International Journal of Occupational Safety and

Ergonomics

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tose20

Model for Improvement of Occupational Health

and Safety in Micro and Small Construction
Enterprises

Dušica Savić, Vladimir Mučenski, Trajče Velkovski, Jovana Topalić Marković,

Miodrag Hadžistević & Miloš Šešlija

To cite this article: Dušica Savić, Vladimir Mučenski, Trajče Velkovski, Jovana Topalić Marković,
Miodrag Hadžistević & Miloš Šešlija (2021): Model for Improvement of Occupational Health and
Safety in Micro and Small Construction Enterprises, International Journal of Occupational Safety
and Ergonomics, DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1960686

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2021.1960686

Accepted author version posted online: 26

Jul 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tose20
Publisher: Taylor & Francis & Central Institute for Labour Protection – National

Research Institute (CIOP-PIB)

Journal: International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics

DOI: 10.1080/10803548.2021.1960686

Model for Improvement of Occupational Health and Safety in Micro

and Small Construction Enterprises

Dušica Savić

Gas and oil Industry of Serbia, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, dusica.n.savic@nis.eu 1

Vladimir Mučenski

Department of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, mucenskiv@uns.ac.rs

Trajče Velkovski

Department of Industrial Engineering and Management, Faculty of Mechanical

Engineering, University St. Cyril and Methodius, Republic of North Macedonia,
trajce.velkovski@mf.edu.mk

Jovana Topalić Marković

Department of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, jovanatopalic90@uns.ac.rs

Miodrag Hadžistević

Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of

Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, miodrags@uns.ac.rs

1
Continental Automotive, Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, dusica.savic@continental.com
Miloš Šešlija

Department of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, sele@uns.ac.rs

Corresponding author:

Vladimir Mučenski

Department of Civil Engineering and Geodesy, Faculty of Technical Sciences,

University of Novi Sad, Republic of Serbia, mucenskiv@uns.ac.rs

Model for Improvement of Occupational Health and Safety in Micro and Small
Construction Enterprises

This paper presents research on qualitative parameters conducted in order to develop a

model for the improvement of occupational health and safety (OHS) in micro and small
construction enterprises (MSEs). Identification of factors and defining their significance
enables improvements of OHS in the observed enterprises. The aim of the model is to
assist construction MSEs in evaluating their qualities, pinpointing their deficiencies and
ways to maximize the improvement to OHS performances. A panel of 20 experts defined
the factors through an iterative process of the Delphi method. The research resulted in
a model consisting of 42 OHS factors grouped into 10 categories. Model validation was
carried out in the Republic of Serbia. The validation confirmed the applicability of the
model as well as the relevance of factors which were determined by the panel of
experts.

Keywords: construction, Delphi, evaluation, risk, model

1. Introduction

Observing the construction industry globally, construction workers are three times more
likely to suffer fatal injuries and twice as likely to sustain non-fatal injuries compared to
workers from other industries [1]. Construction industry and construction processes
have a higher accident rate in comparison to other industries. Accidents are mainly
caused due to complex nature of industry, hard working conditions, human factors and
inadequate safety management, unsafe equipment and unsafe procedures for work [2].
Economic and social interventions of construction industry are immense but still known
as among most vulnerable and hazardous industries [3,4] portrayed by high rates of
injuries/fatalities on jobsites [5]. European Union statistics for the period between 2010
and 2015 also indicate high occupational health and safety (OHS) risks in the
construction industry. On average, 20% of all work-related fatal injuries occur in the
construction industry.

Subcontractors or micro and small construction enterprises (MSEs), which are most
often subcontractors of larger construction enterprises, represent a particular problem of
the construction industry. Looking into the database of the European Statistical Office
(EUROSTAT) data, it can be concluded that micro and small enterprises make up over
99% of all construction enterprises in the European Union (EU) and employ over 65%
of workers, which points to their importance in the system, but also indicates their large
capacity for generating injuries. Micro enterprises are most often specialized in a certain
type of work, while small enterprises already have the capacity to perform different
types of work. The management systems of the observed companies are simple, which
makes it easier to implement control mechanisms as long as there is the necessary
support from the responsible person.

Between 2010 and 2017 in the EU-28 zone, an average of 71% of all fatal injuries
occurred in micro and small construction enterprises (EUROSTAT). Furthermore,
EUROSTAT data confirms that the number of fatalities declines significantly with the
increase of the size of enterprises, that is, the number of fatalities in the construction
industry is more frequent in micro and small enterprises. In the aforementioned
observed period, on average, each year there were 790 fatal injuries in total for all
construction enterprises (regardless of size). Of these, on average, 308 (38.99%)
occurred in micro-enterprises, 253 (32.01%) in small enterprises, 134 (16.98%) in
medium, 64 (8.07%) in large, while 31 (3.96%) of fatal injuries were not classified by
the size of the construction enterprise. If the percentage ratio is observed, that is 71% in
micro and small enterprises versus 25.05% in medium and large enterprises. Mendeloff
et al. [6] confirm that fatal workplace injuries occur more often in micro and small
enterprises. Fabiano et al. [7] reported a significant negative relationship between
fatalities and enterprise size; for example, in construction, small enterprises have a fatal
accident rate 4 (four) times higher than large enterprises. This study found that the
accident frequency rate for small enterprises was 47% higher than for large enterprises.
Legg et al. [8] state that most OHS research, policy and legislation were and still are
focused on large enterprises. The authors also state that small enterprises have fewer
resources to influence stakeholders when developing policies or conducting research.

Sorensen and his associates [9] studied the impact of the enterprise size and ownership
on OHS in the Danish economy. The research was based on the fact that there are
organizational differences between large and small enterprises, i.e. public and private
enterprises, as well as the approach towards safety at work. They came to the
conclusion that work environment is far safer in large privately owned enterprises in
comparison to small ones. Hallowell and Gambatese [10] concluded that the most
important elements of a successful safety program are the support of upper management
as well as strategic subcontractor selection and management that can have mutual
positive impacts. The most common subcontractors are micro and small enterprises.
Given the above, it is very important to define the method of subcontracting or to define
the selection criteria. Mohammadi et al. [11] carried out an extensive study of the
existing literature on safety factors influencing performance on construction projects
and concluded that the most important factors between the main contractor and
subcontractors are, motivation, rules and regulations, health, safety and environment
(HSE) competency, safety investments and costs, resources and equipment, culture and
climate, lesson learned from previous accidents and organization.

2. Method

Analysis of the existing literature reveals the lack of tools tailored to construction MSEs
which would allow an overview of the current state and enable them to identify aspects
of OHS operations that need to be upgraded in order to improve performance.

The aim of this research was to create a model that could evaluate the quality of OHS
through the analysis of individual factors that would simultaneously point out the
possibilities of improving OHS in MSEs. The basis of the model application would be
to identify weaknesses in order to point out the opportunities for business improvement
from the aspect of OHS.

The hypotheses of the research were: (H0) it is possible to develop a MSE OHS
Improvement Model that will effectively improve the quality of OHS of micro and
small construction enterprises, (H1) the model can be developed using the Delphi
method and the analysis of work-related injuries on construction sites in the Republic of
Serbia, and (H2) the number of Credits defined by the model negatively correlates with
the number of injuries per unit of total working time variable LTIF (Lost time injury
frequency rate).

The research was carried out in four phases. Analysis of the existing literature from the
aspect of the characteristics of MSEs represented the first phase of the research. The
aim of the first phase was to conceptually determine the structure of factors which
would be used to determine the quality of OHS in micro and small construction
enterprises.

The next phase included the collection and analysis of reports on work-related injuries
at construction sites in the Republic of Serbia. This phase was completed in cooperation
with the Labor Inspectorate of the Republic of Serbia. In total, 113 reports which had
been prepared by labor inspectors immediately after incidents that resulted in fatal and
serious bodily injuries were analyzed. The analyzed reports were made for injuries
which occurred between 2013 and 2017. This phase was implemented with an aim to
possibly identify market specificities, business practices and regulations that are
potentially not covered by the analyzed papers and to finally identify factors that do not
exist in the literature. It should be noted that the existing legislation of the Republic of
Serbia is largely in compliance with EU legislation in this area.

After determining the final structure of factors, the following, third phase to determine
their significance was approached. In this phase the model for the improvement of OHS
in MSEs was developed. This was performed using the Delphi method.

Finally, the model was validated through the analysis of 15 micro and small enterprises
and a comparison of their OHS results with the results of the newly formed model,
which is used to test the quality of a business from the OHS aspect.

2.1 Literature analysis

In view of the foregoing, a thorough analysis of the literature was conducted primarily
to identify a set of factors that have a significant impact on OHS quality of MSEs in the
construction industry. All identified factors were incorporated into the research
questionnaire.
Mohamed [12] and Farooqui et al. [13] state that low-level safety most often results in
injuries, fatal injuries in most cases. Thus, construction projects suffer from a shortage
of skilled construction site workers (injuries with sickness, disability, etc.), decrease in
workers’ morale, project cost overruns and stakeholder conflicts. Further, one of the
main reasons of low-level safety is the misconception that investments in worksite
safety increase the costs of the project [14]. Baig [15] emphasizes that OHS cannot be
achieved only through legal regulations and it is not enough to involve solely the
investor or contractor, rather all stakeholders must be equally involved in enforcing and
improving safety.

Project stakeholders (investor, contractor, etc.) constantly emphasize the importance of

productivity, profit satisfaction even at the cost of safety [16]. Raheem and Hinze [17,
18] state the fact that savings are made at the expense of safety. Except for few large
construction enterprises, most contractors do not have their safety procedures manual,
and even if they have one, it is not updated regularly. Likewise, safety policies are made
only for the documentation purposes [19,20]. The most common unsafe practices
include defective ladders, scaffolding without guard rails, working at height without
wearing fall protection equipment, manual excavation without bracing and temporarily
laid power lines [21,22].

Micro and small enterprises are targeted as high-risk, and one of the recognized
problems is the employer/owner commitment towards OHS investments. In other
words, financial return on investing in OHS is not expected because the return is not
expected in the short term [23]. Construction workers employed by MSEs have a lesser
level of education and experience relative to their counterparts who work for larger
enterprises, which can certainly increase the risk of workplace accidents [24,25].

Micheli [26] states that MSEs can devote fewer human, economic and technological
resources to occupational health and safety, compared to larger enterprises.
Subsequently, small enterprises have a lower capacity to effectively evaluate and
manage risk in comparison to large enterprises [27]. A significant segment of the
problem is the lack of qualified management structures, since most often the business
owner is the sole decision- maker and responsible for all management actions and
therefore actions related to OHS [25].
The factors identified in the research are presented in Table 1 and served as a starting
point for the formation of the OHS quality improvement model in MSEs. The table
shows the factors as well as the literature based on which they have been identified as
potentially significant for the improvement of OHS in MSEs of construction industry.

2.2 Injury analysis and determination of factors structure

As already stated, in cooperation with the Labor Inspectorate of the Republic of Serbia,
113 reports on injuries that had been made by the Labor Inspectors immediately after
the occurrence of the injury were collected and analyzed for research purposes. The
reports were analyzed primarily from the aspect of the size of the construction
enterprise, as well as from the aspects of substantive and indirect causes, manner of
injury, size of injury and the injured body part, in order to identify additional factors
that should be incorporated into the model.

The analysis of the data primarily confirmed that micro and small construction
enterprises in the Republic of Serbia have twice as many work-related injuries
compared to large enterprises. It was also concluded that the predominant indirect cause
was failure to wear personal protective equipment, whereas the predominant substantive
cause was the absence of procedures or the existence of poor procedures for work at
height.

Furthermore, about 6% (out of 113 injuries) of injured workers were not trained in OHS
which is a legal obligation of every employer in the Republic of Serbia. Also, about 5%
of workers did not possess a doctor’s health certificate stating that they are capable of
performing their work activities. The health certificate is necessary for the work
positions which are assessed by the Risk Assessment Act as high-risk work positions,
which is also an obligation under the existing legislation of the Republic of Serbia. The
data indicates that even after 15 years from the introduction of the "new" Occupational
Safety and Health Law, adopted in 2005, there are still employers within MSEs who do
not comply with the most basic legal provisions. Moreover, the analysis showed that
there are still micro and small enterprises that do not have a Risk Assessment Act. Also,
in 8% of MSEs it was discovered that the workers did not have any personal protective
equipment.
After the analysis of literature and injury reports, the next step was creating the structure
of model factors which were included in the questionnaire.

The factors were grouped into two primary categories: enterprise-related factors and
construction site-related factors.

The “enterprise-related factors” are the factors pertaining solely to the enterprise and
encompass having legally prescribed and other relevant OSH procedures in place,
leadership commitment to OHS, staff training and development, and a system for
investigating incidents or injuries in the workplace. Table 1 shows the 20 “enterprise-
related factors” as well as the literature based on which they were included in the
model.

The “construction site-related factors” denote the presence of engineers at construction

sites and ensuring control and supervision over the implementation of measures at
construction sites, the applicability and quality of documents used at specific
construction sites, organization of work at construction sites, or usage of personal
protective equipment. Table 2 shows 24 “construction site-related factors” as well as the
literature based on which they were included in the model.

Table 1. Enterprise-related factors and sources in literature

A. Enterprise-related factors (E) Relative researches

E-1. Importance of adopting OHS policy within the enterprise [28,29]

E-2. Significance of the adoption of Procedure for the

Prevention of Alcohol and Narcotics Use at a construction
site

E-3. Importance of adopting international ISO standards and

[30–35]
their impact on OHS

E-4. Significance of the adoption of Procedures for Risk

Assessment just before performing the work activity (JSA-
Job safety analysis)
E-5. Importance of drafting Instructions for Safe Work, for each
work activity

E-6. Importance of drafting the Risk Assessment Act on an

[28,36–43]
enterprise level

Existing legislation
E-7. Importance of drafting a Plan of Preventive Measures of the Republic of
Serbia

Existing legislation
E-8. Significance of drafting a Construction Site Organization
of the Republic of
Design
Serbia

Based on the
E-9. Significance of drafting Procedures for Work at Height
analysis of the
with measures to be taken when performing work at height
injury reports

E-10. Importance of conducting investigations into OHS events,

i.e. finding causes of work-related incidents/accidents in [35,36,38,44–46]
order to take necessary measures

E-11. Continuous improvement of workers through a permanent

system of education and training in safety at work, raising
[29,35–38,44–50]
awareness and working to improve OHS knowledge and
culture

E-12. Importance of testing workers who have undergone OHS

training in order to evaluate their understanding of the [29]
training they have completed

E-13. Importance of training workers to provide first aid, the

extent to which the worker's ability to provide first aid is [36–
useful if an injury at work occurs, their impact on reducing 38,44,45,48,49]
the consequences
 E-14. Importance of training workers how to visually inspect Based on the
mechanization in terms of OHS before performing work analysis of the
activities injury reports

E-15. Significance of a yearly medical examination of workers

by an independent body, regardless of whether the work
[38]
position is assessed in the Risk Assessment Act as a work
position with an increased risk in terms of OHS

E-16. Importance of operatives work experience in OHS [37 –39,44–46,51]

and based on the
analysis of the
E-17. Significance of adequate education and skill set
injury reports

E-18. Importance of budgeting specifically for OHS and

[47]
investments in OHS

E-19. Role of the enterprise director/owner in terms of OHS,

commitment of the ownership structure to the improvement [37,47]
of safety

E-20. Importance of forming a single database with all

accident/injury-related data in one place, possibility of e- [52,53]
reporting of accidents/injuries and monitoring of LTIF

Table 2. Construction site-related factors and sources in literature (CS)

B. Construction site-related factors Relative researches

CS-1. Importance of holding toolbox talks about OHS – talks are

held every morning just before the start of work activities,
duration of morning meetings is not limited; however, it is
[37,38,44–48,51,54]
not recommended that they last less than 10 minutes. The
discussion topics of the morning meetings are safety,
potential problems/risks and the order of work activities.
CS-2. Importance of holding operational OHS meetings. They are
held periodically during work activities. They take place at
least once a week and summarize the activities performed up
till then, potential issues from the aspect of OHS are
discussed, examples of good and bad practices from the
previous periods are pointed out.

CS-3. Importance of holding meetings after the occurrence of

work-related accidents/injuries, introduction of new
technologies, damage to the means of work used (equipment,
installations, mechanization and work tools). They are held to
familiarize workers with the way new technologies are used
and the potential problems of new technologies. Meetings
held after the occurrence of work-related accidents have been
recognized as a good practice. The aim of these meetings is
the analysis of possible causes, issuance of additional
warnings, pointing out potential risks, all in order to prevent
their recurrence.

CS-4. Significance/impact of work dynamics at construction sites [29,35,55]

on OHS. Short deadlines and increased volume of work have
a negative effect on the planning of work activities and on
OHS.

CS-5. Significance of everyday and all-day presence of [29] and existing

authorized persons for OHS (OHS engineer) on the legislation of the
construction site during the execution of works Republic of Serbia

CS-6. Importance of the responsible contractor‘s presence at the Existing legislation of

construction site from the aspect of OHS the Republic of Serbia

CS-7. Importance of communication between the Brigadier, the [53]

OHS engineer and workers regarding health and safety at the
construction site
CS-8. Significance of permanent presence of the Coordinator of Existing legislation of
work execution while works are being performed at the the Republic of Serbia
construction site

CS-9. Importance of construction site workers’ knowledge of [28]

OHS policy, the impact on worker awareness, improvement
of safety levels

CS-10. Significance of being familiar with the Procedure

for the Prevention of Alcohol Use at the construction site for
OHS and adhering to it

CS-11. Importance of conducting Risk Assessments just

before performing work activities in order to reduce the [30–34]
possibility of accident/injury occurrence

CS-12. Importance of being familiar with the Instructions

for Safety at Work to reduce work-related accidents/injuries
and following the instructions

CS-13. Significance of drafting a Risk Assessment Act for [28,36–43]

each construction site separately

CS-14. Importance of construction site workers being [29] and existing

familiar with the Construction Site Arrangement Plan/Design legislation of the
and the Plan of Preventive Measures, the impact on the Republic of Serbia
reduction of work-related injuries

CS-15. Importance of the inspection of means of work Existing legislation of

(equipment, installations, mechanization and work tools) by the Republic of Serbia
authorized institutions and issuance of expert findings, the
extent to which the existence of expert findings guarantees
safety and good working order of equipment, tools,
installations, etc.
 CS-16. Importance of being familiar with the Work at Based on the analysis
Height Procedure to reduce accidents/injuries caused by of the injury report
working at height and adhering to it

CS-17. Importance of issuing a work permit before the start [56]

of any work activity that is assessed as high-risk activity

CS-18. Significance of internal audits/checks performed by

workers, stopping unsafe work activities through the system
of reporting unsafe work activities

CS-19. Importance of visual inspection of equipment

before the start of work activities, by workers [28,36,44,46,48,54]
and based on the
CS-20. Importance of visual inspection of machinery
analysis of the injury
before the start of work activities, by workers
reports
CS-21. Significance of visual inspection of tools used in
the work process before the start of work activity, by workers

CS-22. Importance of daily visual inspection of personal

protective equipment before performing work activities

Existing legislation of
the Republic of
CS-23. Significance of regular construction site audits by
Serbia; Based on the
labor inspectors, advisory role of the inspectorate
analysis of the injury
reports

[37] and based on the

CS-24. Importance of using personal protective equipment analysis of the injury
reports

2.3 Model development

The Delphi method was chosen as a methodology for quantifying factors. The method
involves engaging a group of experts who, through a series of rounds of answering the
questionnaires, successively reach consensus, in this case, on the significance of the
individual factors shown in Tables 1 and 2. Experts are tasked with expressing their
professional opinion on each individual factor. They have an option to exclude factors
or add completely new ones, as well as to determine the significance of the remaining
factors. It is clear that the quality of the Delphi method depends entirely on the
knowledge and expertise of the experts as well as on the number of experts participating
in the research.

There is no exact mechanism for identifying the number of experts or the number of
panels to include in any individual research [57]. The size of the panel is proposed to be
determined depending on the topics covered, the time and funds available, and diverse
opinions of the experts involved [58]. Creswell [59] believes that it is vital to adequately
form a team to participate in the research, i.e. to form a panel of experts. Depending on
the research method, a well-defined group of individuals who excel in a specific field of
expertise can be formed or select participants who can help discover new ideas related
to a specific area. Twelve experts participated in the research concerning OHS in the
construction industry which was conducted by Rajendran and Gambatese [60] while
eight experts were involved in similar research of OHS in the construction industry
implemented by Hallowell and Gambatese [10]. In the OHS research of the
manufacturing industry conducted by Velkovski [61] 32 experts were involved.

This research involved 20 panelists with OHS experience in the construction industry.
The qualification questionnaire was sent to 27 potential panelists, four of whom failed
to respond and three failed to meet the elimination criteria shown in Table 3.

Table 3. Mandatory criteria for the selection of experts

Description Literature

Education: Possesses degree in Technical or

[29]
Technological Engineering

Experience: At least five years of experience in OHS [29,62,63]

In addition to the two aforementioned mandatory criteria, the experts had to satisfy two
of five additional, i.e. optional criteria in order to be selected to participate in the
research.

Additional criteria for the selection of experts in this research were: (1) publication of
papers in the field of OHS, (2) participation in forums, workshops, conferences, etc.
[29,62], (3) license requirements [29,61], (4) the panelist is an expert lecturer or a
professor in the field of OHS in the construction industry, (5) member of a health and
safety related organization.

In this research it was defined that the expert must have at least three publications and
that he or she had participated in at least three forums, conferences, workshops, etc.
Moreover, the expert must have at least one license in the field of OHS.

The professor in the field of occupational health and safety must have at least 10 OHS
trainings [60] or be a subject teacher/lecturer in the field of OHS in the construction
industry.

The expert must be a member of at least one health and safety related organization
[29,63].

This research involved 15% female participants and 85% male participants who were
more dominant in the research. The panelists had an average age of 46.25, with the
oldest panelist being 65 and the youngest being 30 years of age.

All 100% of the experts fulfilled the first criterion-every panelist possesses a Bachelor’s
degree in Technical or Technological Engineering while 15% of them have completed
Doctoral studies in addition to Bachelor and Master’s studies.

Likewise, all experts (100%) have more than five years of relevant work experience in
OHS. The average work experience of the panelists is 14.75 years with a minimum of 5
and a maximum of 35 years. Thirteen experts (65%) have 10 or more years of work
experience; additionally, six experts from the panel (30%) have more than three
publications.

Six panelists (30%) have more than three publications. The average number of scientific
and expert publications was 27.65 and the total number of panelists’ publications was
553. The average number of books/monographs published was 0.75, while the total
number of books/monographs published by the panelists was 15.

90% of experts participated in at least three, while 80% of them participated in 10 or

more conferences, forums, workshops. The total number of
conferences/forums/workshops attended by the panel of experts is 414, with an average
of 20.70 conferences/workshops.

85% of the panelists hold certificates of completion of the expert exam for occupational
health and safety jobs; the panelists also hold certificates for the following exams: 25%
are accredited internal/external auditors against OHSAS 18001: 2007/ISO 45001:2015,
20% have completed expert exam for coordinator jobs in the works execution phase.
85% of panelists have delivered 10 or more OHS trainings. The total number of OHS
trainings, including legally required training, is 4,523.

25% of the panelists were editors or members of the program board of scientific
conferences in the field of OHS.

Although the main objective of the Delphi methodology is to reach a consensus, there is
still no unique way to determine the consensus. There is a body of research in which
consensus is based on median and interquartile range according to Giannarou et al. [64]
With regard to the research that uses standard deviation or interquartile range for
consensus, standard deviation must be less than 1.5 according to Christie and Barela
[65] while interquartile range must be below 2.5 according to Kittell-Limerick [66].
Oertel [67] applies three criteria: the arithmetic mean is 4 or greater, the mode is 4 or 5,
achieved level of agreement > 60%. Oertel [66] uses the range to calculate the
difference between the highest and the lowest values ranked by factor. This tool is very
useful for determining the level of expert agreement by factor. In a study carried out by
Rajendran [29] the range of 29 factors was very high (>2.0), suggesting a low level of
expert agreement.

In this research, consensus was reached after two iterations, and the conditions were as
follows: variability <30.0, (X) ≥
̅ 4.0 factor is not rejected, variability <30.0, (X) ̅< 4.0
factor is not rejected, variability ≥30.0, (X) ≥
̅ 4.0, factor is not rejected and variability
≥30.0, (X) ̅ < 4.0, factor is rejected.
2.4 Model validation

The model was validated through research and analysis of 15 micro and small
construction enterprises registered in the territory of the Republic of Serbia. Three
variables were considered in order to evaluate the model validation: Independent
variable - Credits obtained by the enterprise using the newly created model, dependent
variable - lost time injury frequency (LTIF) [60]. In addition, this research analyzed the
number of employees as a variable to test whether there is a potential correlation
between the number of employees and the LTIF variable, given the large percentage
differences in the number of employees between micro and small enterprises.

Credits represent the result obtained by the enterprise through the application of the
model, i.e. questionnaire. The application of the model implies that the state of the
enterprise be examined for each factor separately, where for each factor there is a set of
questions on the basis of which points or credits are obtained. An example of a set of
questions is presented in the Appendix to this paper.

LTIF is the frequency of lost time injuries obtained as the ratio of the total number of
lost time injuries and the total number of working hours of all employees for the
observed period and the enterprise observed multiplied by 100,000. This definition was
derived from the Australian Standard 1885.1 - 1990 Standard for recording occupational
injuries and occupational diseases [61].

All three variables were analyzed using summary statistics and regression analysis in
order to determine the correlation between the points/credits the enterprise receives by
applying the model and the LTIF results that the enterprise had in the previous period.

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Round I

The first round questionnaire was sent to 20 experts who agreed to be part of the expert
panel. The questionnaire was structured to contain open-ended questions to give the
experts free reign to identify those health and safety factors they see as important and
rate the factors based on their effectiveness in preventing injuries in micro and small
construction enterprises. The questionnaire consisted of the following question:
Rate each factor based on its effectiveness in preventing injuries in micro and small
construction enterprises. Use a scale of 0–5 as follows: 0 = no impact (should be
excluded), 1 = minimal impact/least effective, 2 = below average, 3 = moderate, 4 =
above average and 5 = large impact/most effective. All 20 panelists participated in the
factor evaluation, a total of 44 factors were evaluated.

Factor E-12 "The importance of testing workers who have undergone OHS training in
order to evaluate their understanding of the training they have completed", whether
understanding of the training can be evaluated by testing the Contractor’s workers and
CS-13 "Significance of drafting a Risk Assessment Act for each construction site
separately" did not reach consensus and were not sent to the second iteration/round.

3.2 Round II

The content of the second round questionnaire was different from the content of the first
round questionnaire. In addition to questions, it also contained the results of the first
round of research. If the expert’s response was outside the quartile of deviations, then
the expert had to justify his/her opinion given in the previous round. Besides, the
experts defined their decision, which may be the same as previously given or different.

After the second round, a consensus between the experts was reached. The Delphi
iterative process took a little over a year. In order to perform the second iteration, 20 out
of 20 (20/20) members of the expert panel participated. All factors released into the
second round met the requirement. 88% of the factors had an arithmetic mean equal to
and greater than 4.00 (Table 4) indicating a high level of agreement by the panel of
experts. Five factors had an arithmetic mean of less than 4.00 in the second iteration.

Table 4. Percentage distribution of factors according to the mean value results

determined by experts

X̅ (3.5-4.0) X̅ (4.0-4.5) X̅ >4.5

11.91% 50.00% 38.09%

Note: X̅ = arithmetic mean.

The standard deviation for 97.6% of factors is less than 1, indicating a high level of
agreement. The interquartile range for 100% of factors is less than 2. The coefficient of
variance for 100% of factors is less than 30. This shows that essentially all the factors
found in Table 5 are highly significant from the aspect of OHS.

3.3 MSE OHS Improvement Model

Using the Delphi method, a model was established with 42 OHS factors organized into
10 groups (Table 5). Each group contains a proper number of OHS factors that contain
Credits based on their impact on OHS within the enterprise, all according to the opinion
of the expert panel. This means that MSE evaluated with a higher rate of Credits will
also have OHS at a higher level compared to enterprises with fewer Credits. It should
be noted here that the goal was not to compare and rank enterprises but to identify
opportunities and define directions for business improvement from the aspect of OHS.

Factors for which experts had a high level of agreement in terms of their significance
and for which they considered that their implementation in enterprises would
significantly improve safety were recognized. They were singled out depending on
whether they belonged to the group of factors related to the enterprise or to the group of
factors related to the construction site.

The mean ratings received during Round II added up to a total of 183.707 credits. This
large number of points is a result of the fact that the estimates of experts for the Delphi
method are based on the Likert scale of five points, from 1 to 5. In Round II, the experts
did not have the opportunity not to evaluate a factor i.e., to evaluate with value 0. For
easier interpretation of the model results and its more efficient application in practice,
the system for rating was normalized for its total value to be 100 credits.

After the second iteration and after reaching a consensus, the number of credits for each
individual factor and for the groups of factors was determined. The mean values of the
factors were obtained applying the 5-point scale, Likert scale using the expression (1):

∑𝑛
𝑖=1 𝑋𝑖
𝑋𝑓 = , (1)
𝑁
 Where Xf = mean value of an individual factor; Xi = value of an individual factor rated
1-5 by the “i-th” expert after the second Delphi iteration ; N = number of panelists
involved in the research

After determining the mean value of factors, the mean values of the groups of factors
were determined using the expression (2). The mean value of a group of factors is the
mean value of all factors belonging to that group.

∑𝑘
𝑗=1 𝑋𝑓𝑗
𝑋𝑔𝑓 = , (2)
𝑘

Xgf = mean value of a group of factors a; Xfj = mean value of factor j in the observed
group; k = number of factors belonging to the observed group of factors.

The number of credits for the groups of factors was determined using the expression
(3):

𝑋𝑔𝑓
𝜔𝑔𝑓 = ∑10
∙ 100 , (3)
𝑧=1 𝑋𝑔𝑓𝑧

𝜔𝑔𝑓 = number of credits for the observed group of factors; Xgf = mean value of a group
of factors; z = number of groups of factors, which is 10.

The number of credits for an individual factor was determined using the expression (4):

𝑋𝑓𝑗
𝜔𝑓 = ∑𝑘
∙ 𝜔𝑔𝑓 , (4)
𝑗=1 𝑋𝑓𝑗

𝜔𝑓 = number of credits for the observed factor; Xfj = mean value of factor j in the
observed group; k = number of factors belonging to the observed group of factors;
𝜔𝑔𝑓 = number of credits for the observed group of factors.

Weight coefficients of a group of factors are at the same time the sum of weight
coefficients of individual factors that belong to the observed group.

Table 5. Safety factors and Credits in micro and small construction enterprises.

Factor Safety factor – Enterprise related factor (E) Credits

1 Documentation - The quality of the form in which the documents are 9.77
made and the importance of their production

E-1 Importance of adopting OHS policy within the enterprise 1.12

E-2 Significance of the adoption of the Procedure for the Prevention of 1.08
Alcohol and Narcotics Use at a construction site

E-3 Importance of adopting international ISO standards and their impact 0.89
on OHS

E-4 Significance of the adoption of Procedures for Risk Assessment just 1.17
before performing the work activity (JSA-Job safety analysis)

E-5 Importance of drafting Instructions for Safe Work, for each work 1.12
activity

E-6 Importance of drafting the Risk Assessment Act on an enterprise 1.08

level

E-7 Importance of drafting a Plan of Preventive Measures 1.00

E-8 Significance of drafting a Construction Site Arrangement 1.14

Plan/Design

E-9 Significance of drafting Procedures for Work at Height with 1.18

measures to be taken when performing work at height

2 OHS event investigation 10.50

E-10 Importance of conducting investigations into OHS events, i.e., 10.50

finding causes of work-related incidents/accidents in order to take
necessary measures

3 Worker/Employee 9.43
E-11 Continuous improvement of workers through a permanent system of 1.66
education and training in safety at work, raising awareness and
working to improve OHS knowledge and culture

E-12 Importance of testing workers who have undergone OHS training in

order to evaluate their understanding of the training they have
completed

E-13 Importance of training workers to provide first aid, the extent to 1.49
which the worker's ability to provide first aid is useful if an injury at
work occurs, their impact on reducing the consequences

E-14 Importance of training workers how to visually inspect mechanization 1.64

in terms of OHS before performing work activities

E-15 Significance of a yearly medical examination of workers by an 1.62

independent body, regardless of whether the workplace/work position
is assessed in the Risk Assessment Act as a workplace/work position
with an increased risk in terms of OHS

E-16 Importance of operatives work experience in OHS 1.54

E-17 Significance of adequate education and skill set 1.49

4 Management / Enterprise leadership 10.50

E-18 Importance of budgeting specifically for OHS and investments in 5.08

OHS

E-19 Role of the enterprise director/owner in terms of OHS, commitment 5.42

of the ownership structure to the improvement of safety

5 Single database with all injury-related data, in all MSEs 9.48

E-20 Importance of forming a single database with all accident/injury- 9.48

related data in one place, the possibility of e-reporting of
accidents/injuries and monitoring of LTIF indicator
Factor Safety factor – Construction site related factor (CS) Credits

1 Organization of work at the construction site 9.94

CS-1 Importance of holding toolbox talks about OHS – talks are held every 2.35
morning just before the start of work activities, duration of morning
meetings is not limited; however, it is not recommended that they last
less than 10 minutes. The discussion topics of the morning meetings
are safety, potential problems/risks and the order of work activities.

CS-2 Importance of holding operational OHS meetings. They are held 2.34
periodically during work activities. They take place at least once a
week and summarize the activities performed up till then, potential
issues are discussed from the aspect of OHS, examples of good and
bad practices from the previous periods are pointed out.

CS-3 Importance of holding meetings after the occurrence of work-related 2.65

accidents/injuries, introduction of new technologies, damage to the
means of work used (equipment, installations, mechanization and
work tools). They are held to familiarize workers with the way new
technologies are used and the potential problems of new technologies.
Meetings held after the occurrence of work-related accidents have
been recognized as a good practice. The aim of these meetings is the
analysis of possible causes, issuance of additional warnings, pointing
out potential risks, all in order to prevent their recurrence.

CS-4 Significance/impact of work dynamics at construction sites on OHS. 2.60

Short deadlines and increased volume of work have a negative effect
on the planning of work activities and on OHS.

2 Leadership 10.05

CS-5 Significance of everyday and all-day presence of authorized persons 2.48

for OHS (OHS engineer) on the construction site during the execution
of works
CS-6 Importance of the responsible contractor‘s presence at the 2.65
construction site from the aspect of OHS

CS-7 Importance of communication between the Brigadier, the OHS 2.60

engineer and workers regarding health and safety at the construction
site

CS-8 Significance of permanent presence of the Coordinator of work 2.31

execution while the works are being performed at the construction
site

3 Documentation - Quality of application of documentation at the 10.17

construction site

CS-9 Importance of construction site workers’ knowledge of OHS policy, 1.11

the impact on worker awareness, improvement of safety levels

CS-10 Significance of being familiar with the Procedure for the Prevention 1.11
of Alcohol Use at the construction site for OHS and adhering to it

CS-11 Importance of conducting Risk Assessments just before performing 1.33

work activities in order to reduce the possibility of accident/injury
occurrence

CS-12 Importance of being familiar with the Instructions for Safety at Work 1.35
to reduce work-related accidents/injuries and following the
instructions

CS-13 Significance of drafting a Risk Assessment Act for each construction

site separately

CS-14 Importance of construction site workers being familiar with the 1.30
Construction Site Arrangement Plan/Design and the Plan of
Preventive Measures, the impact on the reduction of work-related
injuries
CS-15 Importance of the inspection of means of work (equipment, 1.27
installations, mechanization and work tools) by authorized
institutions and issuance of expert findings, the extent to which the
existence of expert findings guarantees safety and good working
order of equipment, tools, installations, etc.

CS-16 Importance of being familiar with the Work at Height Procedure to 1.35
reduce accidents/injuries caused by working at height and adhering to
it

CS-17 Importance of issuing a work permit before the start of any work 1.34
activity that is assessed as high-risk activity

4 Control and supervision 9.56

CS-18 Significance of internal audits/checks performed by workers, 1.60

stopping unsafe work activities through/via the system of reporting
unsafe work activities

CS-19 Importance of visual inspection of equipment before the start of work 1.60
activities, by workers

CS-20 Importance of visual inspection of machinery before the start of work 1.67
activities, by workers

CS-21 Significance of visual inspection of tools used in the work process 1.58
before the start of work activity, by workers

CS-22 Importance of daily visual inspection of personal protective 1.54

equipment before performing work activities

CS-23 Significance of regular construction site audits by labor inspectors, 1.56

advisory role of the inspectorate

5 Protective equipment 10.61

CS-24 Importance of using personal protective equipment 10.61

Within the group of factors related to the enterprise strong consensus was reached on:
(1) E–19 Role of the enterprise director/owner in terms of OHS, commitment of the
ownership structure to the improvement of safety, (2) E–18 Importance of budgeting
specifically for OHS and investments in OHS, (3) E–20 Importance of forming a single
database with all accident/injury related data in one place, possibility of e-reporting of
accidents/injuries and monitoring of LTIF indicator, (4) E–10 Importance of conducting
investigations into OHS events, i.e. finding causes of work-related incidents/accidents
in order to take necessary measures.

Within the group of factors related to construction sites strong consensus was reached
on: (1) CS-16 Importance of being familiar with the Work at Height Procedure to
reduce accidents/injuries caused by working at height and adhering to it, (2) CS-24
Importance of using personal protective equipment, (3) CS-6 Importance of the
responsible contractor‘s presence at the construction site from the aspect of OHS, (4)
CS-12 Importance of being familiar with the Instructions for Safety at Work to reduce
work-related accidents/injuries and following the instructions, (5) CS-11 Importance of
conducting Risk Assessments just before performing work activities in order to reduce
the possibility of accident/injury occurrence, (6) CS-17 Importance of issuing a work
permit before the start of any work activity that is assessed as high risk activity, (7) CS-
3 Importance of holding meetings after the occurrence of work-related
accidents/injuries, introduction of new technologies, damage to the means of work used
(equipment, installations, mechanization and work tools), (8) CS-4 Significance/impact
of work dynamics at construction sites on OHS. Short deadlines and increased volume
of work have a negative effect on the planning of work activities and on OHS.

The expert panel had the hardest time agreeing on the E-3 Importance of adopting
international ISO standards and their impact on OHS in MSEs in the construction
industry. They were of the opinion that there are no clearly visible effects, i.e. that the
adoption of ISO standards as a document does not imply a high level of implementation
of the standards themselves in practice. When it comes to factors related to the
construction site, the most difficult consensus was reached for the factor "Significance
and application of OHS policy on the construction site". As the main reason, the experts
recognized that the OHS policy as a document is not fully implemented in practice, and
their opinion is that knowledge of the policy content will not greatly increase safety on
the construction site. It should be emphasized that the documents from both factors are
very important for each individual construction site and enterprise; however, in
comparison to other factors, they are recognized as factors with the least significant
impact on safety.

From the group of factors related to the enterprise the consensus was easiest to reach for
the factor E-19 Role of the enterprise director/owner in terms of OHS, commitment of
the ownership structure to the improvement of safety as well as E-18 Importance of
budgeting specifically for OHS and investments in OHS. That is, the expert panel
recognized that the director/owner has the greatest impact on OHS in micro and small
construction enterprises and that the commitment of the ownership structure to safety is
of great importance. Regular meetings to discuss safety, drafting Action Plans with
defined deadlines as well as defining a budget to invest in the OHS are considered very
important from a safety perspective.

The factor for which it was easiest to reach a consensus from the group of factors
related to the construction site is CS-16 Importance of being familiar with the Work at
Height Procedure to reduce injuries/accidents caused by working at height and adhering
to it. Experts agreed that it is very important to know and apply procedures for safe
work at height. According to our own research which was conducted for a period of five
years in the territory of the Republic of Serbia (2013-2017) in micro and small
enterprises, 50% of serious and fatal injuries occurred as a result of a fall. Further,
Nawaz et al. [68] recognize falling from a height as the most common way of injury.
These researches only confirm how important it is to implement and apply in practice
the safety procedures/protocols related to work at height.

Likewise, the expert panel easily established the importance and reached a consensus
for the factor CS-24 The importance of using personal protective equipment. The
importance of this factor is additionally confirmed by the fact that not wearing or
wearing inadequate personal protective equipment is the most dominant indirect cause
(20%) of work-related injuries/accidents in micro and small construction enterprises,
according to our own research (2013-2017).

3.4 Model Validation

As already mentioned, the initial validation of the model was performed by analysis of
work processes and analysis of work-related injuries within 15 construction MSEs.
During the validation, it was confirmed that enterprises do not monitor reactive
indicators such as LTIF at all. Also, it was determined that the OHS event investigation
(work-related incidents/accidents) system does not work because there are no teams
appointed to conduct investigations. 80% of enterprises do not have a system in place to
investigate OHS events by going through the documentation. It was also determined
that there is no specific budget for OHS in micro and small construction enterprises.
There are no special trainings for workers which are based on specific Instructions for
Safe Work, nor are there special trainings that refer exclusively to the Construction Site
Arrangement Design or the Plan of Preventive Measures.

On the positive side, during the validation process it was recognized that all enterprises
conduct the Introductory General OHS Training and Retraining for their workers at
least once a year and in accordance with the existing legislation have at least 2% of
workers trained in providing first aid. Enterprises keep prominent Instructions for Safe
Work at the construction site in visible places. More than that, the equipment that had
been inspected by an authorized agency was never defective in terms of safety.
Inspections and monitoring by workers are regularly conducted at construction sites.

Model validation was performed as follows. Applications for participation in the

research were sent to 25 construction MSEs. A positive response to the research
application was provided by 15 MSEs. Audits for these 15 enterprises were organized.
During audits a questionnaire was filled out with a set of questions for each model
factor. An example of the questionnaire for one of the factors is provided in the
Appendix to this paper. The answers to the questions were provided by the director or
owner of the enterprise. Based on the completed questionnaires, Credit amounts were
formed for each enterprise. Further, data on injuries as well as the number of employees
were collected in order to determine the value of LTIF for each enterprise individually.
The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6 shows that the standard deviation that measures the degree of variation around
the mean is large in the case of the variable LTIF. This is the result of a large number of
high values of this variable.

Table 6. Mean, standard deviation and correlation matrix

 Correlation Matrix

Variable Mean Standard Deviation Credits Employees

LTIF 4.79 4.38 -0.76 -0.75 (.001)

(.001)

Credit (%) 51.84 13.80 0.69 (.005)

Employees 27.93 18.96 1.00

Note: Correlation matrix contains Pearson’s correlation coefficients. The p-value in

parentheses is obtained using Student’s t-distribution to test the null hypothesis that the
true correlation coefficient ρ is equal to 0; LTIF = Lost time injury frequency rate.

Table 6 shows the coefficient of correlation between the three variables. The variables
Credit and Employees are negatively correlated almost to the same degree with the
variable LTIF (-0.76 and -0.75 respectively). Conversely, these two variables are
positively correlated (0.69). All three correlation coefficients are statistically
significantly different from zero. Such result suggests a strong correlation between the
number of Credits and the number of injuries at work, and when the number of Credits
increases, the number of workplace injuries measured as LTIF is expected to drop.

Table 7 shows estimates of this linear regression model (Model 1), where it can be seen
that both the Degree of Freedom and the coefficient with the variable Credit are highly
significant in terms of statistics, while the coefficient of determination is 57%.

On the other hand, the variable Employees proved to be in a high positive correlation
with the variable Credit. If we were to include the variable Employees in the linear
regression model in addition to the variable Credit, we would face a problem of
multicollinearity in the extended regression model. Both independent variables in such a
model are in a high negative correlation with the LTIF variable but have positive
correlation with each other.

As is known, the consequences of high multicollinearity are that it is impossible to

accurately separate the individual influences of independent variables and that
multicollinearity results in high coefficient estimation errors, and thus low values of t-
statistics used to test the significance of regression coefficients. This last consequence
results in a regression model in which factors with a low value of t-statistics, i.e. factors
that are relevant in determining the dependent variable will be excluded from the
specification of the regression model.

This is exactly what was obtained when evaluating the extended regression model,
Model 2, which included both Credit and Employee variables (Table 7). Both regression
coefficients proved not to be significantly different from zero statistically speaking,
although the coefficient of determination increased from 0.57 (Model 1) to 0.67 (Model
2).

Table 7. Regression models (dependent variable: LTIF)

Variable Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

17.22*** 15.15*** 63.91*** 178.77**

Degree of
freedom (3.08) (3.04) (14.17) (55.89)

-0.24** -0.15 -2.14** -9.19*

Credit
(0.06) (0.07) (0.57) (3.38)

-0.10
Worker
(0.05)

0.02** 0.16*
Credit^2
(0.01) (0.07)

-0.0009
Credit^3
(0.0004)

R2 0.57 0.67 0.78 0.84

Corrected
0.54 0.61 0.74 0.80
2
/Adjusted R
 17.37 12.07 21.04 19.53
F-statistics
(1.13)** (2.12)** (2.12)*** (3.11)***

Significance levels: *** p < .001, ** p < .01, * p < .05, ‘.’ p < .1

Note: The standard error of the regression coefficient is given in parentheses

below the coefficient. The numbers of the Degree of freedom of the F-test
are given in parentheses after the value of the F-statistics.

Due to the problem of pronounced multicollinearity, in further considerations the limit

was set to only one independent variable, Credit, testing different nonlinear forms of
dependence of variables LTIF and Credit, Model 3 with quadratic function and Model 4
with cubic function.

The obtained results showed statistically significant values of the coefficients of the
estimated regression models except perhaps the cubic term in the cubic regression
where that coefficient has a p-value of less than 10%. In both models, the values of the
coefficients of determination increased significantly, reaching values of 78% and 84%,
respectively. Based on the results of the F-test, it can be concluded that all coefficients
combined in these two regression models are statistically significantly different from
zero. This statistical result also confirms the hypothesis, which is that with the increase
in the number of Credits, the number of work-related injuries decreases. Figure 1 shows
a positive/good correlation of LTIF and Credit.

Figure 1. Credit and LTIF correlation coefficient (Linear, quadratic and cubic function)

Note: LTIF = Lost time injury frequency rate.

Note: The full colour version of this figure is available online.

4 Conclusions

In this paper, the development and validation of a model for improvement of OHS in
MSEs was described. The model was developed based on a Delphi method survey
which included 20 OHS experts from industry and academia with an experience in the
construction industry. According to the expert panel, 42 factors were defined and
grouped into 10 categories that affect the quality of OHS in MSEs.
A few groups of factors stood out as the most important ones: "Management/Enterprise
leadership", "OHS event investigation", "Protective Equipment" and "Documentation -
Quality of application of documentation at the construction site".

Based on a sample of 15 construction enterprises registered in the territory of the

Republic of Serbia, validation of the model was conducted, confirming the main
research hypotheses (H0, H1 and H2), i.e. showing that it is possible to create a model
that will effectively improve the quality of OHS of micro and small construction
enterprises. The model can be developed using the Delphi method and the analysis of
work-related injuries on construction sites and the value of Credits (obtained by
applying the model) which indicates the quality of OHS of the enterprise negatively
correlates with the number of injuries per unit of total working time LTIF.

The results of the F-test suggest that all three models (linear, square and cubic) confirm
the existence of a negative relationship between the variables LTIF and Credit. In other
words, the conclusion that with the increase in Credit, the number of work-related
injuries decreases is valid regardless of the choice of functional connection (linear,
square or cubic) between the two variables.

On the other hand, the variable Employees, which indicates the number of employees in
the enterprise, showed a high positive correlation with the variable Credit. That further
confirmed the previously presented research, which is that OHS is in function of the
size of the enterprise.

Future research should be focused on increasing the number of enterprises whereby a

special project for the implementation of the model is to be set up, with monitoring of
all parameters on a quarterly and annual basis. Furthermore, it is necessary to include
workers in the research in terms of improving the model for parameters that directly
affect the impact of workers on the part of the business that the observed parameter
covers.

Appendix Rating System Example - Credit Allocation Methodology

Factor Credits (C)

OHS event investigation Cmax = 10.50

 Yes=1; No=0

Yes
1. Do you have an established system for investigating events
(injuries, equipment failures ...)?
No

Yes
2. Do you conduct an investigation after each OHS event?
No

Yes
3. Has a team of investigators been formed to conduct
investigations?
No

Credits accumulated X

Maximum number of Credits that can be accumulated 3

Realization in percentage % P = X/3 * 100%

Total number of Credits accumulated C = P * 10.50

Note: C = credits; Cmax = maximum number of credits; OHS = occupational health and
safety; X = credits accumulated; P = realization in percentage %

Acknowledgements

This research has been supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and
Technological Development through the project no. 451-03-68/2020-14/200156:
“Innovative scientific and artistic research from the FTS domain”

This research could not have been realized without strong support of the Labour
Inspectorate of the Republic of Serbia. This support is gratefully acknowledged.

References
[1] European Commission Senior Labour Inspectors’ Committee. Facts: Accident

Prevention in the Construction Sector. Belgium:European Agency for Safety and Health

at Work; 2003.
[2] Abdelhamid TS, Everett JG. Identifying root causes of construction accidents. J

Constr Eng M.2000;126(1):52-60. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-

9364(2000)126:1(52)

[3] Hinze JW. Construction safety. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall

Inc.;1997.

[4] Choudhry RM, Fang DP, Mohamed S. Safety management in construction: Best

practice in Hong Kong.J Prof Iss Eng Ed Pr.2008;134(1):20-32.

[5]Ahmed SM, Kwan JC, Ming FYW, et al. Site safety management in Hong Kong. J

Manage Eng.2000;16(6):34-42. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0742-

597X(2000)16:6(34)

[6] Mendeloff J, Nelson C, Ko K. Small Business and Workplace Fatality Risk: An

Exploratory Analysis. Monica, California: RAND Corporation; 2006.

[7] Fabiano B, Curro, F, Pastorino R. A study of the relationship between occupational

injuries and firm size and type in the Italian industry. Saf Sci.2004;42(7):587–600.

[8]Legg SJ, Olsen KB, Laird IS, et. al. Managing safety in small and medium

enterprises. Saf Sci.2015;71:189–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2014.11.007

[9] Sorensen OH, Hasle P, Bach E. Working in small enterprises – Is there a special

risk? Saf Sci.2007;45(10):1044–1059. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2006.09.005

[10]Hallowell RM, Gambatese JA. Activity-Based Safety Risk Quantification for

Concrete Formwork Construction. J Constr Eng M.2009;135(10):990-

998.https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000071

[11] Mohammadi A, Tavakolan M, Khosravi Y. Factors influencing safety performance

on construction projects: A review. Saf Sci. 2018;109:382-397.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2018.06.017
[12] Mohamed S. Empirical investigation of construction safety management activities

and performance in Australia. Saf Sci.1999;33:129-142.

[13] Farooqui RU, Ahmed SM, Lodi SH. Assessment of Pakistani construction

industry-current performance and the way forward. J Adv Perform Inf

Value.2008;1(1):51-72.

[14] Choudhry RM, Rowlinson S, Fang DP. Safety management - Rules, regulations

and their implementation in developing countries. Proceedings of CIB W99

International Conference on Global Unity for Safety and Health in Construction; 2006

Jun 28-30; Beijing,China: p. 482-493.

[15] Baig MM. Safety assessment of industrial construction projects in Saudi Arabia

[dissertation]. Dhahran, Saudi Arabia: King Fahd University;2001.

[16] Zahoor H, Chan APC, Arain F, et. al. An Analytical Review of Occupational

Safety Research in Pakistan. Int J Constr Manag. 2016:8(2):126-127.

[17] Raheem AA, Hinze JW. Reasons for the poor implementation of worker safety in

the construction industry of Pakistan: A contractor’s prospective. In: Tjandra IK, Ofori

G, Ai-Lin Teo E, editors. Proceedings of CIB W099 International Conference

“Modelling and Building Health and Safety”; 2012Sep 10-11; Singapore, Singapore:

International Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction;

National University of Singapore; 2012. p. 54-63.

[18] Raheem AA, Hinze JW. Understanding the safety culture of construction

companies in Pakistan by analyzing safety policy manuals. In: Choundry RM, Azhar S,

Hinze JW, Ud-Din Z, editors. Proceedings of International Conference on Safety,

Construction Engineering and Project Management, Issues, Challenges and

Opportunities in Developing Countries; 2013 Aug 19-21; Islamabad, Pakistan: 2013. p.

66-71.
[19] Jafri SF. Safety and security policies, pre and planned construction phase.

Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Construction in Developing Countries,

Advancing Civil, Architectural and Construction Engineering and Management; 2012

Jul 4-6; Bangkok, Thailand:2012. p. 288-294.

[20] Masood R, Farooqui RU, Choudhry RM, et. al. Analyzing health and safety (H&S)

policy to evaluate top management commitment level. In: Tjandra IK, Ofori G, Ai-Lin

Teo E, editors. Proceedings of CIB W099 International Conference “Modelling and

Building Health and Safety”; 2012 Sep 10-11; Singapore, Singapore: International

Council for Research and Innovation in Building and Construction; National University

of Singapore; 2012. p. 721-731.

[21] Mohamed S, Ali TH. Safety behaviour in the construction industry in Pakistan.

Proceedings of 47th Triennial International Conference, Rethinking and Revitalizing

Construction Safety, Health, Environment and Quality; 2005 May 17-20;Porth

Elizabeth, South Africa: 2005. p. 64-74.

[22] Qazi AU, Ye L, Choudhry RM. Demand and awareness of construction safety

practices in Pakistan. In: Fang D, Choundry RM, Hinze JW, editors. Proceedings of

CIB W099 International Conference on “Global Unity for Safety and Health in

Construction”; 2006 Jun 28-30;Beijing, China: Tsinghua University Press; 2006. p.

470-475.

[23] Lamm F. Small businesses and OH&S advisors. Saf Sci. 1997;25(13):153–161.

[24] Antonsson AB. Small companies. In: Brune D, editor. The Workplace. (vol. 2).

International Labour Office; 1997. p. 466–477.

[25] Gardner D, Carlopio J, Fonteyn PN, et. al. Mechanical equipment injuries in small

manufacturing businesses. Knowledge, behavioural, and management issues. Int J

Occup Saf Ergon.1999;5(1):59–71.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10803548.1999.11076411

[26] Micheli G, Cagno E. Dealing with SMEs as a whole in OHS issues: warnings from

empirical evidence. Saf Sci. 2010;48(6):729–

733.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2010.02.010

[27] Hasle P, Limborg HJ. A review of the literature on preventive occupational health

and safety activities in small enterprises. Ind Health, 2006;44(1):6–12.

[28] Obolewicz J, Dabrowski A. An application of the Pareto method in surveys to

diagnose managers’ and workers’ perception of occupational safety and health on

selected Polish construction sites. Int J Occup Saf Ergon. 2018;24(3):406–421.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10803548.2017.1375781

[29] Rajendran S. Sustainable construction safety and health rating system

[dissertation].Corvallis (OR): Oregon State University; 2006.

[30] Tam CM, Fung IWH. Effectiveness of safety management strategies on safety

performance in Hong Kong. Constr Manage Econ.1998;16(1):49–55.

https://doi.org/10.1080/014461998372583

[31] Poon WF, Ma CH, Ho KL. Statistical analysis on factors in reducing construction

site accident frequency rate in Hong Kong. Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference

of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Occupational Health and Safety

Educators;2000. p.341–355.

[32] Goldenhar LM, Moran SK, Colligan M. Health and safety training in a sample of

open-shop construction companies. J Saf Res., 2001;32(2):237–252.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4375(01)00045-7

[33] Hinze J, Gambatese J. Factors that influence safety performance of specialty

contractors. J Constr Eng M. 2003;129(2):159–

164.https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2003)129:2(159)
[34] Findley M, Smith SM, Kress T, et. al. Safety program elements in construction:

which ones best prevent injuries and control related workers’ compensation costs?. Prof

Saf.2004;49(2):14–21.

[35] Hinze J, Mathis J, Frey PD, et. al. Making Zero Accidents a Reality. Proceedings

of Annual Conference of the Construction Industry Institute; 2001 Aug 8; San

Francisco, CA: Construction Industry Institute; 2001.

[36] Yu QZ, Ding LY, Zhou C, et. al. Analysis of factors influencing safety

management for metro construction in China. Accid Anal Prev.2014;68:131-138.

DOI:10.1016/j.aap.2013.07.016

[37] Sawacha E, Naoum S, Fong D. Factors affecting safety performance on

construction sites. Int J Proj Manag.1999;17(5):309-315.

[38] Ismail Z, Doostdar S, Harun Z. Factors influencing the implementation of a safety

management system for construction sites. Saf Sci.2012;50(3):418-423.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.10.001

[39] Haslam RA, Hide SA, Gibb AGF, et. al. Contributing factors in construction

accidents. Appl Ergon. 2005;36(4):401-415.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2004.12.002

[40] Perlman A, Sacks R, Barak R. Hazard recognition and risk perception in

construction. Saf Sci.2014 Apr;64:13-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2013.11.019

[41] Zou PXW, Zhang G. Comparative study on the perception of construction safety

risks in China and Australia. J Construct Eng Manag.2009;135(7):620-627. DOI:

10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000019

[42] MacDonald G. Risk perception and construction safety. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. – Civ.

Eng., 2006 Nov;159(6):51-56. https://doi.org/10.1680/cien.2006.159.6.51

[43] Hallowell RM. Safety risk perception in construction companies in the Pacific

Northwest of the USA. Construct Manag Econ.2010,28(4):403-413.

https://doi.org/10.1080/01446191003587752

[44] Hallowell RM. Safety-knowledge management in American construction

organizations. ASCE J Manag Eng.2012;28(2):203-211.

https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)ME.1943-5479.0000067

[45] Pinto Nunes IL, Ribeiro RA. Occupational risk assessment in construction industry

- overview and reflection. Saf Sci. 2011;49(5):616-

624https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.01.003

[46] Aksorn T, Hadikusumo BHW. Critical success factors influencing safety program

performance in Thai construction projects. Saf Sci.2008;46(4):709-727.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.006

[47] Tam CM, Zeng SX, Deng ZM. Identifying elements of poor construction safety in

China. Saf Sci. 2004;42(7):569−586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2003.09.001

[48] SunY, Fang D, Wang S, et. al. Safety risk identification and assessment for Beijing

olympic venues construction. ASCE J Manage Eng.2008;24(1):40-47. DOI:

10.1061/(ASCE)0742-597X(2008)24:1(40)

[49] Abudayyeh O, Fredericks TK., Butt SE, et. al. An investigation of management's

commitment to construction safety. Int J Proj Manag.2006;24(2):167-

174.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2005.07.005

[50] Awwad R, El Souki O, Jabbour M. Construction safety practices and challenges in

a middleeastern developing country. Saf Sci. 2016 Mar;83:1–

11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2015.10.016
[51] Al Haadir S, Panuwatwanich K. Critical success factors for safety program

implementation among construction companies in Saudi Arabia. Prod Eng.2011;14:148-

155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2011.07.017

[52] Kartam NA, Flood I, Koushki P. Construction safety in Kuwait: issues,

procedureds, problems, and recommendation.Saf Sci.2000;36(3):163-184.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(00)00041-2

[53] Mucenski V. Model semikvantitativne procene rizika zaštite na radu za procese

izgradnje [Model of semi-quantitative risk assessment for safety at work in building

processes][dissertation]. Novi Sad (SER):University of Novi Sad; 2013.[Serbian]

[54] Fang DP, Xie F, Huang XY, et. al. Factor analysis-based studies on construction

workplace safety management in China. Int J Proj Manag. 2004;22(1):43-49.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(02)00115-1

[55] Champoux D, Brun JP. Occupational health and safety management in small size

enterprises: an overview of the situation and avenues for intervention and research. Saf

Sci.2003;41(4):301–318. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0925-7535(02)00043-7

[56] Levitt RE, Samelson NM. Construction Safety Management.New York (NY):

Wiley; 1993.

[57] Williams PL, Webb C. The Delphi technique: a methodological discussion, J Adv

Nurs. 1994;19(1):180-186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.1994.tb01066.x

[58] Van Zolingen SJ, Klaassen CA. Selection processes in a Delphi study about key

qualifications in Senior Secondary Vocational Education, Technol Forecas Soc

Change.2003;70(4):317-340. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0040-1625(02)00202-0

[59] Creswell JW. Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative

research. Lincoln (NE): University of Nebraska-Lincoln;

2012.http://basu.nahad.ir/uploads/creswell.pdf
[60] Rajendran S, Gambatese JA. Development and Initial Validation of Sustainable

Construction Safety and Health Rating System. J Constr Eng M. 2009;135(10):1067-

1075.

[61] Velkovski T. Референтен модел за рангирање на нивото на имплементација на

системите за безбедност и здравје при работа [Reference rating rodel for the level of

implementation of the occupational safety and health systems][dissertation]. Skopje

(MKD): University Ss Cyril and Methodius in Skopje; 2019. [Macedonian]

[62] Veltri AT. Expected use of management principles for safety function management

[dissertation].Morgantown (WV): West Virginia University; 1985.

[63] Rogers MR, Lopez EC.Identifying critical cross-cultural school psychology

competencies. J Sch Psychol. 2002;40(2):115-141. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-

4405(02)00093-6

[64] Giannarou L, Zervas E. Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. Int J

Bus Sci Appl Manag.2014;9(2):66-67.

[65] Christie CA, Barela E. The Delphi technique as a method for increasing inclusion

in the evaluation process. Can J Program Eval.2005;20(1):105-122.

[66] Kittell-Limerick P. Perceived barriers to completion of the academic doctorate: A

Delphi study. Commerce (TE): Texas A&M University-Commerce; 2005

[67] Oertel BJ. Identifying the essential characteristics of curricular learning

communities in higher education: a delphi study [dissertation].Minneapolis (MN):

University of Minnesota; 2001.

[68] Nawaz T, Ishaq A, Ikram AA. Trends of safety performance in construction and

civil engineering projects in Pakistan. Civ Environ Res.2013;3(5):23-40.