Construction Safety: Rethinking Methods and Systems

Much like its global counterparts, India's construction industry faces perennial challenges in ensuring workplace safety. While Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS), Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), and Permit to Work (PTW) systems are essential tools to mitigate risks, their preparation and implementation often devolve into bureaucratic exercises, far removed from practical realities. This disconnect severely compromises safety outcomes and undermines trust among workers. Adding to the complexity are the pressing issues of social equity and climate risks, which demand a broader and more inclusive approach to safety management.

The Problem with Method Statements

In theory, method statements are meant to articulate step-by-step instructions for performing high-risk tasks safely. However, in practice, they often serve as a compliance tick-box rather than a genuine safety tool. Contractors frequently prepare these documents under duress, primarily to satisfy client, PMCs, or regulatory requirements. This results in generic templates that fail to address the unique challenges of individual construction sites.

For instance, in a large-scale infrastructure project in northern India, method statements for excavation work were prepared without accounting for monsoon-related risks. This oversight led to waterlogging, unstable trenches, and an eventual collapse that endangered workers. Had the method statement incorporated inputs from site workers and addressed seasonal climate risks, such hazards could have been mitigated.

Moreover, these documents are rarely created in consultation with workers who are directly exposed to the risks. The lack of worker involvement means that method statements fail to reflect actual site conditions or practical workflows. Supervisors and workers seldom refer to these documents during task execution, reducing them to mere paper formalities gathering dust in filing cabinets. Enforcement mechanisms are also lacking; project managers or principal contractors may "review" method statements to comply with legal requirements, but this review is often perfunctory. Consequently, method statements neither influence on-site practices nor contribute to hazard reduction, rendering the entire exercise futile.

SOPs: A Disconnect Between Policy and Practice

Standard Operating Procedures are designed to standardize processes, ensuring consistency and safety. However, their preparation in the Indian construction sector often suffers from similar flaws. SOPs are typically drafted by safety officers or consultants with little to no input from ground-level workers.

For example, in a high-rise residential project in Bengaluru, SOPs for working at heights were drafted in technical jargon, making them incomprehensible to the majority of the workforce, which consisted of migrant laborers from rural areas. Additionally, the SOPs failed to account for the workers' limited access to safety harnesses, rendering the protocols impractical.

Language barriers further complicate the issue, as many SOPs are written in English, whereas a significant portion of the workforce may only read and understand regional languages. Implementation is another major gap. While SOPs are prominently displayed on noticeboards or included in induction training, they are rarely revisited during daily operations. Supervisors may skip refresher training sessions, and workers may not fully understand the rationale behind certain safety protocols, leading to inconsistent compliance.

PTW: A Procedural Burden

Permit to Work systems, intended to control hazardous activities such as hot work, confined space entry, or work at height, are often reduced to bureaucratic hurdles. In many projects, PTWs are issued without adequate risk assessments or site inspections. Workers sign off on permits without understanding the associated risks, simply to avoid delays in task execution.

A case study from a chemical plant construction project in Gujarat highlights the flaws in PTW systems. During a confined space entry, the PTW failed to specify the need for continuous air monitoring. Workers entered the confined space without adequate ventilation, leading to a near-fatal incident due to oxygen deficiency. The absence of detailed risk assessments and lack of enforcement of PTW conditions created a perfect storm of oversight and complacency.

The absence of accountability compounds the problem. Supervisors and safety officers frequently fail to monitor compliance with PTW conditions, allowing unsafe practices to persist. This lack of oversight creates a culture of complacency, where permits exist only to satisfy procedural requirements rather than to enhance safety.

Accountability: The Missing Link

The overarching issue across SWMS, SOPs, and PTW systems is the lack of accountability. Safety professionals, contractors, and principal contractors often shift responsibility onto one another, creating a vacuum where no one is truly answerable for safety outcomes. Regulators, while enforcing compliance, rarely audit the effectiveness of these safety tools in practice.

Additionally, the broader social and climate risks remain unaddressed in these safety tools. For instance, extreme weather events—now increasingly frequent due to climate change—are rarely accounted for in SWMS or SOPs. Social risks, such as worker fatigue due to extended hours or lack of basic amenities, also remain overlooked, further exacerbating safety vulnerabilities.

Recommendations for Reform

1. Worker Involvement: Actively involve workers in the preparation of method statements, SOPs, and PTWs. Their practical insights can bridge the gap between policy and practice.
2. Tailored Approaches: Avoid generic templates. Customize safety documents to reflect site-specific conditions and tasks, including considerations for climate and social risks.
3. Language and Accessibility: Ensure that all safety documents are translated into local languages and are easy to understand.
4. Regular Training: Conduct periodic training sessions to familiarize workers with the importance and application of these safety tools.
5. Independent Audits: Introduce third-party audits to evaluate the practical effectiveness of SWMS, SOPs, and PTWs.
6. Accountability Framework: Assign clear responsibilities for preparing, implementing, and monitoring these safety tools, with consequences for non-compliance.
7. Climate and Social Risk Integration: Incorporate climate resilience and social equity considerations into safety protocols to address emerging challenges.
8. Adopt IS17893 and ISO45001:2018 Frameworks: Align practices with these standards, which emphasize hazard identification, worker participation, and comprehensive risk management, including climate and social risks.

At last, the current approach to preparing and implementing safety tools in the Indian construction industry is often more performative than practical. By treating safety as a compliance exercise rather than a collaborative effort, the industry risks fostering cynicism and complacency among workers. A shift towards inclusive, practical, and accountable safety practices—aligned with social and climate risks—is imperative to ensure not just compliance but genuine protection of lives on construction sites.

Aligning with IS17893, which provides a comprehensive framework for occupational safety and health management, can address several of these gaps. For instance, incorporating IS17893's emphasis on worker participation would ensure method statements and SOPs are created with practical insights from the workforce, enhancing their relevance and usability. Similarly, the standard's guidelines on hazard identification and risk assessment can refine PTW systems to include specific, actionable measures, such as continuous air monitoring during confined space entries.

By adhering to IS17893 and integrating the updates to ISO 45001:2018, which now encompass climate and social risks, the industry can elevate its safety practices from procedural formalities to impactful, life-saving measures. Transforming these tools into instruments of meaningful change requires not just compliance but the collective commitment of all stakeholders, fostering a culture of safety that prioritizes lives over paperwork.

?