by: Sathyanarayanan Rajendran and John A. Gambatese, Ph.D., P.E.

Introduction

“Green” or “sustainable” building design and construction has become more prevalent in the U.S. construction industry in the recent past. The terms are often used interchangeable, but there are differences between them. “Green” is a term used to address primarily the design and construction practices that impact the environment. Buildings that are designed, constructed, operated, maintained, and demolished in an environmentally friendly manner can be defined as “green” buildings. The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) recognizes buildings designed and constructed using these techniques by means of its Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system released in 2000 (see sidebar).

Sustainability is a broader concept, which, in addition to the environmental aspect, addresses the continuity of economic and social aspects of human society. In addition to watching the financial “bottom line,” corporations and other organizations are expected to pursue an acceptable “social bottom line,” in terms of social equity (Elkingon 1998). Organizations concerned about social equity often foster a culture that respects diversity, consider the health of local communities when making outsourcing and other strategic decisions, and ensure employee access to health care and a safe work environment.

Concern about maintaining a safe work environment raises troubling questions for the construction industry. What about the thousands of construction workers who sustain fatal and non-fatal injuries during the construction process each year? What about the thousands of workers who become ill as a direct result of the construction process? To be labeled “sustainable,” a building must address safety and health in all parts of the lifecycle, including construction. Because sustainable concepts address the environmental, economic, and social well being of human society, considering the safety and health of the construction workers who are part of the building lifecycle would definitely take green buildings one more step toward sustainability. We call this concept “sustainable construction safety and health.” This article introduces the concept of sustainable construction safety and health and discusses research on the topic that is being conducted by the authors at Oregon State University. It also briefly explores a tool through which sustainable safety and health can be assessed.

The Problem

Construction worker safety and health continues to be a major concern for the construction industry. Construction continues to be the leader among occupations in the frequency of fatalities and disabling injuries. In the U.S., the construction industry has historically employed about 5 percent of the workforce, yet has accounted for a disproportionately high number of occupationally related fatal and non-fatal injuries, and illnesses (Bureau of Labor Statistics 2005). The causes of injuries and illnesses in construction have long been recognized, and their persistence continues to frustrate construction safety and health practitioners and researchers (Hill 2003). Research has identified best practices that improve the safety and health of construction workers. However, the construction industry consistently experiences higher fatality and injury/illness rates than other industries. Sustained control of safety and health hazards is required to completely eliminate incidents in the construction industry.

The New Solution: Sustainable Safety and Health

Sustainable development can be defined as development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (the Brundtland Report 1987). As mentioned previously in this article, sustainability or sustainable development is about much more than just the environment. This is exhibited in the following definitions:

“improving the quality of human life while living within the carrying capacity of supporting ecosystems” (Caring for the Earth, IUCN/UNEP 1991);
“development that delivers basic environmental, social and economic services to all residences of a community without threatening the viability of natural, built and social systems upon which the delivery of those systems depends”(International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives, ICLEI 1996)

Construction worker safety and health plays a major role in achieving sustainable socio-economic development of the workers in the building industry. The sustainable safety and health concept, which considers the social and economic well being of the construction workers, is a new approach to boosting the safety and health performance of construction workers. The sustainable safety and health concept aims to sustain the construction worker’s safety and health:

from start to finish of a single project;
for each future project a worker is involved in; and
during the worker’s remaining life time after retirement,

without any injuries or illnesses as a result of the construction work. For example, the work lives of many construction workers have been shortened by repeated physical hazards posed by exposure to lead, silica, asbestos, and many other chemical and environmental hazards to which he or she was exposed. The condition persists even after the exposure has been stopped when the worker quits the job or is reassigned. The construction worker’s health could have been sustained if he or she were properly protected from the exposure in the first place.

There are several safety and health elements that, if properly implemented in a project development process, help sustain worker safety and health. The sustainable safety and health concept approaches the consideration and implementation of safety and health measures from a different perspective.

Sustainable Construction Safety and Health Model

To meet this purpose, the authors are in the process of developing a sustainable construction safety and health model. The sustainable safety and health model will incorporate the safety and health elements to be implemented by owners, designers, and constructors to sustain worker safety and health from project-to-project. In a way similar to how the LEED system awards points for each of 69 “green” criteria, the model being developed will award points to based on the implementation of specific project planning and execution elements that promote construction worker safety and health.

Model Structure

Many parties are involved in the construction process: the owner, contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, designers, sureties, financial agencies, attorneys, accountants, engineers, consultants, and others. The parties who have major control and/or influence on safety and health are the constructor, owner, and designer. Just as each party influences and adds to the completed project in its own way, each affects construction site safety differently. Past research and literature have focused on each party and reveal their unique effects on construction site safety. The basis of the model is to combine the safety and health initiatives of these three parties. Under each of these categories, there would be a number of sustainable safety and health initiatives; each initiative will carry credits based on the frequency and severity of the safety and health issue it addresses. The credits under the three categories will add up to a total credit. A project that incorporates more initiatives would receive more credits. The premise of the model is that the higher the number of total points received by a project, the lower the potential for accidents. The sustainable safety and health elements that will make up the model will come from two sources: literature and industry experts.

The next section briefly discusses some of the important roles of the three parties with respect to the safety and health of the workers, and the elements expected to be included in the model.

Preliminary Rating Criteria

Owner: A recent study by the Construction Industry Institute (CII) answered the question: “What is the role and influence that owners have on construction safety?” (Hinze 2003). CII concluded that improved safety performances are possible through the use of the following owner practices:

Careful selection of safe contractors
Contractual safety requirements
Proactive involvement in the safety practices of projects
Establishment of and funding for a safety recognition program
Active participation in safety training and orientation and verifying the comprehension of the training
Assigning a full-time safety representative on site

Designer: Historically, the design profession has not addressed construction site safety in its scope of work. Designers' lack of involvement can be attributed to their education and training, existing design tools and standards, their typical role on the project team, and their liability exposure. Designer education and training typically focuses on safety of the "end user," such as the office worker, motorist, or equipment operator (Gambatese et al 1997). Rarely do designers receive formal construction site safety education and training. Regardless of the aforementioned reasons why designers typically do not address construction worker safety, the construction industry has recently awakened to the need for designer involvement. It is becoming more evident that safety practices implemented solely by the constructor cannot eliminate all jobsite hazards. Constructors and safety professionals have realized that the design is an underlying facet of construction site safety (Gambatese et al 1997).

Gambatese et al (1997) addressed the issue of the role of designers in construction safety. The research effort involved the identification of design suggestions, or "best practices," that could be implemented during project planning and design in order to minimize or eliminate safety hazards in the construction phase. This effort was followed by the development of a design tool to assist designers in identifying and mitigating safety hazards. The research effort identified and developed over 400 design suggestions.

Constructor: The OSH Act's mandate that employee safety is the responsibility of the employer places the burden of construction site safety foremost on constructors. Of all parties that play a role on a project, the constructor commonly takes the lead role and often is the sole party to address construction worker safety and health. Despite the emphasis within the federal safety standards on the role of employers, most construction contract general conditions state that the project’s general contractor has primary responsibility for safety on project sites (Toole 2002). Hence, the majority of past safety research has focused on a general contractor's organization and actions. Research on the constructor’s influence on safety has led to the identification of best practices for improving safety and health and to the development of tools to assist constructors in eliminating job site hazards and ensuring safe work practices.

Hinze et al (2001) presented nine best practices to be followed by constructors to make zero accidents a reality:

Demonstrated management commitment
Staffing for safety
Safety planning
Safety training and education
Worker participation and involvement
Recognition and rewards
Subcontractor management
Accident/incident reporting and investigations
Drug and alcohol testing

Model Application

The model can be used as a tool to help sustain the safety and health of construction workers. It can be used to unite and coordinate the safety and health efforts of the three important parties in a project: owner, designer, and constructor. In the past, safety has rested primarily on the constructor’s shoulders. Construction companies have developed positive safety cultures and are committed to creating an “injury free work environment” in each of the projects they perform. However, no recognition exists, such as a Gold or Platinum safety certification, for those constructors who stand out in their commitment to reduce workplace fatalities and injuries. This model can be used as a rating system similar to LEED to rate projects based on the safety commitment of its team members. Recognition will be an added incentive to the project team to improve the safety and health performance of the project. Because the model would require the joint efforts of all the parties involved in the project, a team effort would be another benefit that will help kick start the sustainable safety and health drive in the construction industry.

Conclusion

Although construction safety research and employers’ increased commitment to the safety and health of their workers have reduced injury rates, construction workers are still exposed to a wide variety of hazards and face a high risk of work related fatality or injury/illness. The sustainable safety and health model is envisioned to provide a new perspective on the way industry practitioners see safety and health. Workers should not only be safe in one single project but also safe and healthy during their entire life time. Attaining injury free environments and sustaining the effort in the construction industry will require the effort of the project team. This model will fulfill the purpose by uniting the safety and health initiatives of the three main parties in a project, moving one step closer to projects that are truly sustainable.

References

Elkington, J. (1998). Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers.

Gambatese, J.A., Hinze, J.W., and Haas, C.T. (1997). “Tool to Design for Construction Worker Safety.” Journal of Architectural Engineering, ASCE, 3(1), 32-41.

Hill, Darryl C. (2003). Construction Safety Management and Engineering. American Society of Safety Engineers.

Hinze, J. (2003). “The Owners Role in Construction Safety.” Construction Industry Institute Research Summary, 190-1, The University of Texas at Austin.

Hinze, J.; Mathis, J.; Frey, P. D.; Wilson, G.; DeForge, P.; Cobb, M.; and Marconnet, G. (2001). “Making Zero Accidents a Reality,” Annual Conference of the Construction Industry Institute, San Francisco, CA.

"Sustainable development and the future of construction, CIB Working Commission W82 Report, May 1998.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) (1996). “Local Agenda 21 Planning Guide: An Introduction to Sustainable Development Planning.” ICLEI, Toronto.

International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction (CIB). (2002). “Construction Site Waste Management and Minimization.” Report Prepared by Dennis S. Macozoma. Report No. BOU/C361.

IUCN/UNEP/WWF (1991) Caring for the Earth. A strategy for sustainable living. IUCN, UNEP and WWF, Gland, Switzerland, and Earthscan, London.

The Brundtland Report (1987). World Commission on Environment and Development—Our Common Future. New York: Oxford University Press.

Toole, T. M. (2002). “A Comparison of Site Safety Policies of Construction Industry Trade Groups.” ASCE Practice Periodical in Structural Design and Construction. 7(2): 90-95.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005). “Census of fatal and non-fatal injuries.” Washington, DC: US Census Bureau.

United States Green Building Council (USGBC) (2005). http://www.usgbc.org/

LEED sidebar

The LEED Green Building Rating System is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. The primary purpose of LEED certification is to make buildings greener, i.e. to reduce the environmental impacts of the building’s lifecycle, which are significant. The construction and operation of the global built environment has been estimated to account for 12-16% of fresh water consumption; 25% of wood harvested; 30-40% of energy consumption; 40% of virgin materials extracted; 20-30% of greenhouse emissions, and 40% of the total waste stream of countries (CIB 2002).

Based on well-founded scientific standards, LEED emphasizes state of the art strategies for sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. Buildings that satisfy or exceed the green requirements posed by the LEED rating system are formally certified by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). The four levels of formal certification for new building projects are: Certified, Silver, Gold, and Platinum. This recognition is leading to changes in the way owners, designers, and contractors approach the design, construction, and operation of buildings. Some of the common reasons for this change can be attributed to increased public image to owners, environmental friendly owners, a marketing tool to contractors, reduced operation and maintenance costs, and improved health of the building occupants. Currently, there are more than 1,900 projects that have registered with the USGBC and more than 200 projects have received LEED certification (USGBC 2005).

Author Biographies

Sathyanarayanan Rajendran is a doctoral student in the Construction Engineering Management program, with a minor in Environmental Health and Safety, at Oregon State University. Sathyanarayanan has been involved in research related to construction worker safety, construction sustainability, and constructability. He has assisted Dr. John Gambatese on the recently completed Oregon Department of Transportation project titled “Optimum Illumination for Nighttime Flagging Operations,” which addressed the safety of flaggers during nighttime construction and maintenance of highways. He has worked as a construction safety intern with Hoffman Construction Company in Portland, Oregon. His ultimate goal is to pursue a career in the occupational safety and health profession in industry and academia.

John Gambatese is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering at Oregon State University. Dr. Gambatese's educational background includes Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in Civil Engineering from the University of California at Berkeley with emphases in structural engineering, and a Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the University of Washington in the area of construction engineering and management. He has worked in industry as a structural engineer for Degenkolb Associates, a private structural engineering consulting firm in San Francisco, and as a project engineer for the construction management firm of O'Brien-Kreitzberg & Associates in Seattle. He started his current position at Oregon State University in 2000 following three years on the faculty at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and one year as an Acting Assistant Professor at the University of Washington. Dr. Gambatese has taught courses on construction contracts and specifications, construction safety and productivity improvement, construction engineering, construction planning and scheduling, structural analysis and design, temporary construction structures, and engineering economics. He has performed research and published numerous articles on construction worker safety, project constructability, construction automation, construction contracting, and life cycle properties of civil engineering facilities. He is member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), American Society of Safety Engineers (ASSE), and the American Institute of Constructors (AIC), and actively participates on ASCE's Construction Site Safety Committee, Constructability Committee, and Construction Research Council. He is a licensed Professional Civil Engineer in California.