Ac ci d ent A nal y s i s a nd P r ev ent i o n 9 6 (2 0 1 6) 10 1 – 1 0 7

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Accident Analysis and Prevention

jo u r n al homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/aap

Developing techniques for cause-responsibility analysis of

occupational accidents
Mousa Jabbari a,* , Roghayeh Ghorbani b

a
I n d u st ri a lSa f ety Dep a rt men t , Sc h oo l o f H ea l th , Sa f ety a n d E n vi r on m en t, Sh a hi d Be he sh ti Un i v ers i ty of M edi c a l S c ie nc e ,Teh r an , I r an
b E n vi r on m en ta l E n gi n eer i n g,Ai r P ol l u ti o nC o nt ro l ,Teh r an , I r a n

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Ar ti c l eh is to r y: The aim of this study was to specify the causes of occupational accidents, determine
respon-
social
Re cei v e d 2 4 M ay 2 0 1 5 sibility and the role of groups involved in work-related accidents. This study occupational
develops
Re cei v e d i n r ev i s ed fo rm 1 8 J u l y 2 01 6 accidents causes tree, occupational accidents responsibility tree, and occupational component-
accidents
A ccep t ed 2 8 Ju l y 20 1 6
responsibility analysis worksheet; based on these methods, it develops cause-responsibility
analysis
A va i l ab l e o nl i ne 9 A u gu s t 2 0 1 6
(CRA) techniques, and for testing them, analyzes 100 fatal/disabling occupational accidents
con-
the
in
struction setting that were randomly selected from all the work-related accidents Tehran,
in Iran,
over
Ke ywo rd s :
a 5-year period (2010–2014). The main result of this study involves two techniques occupa-
CRA:
for
A cci d ent cau s e s
tional accidents tree analysis (OATA) and occupational accidents components analysis
(OACA),
used
in
Re s p o nsi b i l i t y
E x p er t te am parallel for determination of responsible groups and responsibilities rate. From the results,
find
that
we
C o ns tr u ct i o n the management group of construction projects has 74.65% responsibility of work-related
accidents.
The
S afe ty developed techniques are purposeful for occupational accidents investigation/analysis, especially
the
for
determination of detailed list of tasks, responsibilities, and their rates. Therefore, it preventing
is useful
for
work-related accidents by focusing on the responsible group’s duties.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd.
reserved.
rights
All

1. Introduction – have the highest accident among all economicactivities

Arji,(
2013 ). To prevent fatal and injury accidents on
construction
sites,
Occupational accidents are a substantial expense to the society various existing researches have been carried out
identify
and
to
and individual companies. This loss could be avoided by prevent- analyze the causes of safety hazards and risks fromintegral
per-
an
ing such accidents from happening ( Rikhardsson, 2004 ). Corporate spective of accidents ( Cheng et al., 2010; Aneziris 2010;
et
Yang
al.,
social responsibility is a very important factor for accident pre- et al., 2012 ). Environmental-, safety-, and health-management
sys-
vention. Accidents/incidents are occurrences that result in loss of tems have also been reviewed in some papers. Yoonet
(2013)
al.
production, illness or injury, damage to equipment or property, and assessed the effect of occupational health- safety-management
and
near misses (Reese and Edison, 2006). Accidents occur every day system on work-related accident rate and differences
occupa-
of
in construction sites ( Yoon et al., 2013 ). The construction industry tional health- and safety-management system awareness
between
is a very hazardous industry and is plagued by occupational risky managers in South Korea’s construction industry.
Wachter
and
situations and poor working conditions in which fatal and nonfa- Yorio (2014) did an empirical and theoreticalinvestigation
on
tal occupational injuries occur most frequently due to its unique the system of safety-management practices andworker
engage-
nature ( Pinto et al., 2011 ). Iran is one of the most earthquake- ment for reducing and preventing accidents. Hallin
Gustavsson
and
prone countries. For this reason, construction and reconstruction (2009) took an analytical approach to corporate responsi-
social
of old buildings to retrofit them against earthquakes is increas- bility (CSR) by discussing the overlap between human
CSR
and
ing every day. This increases the construction activities and so resource management (HRM). Wu et al. (2013) developed
inte-
an
accidents have increased in recent years in Iran. According to work- grated information management model for proactive
prevention
related accidents statistics of Iranian Social Security Organization in of struck-by-falling-object accidents on constructionCelma
sites.
2013, construction activities – with 26.69% work-related accidents et al. (2014) examined the scope, types, and degree
corporate
of
0ht0*tp0C:/E
1o/d
-4
-rrma
x5e.d
7sp
i 5ol ao/©
i dnd
. or
dr2i ges
ng
0 /1
16
s 0: aJa
.1
Eulb0tho
sba
1ev6rr.i/j.a
i erL
m@s
aptd. b2. A
mu
0 l16l.ar.ic.
0g7.
ihts
r 0(M
3r 9es. er
Jabv bedar. i ) . and its responsibility
social
accordingresponsibility
determinants.
to the type practices
that
than
The areaccording
results
currently
currently
showto the
employed
that
applied
degree
responsibility.
practices
corporate
grouped
are
Spain,
HRM
more
of
in in
102 M. J ab ba r i, R. Gh or b an i / Ac c i d en tAn al ys i sa n d P rev en ti o n 9 6 ( 20 1 6) 1 0 1– 1 0 7

Fig . 1. Ge ner al i nv es t ig a ti o n a nd a nal y s i s of o ccu p a ti o nal ac ci d ent s .

Wu et al. (2013) developed an integrated information manage- 2.1. General investigation

ment model for proactive prevention of struck-by-falling-object
accidents on construction sites. Resources survey re ects the fact According to the employer’s and contractor’s role
the
in
that fewer studies have been done to determine the responsibil- prevention of work-related accidents in construction sites,
100
ity and accountability of individuals in the accidents. The majority occupational accidents were investigated and analyzed.These
acci-
of contractors on construction sites are subcontractors who have dents were randomly selected from the accidents resulting
in
been hired by other entities such as prime contractors, owners, death or disabling injuries in Tehran, Iran, over a 5-year
period
architects, and engineers or construction managers. Subcontrac- (2010–2014). For this reason, at first, for each incident,
groupa
tors are often held accountable for the safety of their companies of accident investigation team from official expertswork-related
of
and employees, while the individual who hired them is protected accidents was formed. Most teams consist of three members
or five
from third-party litigation. Thus, there is no shared accountabil- selected from 40 people of Iranian work-related accident
investi-
ity for safety and health on the jobsite. Recently, this has begun gation and analysis official experts group. Then, all
documents
the
to change and prime contractors, owners, and managers have been and records about accidents were collected and description
full of
forced to share accountability and responsibility ( Reese and Eidson, accidents was provided. On the other hand, determinationacci-
of
2006 ). According to the existing rules and regulations and opinions dent type and accident causes was done (see Fig. 1description
). Full
of experts in Iran, each individual involved in the occupational acci- of this section is as follows:
dents, according to his/her role in causing the incident should be
held accountable in work-related accidents. Employers are moti-
2.1.1. Description of accident
vated to implement safety regulations by many factors. These may
In the first stage of accident investigation, all
documents
the
be social, fiscal, and legal obligations ( OR-OSHA, 2015 ). In the study,
from police records and construction accident reportswcol-
ere
legal obligation and responsibility/accountability of the involved
lected. Then, reviewing of documents and regulation about
the
persons/companies/organizations were used for developing cause-
accident, visiting the accident sites, hearing statements
the
of
responsibility analysis (CRA) techniques by determining accident
informed people and witnesses of all accidents, anddiscussing
with
causes
projects.
2.
two and the
Materials
Occupational
sections as role
andfollows: of the investigation
accidents
methods involved groups
and in the were
analysis construction
done in the the
families
in
2.1.2.
including
Accident
owner,
incident
Determination
of direct
deceased
contractor,
causes
wascauses,
done.
orof injured
were subcontractors,
accident
indirect
determined
personals
causes
causes based
relevant
and
(unsafe
other
onorganizations,
classification
the
involved
acts
people
unsafe
and
 M . J a b ba ri ,R . G h or ba n i / Ac c i d en tAna l ys i sa n d Pr ev en ti o n 9 6 (2 0 16 ) 1 0 1– 1 07 103

conditions), and basic causes (policies and decisions, personal fac- and OACA technique was developed. In the OACA
technique,
occu-
tors, and environmental factors) ( Reese and Eidson, 2006 ). pational accidents investigation results were inserted
OACA the
in
worksheet. OACA worksheet has six columns. In
column,
first
the
2.1.3. Determination of accident types occupational accidents triangle components (OATC),
HE,
IM,
the
To manage data and accident prevention, all the accidents were and T/T, were specified. In second column, occupational
general
classified into 11 basic types including struck by, struck against, accidents causal factor (GOACF) was determined OATC.
based
on
contact by, contact with, caught on, caught in, caught between, fall- GOACF is general information about the component occu-
the
of
same level, fall down, overexertion and exposure. pational accidents triangle. In this column, occupational
accidents
causal factors (OACF), regardless of the accident investi-
under
2.2. Special investigation gation, were inserted. In the third column, occupational
special
accidents causal factors (SOACF) were determined. column,
this
In
Specifying occupational accidents causes and the responsible special information about the incident underinvestigation
was
groups such as persons, companies, or organizations and determi- filled. In the fourth column, root occupational accidents
causal
fac-
nation of responsibility rate was the main objective of this study. tors (ROACF) were determined. ROACF exactly specifies
failure
any
To achieve these goals, two techniques were developed and used or incautious action performed by any member involved
of
the
as CRA techniques including occupational accidents tree analysis group that resulted in the accident. In the fifth column
work-
the
of
(OATA) and occupational accidents component analysis (OACA). sheet, the responsible group for every ROACF
determined.
was
Each technique can determine all three factors: occupational acci- Subsequently, the percentage of the responsibility involved
for
each
dents causes, responsible groups, and responsibility rate. However, group was specified in the sixth column.
in this study, to improve the results, these techniques were done in
parallel. Accident analysis and investigation using these techniques 2.2.3. Integration of results of the CRA techniques
are as follows: Integration of the results of OATA and OACA
techniques
were
done as follows:
2.2.1. OATA technique
In this technique, two trees including occupational accidents (i) At the first stage, every accident was investigated
OATA
using
responsibility tree (OART) and occupational accidents causes tree and OACA techniques by each member of the expert
team,
and
(OACT) were drawn and the responsibility rate was determined by responsibility rate was determined.
matching the tree branches as follows: (ii) At the second stage, if the results of the OATA
differ-
were
ent from the results of the OACA, the feedbackused
was
to
2.2.1.1. OART. Employers, contractors, and workers can prevent make changes and improvements to any oftechniques.
the This
accidents by designing and implementing safety regulations in the process was continued until each expert achieved
same
the
workplace. In this section, the responsible groups are specified results and the same responsibility rate involved
forevery
according to the involved persons, companies, or organizations in person/group in the accident occurrence byOACA
OATA
and
occupational accidents. techniques.
(iii) In the third stage, the results obtained bymember
each
of
2.2.1.2. OACT. Determination of occupational accidents causes and the accident expert team were compared with
results
the
of
impact probability of each person in an accident was done in this other experts, and finally, unique results about
causes
the
for
section. Impact probability of every failure, unsafe conditions, or accident, responsible persons/organizations, responsibil-
and
incorrect operations in an accident was determined based on (i) ity rate were presented. The presented results average
were
the
safety regulations and guidelines, (ii) evidences and documents, of the results or they were the consensus formed
opinions
from
(iii) results of assessing an accident scene and interviews, and (iv) of all the members of the expert team.
according to experts’ opinions. In most cases, the final decision
about impact probability on an accident was through consensus 3. Results and discussions
among all members of the team. In case of difference of opinions,
the final decision was an average of all the opinions. The results of the research for 100 accidents
construction
in
projects including determination of accident causes,
accident
types,
2.2.1.3. Matching the branches of OACT and OART. Responsibility role of the involved groups in construction projects
work-related
on
percentage was determined through matching the impact probabil- accidents, developing techniques, and presenting study
acwill
ase
ity of each failure with the involved groups in an accident obtained be presented next:
from OACT and OART.
3.1. Determination of occupational accidents causes
2.2.2. OACA technique
In this section, the hazard theory is used as the basics for deter- Investigating occupational accidents causes show
most
that
of
mination of the responsibility rate. Based on the hazard theory, the accidents can be categorized into 12 groups. causes
The
are
the hazard comprises three components including the hazardous shown in Fig. 2 . Based on the results, working height
froma
or
element, initiating mechanism, and target/threat. Hazardous ele- open sides and edges without fall-protection systems
most
the
is
ment (HE) is the basic hazardous resource available for an accident important cause of work-related accidents construction
in sites.
to happen. Initiating mechanism (IM) is the trigger or initiator Working on an unsafe scaffold, erecting and dismantling
scaffold,
of
event(s)
or vulnerable
mishap
is
hazard
of
tion
an actualizedcausing
transformation
accident
fromform
state.
hazard the
analysis.
ahazards
toTarget
hazard
injury
state hazard
of the
and
Therefore,
(triangle.
and/or
Ericson,
to hazardto damage.
occur.
mishap/accident
threat 2005
Mishaps
from
an ). aThe
(T/T)accident
Inis
ThetheIM
dormant
are
this causes
situation,
three
the
person
study,
triangle
state actualization
immediate
components
due
orwas
weto thing
to
will
an formed
transi-
active
result
need
that
of a and
systemsimpact/contacts
construction
3.2.
of 57%
Analysis
Determination
ofarework-related
of
other
sites. of with
the accidents
important power
occupational
accidents
show lines,
causesat ofgas
accidents
that pipelines,
construction
“falling electrical
work-related and
typeaccidents
down”is
cause
sites
and
the
in
is
104 M. J ab ba r i, R. Gh or b an i / Ac c i d en tAn al ys i sa n d P rev en ti o n 9 6 ( 20 1 6) 1 0 1– 1 0 7

4 P oo r h ous ekeepi n g

4 D e mol i t i on of b ui l di ng

6 Mai nt enan ce and w o rki ng w i t h cons t ruct oi n ma chi n e ry, c r a ne s a nd s o on

7 D e fe c tve
i l a dde r or i mpr ope r us e of l a dde r

8 Im prop e r use of c o nst r uc ti o n ma t e ri a l s l if t in g (mi ni cons t ruc t i on l i ft )

10 Wo rki n g on an uns a fe sc a ff ol d, e r ec t i ng a n d di sm an t l in g of s ca ff ol d

33 Wo rki n g from a hei ght or o pen si des and edg es wi t ho ut fal l- pro te c t i on s ys t e ms

10 Im pa c t s/ c on tatcs w i t h P ow er l i n es , g as pi pel i nes , and elt rie c a l s ys t e ms

7 Im prop er l oadi ng, unl o adi ng, or hand l in g of con st ruct i on m ater i al s , F al li n g obj ect s

5 U ns a fe a c t s a nd c ond i t io ns i n a n va
e xc
t iaon

4 U np l an ne d c ol l a ps e o f t he s t ruc t ur e

2 O c cup a tio nal d is e as es a ndmus cul os kel et al d i sor ders

40 20 0
Accident s Causes (%)

Fi g. 2. Pe r cent ag e o f O cc u p ati o na l A cci d ent s C au s es i n the C o ns t ru ct i o n P r oj ect s .

most important type of accident in the construction sites. “Struck 3.3. Developing CRA techniques
by” and “contact with” are other important causes of accidents in
construction projects. Working from a height, erecting and disman- Employers, contractors, and workers can preventaccidents
by
tling of scaffolding, and working near overhead power lines are designing and implementing safety regulations workplace.
in the
the most hazardous activities in construction sites. As shown in Therefore, everyone in the workplace, according to his/her
duties
Fig. 3 , the above accident types are the causes of 87% of accidents in the projects, is responsible for preventing accidents.deter-
To
in construction sites. The results are in line with some previous mine the responsibilities, at first, CRA techniques developed
were
research; for instance, Health and Safety Executive (2015) found and probable responsible persons, managers, companies,
organi-
or
that fall from height accounted for nearly three in ten fatal injuries zations were identified. Then, occupational accidents analysis
tree
to workers, and almost half of fatal falls took place in construc- (OATA) including occupational accidents responsibility (OART)
tree
tion; Reese and Eidson (2006) reported that four leading causes of and occupational accidents causes tree (OACT) was drawn
for
all
construction fatalities were fall from elevations, struck by, caught the accidents and matching of the accident causes was
done
with
in/between, and electrical shock; Occupational Safety and Health the responsible groups of the accident. In the responsibility
end,
Administration (2015) found that the leading causes of worker percentage of the involved individuals, companies, organiza-
or
deaths on construction sites were falls, followed by electrocution, tions with regard to the accident causes was determined.the
On
struck by object, and caught-in/between. other hand, to improve the results, occupational accidents
compo-
nent analysis (OACA) was done in parallel with theOATA.
this
In
technique, after determining accident triangle component,
occupa-
tional accidents causal factors (OACF s ) including GOACF,
SOACF
and
ROACF, responsible groups and responsibility rate specified.
were
Full process of CRA technique is shown in Fig. 4 .
As mentioned earlier, there are several responsiblegroups
for
120 accidents in construction sites. Based on the Iranian Labor
Law
and
experts’ comments and opinions, in addition to the
employer’s
role
100 in construction accidents, some companies, organizations,
work-
90
87 ers, and even natural causes can affect the occurrenceaccidents.
of
80 Research results show that there are three main factors
accident
for
77
Frequency of occurrence occurrence:
57
60
Relati ve cumulative fr equ ency
- Management group of construction projects
40
- Workers or injured persons
- Other people, workers, organizations, or natural hazards.
20

F ig . 3 . F re q u ency of o ccu p a ti oAcc

na l idents
a cci d ent t y p es i n t he co ns tr u ct i on p r0o ject s .
Ty s pes done Responsibility
construction
responsibility
adents
survey
Manyon
(were
Boyd,
aof
studies percentage
person’s/organization’s
resources
74.65%,
2015;
sites
of have
the is
Shao
21.55%,
above
re
different.
been
ects
et done
al.,
and of
groups
the the
2014;
3.8%,
In
on above
factrole
this
the
for
Cheng factors
respectively.
that
causes
the
in
study,
fewer
accidents,
100 accidents
onacci-
et ofoccupational
al.,
percentages
construction
studies
determine
However,
2013 in
htoave
been
the
of
).
 M . J a b ba ri ,R . G h or ba n i / Ac c i d en tAna l ys i sa n d Pr ev en ti o n 9 6 (2 0 16 ) 1 0 1– 1 07 105

F ig . 4 . S p eci a l i nve s ti g at i on and ana l y si s o f oc cu p at i ona l acci d e nts — C RA Te chni q u e s.

the responsibility percentage, through the use of special methods (IM), and targets/threats (T/T). The complete processof
OACA is
( Chen and Xia, 2012 ). presented in Table 1.

3.4. Presenting a case study 3.4.4. Integration of results of the CRA techniques
Integration of the results of OATA and OACA
techniques
were
To better understand the technique preparation, a case study in done as follows:
construction projects will be presented here: At the first stage, every accident was investigated mem-
each
by
ber of the expert team, and responsibility rate determined.
was The
3.4.1. Accident description first stage of responsibility rate determination process
presented
is
Owners’ representative of a manufacturing company to com- in Table 2.
plete construction projects of the company has signed a contract At the second stage, the feedback was used changes
to
make
with a contractor. The contractor has begun executive operations of and improvements to any of the techniques. This process
con-
was
the project by employing workers and needed personnel. Building tinued until each expert achieved the same resultssame
and
the
plan review shows that by completion of the building, the balcony responsibility rate for every involved person/group accident
the
in
will be placed at a distance of 80 cm from high-voltage overhead occurrence. The second stage of responsibility determination
rate
power lines. For this reason, the owners’ representative, to avoid process is presented in Table 3.
probable accidents, asked from regional power company to move In the third stage, the results obtained by each
member
the
of
overhead power line and secure it before the start of the project. accident expert team were compared with the results
other
of
However, due to delays in replacing and securing of transmission experts, and finally, unique results about causesaccident,
of
the
power lines, executive operation of the project began before that. responsible persons/organizations, and responsibilityrate
were
One day, when two workers were busy moving the rebar to upper presented. The third stage of responsibility rate
determination
pro-
oors, unfortunately the rebar was placed within the magnetic field cess is presented in Table 4.
of the high-voltage overhead power line and one of the workers got
severely burned, and the other fell down from the height and his 4. Conclusions
right hand and left leg got fractured.
This study has developed a procedure for occupational
accident
3.4.2. OATA technique investigation, and two techniques called CRAtechniques
includ-
The procedure for accident investigation including ing OACA and OATA, for identifying hazards, determining
accident
OACT-determination of accident causes and impact probabil- causes, specifying responsible groups and their accident
role
on
ity of accident causes on accident- and OART-determination of occurrence, as well as
responsible
OACT
are
3.4.3.
dent OACA
brieincluding
with
OACA
y was presented
OART
technique
persons/companies/organizations,
done
hazardous
andbased
in
determination
Fig.onelements
5 the
. constituent
of(HE),
responsibilities
initiating
elements
and matching
mechanisms
percentage,
of the acci-of opinions
team
responsible
struction
that The
Testing
theand
findings
developed
todetermine
accidents
the
achieve
groups thedetermining
developed
showed
procedure
resulting
and thethe
how
final
procedure
root
responsibility
inand
we
decision
death
causes
can theuse
andresponsibility
techniques
or among
of
disability
the
rate. percentage.
techniques
occupational
consensusof
are
confirmed
applicable
accidents,
all
members
experts’
well
injury
con-
100
the
on
of
to
106 M. J ab ba r i, R. Gh or b an i / Ac c i d en tAn al ys i sa n d P rev en ti o n 9 6 ( 20 1 6) 1 0 1– 1 0 7

OACT OART
Im p ac t
Perce nt ag e of
p ro ba b ility o n
Res po n s i b i lit i es
Acc i d en t

F ai l u re to a ccelerate
r epl ac in g o f o ve rh e a d 0. 1
p ow e r l i ne s t o s a fe a r e a

Fa il u re to follo w up
P o w er
repl a cing of o ver hea d 0. 3
1 0% C o mpa ny
po w e r l i ne s t o s a f e a r e a

Fa ilu re to wa it for r epla c i ng

of o ver head po wer lin es to 0. 3
sa f e a re a 6 0% Own er

Acci d en t Re sp o n si b l e
ca us es p er s o n s/ o rg an i za ti on s

Fa ilu re i n sa fet y t rai ni n g o f 0. 1

20 % C o nt ra ct or
work ers

Fa ilu re in sa fety m easu r es 0. 1

1 0% W ork er s
and i n s pect i o ns

Inca ut i ou s or i n c or re c t 0. 1
op e ra t i o n

F ig . 5 . E xa mp l e o f OA TA Te chni q u e.

T a ble 1
E x amp l e of O AC A w o rk s he et .

O A TC GO AC F SO AC F ROA C F Res p o ns i b l e Pe r cent ago ef

Pe r so ns o r Res p o ns i b i l i ti e s
Or g ani za ti o ns

HE Ha za rd o u s Ene r gy H i gh- v ol t ag e o ve rhe ad It i s u na vo i d a bl e i n t he – –

El e ment p ow e r l i ne acci d e nt
IM Ini ti at i ng Ex p o s ed co nta cts in Pr o x i mi ty o f hi g h-v o l ta ge Fai l u r e t o a ccel e r at e re p l aci ng Po w er co mp any 1 0%
Mecha ni s ms el e ctr i ca l s y s te ms ov er he ad p ow e r l i ne t o of o v er hea d p o w er l i nes to s afe
co ns tr u cti o n p ro je ct ar ea b y po w er co mp any
Fai l u r e t o fo l l o w u p and Ow ne r 6 0%
wa i ti ng f or r ep l ac i ng o f
ov er he ad p ow e r l i ne s t o s af e
ar ea b y mana ge ment s y s te m of
the co ns t ru c ti o n s i t e
To u chi ng or p ro x i mi ty Tr an sm i s s i on o f re b ar i n Fai l u r e i n ma nag eme nt p o l i cy C ont r act or 1 0%
wi t h e l ec tr i cal s y s te ms p ro x i mi ty of hi g h- vo l ta ge fo r s af et y tr ai ni ng of w o r ke rs
ov er he ad p ow e r l i ne
Fai l u r e i n ma nag eme nt p o l i cy C ont r act or 1 0%
fo r s af et y mea s u r es and
i ns p ect i ons
N o ca u ti o n a nd i g no r ance o f Wo r k er s 1 0%
s afe ty m ea s u re s b y w o r ke r s
T /T Ta rg et /T hr ea t H u man d ea th/ i nju ry W or k er ’s i nju r y/ b u rni ng It i s a n ou t co me o f the a cci d ent – –

achieve
improving
quarters
Future
implementing
on accident
research
the
of construction
occupational
prevention/control
objectives
these
is recommended
techniques
of projects
accidents
the research.
byinmanagement
exploring
can
the
to Based
assess
be prevented
occupational
the
ontheroot
level,
the effectiveness
test
environments
causes
orabout
controlled.
results,
ofthree-
acci-
by
of dents.
reasons,
hesitating
lel
reduced.
and Aseveral
limitation
theto involved
tellexperts’
theof truth,
this
people
opinions,
study
butin by
was
the
theusing
incident,
effects
that CRAsometimes,
of techniques
and
this limitation
witnesses
different
paral-
were
for
in
 M . J a b ba ri ,R . G h or ba n i / Ac c i d en tAna l ys i sa n d Pr ev en ti o n 9 6 (2 0 16 ) 1 0 1– 1 07 107

T a ble 2
T he fir s t s ta g e of r es p o ns i b i l i ty ra te d e te r mi nat i on p r o ces s .

T ec hni qu e Re s p ons i b l e Re s p o ns i bi l i t yRa te

G ro u p s
E x p er t 1 E x p er t 2 E xp e r t 3 E xp e rt 4 Ex p e rt
5

O AT A P ow e r C o mp any 10 20 10 10 15
O wne r 60 50 60 50 50
C o ntr ac to r 20 15 20 30 20
W o rk e r 10 15 10 10 15

O AC A P ow e r C o mp any 10 20 20 10 10
O wne r 70 50 60 60 50
C o ntr ac to r 10 20 10 20 30
W o rk e r 10 10 10 10 10

T a ble 3
T he s e cond s t ag e of r e sp o ns i b i l i ty ra te de te r mi nat i on p r o ces s .

T ec hni qu e s Re sp o ns i b l e Re s p ons i b i l i t yRat e

G ro u p s
E xp e r t 1 Ex p e rt 2 E x p er t 3 E xp e r t 4 Ex p e rt
5

O AT A & O AC A P ow e r C o mp any 10 20 10 10 15
O wne r 60 50 60 55 50
C o ntr ac to r 20 20 15 25 20
W o rk er 10 10 15 10 15

T a ble 4 Er i cs o n, C l i ft o nA ., 2 0 0 5 . H az ar d A nal y s i s T e chni q u es fo r S ysSa Wt emfet

iJol ehn
yy.
T he t hi rd s ta ge of r es p o ns i b i l i ty ra te d e te rm i nati o n p r oc es s . & So ns , U ni t ed St at es of A mer i ca .
H al l i n,A ., G u s t av ss o n, T . K. ,2 00 9 . Ma nag i ng d e at h—cor es r pporo ansteisboi ci l i atyl
T ec hni qu e s Re s p ons i b l e Res p o ns i b i l i tyRa te
and tr ag ed y . C o r p .So c. Res p o ns i b . E nvi r o n. Man ag e. 12 60 ,6 –2 1 6 .
G r ou p s Ex p er t s 1 – 5 H ea l th and Sa fet y E x ecu t i ve , 2 0 15 . Ki nd s o f ac ci d ent i n 2G0re 1 4Br
at/2i 0t ai1 n, 5.
UK -H S E na ti o nal s ta ti s t i c. Re tr i ev e d Ju ne 2 4 , 2 ww 0 1 6w, .hs
fr om
e .g: o v. u k/
O AT A & O AC A P o we r C o mp a ny 10
s ta ti s ti c s /ca us i nj/ k in ds - o f- acc i d ent .p d f .
O w ner 60
OR -O S HA . S afe ty a nd heal t h mana ge ment —t he b as i cs , p u eb dul si cecattiioonn
C o ntr a cto r 20
Or e go n OS H A D ep a rt ment o f C o ns u mer and Bu s i nes s 0Se3 r1vi 2-ce0 2s .
W o r ke r 10
Ret ri e v ed N ov emb e r 1 1 , 2 0 1 5, frhtom: tp : //w w w. o ro s ha .o r g/ ed u ca te /
mat er i al s / Sa fet y- a nd- H e al t h-Ma nag em ent -0 9 5 /1 - 0 95 w .p d f .
Oc cu p at i ona l Saf et y & H e al t h A d mi ni s tr at i on ( OS H A) , 2 01 C 5o .mmo u snle dy
Acknowledgments s ta ti s ti c s ,U .S . D ep ar t ment o f La b or . Re tr i e ve d N o ve mb er 2fr 1011,
o m: 5,
htt p s :// ww w .o s ha. g ov /o s hs ta ts / co mmo ns tat s .ht ml .
Pi nt o , A. , N u nes , I.L ., Ri b e i ro ,R. A. , 2 0 1 1. Oc cu p at i ona l ri sas k s es s meint n
The authors would like to thank the research and technology
co ns tr u cti o n i nd u s tr y —o ve r vi e w and r e e cti o n. S af . Sci 6 1 64 –9 6( 24 5 ),.
deputy of Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Science (Project Ree s e, C . D .,Ei d s o n, J. V. , 2 0 06 . H a nd b oo k of O SH A C o ns t ru ct iHoSea nafe land
th.
ty
ID: 400-1332) for financial support of the research. C RC P r es s , T a yl o r & Fr anci s G ro u p , U ni te d St ate s of A mer i ca .
Ri kh ar d s s on, P. M. , 2 00 4 . A cco u nti ng for the cos t of o ccu p aacticio dC nalent
o rps .
So c. Re s p o ns i b. Env i r on. Mana ge . 1 1 , 6 3 –7 0 .
References Sha o, B.S ., G u i nd ani , M., Boy d , D . D. ,2 0 1 4. C au s es o f fat al acc i d entfos r
i ns tr u ment - cer t i fied and no n-ce r ti fie d p r i v at e p i l ot s .Ac ci Ana dP .re7 l2,
v..
A nezi r i s , O .N . ,P ap a zo gl o u , I. A. , Ka ll i a ni o ti s ,D . , 20 1 0 . O ccu p a ti o nal ri s k of t u nnel i ng 3 70 – 3 7 5 .
co ns t ru ct i o n. Sa f. S ci . 4 8 ( 8 ), 9 6 4 – 9 72 . W acht er , J. K. ,Yo ri o , P . L. ,2 01 4 . A s y s te m of s a fet y ma nag emepntr act ian cesd
A rji , M., 2 0 1 3 . S tat i s ti c al Acci d e nt Rep o r t. Ira ni an So ci a l S ec u ri t y O rg a ni zat i on wo r k er e nga g eme nt fo r r ed u ci ng and p re v ent in g acc i de emp ntsi :r ai acal
ndn
( ISS O) , T ehr an, Ira n. the or e ti ca l i nv es t i ga ti o n. A cci d . A nal . P r ev . 6 8 , 1 1 7– 1 3 0 .
Bo y d , D .D ., 20 1 5 . C a u s es and ri s k fac to rs fo r f at al acci d e nts i n non- co mme r ci al W u , W ., Y ang , H ., Li ,Q ., C hew , D ., 2 0 1 3 . An i nt eg ra te d i nfmana or mageti ment on
t wi n e ngi ne p i s t on g ene ra l a v ia ti o n ai r cr af t. A cci d . Ana l . P r ev . 7 7 , 1 13 – 1 1 9 . mo d el fo r p r oa ct i ve p r ev e nti o n o f s tr u ck - b y- fa l l i ng- o ba cci jectd e nts on
C e l ma, D . , Ma rt í nez -G ar ci a , E ., C o e nd er s , G ., 2 0 1 4 . C o rp o r at e So ci a l R es p o ns i b i l i ty co ns tr u cti o n s i te s .Au t o m. C o ns tr . 3 4 , 6 7 –7 4 .
i n H u man Re s ou r ce M anag e ment : an ana l ys i s o f c om mon p r act i ce s a nd t hei r Yang , H . , C hew , D .A .S ., wu , W. , Z ho u , Z .,L i ,Q ., 2 0 1 2 . iDmp es li eme
g n anta nd ti oof n
d e te rmi na nts i n Sp a i n. C o rp . S o c. Re s p ons i b . E nv i ro n. M anag e . 2 1, 82 – 9 9 . an i d ent i ficat i o n s y s te m i n co ns t ru c ti o n s i t e s af et y fo rp racci o actd ei ve nt
C he n, J. , Xi a , W ., 20 1 2 . As s e s s ment of t he r es p o ns i b il i t yb e tw ee n a r o ad tr a ffic p re ve nti o n. A cci d . A nal . P r ev . 4 8 , 1 9 3– 2 0 3 .
a cci d ent and med i ca l d e fe cts aft er the t r affic a cci d ent i nju ry of k nee joi nt . J. Yo on, S .J .,L in , H .K. ,C he n, G. , Yi , S ., C ho i , J. , Ru , Z ., 2 0 1 3 . oE ccu ffecpt aof hea
ti o lnal th
F or e ns ic L eg . Me d . 1 9, 16 8 – 1 7 0 . and s afe ty mana ge ment s y s t em o n w o rk - r el at ed ac ciddi ent ff er encer a te nds
C he ng, C .W . ,Le u , S. S. ,Li n, C .C . F , a n, C ., 20 1 0 . C ha ra cte r i s ti c ana l ys i s o f oc cu p at i ona l of o ccu p a ti o nal he al t h a nd s a fet y ma nag eme nt s y s te amwa b etr ene
w ees ns
a cci d ent s at s ma l l co ns t ru ct i o n e nte r p ri s e s . Sa f. S ci . 4 8 ( 6 ), 6 9 8 – 7 07 . mana ge r s i n So u th Ko r ea ’s co ns tr u ct i on i nd u s tr y . Sa f.2 H 0 1–eW al2to0hr94k.,
C he ng, C .- W .,Y ao , H .- Q . ,W u , T .- C .,20 1 3 . Ap p l y i ng d a ta mi ni ng te chni q u es to
a nal y ze t he cau s e s o f ma jor o ccu p at i o nal acci d e nts i n the p e tr o chemi c al
i nd u s t ry . J. L os s P r ev . P ro c. Ind . 26 (6 ) , 1 2 69 – 1 2 7 8.