Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Critical success factors influencing safety

program performance in Thai construction projects
Thanet Aksorn *, B.H.W. Hadikusumo
Construction Engineering and Infrastructure Management, School of Civil Engineering,
Asian Institute of Technology, Pathumthani, Thailand

Abstract

It is well known that construction projects have many work-related accidents and injuries. In
recent year, to overcome such safety problems, safety program implementation has been given sig-
nificant consideration as one of the effective methods. In order to effectively gain from safety pro-
grams, factors that affect its implementation need to be studied. This paper identified 16 critical
success factors (CSFs) of safety programs from safety literature and previous research and these were
thereafter validated by construction safety professionals. The study was conducted through ques-
tionnaire surveys with 80 respondents from medium and large-scale construction projects taking
part. The survey intended to assess and prioritize the degree of influence of those success factors have
on the safety programs as perceived by the respondents. The result showed that the most influential
factor is management support. Furthermore, using factor analysis, the 16 CSFs could be grouped
into four dimensions: worker involvement, safety prevention and control system, safety arrange-
ment, and management commitment. In order to validate the findings, three case studies were further
conducted to test the effect of those success factors on construction safety performance.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Critical success factor; Safety programs; Occupational safety and health; Construction; Employee
involvement; Management commitment

*
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: st100549@ait.ac.th (T. Aksorn).

0925-7535/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.006
710 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

1. Introduction

In recent years, Thailand’s economy and infrastructure development have significantly

and rapidly risen. The construction industry continues to play a major role in this devel-
opment as many construction activities have been carried out to meet the high demands of
the expansive market. However, the construction industry has faced a wide range of chal-
lenges, one of which is the frequent occurrences of accidents at the workplace. The risk of
a fatal accident in the construction industry is five times more likely than in other indus-
tries (Sorock et al., 1993; Sawacha et al., 1999). Safety programs, a proactive approach,
are one of best ways in improving site safety performance (Hislop, 1991; Tam et al.,
2004). An effective safety program can substantially reduce accidents because it can help
management to build up safer means of operations and create safe working environments
for the workers (Anton, 1989; Abdelhamid and Everett, 2000; Rowlinson, 2003). Further-
more, by having an effective safety programs, good safety culture can be embedded in
organization because it can encourage mutual cooperation between management and
workers in the operations of the programs and decisions that effect their safety and health.
The challenge of how to successfully put written safety programs into actual actions has
gained considerable attention in the modern workplace. More than preventing injury to
workers, successful safety programs can minimize damage to equipment and tools, loss
of market competition, project delays, and damage to company image or reputation
(Top, 1991; Michaud, 1995; Findley et al., 2004).
Although the linkage between safety programs and the actual state of safety has been
studied extensively, minimal effort has been made to investigate factors contributing to
successful implementation of such safety programs at construction sites (Meridian
Research, 1994; Tam et al., 2001; Sawacha et al., 1999; Findley et al., 2004). In this regard,
it is crucial to discover specific factors that are significantly important towards building
successful safety programs leading to satisfactory outcomes. Some studies (e.g. Stranks,
2000; Rue and Byars, 2001; Rowlinson, 2003; Tam et al., 2004, Abudayyeh et al., 2006)
have identified several factors contributing to successful safety programs such as worker
involvement, management commitment, sufficient resource allocation and teamwork.
However, most of them are descriptive reviews which focused on describing success stories
of such factors on safety performance (Findley et al., 2004). These studies lacked detailed
quantitative analysis and failed to prioritize the importance of those success factors. In
addition, many factors needed to be grouped so that few and essential CSFs representing
a wide variety of issues can be revealed. Therefore, this paper aims at identifying and
quantitatively prioritizing the factors contributing to the successful implementation of
construction safety programs based upon the respondents’ perceptions and grouping the
factors into lesser dimensions by using factor analysis.

2. Construction site safety in Thailand

Following the financial crisis of 1997, Thailand has been making significant steps
towards economic and infrastructure development and has thus become one of the newly
industrialized countries. The vast domestic and foreign direct investments have been chan-
neled towards construction works. Conversely, construction has been labeled by the gen-
eral public as the most hazardous industry. International Labour Organization (2000)
and Social Security Office (2005) pointed out that the expansion of Thailand’s construction
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 711

activities has caused continuing increase in the reported number of accidents. In Thailand,
the labour force is defined by the Labour Act B.E. 2541 as persons whose age lies between
15 and 59 years. Approximately, the total employed workforce is 34.5 million persons. The
construction industry’s share of the total workforce is about 1.4 million workers or 8% of
the total. According to the statistics of deaths and injuries in all industries recorded by Min-
istry of Labour (International Labour Organization, 2005), the rate of accidents and fatal-
ities in Thai construction is reported as the highest. In 2003, the construction industry
accounted for 14% of the total number of 787 deaths at work, and 24% of the total 17 cases
of permanent disability. Additionally, Ministry of Labour revealed that construction work-
ers are five times more likely to suffer permanent disability than workers in other industries.
Safety programs are now a key to eliminating work-related accidents and injuries. The
Thai Government has taken significant steps in improving safety in the construction indus-
try by promoting the establishment of safety programs at the enterprise level. Consequently,
the Department of Labour Protection and Welfare launched the sustainable promotion plan
through the facilitation of training and guidance for construction organizations, and
enforcement of the basic elements of safety programs as stated by legislation. Yet, the acci-
dent occurrence rate in the construction industry still remains at unacceptable levels. Sirirut-
tanapruk and Anuntakulnathi (2004) pointed out that the poor levels of safety in the Thai
construction industry are primarily due to inadequate implementation of safety programs
and weak enforcement of legislation. Therefore, it is worthwhile to conduct a research
focused on investigating the key factors influencing the success of safety programs. The find-
ings therefore can be used as a guideline by construction sites to achieve successful outcomes.

3. Construction safety programs

Several meanings of safety programs were defined by various researchers and most of
them have similar inferences. Anton (1989) defined a safety program as ‘‘the control of
the working environment, equipment, processes, and the workers for the purpose of reduc-
ing accidental injuries and losses in the workplace.’’ Similarly, Oregon Occupational
Safety and Health Division (2002) described a ‘‘workplace safety and health program’’
as ‘‘a term that describes what people (business owners, managers, and employees) do
to control injuries and illnesses at their workplace.’’ Rowlinson (2003) identified the objec-
tives of creating a safety program at construction sites as a means to prevent improper
behavior that may lead to accidents, to ensure that problems are detected and reported,
and to ensure that accidents are reported and handled accordingly. Based on previous
studies (Tam and Fung, 1998; Poon et al., 2000; Goldenhar et al., 2001; Hinze and Gam-
batese, 2003; Findley et al., 2004), some effective safety programs were identified as fol-
lows: comprehensive safety policies, safety committees, safety inductions, safety
trainings, jobsite inspections, accident investigations, first aid programs, in-house safety
rules, safety incentives schemes, control of subcontractors, selection of employees, per-
sonal protection programs, emergency preparedness planning, safety related promotions,
safety auditing, safety record keeping, and job hazard analysis.

4. Factors affecting safety program implementation

Within the business context, the idea of identifying factors affecting the success of busi-
ness-related activities and projects, often called critical success factors (CSFs), has existed
712 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

for considerable time since initially popularized by Rockart (1979). The CSFs can be
defined as ‘‘areas in which results, if they are satisfactory, will ensure success within and
of the organization’’ (Rockart, 1979). According to Rungasamy et al. (2002), CSFs are
essential to the success of any program, in the sense that, if objectives associated with
the factors are not achieved, the program will perhaps fail catastrophically. In general,
the success of safety programs arises from desired events or activities that are required
to be happen. According to Top (1991) and Michaud (1995), a successful safety program
can be measured in terms of no injury to people, no damage to equipment, machines and
tools, no damage to environment, no loss of market competition, no damage to company
image or brand-name, and increased productivities. Based on previous safety researches,
16 factors were commonly proposed as essential to favorable outcomes of safety program
implementation. Table 1 summarizes and discusses the potential factors affecting the suc-
cess of safety programs as sourced from safety literature.

5. Research methodology

5.1. Validity testing of CSFs for safety program implementation

Based on extensive literature review, the authors have gathered 16 potential CSF vari-
ables to be included in the research questionnaire. Prior to including them in the ques-
tionnaire, they were validated using content validity ratio (CVR). This internal
validation was carried out by surveying 40 experts (i.e. construction safety managers,
safety engineers and senior safety officers who are or have been involved in managing
safety in construction projects for at least 10 years) whether or not they were ‘‘1 = essen-
tial’’, ‘‘2 = useful, but not essential’’ or ‘‘3 = not necessary’’ as a CSF for the implemen-
tation of safety programs. The data gathered were then analyzed to obtain the content
validity ratio (CVR) based on the Lawshe’s equation. Lawshe (1975) stated that the
threshold of content validity depends upon the number of panelists. Besides this, Lawshe
provided a minimum CVR value for different sizes of panelists based on a one-tailed test
at a = 0.05 significance level. As a result, with a panel size of 40 respondents, the mini-
mum value of 0.29 CVR was to be considered as acceptable. Consequently, the CSFs, for
which the CVR value is less than 0.29 would not be included in the final questionnaire.
The results of this preliminary study showed that all 16 CSFs had a CVR value greater
than 0.29 as it varied from 0.70 to 1.00. Thus, it was inferred that all identified (16) CSFs
be strongly accepted.

5.2. Questionnaire survey

A questionnaire survey was designed by incorporating the validated 16 CSFs. The final
questionnaire comprised two parts: (i) questions on general information of respondents
and project background, and (ii) questions on the perceptions of the influence of success
factors on safety program’ implementation. In this study, the survey was carried out on
medium and large-scale construction projects in Thailand. According to Ministry of
Industry’s definition, a project was differentiated as ‘‘medium’’ when its total project cost
ranged between 20 million Baht and 100 million Baht with a total employed workforce of
50–200 workers, and considered as ‘‘large’’ when total project cost was greater than 100
million Baht with a workforce larger than 200 workers.
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 713

Table 1
Factors affecting safety program implementation
Factor Source Discussion
Clear and realistic Weber (1992a), Cooper (1993), Pierce Safety programs can accomplish the
goals (1995a), Blake (1997) desired results when safety goals have been
clearly established. The safety goals should
give a clear picture, direction and focus for
performing day-to-day activities in order to
reach desired results. When realistic and
achievable goals are set up, the progress
towards accomplishing such goals can be
easily measured
Good Peyton and Rubio (1991), Stranks (1994), When the lines of communications between
communication Vredenburgh (2002), Fang et al. (2004), management and workforce are open,
Abudayyeh et al. (2006) workers can bring reports of unsafe
working practices and hazardous
environments to management’s attention.
Management in turn can also communicate
their concerns and priorities of safety to
gain employees’ compliance and awareness
Delegation of Anton (1989), Oklahoma Department of Any one individual cannot make a safety
authority and Labor (1998), Rue and Byars (2001), program successful. Therefore, responsibil-
responsibility Abudayyeh et al. (2006) ity to safely accomplish activities must be
transferred to individuals at lower levels of
authority. Effective delegation involves
granting adequate authorities and assign-
ing clear responsibilities to perform specific
tasks with enough resources such as
appropriate completion time, money, and
cooperation of all involved parties
Sufficient resource Erikson (1997), Oklahoma Department of The goals of safety programs cannot be
allocation Labor (1998), Rollenhagen and Kahlbom accomplished without adequate resources.
(2001), Rechenthin (2004), Abudayyeh An effective safety program results from
et al. (2006) the commitment of the top management to
providing an appropriate level of resources.
Management must consider and allocate
sufficient resources to carry out day-to-day
activities to accomplish both short-term
and long-term goals. The resources
required for effective safety program may
includes sufficient staff, time, money,
information, methods used in safety works,
facilities, tools, machines, etc.
Management Pierce (1995b), Blake (1997), Stranks It is evident that management plays a very
support (2000), Rowlinson (2003), Rechenthin important role in an efficient and effective
(2004), Abudayyeh et al. (2006), safety program. Management must fully and
Herrero et al. (2006) actively translate ideas into safety actions,
including issuing a written comprehensive
safety policy, allocating sufficient resources,
promptly reacting to safety suggestions and
complaints, attending regular safety
meetings and training, regularly visiting the
workplace, following the same safety rules as
others, etc.
(continued on next page)
714 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

Table 1 (continued)
Factor Source Discussion
Program Peyton and Rubio (1991), Pierce (1995b), Safety programs should be periodically
evaluation Oklahoma Department of Labor (1998), evaluated to determine its success in
Stranks (2000), Abudayyeh et al. (2006) meeting set out goals and objectives. When
the implementation of a safety program
does not meet the defined goals, an
evaluation process can facilitate in identify
the shortcomings of the program and
thereafter, areas for improvements can be
traced and reviewed accordingly
Continuing Peyton and Rubio (1991), Harper and Successful safety programs largely depend
participation of Koehn (1998), Ariss (2003), Smith (2003), on employee involvement as workers tend
employees Abudayyeh et al. (2006) to support the activities that they themselves
help to create. Workers should be given the
opportunities to provide input into the
design and implementation of safety
programs such as being a member of the
safety committee, reporting hazards and
unsafe practices to supervisors, identifying
training needs, investigating accidents, etc.
Personal Petersen (1984), Levitt and Samelson Although workers have adequate knowledge
motivation (1993), Stranks (1994), Neal and Griffin and skills to accomplish their jobs safely they
(2002), Johnson (2003) will not however, work in such manner
unless they are motivated to do so. To ensure
commendable safety records, all personnel in
the workplace must be motivated to carry
out their job responsibilities safely, by the
possibilities of achievement and recognition,
opportunity for additional responsibilities,
rewards, and personal growth
Personal Top (1991), Mohamed (2002), Tam et al. A successful safety program also results from
competency (2004), Fang et al. (2006) placing the right person on the right job. The
right person is defined as the person(s) who
are physically and mentally capable for
carrying out the assigned tasks with the right
knowledge, experience and skills
Teamwork McGowan and Norton (1989), Krause A safety program succeeds when all
(1997), Ulloa and Adams (2004) concerned parties from top to bottom
hierarchical levels realize that preventing
accidents is everyone’s responsibility.
Every functional unit must cooperate in
executing safe activities with the aim of
achieving the goals set by the team such as
planning and controlling their works,
handling day-to-day safety problems, etc.
Positive group Petersen (1984), Sarkus (1997), Stranks Group norms are the accepted attitudes
norms (2000), Johnson (2003) about various things amongst a group of
people. In practice, members of a group
conform to certain attitudes simply to avoid
sanctions. If positive attitudes towards safety
can be built and embedded within a group,
safety can then be managed successfully.
This is the basis of good safety culture
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 715

Table 1 (continued)
Factor Source Discussion
Personal attitude Levitt and Samelson (1993), Stranks Attitude is a tendency to respond positively
(1994), Tam et al. (2001), Johnson (2003), and/or negatively to certain persons,
Schultz (2004), Fang et al. (2006) objects or situations and is normally built
up through experience. Individuals,
however, differ in their perception of risks
and willingness to take risks. Successful
safety programs can be achieved if the
positive attitudes of employees toward
safety are reinforced
Effective Pierce (1995b), and Michaud (1995), Not conforming to safety rules is known as
enforcement Construction Safety Association of a violation. Violation need to be
scheme Ontario (2002), Fang et al. (2004) encountered with enforcement.
Management must therefore provide the
means of enforcing workers, especially the
violators, to obey the safety rules and
regulations. By providing an effective
enforcing mechanism, management will
face less cases of violations by employees
Safety equipment Toole (2002), Tam et al. (2004) The workplace must be carefully assessed
acquisition and to determine possible hazards in order for
maintenance proper selection of safety equipment. An
effective safety program results in fewer
injuries due to proper safety equipment’
acquisition and maintenance. Managing a
safety equipment program takes up not
only a large percentage of time for
purchasing the correct equipment,
maintaining them good condition, and
inventory control, but it also requires a
good cooperation amongst the safety
manager/head, purchasing, production,
warehouse supervisor, maintenance
managers, etc.
Appropriate Weber (1992b), Levitt and Samelson A sound safety program requires
supervision (1993), Ontario Ministry of Labor (1999), employers to provide sufficient supervision
Stranks (2000), Fang et al. (2004) in protecting workers form workplace
hazards. Successful supervision requires
competent personal to assign work in line
with the workers’ ability, appraise workers
when they do jobs safely, communicate by
listening and speaking, set a good example
by following the same safety rules and
correct arising safety problems
Appropriate safety Cooper and Cotton (2000), Toole (2002), A successful safety program can be
education and Tam et al. (2004), Fang et al. (2004), Fang achieved if all employees are given periodic
training et al. (2006) educational and training programs in order
to improve their knowledge and skills on
safety at work

The respondents were categorized into two major groups, namely, project managers
and safety personnel. A construction project manager refers to the individual with highest
authority to handle day-to-day activities with the aim of delivering the project and is also
716 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

Table 2
Respondents’ general data
Year of experience Project mangers Safety personnel Overall Proportion (percentage)
Less than 10 0 0 0 0.00
10–15 19 28 47 58.80
16–20 18 10 28 35.00
More than 20 3 2 5 6.20
Total 40 40 80 100.00

accountable for a managing safety program aimed at providing a safe and healthy envi-
ronment for the workforce at the jobsite. Construction safety personnel refer to individu-
als such the safety directors, managers, and inspectors, who are responsible for overall
safety of the construction environment and/or organization. A face-to-face questionnaire
cum interview was used to ensure the needed response rate. Therefore, 40 project manag-
ers and 40 safety personnel were selected to participate in the survey (see Table 2). The
questionnaire was aimed at investigating the degree of influence of CSFs on a safety pro-
gram implementation, as perceived by the respondents. To obtain such a ‘‘degree of influ-
ence’’, the respondents were asked to rate on a five-point Likert scale varying from ‘‘not
influential’’ (1) to ‘‘extremely influential’’ (5). The Likert scale is frequently used in the
questionnaire survey, because it provides a wider choice of alternatives for the respondents
(Cooper and Schindler, 2005). The obtained raw data were then used as input and ana-
lyzed with the software ‘SPSS 11.5 for Windows’. The analysis was conducted to rank
the success factors based on the average score. A t-test was then carried out on paired sam-
ples in order to evaluate the general agreement of ratings on the CSFs. The analysis fur-
thermore investigated the similarity of the rankings of the two different respondent groups
by using the Spearman’s rank correlation test to assess the degree of association between
the rankings. Finally, a factor analysis was used to determine the underlying relationships
among the 16 success factors and minimize those 16 CSFs into a fewer number of
variables.

6. Data analysis and key findings

6.1. Ranking of CSFs for safety program implementation

Table 3 tabulates the detailed breakdown of the mean rankings from dissimilar respon-
dents; project managers and safety personnel. The five factors namely, management sup-
port (4.73), teamwork (4.65), appropriate safety education and training (4.55), program
evaluation (4.50) and personal attitude (4.48) were highly rated by project managers as
crucial contributors to a successful safety program. On the other hand, construction safety
personnel rated management support (4.60), appropriate safety education and training
(4.48), clear and realistic goals (4.43), effective enforcement scheme (4.40) and teamwork
(4.30) as having the highest influence. Table 3 also shows the overall ranking of 16 success
factors by all respondents. The highest ranking by all respondents was management sup-
port (mean value = 4.66) which therefore considered as an extremely influential factor
to the success of a safety program. Appropriate safety education and training (mean
value = 4.53) was ranked as the second most influential factor, whereas the third ranked
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 717

Table 3
Ranking of CSFs for safety program implementation
Success factors Project managers (1) Safety personnel (2) Overall t-test
Mean Rank Mean Rank Mean Rank
Clear and realistic goals 4.45 6 4.43 3 4.44 4 0.000*
Good communication 4.03 16 4.18 8 4.10 15 0.126
Delegation of authority and responsibility 4.25 14 4.25 6 4.25 9 0.001*
Sufficient resource allocation 4.30 12 3.98 12 4.14 12 0.050*
Management support 4.73 1 4.60 1 4.66 1 0.000*
Program evaluation 4.50 4 4.18 8 4.34 6 0.000*
Continuing participation of employees 4.28 13 3.98 12 4.13 14 0.096
Personal motivation 4.43 8 4.13 10 4.28 8 0.001*
Personal competency 4.20 15 3.70 16 3.95 16 0.275
Teamwork 4.65 2 4.30 5 4.47 3 0.000*
Positive group norms 4.40 10 3.88 15 4.14 12 0.084
Personal attitude 4.48 5 4.20 7 4.34 6 0.000*
Effective enforcement scheme 4.45 6 4.40 4 4.43 5 0.000*
Safety equipment acquisition and 4.38 11 3.93 14 4.15 11 0.026*
maintenance
Appropriate supervision 4.43 8 4.08 11 4.24 10 0.001*
Appropriate safety education and training 4.55 3 4.48 2 4.53 2 0.000*
Value of Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient between (1) and (2) = 0.678
* Denotes that it is significant at 95% level of confidence.

factor was teamwork (mean value = 4.47), forth ranked was clear and realistic goals (mean
value = 4.44) and the fifth ranked factor was effective enforcement scheme (mean
value = 4.43). It is worth noting that all respondents perceived positive group norms and
personal competency as the two least influential factors influencing the successful imple-
mentation of a safety program.
In order to examine the general similarity between rankings of the construction project
managers and construction safety personnel, the Spearman’s rank correlation test was
appropriate to prove whether or not the similarities are significant (Singh and Tiong,
2006). It is implied that the priorities of the influence of those factors to the success of
safety programs are confirmed by both groups when the result of analysis is statistically
significant. In this study, the association between the rankings of the two respondent
groups was verified at the 5% significant level. The result showed that the Spearman’s rank
correlation coefficient was 0.678 and the correlation was statistically significant at the 5%
level. Therefore, it was concluded that the similarity of rankings between project managers
and safety personnel were strongly significant. This suggested that there is a general con-
sensus on the rankings of the influence of the success factors.
Furthermore, in order to test and determine the factors having a large influence on a
safety program’s success, one sample t-test was carried out. A one sample t-test can ana-
lyze whether the mean rated by all respondents differs significantly from a hypothetical
value. In this study, a hypothetical value of 4 is assigned as this corresponds to the ‘‘very
influential level’’ in the five-point Likert scale. Thus, the factors were considered as having
a high influence on the success if they showed significant differences at the 95% confidence
level. Table 3 shows that 12 factors have a large influence on the success of safety program
implementation and the following factors were thus excluded: good communication, per-
sonal competency, continuing participation of employees, and positive group norms.
718 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

6.2. Factor analysis of CSFs for safety program implementation

Factor Analysis, which is a statistical technique, can be used to derive relatively small
number of factors which in turn can be used to represent relationships amongst sets of
many interrelated variables. In this study, the results of a factor analysis generated a
selected representative from several CSFs. This therefore created more significant results
since many factors were downsized. Theoretically, factor analysis comprises of a series
of methods for determining groups of related variables and reducing a large number of
variables into an easily workable and comprehendible number. Various tests were required
to ensure the appropriateness of the use of factor analysis. The first stage of the factor
analysis was to determine the strength of relationship amongst the 16 CSFs measured
by the correlation coefficients of each pairs of factors. The matrix was automatically gen-
erated as results of the software SPSS. The value of Bartlett’s test of Sphericity was
534.511, and this suggested that the population correlation matrix was not an identity
matrix (Hair et al., 1998). The associated significance level, was very small (p = 0.000),
and it showed that all variables had a significant correlation at the 5% level. It therefore
implied that removal of factors were not necessary. The value of Kaiser–Mayer–Olkin’s
measure of sampling accuracy was 0.789, and this being higher than 0.5 indicating suffi-
cient inter-correlations (Hair et al., 1998). The results of these tests confirmed that the
sample data was appropriate for factor analysis. Normally, the Varimax orthogonal rota-
tion of principle component analysis was used to extract the factors (Hair et al., 1998). The
factor groupings based on Varimax rotation are presented in Table 4. In this study, four

Table 4
Results of factor analysis
Dimension Eigenvalue % of Interpreted Componenta Sub-component Factor
variance loading
1 5.388 33.674 Worker Involvement Positive group norms 0.860
Personal attitude 0.845
Personal motivation 0.613
Continuing participation of 0.540
employees
2 1.866 11.665 Safety Prevention and Effective enforcement scheme 0.730
Control System Appropriate supervision 0.705
Equipment acquisition and 0.675
maintenance
Appropriate safety education 0.620
and training
Personal competency 0.605
Program evaluation 0.555
3 1.800 11.248 Safety arrangement Good communication 0.878
Delegation of authority and 0.838
responsibility
Sufficient resource allocation 0.601
4 1.260 7.878 Management Commitment Management support 0.867
Teamwork 0.578
Clear and realistic goals 0.569
a
Components were named based on the characteristics of its sub-components.
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 719

components with Eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted. Each of the CSFs belonged to
only one of the components, with the value of factor loading exceeding 0.5. The four com-
ponents were meaningfully renamed as: (1) worker involvement, (2) safety prevention and
control system, (3) safety arrangement, and (4) management commitment. These four
components and sub-components (success variables) are shown in Table 4.

6.2.1. Dimension 1: Worker involvement

The worker involvement component comprised of positive group norms, personal atti-
tude, personal motivation and continuing participation of workers. According to Stranks
(1994), Johnson (2003), Fang et al. (2006), workers’ safety attitude can be shaped by
norms of peer groups and can be directed by individual motivation. Higher levels of
worker’ motivation towards safety can be strengthened by the degree of their participa-
tions in safety-related activities such partaking in activities of the workplace safety com-
mittees, reporting and correcting hazards under their operations, analyzing routine
hazards within each step of a task or process, etc.

6.2.2. Dimension 2: Safety prevention and control system

Safety prevention and control system is the second component influential to the success
of a safety program. This component includes an effective enforcement scheme, appropri-
ate supervision, equipment acquisition and maintenance, appropriate safety education and
training, personal competency, and program evaluation. In construction, workers are
endangered by a variety of hazards and risks due to changeable day-to-day activities. If
a safe and sound prevention and control system exists, then work-related accidents and
other mishaps can be greatly reduced.

6.2.3. Dimension 3: Safety arrangement

This component is unavoidable for the successful implementation of a safety program. It
comprises of good communication, delegation of authority and responsibility, and sufficient
resource allocation. It is essential for an effective safety program that rules, regulations,
standards and expectations must be communicated throughout the workplace. As a result,
everyone would comprehend and follow standards, and be safety conscious in the course of
executing their roles and responsibilities in order to prevent work-related accidents and inju-
ries. To implement a safety program effectively, management must clearly assign responsi-
bilities with adequate authority to qualified members who understand their roles in the
safety efforts (Rue and Byars, 2001; Abudayyeh et al., 2006). Additionally, it must be noted
that the long-term and short-term goals of the safety program cannot be accomplished by a
lack of adequate resources. The effectiveness of a safety program depends largely on the
level of resources allocation including sufficient staffs, time, money, information, methods
used in safety works, facilities, tools, machines, etc. (Rollenhagen and Kahlbom, 2001).

6.2.4. Dimension 4: Management commitment

The management commitment component includes top management support, team-
work, and clear and realistic goals. Management must actively support safety efforts at
all level, keeping in mind that actions speak louder than words (Peyton and Rubio,
1991; Rechenthin, 2004). Blake (1997) and Rowlinson (2003) pointed out that employees
usually imitate and follow the actions of management thus management is required to set a
positive standard of safety behavior for all employees. The establishment of realistic goals
720 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

and objectives will guide all employees with a clearer picture, direction, and focus for per-
forming day-to-day activities with the aim of reaching common goals.

7. Verification of critical success factors (CSFs) in construction projects

Case studies were conducted in three large-scale building construction projects to verify
the influence of CSFs on actual state of safety on site. The projects were selected based on
certain similarities. The following criteria were taken into consideration for project
selection:

• The projects must be building construction works.

• Each project must have a total project cost greater than 100 million Baht with a work-
force of more than 200 workers.
• The main structural works of the building must be completed (progress up to the sec-
ond floor was preferable).
• The project must have a full-time site safety officer.
• There is more than one subcontractor on the project.
• The projects were controlled by a construction consultant.

In general, all responsibilities towards ensuring and maintaining safety on construction

projects are the main contractor’s. Therefore, to avoid biased and distorted information,
the verification process was conducted with the consultant’s safety personnel. The consul-
tant, one of the key construction stakeholders, functions as the owner’s representative to
exclusively organize and control day-to-day contractor’s operations with the aim of deliv-
ering the project to the owner within required quality standards, minimum time and cost,
and safety. In the large construction project, safety is of great concern to the owner as it
can adversely affect the reputation and image of the project at large.
The three case studies were conducted by using an in-depth interview and questionnaire
survey with the safety personnel of the consultants at the job site. Each informant was
asked to complete a perception-based questionnaire for evaluating the current state of
each CSF based on the conditions provided by the contractor. To elicit the perception into
quantitative form, a five-point Likert scale, varying from ‘‘very poor’’ (1) to ‘‘very good’’
(5) was used. Following the questionnaire survey, each respondent was interviewed in-
depth to ascertain the underlying reasons of the given score of each factor. To measure
the status of safety performance of each selected project, the records of accidents were
obtained from the sites. The accident rate was then calculated by using following equation:
Number of accidents
 1; 000; 000 ¼ Accident RateðARÞ
Total man  hours worked
The summary of the results is presented in Table 5.
According to Rungasamy et al. (2002), the performance of any business function can-
not be improved if the organization places emphasis on only one or a few critical success
factors. Table 5 shows that project 3 seems to focus more interest on all CSFs than other
projects. The informant of project 3 evaluated that all CSFs are given considerable atten-
tion by the main contractor in order to ensure satisfactory safety levels on site. The current
status of all CSFs was rated from ‘good’ to ‘very good’. As a result, project 3 exhibits the
best safety level and is characterized by the least accident rate. It is concluded that higher
Table 5
Results of CSFs verification
Critical success Project 1 (accident rate = 69.13)
factors (CSFs)
Status Comments of informant
Component 1: Worker involvement
Positive group Fair Safe working behaviors have
norms been embedded within the
workgroup. However, there are
some members, especially new
workers unfamiliar with
working environment, who
routinely violate group
standards
Personal attitude Fair As a result of peer group
pressure, most workers commit
themselves to safe practices.
However, many of them are
still unaware of safety
Personal Fair Since an incentive program was
motivation not established, motivation of
workers largely depended on
their concern for life, family,
punishment of violation, and
loss of employment
Continuing Fair Morning safety-talks program
participation of is the only avenue for getting
employees workers involvement in a safety
program
Project 2 (accident rate = 65.99)
Status Comments of informant
Fair Substandard behaviors by
inexperienced or young
workers are controlled and
guided by experienced workers
within the group. Yet, some
young workers disregard the
group’s standards
Fair Many workers do not care
about his or her well-being.
Risky working methods are
regularly found on jobs
Fair Motivation of workers largely
depended on their concern for
life, family well-being,
punishment of violation, and
loss of employment
Good In addition to safety talks,
various means have been used
to encourage workers’
participations such as
providing suggestion boxes,
establishing joint safety
committees, etc.
Project 3 (accident rate = 29.97)
Status Comments of informant
T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727
Good Mature workers guided and
directed the crew on safe ways
of performing tasks. Only a few
young and seasonal workers
occasionally violated safety
standards
Very Most workers are conscious of
good safety, such as complying with
safety rules, performing jobs
safely, caring for their co-
workers’ well-being
Very All workers are conscious of
good safety and consider it as top
priority during execution of
works. Monetary incentives
and rewards are major
motivational factors
Good Workers are always
encouraged to involve
themselves in safety-related
committees, safety meetings,
job analysis, safety suggestions,
reporting hazards to
supervisors, etc.
(continued on next page)
721

Table 5 (continued)
Critical success Project 1 (accident rate = 69.13)
factors (CSFs)
Status Comments of informant
Component 2: Safety prevention and control system
Effective Good On-site safety rules were
enforcement written and enforced but not
scheme formally communicated to
workers. Punishment was
adopted when any violations
were reported
Appropriate Good Regular safety inspection is
supervision conducted on a daily basis by a
full-time safety officer.
However, it is found that on-
site safety personnel are not
sufficient to bear the workload
Equipment Fair Required safety equipment is used
acquisition and by most workers although, a
maintenance considerable number also do not
use. Some equipment does not
meet regulatory standards. When
a replacement is required, the pro-
curement process takes long time
Appropriate safety Fair Informal safety education and
education and training is arranged for new
training workers during orientation day
but, it is not repeated thereafter
Project 2 (accident rate = 65.99)
Status Comments of informant
Good Safety rules are written and
enforced but they are not
posted. Punishment is strictly
applied to any worker(s) who
violated the rules
Very Number of supervisory
good personnel is sufficient for the
workload. Full-time safety
officers regularly walk around
the site to observe, identify,
and correct any safety
problems
Good Required safety equipment is
used by most workers with
proper maintenance. All
equipment complies with
required standards. Equipment
is promptly available to the
project when needed
Fair Similar to project 1, Informal
safety education and training
was provided for new workers
during orientation day but is
not repeated thereafter
722
Project 3 (accident rate = 29.97)
T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727
Status Comments of informant
Very On-site safety rules are
good developed, enforced, and com-
municated by various means
such as safety manuals, posters,
and notice boards. To ensure
effectiveness of the rules, both
safety rewards and punishment
schemes are adopted
Very Daily safety inspection was
good conducted by safety officers.
Additionally, weekly safety
inspection was carried out by
the safety committee The results
were reviewed and shared
during the safety meetings
Good Similar to project 2, required
safety equipment is available
with proper maintenance and
meets regulatory standards.
Malfunctioning equipment is
promptly replaced
Good Formal safety education and
training is provided for new
workers. Special training is
periodically given as needed.
One-on-one coaching on the job
was regularly conducted
Personal Fair Many inexperienced and
competency seasonal workers are hired to
work in the project. Most of
them lack the knowledge and
skills on safety. This may
therefore expose them to more
chances of accidents
Program evaluation Fair Only reactive evaluation has
been conducted to measure
safety performance and is
determined by records of
frequencies of accidents, and
injuries
Component 3: Safety arrangement
Good Good Safety-related issues are
communication regularly communicated during
morning safety talks before
daily works start. Safety
information is also
communicated by using safety
signs, posters, and notice
boards
Delegation of Good Clear delineation of authority
authority and and responsibility for all
responsibility management levels and
workers are made, and
thoroughly communicated
Fair Similar to project 1, safety
standards are difficult to
enhance due to many
uneducated and inexperienced
workers on site. It is suggested
that intensive safety training
was needed
Fair Measurement of accident rate
is only one indicator of the
safety program’ effectiveness
Good Daily, morning safety talks are
conducted. Updated safety
information is informed
through safety signs, posters,
and notice boards. During site
visits, management talks about
safety to the workers and staff
Good Safety responsibilities for all
management levels and
workers are written and
communicated. All personnel
are requested to sign
acknowledgement to ensure
they are aware of the rules
Good The crew had worked together
with the organization for a
considerable time. Most of them
have sufficient competencies to
work safely on jobs. Moreover,
inexperienced workers are given
sufficient training
T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727
Good Reactive evaluation has been
conducted in parallel with
proactive evaluation. Proactive
evaluation is carried out for
monitoring the safety program,
and correcting ineffective
activities and functions
Good Clear line of command of
safety is written. Daily safety
morning talks are conducted
regularly. Safety- related
information is posted and
communicated. Management
demonstrates visible safety
concerns during site visits
Good Clear responsibility for all
management levels and
workers have been made, and
communicated. Copies of the
assigned responsibilities are
posted around job site
(continued on next page)
723

Table 5 (continued)
Critical success Project 1 (accident rate = 69.13)
factors (CSFs)
Status Comments of informant
Sufficient resource Fair Safety -related activities have
allocation been carried out with limited
budget. Moreover, only one
full-time safety officer is hired
to take care of safety for more
than 200 workers. Thus,
assistants ought to be assigned
Component 4: Management commitment
Management Poor Management does not often
support participate in activities related
to safety. Importantly,
management is reluctant to
input enough resources for
safety program operations
Teamwork Fair Many subcontractors make
safety difficult to manage
because they consider costs of
safety as their profit lost
Clear and realistic Fair A Long-term goal is established
goals to achieve zero accidents;
however, it is not broken down
into actual operations
Project 2 (accident rate = 65.99)
Status Comments of informant
Fair Some safety budget is given but
it is considered insufficient. A
higher budget allocation is
required for installing fall
protection such as guard rails,
safety nets, etc. This is very
important for high-rise
building construction
Good Management demonstrates
visible actions towards safety
(e.g. regular site safety visit);
however, safety is still not
considered as top priority to
allocate resources
Fair Similar to project 1, many
subcontractors make safety
difficult to manage because
they consider costs of safety as
their profit lost
Fair A long-term goal is formulated
but not broken down into
regular day-to-day operations.
The goal is considered
unrealistic to achieve, because
of insufficient resource
allocation
724
Project 3 (accident rate = 29.97)
Status Comments of informant
Good Safety-related activities have
T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727
been carried out with limited
budget which is considered
adequate for critical safety
items. Two full-time safety
officers are available on site
with some safety staff
Very Management regularly
good participates in safety activities
and allocates required
resources to safety which is
given equal importance as
other factions of construction
activities
Good Good cooperation in safety
exists in projects because
effective safety enforcement
and incentive schemes were
applied to all subcontractors
Good Long-term goal is broken down
into short-term objectives
specifically in daily activities.
They are attainable because of
sufficient resource allocation
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 725

emphasis placed on CSFs can contribute to a marked improvement of safety performance.

Furthermore, all informants agreed that management support is the most influential factor.
Based on their experience, they pointed out that management’s active roles will demon-
strate a genuine interest in the safety of employees which in turn will help to promote a
positive attitude amongst employees. Importantly, safety programs cannot be run
smoothly without management support in allocating adequate resources (specifically
money and staff), actively participating in safety meetings, investigating accidents, estab-
lishing corrective actions, and encouraging all workers to be involved in such programs.

8. Conclusions

This research identified and ranked 16 CSFs of safety program implementation based
on their degree of influence. It revealed that ‘‘management support’’ was the most influen-
tial factor for safety program implementation in the Thai construction industry. The
results of the 16 CSFs in the order of the degree of influence were: (1) management sup-
port, (2) appropriate safety education and training, (3) teamwork, (4) clear and realistic
goals, (5) effective enforcement scheme, (6) personal attitude, (7) program evaluation,
(8) personal motivation, (9) delegation of authority and responsibility, (10) appropriate
supervision, (11) safety equipment acquisition and maintenance, (12) positive group
norms, (13) sufficient resource allocation, (14) continuing participation of employees,
(15) good communication, and (16) personal competency. Additionally, there was a strong
consensus on the rankings of these 16 factors between the two different groups of respon-
dents. By using a Factor Analysis technique, the identified CSFs were grouped into four
major dimensions namely, (1) worker involvement, (2) safety prevention and control sys-
tem, (3) safety arrangement, and (4) management commitment. ‘‘Worker involvement’’
referred to creating favourable safety attitudes and motivation of workers which largely
depended on constructive norms of the workgroup and their degree of their participation
in safety activities. ‘‘Safety prevention and control system’’ required an effective enforce-
ment scheme, appropriate supervision, equipment acquisition and maintenance, appropri-
ate safety education and training, program evaluation and staffing qualified persons in
order to successfully implement a safety program. ‘‘Safety arrangement’’ involved setting
up proper mechanisms to disseminate information to all people concerned, assigning clear
authorities and responsibilities to everyone at all levels as well as allocating adequate
resources to safely carry out activities. ‘‘Management commitment’’ consolidated the
safety program implementation through visible support of the top management which also
included encouraging all employees to achieve success through team-spirit and setting real-
istic and achievable safety goals which could be accomplished. To ensure the contribution
of the CSFs to the safety standards were realistic, three case studies were conducted. The
results proved that the construction project, wherein all CSFs, and not just one or a few,
are given proper attention, there is a higher standard of safety performance.

References

Abdelhamid, T.S., Everett, J.G., 2000. Identifying root cause of construction accidents. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 126 (1), 52–60.
Abudayyeh, O., Fredericks, T.K., Butt, S.E., Shaar, A., 2006. An investigation of management’s commitment to
construction safety. International Journal of Project Management 24, 167–174.
726 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727

Anton, T.J., 1989. Occupational Safety and Health Management, second ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Ariss, S., 2003. Employee involvement to improve safety in the workplace: an ethical imperative. Mid-American
Journal of Business 18 (2), 9–16.
Blake, M.A., 1997. Safety management: Whose responsibility is it?. Rural Telecommunications 16 (2) 70–75.
Construction Safety Association of Ontario, 2002. A Guide to Developing Health and Safety Policies and
Programs in Construction, Available at: http://www.csao.org/images/pfiles/38_DS030.pdf, Downloaded on
12 May 2005.
Cooper, M.D., 1993. Goal-Setting for Safety, Available at: http://behavioural-safety.com/articles/Goal-
setting_for_Safety, Downloaded on 14 February 2005.
Cooper, M.A., Cotton, D., 2000. Safety training: a special case? Journal of European Industrial Training 24 (9),
481.
Cooper, R., Schindler, S., 2005. Business Research Methods, ninth ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Erikson, D., 1997. The relationship between corporate culture and safety performance. Professional Safety 12
(42), 29–33.
Fang, D.P., Xie, F., Huang, X.Y., L I, H., 2004. Factor analysis-based studies on construction workplace safety
management in China. International Journal of Project Management 22, 43–49.
Fang, D.P., Chen, Y., Wong, L., 2006. Safety climate in construction industry: a case study in Hong Kong.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132 (6), 573–584.
Findley, M., Smith, S.M., Kress, T., Petty, G., Enoch, K., 2004. Safety program elements in construction: which
ones best prevent injuries and control related workers’ compensation costs?. Professional Safety 49 (2) 14–21.
Goldenhar, L.M., Moran, S.K., Colligan, M., 2001. Health and safety training in a sample of open-shop
construction companies. Journal of Safety Research 32, 237–252.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., Black, W.C., 1998. Multivariate Data Analysis, fifth ed. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Harper, R., Koehn, E., 1998. Managing industrial construction safety in southeast texas. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 124 (6), 452–457.
Herrero, S.G., Saldaña, M.G.M., Campo, M.A.M., Ritzel, D.O., 2006. A model for the improvement of
occupational safety management. Journal of SH and E Research 3 (3), 1–21.
Hinze, J., Gambatese, J., 2003. Factors that influence safety performance of specialty contractors. Journal of
Construction Engineering and Management 129 (2), 159–164.
Hislop, R.D., 1991. A construction safety program. Professional Safety 36 (9), 14–20.
International Labour Organization, 2000, Programme of Action for Occupational Safety and Health in Thailand
towards the 21th Century: an advisory Report, available at: http://www.oit.org/public/english/region/asro/
bangkok/asiaosh/country/thailand/progact/index.htm, Downloaded on 16 June 2006.
International Labour Organization, 2005, Thailand – Occupational Safety and Health in the Construction
Industry, Available at: http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/asro/bangkok/download/background/osh/
conth05.pdf, Downloaded on 12 May 2006.
Johnson, S.E., 2003. Behavioral safety theory: understanding the theoretical foundation. Professional Safety 48
(10), 39–44.
Krause, T.R., 1997. The Behavior-Based Safety Process: Managing Involvement for an Injury Free Culture. John
Wiley & Sons, New York.
Lawshe, C.H., 1975. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personal Psychology 28 (4), 563–575.
Levitt, R.E., Samelson, N.M., 1993. Construction Safety Management, second ed. John Wiley and Sons, New
York.
McGowan, D.E., Norton, W.W., 1989. Safety: a health service team approach. Professional Safety 34 (1), 21–26.
Meridian Research, 1994. Worker Protection Programs in Construction. Available at: <http://www.cdc.gov/
elcosh/docs/d0100/d000101/d000101.pdf>, Downloaded on 20 January 2005.
Michaud, P.A., 1995. Accident Prevention and OSHA Compliance. CRC Press, Florida.
Mohamed, S., 2002. Safety climate in construction site environments. Journal of Construction Engineering and
Management 128 (5), 375–384.
Neal, A., Griffin, M.A., 2002. Safety climate and safety behaviour. Australian Journal of Management 27, 67–77.
Oklahoma Department of Labor, 1998. Essential elements of an effective safety and health program, Available at:
http://www.state.ok.us/~okdol/peosh/stee.pdf, Downloaded on 10 January 2006.
Ontario Ministry of Labor, 1999. Guideline for the safe operation and maintenance of powered lift trucks,
Available at: http://www.gov.on.ca/LAB/english/hs/guide-lines/lifttrucks/index.html, Downloaded on 12
February 2006.
 T. Aksorn, B.H.W. Hadikusumo / Safety Science 46 (2008) 709–727 727

Oregon Occupational Safety and Health Division, 2002. Developing your safety and health program, Available
at: http://www.cbs.state.or.us/external/osha/pdf/pubs/2293.pdf, Downloaded on 22 August 2005.
Petersen, D., 1984. Human-error reduction and safety management. Aloray, New York.
Peyton, R.X., Rubio, T.C., 1991. Construction Safety Practices and Principles. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
Pierce, F.D., 1995a. Setting effective goals and objectives in safety and health programs. Occupational Hazards 57
(10), 169–174.
Pierce, F.D., 1995b. Total Quality for Safety and Health Professionals. Government Institutes, Maryland.
Poon, W.F., Ma, C.H., Ho, K.L., 2000. Statistical analysis on factors in reducing construction site accident
frequency rate in Hong Kong, In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual Conference of the Australian and New
Zealand Association of Occupational Health and Safety Educators, Hong Kong, pp. 341–355.
Rechenthin, D., 2004. Project safety as a sustainable competitive advantage. Journal of Safety Research 35, 297–
308.
Rockart, J.F., 1979. Chief executives define their own data needs. Harvard Business Review 57 (2), 81–93.
Rollenhagen, C., Kahlbom, U., 2001. Towards a model for the assessment of safety activities and their associated
organization context, In: Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Human Error, Safety and System
Development, 11–12 June, Linköping, Sweden.
Rowlinson, S., 2003. Hong Kong Construction: Safety Management and Law, second ed. Sweet and Maxwell
Asia, Hong Kong.
Rue, L.W., Byars, L.L., 2001. Supervision: Key Link to Productivity, seventh ed. McGraw-Hill, Boston.
Rungasamy, S., Antony, J., Ghosh, S., 2002. Critical success factors for SPS implementation in UK small and
medium enterprises: some key findings from a survey. The TQM Magazine 14 (4), 217–224.
Sarkus, D.J., 1997. Collaboration and participation: How are you doing? Professional Safety 42 (10), 37–39.
Sawacha, E., Naoum, S., Fong, D., 1999. Factors affecting safety performance on construction sites.
International Journal of Project Management 17 (5), 309–315.
Schultz, D., 2004. Employee attitudes: a must have. Occupational Health and Safety 73 (6), 66–71.
Singh, D., Tiong, R.L.K., 2006. Contractor selection criteria: investigation of opinions of Singapore construction
practitioners. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 132 (9), 998–1008.
Siriruttanapruk, S., Anuntakulnathi, P., 2004. Occupational health and safety situation and research priority in
Thailand. Industrial Health 42, 135–140.
Smith, S., 2003. The top 10 ways to improve safety management. Occupational Hazards 65 (12), 33–36.
Social Security Office, 2005. Social security statistics 2004–2005. Available at: http://www.sso.go.th, Downloaded
on 14 January 2006.
Sorock, G.S., Smith, E.O., Goldoft, M., 1993. Fatal occupational injuries in the New Jersey construction
industry: 1983–1989. Journal of Occupational Medicine 35, 916–921.
Stranks, J., 1994. Human Factors and Safety. Pitman Publishing, London.
Stranks, J., 2000. The Handbook of Health and Safety Practice, fifth ed. Prentice Hall, London.
Tam, C.M., Fung, I.W.H., 1998. Effectiveness of safety management strategies on safety performance in Hong
Kong. Construction Management and Economics 16, 49–55.
Tam, C.M., Fung, I.W.H., Chan, A.P.C., 2001. Study of attitude changes in people after the implementation of a
new safety management system: the supervision plan. Construction Management and Economics 19, 393–403.
Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X., Deng, Z.M., 2004. Identifying elements of poor construction safety management in
China. Safety Science 42, 569–586.
Toole, T.M., 2002. Construction site safety roles. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 128 (3),
203–210.
Top, W.N., 1991. Safety and loss control management and the international safety rating system, available at:
http://www.topves.nl/Safety-Management-and-ISRS.pdf, Downloaded on 14 February 2004.
Ulloa, B.R., Adams, S.G., 2004. Attitude toward teamwork and effective teaming. Team Performance
Management 10 (7/8), 145–151.
Vredenburgh, A.G., 2002. Organizational safety: which management practices are most effective in reducing
employee injury rate? Journal of Safety Research 33, 259–276.
Weber, J.O., 1992a. Developing a comprehensive safety program. Professional Safety 37 (3), 33–38.
Weber, J.O., 1992b. Front-line supervisors: a key to health and safety in your workplace. OH and S. Canada 8
(5), 80–85.