Factors influencing the performance of safety programmes in the Ghanaian construction industry

Although proper safety management in construction is of prime importance, evidence from literature suggests that many developing countries do not consider safety adequately. This article examines the factors that influence the performance of safety management programmes in the Ghanaian Construction Industry. The objectives set to achieve this aim include identifying the safety elements incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms, and determining the factors that negatively influence the performance of such elements. For objectivity, a quantitative survey was conducted among safety managers of 60 D1 building construction firms located in the Kumasi and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. The questionnaire was structured into three parts, which sought the respondents’ profile, identified the safety elements incorporated in the firms’ safety programmes, and identified the factors that negatively influence the performance of the safety elements. Following a detailed literature review, the respondents were asked to rate 13 elements and 17 factors on a Likert scale. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22. In addition to determining the reliability of the various constructs, the MSs, modes and standard deviations were obtained. The findings revealed that all of the 13 elements were incorporated in the firms’ safety programmes. The key elements identified include ‘providing safety managers on site’; ‘providing written and comprehensive safety and health plans’; ‘introducing project-specific training and regular safety meetings’; ‘providing safety and Acta Structilia 2018: 25(2) 40 health orientation training’, and ‘involving employees in safety and evaluation’. The findings further revealed that 16 of the 17 factors negatively influence the performance of the firms’ safety programmes. The identified factors were, among others, ‘insufficient communication of safety programmes’; ‘lack of workers’ self-protection and awareness’; ‘contractors ignoring safety, due to the time pressures of the project schedule’; ‘poor personal attitudes towards safety’, and ‘ineffective laws and lack of enforcement’. Findings from this study should be useful to construction practitioners seeking to improve the safety records of their firms.

Industry. The objectives set to achieve this aim include identifying the safety elements incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms, and determining the factors that negatively influence the performance of such elements. For objectivity, a quantitative survey was conducted among safety managers of 60 D1 building construction firms located in the Kumasi and Greater Accra regions of Ghana. The questionnaire was structured into three parts, which sought the respondents' profile, identified the safety elements incorporated in the firms' safety programmes, and identified the factors that negatively influence the performance of the safety elements. Following a detailed literature review, the respondents were asked to rate 13 elements and 17 factors on a Likert scale. Data was analysed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 22. In addition to determining the reliability of the various constructs, the MSs, modes and standard deviations were obtained. The findings revealed that all of the 13 elements were incorporated in the firms' safety programmes.
The key elements identified include 'providing safety managers on site'; 'providing written and comprehensive safety and health plans'; 'introducing project-specific training and regular safety meetings'; 'providing safety and health orientation training', and 'involving employees in safety and evaluation'. The findings further revealed that 16 of the 17 factors negatively influence the performance of the firms' safety programmes. The identified factors were, among others, 'insufficient communication of safety programmes'; 'lack of workers' self-protection and awareness'; 'contractors ignoring safety, due to the time pressures of the project schedule'; 'poor personal attitudes towards safety', and 'ineffective laws and lack of enforcement'. Findings from this study should be useful to construction practitioners seeking to improve the safety records of their firms.
Despite the safety management programmes in the GCI, the rate at which accidents occur on construction sites keeps escalating (Danso et al., 2015: 73;Kheni & Braimah, 2014: 24;Olutuase, 2014: 2;Dadzie, 2013: 36). Studies on effective safety management programmes in the vast majority of countries include and discuss the different elements in these programmes that help reduce the incident rates (López-Arquillos, Rubio-Romero, Carrillo-Castrillo & Suarez-Cebador, 2015: 286). However, from the literature available, it is not known which safety programme elements are incorporated in the safety programmes in the GCI. Neither is it known whether there are factors that negatively influence the performance of such safety programmes.
It is against this background that this study was initiated to examine the factors that influence the performance of safety management programmes in the GCI. To achieve this aim, the study set out two objectives: to identify the safety programme elements incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms, and to determine the factors that negatively influence the performance of safety programmes on construction sites. Identifying such factors will help management ensure that proper strategies are put in place to deal with such issues, which, in the long term, will cause a massive reduction in accidents that occur on GCIs.

Literature review
In order to understand the performance of safety management programmes in the GCI, it is important to introduce the current theory on the safety management concepts included in this study. The existing theory focuses on the general state of health and safety management in the GCI; construction safety management systems; programmes and their elements for construction safety, and factors that influence the performance of construction safety programmes.
Despite the vast literature recorded on the state of health and safety on construction sites in Ghana, no health and safety regulations have been specifically developed for the construction industry to date (Kheni & Braimah, 2014: 24). However, the institutionalisation of the Factories, Offices and Shops Act 1970 made provision for a few sections dedicated to construction. The Act serves as a preventive measure for health and safety, in general (Dadzie, 2013: 35), and defines safety for factories, offices, shops, ports, and construction. The Act designates the minister for manpower, development and labour to make regulations in respect of construction works in order to address specific hazards (Kheni & Braimah, 2014: 25). Section 57 of the Act is specifically directed at building and civil engineering works. Some of the relevant sections, as stated in Section 57(1), include: Sections 6 to 8 which require construction companies to register their sites and to report workplace accidents and dangerous occurrences to the Factory Inspectorate Department; Sections 10 to 12; Section 19 which requires companies to provide toilet facilities on site; Section 20 requires companies to provide wholesome drinking water on site; Section 25 requires companies to provide personal protective equipment for their workers and to take preventive measures to control or prevent specific hazards on sites, to Section 31. Other requirements are outlined in Sections 33 to 40; 43 to 54, and 60 to 87. In addition to the Factories, Offices and Shops Act 1970, the International Labour Organization's Code of Practice on Health and Safety on construction sites is also in operation in Ghana. The document provides guidelines in the implementation of the health and safety practice on construction sites for all workers. It also outlines the steps to be taken, including the provision of adequate welfare facilities; personal protective equipment appropriate for a job, and maintenance of a safe working environment for all workers on site (Dadzie, 2013: 35).
The above details clearly indicate that, although not complete, there is some form of institutional framework that ensures the proper monitoring and management of health and safety issues on construction sites in Ghana. However, according to Dadzie (2013: 35), the level of compliance with health and safety provisions in the Labour Act of Ghana is poor, since its adherence and practice on construction sites is low.

Construction safety management systems
Safety management relates to the actual practices, roles and functions that are associated with remaining safe (Kirwan, 1998: 72). Vinodkumar and Bhasi (2011: 499) infer that "safety management is regarded as a sub-system of the total organizational management, and it is usually carried out through an organization's safety management system with the aid of various safety management practices".
In the GCI, effective safety management systems are usually made up of practices that comply with occupational health and safety requirements stipulated by the International Labour Organization (ILO) (Yankah, 2012: 56).

Construction safety programmes
The key objectives of adopting and implementing any construction safety programme is to avoid unacceptable behaviour that may cause accidents on site; to discover and report any unusual behaviour that may cause accidents, and to ensure that accidents are reported and handled properly (Abdelhamid & Everett, 2000: 54;Al Haadir & Panuwatwanich, 2011: 89). Henshaw (2004: 1) opines that effective safety programmes have trifold benefits such as protection of human life, cost reduction, and boost of employee morale and drive. Literature indicates that 'written safety policies', 'accident investigation and report', 'safety records', 'safety manuals', 'safety checklists', 'accident statistical analysis', 'formal safety organizational structure', 'safe inspection', 'safety training scheme', 'safe work practices', 'safety meetings', 'safety audit', 'safe promotion', 'safety committees at project sites', and 'safety committee at company' level are among the safety management programmes or practices that are put in place on construction sites (Wachter & Yorio, 2014: 118;Ismail, Doostdar & Harun, 2012: 420). In the quest to minimize the disruptions caused by accidents on sites, construction industries implement safety management programmes that seek to prevent the occurrence of accidents rather than essentially managing such accidents (Olutuase, 2014: 1). In general, construction firms that implement and follow the procedures set out in these programmes are expected to have highly safe construction sites and better project performance (Ismail, Doostdar & Harun, 2012: 419;Olutuase, 2014: 2). Studies conducted by Hinze and Gambatese (2003: 162) and Findley, Smith, Kress, Petty & Enoch (2004: 18) reveal that outstanding safety performance is closely related to construction projects where an operational safety programme is established, implemented and maintained. Bottani, Monica and Vignali (2009: 157) reveal that, although safety management programmes are found to improve safety performance on construction sites, the majority of projects do not establish such systems on site. According to Cheng et al. (2012: 34), inadequate commitment to such safety management programmes on construction sites leads to reduced safety awareness among workers on the site. For such safety management programmes to be effective, competent safety personnel should be made responsible for determining and implementing the required preventive measures (Olutuase, 2014: 1).

Elements of construction safety programmes
López- Arquillos et al. (2015: 287) and Hallowell (2010: 28) confirm that construction safety programmes are made up of certain key safety elements such as 'upper management support'; 'employee involvement in safety and evaluation'; 'substance abuse programmes'; 'written and comprehensive safety and health plans'; 'project-specific training and regular safety meeting'; 'subcontractor selection and management'; 'job hazard analyses and communication'; 'recordkeeping and accident analyses'; 'emergency response planning'; 'safety and health committees'; 'safety manager on site'; 'safety and health orientation training', and 'frequent worksite inspections'. For the purposes of this study, these elements will be set as the key safety elements tested in safety programmes of participating construction firms. Table 1 introduces and describes these elements.

Upper management support
The upper management must be committed to ensuring worker safety and health as the primary aim of a firm. Such commitments must be demonstrated through the participation in regular safety meetings, serving on committees, and providing funding for other safety and health programme elements.

Involvement of employee in safety and evaluation
This entails the inclusion of all employees in the formulation and execution of other programme elements. With respect to health and safety activities, employees can perform job hazard analysis, participate in tools box talks, or perform inspections. Evaluating employees' safety performance includes considering safety metrics during regular employee performance evaluations.

Substance abuse programmes
Being able to identify and prevent the abuse of substances by workers. This includes random testing and testing after injury.
Written and comprehensive safety and health plan A plan that documents project-specific safety and health objectives, goals and methods for achieving success.

Safety programme element Description
Project-specific training and regular safety meeting Establishing and communicating project-specific safety goals, plans and policies prior to the construction phase of the project.

Subcontractor selection and management
Considering safety and health performance during the selection and management of subcontractors.

Job hazard analysis and communication
Reviewing and recording activities that are associated with a construction process, highlighting potential hazardous exposures, and documenting safe work practices that prevent injury.

Record-keeping and accident analysis
Regularly reporting the specifics of all accidents, including information such as time, location, work-site conditions and cause.

Emergency response planning
A plan that documents a firm's policies and procedures in case of a serious incident such as fatality.

Safety and health committees
Committees that have the power to effect changes and set policies consist of a diverse group such as supervisors, labourers, representatives of key subcontractors, among others.

Safety and health and orientation training
Participation of all new hires or transfers in orientation and training sessions that have a specific focus on safe work practices and company safety policies.

Safety manager on site
Employing a safety and health professional whose primary responsibility is to perform and direct the implementation of safety and health programme elements and serve as a resource for employees.
Sources: López-Arquillos et al., 2015: 287;Hallowell, 2010: 28 A survey conducted among large construction firms in Ghana revealed that each of the firms admitted to having safety management programmes in place (Yankah, 2012: 72). However, there was no evidence of the various elements that were incorporated in such safety programmes, making it necessary to seek the views of practitioners on some key elements that are incorporated in the safety management programmes of construction firms.

Factors that influence the performance of safety programmes
The monitoring of safety performance programmes at all stages of construction projects is inevitable, because safety rules and regulations not only overcome issues such as poor quality work, unsafe working conditions, and lack of environmental control, but also reduce costs and enhance productivity (Wehbe, Hattab & Hamzeh, 2016: 340;Koehn & Datta, 2003: 565;Pheng & Shiua, 2000: 32 133) also suggest that 'lack of an emergency response plan which includes detailed response procedures; workers' unsafe operating of equipment and unsafe work practices', and 'contractors ignoring safety due to the time pressures of the project schedule' affect the performance of safety programmes. Other researchers also identified the following factors: poor personal attitudes (Fang, Chen & Wong, 2006: 578); poor personal motivation (Johnson, 2003: 40); inadequate safety meetings (El-Mashaleh, Rababeh & Hyari, 2009: 65); inefficient training and enforcement systems (Fang et al., 2006: 578;Toole, 2002: 206); poor equipment maintenance (Toole, 2002: 206); inadequate evaluation of programme (Abudayyeh, Fredericks, Butt & Shaar, 2006: 167-174); insufficient communication (Abudayyeh et al., 2006: 169), and inadequate resource allocation (Abudayyeh et al., 2006: 169). Table 2 introduces and describes the various factors.
For the purposes of this study, these elements will be set as the factors tested for negatively influencing the performance of safety programmes in participating firms. Where the subcontractor(s) employed by the main contractor do not have the needed expertise to understand or is/are unwilling to abide by the main contractor's safety programmes.
2 Inefficient training and enforcement systems Where new hires and old employees are not given enough orientation and training sessions that have a specific focus on safe work practices and company safety policies.
Where employers, managers and supervisors do not receive training on safety concepts and their responsibility for protecting workers' rights and responding to workers' reports and concerns. 3

Absence of safety officers on site
Where there is no safety and health officer to perform and direct the implementation of safety and health programmes in the firm.

4
Ineffective laws and lack of enforcement Where there are no written laws to document project-specific safety and health goals and objectives, and lack of enforcement of such laws as a result of the absence of a safety officer.

5
Extensive use of foreign workers Extensively using or hiring workers who are not originally employed by the firm and who do not understand the firm's safety programmes.

6
Lack of workers' selfprotection and awareness Where the workers lack the necessary knowledge on how to protect themselves against injury or in case injury occurs. Workers and their representatives are not involved in all aspects of the programme, including setting goals, identifying and reporting hazards, and so on.

7
Uncooperative clients and inadequate work procedures Where management does not set expectations for clients, managers, supervisors, workers and for the overall project. The overall work procedures are not clearly outlined, and there are no specific actions to improve worker safety and health. 8

Poor accident record-keeping
Poor or no reporting on the specifics of all accidents, including information such as time, location, worksite conditions and cause.

No.
Factors influencing the performance of safety programmes Description 9 Lack of management commitment to safety budget allocation Management does not demonstrate its commitment to eliminating hazards and improving workplace safety and health. No safety and health goals are established, and there are inadequate provisions made in terms of resources and support for the programme.

10
Lack of an emergency response plan There is no plan that documents a firm's policies and procedures in case of a serious incident such as fatality.

11
Contractors ignoring safety due to the time pressures of the project schedule Where management refuses to critically follow its safety programmes, only because the project is behind schedule.

12
Poor personal attitudes Where all the workers, including the contractors and temporary workers, duly understand their roles and responsibilities under the programme, but decide not to follow as such.

13
Poor personal motivation Where workers are not provided with the equipment needed to carry out their various activities. Where there are potential barriers to workers' participation in the programme (e.g., language, lack of information, disincentives, and so on).

Inadequate safety meetings
Where there are no or hardly any safety meetings to inform workers on any changes or amendments in the safety programmes.

Poor equipment maintenance
Where the equipment used is poorly maintained to the extent that it poses a hazard to the potential users.

16
Inadequate evaluation of safety programme Where control measures are not periodically evaluated for effectiveness. There are no laid down processes or procedures to monitor the performance of the programmes, verify the implementation of the programme, and identify the shortcomings and opportunities for improvement. Where there are no necessary actions taken to improve the programme and overall safety and health performance.

Insufficient communication
Where management does not communicate the hazards present at the worksite and the hazards created on site by contract workers.
There is no coordination on work planning and scheduling to identify and resolve any conflicts that could impact on the safety programme.

Research methodology
The purpose of this research was to examine the factors that influence the performance of safety management programmes in the GCI, using a quantitative research approach. This approach allows for the use of structured questionnaire surveys, enabling researchers to generalise their findings from a sample of a population (Creswell, 2014;Hallowell, 2010: 27;Kheni et al. 2010Kheni et al. : 1107. The questionnaire rated the elements incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms as well as the factors that negatively influence the performance of these safety programmes. A quantitative research approach supports the use of interval Likert-type scales to measure data (Netemeyer, Bearden & Sharma, 2003). Quantitative research also allows for the use of descriptive statistics to analyse data (Brown, 2011: 11). Several data-analysis strategies are available. For this study, however, the MSs of interval data were used to calculate the central tendency in the data and to determine the composite (average) score of the Likert-type scale constructs (Nahm, 2016: 9;Jamieson, 2004Jamieson, : 1217.

Sampling and response rate
Building construction firms in Ghana should be registered according to the categories criteria set out by the Ghanaian Ministry of Water Resources, Works and Housing (MWRWH). The four categories of company classifications are D (building), K (civil engineering), E (electrical works), and G (plumbing works) (Ayarkwa, Agyekum, Adinyira & Osei-Asibey, 2012: 5). The MWRWH also provides four financial sub-classifications within these categories, namely Classes 1 (>500,000 USD), 2 (200,000 -500,000 USD), 3 (75,000 -200,000 USD) and 4 (>75,000 USD) (Asare-Yeboah, 2016: 10). These classifications set the limits for the companies with respect to their assets, plant and labour holdings, together with the nature and size of projects in which they can engage. Class 1 has the highest resource base, and decreases through Classes 2, 3 and 4 in that order (Ayarkwa et al., 2012: 5). For this study, D1 (building construction firms), located in the Kumasi and Greater Accra regions of Ghana, was used, because cities in these two regions serve as the hub for these large construction firms. The inclusion of a contractor's name in the MWRWH register is not compulsory (MWRWH, 2011). The snowball sampling approach was thus used to select a small population of known D1 individual firms from the MWRWH registry and expanded the sample by asking those initial participants to identify others that should participate in the study (Alvi, 2016: 35). The D1 firms in the sample were known to have some safety programmes in place, although such programmes do not clearly indicate the key elements outlined in Table 1. A list compiled from D1 firms resulted in a total sample of 60 firms used in this study.

Data collection
Using a face-to-face interview session, a structured questionnaire survey was conducted among safety managers of D1 building construction firms located in the Kumasi and Greater Accra regions of Ghana, from March 2017 to September 2017.
Topics on safety programmes used in the questionnaire were extracted from reviews of the literature, resulting in the formulation of a questionnaire divided into three sections. Section one on respondents' profile obtained demographic information on years of experience in the GCI, number of projects involved in the GCI, and availability of site safety programmes.
Section two is a set of 13 Likert-scale items on the construct safety programme elements (coded as SPE 1 to SPE 13) (see Table 1). Respondents were required to indicate their level of agreement on the inclusion of these elements in order to examine what safety programme elements are incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms in Ghana.
Section three is a set of 17 Likert-scale items on the construct factors that influence the performance of safety programmes (coded as FSP 1 to FSP 17) (see Table 2). Respondents were required to indicate their level of agreement on these factors in order to examine if there are factors that negatively influence the performance of safety elements.
The data from these measurements forms the Likert-scale items used in the descriptive analysis of this study. To reduce the respondent's bias, closed-ended questions were preferred for sections 2 and 3 (Akintoye & Main, 2007: 601). The questionnaire was administered to the study sample, along with a covering letter stating the purpose of the research, and the guarantee that the information given by the respondents would be treated as confidential and that no names would be mentioned in the research. Interview questionnaires were completed anonymously to ensure a true reflection of the respondents' views and to meet the ethical criterion of confidentiality. It was also assumed that the respondents were sincere in their responses because of their anonymity.

Analysis and interpretation of the data
A 5-point interval Likert scale was used to measure how strongly respondents felt regarding the statements or questions in the Likertscale constructs. Likert scales are effective where numbers can be used to quantify the results of measuring behaviours, attitudes, preferences, and even perceptions (Wegner, 2012: 11;Leedy & Ormrod, 2005: 185).
For the purposes of analysis, it is important to note that the scale intervals were equally distributed, where 1 = not included/highly insignificant, 2 = least included/insignificant, 3 = neutral, 4 = included/ significant, and 5 = highly included/highly significant.
Data was analysed using frequencies and MS rankings. For a factor to be considered significant, the MS should be 3.0 and above. To measure the existence of internal reliability in the Likert-type scales, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was calculated and reported (Gliem & Gliem, 2003: 88). Cronbach's alpha coefficient indicates the average correlation among all the items that make up the scale, in order to determine the reliability of the measuring instrument (Tavakol & Dennick, 2011: 53;Maree & Pietersen, 2007: 214). The alpha coefficient can range between 0 and 1, where 1 = perfect internal reliability, and 0 = no internal reliability (Pallant, 2011). For the purposes of this study, a minimum level of 0.5 was set as an acceptable level of internal reliability.
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 (Pallant, 2011) was used to calculate the Cronbach's alpha, to process the interval scales, and to analyse them using descriptive statistics such as means, modes, and standard deviations.
The frequencies and percentages of responses were generated and reported, in order to analyse the respondents' profile. The percentages, frequencies, mean, mode, and standard deviation of responses were generated, in order to analyse the safety elements incorporated. Only the mean of the items was reported to show the central tendency and to combine the MSs of the entire set of items in the construct to generate the composite (average) score for the elements.
The percentages, frequencies, mean, mode, and standard deviation of responses were generated, in order to analyse the factors that negatively influence the performance of the safety elements. Only the mean of the items was used to show the central tendency and to rank the factors in order of the most influential to the least influential. Table 3 presents a summary of the demographic characteristics of the respondents and their firms. Experience is crucial when it comes to safety issues, in general. A large proportion (70%) of the respondents had over 10 years' work experience in the GCI, indicating their capability to provide well-informed responses. However, 30% of the respondents have between 1 and 10 years' work experience in the GCI. The results further indicate that 80% of the respondents have been involved in 7 or more projects within the GCI, enabling them to make knowledgeable contributions to issues pertaining to safety. The respondents further indicated that site safety programmes have been in place for all the projects in which they have been involved, thus confirming Yankah's (2012: 56) assertion.

Safety programme elements incorporated in the firms' safety programmes
This part of the research intended to identify the safety programme elements which the construction firms surveyed include in their safety programmes. Respondents had to rate the elements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = not included, 2 = least included, 3 = neutral, 4 = included, and 5 = highly included; or 'unsure'. The data for the safety elements evaluated obtained a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.50, which can be confirmed as reliable.
Although, at the initial stages of the questionnaire administration, the respondents had issues understanding the contents of these safety elements, a further description of the various elements (as indicated in Table 1) eased their doubts and facilitated their understanding and better answering of the questionnaire. Table 4 shows the MSs, modes, and standard deviations of the various elements studied. The results reveal that the MSs of all the 13 safety programme elements evaluated by the respondents are significantly greater than the mean value of 3.0. Thus, in the opinion of the respondents, all the 13 elements are incorporated in the firms' safety programmes. The findings further reveal that 'providing safety managers on site'; 'providing written and comprehensive safety and health plans'; 'introducing project-specific training and regular safety meetings'; 'providing safety and health orientation training'; 'involving employees in safety and evaluation', and 'emergency response planning' are the six key elements introduced by the firms into their safety programmes. The remaining elements, including 'job hazard analyses and communication'; 'safety and health committees'; 'record-keeping and accident analyses'; 'subcontractor selection and management'; 'frequent worksite inspections'; 'upper management support', and 'substance abuse programmes' were all significant and, to some extent, also introduced in their safety programmes. Table 4 shows that 57% of the respondents incorporated the element SPE 11 into their safety programmes. SPE 11 obtained a MS of 4.23, indicating that provision of safety managers on site is an element that is included in the safety programmes of the firms surveyed. A similar trend is observed in the elements SPE 4 and SPE 5, which had 78% and 50% of the respondents, respectively, indicating that such elements are incorporated in their safety programmes. The MSs of 3.90 and 3.87 obtained by these elements (SPE 4 and SPE 5) indicate that provision of 'written and comprehensive safety and health plans', and the provision of 'project-specific training and regular safety meetings' are further elements that are included in the safety programmes of the firms surveyed. The remainder of the elements (SPE 12, SPE 2, SPE 9, SPE 7, SPE 10, SPE 8, SPE 6, SPE 13, SPE 1, and SPE 3) saw a slight change in the respondents' views. For instance, 42% to 100% of the respondents were neutral about the incorporation of these elements (i.e., SPE 12, SPE 2, SPE 9, SPE 7, SPE 10, SPE 8, SPE 6, SPE 13, SPE 1, and SPE 3) in their safety programmes. This notwithstanding, those elements obtained MSs that were significantly greater than or equal to the mean value of 3.0 (see Table 4). Hence, they were considered as elements that were significantly included in the firms' safety programmes.
These findings simultaneously confirm and contradict those identified in other studies. For instance, a study conducted by Hallowell (2010: 30) reveals that not all the 13 elements were practised by construction organizations located within the USA. The majority (approximately 81%) of such firms, however, implemented roughly 10 out of the 13 elements. This notwithstanding, some of the findings obtained in this section agree with those obtained by Hallowell (2010: 30).
Construction firms in the USA also considered elements such as 'regular written safety programmes'; 'emergency response plan', and 'project-specific training' that were incorporated in the safety programmes of Ghanaian construction firms (Hallowell, 2010: 30). However, elements such as employing a safety manager on site, which was ranked first in this study, was infrequently practised in the USA. Table 4 also shows that 'subcontractor selection and management' and 'upper management support' were ranked 10 and 12, respectively. Although incorporated, it was not given higher priority, thus agreeing well with Hallowell's (2010: 30) finding. The finding from this study further corroborates that of López-Arquillos et al. (2015: 289). In their study, job hazard analysis and communication, safety and health orientation training, and safety manager on site were all considered and implemented in safety programmes of civil engineering organizations located in Spain. The introduction of substance abuse programmes, which was considered the last option among construction firms in Ghana, were not considered significant at all by the firms in Spain.   Table 4 indicates a composite score (average MS) of 3.44 for the safety programme elements, indicating that, on the mean evaluation scale, respondents generally "agree" that these elements should be incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms in Ghana.
The differences between some of the findings in this study compared to those of Hallowell (2010: 30) and López-Arquillos et al. (2015: 289) are purely due to the differences in organizational culture. USA and Spain are developed countries, whereas Ghana is a developing country. As a result, the cost associated with the implementation of some of these elements is higher in the developed country than in a developing country. This is well iterated by Hallowell (2010: 30) who found that elements such as 'employing a site-specific safety manager'; 'inspections and trainings', and 'regular safety meetings' were the three most expensive and costly safety programme elements as defined in dollars in investment per million dollars of project scope. These three elements were, however, among the first five elements incorporated in the safety programmes of Ghanaian construction firms.

Factors that negatively influence the performance of safety programmes
This part of the research also intended to identify the factors that negatively influence the performance of safety programmes among the construction firms surveyed. Respondents had to rate the elements on a 5-point Likert scale, where 1 = highly insignificant, 2 = insignificant, 3 = neutral, 4 = significant, and 5 = highly significant; or 'unsure'. The data for the factors evaluated obtained a Cronbach's alpha score of 0.70, which can be confirmed as reliable.
The various factors that negatively influence the performance of the safety programmes were described (see Table 2) to ease the respondents' doubts, thus facilitating their understanding and better answering of the questionnaire.
The results shown in Table 5 reveal that the MSs of 16 out of the 17 factors evaluated by the respondents are significantly greater than the mean value of 3.0. Thus, in the respondents' opinion, 16 of the 17 factors negatively influence the performance of safety programmes. The findings further reveal the 6 key factors that negatively influence the performance of safety programmes, namely 'insufficient communication'; 'lack of workers' selfprotection and awareness'; 'contractors ignoring safety due to the time pressures of the project schedule'; 'poor personal attitudes'; 'ineffective laws and lack of enforcement', and 'poor equipment maintenance'. The remaining factors, including 'inadequate safety meetings'; 'inadequate evaluation of safety programme'; 'lack of an emergency response plan'; 'lack of management commitment to safety budget allocation'; 'poor accident recordkeeping'; 'uncooperative clients and inadequate work procedures'; 'extensive use of foreign workers'; 'absence of safety officers on site'; 'inefficient training and enforcement systems', and 'extensive subcontracting', were also considered to negatively influence the performance of the safety programmes. The respondents were, however, not in agreement with 'poor personal motivation' being an influencing factor. Table 5 shows that 9 of the 17 factors received maximum percentage rating by the respondents as significant factors that influence the performance of safety programmes in the firms surveyed. These factors include FSP 17 (rated by 17% of the respondents as significant), FSP 12 (50%), FSP 4 (40%), FSP 14 (48%), FSP 16 (78%), FSP 10 (52%), FSP 9 (60%), FSP 5 (42%), and FSP 3 (40%). All these factors obtained MSs greater than the mean value of 3.00, indicating that such factors significantly affected the performance of safety programmes in the firms. Four of the 17 factors also received maximum percentage rating by the respondents as highly significant factors that influence the performance of safety programmes. These factors include FSP 6 (56%), FSP 11 (53%), FSP 15 (47%), and FSP 8 (33%). These factors obtained MSs of 4.52, 4.43, 4.06, and 3.63, respectively, indicating the significance of such factors in negatively influencing the performance of safety programmes. Furthermore, 3 of the 17 factors received maximum rating by the respondents as neutral. These factors include FSP 7(37%), FSP 2 (60%), and FSP 1 (77%). Although the respondents rated these factors on the neutral bases, it can be noted that the MSs of all the three factors were above the mean value of 3.00, an indication that such factors negatively influenced the performance of safety programmes. The respondents rated factor FSP 13 as insignificant, with a percentage rating of 55%, highly reflective of its MS being lower than the mean value of 3.0.
However, in the current study (Table 5), 'extensive subcontracting' and 'absence of adequate safety training' (in this case, inefficient safety training and enforcement systems) were ranked 16 and 15, respectively. This indicates that, although the construction organizations in Ghana view these factors as possible influencing factors of safety programme performance, they were not that much of a threat. Table 4 explains this and indicates that 'subcontractor selection and management' and 'safety and health orientation training' were, to some extent, incorporated in safety programmes of construction firms in Ghana. In countries such as Honduras, India, Malawi and Jordan, factors such as 'absence of safety officers on site' and 'ineffective laws and lack of enforcement' were viewed as influencing the performance of safety programmes on site (Alkilani et al., 2013: 150;Chiocha et al., 2010: 72), because the researchers agree with Hallowell (2010: 31) that it is expensive to implement such elements in the safety programmes. In the current study (Table 5), it is revealed that 'absence of safety officers on site' and 'ineffective laws and lack of enforcement' were ranked 14 and 5, respectively.
Table 5 (next page) indicates a composite score (average MS) of 3.83 for the factors that influence the performance of safety programmes, indicating that, on the mean evaluation scale, respondents generally "agree" that these factors might influence the performance of safety programmes in the GCI.
The absence of safety officers on site, being ranked 14, depicts the reason why it is among the elements incorporated in safety programmes in Ghana. However, for the respondents to indicate that 'ineffective laws and lack of enforcement' (Table 5) is a key factor that influences the performance of safety programmes in the GCI needs attention. In Kuwait, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Botswana, Egypt, Nigeria, South Africa, Malawi, and so on, factors such as 'extensive use of foreign workers'; 'lack of workers' self-protection and awareness'; 'uncooperative clients and inadequate work procedures'; 'poor accident record-keeping', and 'lack of management commitment to safety budget allocation' were all viewed as factors influencing the performance of safety programmes in the construction industry. This corroborates the findings from this study.

Conclusion
Numerous studies have been conducted on health and safety issues in the GCI. However, in the absence of empirical studies to examine the influencing factors against the performance of safety programmes, this study was conducted to fill a necessary gap. The study sought to examine the factors that influence the performance of safety management programmes in the GCI. To achieve this aim, the study set out two objectives: to identify the safety programme elements incorporated in the safety programmes of construction firms and to determine the factors that negatively influence the performance of such elements.
With respect to the first objective, the respondents agreed that all the 13 elements were incorporated in the safety programmes of the firms surveyed. It was further revealed that 'providing safety managers on site'; 'providing written and comprehensive safety and health plans'; 'introducing project-specific training and regular safety meetings'; 'providing safety and health orientation training'; 'involving employees in safety and evaluation', and 'emergency response planning' are the six key elements introduced by Ghanaian construction firms in their safety programmes.
With respect to the second objective, the findings revealed that 16 of the 17 factors, which the respondents evaluated, negatively affected the performance of safety programmes on construction sites. It was also revealed that 'insufficient communication of safety programmes'; 'lack of workers' self-protection and awareness'; 'contractors ignoring safety due to the time pressures of the project schedule'; 'poor personal attitudes towards safety'; 'ineffective laws and lack of enforcement', and 'poor equipment maintenance' are the six key factors that negatively influence the performance of safety programmes. This study provides a broad perspective on the issues that hinder the development of safe working practices in the GCI. Currently, in Ghana, although the majority of first-class construction companies have safety programmes in place, it is not clear which key safety elements have been incorporated in such programmes. The safety elements identified in this study gave insight into which elements are of priority to such construction companies. Identifying the factors that negatively influence the performance of the safety programmes should be useful to construction practitioners seeking to improve the safety records of their firms.

Limitation of the study
Although the objectives set out in this article were duly achieved, there are some limitations. Key among the limitations was the relatively small sample size of the respondents (in this case, 60 construction firms). This small sample size is attributed to the limitation in getting access to up-to-date information on registered building construction firms in good standing in Ghana. This means that, although the current findings can reflect the current state of safety issues in the GCI, the views of other relevant firms may not have been included. Future studies could be carried out to include other relevant construction firms that may have been excluded from the current study. Since performance is a two-way issue and this study only considered those factors that negatively influence performance, a future study could be conducted to determine how the performance of the various factors could be improved.