Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ain Shams Engineering Journal

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com

Civil Engineering

Barriers to safety program implementation in the construction industry

Mohanad K. Buniya a, Idris Othman a, Riza Yosia Sunindijo b, Ahmed Farouk Kineber a,
Eveline Mussi c, Hayroman Ahmad d
a
Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University Technology PETRONAS, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia
b
Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
c
Faculty of Built Environment, UNSW Sydney, Australia
d
UiTM Perak, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, Malaysia

A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history:
Received 13 March 2020
Poor safety performance is a serious problem in the construction industry. Safety program implementa-
Revised 29 July 2020 tion has always been one of the most successful actions to reduce construction accidents. This research
Accepted 7 August 2020 aims to identify barriers to the implementation of safety programs in the construction industry. It begins
Available online xxxx with identifying barriers to the implementation of safety programs from the literature review. Further
barriers were identified from semi-structured interviews conducted with experts in the construction
Keywords: industry in Iraq. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) technique was used to evaluate data collected
Safety program from the survey, reduce the number of factors and establish relationships between variables. Based on
Construction the analysis, the 12 barriers were grouped into four dimensions: non-conductive work climate, poor
Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) gover- nance, poor safety awareness, and unsupportive industry norms. Partial Least Square Structural
Barriers Equation Model (PLS-SEM) was conducted to validate the EFA results through assessing the
PLS-SEM
relationships between constructed and items. It is recommended that a system of governance at the
Iraq
national level is developed to take these barriers down and improve safety performance in the
construction industry.
© 2020 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams Uni-
versity. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
designed to ensure and maintain a safe and healthy workplace”.
It is the responsibility of the construction team, including the cli-
The construction industry is notoriously known worldwide for
ent, architect/engineer, contractor, construction manager, subcon-
its poor health and safety performance. This poor performance
tractor and suppliers, to ensure that each project is completed
adversely affects the national economy and the bottom line of con-
without injuries or recorded accidents [5], thus it is the responsi-
struction organizations. Responding to the need to improve health
bility of the construction team to implement safety programs.
and safety performance, construction organizations have devel-
In construction projects, safety programs are considered leading
oped and implemented a range of safety programs [1,2]. Safety
mechanisms in the promotion of health and safety [1]. Its imple-
program refers to the efforts to improve safety through an inte-
mentation has reduced accident rates and created safe working
grated set of regulations and activities [3]. According to the Indus-
environments [6–8]. Moreover, the application of safety programs,
trial Accident Prevention Association [4], a safety program is ‘‘a
as well as the development of safety culture, is capable of facilitat-
systematic combination of activities, procedures, and facilitates
ing cooperation among the top management level and their
employees [9]. Despite the proven benefits, the implementation
Peer review under responsibility of Ain Shams University. of safety programs in the construction sector is still very limited
in Iraq. Safety programs are non-existent or not rigorously imple-
mented due to poor management and lack of attention to safety.
Outdated safety rules and regulations and their lack of enforce-
Production and hosting by Elsevier ment contribute to poor performance in the Iraqi construction
industry. In Iraq, the accident rate in the construction industry is
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.K. Buniya), 38% of the total industrial accident rate according to statistics from
idris_othma- [email protected] (I. Othman), [email protected] (R.Y.
Sunindijo), Ahme- [email protected] (A.F. Kineber), [email protected]
the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs. Despite this high rate of
(E. Mussi), [email protected] (H. Ahmad) accidents, there is still a lack of safety research in the context of

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2020.08.002
2090-4479/© 2020 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier BV on behalf of Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Please cite this article as: M. K. Buniya, I. Othman, R. Y. Sunindijo et al., Barriers to safety program implementation in the construction industry, Ain Shams
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

the Iraqi construction industry [10]. This study aims to overcome the barriers included in this study are presented in Table 1.
this gap by identifying the barriers to the implementation of the
safety program in the Iraqi construction industry. Intervention
strategies can be implemented and prioritized to address these
barriers based on their importance level, thus allowing safety pro-
grams to be implemented successfully in this context.

2. Literature review

2.1. Safety program

There are numerous benefits of good safety performance in the

construction industry associated with the effective implementa-
tion of safety programs [11,12]. The lower rates of accidents and
illnesses in the workplace reduce the costs of accidents, reduce
absenteeism and turnover, increase productivity and improve the
morale of workers [13–16]. Rowlinson [7] clarified that the goals
of implementing safety programs in construction projects are to
avoid unnecessary and dangerous conducts, to report risks and
hazards, and to ensure that accidents are documented and handled
appropriately. Oliveira, et al. [17] added that organizations that
have implemented safety programs enhance the quality of their
work, increase their reputation, improve collaboration among staff
and increase their profits.

2.2. Barriers to the implementation of safety program in the Middle

Eastern construction industry

Unlike developed countries that have made considerable efforts

to implement inclusive safety standards, developing countries face
sev- ere challenges on this [18]. In general, Middle Eastern
countries are categorized as developing countries and have similar
conditions due to their geographical locations and cultures. They,
therefore, have similar problems in the implementation of safety
programs.
There is a wealth of research that focuses on barriers to the
implementation of safety programs in developing countries [18].
Insufficient resources are a major barrier that can have a negative
impact on safety programs. In order to implement a safety pro-
gram, it is the responsibility of the management to provide suffi-
cient resources, including qualified personnel, time, money,
information, safety work methods, facilities, tools and machinery
[19]. Tight project schedule is another common barrier to the
implementation of safety programs. Working on tight schedules
adds more pressure and stress, which often leads to health and
safety issues and reduces productivity [20]. Another major cause
of high incidence and injury rates in the construction industry in
developing countries is a low commitment to health and safety [21–
23]. Commitment to safety depends on the level of awareness
towards safety, which in turn affects their prioritization. The low
safety priority leads to a poor safety culture [24 25]. It is also per-
ceived that safety is only the responsibility of safety personnel.
This perception implies that safety is exclusive and there is a lack
of teamwork and collaboration in safety implementation [25,26].
In addition, limited awareness of safety considerations at a higher
management level affects understanding and strategies for manag-
ing safety and risks across the organization [26,27]. Kartam, et al.
[20] argued that the most common problems in safety implemen-
tation are lack of safety training and lack of safety policies. Accord-
ing to Yiu, et al. [25], safety training is essential for accident
prevention and reduction. Lack of skilled workers automatically
results in poor safety behaviors due to poor safety awareness and
inadequate knowledge on how to work safely [28,29].
Interviews were also conducted with construction practitioners
in Iraq to validate the list of barriers identified from the literature
review. Three barriers were added as a result of this process and
2
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
3. Research methodology

The research process is presented in Fig. 1.

First, literature review was conducted to identify barriers to the
implementation of safety programs, particularly in the context of
developing countries. Second, semi-structured interviews were
conducted with 16 experts in the Iraqi construction industry,
who had at least five years of construction experience (see Table 2
profile) [34]. The purpose of the interviews is two-fold; first, to
confirm the barriers found in the literature and, second, to identify
potential barriers not previously established. The interviewees
confirmed that all barriers are relevant to the Iraqi construction
industry. They also added three additional barriers: lack of safety
standards, lack of safety rules and policy, and lack of safety inspec-
tion reports (see Fig. 2).
A questionnaire survey was conducted following the interviews.
The first section of the questionnaire was designed to gather the
respondent’s demographic information. The second part was
designed with a 5-point Likert scale format to assess the relevance
of the barriers (Table 1) to the implementation of safety programs.
Construction professionals in the Iraqi construction industry were
the target population of the survey. The content validity of the
questionnaire was achieved through the validation done by inter-
viewing the 16 experts on the barriers to safety program imple-
mentation included in this research. Furthermore, the outcome of
an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) is presented in this paper,
which also ensures the construct validity of the questionnaire
[35]. Tabachnick, et al. [36] suggested that 150 to 300
samples are adequate for conducted EFA in this scenario. This
research has distributed 215 questionnaires and obtained
150 valid responses. As such, the number of samples is sufficient
for the analysis as also reported by Akintoye [37], and Moser and
Kalton [38].
To further validate the EFA result a partial least squares struc-
tural equation modeling (PLS-SEM) was used. This is a causal
mod- eling approach used to optimize the explained variance
between the latent variables [39]. There are two stages
involved in the PLS-SEM. The first stage analyzes the outer
loading of latent vari- ables, discriminatory validity, and
composite reliability [40]. The second stage measures the
relationship between latent variables and dependent variables by
estimating beta (path coefficient) [41].

3.1. Respondents’ features and demographic profiles

The majority of the respondents were male (86.7%), which

reflects the male-dominated characteristic of the industry. More
than 80 per cent of the respondents were construction profession-
als with more than six years of work experience in the construction
industry and have worked in their current organizations for
six

Table 1
Barriers to safety program implementation.

No Items References
1 Lack of safety standards Interview
2 Insufficient resources [21,27,30]
3 Tight project schedule [21,30,31]
4 Inadequate commitment to OSH [21,30]
5 Putting safety as a lower priority [26,27,30]
6 Lack of training [20,25]
7 No safety rules and policy Interview
8 Assuming that safety is only the responsibility of safety [26,30]
personnel
9 Lack of safety inspection reports Interview
10 Higher management unaware about safety consideration [27,30,32]
11 No safety officer [24,33]
12 Lack of competent workers in the construction industry [30]

3
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

lic sector, while the remainder worked in the private sector. Almost
45% of them worked as developers, while 29% and 26% worked as
contractors and consultants respectively. The respondents were
also well-educated, with more than 90% having at least a bachelor’s
degree.
As to the ‘‘familiarity with the safety program,” the majority of
the respondents (68%) said that they were familiar with safety pro-
grams. About 87% of the respondents did not attend formal safety
training, which shows the lack of attention to safety in the Iraqi
construction industry. To make matter worse, most respondents
(71.3%) stated that there was no safety policy in their
organizations.
Despite limited training and the lack of safety policy, when
asked about the importance of safety programs, 73% of the respon-
dents agreed that it is important. Table 3 summarizes the demo-
graphic profile of the respondents.

4. Result and discussion

4.1. EFA of barriers of safety program implementation

The Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) technique was used to

evaluate the relationship between a series of various interrelated
variables. The EFA can group a large number of variables to make
them easier to work with and to understand.
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) sampling adequacy measurement
was used to measure the homogeneity of the factor and to check
whether the partial correlations between the variables are minimal
[42]. According to Tabachnick et al. [36], the minimum KMO value
for the successful factor analysis is 0.6. In this study, the KMO
value is 0.709, which is above the minimum value. The result of
the Bar-
tlett’ test of sphericity is also significant ((v2 (66) = 1047.541,
p < 0.05), indicating that factor analysis is appropriate for the data.
The anti-image correlation matrix had all diagonals above 0.5,
which support the inclusion of each item into the factor analysis.
Initial communalities are estimates for the variance of all compo-
nents in each variable, and small values (<0.3) indicate variables
not in accordance with the factor analysis. All initial communali-
ties were above the threshold in the current study and all loading
factors are greater than 0.5 (Table 4).
Fig. 1. Research flow.
Four factors with eigenvalues greater than 1 were extracted
from the EFA on the 12 barriers. The total variance explained by
the four factors was 76.422%, as shown in Table 5. Results after
years or more. Approximately 40% of the respondents worked as Varimax rotation showed that the first factor (unconducive work
project engineers, while the remainder worked in various manage- climate) explained 21.5% of the variance, the second factor (poor
ment positions. Around 60% of the respondents worked in the pub- safety awareness) explained 20.58% of the variance, the third factor
(poor governance) explained 17.543% of the variance, and the last

Table 2
Demographic profile of the interviewees.

No Position Education level Experience (Years) Sector Organization function

1 Director BSc 30 Private sector Contractor
2 Project manager PhD 28 Government Client/Developer
3 Site engineer MSc 20 Government Contractor
4 Senior manager BSc 24 Private sector Client/Developer
5 Consultant PhD 40 Independent Consultant Consultant
6 Senior manager PhD 30 Independent Consultant Consultant
7 Project manager PhD 35 Independent Consultant Consultant
8 Site engineer MSc 15 Government Client/Developer
9 Director PhD 28 Independent Consultant Consultant
10 Site engineer MSc 12 Independent Consultant Consultant
11 Site engineer BSc 8 Private sector Client/Developer
12 Director MSc 25 Independent Consultant Consultant
13 Project manager PhD 22 Private sector Contractor
14 Senior manager MSc 15 Private sector Contractor
15 Site engineer BSc 10 Government Client/Developer
16 Consultant MSc 25 Independent Consultant Consultant

4
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 2. Structural model (b and outer loading values).

factor (unsupportive industry norms) explained 16.793% of the

The lack of commitment to OSH is also often expressed in the per-
total variance.
ception that safety is the responsibility of safety personnel. Lack of
After the EFA analysis, the Cronbach’s Alpha test was performed
collaboration between project staff and safety personnel leads to
to assess the reliability of the questionnaire and to measure the
ineffective safety programs, poor risk management practices, and
internal consistency of the constructs items [43]. Table 6 shows
ineffective safety controls and performance measures [25]. Man-
the Cronbach’s Alpha coefficients ranging from 0.745 to 0.897,
agement commitment is the success factor most frequently men-
which are acceptable values (>0.7).
tioned in safety research. Improving management commitment
to OHS, therefore, is key to address issues related to unconducive
4.1.1. Unconducive work climate
work climate.
The first component of the barriers to the implementation of
safety program is unconducive work climate. It includes the fol-
4.1.2. Poor safety awareness
lowing barriers: lack of resources, lack of commitment to OSH
The second barrier component is poor safety awareness. Three
and the assumption that safety is the sole responsibility of safety
barriers are found in this component: lack of training, being una-
personnel. These barriers are interlinked and determine the suc-
ware of safety risks and concerns, and lack of safety inspection.
cess of the implementation of the safety program. For example,
Again, these items are interlinked to each other. Failure to provide
according to Goh and Chua [21], the lack of resources leads to a
training leads to limited knowledge of risks and safety, reflecting
low commitment to OSH by the management staff. On the other
the management team’s lack of awareness about safety issues. This
hand, a lack of safety commitment is demonstrated by a lack of
will all lead to the failure of managers to assess, prevent and con-
resources for the implementation of safety programs [44–46].
trol risks, including the lack of inspection of safety [47,48].
5
 M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 3
Table 5
Frequency distribution of demographic characteristics.
Factor loadings based principal component analysis with Varimax rotation related to
Variable Level Frequency Percent barriers of safety program implementation (N = 150).

Gender Male 130 86.7 Component

Female 20 13.3
Experience 5 years or less 23 15.3
1 2 3 4
6 to 10 years 44 29.3
11 to 15 years 48 76.7 BAR.SM.2 0.910
16 to 20 years 19 12.7 BAR.SM.3 0.856
More than 20 years 16 10.7 BAR.SM.1 0.819
Present organization 5 years or less 26 17.3 BAR.SPC.2 0.916
6 to 10 years 49 32.7 BAR.SPC.1 0.911
11 to 15 years 46 30.7 BAR.SPC.3 0.663
16 to20 years 14 9.3 BAR.MC.3 0.836
More than 20 years 15 10 BAR.MC.2 0.800
Current position in your Director 8 5.3 BAR.MC.1 0.792
BAR.WI.3 0.865
organization BAR.WI.2 0.795
Senior manager 15 10 BAR.WI.1 0.701
Project manager 34 22.7 Eigenvalues 2.58 2.47 2.105 2.015
Site engineer 63 42 % of Variance 21.5 20.58 17.543 16.793
Manager 30 20
Education Diploma 12 8
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.
Bachelor 72 48
Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization.
Master 53 35.3
PhD 13 8.7
Organization Type Public 92 61.3
Private 58 38.7 Table 6
Organization function Client / developer 67 44.7 Reliability analysis.
Consultant 39 26
Contractor 44 29.3 Factor Name Reliability
Familiarity with safety Totally familiar 14 9.3
Unconducive work climate 0.897
Familiar 88 58.7
Poor governance 0.752
Moderately familiar 25 16.7
Poor safety awareness 0.872
Not familiar 15 10
Unsupportive industry norms 0.745
Totally not familiar 8 5.3
Attended any formal safety Yes 19 12.7
training No 131 87.3
Importance of Safety program Strongly disagree 1 0.7 According to Aksorn and Hadikusumo [49], the lack of safety rules,
Disagree 6 4 policies and standards are strong barriers to the implementation of
Neither agree nor 33 22
disagree safety program. Communication of safety standards and rules to all
Agree 42 28 and responsibilities in the implementation of safety programs.
Strongly agree 68 45.3
Policy Yes 43 28.7
No 107 71.3

Table 4
Communalities of 12 items related to barriers of safety program implementation.

Code Items Communalities

BAR.SM.1 Insufficient resources 0.783
BAR.SM.2 Inadequate commitment to OSH 0.886
BAR.SM.3 Assuming that safety is only the 0.846
responsibility of safety personnel
BAR.MC.1 No safety rules and policy 0.638
BAR.MC.2 Lack of safety standards 0.734
BAR.MC.3 No safety officer 0.72
BAR.SPC.1 Lack of training 0.896
BAR.SPC.2 Higher management unaware about safety 0.923
consideration
BAR.SPC.3 Lack of safety inspection reports 0.614
BAR.WI.1 Putting safety as a lower priority 0.663
BAR.WI.2 Tight project schedule 0.820
BAR.WI.3 Lack of competent workers in the 0.648
construction industry

4.1.3. Poor governance

The third component is poor governance and it is represented
by three barriers: lack of safety standards, no safety rules and
policies, and no safety officers. All these barriers are related to poor
safety management governance. Without safety policies, rules and
regulations, managers and stakeholders are unaware of their roles
6
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
stakeholders is of paramount to the creation and maintenance of a
safe working environment and the development of a strong safety
culture [47,50]. One of the manifestations of this lack of safety and
non-existence of safety management governance is the non-
existence of safety control in the form of safety officers [25], who
have an important responsibility to lead the implementation of
safety program and involve all stakeholders in the process.

4.1.4. Unsupportive industry norms

Unsupportive industry norms are the last barrier component
and it is represented by the three barriers: lack of competent work-
ers in the construction industry; tight project schedule; and lower
priority for safety. The lack of competent workers is common in
the Iraqi construction industry and restricts their participation in
the implementation of safety program. To make matters worse,
con- struction projects tend to have a tight and unreasonably time-
frame, which is the norm in the industry. As such, completing
projects as quickly as possible within the given timeframe is a pri-
ority for contractors in Iraq [25]. In this context, project team
members usually place safety at a lower level of priority,
which is further exacerbated by limited resources and poor
commitment to safety [25,51].

4.2. PLS-SEM validation analysis

This analysis assessed the relationships between items and

latent variables [52], and presents the structural model
representing the relationships between the constructs [53]. Table 7
illustrates the measurement model assessment. Factor loadings of
the confirma- tory factor analysis and average variance extracted
(AVE) should be above 0.5 [54,55], the composite reliability (CR)
should be above
0.7 [56] and the Cronbach’s alpha should be above 0.5 [57].

7
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 7
The result of convergent validity.

Construct Item Outer loadings Cronbach’s Alpha CR AVE

Poor governance BAR.MC.1 0.327 Deleted 0.757 0.860 0.755
BAR.MC.2 0.826
BAR.MC.3 0.800
Poor safety awareness BAR.SPC.1 0.882 0.807 0.888 0.727
BAR.SPC.2 0.921
BAR.SPC.3 0.745
Unsupportive industry norms BAR.WI.1 0.728 0.702 0.790 0.653
BAR.WI.2 0.851
BAR.WI.3 0.324 Deleted
Unconducive work climate BAR.SM.1 0.849 0.776 0.869 0.690
BAR.SM.2 0.805
BAR.SM.3 0.837

Table 8
Correlation of latent variables and discriminant validity (Fornell-Larcker).

Constructs 1 2 3 4
1 Poor governance 0.869
2 Poor safety awareness 0.315 0.853
3 Unconducive work climate 0.470 0.696 0.830
4 Unsupportive industry norms 0.412 0.594 0.669 0.808

Table 9
Loading and cross loading of constructs for discriminant validity assessment.

Constructs Poor governance Poor safety awareness Unconducive work climate Unsupportive industry norms
BAR.MC.2 0.885 0.398 0.362 0.339
BAR.MC.3 0.852 0.136 0.461 0.381
BAR.SPC.1 0.171 0.882 0.489 0.416
BAR.SPC.2 0.314 0.921 0.533 0.474
BAR.SPC.3 0.305 0.745 0.728 0.604
BAR.SM.1 0.601 0.569 0.849 0.656
BAR.SM.2 0.061 0.451 0.801 0.635
BAR.SM.3 0.445 0.697 0.841 0.385
BAR.WI.1 0.340 0.377 0.656 0.813
BAR.WI.2 0.326 0.585 0.421 0.802

Table 10
Test of second-order models.

Constructs b T Values P Value VIF

Poor governance 0.191 10.015 <0.001 1.525
Poor safety awareness 0.394 20.473 <0.001 2.202
Unconducive work climate 0.400 25.293 <0.001 2.396
Unsupportive industry norms 0.223 16.389 <0.001 2.226

Table 7 shows the outer loadings for all items in the model. Two
The next stage in the PLS-SEM is analyzing the structural
items, insufficient resources within the poor governance construct
model, which involves evaluating the contribution of latent
and lack of competent workers within the unsupportive industry
variables on the implementation of safety programs. The study
norms construct, were deleted from the model because their factor
identified the value of the variance inflation factor (VIF) by
loadings were below 0.5, meaning these items have low contribu-
examining the collinearity between the construction of formative
tions to the constructs.
items [60]. Because this study deals with reflective-formative type,
The discriminant validity was measured to prove that there is
the inner VIF was used.
no correlation between constructs. The discriminant validity can
Table 10 shows the barriers for safety program implementation
measured by using Fornell Larckers and Cross Loading [58], where
can be represented by four subscales: unconducive work climate
the value of the square root of AVE should be larger than the cor-
(b = 0.400), poor safety awareness (b = 0.394), unsupportive
relation between latent variables. The results presented in Table 8
indus- try norms (b = 0.223), and poor governance (b = 0.191). The
confirm the model’s discriminant validity [59].
path coefficients indicate that all these dimensions are significant
Cross loading is another way to examine discriminant validity.
barri- ers to the implementation of safety programs. The VIF values
Results in Table 9 show that all loading indicators for the latent
for the dimensions are below 3.5, meaning they have independent
con- structs assigned are higher than cross-loading for other
contributions to second order constructs.
constructs.

8
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

5. Conclusion [4] I. Association AP. Glossary of occupational health and safety terms. Retrieved
November, vol. 7, p. 2013; 2007.
Implementing safety programs in the construction industry is a [5] Hinze J, Wiegand F. Role of designers in construction worker safety. J Constr
Eng Manage 1992;118(4):677–84.
way of minimizing safety hazards, reducing injuries and deaths, [6] Al Haadir S, Panuwatwanich K. Critical success factors for safety program
eliminating costs associated with poor safety performance, and implementation among construction companies in Saudi Arabia. Proc Eng
protecting construction organization’s reputation. Despite its 2011;14:148–55.
[7] Rowlinson SM. Hong Kong construction: safety management and the
advantages, the Iraqi construction industry still faces barriers to law. Hong Kong: Sweet & Maxwell Asia Causeway Bay; 2003.
the successful implementation of safety programs. [8] Othman I, Majid R, Mohamad H, Shafiq N, Napiah M. Variety of accident causes
The research identified four main barriers that need to be tack- in construction industry. In: MATEC Web of Conferences; 2018, vol. 203: EDP
Sciences, p. 02006.
led to strengthen the implementation of safety programs in the [9] Hinze J, Hallowell M, Baud K. Construction-safety best practices and
Iraqi construction industry. First, unconducive work climate due relationships to safety performance. J Constr Eng Manage 2013;139
to insufficient safety resources, poor safety commitment, and poor (10):04013006.
[10] Othman I, Kamil M, Sunindijo RY, Alnsour M, Kineber AF. Critical success
safety accountability. Second, poor safety awareness, underpinned
factors influencing construction safety program implementation in developing
by lack of safety training, lack of safety knowledge, especially countries. In: J Phys: Conference Series 2020, vol. 1529, no. 4. IOP Publishing,
among those at higher management level, and lack of safety con- p. 042079.
[11] Hinze J, Gambatese J. Factors that influence safety performance of specialty
trol. Third, poor governance is reflected in the non-existence of
contractors. J Constr Eng Manage 2003;129(2):159–64.
safety management program. Fourth, the norms in the Iraqi con- [12] Findley M, Smith S, Kress T, Petty G, Kim E. Safety program elements in
struction industry do not support the implementation of safety construction. Professional Safety 2004;49(2):14.
[13] Acadimy O. Developing a construction safety management system. https://
programs due to their attention on completing projects as quick
www.oshatrain.org/courses/studyguides/833studyguide.pdf [accessed
as possible with minimum costs. A PLS-SEM was then used to val- November 26 2017].
idate the EFA result. The results confirm that all four barrier [14] Abdelhamid TS, Everett JG. Identifying root causes of construction accidents. J
Constr Eng Manage 2000;126(1):52–60.
dimensions significantly affect safety program implementation.
[15] Anton TJ. Occupational safety and health management; 1989.
This validation provides mathematical evidence for barrier dimen- [16] Othman I. Safety management practices at construction site. In: Proceeding
sions and items that hinder safety program implementation in the 3rd international conference on environment. Al Ameer Sdn Bhd; 2010.
[17] Oliveira OJD, Oliveira ABD, Almeida RAD. Diretrizes para implantação de
Iraqi construction industry.
sistemas de segurança e saúde do trabalho em empresas produtoras de
Identifying barriers to OSH is sorely needed in the Iraqi con- baterias automotivas. Gestão & Produção 2010;17(2):407–19.
struction industry so that appropriate and practical interventions [18] Bibb A, Bust P. Construction health and safety in developing countries.
European Construction Institute; 2006.
can be proposed and employed by the government, organizations
[19] Rollenhagen C, Kahlbom U. Towards a model for the assessment of safety
and policy makers to progressively take the barriers down and activities and their associated organization context. In: Proceedings of the
improve safety performance. It should begin with establishing an 4th international workshop on human error, safety and system
development; 2001. p. 11–12.
appropriate system of governance at the national level to support
[20] Kartam N, Flood I, Koushki P. Construction safety in Kuwait: issues,
the implementation of safety programs so that safety can gradually procedures, problems, and recommendations. Saf Sci 2000;36(3):163–84.
become an integral part of construction project activities. The [21] Goh YM, Chua D. Neural network analysis of construction safety
management systems: a case study in Singapore. Constr Manage Econ
establishment of OSH legislation and its adequate enforcement
2013;31(5):460–70.
are key in this system of governance. This will compel construction [22] Othman I, Azman A. Safety misbehaviour and its effect towards safety
organizations to start incorporating safety considerations into their performance of construction projects. In: ICACE 2019. Springer; 2020. p.
193–200.
business activities. Through continuous safety commitment at the
[23] Othman I, Mohamad H, Sapari N, Shafiq N, Ibrahim F, Kamil MS. HSE
national and industry level, safety awareness and management management system at high elevation in shipbuilding project.
commitment can also be developed at the organizational level. [24] da Silva SLC, Amaral FG. Critical factors of success and barriers to the
implementation of occupational health and safety management systems: a
Being consistent in this concerted effort to improve safety is crucial
systematic review of literature. Saf Sci 2019;117:123–32.
to ensure progress and to transform the Iraqi construction [25] Yiu NS, Chan DW, Shan M, Sze N. Implementation of safety management
industry. system in managing construction projects: Benefits and obstacles. Saf Sci
2019;117:23–32.
[26] Stephen C, Hunt B. Safety management systems in Hong Kong: is there
6. Supporting fund organization anything wrong with the implementation? Managerial Auditing J 2002.
[27] Kogi K. Work improvement and occupational safety and health management
systems: common features and research needs. Ind Health 2002;40 (2):121–
FRGS Grant Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (Reference: 33.
FRGS/1/2018/TK06/UTP/03/02). [28] Sobral J, Soares CG. Assessment of the adequacy of safety barriers to hazards.
Saf Sci 2019;114:40–8.
[29] Chileshe N, Dzisi E. Benefits and barriers of construction health and safety
7. Data availability statement management (HSM). J Eng, Des Technol; 2012.
[30] Yiu NS, Sze N, Chan DW. Implementation of safety management systems in
Hong Kong construction industry–a safety practitioner’s perspective. J Saf Res
All data, models, or code generated or used during the study are 2018;64:1–9.
available from the corresponding author by request (All items). [31] Ju C, Rowlinson S. Institutional determinants of construction safety
management strategies of contractors in Hong Kong. Constr Manage Econ.
2014;32(7–8):725–36.
Acknowledgement [32] Fang D, Chen Y, Wong L. Safety climate in construction industry: a case study
in Hong Kong. J Constr Eng Manage 2006;132(6):573–84.
Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, 32610 Seri Iskandar, Perak, [33] Yiu N, Chan D. A taxonomic review of the application of safety management
systems in construction. J Int Scientific Publ: Ecol Saf 2016;19:394–408.
Malaysia, Tel: +6053658000, Fax: +6053656716. Ministry of Elec- [34] Othman I, Kineber A, Oke A, Khalil N, Buniya M. Drivers of value management
tricity, Baghdad, Iraq. implementation in building projects in developing countries. In: J Physics:
Conference Series, vol. 1529, no. 4. IOP Publishing; 2020. p. 042083.
[35] Stapleton CD. Basic concepts in exploratory factor analysis (EFA) as a tool to
References evaluate score validity: a right-brained approach; 1997.
[36] Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS, Ullman JB. Using multivariate statistics. MA: Pearson
[1] Tam C, Zeng S, Deng Z. Identifying elements of poor construction safety Boston; 2007.
management in China. Saf Sci 2004;42(7):569–86. [37] Akintoye A. Analysis of factors influencing project cost estimating practice.
[2] Othman, Shafiq N, Nuruddin M. Effective safety management in construction Constr Manage Econ 2000;18(1):77–89.
project. In: IOP conference series: materials science and engineering, vol. 291, [38] Moser CA, Kalton G. Survey methods in social investigation. Routledge; 2017.
no. 1. IOP Publishing; 2017. p. 012018. [39] Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM: Indeed a silver bullet. J Marketing
[3] ICAO D. ‘‘9859 Safety Management Manual,” ed: Edisi; 2013. Theory Practice 2011;19(2):139–52.

9
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx

[40] Chin WW. The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling.
Modern Methods Bus Res 1998;295(2):295–336. [54] Hulland J. Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research:
[41] Aibinu AA, Al-Lawati AM. Using PLS-SEM technique to model construction a review of four recent studies. Strateg Manag J 1999;20(2):195–204.
organizations’ willingness to participate in e-bidding. Autom Constr 2010;19 [55] Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with
(6):714–24. unobservable variables and measurement error. J Mark Res 1981;18(1):39–50.
[42] Sharma S, Sharma S. Applied multivariate techniques; 1996. [56] Hair J, Anderson R, Tatham R, Black W. Multivariate data analysis: with
[43] Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis readings. 4th ed. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall; 1998.
(Vol. 6),‘‘ ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall; 2006. [57] Bagozzi RP, Yi Y. On the evaluation of structural equation models. J Acad Mark
[44] Zeng SX, Shi JJ, Lou G. A synergetic model for implementing an integrated Sci 1988;16(1):74–94.
management system: an empirical study in China. J Cleaner Prod 2007;15 [58] Hair Jr JF, Matthews LM, Matthews RL, Sarstedt M. PLS-SEM or CB-SEM:
(18):1760–7. updated guidelines on which method to use. Int J Multivariate Data Anal
[45] Mohammadfam I, Kamalinia M, Momeni M, Golmohammadi R, Hamidi Y, 2017;1(2):107–23.
Soltanian A. Developing an integrated decision making approach to assess and [59] Chin WW, Marcolin BL, Newsted PR. A partial least squares latent variable
promote the effectiveness of occupational health and safety management modeling approach for measuring interaction effects: results from a Monte
systems. J Cleaner Prod 2016;127:119–33. Carlo simulation study and an electronic-mail emotion/adoption study. Inform
[46] I_nan UH, Gül S, Yılmaz H. A multiple attribute decision model to compare the Syst Res 2003;14(2):189–217.
firms’ occupational health and safety management perspectives. Saf Sci [60] Hair JF, Ringle CM, Sarstedt M. Partial least squares structural equation
2017;91:221–31. modeling: Rigorous applications, better results and higher acceptance. Long
[47] Mahmoudi S, Ghasemi F, Mohammadfam I, Soleimani E. Framework for Range Plan 2013;46(1–2):1–12.
continuous assessment and improvement of occupational health and safety
issues in construction companies. Safety Health At Work 2014;5(3):125–30.
[48] Yazdani A, Neumann WP, Imbeau D, Bigelow P, Pagell M, Wells R. DR. IR. Idris Othman, [ASEAN Chartered Professional
Prevention of musculoskeletal disorders within management systems: a
Engineer (ACPE-02579/MY), PJK, P.Eng (BEM PE-
scoping review of practices, approaches, and techniques. Appl Ergon
C113073), TOTAL-FRANCE Cert (Oil & Gas), PhD(UTP),
2015;51:255–62.
[49] Aksorn T, Hadikusumo BH. Critical success factors influencing safety program MSc(USM), BEng(UiTM), DEng (UTM), MIEM(M13558),
performance in Thai construction projects. Saf Sci 2008;46(4):709–27. MCSM(M0510), MyGEOPOLYMER, MQA, EAC(Washing-
[50] Ghahramani A. Factors that influence the maintenance and improvement of ton Accord,USA), ETAC(Sydney Accord,Aust), ETeAC
OHSAS 18001 in adopting companies: a qualitative study. J Cleaner Prod (Dublin Accord,UK]
2016;137:283–90.
[51] Othman I, Harahap MIP, Mohamad H, Shafiq N, Napiah M. Development of
BIM-Based safety management model focusing on safety rule violations. In:
MATEC Web of Conferences, vol. 203. EDP Sciences; 2018. p. 02007.
[52] Hair Jr JF, Hult GTM, Ringle C, Sarstedt M. A primer on partial least squares
structural equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Sage publications; 2016.
[53] Molenaar K, Washington S, Diekmann J. Structural equation model of
construction contract dispute potential. J Constr Eng Manage 2000;126
(4):268–77.

8
M.K. Buniya et al. Ain Shams Engineering Journal xxx (xxxx) xxx
View publication stats