which workers choose whether or not to comply, based on their own risk assessments, but authentic and dialogic change in safety communications and behaviors. In a more collaborative system, the role of the agency can change from a regulatory, controlling entity to a facilitator of change with standards becoming a shared resolution process, rather than an order [19]. This process would allow for authentic discourse and, based on Habermas’ theory, allow workers to reach agreement on rational risk recognition and avoidance. To do this, regulatory decision makers need to consider and understand the driving force of perceptions and behaviors on risks in the workplace. The only way to do this is to collaborate with the workforce and make them an integrated part of the regulatory process.

4. Results and Discussion

The best chance at creating authentic safety behavioral change in construction is through the alignment of subjective worker perceptions and intended risk behaviors. While governance may not directly influence risk perception, stakeholder participation in the regulatory process can help facilitate buy-in, mutual understanding, consent, and investment into policy outcomes [51]. Stakeholders who are invested in creating, implementing, and adapting policy are much more likely to understand and comply with the regulation. People tend to be more satisfied with decisions and regulations if they, or someone they know, participated in the collective decision making [25]. In terms of safety, participation in the creation and implementation of safety policies and standards can increase compliance and ideally reduce the disparity between technical risk governance and subjective risk experience. Participative governance can help align behavioral change and cooperative compliance through stakeholder engagement, education, and discourse. The best way to facilitate this change throughout the construction industry is through the implementation of cyclical communication practices within the regulatory process. Alignment of subjective perspectives and regulatory analysis cannot occur from a one-dimensional communication process; rather, policies should reflect the risk perceptions and evaluations of those in the field. Worksites are multidimensional, multidisciplinary, and complex. This model was created to help evaluate the complexities of risk that have high impacts on individual safety and organizational sustainability. Since daily routines expose construction workers to hazards that have the potential to be life-threatening or life-changing, a misinterpretation or misalignment of risk can have extreme consequences. Governance of the occupational hazards should reflect, consider, and account for jobsite complexities and cater to the exposed occupational risks. To help facilitate a better-aligned process, a risk governance communication model is proposed, as illustrated in Figure 3.

The risk governance model consists of six main components:

• Risk identification;
• Risk assessment;
• Policy proposal;
• Policy adaptation;
• Policy participation;
• Stakeholder participation and feedback.

These components are broken into three categories:

• Policy creation;
• Policy compliance;
• Stakeholder participation and feedback. This category is inclusive throughout all components of policy creation and compliance.

Policy creation encompasses the process in which risks are identified and subsequent policies are created to help mitigate those risks. This process includes four components of risk identification, risk assessments, policy proposal, and policy adaptation. As new safety regulations are proposed and adapted, the focus should be on stakeholder collaboration and discourse to increase participation, trust, and communication with all levels of stakeholders. The second category, policy compliance, focuses on policy participation once new policy is created and where regulation is already defined and enforced. The focus of policy compliance in both instances should be on increasing worker fidelity, understanding, implementation, and trust to ultimately reduce unsafe behaviors. The third category encompasses the sixth model component of stakeholder participation and feedback, which should occur throughout all phases of this model. The focus should be on incorporating cyclical communication with all levels of engagement throughout the regulatory process.

The proposed framework is intended to be used as a guidance resource for strategists to help mitigate gaps and interference in intended risk policy and actual safety behavior in the workplace. The model recommends an inclusive process of risk identification, policy creation, compliance, and communication that incorporates stakeholder risk perceptions and allows for continuous feedback and discourse among all parties. The model is cyclical where communication is a continuous process amongst participants and allows for variation in messaging due to changing variables and environments. The construction industry is complex and multidisciplinary; therefore, this model is intended to be generic with room for adaptation by governance agencies, construction organizations, and the workforce based on the tailored needs of various risk conditions and levels of engagement.

4.1. Risk Identification

Risk identification should be used to identify workplace risks based on data, stakeholder feedback, and field perceptions. These risks can be identified by workers, organizations, policy makers, third parties, and outside sources. Risk identification is not a new concept in the construction industry. What varies in this model, however, would be the addition of current risk behavior and risk perception identification. In addition to recognizing the physical risk, subjective and cognitive elements of the identified risks should also be distinguished. This should be inclusive of worker perceptions, social norms, and behavioral influences not necessarily accounted for in quantitative analysis. Analysis tools such as workforce surveys, social audits, and round tables can help identify current risk behaviors and perceptions. The goal of evaluating risks quantitatively and subjectively would be to identify risks that appear statistically as well as perceptually, as these risks may not be the same. The ability to evaluate risks multidimensionally can help align standardization of hazard mitigation controls.

4.2. Risk Assessment

Once the risks, perceptions, and behaviors are identified, an assessment of the same elements should take place. Again, risk assessments are common practice in the construction industry, so this study will not provide an in-depth conversation regarding best practices for risk assessments. What should be added to any risk assessment is the consideration of worker behaviors and perceptions. To evaluate risk behaviors, communication should occur between the workforce and policy makers to distinguish what behaviors are currently being used and how those behaviors are leading to positive or negative outcomes specific to the identified risk. This type of communication can occur in person or digitally via stakeholder meetings, workplace visits, and through suggestions or feedback submissions via email, mail, or video. Communication could also be facilitated through discussion boards where participants can offer input through a web-based platform or mobile app. The goal of such assessments would be to help close the gap between quantitative risk analysis and the perception of occupational risks in the course of daily work routines. Bridging the gap through multidisciplinary evaluation can help generate commonness and understanding within the assessments and reduce the variance in risk perceptions.

Current safety practices based on outcomes should be evaluated in addition to the statistical data regarding injuries and negative health outcomes. This evaluation should incorporate varying levels of scope and environments, as conditions will vary at each jobsite. What is deemed acceptable at one site may prove less effective or even create a hazard at another site. An evaluation of current risk perceptions should also be conducted using a variety of stakeholders and representatives from the workforce using the seven major perception influences identified previously. How do these influences drive risk behavior, and if change is needed, how can these perceptions be persuaded?

4.3. Policy Proposal

Following an in-depth identification and assessment, new or adapted policy can then be created and proposed. While stakeholder participation and feedback should be occurring throughout the entire process, this step would provide a focus on creating dedicated arenas for stakeholder discourse in the lifeworld and systems spheres and help build trust and legitimacy. The intent of the discourse should be identifying differences in perception regarding the policy, challenges to implementation, and overcoming any potential interference in the communication/rollout process. While disagreement and pushback to new policy will be evident, it is important to recognize that the goal of discourse is to have all relevant arguments and positions represented so common and agreeable social norms and values can be reached. Arenas for discourse could be provided through community or public forums, online forums, public hearings, consultation meetings, and joint working groups inclusive of workforce participants and policy makers.

4.4. Policy Adaptation

Once proper discourse has occurred, if carried out properly, according to Habermas, all parties should reach rational decisions regarding the identified risk [17]. Based on the discourse and agreed-upon rationality, the proposed policy should be adjusted to meet the agreements of all parties. Only at this point should new policy be introduced for adaptation. While important throughout the entire process, mass communication is of utmost importance during this stage. The communication channels and messages that are chosen during this phase will influence how the workforce and public perceive policy and have a direct influence on associated attitudes and social beliefs. It is recommended that attempts be made to campaign the new policy from a grassroots level. If possible, organizations should identify policy champions or individuals who are influential at the workforce level to advocate policy buy-in, promote trust, and decrease the perception of top-down rhetoric. Policy champions can help influence the social beliefs of the workforce and the subjective norms that drive individual behaviors. Quality circles, peer groups, and workforce advisors could also be utilized to champion new policies. Peer-to-peer communication can help embed a level of trust and familiarity when introducing new regulations. Additionally, localized workforce peers and advisors will be the most knowledgeable and competent representatives to drive the implementation and adaptation of policy within the varying environments and jobsites that exist across the construction industry.

4.5. Policy Participation

Whether new policy is introduced, or existing policy is enforced, compliance within the workforce is central to preventing safety failures. Through a more participative and inclusive governance process, the gaps between individual risk perception and risk policy should decrease as better alignment is produced. Yet, continual monitoring, training, and communication are necessary to preserve compliance and participation. In instances where regulation already exists, the need for workforce feedback to guide regulatory review and revision is necessary. Compliance initiatives in this case are twofold. Initially, cyclical communication between the workforce and regulatory groups can help maintain compliance and fidelity as policies can be refined and adjusted based on feedback from the field. Long term, communication must be continuous to help ensure that policies continue to be interpreted and implemented as intended over time and buy-in from the workforce does not waver. Continual inclusion, participation, and discourse with the workforce can help promote cooperative or voluntary compliance. Organizations must also help facilitate continual compliance through monitoring, audits, self-assessments, training, and awareness campaigns.

4.6. Stakeholder Participation and Feedback

Lastly, the risk governance communication process includes stakeholder feedback and participation throughout all phases. Organizations should provide an avenue for continuous feedback to ensure messages are decoded and received by the workforce as explained by Schramm [16]. Allowing for cyclical communication and participation with a variety of stakeholders throughout the regulatory process will help address the discrepancies in risk perception and trust across all levels of engagement.

Take, for instance, a hypothetical example of fall protection regulation. This example is included to help illustrate the variation in construction work environments and the need for feedback and participation from various stakeholder groups. It is also a demonstration of the feasibility of the proposed risk governance communication model. Further case studies and analysis are required to evaluate framework practicality within construction organizations, but the viability of the model can be seen through the provided simulation.

An electrical foreman working on commercial high-rise buildings in New York City will likely perceive fall protection risks differently than a residential roofing superintendent in Arizona. Their associated scopes of work, working environments, and equipment vary greatly. During the risk identification and assessment stage, current risk behaviors and perceptions regarding fall protection on each jobsite can be identified through a union-based workforce survey in each location. The survey should evaluate company safety climate, current working conditions, and overall fidelity, trust, and participation in current fall protection practices. Sharing these elements with regulatory personnel can help paint a clear picture of how the workforce is currently handling identified hazards and the tolerance and perception of those risks in the field. For an electrical foreman working 35 stories above the ground, personal fall protection devices, tool tethers, and leading-edge barricades may be used on a daily basis as fall exposures are perceived as extreme. For a roofing superintendent working on single-story homes in Arizona, the same fall protection devices, tool tethers, and barricades may be perceived more as an unnecessary nuisance and an impediment to daily tasks. In this scenario, safety climates and social norms may influence a lower level of fidelity and a higher tolerance to fall risks for the roofing contractor. Knowledge of these perceptions can help regulatory representatives better prepare messaging strategies and communication channels so information flow from the governance level is portrayed in a way that helps motivate buy-in, garner trust, and advocate participation across all jobsites.

Once policy is proposed, it is also important to have cyclical communication and discourse amongst stakeholders. Using the same example, creating a space for discourse and differentiation in regulatory interpretation can create an avenue for discussion among representatives from varying types of contractors, organizations, and cultural backgrounds. If workers are expected to abide by the same fall protection standards, discourse between each other and regulatory representatives can allow for valuable feedback regarding personal experiences, standard interpretation, and applicable jobsite implementation. Burdens such as cost or schedule impacts, equipment restraints, inadequate training, or culturally driven pushback can be discussed and shared to help mitigate implementation incumbrances once policies are approved. Discourse and information sharing among stakeholders throughout the regulatory process will assist in establishing common and agreeable safety norms as constituents will have the opportunity to share values, knowledge, interests, and preferences for consideration prior to the standards being implemented and enforced.

Once new standards are introduced for adaptation, cyclical communication and feedback are still required. Continual communication between the workforce and regulatory organizations allows for continuous discourse and feedback. Provided stakeholder feedback can be used to measure success, identify avenues for adaptation, and provide insight into the perceptions and behaviors of those that are impacted most by the governance strategy. For example, a new fall protection standard is introduced, requiring all workers to use a specific piece of equipment while on scaffolding. This equipment is implemented on the high-rise jobsites in New York and the residential building sites in Arizona. For the electrical foreman, it is quickly discovered that the specific equipment is not fire-resistant and now creates a new hazard for his welders. This feedback is communicated back to the regulatory organization and other industry representatives. Active discourse and feedback regarding the fire hazard then open an arena for problem-solving conversations amongst industry representatives. Closing the feedback loop between all levels of engagement, even after standards are implemented, creates a cyclical communication process that can increase trust and transparency between the lifeworlds and the systems, reducing pushback and resistance in policy and encouraging compliance.

5. Conclusions

Throughout the construction industry, there is a need for safety standardization and regulation. Hazards are prevalent occupational risks, and the impacts of safety failures can be detrimental to people and organizations alike. In the current top-down command-and-control regulatory process, there is a disconnect in regulatory participation as risk perception and mistrust interfere with compliance. The communication gaps between regulating organizations and the workforce have created fractures in the governance system, allowing for excessive violations of safety policy that often result in workplace accidents and injury. The recommendation based on the identified influences of risk and trust perception in construction stakeholders is a more participative risk governance that allows for proper discourse and cooperative, cyclical communication across all engagement levels. A collective effort should focus on influencing safety behaviors and perceptions on worksites, through continuous stakeholder participation and feedback in policy creation, execution, and adaptation. This is especially important as misalignment and misinterpretation of risk in construction can have severe impacts due to the type of hazard exposure in the course of daily routines. The traditional method of command-and-control governance needs to shift toward a facilitator of positive safety behavior through an increase in stakeholder participation and consideration of risk perceptions in the workplace. Using the proposed risk governance communication model, stakeholder feedback and discourse can be facilitated throughout the regulatory process to help align worker risk perceptions with organizational governance initiatives.

6. Limitations

The evaluation of risk perception and compliance for this study was based strictly on a literature review and previous case studies. The theoretical communication models used for this review were generic and not specific to the construction industry, which means these theories have not been sufficiently tested in the complex, multidimensional environments of construction. Further case studies should be conducted related to safety events and the behavioral impacts driven by differing risk perceptions and regulatory compliance. Social experiments should be conducted to substantiate the proposed framework and verify practicality. Further research should also include an analysis of the effectiveness of stakeholder participation in regulatory creation and execution specific to construction. Case studies to analyze the success of risk perception consideration in governance strategies would prove helpful in future construction governance research.