Fatal and major construction accidents: A comparison between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain

Safety Science 46 (2008) 692–708

www.elsevier.com/locate/ssci

Fatal and major construction accidents:A comparison between Scotland and the rest

of Great Britain

Iain Cameron a, Billy Hare b,*, Rhys Davies c,1

a Head of Construction Management and Economics, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UKb School of Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK

c Social and Economic Micro Analysis and Reporting Office for National Statistics,

Cardiff Road, Newport, South Wales, NP10 8XG, UK

Abstract

Records, for the period 1997–2002, show that the rates of both fatal and major construction acci-dents are consistently higher in Scotland than in Great Britain as a whole. By proportion, Scottishfatal accident rates are, on average, 50% more than the rest of Britain; and major accident rates 15%more. This paper reports on a 12-month Contract Research Report on behalf of the United King-dom’s Health and Safety Executive, conducted by the authors in collaboration with BOMEL con-sultants and the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick University. The aim of theresearch was to investigate these statistics and any underlying issues that may be linked to the appar-ent higher accident rates. The aim of this paper is to outline the methods used and discuss the mostsalient findings of the research. The research involved analysing a statistically valid sample of inves-tigated fatal and major accidents to workers in the construction sector in Scotland and a compara-tive sample for the rest of Great Britain. This directed the fieldwork phase of the research, in which,possible reasons for the difference were investigated. A key prerequisite for the research was to ana-lyse and validate the statistics. The detailed analysis of accident rates shows very clearly that thereare proportionately more manual workers in Scottish construction than in the rest of Great Britaindue to many more professional and support occupations allied to construction, such as engineers,accountants, and administrative staff in England. These workers, who are at little risk of injury, workwithin the construction industry. Therefore, they are included in the total number of construction

0925-7535/$ - see front matter � 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.007

* Corresponding author.E-mail address: [email protected] (B. Hare).

1 Disclaimer: The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and donot reflect the views of The Office for National Statistics. Formerly of Institute of Employment Research.

mailto:[email protected]

I. Cameron et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 692–708 693

industry workers used for the calculation of accident rates. This factor accounts for virtually all ofthe difference. However, more detailed analysis shows differences between specific manual occupa-tions, with some better and others worse in Scotland, thereby balancing the overall rates. Thisprompted a re-evaluation of the objectives, subsequently leading to investigation of the causes spe-cific to those manual occupations identified. Use of scaffold and bricklayers were identified as prob-lem areas in Scotland. However, plant operators in England were also found to contribute toincreased accident rates for the rest of GB.� 2007 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: Accident rates; International comparison; Occupation; Statistics

1. Introduction

In recent years, the construction industry in Scotland has appeared to suffer higher fataland major accident rates than those seen in the rest of Great Britain (HSE, 2004). Thistrend was not observed in all-industry accident rates.

Previous research by the Institute of Employment Research (Davies and Elias, 2000)showed that variation between national accident rates could be attributed to various demo-graphic factors including the preponderance of certain industries and occupations. How-ever, this does not explain the reasons why the accident rates in particular industriesshould vary across the Scottish border. Prima facie, it appears that broadly similar projectsare being conducted in a similar environment with a labour force that mirrors the construc-tion labour force in the rest of Great Britain (GB). Therefore, it is not clear why the Scottishconstruction industry should experience a higher rate of fatal and major accidents.

This paper reports on a 12-month Contract Research Report on behalf of the UnitedKingdom’s Health and Safety Executive (HSE), conducted by the authors in collaborationwith BOMEL consultants and the Institute of Employment Research at Warwick Univer-sity. The aim of this paper is to outline the methods used and discuss the most salient find-ings of the research. The objectives in relation to this are:

• To analyse a statistically valid sample of investigated fatal and major accidents to work-ers in the Scottish construction sector and a comparative sample for the rest of GB.

• To analyse occupational factors in relation to these fatal and major accidents.• To identify the relative risks of different occupations in Scotland and the rest of GB.• To investigate the factors influencing these risk profiles.

1.1. Calculation of accident rates

National accident rates in the United Kingdom (UK) are calculated by dividing thenumber of reportable injuries by the average number of people employed per year:

Accident rate ¼ No: AccidentsðRIDDORÞNo: EmployeesðLFSÞ

The injury data are collected under the Reporting of Injuries Disease and DangerousOccurrences Regulations (RIDDOR) which require certain workplace accidents to bereported in the UK. Specific types of reportable accidents can be found in HSE Guidance

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1997/98 1998/99 1999/00 2000/01 2001/02 2002/03

Maj

or

inju

ry r

ate

per

100

,000

em

plo

yees

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Fat

al in

jury

rat

e p

er 1

00,0

00 e

mp

loye

es

Scotland - Major GB exc Scotland - MajorScotland - Fatal GB exc Scotland - Fatal

Fig. 1. Fatal and major accident rates for construction in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain.

694 I. Cameron et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 692–708

(HSE, 2007). However, in general, workplace accidents resulting in more than three daysabsence (or worse) are reportable. The number of employees by industry is ascertained bythe Labour Force Survey (LFS), a comprehensive quarterly household survey designed toprovide data on the UK labour market and to inform policy.

The fatal accident rate includes all workers, both employees and the self-employed,however, the major injury rate calculated excludes self employed individuals as the highlevel of under reporting within the self-employed sector would artificially reduce the acci-dent rate. This means that differences in the level of self-employment between Scotlandand England should not have an impact on the reported figures. Fig. 1 shows the differ-ences that emerge when the data is analysed for the period 1997–2003. The frequenciesof both fatal and major accidents are consistently higher in Scotland than the rest ofGB. By proportion, Scottish fatalities are, on average, 50% more than the rest of Britain;and major accidents 15% more.

2. Comparable research

There is little if any research comparing Scottish and English safety performance, how-ever, studies of this kind have been conducted elsewhere and can provide useful insightsinto the process and possible findings of such an endeavour.

In 2002, a perfect natural experiment presented itself, in the form of a joint projectbetween Sweden and Denmark, to build a road and rail link between the two countriesacross the Øresund sound. The work was to be done jointly by Swedish and Danish work-ers working on the same tasks in mixed teams. Importantly, they all used the same acci-dent and man-hour reporting system. This meant that the factors which usuallyconfound such comparative studies were removed, reporting was standardised, tasks, loca-tion and working practices were identical for each as gangs were made up of both Swedesand Danes. Even company factors were mainly excluded as workers were employed


centrally. Accident rates were calculated by dividing number of lost time incidents (LTI)by the number of man hours. The results clearly showed that Danish workers experiencedmuch higher levels of accidents than their Swedish colleagues (Spangenberg et al., 2003).

Accident rates were calculated by dividing number of lost time incidents (LTI) by thenumber of man hours: presented as a rate per 1000 working years. Swedes working onthe project within their own country displayed an LTI rate of 27.4, whereas, Danes work-ing in the Denmark side of the project showed an LTI rate of 136.6. This rate was nearlyfive times Sweden’s. Interestingly, Swedes working on the same site as the Danes, under-taking the same work, had a rate of 28.8, almost identical to that of their fellow country-men in Sweden. The results clearly showed that Danish workers experienced much higherlevels of accidents than their Swedish colleagues, even though factors that usually con-found comparisons between countries, such as reporting procedures and different worktasks, were eliminated by the study.

Spangenberg et al. postulate several possible influencing factors on this difference inrate. These include: Sweden’s policy on sickness pay; their national education pro-grammes; their high unemployment in the 1990’s; differences in employment practices;time allocated for preparation and planning of the work; and the Swede’s attitude to work.

Such differences are possible between two Scandinavian countries. However, the closerelationship between Scotland and the rest of GB, in terms of geographical location, socialand legal frameworks, makes it difficult to imagine what differences may exist. Nonethe-less, the aim of the Scottish study was to firstly establish whether a true difference existedand, if so, what may be the underlying causes of any such differences.

3. Method

Different research teams, including the authors, undertook specific aspects of the study.A team from BOMEL consultants was given access to HSE’s RIDDOR database toextract accident data. A team from the Institute of Employment Research at WarwickUniversity extracted LFS data. This allowed them to analyse occupational factors andcompare accident rates. The individuals in these teams had no experience of the construc-tion industry. Therefore, a team from Glasgow Caledonian University provided industryspecific insight in relation to the strategy and direction of the research. They also pursuedany potential factors identified during analyses of the accident data via fieldwork research.These main activities are now described in more detail.

Fatal and major construction accidents reported to the HSE from 1996/7 to 2002/3via RIDDOR were analysed to identify any differences between Scotland and the restof GB. This data is held on an HSE database and includes, for example, the ‘kind ofaccident’, occupation of the injured person, and location of accident (via postcode).The full database is not available to the public. However, pooled data can be releasedby submitting a request to HSE statistics division. In the case of the Scottish study,BOMEL were allowed unrestricted access to the RIDDOR data which was exportedto Microsoft Access�. This was then used to present bar charts of accident numbersfor ‘Scotland’ and ‘Rest of GB’ in relation to each RIDDOR category. For example, thisallowed comparison of accident types to establish if there were more ‘falls from height’in relation to overall accidents in Scotland. However, this did not allow comparison ofaccident rates. Further explanation of this process is given in the HSE research report(HSE, 2006).


Data from RIDDOR (accidents) were combined with LFS data (numbers employed) toallow comparison of accident rates. However, a single quarter of LFS data would not con-tain a sufficient number of sample observations to yield robust population estimates of thecharacteristics of Scottish construction sector. To put this into perspective, the standardLFS ‘publication threshold’ based upon a single quarter of LFS data is defined as grossedup estimates of 10,000 or more from an achieved sample of 30 or more. Therefore, in orderto provide meaningful sample sizes for detailed areas of construction, data from successivequarters of the LFS were merged. Data were utilised from 40 successive quarters of theLFS covering the period Spring 1993 to Winter 2002. This provided the most detailedanalysis possible for the construction sector in Scotland.

LFS uses the Standard Occupational Classification (SOC) which provides a nationalstandard for categorising occupational information. SOC has a hierarchical structure.At the most detailed level of classification within 1990 Standard Occupational Classifica-tion, 374 Unit Groups (three-digit) are distinguished. Each of these Unit Groups is allo-cated to a Minor Group (two-digit) of which they are 77, and a Major Group (onedigit), of which there are nine. For example:

[] 5 = Craft related[] 50 = Construction trades[] 500 = Bricklayers & stonemasons

The occupational composition of the Scottish construction industry was a key factor toanalyse in order to compare like with like. This utilised an ‘Oaxaca’ type decomposition.This technique provides the ability to decompose increased accident rates into two com-posite effects; a rate effect and an occupational effect (HSE, 2006: p112). The rate effectis the portion of the higher number of fatal and major accidents, per 100,000 employees,in Scotland compared to the rest of the rest of Great Britain that can be attributed to dif-ferences in injury rates within given occupational groups. The occupational effect is theremaining portion of the higher rate of fatal and major accidents in Scotland attributedto the greater concentration of employment within high injury occupations. A technicaldescription of the Oaxaca decomposition is given in the HSE report: Appendix G(HSE, 2006) and is reproduced as an Appendix to this paper. Further explanation, includ-ing an example, is given in Section 4.1 below.

The Glasgow Caledonian University team provided detailed knowledge of the Scottishconstruction industry and undertook the required fieldwork investigations, based on theoutcomes of the previous analysis. Major and medium-sized contractors; project manage-ment and planning supervisor consultancies; trade bodies and HSE Inspectors; EmployerFederations; Industry think-tanks and pressure groups with experience of constructionactivity on both sides of the border were contacted and, where appropriate, visited toinvestigate any comparative national or regional accident data that organisations mayhave.

The field research initially targeted large national contractors. The rationale for this wasthat national contractors complete construction projects all over GB. Therefore, theyshould be an ideal source of information for comparing Scottish data with that fromthe rest of the GB. Further, there should be some form of continuity within the same orga-nisation which allows, to some extent, like with like comparisons. Five national contrac-tors were approached for access to accident frequency data. The objective was to see


whether their accident figures for Scotland showed any evidence of the apparently inferiorperformance of Scottish construction. In each case data was assembled for accident fre-quency rates in Scotland and England (England constitutes over 95% of the rest of GBfigures). The way the data was presented differs, from contractor to contractor, reflectingthe different ways that they report their accident data internally. However, the cross-bor-der comparisons should remain valid in each case. In all cases, sub-contractors accidentswere included. In accordance with the re-assurance given to the contractors that suppliedthe data, and to avoid inter-firm comparisons, the data was reported anonymously.

Further, fieldwork methods were developed in response to the previous findings. Thisinvolved collecting data on contractors at regional and local levels. A database of con-struction fatalities between January 1999 and December 2004 was supplied by HSE foranalysis. The objective was to establish whether there was any difference, between Scot-land and England, in the proportions of fatal accidents that could be attributed to firmsof different size. It should be noted here that this analysis was different from others previ-ously done by HSE in that each individual case was classified based on the turnover of themain contractor in charge of the site and not the characteristics of the immediate employer(e.g., number of employees). This approach to analysis ensured small contractors workingfor large contractors were separated from small contractors in charge of their own sites.Therefore, if an injured party, working for a small sub-contractor who was, in turn,employed by a large contractor the accident was classified as ‘Large Contractor’. Conse-quently, those classified as ‘small contractors’ were genuinely working for a small contrac-tor and not a small sub-contractor on a large site. Each fatality in the database wasclassified as follows:

• Large contractors – those contractors with turnover exceeding £100 m.• Medium contractors/house builders – those not in the above list but with turnover

exceeding £10 m.• Small / miscellaneous contractors – turnover of less than £10 m or whose core business is

not construction.

The same detail of data was not available for major accidents.Analysis of accident rates by occupation identified specific workers to target for further

investigation. As stated previously, there are 374 SOC occupations. Therefore, somemethod was required to target occupations with the greatest difference in accident rates.This was achieved by using a threshold ratio of 1.5 i.e., if an accident rate is equal toor above 1.5 times higher one country than the other.

Site operatives whose trade occupations were identified as demonstrating notable differ-ences in risk level between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain, and site managers withappropriate experience of the these trades, were interviewed in order to seek explanationsfor any differences. The interviews covered factors in the work environment, work pro-cesses, plant and material usage, skill and safety training, and supervision and manage-ment, which might reveal national differences having the potential to explain thedifferential accident rates. A total of 24 in-depth interviews were conducted, 12 had expe-rience of both English and Scottish construction, eight had only Scottish experience andfour had only English experience. Each interview followed the same process. Intervieweeswere told that a difference existed between Scotland and the rest of GB in relation to aspecific occupation. The analysis of specific occupations’ accident rates showed Scotland


to be higher in some cases but the rest of GB to be higher in others. Therefore, intervieweeswere not told which country had the higher rate. Instead, they were asked to comment onwhat they had experienced in terms of safety in relation to the factors discussed above.Where the interviewee had experience of both Scotland and the rest of GB, comparisonswere asked for, including an opinion on which country they thought was safer (based ontheir experience). Interviews were tape recorded and subsequently transcribed before con-ducting textual analysis. Individual answers to each factor were grouped together in aspreadsheet. Then similar themes were extracted along with a count of the number andtype of individuals who had answered with a similar answer. The findings from the inter-views were then compared to the findings from the previous analysis.

4. Findings

Analysis of the RIDDOR data on its own provided some useful data. However, thiswas limited without having access to specific occupational data that the LFS could pro-vide. Together, these data provided a vivid picture of the two regions and allowed compar-isons of specific occupations. This allowed several possible factors to be discounted so thefieldwork phase could follow a focused approach.

4.1. Occupational composition

The most interesting factor uncovered by the desk analysis was that of occupationalcomposition. LFS data for the construction industry shows that there are higher ratesof manual employment in Scotland (68.5%) than in the rest of Great Britain (57%). Therelatively high incidence of manual occupations in construction in Scotland manifests itselfin the detailed breakdown of employment by occupation, with a smaller percentage ofemployees being employed in non-manual occupations as shown in Table 1. In Scotland,relatively fewer people are employed in Major Group 1: Managers and Administrators(13.3% compared to 17.4% in the rest of GB). In the context of the construction sector,occupations classified to Major Group 1 of SOC relate to either building/contract manag-ers or marketing and sales managers. Similarly, there are fewer professionals (4.5% com-pared to 7.0% in the rest of GB) and associate professional and technical occupations(5.3% compared to 5.8% in the rest of GB). In the context of the construction sector thesegroups include architects, civil engineers, surveyors, accountants, legal professionals, etc.Organisations that employ such professionals will not even be contractors. As such, theiremployees spend very little (if any) time on construction sites. Finally note that there arerelatively fewer clerical posts in Scotland. Major Group 4: clerical and secretarial coversonly 8.5% of employment in construction in Scotland compared with 11.2% in the restof GB. The above analysis confirms that there is indeed a compositional effect presentin terms of employment in Scotland compared with the rest of Great Britain, with employ-ees in the Scottish construction sector being relatively more concentrated within the higherrisk occupations. This suggests that the higher concentration of Scottish construction jobsin riskier occupations may help to explain the higher rate of accidents north of the border.In an attempt to quantify the size of this effect, we utilise an Oaxaca type decomposition.This technique allows us to decompose the differential in accident rates into two compositeeffects; a rate effect and an occupational effect. The rate effect is the portion of the highernumber of accidents, per 100,000 employees, in Scotland compared to the rest of the rest

Table 1Oaxaca decomposition of higher fatal and major accident rates in Scotland (See HSE, 2006: p. 114)

Occupation Occupational composition Injury rate (per 100,000) Accidents per100,000 of eachoccupation

Scotland(%)

Rest ofGB (%)

Occupationeffect

Scotland Rest ofGB

Injury rateeffect

1 : Managers,admin

13.7 17.0 �1.9 65.5 52.3 2.0 0.1

2 : Professional 4.3 6.5 �3.3 202.1 93.0 5.9 2.63 : Assoc

professional4.9 5.7 �0.3 35.7 45.2 �0.5 �0.8

4 : Clerical 7.8 10.2 �0.3 7.4 21.1 �1.2 �1.6

Craft, related:50: Construction

trades14.6 14.0 4.8 839.2 766.5 10.4 15.3

52: Electronics,etc.

10.2 9.0 2.6 230.6 224.3 0.6 3.3

53: Metalworking, etc.

7.8 7.1 2.4 383.3 281.7 7.6 10.0

57:Woodworking,etc.

10.3 6.5 16.0 418.3 424.2 �0.5 15.5

5 : Misc craft 2.0 2.7 �3.0 466.5 424.7 1.0 �2.06 : Personal and

protective0.4 0.3 0.6 518.2 726.1 �0.8 �0.2

7 : Sales 1.2 1.8 �0.2 24.9 50.4 �0.4 �0.6

Plant and

machine:88: Other

transport, etc.4.4 2.6 5.4 244.3 355.7 �3.9 1.4

8 : Misc plant andmachine

6.1 5.8 1.4 424.3 656.8 �13.9 �12.4

92: Otherconstruction

9.6 8.5 5.3 430.7 586.2 �14.1 �8.8

9 : Misc other 2.8 2.3 7.5 1770.0 1205.8 14.4 21.9

100.0 100.0 37.1 378.5 334.8 6.5 43.6

For explanation, see Sections 3, 4.1 and Appendix. Note: Calculations based on pooled data 1996/7–2001/2.Major and fatal injuries are combined.


of Great Britain that can be attributed to differences in injury rates within given occupa-tional groups. The occupational effect is the remaining portion of the higher rate of acci-dents in Scotland that can be attributed to the greater concentration of employment withinhigh injury-risk occupations. A technical description of the Oaxaca decomposition is pre-sented in the Appendix.

The interpretation of the decomposition is as follows. Consider employment in ‘‘con-struction trades’’ (SOC group 50). For this occupational grouping there is an injury rateof 839.2 per 100,000 employees in Scotland compared to 766.5 in the rest of the UK (72.7higher in Scotland). Since this occupational group accounts for 14.3% of employment(taking the mid-point of 14.0% and 14.6%), the increased number of accidents due to ahigher injury rate in Scotland is 10.4 per 100,000 employees. This is the rate effect.At the same time, there is a greater concentration of employees in construction trades


in Scotland, 14.6%, compared to 14.0% in the rest of the UK (i.e., 0.6% higher in Scot-land). Multiplying this by the mid-point injury rate of 802.8 per 100,000 employees, wefind that the increased concentration in Scotland results in an additional 4.8 accidentsper 100,000 employees. This is the occupational effect.

The base of Table 1 indicates that the combined rate of major and fatal injuries acrossall occupational groups within Scotland is 379 injuries per 100,000 employees compared to335 injuries per 100,000 employees in the rest of GB. Of the 43.6 more accidents per100,000 employees in Scotland compared to the rest of GB, 37.1 (or 85%) can be attributedto occupational effects (i.e., greater concentration of employment in high-risk occupa-tions). The remaining 6.5 (or 15%) accidents per 100,000 employees are due to the samejob being riskier in Scotland, i.e., ‘other factors’.

4.2. RIDDOR accidents

Earlier work done by BOMEL consultants showed that falls are a more significant pro-portion in Scotland while transport (being struck by a moving vehicle) is less significant(HSE, 2006). In particular, falls from scaffolding appeared to be more prevalent.

Further analysis showed a lower proportion of scaffolders falls from scaffold and higherproportion of non-scaffolders in Scotland (Fig. 2).

There can be three possible reasons for this difference. Firstly, Scottish scaffolders maybe safer. Or secondly, other occupations are undertaking scaffolders work in Scotland andare therefore, not subsequently classified as scaffolders after a fall. The authors believedthe latter to be the case due to the prominence of ‘system’ scaffold in Scotland which iseasier to erect, alter and dismantle (Cameron et al., 2005). The levels of system scaffoldin England and Wales is far less (ibid). The third possibility is that more work is doneat height in Scotland. However, the accident rate for scaffolders is lower in Scotland(see Table 2) which reinforces the second possibility i.e., less scaffold is done by scaffoldersin Scotland.

4.3. Fieldwork

For Firm 1 data were assembled from the last five years’ company reports, which detailregional health and safety performance. The measure shown in Fig. 3 is the Incident Fre-quency, calculated per 100 (not per 100,000 employees as in HSE statistics). Only majorinjury accidents are included (there were no fatal accidents).

For the purposes of this analysis, the scale is unimportant, when compared to whetherScotland is above or below England. It can be seen, from Fig. 3, that Scotland has beenoutperforming England for this Firm over this period.

Similar data was supplied by Firm 2, although the data does, in this case, include twofatal accidents during this period. Both of these were, as it happens, in Scotland; thoughnothing can be concluded from such small numbers. Firm 2 uses the usual Accident Fre-quency Rate (AFR), of accidents per 100,000 hours worked.

Fig. 4 shows that in Firm 2, a similar pattern occurs when compared with firm 1 in thatScotland outperforms England overall, although there are two reporting years in whichScotland has a slightly higher figure than England. Due to more detailed informationbeing provided for the latter years it was also possible to analyse major injury accidents

Fatal and Major falls from scaffolding by occupation in Scotland

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

SC

AF

FO

LD/S

TE

EP

LE

CA

RP

EN

TE

R/J

OIN

ER

BR

ICK

LAY

ER

/MA

SO

N

OT

HC

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

PA

INT

ER

/DE

CO

RA

TE

RO

OF

ER

ELE

CT

RIC

FIT

TE

R

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

OT

HE

R M

ISC

TR

AN

S/M

AN

AG

ER

S

PLU

MB

ER

/HE

AT

ING

BU

ILD

ING

LA

BO

UR

OT

HE

R B

UIL

DIN

G

BU

ILD

ER

ST

EE

L E

RE

CT

OR

PLA

ST

ER

ER

MA

INT

AIN

FIT

TE

R

OT

HLA

BO

UR

OT

H R

OU

TIN

E O

P

EN

GIN

E/E

LEC

FALL SCAFFOLDScotland

Occupation

Per

cen

tag

e o

f fa

lls f

rom

sca

ffo

ldin

g

Fatal and Major falls from scaffolding by occupation in the rest of Great Britain

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%S

CA

FF

OLD

/ST

EE

PL

E

BR

ICK

LAY

ER

/MA

SO

N

OT

H C

ON

ST

RU

CT

ION

CA

RP

EN

TE

R/J

OIN

ER

OT

HE

R B

UIL

DIN

G

RO

OF

ER

PA

INT

ER

/DE

CO

RA

TE

CO

NS

TR

UC

TIO

N

PLA

ST

ER

ER

PLU

MB

ER

/HE

AT

ING

ELE

CT

RIC

FIT

TE

R

MA

INT

AIN

FIT

TE

R

BU

ILD

ING

LA

BO

UR

OT

HE

R M

ISC

ST

EE

L E

RE

CT

OR

OT

HE

R M

AN

UA

L

BU

ILD

ER

PR

OD

UC

T/M

AN

AG

ER

S

GLA

ZIE

R

SE

RV

ICE

/PIP

ES

FALL SCAFFOLDRest of GB

Occupation

Per

cen

tag

e o

f fa

lls f

rom

sca

ffo

ldin

g

Fig. 2. Falls from scaffold by occupation.


for 2002/2003 and 03/04 in which, again, the comparisons show the Scottish part of thefirm to be outperforming their English counterparts.

Firm 3 supplied AFR data which could only detail overall accident rates. Although itwas not possible to disentangle major injury accidents, Fig. 5 shows that, in general terms,Scotland has performed better than England over the period within this firm. It can beseen, however, that the rate was extremely high for Scotland in 2001. During this timethe firm had several smaller projects in Scotland which they found more difficult to man-age. This was the possible reason for the higher rate at this time.

Firm 4 provided Accident Incidence Rates (based on average numbers employed, overthe last 12 months, and expressed per 100,000) for the 2003 and 2004 calendar years, asshown in Fig. 6. Like Firm 3, these figures include all RIDDOR reportable accidents.Again, this is useful to see how Scotland performs compared to England within this firm.It can be seen that Scotland is yet again performing better than England within this firm.However, the gap between the two decreased as the Scottish rate increased considerably in

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04

AF

R

Scotland

England

Scot (Major)

Eng (Major)

Fig. 4. Firm 2 group AFR Scotland and England.

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.500.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

England Scotland

Fig. 3. Firm 1 major injury accident frequency per 100 employees (IF) Scotland and England.

Table 2Target occupations: Ratios between Scotland and rest of GB

SOC occupation Injury rate per 100,000 Ratio Ratio P 1.5

Scotland Rest of GB Scotland Rest of GB

500 Bricklayers, masons 835 552 1.5 1.0 U

501 Roofers, tilers, cladders, etc. 663 1004 1.0 1.5 U

502 Plasterers 358 449 1.0 1.3503 Glaziers 695 469 1.5 1.0 U

504 Builders, building contractors 578 161 3.6 1.0 U

505 Scaffolders, steeplejacks, etc. 1019 1211 1.0 1.2506 Floor, carpet, wall, etc. fitters 154 190 1.0 1.2507 Painters and decorators 357 337 1.1 1.0532 Plumbers, heating 262 176 1.5 1.0 U

534 Metal plate work 351 297 1.2 1.0535 Steel erectors 2106 1252 1.7 1.0 U

537 Welding trades 557 605 1.0 1.1885 Mechanical plant 160 268 1.0 1.7 U

887 Forklift and mechanical 312 616 1.0 2.0 U

921 Building trade mates 1403 1593 1.0 1.1923 Road construction 169 182 1.0 1.1


0.00

100.00

200.00

300.00

400.00

500.00

600.00

700.00

800.00

2003 2004

AIR

Scotland

England

Fig. 6. Firm 4 (all RIDDOR) AIR Scotland and England.

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

0.80

1.00

2001 2002 2003 2004

AF

R Scotland

England

Fig. 5. Firm 3 AFR (all RIDDOR) Scotland and England.


2004. This was due to the number of accidents increasing by only two, from one in 2003 tothree in 2004, which shows how volatile the accident rates can be in small populations.

Firm 5 was only able to provide overall AFR figures for the period July 2003 to June2004. For this period Scotland’s AFR was 0.49, whereas, England’s was 0.69. Althoughthis data is limited, when presented along side the other firms’ data, it reiterates the samemessage that the Scottish section of the firm is performing markedly better than theEnglish.

As far as the major contractors reported here are concerned, there does not seem to be aproblem with higher accident frequencies in Scotland. Indeed, the Scottish rates are gen-erally lower. This may indicate large contractors, in general, do not display higher accidentrates in Scotland and corroborates the LFS findings.

4.4. Beyond large contractors

The analyses for Scotland are shown in Fig. 7; and for England in Fig. 8. It can be seenthat there is very little difference in the percentages in each contractor class size. The Scot-tish sample of 74 is really too small to draw firm conclusions. However, a chi-square testwas carried out in order to establish whether there is a statistically significant differencebetween the number of fatalities occurring in each class of contractor when comparingScotland with England. This showed a chi-square of 0.484 with two degrees of freedomand a p-value of 0.785. This high p-value (being close to 1) confirms that there is no sta-tistically significant difference between Scotland and England in the proportions of fatal-ities in these categories.

412 Fatal Accidents - England Jan 99 To Dec 04 Contractor Type

Large Contractors,75, 18%

Medium Contractors & Hse

Bld, 76, 18%Small & Misc, 261, 64%

Fig. 8. Fatal accidents England Jan 99/Nov 04 by type of contractor in charge.

74 Fatal Accidents - Scotland Jan 99 To Dec 04 Contractor Type

Large Contractors; 11; 15%

Small/Misc; 49; 66%

Medium Contractors/Hse

Bld; 14; 19%

Fig. 7. Fatal accidents Scotland Jan 99/Dec 04 by type of contractor in charge.


In both populations, the number of fatal accidents occurring in the small or miscella-neous category is approximately 2/3 of the total. Accidents involving small contractorsworking for large or medium contractors have been accounted for in the other categories.Therefore, 2/3 of fatal accidents in GB occur on sites where the main/only contractor issmall, in construction industry terms. This finding mirrors other research where smallercontractors have found to have higher accident rates (Hinze et al., 1998;BOMEL, 2001;Gillen et al., 2002; BOMEL, 2003).

4.5. Interviews

Table 1 shows that 85% of the reported difference can be explained by the mere factmore manual workers are employed in Scotland. However, specific occupations showedhigher rates, whereas, others showed lower rates compared to the rest of GB (see Table3). Also, since proportionally more falls from scaffolds, specifically non-scaffolders,occurred in Scotland, interviews focused on these trades and issues.

The majority of interviewees (22/92%) confirmed that system scaffold is more prone tobeing altered compared to ‘tube and fitting’. They believed that this is because of its ease of


modification, without the need for scaffold spanners, particularly by bricklayers withoutpermission. Bricklayers have an accident frequency in Scotland that is more than 50%higher than in the rest of Great Britain ( Table 3). Two thirds of English interviewees saidthat bricklayers carried spanners to alter tube and fitting scaffold, but virtually all intervie-wees were of the opinion that bricklayers generally have more freedom to alter systemscaffold, especially ‘hop-ups’ on Scottish sites. On nearly all occasions interviewees saidthat tube and fitting scaffold was, in site regulations, under the sole control of the scaf-folder. It is therefore, hypothesised that system scaffold could be more liable to be erected,altered or dismantled by bricklayers, who may not have the correct training and experi-ence. This could account, in part, for the higher frequency of bricklayers’ accidents inScotland as well as the higher percentage of non-scaffolders falling from scaffolds in Scot-land, referred to above.

System scaffold dominates Scottish construction, with an 80% share of the market,whereas, it only covers 20% of the English market (Cameron et al., 2005). Therefore,the problems identified would be exaggerated in Scotland.

The accident frequency amongst plant operators in the rest of GB is nearly 70% higherthan in Scotland; and amongst fork-lift operators, almost twice as high. The most poten-tially relevant issue for this study, relating to plant, was who supplied the plant and theoperator on projects. It appears that, in Scotland, the main contractor usually suppliesboth plant and operator. All Scottish interviewees said this. Interviewees in England gavea mixed response, half saying main contractor and half saying sub-contractor, especiallyon large projects. However, interviewees with experience on both sides of the border allsaid that the majority of plant is provided by the sub-contractor in England and, generally,by the main contractor in Scotland.

The main reason given was that sub-contractors in Scotland are generally not bigenough to own their own plant. However, it may also be linked to the amount of manage-ment type contracts in England. If more projects in England are run this way, the maincontractor in England then supplies only management and supervisory personnel. It is alsoknown that Scotland has fewer self-employed and more directly employed, for whomplant would have to be provided, than is the case in England.

This gives main contractors the ability to supply, train and control plant operators. Themajority of interviewees (only one disagreed) said that from their experience, in general,plant supplied by sub-contractors is more difficult to control, is probably older, poorlymaintained, and has less well trained operators. Larger sub-contractors were reportedto be better than smaller sub-contractors.

Interviews covering other occupations highlighted in Table 2 did not uncover any sub-stantial evidence.

5. Conclusions

It is clear that the most significant factor was the differing occupational make up of con-struction in Scotland and that this almost entirely explains the difference in accident rates.It is essential to ensure that the presentation of statistics make ‘like with like’ comparisonsto avoid the mis-allocation of HSE resources. Most useful in this respect is the presenta-tion of injury rates by occupation, within industrial sector, geographical area or other clas-sification, as appropriate.


Data provided by major contractors who work in Scotland and the rest of Great Britainindicates that:

• There does not seem to be a problem with higher accident frequencies in Scotlandwithin major contractors, based on the data supplied by the major contractors assistingwith the research.

• There is no significant difference between Scotland and England in the proportions offatalities in the categories of large, medium and small/miscellaneous, contractors incharge of work during the time of the fatal accident.

Both these findings reinforce the earlier statistical analysis which shows no real differ-ence. Further, investigation has shown:

• The higher prevalence of system scaffolding in Scotland has been confirmed. Althoughthis conclusion is based on subjective estimates, these indicate a very significant differ-ence in the amount of system scaffold being used in the two countries.

A start has been made in exploring any further factors which may influence accidentrates, with particular attention paid to variations in the rates for bricklayers in Scotlandand plant operators in England. These (possible) influences are likely to be of less signif-icance, in relation to the main factor above, and of a more tentative nature. More researchis required to confirm or disprove these factors.

6. Limitations

The data used for the Oaxaca analysis can be considered free from sampling errors dueto the size of the dataset used. However, the findings of this analysis are based on the occu-pations listed in the Table 1. Analyses of other occupations may have yielded a differentresult. These were merely the ones with the largest representation in construction. Also,analysis of accident rates for specific occupations (per Table 2) can only be consideredindicative due to the lower numbers that result from drilling down to these specifictrades. Future analysis, with updated data, would obviously reinforce or negate thesefindings.

The industry interviews were based on a small sample. However, their purpose was tocomplement the quantitative analysis rather than be used as ‘stand alone’ findings.

7. Recommendations

The presentation of statistics regarding workplace injury rates by HSE should attemptmake like with like comparisons where possible. Most useful in this respect is the presen-tation of injury rates by occupation, within industrial sector, geographical area or otherclassification, as appropriate.

It should be borne in mind that since presentation of statistical data does not, in itself,aid the reduction of fatal or major accidents in the Scottish construction industry, consid-eration of the issues relating to specific occupations may actually reduce nationwide acci-dents, through targeted initiatives, tailored to each country. Further investigation of thesespecific issues may be required before committing resources to any new activities.


A comparative study of system and tube and fitting scaffolds is recommended. Furtherresearch is also needed to raise awareness of the problems associated with managementand control of plant provided by sub-contractors and, if appropriate, to produce moreeffective guidance.

Acknowledgements

The authors thank HSE for funding this study. Other members of the research team arealso acknowledged: Dr. Helen Bolt and Philip Bernard-Carter, formerly of BOMEL Ltd.Paul Jones, Senior Lecturer, School of Social Sciences, Sheffield Hallam University (for-merly of Institute of Employment Research) and Dr. Roy Duff, research consultant toGlasgow Caledonian University.

Appendix. Decomposition of higher accident rates in Scotland

Notation

i, j = regions,k = occupation,A(i,k) = number of accidents in region i,a(i,k) = injury rate (per 100,00) in region i, occupation k,p(i,k) = for region i, proportion of workers employed in occupation k.

By definition,

AðiÞ ¼X

k

pði; kÞ � aði; kÞ

This gives the Oaxaca decomposition

AðiÞ � AðjÞ ¼ 1

2

X

k

½pði; kÞ þ pðj; kÞ� � ½aði; kÞ � aðj; kÞ�

þ 1

2

X

k

½aði; kÞ þ aðj; kÞ� � ½pði; kÞ � pðj; kÞ�

¼ occupational effectþ injury rate effect

Interpretation

Supposing A(i) > A(j)

1

2

X

k

½pði; kÞ þ pðj; kÞ� � ½aði; kÞ � aðj; kÞ�

is the injury rate effect i.e., increase in number of accidents due to higher injury rates inregion i

1

2

X

k

½aði; kÞ þ aðj; kÞ� � ½pði; kÞ � pðj; kÞ�


is the occupational effect i.e., increase in number of accidents due to more employment inhigh injury-risk occupations in region i.

References

BOMEL, 2001. Improving health and safety in construction Phase 1: Data collection, review and structuring.Health and Safety Executive. Report No.387/2001, London.

BOMEL, 2003. Sample analysis of construction accidents reported to HSE. Health an Safety Executive. ReportNo.139, London.

Cameron, Duff, Gillan, 2005. A technical guide to the selection and use of fall prevention and arrest equipment,CRR302, HSE, London.

Davies, Elias, 2000. An analysis of temporal and national variations in workplace reported workplace injuryrates. <http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/archive/ier.pdf> (Viewed 1/9/04).

Gillen, M., Baltz, D., Gassel, M., Kirsch, L., Vaccaro, D., 2002. Perceived safety climate, job demands, andcoworker support among union and nonunion injured construction workers. Journal of Safety Research (33),33–51.

Hinze, J., Pedersen, C., Fredley, J., 1998. Identifying root causes of construction injuries. Journal of ConstructionEngineering and Management 124 (1), 67–71.

HSE, 2004. Statistics of occupational safety, ill health and enforcement action 2003/04 Scotland. <http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/regions/scotland.pdf> (Viewed 1/9/04).

HSE, 2006. An analysis of the significant causes of fatal and major injuries in construction in Scotland. (Factorsinfluencing Scottish construction accidents – FISCA), HSE Research Report 443, London.

HSE, 2007. RIDDOR explained, HSE31(rev1) <http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse31.pdf> (viewed 9/5/07).Spangenberg, S., Baarts, C., Dyreborg, J., Jensen, L., Kines, P., Mikklesen, K.L., 2003. Factors contributing the

differences in work related injury rates between Danish and Swedish construction workers. Safety Science 41,517–530.

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/archive/ier.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/regions/scotland.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/regions/scotland.pdf

http://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/hse31.pdf

Documents

Fatal and major construction accidents: A comparison between Scotland and the rest of Great Britain