Identifying Vital Factors for Enhancing Safety Communication among Foreign Construction Field Workers

Abstract

Enhancing safety communication within the construction industry is of paramount importance due to its potential in curtailing occupational injuries and improving the overall well-being of construction field workers. While the importance of improved communication is apparent, few studies have been focused on identifying the factors that positively influence communication, particularly in the context of safety. Especially in the case of foreign construction field workers (FCFWs), who often face communication challenges stemming from language and cultural differences, performing labor tasks in harsh and constantly changing environments is contributing significantly to the increasing rate of industrial accidents. Therefore, this study is aimed at investigating the vital factors that impact safety communication among FCFWs. A phenomenological qualitative method was applied to determine the vital factors influencing the safety communication among FCFWs. On applying the analytical hierarchy process, the factors and their importance were determined, and the vital factors were identified. Quantitative assessment through the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) established that extrinsic motivation (weight: 0.513), management communication style (0.264), and visible safety information (0.127) significantly overshadow other factors in safety communication effectiveness, validating their pivotal roles. However, a major limitation is that interview data were collected from workers of only four nationalities. Future studies should address this by expanding the range of nationalities included to enhance the diversity of experiences and perspectives from a broader variety of foreign construction field workers.

1. Introduction

The construction industry of developed countries is facing a labor shortage due to the aging workforce and the lack of interest in construction jobs among their youth [1,2]. The proportion of foreign construction field workers (FCFWs) in the industry is thus increasing [3,4]. During the last decade, almost 10% of construction field workers in Europe comprised foreign workers [5]. Furthermore, Spain reported a 30% proportion of FCFWs in the construction workforce [6]. In the United Kingdom, one in four employers are recruiting FCFWs [7]. In the United States, FCFWs (e.g., Hispanics and Latinos) saw a significant increase in the construction industry from 10.4% (1995) to 29.8% (2017) [8]. In Australia, FCFWs comprise approximately 20% of the total construction workforce.

In Asia, the Malaysian construction industry has depended on foreign workers since the 1980s, with approximately 70% of construction workers being FCFWs. In the Republic of Korea, out of their recorded 1.55 million construction workers in 2021, more than 193,000 were foreigners, accounting for 12.4% of the total. From 2017 to 2021, the proportion of FCFWs remained relatively constant, ranging from 12.3% to 13.8% [9,10]. Therefore, in many nations, foreign workers constitute a sizable portion of the construction industry. Furthermore, foreign workers are crucial to addressing the construction industry’s labor shortage. Unfortunately, annual statistics and the literature reveal that they are more vulnerable to occupational injuries than local workers, primarily due to language and cultural barriers. FCFWs experience higher rates of fatalities and accidents compared to domestic workers. Overall, the construction industry’s fatality rate for FCFWs is significantly higher than in other sectors, with foreign workers’ mortality rates more than double those of local workers.

Safety communication among FCFWs is crucial in preventing occupational accidents. Communication issues stemming from language and cultural differences render foreign workers more susceptible to industrial accidents compared to domestic workers [11,12]. Moreover, construction sites are dynamic, with ever-changing environments characterized by frequent adjustments for short durations [13,14,15]. This makes construction work more hazardous than that in other industries, as workers must contend with the constantly changing conditions and risks [16]. In such a fast-paced environment, safety communication within the work crews is essential for ensuring that FCFWs are immediately made aware of hazards and safety information by their crewmates. While safety training and safety-related information from safety managers and the leadership are important [17,18], coworkers who work together are the closest and most stable working unit on the job site. Therefore, safety communication between FCFWs has a significant impact on the prevention of industrial accidents [19].

In this context, this study aims to address critical gaps in the field of construction safety, specifically concerning the effectiveness of safety communication strategies for FCFWs. Given the increasing diversity of the workforce and the higher risk of accidents among these workers, this study seeks to identify and analyze the factors that significantly impact safety communication. To achieve this, we have formulated the following research questions:

• How do the factors affecting safety communication for FCFWs differ from those for the general construction workforce (i.e., native workers), considering the absence of language and cultural barriers?
• Which factors most significantly enhance the effectiveness of safety communication for these workers?
• How can management styles and safety information dissemination be tailored to better meet the needs of a culturally diverse workforce?

To answer these research questions and to accomplish the research objective, the study was structured into several phases. A comprehensive literature review was conducted to extract the primary factors influencing communication among construction workers. Subsequently, semi-structured, in-depth interviews with FCFWs were conducted to gather empirical data. Thus, by employing a phenomenological research approach, the gathered data were meticulously analyzed, while complementing the factors delineated from the literature review. This process facilitated the secondary extraction and construction of a hierarchical model. To evaluate the factors, an analytic hierarchy process (AHP) survey was then administered to five highly skilled FCFWs, each possessing a minimum of five years of experience in the construction industry. Lastly, an AHP analysis was conducted to ascertain the relative significance of the identified factors and delineate the vital factors impacting safety communication.

2. Literature Review

2.1. Importance of Improved Safety Communication with FWCWs

As briefly mentioned above, FCFWs exhibit a higher incidence of fatalities and occupational accidents compared to their domestic counterparts. Empirical data indicate that FCFWs are at an elevated risk of fatal and injury accidents relative to their employment levels [20,21,22]. Dong et al. (2010) observed that FCFWs (i.e., Hispanics) in the United States construction sector worked under higher injury-prone conditions and increased risk compared to local workers. Despite comprising approximately 30% of the construction workforce in 2013, Hispanics accounted for 29.1% of total fatalities, with a 48% higher average fatality rate [20,23]. In the United Kingdom, FCFWs comprised 17% of the occupational mortality rate over the past decade, even though they constituted only an estimated 8% of the construction workforce [24]. Similarly, in the Republic of Korea, foreign workers (i.e., 343,222 persons) had an accidental mortality rate of 2.97%, which is 6.9 times higher than that of all workers (i.e., 0.43‰) in the same year [9] (Figure 1). The overall fatality rate of FCFWs in the construction industry is 5.97%, which is significantly higher than that in other industries [25]. In particular, the gap in this rate between the local and foreign workers in the construction industry is the largest, with the occupational mortality rate for foreign construction-field workers being more than twice that of all Korean workers (i.e., 2.48% of workers’ compensation insurance members, and 2.81% of employed workers) (Figure 2).

Many FCFWs often find themselves undertaking jobs that local workers are hesitant to accept, thus exposing them to hazardous work environments [12,26]. Therefore, foreign workers are vulnerable to industrial accidents, which are due to a lack of safety awareness and unsafe behaviors owing to a variety of reasons, including limited skills, language obstacles, insufficient safety education and resources, minimal backing from both government and corporate entities, cultural and religious distinctions, and instances of racism [4]. Moreover, among these causes, the prevailing literature suggests that language barriers pose one of the significant challenges to integrate FCFWs into local workplaces, which adversely affects commitment and communication, and contributes to higher accident rates [22]. For instance, in the Republic of Korea, communication misunderstandings between FCFWs and management due to language barriers are identified as contributing factors to project failures [27]. In the case of Singapore’s construction industry, the fifth most significant challenge hindering progress has been identified as the language and communication obstacles faced by FCFWs [21]. It is also reported by Bust et al. (2008) that immediate verbal communication with local workers and staff at construction sites poses challenges for FCFWs, with some struggling to comprehend specific instructions from their foremen. Given the distinct safety challenges being faced by FCFWs highlighted by the cited statistics and the literature, the construction industry must prioritize and enhance safety communication strategies, specifically tailored to this workforce [22,26,28].

Therefore, as mentioned in the previous section, it is crucial to identify the vital factors influencing safety communication among FCFWs—a group that often faces specific communication vulnerabilities on construction sites.

2.2. Factors Influencing Construction Safety Communication

In previous studies conducted on the safety communication of non-native construction workers. Hare, Cameron, Real, and Maloney (2013) [29] investigated how the use of visual aids could enhance the communication of safety and health information to immigrant construction workers. They only selected samples of non-European and skilled construction workers for the study. Their findings highlighted that comprehending safety visuals was significantly influenced by the workers’ nationality and experience. Immigrant foreign workers originating from European nations demonstrated a higher proficiency in identifying images compared to their counterparts from African or Indian backgrounds. Recently, Lyu (2023) [22] presented 18 critical factors influencing safety communication among immigrant construction workers based on surveys conducted with immigrant workers, literature reviews, and interviews with safety managers. The factors are categorized into three groups of worker-, manager-, and organization-related safety communication factors. However, these factors are not comprehensive, and there is a concern that unidentified potential safety communication factors still exist.

Thus, this study conducted a systematic literature review to summarize the factors affecting communication among construction workers. Following this, a semi-structured interview questionnaire was developed to explore the differences in safety communication among FCFWs. The literature review on factors affecting communication followed a two-step process. First, a thorough search was conducted in databases such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed. Then, research articles were carefully selected, focusing on titles, abstracts, keywords, and introductions, while excluding non-English papers and conference proceedings. Initially, 117 articles were identified. In the second step, this number was refined to 33 papers that directly related to construction communication, forming the basis for an in-depth analysis. The collected factors from the literature are summarized in

Table 1. Factors influencing communication of construction workers.

Factors	Rationale
1. Leadership of managers	[30]
2. Educational level of employee	[31,32]
3. Cultural and ethnical background of employees	[32,33]
4. Personal skills and work experience	[30,31,34]
5. Knowledge self-efficacy	[35,36]
6. Personality characteristics of employees	[12,34,37]
7. Age of workers	[33,38]
8. Drinking habits of workers	[38]
9. Stress and mood of workers	[12,39]
10. Activeness of upward communication	[34]
11. Clarity of communication of management	[40]
12. Open and transparent communication of management	[12,41]
13. Degree of organizational hierarchy	[19]
14.Understanding and responding to concerns of management	[33]
15. Condition and mood of management	[34]
16. Appropriateness of time and prioritizing important information	[42]
17. Workers’ trust in management	[33,37]
18. Relevance and accuracy of information provided by management	[43]
19. Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation	[30,36]
20. Psychological safety climate	[44,45,46,47]
21. Appropriation of communication channel adopted to convey information	[33,48,49]
22. Application of pictorial or visual materials	[34,42]
23. Clearly and concisely written communication	[49]
24. Delivering safety training in engaging and effective way	[28,38,50]
25. Delivering toolbox talks in clear, concise, and engaging way	[28,37,38]
26. Organizational support and concern	[37,42]
27. Time pressure for completion of the project	[21,32]
28. Social identification	[51]
29. Physical environment such as noisy equipment and room layout	[38]
30. Sense of self-worth	[30,52]
31. Organizational climate	[52]

, identifying a total of 31 factors [19].

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Data Collection

3.1.1. Semi-Structured Interviews

One of the main advantages of using semi-structured interviews is the ability to maintain a focused discussion while allowing the interviewer a flexibility to delve into relevant topics that arise during the interview. This flexibility can help to deeply understand the safety communication among foreign workers, and the factors influencing it [53]. Therefore, conducting semi-structured interviews with FCFWs represents a critical phase in this study. These interviews serve to comprehensively explore the influential factors identified in the literature review, while also elucidating additional factors affecting construction safety communication. To commence this process, a representative sample of foreign construction workers was selected based on their demographics, experience level, and role on the construction site. Each participant was approached with the utmost respect for their unique perspectives and experiences.

Twenty FCFWs (listed in

Table 2. Background information of participants.

ID	Type of Job	Age	Nationality	Language Proficiency Level	Work Experience in Construction
FW1	Façade work	35	Uzbek	Intermediate	4 years
FW2	Formwork	33	Mongolian	Beginner	5 months
FW3	Window installation	37	Mongolian	Beginner	3 years
FW4	Demolition	29	Vietnamese	Beginner	1 year
FW5	Demolition	35	Vietnamese	Beginner	9 months
FW6	Demolition	28	Mongolian	Beginner	1 year
FW7	Façade work	34	Mongolian	Beginner	6 months
FW8	Demolition	45	Mongolian	Beginner	3 months
FW9	Ironwork	37	Chinese	Beginner	2 years
FW10	Ironwork	27	Chinese	Beginner	3 years
FW11	Window installation	59	Mongolian	Beginner	1 year
FW12	Carpenter	48	Mongolian	Beginner	3 years
FW13	Mason	32	Uzbek	Beginner	4 years
FW14	Mason	48	Uzbek	Beginner	2 years
FW15	Formwork	50	Chinese	Beginner	1.5 years
FW16	Demolition	33	Mongolian	Beginner	2 years
FW17	Formwork	30	Mongolian	Beginner	1 year
FW18	Formwork	41	Mongolian	Beginner	3 years
FW19	Window installation	36	Mongolian	Beginner	6 months
FW20	Formwork	27	Mongolian	Beginner	9 months

Note: FW = Foreign worker.

) were interviewed to provide their opinion on the safety communication factors, obtained from the results of the literature review. The interviews were thoughtfully designed to be semi-structured, thus allowing for flexibility and spontaneity, while ensuring that key topics and questions aligning with the factors elucidated in the literature review were addressed. The questions were aimed at eliciting insights into their perceptions, experiences, and challenges related to safety communication on construction sites.

3.1.2. Expert Evaluations

In this study, with the objective of investigating beyond the influential factors identified in the extant research, the focus was on uncovering nuanced intricacies that could potentially enrich the understanding of this critical domain. This qualitative approach provided depth and context to the study, thus allowing us to understand the multifaceted dynamics of construction safety communication from the perspective of those working in the field.

Five senior construction-equipment foreign construction field experts, with general information as listed in

Table 3. General information of foreign experts.

No.	Position	Nationality	Experience in the Construction Industry
1	Site engineer	Mongolian	9 years
2	Senior engineer	Chinese	15 years
3	Assistant project manager	Vietnamese	8 years
4	Assistant project manager	Mongolian	10 years
5	Site engineer	Chinese	7 years

, were interviewed and AHP was used to share their evaluations regarding the relative importance of the selected safety communication factors. The interview and AHP questionnaire materials were translated from Korean to Mongolian, and Chinese, and any discrepancies were resolved using the back-translation technique.

3.1.3. Data Ethics

The semi-structured interviews employed in this study received approval from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) under the designated approval number IRB No. 2309/002-010 at Seoul National University.

3.2. Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)

The rationale for employing the AHP in this study, as opposed to alternative methods like simple ranking, scoring models, or unstructured pairwise comparison, lies in its provision of a more rigorous and comprehensive approach to determining the relative importance of factors. AHP stands out for its capability to manage complexity, incorporate stakeholder preferences, and furnish quantitative outcomes, rendering it a valuable asset for decision-making in both research and practical applications [54].

It involves breaking down a decision problem into smaller, more manageable attributes, and then comparing the attributes with each other to determine their relative importance. The AHP application involves two phases: hierarchy design and evaluation [55]. These phases require considerable expertise and knowledge of the problem, as they heavily rely on subjective judgments. Different individuals may construct distinct hierarchies for the same problem. Decision-makers should strive to represent the problem comprehensively when structuring the hierarchy. Subjectivity also influences the evaluation phase, as different decision-makers may assign varying priority weights even with the same hierarchy. Pairwise comparisons form the foundation of the evaluation phase [56]. Elements within a hierarchy level are comparatively assessed based on their importance or contribution to a given criterion. Typically, a hierarchy consists of the three levels of the goal, attributes, and alternatives, which occupy the top, middle, and bottom levels, respectively. Attributes are prioritized through pairwise comparisons, thus yielding a relative scale of priorities or weights for the elements. Subsequently, the alternatives at the lowest level are compared against each criterion. Finally, priorities from the attribute and alternative levels are aggregated additively to determine the overall score [57,58]. However, in this study, there are no alternatives, and the AHP is thus being used to determine the relative importance of each of the safety communication factors that were previously identified. This is a different approach from how the AHP is typically used, as it does not involve evaluating alternatives against the weighted attributes.

3.2.1. Pairwise Comparison of Influential Factors

Pairwise comparison is a systematic method of weighting attributes in the AHP. It is used to determine the relative importance of attributes by comparing them in pairs. This is performed separately for each set of attributes in the hierarchy. The results of the pairwise comparisons are recorded in a separate comparison matrix. In the assessment of the attribute pairs, the following become essential: (1) determining the prominence of each attribute and its influence on the attribute placed one level higher in the hierarchy; and (2) assessing the magnitude of this difference in terms of importance or contribution.

Verbal intensity assessments are translated into numbers according to a given AHP scale of 1–9 (

Table 4. Saaty’s fundamental scale.

Intensity of Importance	Definition
1	Equal importance of two factors
3	Moderate importance of one over another
5	Essential or strong importance
7	Very strong importance
9	Very strong importance
2, 4, 6, 8	Intermediate values
Reciprocals	If factor i has one of the above numbers assigned to it when compared with factor j, then j has the reciprocal value when compared with i

) [56], which facilitate the conversion of qualitative evaluations into quantitative ones. Integers greater than 1 in comparison matrices represent a higher degree of importance of the attribute in the row relative to the attribute in the column. The number 1 means that the 2 attributes compared were assigned equal importance, and the fractions are the reciprocal values of the integers. Pairwise comparison offers several advantages as a weighting method. Firstly, it is systematic. Secondly, each attribute is addressed several times (n − 1 times in a set containing n attributes), thus providing greater robustness to the results. Lastly, it has a built-in instrument for consistency control and the detection of any possible logical discrepancy.

3.2.2. Consistency Ratio

To validate the consistency of AHP evaluation data, we opted not to utilize Cronbach’s alpha; instead, we employed the consistency ratio. Cronbach’s alpha serves as a measure of internal consistency or reliability within a set of scale or test items, assessing the degree of interrelatedness among these items. While Cronbach’s alpha finds extensive application in psychometrics for assessing questionnaire or test reliability, its suitability for application in AHP contexts is limited.

The consistency ratio (CR) serves as a metric for managing and assessing the consistency of pairwise comparisons [59]. A CR of 0.10 or less is generally considered to be acceptable, while one greater than 0.10 indicates that the pairwise comparisons may be inconsistent [56]. The following steps are used to calculate the CR:

• Compute the consistency index (CI) using the following equation.

  $$CI=\frac{{\lambda }_{max}-n}{n-1}$$

  (1)

  where $\lambda$max is the largest eigenvalue of the normalized comparison matrix; and n is the number of attributes or alternatives.
• Compute the CR using the following equation.

  $$CR=\frac{CI}{RI}$$

  (2)

  where RI is the random index, which is obtained from a table of values that have been calculated for different values of n.

3.2.3. Aggregation of Local and Global Weights

This process involves combining the local weights of attributes into global weights. Local weights are those that are assigned to attributes at each level of the hierarchy, while the global weights are those assigned to attributes at the highest level of the hierarchy [60]. After determining the relative and local weights for each attribute set across the hierarchy levels and ensuring acceptable CRs, the ultimate weight for each specific attribute can be derived. This process involves multiplying the local weights of the attribute sets by the relative weights of the corresponding attributes directly superior to them. This computation begins from the bottom level and culminates at the primary goal level [61]. The resulting weight is a global weight that represents the relative importance of each leaf attribute with respect to the primary goal. Therefore, the global weight is calculated by recursively multiplying the local priority vectors and relative weights, from the lowest level of the hierarchy to the highest level. The sum of all the elements in the global weight always equals 1.00 [62]. Consequently, the global weight represents the weight of each factor, and demonstrates the importance of all the factors and the order in which they positively impact the safety communication of FCFWs.

4. Results

4.1. Factors Variance Identification Process

As mentioned above, language barriers constitute a critical element in communication, particularly in the safety communication among construction site workers. Specially, the foreign workers significantly influence the safety performance [4]. It is important to note that not all foreign workers on construction sites experience language barriers. However, owing to a higher prevalence of foreign workers in construction site occupational accidents as compared to domestic workers, this section presents an exploration of the variations in the vital factors affecting safety communication.

Due to a lack in the availability of previous research focused on identifying the factors that influence safety communication among FCFWs, semi-structured interviews and phenomenological qualitative research methods were used in this study to identify the differences in the main factors affecting safety communication among FCFWs in this particular demographic. The phenomenological qualitative research method was employed because this method can be used for studying human subjective experience; i.e., it can provide new insights into people and society owing to its focus on people having a particular experience, in-depth conversations with the research subjects, observing their daily lives, and understanding and describing their experiences [63]. Therefore, it was determined to be an appropriate research method for identifying the vital factors influencing the safety communication among FCFWs. In this study, a total of 2–3 interviews were conducted through which rich data were collected via open-ended questions, transcribed, and read, and new questions were generated based on the obtained data to conduct the next interview. Details of the participant and interview data collection are described in Section 3.1.

The transcribed data were uploaded to an online analysis tool (i.e., Taguette) for analysis. Qualitative research typically produces unstructured, text-based data, which were analyzed using meaning-based codes. The analysis process involved several steps. First, data collected from in-depth interviews with FCFWs on safety, safety communication, and their experiences of sharing and receiving safety knowledge and information at construction sites were transcribed. Meaning-based codes were then created from these transcriptions. The codes were systematically related to each other, the conceptual relationships between the extracted codes (i.e., influential factors) and sub-factors was identified (see

Table 5. Codes of upper and lower factors.

Upper Factors	Lower Factors
A1. Appropriateness of communication style of management	SA1. Concern of safety managers
	SA2. Relevance and accuracy of safety information provided by management
A2. Psychological safety climate	SA3. Composition of construction team members
	SA4. Appropriate cultural and linguistic proficiency of FCFWs
	SA5. Adequacy and appropriation of toolbox talks
A3. Extrinsic motivation	SA6. External psychological rewards
	SA7. External tangible reward
A4. Effectiveness of visible safety information	SA8. Application of pictorial or visual safety materials
	SA9. Adequacy and appropriateness of written communication
A5. Organizational support and concern	SA10. Appropriateness of communication channel adopted to convey safety information
	SA11. Adequacy and appropriateness of safety trainings

Note: A = attribute; SA = sub-attribute.

).

After analyzing the data collected in this study, a total of 27 codes were generated. Sixteen of these codes, or factors, were identified in the data of more than five participants and were ultimately selected. The remaining 11 factors were excluded owing to inconsistency, as they were based on the opinions of only 1 or 2 participants. The codes were named by referencing the factors extracted from previous studies. Moreover, the results of the lower and upper factor codes are listed in Table 5.

4.2. Reliability Test: AHP

Member checks were employed to ensure reliability in the qualitative research. Member checking is a process in which data or results are presented or explained back to the research participants, and they confirm the accuracy of the interpretation [64]. In this study, four interviews were conducted to reconfirm the statements made in previous interviews. For instance, questions such as “When you mentioned this in the last interview, did you intend it in this way?” and “Is this what you communicated in the previous interview, and is it accurate?” were asked to ensure precision in testimony and interpretation.

Any additions or modifications to the meaning made by the participants were duly included in the analysis. Moreover, the AHP with the experts’ evaluation was employed to ensure further reliability.

4.2.1. Hierarchy Structure of Vital Factors

The AHP comprises the use of a two-stage process for handling the complexity of the problem. The first stage comprises hierarchy structure. This involves organizing the attributes into a hierarchical structure that reflects their relationships with each other based on the factors affecting the safety communication of FCFWs identified in the previous section. Consequently, the factors were categorized into five categories (i.e., A1: appropriateness of communication style of management, A2: psychological safety climate, A3: extrinsic motivation, A4: effectiveness of visible safety information, and A5: organizational support and concern) or “attributes” in the AHP structure. Eleven sub-factors (referred to as “sub-attributes” in the AHP structure; i.e., SA1: concern of safety managers, SA2: relevance and accuracy of safety information provided by management, SA3: composition of construction team members, etc.) were selected and identified for each attribute.

Figure 3 presents the hierarchical structure, with the primary goal of the research objective positioned at the top of the hierarchy—corresponding to level 1—followed by “sets of attributes” that are organized into two more levels. A typical second-level attribute set includes all the secondary goals that contribute to achieving the primary goal. These are, in turn, directly affected by all of the attributes in the set below them. Attributes with no other attributes below them in the hierarchy are referred to as “leaf attributes” (i.e., sub-attributes). Overall, this hierarchy structure presents the relationships between the attributes (i.e., five attributes and eleven sub-attributes) and how they relate to the primary goal.

4.2.2. Results of Pairwise Comparison Analysis

In this analysis, the local weights of the attributes and sub-attributes were calculated based on a pairwise comparison assessment of the experts, thus offering valuable insights into their relative importance among the factors. These weights serve as a means of prioritizing and understanding the significance of each factor in relation to the research objective.

Table 6. Results of local weights of the influential factors.

Codes	Factors and Sub-Factors	Local Weights
A1	Appropriateness of communication style of management	0.264
A2	Psychological safety climate	0.053
A3	Extrinsic motivation	0.513
A4	Effectiveness of visible safety information	0.127
A5	Organizational support and concern	0.043
SA1	Concern of safety managers	0.833
SA2	Relevance and accuracy of safety information provided by management	0.167
SA3	Composition of construction team members	0.070
SA4	Appropriate cultural and linguistic proficiency of FCFWs	0.723
SA5	Adequacy and appropriation of toolbox talks	0.206
SA6	External psychological rewards	0.833
SA7	External tangible rewards	0.167
SA8	Application of pictorial or visual safety materials	0.750
SA9	Adequacy and appropriateness of written communication	0.250
SA10	Appropriateness of communication channel adopted to convey safety information	0.167
SA11	Adequacy and appropriateness of safety trainings	0.833

Note: A = Attribute; SA = Sub-attribute.

lists the local weights of the factors, where attribute A2 (i.e., extrinsic motivation) has the highest local weight (0.513). However, attribute A5 (i.e., organizational support and concern) has a local weight of 0.043. The local weights of the sub-attribute SA1 (i.e., concern of safety managers) is 0.833, SA4 (i.e., appropriate cultural and linguistic proficiency of FCFWs) is 0.723, SA6 (i.e., external psychological rewards) is 0.833, SA8 (i.e., application of pictorial or visual safety materials) is 0.750, and SA11 (i.e., adequacy and appropriateness of safety trainings) is 0.833, which is the highest weight among each set factor.

4.2.3. Results of Consistency Analysis

The results of the consistency analysis for the AHP model in this study are as follows. The CR is a measure used to determine the degree of consistency in the AHP structure. The results of the analysis (

Table 7. Results of consistency analysis.

Codes	Factors and Sub-Factors	Weighted Sum Value
A1	Appropriateness of communication style of management	1.530
A2	Psychological safety climate	0.283
A3	Extrinsic motivation	2.804
A4	Effectiveness of visible safety information	0.656
A5	Organizational support and concern	0.216
λmax = 5.360; CI = 0.091; CR = 0.080
SA1	Concern of safety managers	1.667
SA2	Relevance and accuracy of safety information provided by management	0.333
λmax = 2.000; CI = 0.000; CR = 0.000
SA3	Composition of construction team members	0.212
SA4	Appropriate cultural and linguistic proficiency of FCFWs	2.318
SA5	Adequacy and appropriation of toolbox talks	0.633
λmax = 3.096; CI = 0.048; CR = 0.043
SA6	External psychological rewards	1.667
SA7	External tangible rewards	0.333
λmax = 2.000; CI = 0.000; CR = 0.000
SA8	Application of pictorial or visual safety materials	1.125
SA9	Adequacy and appropriateness of written communication	0.125
λmax = 2.000; CI = 0.000; CR = 0.000
SA10	Appropriateness of communication channel adopted to convey safety information	0.333
SA11	Adequacy and appropriateness of safety trainings	1.667
λmax = 2.000; CI = 0.000; CR = 0.000

Note: CI = Consistency Index; CR = Consistency Ratio; A = Attribute; SA = Sub-attribute.

) indicate that the CR values for all the comparison matrices are below the acceptable threshold of 0.10.

This suggests that the pairwise comparisons and the resulting weightings are highly consistent and reliable.

Furthermore, the weighted sum values, which represent the overall priority or importance of each attribute, were calculated for each factor in the hierarchy. The weighted sum value is a single numerical score assigned to each alternative based on its performance across different attributes. It is calculated by multiplying the weight of each attribute that represents its relative importance with the score the alternative receives for that attribute, and then summing those products. These values provide a clear understanding of the relative significance of each attribute and sub-attributes in achieving the research objective. For instance, attribute A3 (i.e., extrinsic motivation) was found to have the highest weighted sum value of 2.804. Attribute A1 (i.e., appropriateness of communication style of management) followed closely with a weighted sum value of 1.530, while those of attributes A4, A2, and A5 were 0.656, 0.283, and 0.216, respectively.

4.2.4. Aggregation of Factor Weights

The global weights of the attributes and sub-attributes were determined, thus providing valuable insights into their relative importance within the framework. As shown in Figure 4, the results indicate that the top-level attribute A3 (i.e., “extrinsic motivation”) holds the highest global weight (0.513 = 51.3%). Within the “A3: Extrinsic motivation” attribute, the sub-attribute of “SA6: External psychological rewards” was found to have a substantial weight, thus highlighting their influence on the overall evaluation.

At the next hierarchical importance, the attributes “A1: Appropriateness of communication style of management” and “A4: Effectiveness of visible safety information” were found to be of moderate importance, with global weights of 0.264 = 26.4% and 0.127 = 12.7%, respectively. Within these factors, “SA1: Concern of safety managers” and “SA8. Application of pictorial or visual safety materials” emerged as influential factors, with weights of 0.22 = 22% and 0.096 = 9.6%, respectively. Finally, the attributes “A2: Psychological safety climate” and “A5: Organizational support and concern” exhibited a relatively lower global weight of 0.053 = 5.3% and 0.043 = 4.3%, respectively. Nevertheless, from among these attributes, “SA4. Appropriate cultural and linguistic proficiency of FCFWs” and “SA11. Adequacy and appropriateness of safety training” emerged as influential factors, with weights of 0.038 = 3.8% and 0.036 = 3.6%, respectively. These global weights provide a clear hierarchy of importance, thus assisting decision-makers in prioritizing the vital factors and sub-factors influencing the safety communication of FCFWs according to their relative significance.

5. Discussion

Based on the use of mixed research methods (i.e., the phenomenological qualitative and AHP quantitative methods), a systematic analysis of the factors impacting safety communication was conducted, and a structured approach to understand their relative importance was determined. Therefore, the results address the research questions outlined in the introduction, confirming that while the factors influencing safety communication among FCFWs are similar to those affecting native workers, there are notable differences in the use of pictorial or visual safety materials and factors related to language and culture. Moreover, the relative importance of the factors was identified through AHP analysis, addressing the remaining research questions and identifying the vital factors affecting the safety communication of FCFWs, which was the purpose of this study. The vital factors that resulted from this study will be discussed in the following subsections.

5.1. Key Findings: Vital Factors

The findings of the AHP analysis reveal that the top-level attribute “Extrinsic motivation” holds the highest global weight (51.3%), which indicates its paramount importance in shaping the safety communication behaviors of FCFWs. This emphasis on extrinsic motivation highlights the effectiveness of tangible rewards and recognition in motivating FCFWs to engage in safe practices and effectively communicate safety concerns. Within the “Extrinsic motivation” attribute, the sub-attribute of “External psychological rewards” emerged as the most influential factor with a weight of 37%. This finding underscores the significance of non-monetary incentives, such as public recognition, certificates, and awards, in motivating FCFWs to prioritize safety and actively participate in safety communication efforts.

As the next factors of relative importance, the “Appropriateness of communication style of management” and “Effectiveness of visible safety information” attributes were deemed to be of moderate importance with weights of 26.4% and 12.7%, respectively. This suggests that the effectiveness of managerial communication, and the accessibility of visible safety information play significant roles in FCFW safety. Consequently, among the “Appropriateness of communication style of management” sub-factors, the sub-attribute of “Concern of safety managers” emerged as the most influential factor. This result demonstrates that safety managers have the following significant roles: (1) demonstrating genuine concern for the safety and well-being of FCFWs, and (2) fostering an open and supportive communication environment. Similarly, within the “Effectiveness of visible safety information” attribute, the sub-attribute of “Application of pictorial or visual safety materials” emerged as the most influential factor. Therefore, it appears that pictorial and visual safety materials, including safety posters, infographics, and videos, have the potential to effectively convey safety messages, and enhance FCFWs’ understanding of safety procedures and hazards. This is because the majority of FCFWs are not proficient in the local language, and hence may have difficulty in comprehending safety-related content, such as safety training provided in the local language. Hence, the use of symbols, signs, and other straightforward safety information is highly beneficial for helping FCFWs to understand the potential hazards at the construction site.

As the finally, the “Psychological safety climate” and “Organizational support and concern” attributes exhibited a relatively lower impact weight of 5.3% and 4.3%, respectively. This indicates that while these factors are still important, they are not as influential in improving the safety communication for FCFWs as the aforementioned top-ranked factors. Nevertheless, among these attributes, “Appropriate cultural and linguistic proficiency of FCFWs” and “Adequacy and appropriateness of safety training” emerged as influential factors, with impact weights of 3.8% and 3.6%, respectively. Therefore, addressing cultural and linguistic barriers, and providing culturally sensitive safety training can significantly improve safety communication among FCFWs.

5.2. Implications and Policy Recommendations

The results of our study address a gap in the existing literature by identifying factors that influence the safety communication of FCFWs, which have not been thoroughly examined before. Compared to Lyu et al. (2023) [22], who suggested 18 factors and categorized them into three levels (i.e., worker-related factors, manager-related factors, and organization-related factors) using quantitative statistical analysis, our study takes a different approach. While Lyu et al. analyzed and verified the correlations of these factors, we conducted in-depth interviews with FCFWs to gather qualitative insights. We then classified the factors into upper and lower levels and determined their relative importance both by level and overall using AHP analysis. This comprehensive approach allowed us to pinpoint the vital factors influencing the safety communication of FCFWs. By integrating mixed methods, our study provides a more nuanced understanding of these factors, highlighting the critical areas that need attention to improve safety communication practices for FCFWs. This constitutes the primary contribution of our research to the field.

Based on our findings, we propose several policy recommendations aimed at improving communication effectiveness and overall safety on construction sites. These recommendations are designed with key stakeholders in mind—namely, construction companies, safety managers, and regulatory agencies—to ensure practical implication. For construction companies, we recommend the implementation of tailored safety communication strategies that encompass multilingual signage and culturally relevant training sessions. Such measures will not only mitigate the risk of accidents but also enhance compliance with safety protocols, reducing potential financial liabilities and enhancing the company’s reputation for safety and inclusiveness. Safety managers are advised to focus on continuous training that develops communication skills accommodating cultural and linguistic diversity. This approach will improve their effectiveness in enforcing safety protocols and reduce the incidence of workplace accidents. Furthermore, regulatory bodies may need to be revisited and revised existing safety standards to incorporate requirements for multilingual communication and cultural sensitivity. By ensuring that safety practices are universally understood and adhered to by all workers, regardless of their background, these changes will promote a safer work environment. The benefits of implementing these recommendations are significant. Construction companies can see a reduction in workplace accidents and improved compliance with safety laws, leading to lower insurance costs and enhanced worker productivity. Safety managers will benefit from more effective safety management strategies and improved communication with a diverse workforce, which contributes to a safer work environment and better adherence to safety protocols. Finally, regulatory agencies are expected to observe improved overall industry safety standards and reduced national rates of construction-related accidents, which align with broader public health and safety objectives.

6. Conclusions

This study is focused on identifying the vital factors affecting safety communication among FCFWs. To comprehensively address this objective, thorough semi-structured interviews and a review of the relevant literature were conducted, followed by an in-depth analysis of the data gathered through a questionnaire survey in the AHP. The insights gained from these interviews were instrumental in identifying the potential factors that influence the safety communication of FCFWs. Furthermore, the AHP method was employed to determine the relative importance of these factors. To be more specific, the conclusions of the study are as follows:

• Scientific novelty: The research revealed that extrinsic motivation factors, particularly external psychological rewards, have the most significant positive influence on safety communication among FCFWs. This finding adds a new dimension to the existing body of knowledge on worker motivation and safety communication in the construction industry.
• Practical significance: The results highlighted the importance of the communication style of management and the effectiveness of visible safety information. These factors were identified as pivotal in enhancing safety communication among FCFWs. Addressing these factors can lead to improved safety outcomes and reduced occupational accidents. It is imperative to underscore the importance of addressing and enhancing these factors in future safety management, and occupational-accident prevention strategies.
• Prospects for future research; Future research should involve longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of improved safety communication strategies on FCFWs, while expanding sample sizes to include a diverse range of construction projects and locations for a comprehensive understanding of influencing factors. Comparative studies across different cultural contexts can identify globally adaptable best practices. Implementing and testing specific interventions in real-world settings will validate their effectiveness. Investigating the role of technology, such as mobile applications, can enhance safety management. Additionally, developing and assessing policies for standardized communication and training, along with continuous feedback mechanisms from FCFWs, can dynamically adjust strategies to meet evolving needs.

Finally, it is important to recognize some inherent limitations in this research. Firstly, the sample sizes for the semi-structured interviews and AHP surveys were relatively small and geographically confined. Moreover, the foreign construction field workers (FCFWs) included in the study were only Mongolian, Vietnamese, Uzbek, and Chinese, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the use of self-report measures introduces the possibility of social desirability bias.