As modern society becomes increasingly complex, interorganizational networks have emerged to coordinate and collaborate across sectors. We see this in construction as well. This is not without problems:

(…) “institutional consolidation of interorganizational networks resulting from processes of domain negotiation is not an unmixed blessing. The network logic of negotiation is a logic of compromise. lt has the advantage of permitting cooperation in spite of conflicting interests, but also the possible disadvantages of painful slowness, suboptimal results, and even stalemate. Societal modernization confronts us with a challenge. lnterorganizational networks may help to cope with it, but whether they do so in fact is highly contingent.”

-       Renate Mayntz (1993)

These networks represent a change from hierarchical control to a decentralized, networked approach. This is particularly relevant in the construction industry, where safety has to be managed across projects involving multiple stakeholders. This article explores what is done in these networks, when it comes to both formal and informal structures in construction safety.

 

The role of interorganizational networks in construction safety

Construction projects are inherently collaborative, and involve clients, designers, construction managers, and subcontractors. All these must work together to maintain safety throughout the project lifecycle. Early engagement in safety decisions, starting from design and hazard identification, is important, as these upstream choices directly impact downstream safety in construction activities. But stakeholders often hesitate to engage in early safety discussions, primarily due to concerns over liability, at least in the United States (Saunders et al., 2017).

Traditional views of network learning suggest that knowledge-sharing occurs selectively between firms, and construction networks benefit significantly from stable, long-term partnerships. Research shows that consistent partnerships lead to faster learning and productivity gains, particularly when tasks have low interdependence (Taylor et al., 2006). Construction firms are thus advised to adopt quasi-firm structures, form enduring partnerships, and modularize tasks to reduce interdependence, and to enhance both safety and productivity.

 

Structure of interorganizational networks for safety improvement

In construction, interorganizational networks can be structured through both collaborative and informational systems. Collaborative networks, based on trust and formal agreements, allow for resource sharing essential for effective safety monitoring and emergency response. Meanwhile, information networks enable real-time safety updates; this helps teams identify and respond to hazards more effectively (Liu et al., 2024). Together, these systems establish a framework for improved safety practices by aligning stakeholders toward shared safety objectives.

 

Both Formal and Informal Structures

Sociologist Niklas Luhmann wrote that both formal and informal structures influence organizational culture, which directly applies to construction safety (Luhmann, 2011). Formal structures, including safety programs, protocols, and training, represent explicit management commitments. But informal structures—unwritten norms, shared perceptions, and habitual behaviors—determine how safety policies are understood and enacted.

Luhmann coined the term informal decision premises, which suggests that formal programs may be supported or contradicted by the norms workers develop through their collective experiences. There is a tension between zero-tolerance policies and informal risk-taking; people want to meet productivity demands after all. Effective safety management, therefore, requires addressing both formal protocols and informal practices that arise naturally within the workforce.

Routine safety practices can reduce cognitive load, but they may also lead to cognitive inertia, and prevent workers from recognizing new or unexpected safety risks.

 

“Safety Climate”

Interorganizational networks often use safety climate surveys to evaluate safety attitudes among stakeholders (Saunders et al., 2017). Interestingly enough, research has shown that, while positive safety climates generally do correlate with fewer injuries, even more important is that past incidents heavily influence employee perceptions of safety, influencing the climate over time. Serious incidents, in particular, can have a lasting impact on how safety initiatives and management’s commitment are perceived. Consequently, prior incidents often serve as more accurate indicators of safety climate than survey scores alone, as they reflect employees’ lived experiences and perceptions of organizational commitment to safety (Beus et al., 2010).

 

Safety Work vs. Safety of Work

Importantly, not all safety-related activities directly enhance safety. Rae and Provan (2019) distinguish between safety work like checklists, audits, and administrative protocols that serve regulatory or managerial needs, and the safety of work - the actual outcomes of activities on worker safety. In construction networks, the addition of administrative safety tasks can lead to safety clutter—excessive protocols that consume resources but offer limited safety improvements. By critically evaluating the effectiveness of safety activities, construction networks can prioritize physical safety improvements that directly protect workers.

 

Practical Implications for Construction Safety

-       Construction networks should assess the necessity and effectiveness of safety tasks, and avoid excessive administrative tasks that may not contribute directly to operational safety. This process of decluttering enables resources to focus on physical safety improvements, like safer equipment or hazard mitigation efforts.

-       Prioritizing physical safety improvements empowers frontline workers and balances the power dynamics within safety. While administrative safety strengthens safety departments, physical safety changes have a direct impact on those who face risks on the ground, creating a more inclusive and practical informal structure.

-       Creating channels for workers to share how past incidents and informal norms shape their perceptions can bridge the gap between formal safety initiatives and the informal structure that drives daily practices. This feedback can enhance communication between stakeholders, supporting both operational safety outcomes and regulatory needs.

 

Case study: Dutch Governance Code Safety in Construction

The Governance Code Safety in Construction (Dutch: GCVB) is a joint guideline of construction companies and clients that focuses on safety in the construction sector. With the motto “Work safely here or don't work here”, the code stresses that operational health and safety in construction works must be common sense (a term I have written about before: https://www.untersoziologen.com/themes/human-factors-behavior/common-sense), both for employees and for users of construction works.

The code aims to increase safety in the construction sector by, in the original terms:

- Improving safety culture by involving all parties in safety initiatives, based on transparent communication and joint responsibility.

- Promoting a culture in which safety is continuously improved and integrated into the corporate culture.

- Standardising safety instruments, rules and protocols to ensure consistency and recognisability and to create a level playing field.

- Promoting safety awareness through education and training at all levels within the construction sector and sharing knowledge and best practices.

- Systematic monitoring of safety performance and reporting of incidents in order to learn and improve.

The Governance Code Safety in Construction (GCVB) defines three core values:

1. Responsibility, as in care, integrity and actively addressing employees on safety issues.

2. Leadership, as in proactively promoting safety through exemplary behaviour and incentives for safe working.

3. Collaboration, as in chain integration, standardization and respect for each other's roles and responsibilities.

The code aims to promote safe collaboration by involving all parties in the construction chain at an early stage. Uniform safety instructions, tools and measuring instruments are developed to realize a more efficient and effective safety policy. Safety is made a fixed component of education and training, focused on both sector-wide knowledge and specific risks. Knowledge forums and digital platforms are set up for exchanging knowledge and experiences, and periodically evaluating the operation of the code.

Signatories of the code must embed the safety principles in their organization, be accountable and make the effectiveness of the safety measures public. The code is binding for companies that commit to it, with annual reviews to implement improvements.

 

Safety Work vs. Safety of Work within the GCVB

The division of safety activities within the GCVB reflects a strong emphasis on social, demonstrated and administrative safety, with a more indirect focus on operational safety. Given the insights from Rae and Provan’s (2019) framework of safety work versus the safety of work, this division has both advantages and potential challenges for achieving actual safety results.

Advantages of the current division

1. Social Safety:

o The GCVB places a strong emphasis on strengthening “safety culture” and creating a shared responsibility within the sector, which forms an important basis for sustainable safe behavior. Activities such as a Safety Breakfast and the signing of the Code help establish social norms around safety.

o By explicitly communicating values such as leadership and cooperation throughout the chain, long-term commitment becomes more likely, as does the likelihood that safety principles are adhered to at the operational level.

2. Demonstrated Safety:

o Initiatives such as the Safety Culture Ladder and Safety in Procurement give clients and other external stakeholders confidence in the compliance with safety standards. This demonstrated safety can be an incentive for companies to consistently comply with safety measures, also during operational activities.

o The formal recording of safety requirements and certification based on uniform standards supports transparency and shows the sector that serious measures have been taken to ensure safety.

3. Administrative Safety:

o The strong focus on standardization, such as through the Generic Gate (Safety) Instruction and other uniform safety instruments, gives organizations a clear framework for safety activities. These administrative structures help to consistently implement safety protocols and reduce variability in safety practices.

o Tools such as (1) a uniform reporting app and (2) a digital platform that facilitates compliance with safety standards, tracking qualifications, and providing necessary safety briefings, contribute to the formalization and improvement of safety processes, and create an administrative system for monitoring and sharing safety incidents.

4. Physical Safety:

o Specific attention to operational risks such as falls from height, electrical hazards, and hazardous materials reflects a commitment to addressing physical safety risks directly. This approach delivers tangible improvements in the workplace that are aimed at reducing the likelihood and consequences of accidents.

Challenges and Potential Gaps

1. Gap between safety work and operational safety:

o While the Code strives for operational safety, its activities are mainly focused on the symbolic and structural aspects of safety. There is a risk that the emphasis on social and demonstrated safety (e.g., demonstrating compliance) overshadow the operational safety goal, making safety more of an administrative matter than an actual risk management issue.

o This can lead to probative blindness (Rae & Alexander, 2017), where reliance on demonstrated safety (e.g., certifications) causes actual operational risks to receive less attention. When safety actions are focused primarily on ticking off administrative requirements, important operational safety aspects can go unnoticed.

2. Energy and resources divided between social and administrative safety:

o The strong emphasis on standardization and administrative safety can be valuable for uniformity, but can also mean that less time and resources are available for operational safety improvements that directly affect the daily safety of workers.

o There is a risk of bureaucratization of safety: the use of extensive procedures and protocols that do not always directly contribute to the safety of work. This can lead to inefficiency and the perception that safety becomes an administrative burden.

3. Role of physical safety as a prerequisite for operational safety:

o Although there is some attention for physical safety measures, the focus on rituals and demonstrated safety can mean that physical and operational safety are not always top priorities. Without robust physical safety measures (such as effective safety barriers and operationally oriented training), operational safety can be limited to just administrative safety work, rather than physically safe working conditions.

4. Lack of focus on continuous operational improvement:

o Many GCVB-initiatives are focused on standardizing and documenting current processes, but less on actively improving and innovating operational safety measures. For actual safety in execution, more attention should be paid to learning from incidents and rapid adjustments in work practices, which now mainly fall under social and administrative safety.

 

Conclusion

The network logic of negotiation and its dual potential for cooperative benefit and suboptimal outcomes (Mayntz, 1993) resonates with the challenges faced by interorganizational construction networks in their pursuit of safety. While these decentralized networks facilitate coordination across diverse stakeholders, the inherent logic of compromise can also lead to inefficiencies, slow progress, and even stalemates. This is particularly evident in safety efforts, where balancing administrative protocols (safety work) and actual safety outcomes (safety of work) is essential yet complicated by conflicting interests, resource limitations, and varying organizational cultures.

The construction sector’s safety networks must critically assess and streamline their safety practices to avoid safety clutter. While initiatives like the GCVB create a standardized framework for safety, the interorganizational network must remain vigilant against the risk of becoming bogged down by rituals and protocols that may offer symbolic compliance rather than real protection for workers. In line with Mayntz’s call for mindful modernization, construction safety networks should prioritize adaptive, pragmatic safety practices, ensuring that compromise in governance does not compromise the actual safety of workers on the ground.

Construction networks are complex and diverse. They require both formal protocols and informal norms to ensure safety in practice. While the industry has increasingly adopted collaborative and decentralized approaches, the ongoing challenge is to balance safety work (administrative and regulatory compliance) with the safety of work (the actual safety of workers on the ground). Bridging the gap between safety work and the safety of work will enable the industry to build an informal structure where safety is both a priority in policy and a reality in practice.

 

References

-       Beus, J.M., Payne, S.C., Bergman, M.E., Arthur, W. Jr. (2010), “Safety Climate and Injuries: An Examination of Theoretical and Empirical Relationships”, in: Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 95, Issue 4, pp. 713-727.

-       Kühl, S. (2018), Organisationskulturen beeinflüssen – Eine sehr kurze Einführung, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

-       Liu, K., Kou, Y., Liu, Y. (2024), “Effect of Dual Network Embeddedness on Construction Safety Resilience in Megaprojects”, in: KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, available online 16 September 2024, 100010.

-       Luhmann, N. (2011), Organisation und Entscheidung, 3. Auflage, Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

-       Mayntz, R. (1993), “Modernization and the Logic of Interorganizational Networks”, in: Knowledge and Policy, Volume 6, pages 3–16.

-       Rae, A.J., Alexander, R.D. (2017), “Probative blindness and false assurance about safety”, in: Safety Science, Vol. 92, February 2017, pp. 190-204.

-       Rae, A.J., Provan, D.J. (2019), “Safety work versus the safety of work”, in: Safety Science, Vol. 111, January 2019, pp. 119-127.

-       Saunders, L.W., Kleiner, B.M., McCoy, A.P., Ellis, K.P., Smith-Jackson, T., Wernz, C. (2017), “Developing an Inter-organizational Safety Climate Instrument for the Construction Industry”, in: Safety Science, Vol. 98, October 2017, pp. 17-24.

-       Taylor, J.E., Levitt, R., Mahalingam, A. (2006), Simulating the Role of Inter-Firm Relations in Construction on the Productive Implementation of Innovations, CIFE Technical Report #166, October 2006, Stanford University.