Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Safety Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jsr

Occupational health and safety of multinational construction companies

through evaluation of corporate social responsibility reports
Michalis Mavroulidis a, Panagiotis Vouros a, Stefanos Fotiadis a, Foteini Konstantakopoulou b,
Georgios Fountoulakis a, Ioannis Nikolaou c, Konstantinos Evangelinos a
a
Department of Environment, University of the Aegean, Lesvos 81100 Greece
b
Hellenic Open University, Parodos Aristotelous 18, Patra 26335 Greece
c
Business Economics and Environmental Technology Lab, Department of Environmental Engineering, Democritus University of Thrace, Xanthi, Greece

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

Article history: Introduction: The aim of this paper is to examine Occupational Health and Safety (OHS) behavior in the
Received 3 May 2021 construction industry through the assessment of Corporate Social Responsibility reports. The level of
Received in revised form 15 August 2021 accident rates in the construction industry place OHS issues at the heart of their strategic management.
Accepted 24 January 2022
Method: The assessment of OHS issues was made by drawing appropriate data from the Corporate Social
Available online 3 February 2022
Responsibility reports of 19 multinational construction companies published on a voluntary basis.
Results: The findings show a low response rate by the companies sampled to the requirements of stake-
Keywords:
holders for responsible organizational behavior and accountability for their consequences. Most of the
Corporate responsibility
Sustainability reporting
companies sampled have only focused on a small number of OHS issues to assure the transparency of
Sustainable development the information published such as OHS governance, accident and illness rates, training hours, third party
Voluntary disclosure assurance, and membership of externally developed OHS charters. Similarly, other important OHS issues
Construction industry seem to be less covered by the companies sampled such as the representation of total workforce in OHS
Evaluation of CSR reports committees, the percentage of high risk occupations, and OHS practices in the supply chain.
Evaluation systems Ó 2022 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction sures to prevent work related accidents, illnesses, and diseases,

In recent years, many academics have focused on Occupational
Health and Safety (OHS) issues in various business sectors as
(Hasle & Limborg, 2006; Robson et al., 2007) they are related to
working conditions and the potential effects on business continu-
ity and financial position (Kheni et al., 2011). These impacts seem
not only to affect employees and their families, but also the busi-
ness itself through increasing costs due to replacement, reputa-
tional, and regulatory-based costs. To protect business
operations, the construction industry addresses OHS issues as a
top priority by adopting OHS management systems (Nikolaou,
2016; Yoon et al., 2013a). The majority of OHS management sys-
tems focus on three key pillars: legislation compliance, appropriate
standards adoption, and good practices implementation
(Väyrynen, Häkkinen, & Niskanen, 2015).
In order to improve the safety practices and create a safe work-
ing environment, the construction industry needs to adopt appro-
priate practices to protect staff since safety is strongly related to
key employee characteristics such as feelings, attitudes, and values
(Hudson, 2007). Despite the continuous and ever-increasing mea-
OHS issues still remain high in the construction industry with acci-
dents continuing to occur often with significant human and eco-
nomic consequences (Väyrynen et al., 2015).
Many studies of the construction industry have highlighted the
poor statistics regarding OHS issues (Lingard & Wakefield, 2020).
The current research strategy has focused on identifying the high
rates of injuries and fatalities compared to other types of indus-
tries, and the disproportionate number of work-related injuries
or fatalities compared to the size of the total workforce (Lingard
& Wakefield, 2020). However, the construction industry remains
one of the most dangerous despite the fact that many companies
in the sector have successfully adopted OHS management systems
to address potential accidents and injuries (Ghodrati, Wing Yiu,
Wilkinson, & Shahbazpour, 2018). Accidents in the construction
industry are related to numerous factors, such as the location of
the project, the materials, tools and equipment used, as well as
the workforce (Manu, Ankrah, Proverbs, & Suresh, 2012; Park &
Kim, 2013). Some accidents are related to human error such as a
lack of maintenance and unsafe behavior (Health and Safety
Executive, 2009). Thus, the construction industry has a high overall

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.01.005
0022-4375/Ó 2022 National Safety Council and Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
mortality rate, regardless of social class and due to the diverse vari-
ety of occupations, almost all occupational accidents that exist
have been recorded in the construction industry (Snashall, 2005).
Various proposals have been made to address potential weak-
nesses in the construction industry. Some academics have sug-
gested the industry adopt internal training and education on OHS
issues (Graupp & Wrona, 2010; Huntzinger, 2016). The adoption
of certification standards has also been recommended to assure
sustainability and human resources issues such as child and forced
labor, health and safety, and disciplinary practices (e.g. ISO 14001,
ISO 45001, SA8000, UN Global Compact, OHSAS 18001) (Boiral
et al., 2011). The majority of such standards (e.g., OHSAS 18,001
and ISO 45001) increase corporate safety performance and com-
petitiveness, and create safety culture in companies. However, it
is worth noting that the adoption of these standards not only
brings benefits to companies, but also a number of problems such
as increased bureaucracy, increased costs of training and monitor-
ing of the standard, and increased operating costs for the company
(Lafuente & Abad, 2018).
These standards are mainly categorized under Corporate Social
Responsibility (CSR), which has become a very significant concept
in the construction industry playing a critical role by representing
a committed response of companies to stakeholders’ demands for
responsible strategies (Jiang & Wong, 2016; Xia, Olanipekun,
Chen, Xie, & Liu, 2018). CSR is considered a good vehicle for every
sector and, particularly, the construction industry to go beyond the
law and successfully respond to the requirements of employees
(for safe and better working conditions), local communities (to
assure the social license to operate), public authorities (to align
with legislative requirements), and financial sectors (to improve
their reputation and creditworthiness) (Loosemore & Lim, 2017).
Specifically, CSR in the construction industry is a multi-
dimensional task with emphasis on social (education, workplace
safety, working conditions, labor rights), environmental (ecosys-
tems, land, air and water protection), and economic dimensions
(direct and indirect economic impacts of construction companies
to the overall economy) (Xia et al., 2018). Petrovic-Lazarevic
(2008) has pointed out that construction companies should meet
health and safety issues through a socially responsible agenda by
introducing OHS measures and relationships with suppliers and
local communities. It is important to mention that there are, albeit
few, opposing views on CSR: it is considered to be just a ploy by
companies to enhance their reputation and public relations and
actually contradicts their purpose, which is to maximize profit
and not to promote social welfare, the cornerstone of CSR (Dunn
& Harness, 2019). To assess the diversity, complexity, and signifi-
cance of OHS topics in the construction industry, academics have
examined CSR reports where many key aspects of the CSR agenda
are disclosed (Koskela, 2014; Montero, Araque, & Rey, 2009). By
utilizing benchmarking-based techniques, Tsalis, Stylianou, and
Nikolaou (2018) analyzed CSR reports to identify necessary infor-
mation regarding OHS disclosing strategies of a sample of firms.
Similarly, Cahaya, Porter, Tower, and Brown (2017) have provided
important information regarding the OHS disclosure practices of
firms by analyzing CSR reports. Dura, Drigă, and Păun (2019) have
identified many OHS issues disclosed in CSR reports by Romanian
companies.
Taking into account these recent trends regarding CSR and
reporting, especially the poor safety record of the construction
industry, this paper aims to assess the disclosure behavior regard-
ing OHS issues by extracting information from CSR reports. A
benchmarking technique was designed by utilizing the GRI G4
guidelines and the previous experience of scoring systems to iden-
tify the quality of OHS information in CSR reports. The findings
show the current level of OHS information and the trends in CSR
reports of firms sampled. The findings could be the ground for
46
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
the improvement in both the future OHS strategies of construction
companies and their CSR reports.
The rest of the paper is classified in four sections. The next sec-
tion includes the material and methods of the paper. The third sec-
tion analyzes the results regarding OHS issues in the CSR reports of
sampled firms. Next, the key outcomes of the study are compared
with the general literature. Finally, concluding remarks highlight
suggestions for future improvements in OHS performance.
2. Material and method
This section is classified in four further sections. The first sub-
section includes the research structure of this paper. The second
section analyzes research questions and the third develops the rat-
ing system of OHS information through CSR reports. Following,
these sections are analyzed in more detail. The final section ana-
lyzes the necessary criteria utilized to select the sampled firms.
The construction industry was selected as it is considered danger-
ous regarding OHS issues.
2.1. The structure of the study
The majority of previous studies in the construction industry
have mainly examined OHS issues through various research meth-
ods that focus on questionnaire-based surveys (Yoon et al., 2013b;
Zeng, Tam, & Tam, 2008), exploratory studies (Marhavilas,
Koulouriotis, Nikolaou, & Tsotoulidou, 2018), and case study
research (Lingard, Cooke, & Gharaie, 2013; Shen & Walker, 2001).
These methods are predominantly based on drawing data from
companies in order to understand the pros and cons of integrating
OHS issues in the construction industry’s strategy.
In order to identify the research gap and how to deal with it,
this paper follows five steps (Fig. 1). The first step focuses on col-
lecting appropriate literature related to OHS and CSR in the con-
struction industry. Some key criteria chosen to identify suitable
literature are as follows: (a) proper keywords (e.g., responsible
construction industry, OHS and CSR in the construction industry);
(b) the scientific field of journals (e.g., management, engineering,
or environment); (c) years of the paper (the focus has been primar-
ily on the latest decade); (d) the title of the paper (e.g., exactly or
close to this study); and (e) the impact factor of the journals
(e.g., five year impact of the journal).
In the second step, procedures were determined to analyze the
papers collected in order to develop necessary research questions.
These questions are based on research gaps identified in the rele-
vant literature. The next step determines the rating system utilized
to analyze data collected in this study in order to respond to
research questions. The fourth step shows how necessary data
have been collected. The final step discusses the results in compar-
ison to current literature.
2.2. Research questions
The primary task is to draw appropriate OHS information for
the construction industry. Today, a common research strategy is
to draw information through questionnaire-based surveys from
employees of the construction industry. Although it is considered
a very good and scientifically-based research strategy, it neverthe-
less entails inherent weaknesses since these are the subjective
judgments of the respondents. Additionally, another good source
for extracting valuable OHS information seems to be stand-alone
CSR and sustainability reports of construction companies where a
lot of information is disclosed regarding construction companies’
economic, environmental, and social performance (Lu, Ye,
Flanagan, & Ye, 2016). These types of information are very impor-
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
Fig. 1. Research structure.
tant in order for construction companies to make progress in their
accountability to overall stakeholder groups (Petrovic-Lazarevic,
2010). It is well established that the principle of accountability is
useful for all organizations since it ensures that all necessary infor-
mation is offered to each stakeholder groups.
CSR reports were selected due to their transparent information
since they are certified by independent organizations. Another crit-
ical point is that CSR reports include OHS information from specific
certified standards (ILO-OSH 2001, ISO 45,001 and OHSAS 18001),
which ensures the principle of accountability in the construction
industry (Fernández-Muñiz, Montes-Peón, & Vázquez-Ordás,
2012; Marhani, Adnan, & Ismail, 2013). These standards are based
on a plan-do-check-act algorithm and can facilitate stakeholders in
their decision-making process. A major weakness of these reports
is that their voluntary nature often leads companies to have a
selective way of presenting mainly positive information (good
news) and sometimes even non-material information (Benlemlih,
Ge, & Zhao, 2021). To assure accountability of such information,
47
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
it should be examined in a systematic way. A significant research
question that needs answering is:
Research Question 1 (RQ1): What is the degree of accountabil-
ity of CSR reports regarding OHS aspects?
Although the amount of information is very important for the
stakeholders (internal or external) of an organization, the trans-
parency of such information is much more critical before utilizing
it in decision making. To this end, Evangelinos, Skouloudis, Jones,
Isaac, and Sfakianaki (2016) have highlighted that financial and
non-financial accountability improves decision making process of
both firms and stakeholders. Furthermore, Evangelinos et al.
(2018) surveyed the quality of OHS disclosures of large organiza-
tions through CSR reports and examined the transparency of such
information. This analysis leads to the following research question:
Research Question 2 (RQ2): How transparent is the OHS infor-
mation in CSR reports?
It is well established that stakeholders play a critical role in dis-
closing behavior of organizations regarding CSR information
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
(Prabhu, 2016). Although there are many ways to categorize stake-
holder groups, a widespread focus is on internal (e.g., managers,
board, employees, and shareholders) and external stakeholders
(e.g., banking sector, local community, and suppliers) (Chan &
Oppong, 2017; Ujene & Edike, 2015). The origin of stakeholders,
internal or external, may have multiple influences on the voluntary
disclosure of information (Nikolaou, Chymis, & Evangelinos, 2013).
The stakeholder theory and stakeholder engagement principle are
utilized as a suitable theoretical context to examine the degree of
stakeholder engagement. The third research question is defined
as follows:
Research Question 3 (RQ3): Which group of stakeholders -
internal or external- has the most influence on the construction
industry’s OHS disclosures?
2.3. Rating system
As information has been taken from CSR reports, which are pre-
pared by using informal accounting guides and non-generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP), some further numerical
transformations and quantitative measurement techniques are
necessary before becoming compatible and useable (Nikolaou,
2007). Α common group of techniques for assessing such types of
data are the rating systems that contribute to ‘‘coding qualitative
information in informal and literary form into categories in order to
draw quantitative scales on complexity levels” (Abbott & Monsen,
1979). Table 1 analyzes the suggested indicators related to OHS
and Table 2 shows the evaluation system of the rating system
suggested.
The first five indicators of Table 1 (DMA for OHS, LA5, LA6, LA7
and LA8) are directly related to OHS, while the remaining indica-
tors (LA9, LA14, LA15, G4-15 and G4-33) are indirectly associated
with OHS issues. It is worth noting that DMA indicators refer to
the governance and are broken down in different categories (e.g.,
OHS, training, education and environment). This study utilizes
DMA to evaluate OHS issues only.
Table 1
Occupational health and safety indicators.
Indicator Description
Occupational Health and Safety
G4-DMA Disclosure of Management Approach on OHS
G4-LA5 Percentage of total workforce represented in formal joint
management-worker health and safety committees that help
monitor and advise on occupational health and safety
programmes.
G4-LA6 Type of injury and rates of injury, occupational diseases, lost days,
and absenteeism, and total number of work-related fatalities by
region and by gender.
G4-LA7 Workers with high incidence or high risk of diseases related to
their occupation.
G4-LA8 Health and safety topics covered in formal agreements with trade
unions.
Training and Education
G4-LA9 Average hours of OHS training per year per gender, and by
employee category.
Supplier Assessment for Labor Practices
G4-LA14 Percentage of new suppliers (or partners, contractors) that were
screened using OHS practices criteria.
G4-LA15 Significant actual and potential negative impacts for OHS
practices in the supply chains and actions taken.
Organizational Profile
G4-15 List externally developed OHS-related charters, principles, or
other social initiatives to which the organization subscribes or
which it endorses.
Report Profile
G4-33 Assurance of OHS disclosures or third-party verification of OHS
Management System in place.
48
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
Table 2
CSR Report assessment criteria.
Grade Explanation
0 There is no mention about the percentage of total workforce
represented in formal joint management-worker health and safety
committees.
1 There are some brief/general/indefinite information about workforce
representation in formal joint management-worker health and safety
committees.
2 There are mentions about workforce representation in formal joint
management-worker health and safety committees but without any
information about percentages which do not cover the entire
company.
3 Percentage of workforce representation in formal joint management-
worker health and safety committees is mentioned but does not
cover the entire company.
4 Percentage of workforce representation in formal joint management-
worker health and safety committees is mentioned or company
announces that 100% of workforce is represented in formal joint
management-worker health and safety committees.
In Table 2, the rating scale ranges from 0 (0%) to 4 points (100%)
(Evangelinos et al., 2016; Halkos & Paizanos, 2016; Skouloudis,
Evangelinos, & Malesios, 2013). If the indicator is not displayed
in the CSR report, the score is 0 (or 0%). When it is briefly or super-
ficially mentioned, the report scores 1 point (or 25%). If an indicator
is presented in a meaningful but not sufficient way, 2 points (or
50%) are awarded while, sufficient presentation but perhaps lack-
ing in some places scores 3 points (or 75%). Finally, full coverage
gets 4 points (or 100%) (Evangelinos et al., 2016). The indicators
selected are based on the requirements of the GRI-G4 guidelines
(Evangelinos et al., 2018). This guide is one of the latest versions
of GRI guides and provides certain indicators for economic, envi-
ronmental, and social information. It was launched from the Global
Reporting Initiative (GRI), which is a non-governmental organiza-
tion focusing on providing guidelines to facilitate organizations
to prepare sustainability and CSR reports. It is the most popular
CSR and sustainability guide that has been adopted by the majority
of firms globally since it offers a higher level of standardized and
comparable information at the international level (Fuente,
García-Sanchez, & Lozano, 2017).
The total score is calculated based on mathematical formula [1].
X
10
OHSSi ¼ ISij ð1Þ
j¼1
where j denotes indicators (j = 1, 2,. . ., 10),
i shows the organizations (i = 1,2,. . ., 19),
ISij is the score of indicator j of the organization i (ISij = 0, 1, 2, 3,
4), and
OHSSi is the total score of the organization i (max
OHSSi = 0,1,2,. . .,40) (Evangelinos et al., 2018).
The maximum score of this formula will be 40 points.
For the reasons of uniformity and comparability of the scores,
the mathematical formula [2] assists in converting the scores
obtained from the formula [1] into a scale from 0% to 100%.
0 1
OHSS
¼@ Ax100
i
OHSSistandardization ð2Þ
max OHSSi
i
2.4. Data collection
The assessment of OHS attitudes in the construction industry
was made by collecting data through secondary sources in the
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al. Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54

annual CSR reports published on a voluntary basis in the GRI data-
base on the GRI webpage https://database.globalreporting.org/
(available 17/07/2021). This database offers many options to select
the suitable CSR and sustainability reports by using different crite-
ria such as size of organization (SMEs, MNE, large), sector (e.g. con-
struction, telecommunication), country (e.g. Greece, Germany,
Sweden), region (e.g. Europe, Africa), report type (e.g. GRI-G3,
GRI-G4), and report year (e.g. 2019, 2018). To select the construc-
tion companies necessary, specific criteria were used. Some criteria
were the worldwide character (predominantly multinational com-
panies), and the language the CSR reports were written in (mainly
English). Further criteria was the year and the adoption of the GRI
guidelines. As for the report type and year, it was decided to search
between 2016 and 2017 due to the substantial amount of reports
identified focusing on GRI and specifically, GRI-G4. Finally, Table 3
shows 19 CSR reports collected in line with the criteria outlined
above.
3. Results
Figs. 2 and 3 show the results of the assessment of CSR reports
on a scale from 0% to 100%, which is estimated by mathematic for-
mula [2]. These results correspond to the total score of each com-
pany divided by the maximum score possible. Specifically, Fig. 2
only takes into account the scores for the first five indicators
specifically dedicated to OHS and shows that their average score
is 30.5%. This implies that sampled firms disclose little information
regarding OHS issues. Furthermore, Fig. 3 denotes the average
score of all indicators is 36.3%. There is a variation between the
average scores of Figs. 2 and 3, which shows that the extra set of
five indicators adopted in OHS scored 5.8% higher than the first
set of indicators. Fig. 4 displays the total score of each GRI indicator
for all the sampled companies on a scale of 0% to 100%. The result
of each indicator corresponds to the total score of the indicator
divided by the maximum score that each indicator can get (76%).
Analysis shows that two of the assessed indicators (G4-15 and
G4-33) achieved very high scores. Specifically, indicator G4-33,
which is about the third-party assurance for OHS disclosures or
the third-party verification of the organization’s OHS Management
System, is included in all reports and has achieved the highest
score (75%). This indicator takes into account two additional fac-
tors: the third-party assurance of the OHS disclosure and the certi-
fication of the OHS system applied under OHSAS 18001 (an indirect
assurance for OHS disclosures issues). 52.6% of the companies have
third-party assurance of their OHS disclosure and 57.9% have cer-
tified their OHS management system under OHSAS 18001. The
other indicator G4-15, which includes the list of externally devel-
oped OHS-related charters, principles, or other social initiatives
to which the organization subscribes or endorses, achieved the sec-
ond highest score of 68.4% as most companies adequately cover the
content of the indicator.
Significant variations are presented for the set of indicators
specifically focused on assessing OHS issues (e.g., G4-DMA, G4-
LA5, G4-LA6, G4-LA7 and G4-LA8). A high presentation is identified
for the first (G4-DMA) indicator. It focuses on measuring disclosure
of management approaches to OHS issues. The total score of DMA
indicators is 67.1% and is covered in most of the CSR reports of the
sample. It is a promising result as it indicates the management of
construction companies deals effectively with OHS issues and
includes them on their CSR strategic agenda and reports. The
majority of sampled firms also seem to pay significant attention
to a number of OHS issues such as injury rates, occupational ill-
nesses, lost days, absenteeism, and work-related fatalities since
they appear in 89% of the sampled reports. This indicator (G4-
LA6) scores 47.4%. OHS topics covered in formal agreements with
trade unions scored 19.8% (G4-LA8). Information on the represen-
tation of employees in OHS associations seems to be rarely dis-
closed. Specifically, 11.8% of the total workforce is represented in
formal joint management-worker OHS committees (G4-LA5) and
6.6% of employees with high-risk occupations. (G4-LA7).
The results reveal that there are types of OHS information (as
assessed by the indicators suggested) that rarely feature in CSR
reports. For example, only three of the examined reports contain
information related to G4-LA7 indicators and four reports related
to the G4-LA5 indicator. Similarly, information regarding the aver-
age hours of OHS training appears in 14 of the 19 reports (G4-LA9).
Two indicators, related to the supplier assessment for labor prac-
tices (i.e., G4-LA14 and G4-LA15) were rarely covered in the
reports. Information on the percentage of new suppliers screened
using OHS practices criteria (Indicator G4-LA14), has a score of
18.4%, and OHS practices of the supply chain and their impacts
scored 23.7% (indicator G4-LA15).
The results of the evaluation of the 19 organizations in the con-
struction industry seem to underline the level at which the indus-
try is dealing with OHS issues. The introduction of an additional
five indicators from the OHS literature proved to be quite impor-
tant, causing a 5.8% increase in the total score, from 30.5% to
36.3%. This implies that sampled companies have implemented

Table 3
The sample selection.

Company Size Region Country Actual Year in Review CSR Type Language
1 Bechtel MNE Northern America USA 2016 GRI-G4 English
2 Elcondor MNE Latin America & the Caribbean Colombia 2016 GRI-G4 English
3 CSCI MNE Asia Hong Kong 2016 CSR Citting (G4) English
4 Gamuda MNE Asia Malaysia 2016 CSR Citting (G4) English
5 Heijmans MNE Europe Netherlands 2016 GRI-G4 English
6 HOCHTIEF Aktiengesellschaft MNE Europe Germany 2016 GRI-G4 English
7 LIXIL Group MNE Asia Japan 2016 GRI-G4 English
8 Mercialys MNE Europe France 2016 GRI-G4 English
9 MT Højgaard Holding MNE Europe Denmark 2016 GRI-G4 English
10 Nishimatsu MNE Asia Japan 2016 CSR Citting (G4) English
11 Odebrecht Agroindustrial MNE Latin America & the Caribbean Brazil 2015–2016 GRI-G4 English
12 Parsons MNE Northern America USA 2016 CSR Citting (G4) English
13 POSCO Engineering & Construction Co.,Ltd. MNE Asia Korea 2015–2016 GRI-G4 English
14 Ramboll Group A/S MNE Europe Denmark 2016 GRI-G4 English
15 Rider Levett Bucknall UK Ltd MNE Europe UK 2015–2016 GRI-G4 English
16 Salini Impregilo MNE Europe Italy 2016 GRI-G4 English
17 Shimizu MNE Asia Japan 2015–2016 CSR Citting (G4) English
18 UEM Group Berhad MNE Asia Malaysia 2016–2017 GRI-G4 English
19 YIT OYJ MNE Europe Finland 2016 GRI-G4 English

49
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al. Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54

Fig. 2. OHS score.

Fig. 3. Average score of all indicators.

more measures regarding OHS than GRI guidelines can identify.
Finally, it is worth noting that the overall score of the sampled con-
struction companies is 36.3%, which is a rather poor result, given
the high accident and death rate in this sector, as well as the exten-
sive current literature on OHS management in construction sites.
4. Conclusion and discussion
This paper aims to contribute to OHS issues in the construction
industry literature in numerous ways. Initially, it contributes by
assisting the efforts to develop new techniques to utilize OHS

50
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
Fig. 4. Total score of each GRI indicator.
information in the construction industry from secondary and
transparent sources (like CSR and sustainability reports published)
to overcome the weaknesses and failures of current data mining
and data collection techniques. The majority of the existing OHS
studies in the construction industry have utilized questionnaire-
based and interview-based surveys to extract appropriate informa-
tion (Endroyo, Yuwono, & Mardapi, 2015; Idoro, 2008). These tech-
niques gather relevant information from internal or external
stakeholders implying a high degree of subjectivity. A significant
contribution of this paper is to draw information from CSR reports,
which are considered good and transparent databases where con-
struction companies disclose significant information regarding
OHS issues. Despite some weaknesses (e.g., the lack of negative
information), CSR reports offer significant information that could
be independently analyzed by researchers without the introduc-
tion of bias from questionnaire respondents who can present infor-
mation according to their estimates and not based on real data
Although the usefulness of CSR reports as sources of OHS infor-
mation is indisputable, they are often prepared in informal and
unstandardized ways. This explains the unbalanced way of disclos-
ing information, including OHS. In order to overcome this unsys-
tematic way of disclosing OHS information, this paper suggests
drawing OHS indicators from the GRI guidelines and literature
review in order to design a common and systematic context of
analysis. Some additional significant contributions are associated
with the suggested rating system, which offers direct answers to
accountability, transparency, and the influence of stakeholders on
the construction industry disclosure strategy. These contributions
are analyzed in greater detail in the following sub-sections accord-
ing to the research questions outlined in the sections above.
4.1. RQ1: The accountability of disclosed OHS information
The requirements for meaningful and clear OHS information in
the construction industry exists worldwide, as confirmed by the
International Labor Organization (ILO) which estimates that at
least 60,000 fatal accidents occur annually in the construction
51
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
industry or one fatal accident every 10 min (International Labour
Organization, 2016). A high rate of accidents has been identified
in this study since 47.6% of the sampled construction companies
recorded worksite accidents and staff injuries. This is a promising
finding since most of the sampled companies present information
of this kind even though it is considered negative with limited dis-
closure. It is important to note that this is contrary to Brown and
Butcher (2005) findings, who identified that negative disclosures
might intensify tensions between construction companies and
stakeholders and, thus, they are displayed in annual reports in a
very limited way. The paper’s results are confirmed by Safa
(2019), who identify that 45% of their sampled firms have disclosed
negative information in their annual reports.
The more information provided by construction companies to
stakeholders, the greater the degree of accountability, which helps
to improve their operations and the economic and social system in
general. This implies that firms achieve accountability. The find-
ings of this paper shows that accountability is achieved by the
sampled companies through OHS policies, plans, and programs
and efforts to promote a safe and healthy work environment
(namely high accountability for G4-DMA indicators). Essentially,
the high score of the G4-DMA indicator (67.1%) implies that many
of the sampled construction companies have adequately intro-
duced OHS issues into their strategic management. Similar findings
arise from a number of studies in the construction industry
(Hutchings, 1996; Zaid Alkilani, Jupp, & Sawhney, 2013). The high
degree of accountability of multinational construction companies
regarding workplace practices is a result of their strategic manage-
ment harmonization with local cultural, social, and regulatory set-
tings (Hutchings, 1996).
It is extremely important to note that accountability is not
observed in all the indicators considered; there are OHS indicators
with low levels. These indicators arise from GRI guidelines such as
the percentage of workforce represented on an OHS committee by
(G4-LA5 indicator), the percentage of high-risk employees (G4-LA7
indicator) and the coverage of OHS issues by committees and
unions (G4-LA8 indicator). Essentially, these indicators are not
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
treated equally by the sampled construction companies. They are
underreported in CSR reports where only 26% of the examined
reports have disclosed such types of information and mainly with
very low scores (11.8% for G4-L5, 16% for G4-L7 and 19.7% for G4-
L8). Obviously, such information is related to negative content (e.g.,
high-risk jobs) or issues contrary to local culture and regulation
(e.g., employees participation in OHS committees). This strategy
of multinational companies offers biased information to their
stakeholders both in companies’ host and headquarter countries.
It is worth noting that large construction companies are more
accountable. Particularly, it was established that the sampled firms
with higher turnover seem to provide more information regarding
workplace. This could be explained by the fact that these compa-
nies have adopted better OHS systems and they disclose relevant
information. These companies have also created an accountability
culture since they present financial information to their
stakeholders.
4.2. RQ2: The transparency of disclosed OHS information
In order to assure that information gathered from CSR reports
are suitable and reliable to use in stakeholder decision making,
the level of transparency of the reports needs to be determined.
The low average rating of the sampled companies is associated
with the very low scores of some OHS indicators (e.g., 11.8% for
G4-LA5 and 6.6% for G4-LA7). It implies that many of the sampled
companies do not report any information regarding the specific
indicators, a fact that reveals such disclosure behavior of the com-
panies sampled have very low transparency and such information
is of very limited value for decision makers. This finding contra-
dicts current literature of CSR, which establishes CSR reports as
an important management mechanism when society trusts their
contents (Dubbink, Graafland, & Van Liedekerke, 2008). The quality
of CSR (including OHS) information offers many benefits for com-
panies’ decision making process (Kaptein & van Tulder, 2003;
Walden & Schwarz, 1997).
Some indicators offer a clear signal of transparency in CSR
reports regarding OHS issues. For example, indicator G4-33 regard-
ing the verification of the published data has the highest score of
the 10 indicators. It consists of two elements: the third-party
assurance of the OHS disclosure and the third-party verification
of the organization’s OHS Management System in accordance with
OHSAS 18001. Regarding the first element, 52.6% of the sampled
companies had third-party assurance of their disclosure. This cer-
tification is a valuable voluntary tool in order to provide greater
reliability in the CSR reports (KMPG, 2017) and points to a high
degree of transparency of OHS disclosures. The findings are in line
with the literature indicating that the frequency of CSR reporting is
steadily increasing, especially among larger companies, based on
data from GRI (KMPG, 2017; García, María, & Zorio, 2012).
The second element is the OHSAS 18001 certification of the OHS
System applied by the sampled companies. This standard is inter-
preted as a signal of a company’s commitment to OHS manage-
ment. The findings also show that 57.9% of the sampled
companies have disclosed information regarding OHSAS 18001
certification. Additionally, the findings indicate that the companies
certified according to OHSAS 18001 have a higher score (40.5%)
than those not certified (30.6%). The OSHS 18001 certification
could be an indirect transparency system that assures that CSR
information regarding OHS is third party certified
4.3. RQ 3: The influence of stakeholders on OHS information
The final research question explores the degree of stakeholder
influence on OHS disclosures of the sampled construction compa-
nies. On a theoretical and practical level, the content of CSR reports
52
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
is analyzed in relation to the needs of stakeholder groups. This
implies that the disclosed OHS information by the construction
industry also aims to meet the requirements of stakeholder groups
such as employees for their safety, shareholders to avoid regula-
tory risks (e.g., fines and penalties), and local communities to
ensure a healthy life.
One significant issue in order to identify the substantial power
of stakeholders on the CSR and OHS reporting behavior of firms is
to determine who they are. There are many classifications of cur-
rent literature regarding the most significant stakeholder groups
and their sway over the CSR of firms. Some of these classifications
are primary and secondary stakeholders groups (Thijssens, Bollen,
& Hassink, 2015) and internal and external stakeholder groups
(Mijatovic & Stokic, 2010). To make how stakeholders influence
the CSR disclosures of sample companies more comprehensive,
the following analysis consists of two groups of stakeholders
according to their internal and external character. The selection
of this distinction is based on two reasons. The first reason is the
basic distinction of the EU’s policy on CSR between the internal
and external environment of firms (EU Commission, 2002) and
the different emphasis on OHS issues given by internal and exter-
nal stakeholders groups (Auvinen, Kohtamäki, & Ilvesmäki, 2012).
4.4. Internal stakeholders
One of the key internal stakeholder groups is employees for any
organization in general and for the construction industry in partic-
ular. Clearly, OHS issues affect employees of the construction
industry since the working conditions in project sites are charac-
terized as high-risk (Liao & Chiang, 2012). Some of the high protec-
tion systems for employees such as OHSAS 18001 help improve the
reputation of construction companies and attract higher skilled
employees. This is associated with the character of employees in
the construction industry who move from one project to another,
more often than in other industries (Teo, Ling, & Chong, 2005;
Zou et al., 2016). Training programs play a key role in successfully
implementing OHS management systems (Sherratt, 2016).
The sampled companies disclose relevant information through
the G4-LA9 indicator to meet employee requirements to show that
the level of training and education, the organization’s approach to
training, new skills, and career development is adapted to OHS. The
results indicate that 74% of the examined CSR reports include such
types of OHS information. This implies that employees is a stake-
holder group that influences the disclosure behavior of the sam-
pled companies.
4.5. External stakeholders
Similarly, external stakeholders influence the OHS disclosure
behavior of the construction industry. The actors in the supply
chain might bring about disastrous consequences on construction
companies’ operations (Cantor, Corsi, & Grimm, 2006). The low
degree of compliance of suppliers with OHS information could
have negative consequences on the construction industry’s opera-
tions since potential risks might have been transferred as higher
insurance costs, financial and legal consequences, loss of corporate
value, difficulty in attracting customers, and hiring employees
(Cantor, 2008). However, the analysis of CSR reports have shown
that low attention exists for information in examined CSR reports.
Particularly, the most frequently disclosed information relates to
the indicator G4-LA15 for all the significant real and potential neg-
ative effects on OHS practices in the supply chain and the measures
taken. This indicator scored 23.7% and is disclosed in 63% of the
sampled reports. In point of fact, this finding contradicts relevant
literature where significant importance has been placed on OHS
practices in the supply chain (Evangelinos et al., 2016; Tennant &
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
Fernie, 2013). Similarly, low significance was given to the G4-LA14
indicator, which measures the percentage of new suppliers (or
partners and contractors) examined based on the criteria of OHS
practices. Relevant information for this indicator is covered in
32% of the sampled reports and reach 18.4% points.
In summary, it appears that the sampled construction compa-
nies demonstrate quite poor performance in relation to OHS issues.
While GRI has offered some remarkable procedures to assist orga-
nizations in publishing appropriate information regarding the con-
sequences of their activities on OHS, the sampled construction
companies seem to only publish some basic information. Certainly,
it contradicts the mainstream literature on the construction indus-
try regarding the high rates of accidents and deaths in the industry,
as well as the extensive experience of the OHS management in con-
struction sites. Taking a closer look at the findings, the information
related to OHS disclosed in the CSR reports only focuses on basic
information, such as the rates of injuries and deaths, OHS manage-
rial procedures, training hours of employees, a list of externally
developed charters, and the third-party assurance of the disclo-
sure. Indeed, information describing the management approach
towards OHS has a fairly high score compared to other relevant
information that show extremely low results, such as the percent-
age of employees with high-risk occupations.
A mismatch between theoretical statements and research find-
ings has been identified since insufficient information disclosure
regarding OHS was presented in the CSR reports of the construc-
tion industry. Significant OHS information is missing such as the
percentage of staff representation on the OHS working committees,
and information on OHS practices in the supply chain. Some possi-
ble explanations of this could be that companies have no complete
process to collect and present such information, nor proper organi-
zational structure and some negative information is deliberately
concealed in order to avoid effects on profits. Another significant
explanation is that multinational construction companies follow
the low health and safety culture of host countries where little leg-
islation has been passed regarding OSH issues. Additionally, local
people often depend on multinational construction companies for
employment, which inhibits their willingness to protest over irreg-
ularities, both minor and major.
It is worth noting that there is plenty of scope for improvement
and any move in this direction will help the construction industry
in particular, but also organizations in general, to improve their
overall image, both in CSR (including OHS) issues and increase
profitability. Due to the construction industry’s impacts on
employees, all indicators related to OHS information should be
addressed equally. This approach can achieved by internally evalu-
ating the key factors causing the problem preventing them from
developing and implementing more effective OHS management
systems. It was also identified that such information is disclosed
on a voluntary basis, which limited the content of CSR reports
and OHS information. In order to overcome this and promote
OHS in the construction industry, a legislative regime should be
imposed in order to introduce additional OHS measures and prac-
tices into CSR reports. Another significant point is to introduce cul-
tural and local characteristics into CSR reports in host countries
from multinational construction companies.
As with any research, there are some limitations that form
points for future research. Specifically, the wish for as many com-
mon search base criteria as possible has significantly reduced the
total number of the companies sampled. As a result, it was impos-
sible to effectively analyze the results by geographical area. Future
use of this study would provide for the parameterization of the
methodology by expanding the search criteria to include a larger
sample and to have a better picture, geographically divided. Subse-
quently, the same methodology will have similar effects in differ-
ent sectors with high accident rates according to the National
53
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
Safety Council (NSC), the public safety and security services indus-
try, the transportation industry, or the industrial manufacturing
sector. Another significant limitation is that the only GRI indicators
used were those focusing on OHS issues, and many other impor-
tant indicators regarding OHS in the construction industry were
avoided. This should be a good ground for improving the suggested
methodology in the future. Additionally, it is important to point
out that CSR reports are mainly prepared to disclose information
regarding the economic, environmental, and social information of
firms. This might imply that firms pay less attention to OHS issues
in their efforts to present balanced information regarding all parts
of CSR. Some other formal and informal documents of firms should
be examined in order to have more precise and accurate informa-
tion on OHS issues in the construction industry.
Conflicts of interest statement
None.
References
Abbott, W. F., & Monsen, R. (1979). On the measurement of corporate social
responsibility: Self-reported disclosure as method of measuring of corporate
social involvement. Academy of Management Review, 22, 501–515.
Auvinen, A. M., Kohtamäki, K., & Ilvesmäki, A. (2012). Workplace health promotion
and stakeholder positions: A Finnish case study. Archives of Environmental &
Occupational Health, 67(3), 177–184.
Benlemlih, M., Ge, J., & Zhao, S. (2021). Undervaluation and non-financial
information: Evidence from voluntary disclosure of CSR news. Journal of
Business Finance & Accounting, 48(5–6), 785–814.
Brown, J., & Butcher, F. (2005). Reporting on occupational heath and safety in annual
reports: A look at disclosure policies in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of
Employment Relations, 30(1), 1.
Cahaya, F. R., Porter, S., Tower, G., & Brown, A. (2017). Coercive pressures on
occupational health and safety disclosures. Journal of Accounting in Emerging
Economies.
Cantor, D. E., Corsi, T. M., & Grimm, C. M. (2006). Safety technology adoption
patterns in the US motor carrier industry. Transportation Journal, 45(3), 20–45.
Cantor, R. (2008). Workplace safety in the supply chain: A review of the literature
and call for research. International Journal of Logist Management, 19(1), 65–83.
Chan, A. P., & Oppong, G. D. (2017). Managing the expectations of external
stakeholders in construction projects. Engineering, construction and architectural
management.
Dubbink, W., Graafland, J., & Van Liedekerke, L. (2008). CSR, ‘‘transparency and the
role of intermediate organizations”. Journal of Business Ethics, 82(2), 391–406.
Dunn, K., & Harness, D. (2019). Whose voice is heard? The influence of user-
generated versus company-generated content on consumer scepticism towards
CSR. Journal of Marketing Management, 35(9–10), 886–915.
Dura, C., Drigă, I., & Păun, A. P. (2019). OHS Disclosure in Romania in the Framework
of CSR Reporting. Calitatea, 20(S1), 435.
Endroyo, B., Yuwono, B. E., & Mardapi, D. (2015). Model of learning/training of
Occupational Safety & Health (OSH) based on industry in the construction
industry. Procedia Engineering, 125, 83–88.
EU Commission (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility: A business contribution to
sustainable development. COM, 2002, 347.
Evangelinos, K., Fotiadis, S., Skouloudis, A., Khan, N., Konstandakopoulou, F.,
Nikolaou, I., & Lundy, S. (2018). Occupational health and safety disclosures in
sustainability reports: An overview of trends among corporate leaders.
Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management.
Evangelinos, K., Skouloudis, A., Jones, N., Isaac, D., & Sfakianaki, E. (2016). Exploring
the status of corporate social responsibility disclosure in the UK building and
construction industry. International Journal of Global Environmental Issues, 15(4),
377–399.
Fernández-Muñiz, B., Montes-Peón, J. M., & Vázquez-Ordás, C. J. (2012).
Occupational risk management under the OHSAS 18001 standard: Analysis of
perceptions and attitudes of certified firms. Journal of Cleaner Production, 24,
36–47.
Fuente, J. A., García-Sanchez, I. M., & Lozano, M. B. (2017). The role of the board of
directors in the adoption of GRI guidelines for the disclosure of CSR information.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 141, 737–750.
García, B., María, C., & Zorio, J. (2012). Todo lo que hay que saber de las Normas
Internacionales de Auditoría. Revista Contable, 22–35.
Ghodrati, N., Wing Yiu, T., Wilkinson, S., & Shahbazpour, M. (2018). A new approach
to predict safety outcomes in the construction industry. Safety Science, 109,
86–94.
Graupp, P., & Wrona, R. J. (2010). Implementing Training within Industry: Creating and
Managing a Skills-Based Culture. London and New York, NY: CRC Press.
Halkos, G., Paizanos, E., (2016). Environmental Macroeconomics: Economic Growth,
Fiscal Spending and Environmental Quality, International Review of
M. Mavroulidis, P. Vouros, S. Fotiadis et al.
Environmental and Resource Economics, Vol. 9: No. 3–4, 321-362.and Resource
Economics: Vol. 9: No. 3–4, pp 321-362.
Hasle, P., & Limborg, H. J. (2006). A review of the literature on preventive
occupational health and safety activities in small enterprises. Industrial Health,
44(1), 6–12.
Health and Safety Executive, (2009). Phase 1 Report: Underlying causes of
construction fatal accidents, A comprehensive review of recent work to
consolidate and summarise existing knowledge (C. Division, Trans.), Norwich:
Health and Safety Executive.
Hudson, P. (2007). Implementing a safety culture in a major multi-national. Safety
Science, 45, 697–722.
Huntzinger, J. (2016). The Roots of Lean: Training within Industry: The Origin of
Japanese Management and Kaizen and Other Insights. IN: Lean Frontiers.
Hutchings, K. (1996). Workplace practices of Japanese and Australian multinational
corporations operating in Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. Human Resource
Management Journal, 6(2), 58–71.
Idoro, G. I. (2008). Health and safety management efforts as correlates of
performance in the Nigerian construction industry. Journal of Civil Engineering
and Management, 14(4), 277–285.
International Labour Organization, (2016). Workplace Stress: A Collective Challenge.
Jiang, W., & Wong, J. K. (2016). Key activity areas of corporate social responsibility
(CSR) in the construction industry: A study of China. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 113, 850–860.
Kaptein, M., & van Tulder, R. (2003). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business
and Society Review, 108(2), 203–224.
Koskela, M. (2014). Occupational health and safety in corporate social responsibility
reports. Safety Science, 68, 294–308.
Lafuente, E., & Abad, J. (2018). Analysis of the relationship between the adoption of
the OHSAS 18001 and business performance in different organizational
contexts. Safety Science, 103, 12–22.
Liao, C. W., & Chiang, T. L. (2012). Designing of dynamic labor inspection system for
construction industry. Expert Systems with Applications, 39(4), 4402–4409.
Lingard, H., Cooke, T., & Gharaie, E. (2013). A case study analysis of fatal incidents
involving excavators in the Australian construction industry. Engineering
Construction and Architectural Management.
Lingard, H., Wakefield, R., (2020). The State of Work Health and Safety in Construction,
In Integrating Work Health and Safety into Construction Project Management
(eds H. Lingard and R. Wakefield).
Loosemore, M., & Lim, B. T. H. (2017). Linking corporate social responsibility and
organizational performance in the construction industry. Construction
Management and Economics, 35(3), 90–105.
Lu, W., Ye, M., Flanagan, R., & Ye, K. (2016). Corporate social responsibility
disclosures in international construction business: Trends and prospects.
Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 142(1), 04015053.
Manu, P. A., Ankrah, N. A., Proverbs, D. G., & Suresh, S. (2012). Investigating the
multi-causal and complex nature of the accident causal influence of
construction project features. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 48, 126–133.
Marhani, M. A., Adnan, H., & Ismail, F. (2013). OHSAS 18001: A pilot study of
towards sustainable construction in Malaysia. Procedia-Social and Behavioral
Sciences, 85, 51–60.
Marhavilas, P., Koulouriotis, D., Nikolaou, I., & Tsotoulidou, S. (2018). International
occupational health and safety management-systems standards as a frame for
the sustainability: Mapping the territory. Sustainability, 10(10), 3663.
Mijatovic, I. S., & Stokic, D. (2010). The influence of internal and external codes on
CSR practice: The case of companies operating in Serbia. Journal of Business
Ethics, 94(4), 533–552.
Montero, M. J., Araque, R. A., & Rey, J. M. (2009). Occupational health and safety in
the framework of corporate social responsibility. Safety Science, 47(10),
1440–1445.
Nikolaou, I. E. (2007). Environmental accounting as a tool of qualitative
improvement of banks’ services: The case of Greece. International Journal of
Financial Services Management, 2(1–2), 133–143.
Nikolaou, I. E., Chymis, A., & Evangelinos, K. (2013). Environmental information,
asymmetric information, and financial markets: A game-theoretic approach.
Environmental Modeling & Assessment, 18(6), 615–628.
Nikolaou, I. E. (2016). Occupational health and safety within corporate social
responsibility context: A balanced scorecard dynamic decision making model.
International Journal of Decision Support Systems, 2(1–3), 54–70.
Park, C.-S., & Kim, H.-J. (2013). A framework for construction safety management
and visualization system. Automation in Construction, 33, 95–103.
Petrovic-Lazarevic, S. (2008). The development of corporate social responsibility in
the Australian construction industry. Construction Management and Economics,
26(2), 93–101.
Petrovic-Lazarevic, S. (2010). Good corporate citizenship in the Australian
construction industry. Corporate Governance: The international journal of
business in society.
54
Journal of Safety Research 81 (2022) 45–54
Prabhu, P. G. (2016). Study on the influence of stakeholders in construction
industry. International Journal of Engineering Technology, Management and
Applied Scien, 4, 31–45.
Robson, L. S., Clarke, J. A., Cullen, K., Bielecky, A., Severin, C., Bigelow, P. L., ...
Mahood, Q. (2007). The effectiveness of occupational health and safety
management system interventions: A systematic review. Safety Science, 45(3),
329–353.
Safa, M. (2019). Information gap in corporate occupational safety and health
disclosure. International Journal of Business and Management, 9(3), 391–406.
Shen, Y. J., & Walker, D. H. T. (2001). Integrating OHS, EMS and QM with
constructability principles when construction planning–a design and construct
project case study. The TQM magazine.
Sherratt, F., (2016). Safety in Construction. In Unpacking Construction Site Safety, F.
Sherratt (Ed.).
Skouloudis, A., Evangelinos, K., & Malesios, C. (2013). Priorities and perceptions for
corporate social responsibility: An NGO perspective. Corporate Social
Responsibility and Environmental Management., 20.
Snashall, D. (2005). Occupational health in the construction industry. Scandinavian
Journal of Work, Environment & Health, 31, 5–10.
Tennant, S., & Fernie, S. (2013). Organizational learning in construction supply
chains. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management.
Teo, E. A. L., Ling, F. Y. Y., & Chong, A. F. W. (2005). Framework for project managers
to manage construction safety. International Journal of Project Management, 23
(4), 329–341.
Thijssens, T., Bollen, L., & Hassink, H. (2015). Secondary stakeholder influence on
CSR disclosure: An application of stakeholder salience theory. Journal of Business
Ethics, 132(4), 873–891.
Tsalis, T. A., Stylianou, M. S., & Nikolaou, I. E. (2018). Evaluating the quality of
corporate social responsibility reports: The case of occupational health and
safety disclosures. Safety Science, 109, 313–323.
Ujene, A. O., & Edike, U. E. (2015). Relationships among internal stakeholders in
construction projects: A cognitive evaluation for sustainable team integration in
Nigeria. International Journal of Construction Management, 15(1), 71–81.
Väyrynen S., Häkkinen K., Niskanen T., (2015). Integrated Occupational Safety and
Health Management.
Walden, W. D., & Schwarz, B. N. (1997). Environmental disclosures and public
pressure policy. Journal of Accounting and Public Policy XVI, 125–154.
Xia, B., Olanipekun, A., Chen, Q., Xie, L., & Liu, Y. (2018). Conceptualising the state of
the art of corporate social responsibility (CSR) in the construction industry and
its nexus to sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 195,
340–353.
Yoon, S. J., Lin, H. K., Chen, G., Yi, S., Choi, J., & Rui, Z. (2013a). Effect of occupational
health and safety management system on work-related accident rate and
differences of occupational health and safety management system awareness
between managers in South Korea’s construction industry. Safety and Health at
Work, 4(4), 201–209.
Yoon, S. J., Lin, H. K., Chen, G., Yi, S., Choi, J., & Rui, Z. (2013b). Effect of occupational
health and safety management system on work-related accident rate and
differences of occupational health and safety management system awareness
between managers in South Korea’s construction industry. Safety and Health at
Work, 4(4), 201–209.
Zaid Alkilani, S., Jupp, J., & Sawhney, A. (2013). Issues of construction health and
safety in developing countries: A case of Jordan. Australasian Journal of
Construction Economics and Building, The, 13(3), 141.
Zeng, S. X., Tam, V. W., & Tam, C. M. (2008). Towards occupational health and safety
systems in the construction industry of China. Safety Science, 46(8), 1155–1168.
Michalis Mavroulidis is an MSc student in Hellenic Open University. He is a
electrical engineer from the Technological Educational Institute of Crete.
Panagiotis Vouros Vouro is an environmentalist and received his doctorate from
the University of the Aegean in the field of corporate environmental management.
Stefanos Fotiadis is a PhD candidate at University of the Aegean in the field of
corporate environmental management.
Foteini Konstantakopoulou is a lecturer by contract at the Hellenic Open
University in Health and Safety in organizations.
Georgios Fountoulakis is a postdoctoral fellow at University of the Aegean.
Ioannis Nikolaou is an associate professor at Democritus University of Thrace in
corporate environmental management.
Konstantinos Evangelinos is a senior researcher in Corporate Social Responsibility.