Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology

Under-reporting of construction accidents in Sri Lanka

Nayanthara De Silva, Uthpala Rathnayake, K.M.U.B. Kulasekera,
Article information:
To cite this document:
Nayanthara De Silva, Uthpala Rathnayake, K.M.U.B. Kulasekera, (2018) "Under-reporting of
construction accidents in Sri Lanka", Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, Vol. 16 Issue: 6,
pp.850-868, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2017-0069
Permanent link to this document:
https://doi.org/10.1108/JEDT-07-2017-0069
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

Downloaded on: 02 December 2018, At: 03:36 (PT)

References: this document contains references to 60 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 2 times since 2018*
Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:387340 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.


JEDT
16,6
850
Received 16 July 2017
Revised 31 July 2018
Accepted 2 September 2018
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)
Journal of Engineering, Design
and Technology
Vol. 16 No. 6, 2018
pp. 850-868
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1726-0531
DOI 10.1108/JEDT-07-2017-0069
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1726-0531.htm
Under-reporting of construction
accidents in Sri Lanka
Nayanthara De Silva and Uthpala Rathnayake
Department of Building Economics, University of Moratuwa,
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka, and
K.M.U.B. Kulasekera
Department of Labour, Colombo, Sri Lanka
Abstract
Purpose – Under-reporting of occupational accidents is a common problem in many countries. This is mainly
because of the shortfalls in accident reporting and recording systems. Construction industry being a hazardous
industry, the rate of accidents is higher compared with other industries and apparently a high rate of under-
reporting. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the rate of under-reporting, significant reasons for under-
reporting and identify the shortcomings in the existing accident reporting system in Sri Lanka in aiming to
recommend efficient mechanisms for occupational accident recording and reporting to construction industry.
Design/methodology/approach – Both secondary and primary data were tapped to gather required
data. The secondary data were extracted from the records available in year 2014-2015 at the office of the
commissioner for workmen’s compensation and the industrial safety division of the Department of Labor
(DoL) to analyze the rate of under-reporting. The primary data were obtained through expert interviews to
explore the gaps in reporting system and to identify mechanisms to reduce under-reporting.
Findings – The findings revealed 80 per cent of construction accidents are under-reported. Eight gaps in the
current accident recording and reporting system and key recommendations at organizational and national
level for its improvements were identified.
Originality/value – The findings provide an insight of occupational safety and health (OSH) practices in
construction industry and it can be used as an eye opening flash for safety law-makers and practitioners to
revisit the existing regulations and practices.
Keywords Construction industry, Accident under-reporting, Construction accidents,
Occupational safety and health
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Reporting an accident or a near-miss would provide valuable knowledge to identify hazards
and risks in the workplace and to prevent reoccurring of similar accidents (Probst et al.,
2013a, 2013b). According to ILO (1996), accident statistics serve as an important feedback
mechanism to monitor occupational safety performance and instrumental in accident
prevention. Further, these statistics serve as a tool for measuring level of success in
compliance, enforcement and prevention actions (Azaroff et al., 2002; Hedlund, 2013). Some
organizations believed that it is an important part in organizations’ safety work practices
(Johnson, 2003). Further, Shannon and Lowe (2002) showed that accurate statistics on
occupational accidents help for setting insurance premiums, comparing trends across
occupational groups and jurisdictions and devising suitable accident prevention
interventions. Further, to the authors, it will serve as a broad vision in determining the need
of changes in the legal framework at the public policy level. Currently, accident rates are
widely used by construction owners, workers’ compensation carriers and large construction
management firms to pre-qualify subcontractors and to set prices for insurance coverage.
 Accident reporting and incident reporting are equally important when preventive culture Under-
is considered. “Safety ice burg” assumption states, for every major accident that occurs, a reporting of
large number of related minor injuries and near misses occur. According to the “identical
causation” assumption, these large number of minor accidents and near misses have the
construction
same underline causes as the major accident (Nielsen et al., 2006). Further, effective accidents
recording and notification of occupational accidents are crucial to understand the nature of
accidents, prevention and effectiveness of OSH management systems (Azaroff et al., 2002;
Probst et al., 2008; Hedlund, 2013). 851
Although the exact magnitude of the phenomenon varies, accident under-reporting has
been evident in literature (Leigh et al., 2004; Rosenman et al., 2006; Probst et al., 2008; Probst
and Estrada, 2010). Rosenman et al. (2006) and Probst et al. (2008) revealed that
organizations with poor safety culture fail to report over 80 per cent of accidents to
Occupational Safety and Health Administration of the USA, whereas companies with
positive safety culture fail to report 47 per cent of accidents. Lim (2007) identified lack of
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

awareness on legal reporting requirements, penalties for poor record keeping infrequently
levied on firms and burden of completing the relevant paperwork posing to firms, etc., as the
reasons for under-reporting. Probst et al. (2013a, 2013b) found that job insecurity has been
increased with increased number of accident under-reporting. Moreover, ILO (1996)
highlighted that the effective collection, reporting and recording of data concerning the
occupational accidents are instrumental in preventing and developing preventive measures
of accidents.
This study focuses on recommending efficient mechanisms for occupational accident
recording and reporting in construction industry. The objectives of the study were set as to:

estimate the rate of accident under-reporting in construction sector;

investigate the significant reasons behind under-reported construction accidents;

identify the loopholes in existing reporting systems, with an intention of enhancing
the system by addressing its gaps; and

identify recommendation to reduce under-reporting.

2. Literature review
2.1 Construction accidents
Though the accidents are common for all industries, the construction industry is widely
recognized with accident rates which result in absence from work, loss of productivity,
permanent disabilities and even fatalities (Hughes and Ferrett, 2007; Fung et al., 2010).
Globally construction workers are three times more likely to die and two times more likely to
suffer injuries at work than the average of the workers in all other activities (Sousa et al.,
2014). Therefore, construction sites are often labelled as unsafe, dangerous or hazardous
places to work (Sherratt et al., 2013).
The unique nature of construction industry characterized with continual changes. Use of
many different resources, poor working conditions, no steady employment and tough
environments (e.g. noise, vibration, dust, handling of cargo and direct exposure to weather)
are the main reasons for high rate of construction accidents (Tam et al., 2004; Lingard and
Rowlinson, 2005). Further lack of coordination among different interdependent contractors,
sub-contractors and construction operations may boost the number of accidents. It is
revealed that among those reasons, most of the severe construction accidents, injuries as
well as economic losses have occurred because of the negligence of safety in
construction sites and human errors (Kadiri et al., 2013). Furthermore, Abbasi et al.
 JEDT (2015) and Oswald et al. (2013) disclosed that 90 per cent of accidents are because of
16,6 unsafe acts or unsafe behaviors of workers. These unsafe acts and behaviors are operating
without authority, working without personal protective equipment, wearing dangling
clothes, unsafe handling such as lifting, carrying and placing and unsafe handling of
hazardous material (LaDou, 2003). Thereby, construction industry is in a proven need to
adhere to OSH more than in any other industry.
852 In industrialized countries, construction industry employs approximately 6-10 per cent of
the workforce and accounts for 20-40 per cent of the occupational fatal accidents (ILO, 2005).
This trend is similar or even worse in developing nations and it is estimated that a total of
60,000 construction fatalities occur per year around the world which equates to one
construction fatality in every nine minutes (ILO, 2009). Further, the loss because of these
accidents accounts for around 10 per cent of the world’s gross domestic product (Murie,
2007).
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

There is an alarming situation in Asian region as well. The average fatal accident
frequency rate in the Indian construction industries is 15.8 for 1,000 employees (Tiwary and
Gangopadhyay, 2011). According to Labor Department of the Government of Hong Kong
Special Administrative Region (2014), the number of reported construction accidents in
Hong Kong, in the year 2013, was 3,332 with 37 fatalities (Occupational Safety and Health
Branch, 2014). When the Malaysian construction sector is considered, the department of
occupational safety and health has recorded 69 deaths, 83 non-permanent disabilities and 12
permanent disabilities in the year 2013 (Chong and Low, 2014). According to the available
information in Department of Labor, Sri Lanka, 141 fatal accidents and 127 non-fatal
accidents were reported for compensation in 2013.
However, many researchers including Andersen et al. (2018), Leigh et al. (2004),
Rosenman et al. (2006) and Probst et al. (2008) mentioned that reported accident statics are
significantly underestimated. According to above sources, between 60 and 80 per cent of all
experienced injuries are not included in these national databases. Further, ILO (2003)
reported that only less than 20 per cent of construction accidents are reported. That is
common to Sri Lanka too and it is mentioned by Amarasinghe (2011), less than 60 per cent of
accidents are reported, and therefore, actual figures are likely to be even higher. Thus, the
occupational accident rate in construction industry continues to be an international cause for
concern (Lopez et al., 2008; Arquillos et al., 2012).

2.2 Under-reporting
Under-reporting occurs when organizations fail to record employee accidents in their record-
keeping procedures (organizational-level under-reporting) or when employees fail to report
accidents occurring at work (individual-level under-reporting). There is increasing evidence
that occupational accidents are under-reported by some employers (Wuellner et al., 2016)
and also by the occupational practitioners (USA Government Accountability Office, 2009).
Further, Rosenman et al. (2006) found that up to 68 per cent of all workplace accidents and
injuries are not reported at the organizational level. Similarly, Probst et al. (2008) reported
that nearly 78 per cent of all experienced accidents went unreported by organizations.
At the employee level, in a multi-organization survey study of 425 employees from 5
industry sectors, Probst and Estrada (2010) found that employees failed to report 71 per cent
of all work-related injuries to their company. Further, Probst (2006) found that employees
failed to report over half of all experienced accidents to their supervisors. Thus, while
specific estimates may vary across studies, the accumulated evidence suggests that under-
reporting is a prevalent phenomenon.
 Various researchers have identified reasons for under-reporting of the accidents. These Under-
factors can be mainly categorized into two as organizational factors and individual factors reporting of
as shown in Table I.
construction
2.3 Occupational accident recording and reporting systems
accidents
In almost all countries, employees have to report work related injuries to their employers
and the employers are responsible for recording and reporting accidents to relevant 853
government authorities. These recording and reporting systems have differences depending
on the legal framework in countries (Jilcha and Kitaw, 2016), while the “official notification
forms” are common all countries for reporting accidents. However, there are differences in
these forms depending on the country’s requirements. For example, Finland uses a single
form to report fatal accidents, while Spain has two types of forms depending on the gravity
of the consequence (i.e. with or without injury) (Jacinto and Aspinwall, 2004). Sri Lanka has
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

four types of forms to report accidents for compensation (Factories Ordinance No. 45, 1942).
Further, there are noteworthy differences in the type of accidents required to be notified
because of the differences in the legal definition of “occupational accident”. In Turkey,
employers are responsible for reporting all accidents to Social Insurance Institution within
two days of the accident and Labor Inspectors from the Ministry of Labor and Social
Security have to conduct an investigation at the accident site for accidents that results in
death, loss of organs or long-term hospitalization which are classified as serious accidents
(Ergör et al., 2003). Under the US Federal law, firms other than farms employing less than 11
employees are required to count lost workday injuries (injuries causing lost work beyond the
day of injury) and US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) recorded those data (Miller, 1995).
Also, according to OSHA-provided criteria, organizations shall record injuries and illnesses
in the OSHA log of work-related injuries and illnesses (Form 300), and these logs must be

Under-reporting reasons Related literature

Organizational Factors
Size of the organization Leigh et al. (2004), Oleinick et al. (1995)
Industry sector Daniels and Marlow (2005)
Management responsiveness Clarke (1998)
Safety climate of the organization Probst et al. (2008), Zohar (2003)
Job insecurity Cooper and Antoniou (2012)
Workers’ fear of disciplinary actions or United States Government Accountability Office (2009)
embarrassment
Individual Factors factors
Misunderstanding Guldenmund (2000)
Fear of reprisals or loss of benefits Probst and Estrada (2010), Sinclair and Tetrick (2004), Pransky
et al. (1999)
Individuals’ wrong beliefs and attitudes Pransky et al. (1999)
Risk acceptance Probst and Estrada (2010)
Less trust about employer Probst and Estrada (2010)
Purpose of avoiding follow-up interviews Probst and Estrada (2010)
Age Galizzi et al. (2010), Conway and Svenson (1998), Weddle (1996),
Biddle et al. (1998)
Production pressure Probst and Estrada (2010)
Injury severity Alamgir et al. (2006), Shannon and Lowe (2002) Table I.
Gender Shannon and Lowe (2002), Biddle et al. (1998) Reasons for under-
Practical reasons Gyi et al. (1999) reporting
 JEDT preserved for a minimum of five years and forward to OSHA and state regulators on request
16,6 (Probst et al., 2008). Countries like Belgium, Austria, Portugal and Spain, the accidents that
occur on the way to work and from work are considered as occupational accidents (Jacinto
and Aspinwall, 2004). Legislation in South Africa requires to report incidents that results in
14 or more days off work, result in death or permanent disablement, spillage of dangerous
substance or fracture of machinery (Hedlund, 2013). Similar to the legislation in Sri Lanka,
854 South Africa also excludes traffic accidents and accidents occurring in private household.
However, all accidents with more than three loss working days are required to report,
according to the Factories Ordinance Number 45 of 1942 in Sri Lanka.

3. Research methodology
The study was conducted in to four phases. Each phase was carefully designed to fulfil four
objectives of the study.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

The first phase was focused on investigating the rate of accident under-reporting in Sri
Lankan construction industry. For this purpose, all accident records maintained at the office
of the commissioner for workmen’s compensation in year 2014-2015 (January 2014 to
January 2015) were collected as it was the latest accessible year for data records. Those
occupational accidents records were separated according to District Factory Inspecting
Engineer (DFIE) areas and records were sent to the respective DFIE of the Department of
Labor (DoL) requesting to verify whether the accidents were reported to them or not. The
rate of under-reporting was calculated as follows:

No: of accidents not reported to DFIE

Rate of UnderReporting ¼  100% (1)
Total No: of reportable accidents

In the second phase, the existing accident reporting system was thoroughly studied. The
reporting process was mapped from the initiation of an accident record by the victim or any
personal (personal level) up to its end point at the DoL (national level). The objective of this
process mapping was to explore the gaps at the worker level, organizational level and
national level, in the existing reporting system.
The third phase of the study was focused on investigating the reasons for under-
reporting of accidents. The semi-structured interviews were considered as the method of
data collection from the construction industry practitioners who have engaged in the field
of safety and health. The interviews were focused on identifying the current methods of
accident recoding and reporting and the reason behind the under-reporting as semi-
structured interviews provided much more opportunity for the discussion and recording of
the respondent’s opinion and views. Nine experienced experts who attached with five C1
Grade construction companies were selected for interviews.
In the fourth phase, two medical directors and four experts from Industrial Safety
Division of DoL were interviewed to identify avenues to enhance the existing construction
accident reporting and recording system. To analyze the gathered data, content analysis
technique was used.
Details of the selected experts are depicted in Table II.

4. Results and discussion

4.1 Rate of under-reporting of accidents
According to the information collected from DFIEs of DoL, reported and non-reported
accidents are compiled in Table III.
 Organization Designation of the experts
Under-
reporting of
A I Project manager construction
II Safety officer
B I Project manager accidents
II Safety engineer
C I Consultant (Safety)
II Safety officer 855
D I Safety officer
II Site engineer
E I Safety consultant Table II.
DoL I, II, III, IV Four officers Description of
Two base hospitals I, II Two medical directors interviews
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

Number of accidents Number of accidents Rate of under

Economic activity reported to WCC reported to DoL reporting (%)

Construction 74 15 79.7
Printing 18 0 100
Hotels 17 1 94.1
Metal Fabrication 9 5 44.4
Power Generation/ Distribution 8 6 25.0
Mechanical Workshop and Vehicle Serving 5 2 60.0
Mineral Processing 2 2 0.0
Vehicle Servicing 2 1 50.0
Material Storage 3 2 33.3
Manufacturing of
Tea 44 28 36.3
Wood and Wood Products 27 5 81.5
Garments 24 18 25.0
Plastic/ Polythene and Rubber Products 13 4 69.2
Fiber and Fiber Products 13 3 76.9
Food and Beverage 12 8 33.3
Rubber 7 7 0
Bricks 4 2 50.0 Table III.
Others 17 4 76.4 Accidents reported to
Total 296 111 62.5 WCC and DFIE

Results showed the rate of accident under-reporting in Sri Lankan industrial sector is 62.50
per cent.
As shown in Table III, in Sri Lanka, the third highest rate of accident under-reporting (80
per cent) is reported in the construction industry and out of that 39 per cent are fatal
accidents. Further, 40 per cent of not-reported accidents have caused permanent partial
disabilities to the injured persons. This is an indication of the level of OSH in construction
industry. Investigations and the safety audits carried out after reporting of accidents help in
eliminating the similar types of accidents occurring repeatedly.
In comparison with the finding of under-reporting of accidents with the existing
literature, Rosenman et al. (2006) mentioned that rate of under-reporting of accidents in the
USA is around 66 per cent and Probst et al. (2008) showed under-reporting is 80 per cent in
companies with poor safety culture, whereas the under-reporting rate is about 47 per cent in
 JEDT the companies with positive safety culture. Thus, Sri Lanka is not deviated rigorously from
16,6 other countries as the rate of under-reporting of accidents in the construction industry was
found to be 80 per cent Table IV.
The following section explains the identified gaps in accident reporting and recording in
the construction industry together with the identified avenues to reduce the gaps.

856 4.2 Gaps and improvements for accident reporting and recording in construction industry
According to the legal framework related to OSH in Sri Lanka (Factories Ordinance No. 45,
1942), occupier of the factory has to record the reportable workplace accidents and illnesses
occurred in the “General Register”. Reportable accidents are defined as accidents causing
loss of life, disables the person for more than three days from earning full wages or making
the person unconscious because of electric shock, inhalation of poisonous gases or fumes or
because of heat exhaustion. These accidents have to be reported to the DoL on the form
stipulated in the law (Form 10). The follow up form (Form CFIE-1) has to be submitted to the
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

DoL for accidents other than fatal accidents once the injured person returns to work. If the
injured person is having a permanent disablement, then the medical examination form
specified under the Workmen’s Compensation Ordinance has to be sent to the DoL.
Figure 1 illustrates the identified gaps exist in the current accident recording and
reporting structure in Sri Lankan construction industry.
The identified gaps are explained in the following section.
4.2.1 Gap 1: Lack of reporting and recording systems at organizational level. As per the
Factories Ordinance Number 45 of 1942, it is obligating for all factories to report accidents
and injuries caused to a worker if the worker is absent for three working days because of an
OSH incident. Further accidents that are categorized under “less than three working days
from earning full wages at the work” are to be recorded in the accident registry, but not
required to report to any authorized body. In addition to the accident registry, some of the
organizations maintain internal documents for recording of all types of accidents including
“near misses” as a strategy to prevent recurrence of same incident. Further, the
organizations, which have obtained and are implementing OSHAS 18001, maintain records
as it has been mandated by OSHAS 18001.

Number of F PTD PPD TD

Economic activity non-reported accidents No (%) No (%) No (%) No (%)

Construction 59 23 38.98 4 6.78 24 40.68 8 13.56

Printing 18 – – – – 1 5.56 17 94.44
Hotels 16 – – – – 1 6.25 15 93.75
Metal Fabrication 4 – – – – 3 75.00 1 25.00
Mechanical Workshops 2 – – – – 1 50.00 1 50.00
Material Storage 1 1 100.00 – – – – – –
Vehicle Servicing 1 – – – – 1 100.00 – –
Manufacturing of
Wood& Wood Products 22 – – 2 9.09 16 72.73 4 18.18
Tea 16 1 6.25 – – 10 62.50 5 31.25
Fiber and Fiber Products 10 1 10.00 – – 7 70.00 2 20.00
Plastic/Polythene/Rubber Products 9 – – 1 11.11 7 77.78 1 11.11
Table IV. Garments 5 – – – – 4 80.00 1 20.00
Categorization of Food and Beverage 4 1 25.00 – – 2 50.00 1 25.00
under reported Brickets 2 – – – – 2 100.00 – –
accidents Others 13 2 15.38 – – 11 84.62 – –
 Under-
reporting of
construction
accidents

857
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

Figure 1.
Gaps in the Accident
Recording and
Reporting in
Construction
Industry
 JEDT However, lack of knowledge and awareness on systems, management commitments,
16,6 facilities and leadership have caused for the unavailability of a systematic reporting and
recording system at construction sites. Moreover, because of lack of attention and awareness
of legal reporting requirements and burden of completing paperwork, most of safety
representatives of the sites and workers do not persuade to report accidents occurred in the
sites via notice of accident form (Form 10) to the respective DFIE of DoL. Additionally, a
858 strong leadership towards inculcating OSH was identified as a deliberating need. However,
shortage of qualified safety representatives in the construction industry could hamper
producing these leaderships. It was further revealed that the unavailability of a monitoring
procedure for following up the law has increased the rate of under-reporting.
Industry experts revealed several possible organizational and individual factors for
under-reporting situations in construction industry, as follows.
4.2.1.1 Organizational factors
4.2.1.1.1 Factor 1: Organization size. All experts, except the two experts, mentioned that
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

the size of the organization is a considerable influencing factor for under-reporting. Expert II
of Organization A stated “small organizations usually has given low level of concern towards
safety due to lack of resources”. Lack of resources such as finance, human and technology
inevitably push the organization towards to continue poor safety conditions.
Further, OSHAS 18001 believed to be a tool to enhance OSH, however, has not been
recognized as an effective tool among small- and medium-scale organizations. The expert
further added “we have not obtained OSAHS 18001 as certification procedure involves many
changes and improvement to their current OSH practices”. Moreover, small construction
organizations are basically lacking resources such as financial, man power, knowledge and
technology to implement and maintain OSH practices as required by the OSHAS 18001.
To mitigate these lapses with the intention of reducing under-reporting of construction
accidents, Expert I of Organization C suggested that these organizations can be encouraged
to follow training and awareness programs and certificate courses at the initial stage of
registration in the Construction Industry Development Authority (CIDA). As a positive
move for his comment, CIDA has recently commenced several safety programs to train
safety officers and managers and there were 50 officers got qualified through those
programs.
Moreover, employing qualified safety representatives is essential in construction
organizations/sites to enhance safety management practices and, thus, to eliminate tendency
in the under-reporting of accidents. Safety representatives can be Health, Safety and
Environment (HSE) officers, Occupational, Safety and Health (OSH) Engineers or OSH
Managers. However, basic qualifications of safety representatives are not well-defined for
construction industry, and therefore, in most of the construction sites, non-qualified officers
are employed for low wages. Therefore, it is recommended to define the basic qualifications
for a qualified safety representative. In line with this, sufficient educational programs both
at undergraduate and postgraduate levels should be introduced to produce qualified people
in this arena. Professional institutions can conduct OSH Continuous Professional
Development (CPD) programs.
According to safety enforcers, though the large-scale construction organizations have
been identified as good in practicing OSH, many of the organizations deliberately or
intentionally have omitted reporting of accidents. Therefore, though it is a mandatory
requirement to maintain a general register (accident) according to the Factory Ordinance
section 92 at every construction site, proper recording of accidents is at a poor level. To
overcome this situation, Expert I of Organization E has suggested that CIDA can request for
a certified copy of the general register when renewing the CIDA registration.
 “OSHA 18001 certified construction organizations have generally reported and further Under-
reported accidents are compared with other organizations” Expert I of Organization D added. reporting of
Therefore, CIDA, as the governing body of construction industry in Sri Lanka, may decree
to implement the SLS OSHAS 18001 for all grades of construction companies in Sri Lanka.
construction
As SLS OSHAS 18001 is particular on documentation of each and every aspect of safety and accidents
health of construction sites, it inevitably boosts the OSH standards at site level.
Moreover, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health of Sri Lanka in
collaboration with Ministry of Labor and Labor Relations offers awards for organizations 859
which excel in OSH. This would be a strategic movement to motivate construction
organizations to follow OSH guidelines and practices and eventually to fill the shortfalls in
the prevailing under-reporting condition. Further, such a promoted OSH culture will reduce
the risks of occupational accidents.
4.2.1.1.2 Factor 2: Management responsiveness towards accidents. All experts
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

mentioned the importance of management responsiveness towards accidents under

reporting. If management is perceived as not being concerned with safety, then employees
may perceive that their company is not serious about injuries when they occur. Expert I of
Organization B stated that “the significance given by the top management for OSH directly
affects the responsiveness. If the Top Management really needs the implementation their
responsiveness is higher otherwise it is poor”.
Moreover, Expert I of Organization A described that:
the first step in accomplishing the management responsiveness is to put the organization's
expectations on safety and health of employees into a written document by developing a safety
and health policy.
Participation for safety and health training programs, leadership training, safety meetings,
inspection tours, incident investigations and responsibilities are some important aspects to
be included into the policy document. Not only the policy, but Expert II of Organization B
suggested that “senior managers should do a regular field visits at the worksite to monitor
and reinforce safety and health practices and thus regulate safety behaviours”. This is just
like giving the proper leadership to his subordinates to maintain OSH behaviors.
In controlling safety behavior of workers, conducting regular OSH meetings is
considered to be significant as a responsive measure for accidents. Expert II of Organization
C stated that “the frequency of conducting such meetings is paramount as the workers soon
forget to take safety and health precautions if they are not regularly reminded”. Therefore, it is
clear that OSH meetings are extremely important to keep safety and health procedures fresh
in workers’ minds.
4.2.1.1.3 Factor 3: Organizational safety climate. The study conducted by
Hadikusumo et al. (2017) on construction workers, suggested that the management
commitment to safety and workers involvement in safety are the two most important factors
impacting the safety climate. Similar to these literature findings, Expert I of Organization C
explained “we have good organizational safety climate that was achieved through a combined
effort of our management and workers. Thus, we maintain efficient accident reporting and
recording system”.
Positive reporting attitudes are related to positive safety climate perception. Employees
are citing more reasons for not reporting safety-related accidents, as they are less positive to
the perception of safety climate. Expert II of Organization A stated that “proper safety
climate will increase safety performance, safety compliance and safety participation while
decreasing injuries, accidents and near-misses”. The expert further stated that “the strategy
we look forward to improve safety climate in construction sites is reporting of near miss
 JEDT accidents”. According to the literature, the technique of near-miss accident reporting can be
16,6 served as a method to generate new accident control ideas and as a means of increasing
closeness of safety supervision, thus increasing the amount of feedback to workers
regarding the safety of operations (Templeton, 2014). However, reporting of near miss
accidents is difficult and, thus, overlooked because of higher frequency of occurrences.
4.2.1.1.4 Factor 4: Job insecurity. Generally, in the construction industry, there are
860 two types of workers are involved namely, permanent and temporary. According to the
literature, contract basis/temporary workers are more towards under-reporting. This may
be because of their fear of feeling job insecurity. According to Probst et al. (2013a, 2013b), as
job insecurity increased, the under-reporting of accidents increased.
Expert II of Organization C mentioned that:
fear of being assigned to lighter jobs that the workers dislike, loss of overtime pay can influence
workers to not report the accidents that they faced in the construction site.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

However, in concern with safety aspects, equal training and education should be given to
both worker groups. Expert II of Organization D mentioned “despite the fact that worker is
temporary or permanent, equal safety education should be given to them at least with the
purpose of protecting companies’ reputation”. Expert I of Organization C further stated that:
what goes unreported goes unfixed and it leads to other workers ending up injured, if the work
hazard is not rectified. Thereby organizations have to protect their workers by taking actions to
improve its’ overall commitment towards safety without putting job security at risk.
An expert suggested that:
company can pressure their workers to obtain safety certificate from a recognized body and
further company can organize an awareness program with the support of district factory
inspecting engineers. It should be focused on importance of injury reporting with its’ merits
towards their own and others’ wellbeing. And also, it needs to make them believe that it is not an
offence which will cause to punish or lose their jobs.
4.2.1.1.5 Factor 5: Fear towards employer or organizational policies. All the
interviewed experts agreed that the fear towards employer has a strong effect on the under-
reporting of construction accidents. According to the literature findings, workers report
widespread intimidation and harassment when reporting injuries and illnesses. Reports,
testimony and news accounts show that many employers have fired or disciplined workers
who report injuries and illnesses or complain about safety hazards. Others have added
“demerits” to an employee’s record for reportable injuries or illnesses or for absenteeism that
allegedly result from “safety violations”.
Therefore, as a remedy, Expert II in Organization A stated that:
frequent communication between managers/supervisors and their workers is important to
overcome fear towards employer. This intervention can be used to enhance the safety climate in
organizations at a little cost.
Further, Expert I of Organization B added that “the safety meetings can be used as a
communication channel to pass “safety messages” to their workers”. For instance, same
expert added that:
in my organization, we established an impression that reporting accidents will not cost them
anything and further the reporting is needed for their own advantage as they can take necessary
remedial actions for correction and prevention of the same accident to happen again, through
safety meetings.
 Expert I in Organization C expressed that, “it is better to recognize the safety violation and Under-
accident reporting matters in organizational policies”. Therefore, safety enhancement can be reporting of
addressed right from the beginning.
4.2.1.2 Individual factors
construction
4.2.1.2.1 Factor 1: Misunderstanding/Injury severity. Under-value of the reporting accidents
directly affects the under-reporting of construction accidents. The workers think that the
reporting has no value. The workers are not aware that unless accidents are reported and
investigated such problems are likely to remain, with the possibility of such accidents 861
recurring in the future. The workers should be aware that without detailed knowledge on all
accidents, it is difficult to recommend or take actions that potentially could prevent major
and possibly fatal accidents.
Sometimes individuals tend to make their own assessment of the seriousness of an injury
and whether or not to report it. Expert II of Organization B stated that, “I have seen workers
ignore some accidents reporting by believing that there are no witnesses to prove the accident
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

as often forget that injured worker is a witness”. Expert I of Organization B mentioned that:
workers initially think that the injury is too minor to report but later find that, upon awakening
the next day morning, the injury becomes worse. However, our company policy is that severity
will be decided by Site Safety Officer together with the Site Manager.
Expert I Organization B mentioned “that it can avoid misunderstanding among workers by
clear communication and frequent safety meetings”.
The awareness programs on safety and health of workers are conducted frequently.
However, the awareness programs on legal provisions and importance of documentation of
accidents are not seen as an important aspect. Most of the construction workers are not
aware of the value of reporting an accident. It was identified that some of the staff who work
as safety representatives even do not aware of the legal provisions. Therefore, awareness
programs should be increased to emphasize the importance of recording and reporting of the
accidents. Expert I of Organization A described that “safety education including the value of
human life should start from childhood onwards and it should ensure by core subject areas at
the school”. He further stated that “without proper safety education at primary and secondary
education, nothing would be beneficial during work”. Further, majority of experts suggested
to disseminate knowledge on OSH through exhibitions, training programs and poster
campaigns. ILO (2018) has also mentioned that poster campaigns are effective in increasing
safety awareness among the workers at all levels. Further, it was identified that one
organization conducts a “safety rally” where safety experts are invited to do presentations
on various safety topics. In Island-wide, most of the organizations conduct various “safety
programmes” during the safety month which falls in October. To increase awareness, OSHA
has made it mandatory for the employers to display posters prepared by the DoL informing
employees of the protections of the Factories Ordinance and its amendments.
4.2.1.2.2 Factor 2: Fear of reprisals/loss of benefits/disciplinary actions/embarrass-
ment/purpose of avoiding follow up interview. Most of the times the workers tend to
defer either to their peers or their supervisors to decide whether an incident is worth
reporting. If they believe that they were at the fault too, then they are reluctant to report the
incident. According to Dietz et al. (2012), this is a salient feature in the organizations where
“blame culture” exists. Moreover, fear of having a negative effect on their employment
prospects and/or their behavior is another cause of act. The fear of facing follow-up
interviews has also affected for the under-reporting. Expert I of Organization C stated that:
reporting a construction work-related accident is a worker right, and reacting against a worker for
reporting an accident is illegal. So, ensuring that workers can report construction related
 JEDT accidents without fear of revenge is a responsibility of top management to protecting worker
safety and health.
16,6
Expert II of Organization B emphasized that, “there is a need of formulating an Act or any
other regulation which prohibits an employer/top management from discriminating against a
worker who reports an accident”.
4.2.1.2.3 Factor 3: Fear of breaking accident free record within the organization.
862 According to the interviewees in the current state, most of the construction organizations
focused towards an accident free working place. Pride of “zero accident status” is one of the
reasons for the construction accident under-reporting. Thus, as mentioned by Expert I of
Organization E, workers dis-like to get the responsibility of breaking accident free record of
the organization. He further added that accident-free record misguided evaluation of safety
condition by merely focusing on the outcomes rather than safety behaviour”.
4.2.1.2.4 Factor 4: Production pressure. Generally, construction industry is always
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

surrounded by complexity and it always make a pressure full environment. Under-reporting

may be in part because of high levels of perceived production pressure (Probst and Graso,
2013). As similar to literature, Expert II of Organization A mentioned that “in general,
production pressure is related to negative reporting attitudes”.
Experts agreed that the safety behaviors of the employees need be changed to rectify the
problem. Therefore, “Behaviour modification programmes” will aid the above situation. A
typical behavior modification program of workers consists of basic training regarding
safety information and safe behavior, followed by a period of observation and feedback that
may be provided by the supervisors directly or by means of graphical updates displayed at
the work place (Probst and Graso, 2013). Bach and MCcracken (2004) reviewed behavior
modification programs in detail and have documented program variations, which
incorporate goal setting, providing incentives and use of mechanical aids for behavior
monitoring. A behavioral approach becomes especially important in tackling safety issues,
as it focuses on the psychology of the workers at work. The National Safety Council reported
that worker behavior was the cause of 94 per cent of all injuries and illnesses (Bhattacharjee
and Ghosh, 2011). This justifies the importance of focusing on employee behavior as a
critical element in achieving better safety performance.
4.2.2 Gap 2: Lack of reporting to DoL. All accidents that require more than three
working days leave are required to inform to the DFIE (DoL) via From 10. As mentioned by
the experts, there is no such difficulties in the reporting process except the two difficulties
mentioned by Expert I of Organization C and Expert I of Organization B. Expert I of
Organization C stated “taking out of accurate information from the injured party regarding
the accident is crucial”. Further, Expert I of Organization B described allocating time to fill
documents regarding minor injury is an issue with other complex and heavy work load at
sites.
Because of the lack of attention, lack of awareness of legal reporting requirements and
burden of completing paperwork, most of the safety representatives of the sites and workers
do not persuade themselves to report accidents occurred in the sites via notice of accident
form (Form 10) to the respective DFIEs. Moreover, they consider that involvement of the
DoL would create additional distress to them.
Further, Expert I of Organization E mentioned “if there is any considerable penalty for
non-reporting then there is an influence to report the accidents by the responsible parties”. In
the current system, there is a small charge for the under-reported accidents according to the
Factories Ordinance.
 4.2.3 Gap 3: Lack of reporting of minor accidents (less than three working days from Under-
earning full wages at the work). The accidents that are categorized under “less than three reporting of
working days from earning full wages at work” are not required to report to any authorized construction
body. However, they must be recorded in the accident register which is kept in the
organizations and required to send a copy to the DoL in every six months. Most of the accidents
organizations maintain the accident register or internal documents for recording of all type
of these accidents including “near misses” as a strategy to prevent recurrence of the same 863
incident. According many experts, as there is neither impressive advantages of reporting to
the DoL, nor punishment for not sending the register, this rule is being violated. Thus, DoL
should find innovative approaches to make employers adhering to the law.
4.2.4 Gap 4: Unavailability of a centralized recording system. It was observed that,
instituting a centralized recording system is a burning need to formalize a precise and
efficient reporting procedure which is considered as one of the main causes for under-
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

reporting. However, lack of staff, infrastructure, lack of integration between relevant

authorities/departments and capital for devising and maintaining such centralized
recording system were highlighted as indeed de-motivators. Further bureaucracy of the
existing administration system in relevant authorities/departments would create a
hindrance to execute a cohesive and centralized recording system.
Therefore, establishing an independent division for collecting required data and
maintaining a recording system is vital to eliminate all the gaps identified in the existing
system. Experts suggest to introduce a prescribed information sheet for all organizations
which can be operated through a separate division and further these forms can be handled
an online portal. Alternatively, this division should have the capacity to compile
occupational accidents information of the DoL, department of compensation, hospitals,
police and insurance agencies. Further, it can actively engage to conduct risk management
programs, awareness programs, develop guidelines related to occupational accident
prevention and accident reporting to enhance safety management and liaise with the DoL.
4.2.5 Gap 5: Lack of communication between the department of workmen compensation
and DoL. If a personal injury is caused to a worker by accident arising because of his
employment and if it resulted in the total or partial disablement of the workman for a period
exceeding three days, then the employer has the responsibility to pay compensation for the
victim in accordance with “Commissioner Workmen Compensation” Ordinance (Workmen
Compensation Ordinance Nos.19, 1934), upon a request by Form Q. However, because of no
legal provisions to disseminate information within the system, there is no avenue created to
share that information with the DoL. Thus, a large number of data set is not being captured
by the DoL.
4.2.6 Gap 6: Lack of communication between insurance companies and DoL. Most of the
employers have insured their employees against the liability of workmen’s compensation.
Therefore, in case of an accident, the employer informs insurance company simultaneously
to workmen’s compensation department to claim the compensation for the victim(s).
However, insurance agencies are not legally bound to maintain a proper affiliation with the
DoL during the information sharing.
According to Expert I of Organization C:
in the current insurance compensation system some of the insurance companies do not request a
DoL certificate to issue the insurance claim. However, if there is such regulation imposed on all
the insurance companies then they can ask for a certification by DoL from the construction
companies. This will pressurize the construction companies to report major accidents to the
labour department.
 JEDT 4.2.7 Gap 7: Lack of communication between hospitals and DoL. As it is clearly
16,6 mentioned in the law, a medical officer is bound to inform the chief factory inspecting
engineer of the DoL only if he identifies a serious occupational disease which has arisen
because of the employment in construction industry (Factories Ordinance No. 45, 1942).
Except that, there is no direct informing procedure of the victims to the DoL, and thus not
often practicing. However, medical officers inform the police post or nearest police station
864 upon a serious accident when the victim is hospitalized, even with no prescribed form or
procedure to report. The experts (medical officers) revealed that less staff for administrative
work of hospitals is the main reason for poor reporting of occupational disease or accidents
to the DoL. Under this circumstance, hospital staff’s main focus is only to save the life of the
victims while giving no priority for reporting to relevant authorities.
4.2.8 Gap 8: Lack of communication between police and DoL. Figure 1 demonstrates that
if a victim is hospitalized and is in critical stage, then the police should be informed by the
hospital and then investigations will proceed. Under these situations, the police however not
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

liaise with the DoL to make a record of occupational incidents. Thus, DoL may not get an
opportunity to investigate it. Therefore, “the police should be made re-aware the importance
of reporting occupational accidents to the DoL” an expert from the DoL added. Another
expert from the same organization mentioned that information from the hospitals would
reflect more than 90 per cent of the occupational incidents.

5. Recommendations
At the organizational level, four number of improvements were identified. They include to
appoint qualified safety representatives for each construction site of the construction
organizations, to conduct training and awareness programs on importance of accident
reporting, to conduct awareness programs on company policies on accident recording and
reporting and to implement behavioral modification programs.
On the other hand, the Government should take actions for establishment of another
institution under DoL to maintain a centralized industrial accident recording system.
Moreover, continuous monitoring of following up the legal provision on notification of
accidents, introduction of a prescribed information sheet for all organizations who are
involved in a case of a workplace accident and after an accident or development of an online
portal, increase the awareness programs on importance of maintaining records and
reporting of industrial accidents, decree to implement the SLS OSHAS 18001 as an
occupational health and safety management system and encourage the construction
organizations to apply for OSH excellence awards were found as strategies to mitigate the
gaps in existing accident reporting and recording procedure of Sri Lanka. These proposed
strategies can be considered in establishing a centralized recording system for construction
industry to enhancing its image of OSH.

6. Conclusions
It is vital to have an effective accident reporting and recording system for construction
industry in Sri Lanka. As the accident rate of construction industry is getting high, it is a
responsibility of the authorized bodies to work close together to reduce rate of accidents.
Thus, availability of reliable data of accidents are important. However, with lack of effective
accident reporting procedure and a centralized recording system for occupational accidents,
consolidating a reliable data source has become a difficult task. Therefore, the construction
industry in Sri Lanka suffer from information shortages.
The research made it clear that there are prevailing gaps in the existing accident
reporting procedure, which creates inefficient recording system. As a result, it was reported
 that 80 per cent fatal accidents are under-reported. The gaps in the existing reporting Under-
procedure are discussed as eight barriers. Through the interviews with the different experts reporting of
in the construction industry as well as the representatives from hospitals, police and DoL,
construction
the recommendations to diminish the gaps were identified.
The recommendations are for the individuals working in the construction field, accidents
management of the particular construction organizations and for the Sri Lankan
government. It is believed that the findings of the study would be important to reduce the
865
number of construction accidents in Sri Lanka, as ultimate objective of recording and
reporting is to avoid the same type of accident by taking necessary corrective and
preventive actions. However, the study is limited to few interviews and, hence, need drilling
deeper the subject to identify how efficient in implementing the suggested proposals.

References
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

Abbasi, M., Gholamnia, R., Alizadeh, S.S. and Rasoulzadeh, Y. (2015), “Evaluation of workers unsafe
behaviors using safety sampling method in an industrial company”, Indian Journal of Science
and Technology, Vol. 8 No. 28, pp. 1-6.
Alamgir, H., Koehoorn, M., Ostry, A., Tompa, E. and Demers, P.A. (2006), “How many work-related
injuries requiring hospitalization in British Columbia are claimed for workers’ compensation?”,
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 49 No. 6, pp. 443-451.
Amarasinghe, N.C. (2011), “Deaths due to accidents in workplace”, Lankadeepa, 10 October, p. 1.
Andersen, A.P., Nørdam, L., Joensson, T., Kines, P. and Nielsen, K.J. (2018), “Social identity, safety
climate and self-reported accidents among construction workers”, Construction Management
and Economics, Vol. 36 No. 1, pp. 22-31.
Arquillos, A.L., Rubio Romero, J.C. and Gibb, A. (2012), “Analysis of construction accidents in Spain,
2003-2008”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 43 Nos 5/6, pp. 381-388.
Azaroff, L.S., Levenstein, C. and Wegman, D. (2002), “Occupational injury and illness surveillance:
conceptual filters explain underreporting”, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 92 No. 9,
pp. 1421-1429.
Bach, P. and MCcracken, S.G. (2004), Best Practice Guidelines for Behavioral Interventions, Illinois
Department of Human Services, Illinois.
Bhattacharjee, S. and Ghosh, S. (2011), “Safety improvement approaches in construction industry: a
review and future directions”, Proceedings of 47th ASC Annual International Conference,
available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/0f3a/555b1c4243d5685fa1125cc6b52ec522bd5b.pdf
Biddle, J., Roberts, K., Rosenman, K.D. and Welch, E.M. (1998), “What percentage of workers with
work-related illnesses receive workers' compensation benefits”, Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine, Vol. 40 No. 4, pp. 325-331.
Chong, H.Y. and Low, T.S. (2014), “Accidents in Malaysian construction industry: statistical data and
court cases”, International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, Vol. 20 No. 3,
pp. 503-513.
Clarke, S. (1998), “Organizational factors affecting the incident reporting of train drivers”, Work and
Stress, Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 6-16.
Conway, H. and Svenson, J. (1998), “Occupational injury and illness rates 1992-1996: why they fell”,
Monthly Labor Review, Vol. 121, pp. 36-58.
Cooper, C.L. and Antoniou, A.S. (2012), New Directions in Organizational Psychology and Behavioral
Medicine, Gower Publishing, Farnham.
Daniels, C. and Marlow, P. (2005), Literature Review on the Reporting of Workplace Injury Trends,
Health and Safety Laboratary, Derbyshire.
 JEDT Dietz, G., Gillespie, J. and Gillespie, N. (2012), Recovery of Trust: Case Studies of Organisational Failures
and Trust Repair, Institute of Business Ethics, London.
16,6
Ergör, O.A., Demiral, Y. and Piyal, Y.B. (2003), “A significant outcome of work life: occupational
accidents in a developing country, Turkey”, Journal of Occupational Health, Vol. 45 No. 1,
pp. 74-80.
Factories Ordinance No. 45 (1942), Factories Ordinance No. 45 of 1942, Government publications
bureau, Colombo.
866
Fung, I.W., Tam, V.W., Lo, T. and Lu, L. (2010), “Developing a risk assessment model for construction
safety”, International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 593-600.
Galizzi, M., Miesmaa, P., Punnett, L. and Slatin, C. (2010), “Injured workers’ underreporting in the health
care industry: an analysis using quantitative, qualitative, and observational data”, Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 22-43.
Guldenmund, F.W. (2000), “The nature of safety culture: a review of theory and research”, Safety
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

Science, Vol. 34 Nos 1/3, pp. 215-257.

Hadikusumo, B.H.W., Jitwasinkul, B. and Memon, A.Q. (2017), “Role of organizational factors affecting
worker safety behavior: a Bayesian belief network approach”, Procedia Engineering, Vol. 171
No. 1, pp. 131-139.
Hedlund, F.H. (2013), “Recorded fatal and permanently disabling injuries in South African
manufacturing industry- overview, analysis and reflection”, Safety Science, Vol. 55, pp. 149-159.
Hughes, P. and Ferrett, E. (2007), Introduction to Health and Safety in Construction, 2nd ed.,
Butterworth-Heinemann: Elsevier, Oxford.
ILO (1996), Code of Practice. Recording and Notification of Occupational Accidents and Diseases, ILO,
Geneva.
ILO (2003), Safety in Numbers: Pointers for a Global Safety Culture at Work, International Labour office,
Geneva, p. 27.
ILO (2005), Safety in Numbers: Pointers for Global Safety Culture at Work, International Labour Office,
Geneva.
ILO (2009), ILO Standards on Occupational Safety and Health: Promoting a Safe and Healthy Working
Environment, International Labour Organization, Geneva.
ILO (2018), “Improving the safety and health of young workers”, available at: www.astrid-online.it/
static/upload/wcms/wcms_625223.pdf
Jacinto, C. and Aspinwall, E. (2004), “A survey on occupational accidents reporting and registration
systems in the European union”, Safety Science, Vol. 42 No. 10, pp. 933-960.
Jilcha, K. and Kitaw, D. (2016), “A literature review on global occupational safety and health practice
and accidents severity”, International Journal for Quality Research, Vol. 10 No. 2, pp. 279-310.
Johnson, C.W. (2003), Failure in Safety-Critical Systems: A Handbook of Accident and Incident
Reporting, University of Glasgow Press, Scotland.
Kadiri, Z.O., Nden, T., Avre, G.K., Oladipo, T.O., Edom, A., Samuel, P.O. and Ananso, G.N. (2013),
“Causes and effects of accidents on construction sites (a case study of some selected construction
firms in Abuja F.C.T Nigeria)”, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering, Vol. 11 No. 5,
pp. 66-72.
LaDou, J. (2003), “International occupational health”, International Journal of Hygiene and
Environmental Health, Vol. 206, pp. 1-11.
Leigh, J.P., Marcin, J.P. and Miller, T.R. (2004), “An estimate of the US government’s undercount of
nonfatal occupational injuries”, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 46
No. 1, pp. 10-18.
Lim, A.S.W. (2007), Critical Causes of Accident under Reporting in Malaysia Construction Industry,
University of Technology, Malaysia, Johor Bahru.
 Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. (2005), Occupational Health and Safety in Construction Under-
ProjectManagement, Taylor and Francis, Milton Park, Didcot.
reporting of
Lopez, C., Ritzel, D.O., Fontaneda, I. and Alcantara, O.J.G. (2008), “Construction industry accidents in
Spain”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 39 No. 5, pp. 497-507. construction
Murie, F. (2007), “Building safety – an international perspective, international journal of occupational”, accidents
Environment and Health, Vol. 13 No. 1, pp. 5-11.
Nielsen, K.J., Carstensen, O. and Rasmussen, K. (2006), “The prevention of occupational injuries in two
industrial plants using an incident reporting scheme”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 37 No. 5,
867
pp. 479-486.
Occupational Safety and Health Branch (2014), Occupational Safety and Health Statistics Bulletin,
Labour Department, Government of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Oleinick, A., Gluck, J.V. and Guire, K.E. (1995), “Establishment size and risk of occupational injury”,
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 28 No. 1, pp. 1-21.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

Oswald, D., Sherratt, F. and Smith, S. (2013), “Exploring factors affecting unsafe behaviours in
construction”, in Smith, S.D. and Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D. (Eds), Proceedings of 29th Annual
ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September, Association of Researchers in Construction Management,
Reading, pp. 335-344.
Probst, T.M. and Estrada, A.X. (2010), “Accident under-reporting among employees: testing the
moderating influence of psychological safety climate and supervisor enforcement of safety
practices”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 42 No. 5, pp. 1438-1444.
Probst, T.M. and Graso, M. (2013), “Pressure to produce = pressure to reduce accident reporting?”,
Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 59 No. 1, pp. 580-587.
Probst, T.M., Brubaker, T.L. and Barsotti, A. (2008), “Organizational injury rate underreporting: the
moderating effect of organizational safety climate”, Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 93 No. 5,
pp. 1147-1154.
Probst, T.M., Barbaranelli, C. and Petitta, L. (2013a), “The relationship between job insecurity and
accident under-reporting: a test in two countries”, Work and Stress, Vol. 27 No. 4, pp. 383-402.
Probst, T.M., Graso, M., Estrada, A.X. and Greer, S. (2013b), “Consideration of future safety
consequences: a new predictor of employee safety”, Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 55
No. 1, pp. 124-134.
Rosenman, K.D., Kalush, A., Reilly, M.J., Gardiner, J.C., Reeves, M. and Luo, Z. (2006), “How much work-
related injury and illness is missed by the current national surveillance system”, Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Vol. 48 No. 4, pp. 357-365.
Shannon, H.S. and Lowe, G.S. (2002), “How many injured workers do not file claims for workers’
compensation benefits?”, American Journal of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 42 No. 6, pp. 467-473.
Sherratt, F., Farrell, P. and Noble, R. (2013), “Construction site safety: discourses of enforcement and
engagement”, Construction Management and Economics, Vol. 31 No. 6, pp. 623-635.
Sinclair, R.R. and Tetrick, L.E. (2004), “Social exchange and union commitment: a comparison of union
instrumentality and union support perceptions”, Journal of Organizational Behavior, Vol. 16,
pp. 669-680.
Sousa, V., Almeida, N.M. and Dias, L.A. (2014), “Risk-based management of occupational safety and
health in the construction industry – part 1: background knowledge”, Safety Science, Vol. 66,
pp. 75-86.
Tam, C.M., Zeng, S.X. and Deng, Z.M. (2004), “Identifying elements of poor construction safety
management in China”, Safety Science, Vol. 42 No. 7, pp. 569-586.
Templeton, K. (2014), “Effectiveness of the near miss safety program relative to the total number of
recordable accidents in a manufacturing facility”, The Faculty of the Department of STEM
Educational and Professional Studies, available at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/cgi/
viewcontent.cgi?article=1003&context=ots_masters_projects
 JEDT Tiwary, G. and Gangopadhyay, P.K. (2011), “A review on the occupational health and social security of
Unorganized workers in the construction industry”, Indian Journal of Occupational and
16,6 Environmental Medicine, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 18-24.
United States Government Accountability Office (2009), Enhancing OSHA’s Records Audit Process
Could Improve the Accuracy of Worker Injury and Illness Data, United States Government
Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
Weddle, M.G. (1996), “Reporting occupational injuries: the first step”, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 27
868 No. 4, pp. 217-233.
Workmen Compensation Ordinance Nos.19 (1934), Workmen Compensation Ordinance Nos.19 of 1934,
Government publications bureau, Colombo.
Wuellner, S.E., Adams, D.A. and Bonauto, D.K. (2016), “Unreported workers’ compensation claims to
the BLS survey of occupational injuries and illnesses: establishment factors”, American Journal
of Industrial Medicine, Vol. 59 No. 4, pp. 274-289.
Zohar, D. (2003), “Safety climate: conceptual and measurement issues”, in Quick, J.C. and Tetrick, L.E.
Downloaded by Göteborgs Universitet At 03:36 02 December 2018 (PT)

(Eds), Handbook of Occupational Health Psychology, American Psychological Association,

Washington, DC, pp. 123-142.

About the authors

Eng. Dr. (Mrs) Nayanthara De Silva is a Senior Lecturer in the Department of Building Economics,
University of Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. She serves as the Program Coordinator of the MSc in
Occupational Safety and Health program. She is also a member of the Institution of Engineers, Sri
Lanka and a founder member of Institute of Facilities Management. She has successfully completed
several research projects and published over 50 international papers. Her current research interests
are maintainability of buildings, health and safety and performance of construction industry in Sri
Lanka. Nayanthara De Silva is the corresponding author and can be contacted at: endds@becon.mrt.
ac.lk
Mrs. Uthpala Rathnayake is a Lecturer in the Department of Building Economics, University of
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka. She is also an associate member of the Institute of Facilities Management Sri
Lanka. Her current research interests are occupational health and safety, Ethical climates and Waste
management.
Eng. K.M.U.B. Kulasekera is employed as a Safety Engineer in the Department of Labor, Sri
Lanka. He is engaged in the enforcement of law related to the Occupational Safety and Health in
industries. He was graduated in mechanical engineering from University of Peradeniya, Sri Lanka
and he has also obtained a MSc in Occupational Safety and Health from University of Moratuwa, Sri
Lanka. He is also a member of the Institution of Engineers, Sri Lanka.

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com