of an EHS professional to certify with a higher level of control documentation, using a standardized one‐page signed “permit” as an example, in justifying the identified controls will satisfactorily reduce risks. For primarily safety‐related risks, such as roof work, confined space entry, welding, or other hot work activities, the permit ensures that potential risks are addressed, controls are in place, and the worker's training is commensurate to the task. For health‐related risks, such as potential chemical exposure requiring respirators in addition to other standardized personal protection equipment (or personal protection equipment (PPE), such as glove selection, clothing, hearing protection, etc.), the permit can also serve as a regulatory compliance document. Health‐related permits include tasks with potential exposures to asbestos, lead, silica dust, carcinogens, and other common industrial tasks or maintenance and support activities. The commonly used construction site checklist is a good example of health, safety, and often environmental RL3 potentials hazards compiled on one list; if the commensurate controls are in place and checked off the list, then the hazards become a documented RL2 outcome. RL4 tasks are for the highest risk tasks and will require the expert advice of one or more EHS professionals in consultation with workers and possibly management to ensure all job hazards are identified, controlled, and documented.
5.1 Risk Level Based Management System
Each of the EHS disciplines speaks a different professional language and any one of them can be quite foreign to workers, or completely incomprehensible if more than one tries to communicate control expectations for the same task. The multidisciplinary EORM model outline above is known as the risk level based management system (RLBMS), and it uses CB's effective approach to risk communication to translate EHS expectations and controls into the simplest terms (22, 32). The RLBMS also effectively standardizes its communication within and between EHS professions in the same worker‐friendly language. In addition, this strategy also helps maximize the effectiveness of the often minimalized EHS resources by prioritizing their direct involvement in the workplace to tasks where they are most needed, the highest risk activities at RL3 and RL4. The vast majority of tasks in industry are at the RL1 and RL2 levels, so EHS staff involvement when this work is performed is less necessary and the clear risk communication of expectations helps workers expand their workplace autonomy. Therefore, establishing the RLBMS assists in establishing the essential, but often illusive, bond of trust between workers and EHS professionals. The most essential focus of the multidisciplinary risk communication process is provided by clearly establishing the expectations when the expected scope of work for RL2 tasks may cross the line into RL3; the worker must contact their EHS staff. The reward of an EHS professional receiving a call like this not only provides a solid risk communication foundation provided by the RLBMS for their efforts with workers and their line management, it is reflective of a mutual understanding of professional responsibility and trust for all stakeholders. Achieving this level of communication also provides extraordinary benefits toward achieving a primary prevention of work‐related diseases, illnesses, and injuries over time as it is derived from proactive indicators rather than passive.
5.2 The Construction Example
An example of this comprehensive multidisciplinary risk communication strategy is found in the established trades that perform their work within the construction sector. By focusing on uniform work categories within the construction industry, the individual chemical, physical, safety, and environmental risk assessment strategies and models were unified and applied within the framework for a Construction Toolbox (33). As an example, the task of jackhammering concrete presents silica and noise exposure to the IH, hazardous energy, and potential bodily impact on the OS, vibration, and musculoskeletal risks to the Ergonomist, as well as airborne dust and waste stream issues to the EA. In addition, most tasks performed in the construction industry are standardized everywhere they are performed so they fit well into the RLBMS mindset of proactively determining the level or risk presented and the commensurate controls necessary to reduce these work‐related risks. In addition, construction is a uniquely appropriate trade to focus on as it is performed throughout the world with its tasks definitively presenting multidisciplinary EHS issues that are consistent and approximately 85% employers globally are SMEs. Therefore, the development of a unified CB strategy that brings together the toolkits across the practical primary prevention spectrum and across the EHS professions has given an opportunity to unite the wealth of solutions‐based initiatives with a depth of control‐oriented research that until now remained formatted within individual professional disciplines.
Increasingly important to risk communication in the construction industry is focusing on preventive and control methods for common work‐related hazards (34). In shifting the focus to “prevention,” it is vital to transfer information comprehensibly, so workers and employers can understand the hazards and risks, how they apply, and how to use the control measures properly (24, 35). To significantly affect injury and illness rates in the construction industry, a consistent and coordinated message must present a simplified method for ensuring risk assessment, risk prioritization, and workable solutions readily available to workers. Given the similarity of construction hazards and control implementation problems across different countries, a strong case can be made for increased global collaboration and better utilization of limited resources. As construction industry management is often output‐oriented, as long as quality, time, and cost criteria are met, little thought is given to ensure protective measures are used and followed. Often employees decide how the job is done. Therefore, “solutions initiatives” are best aimed at employee and employer (36).
It is unrealistic to expect most SME employers to distinguish among separate EHS fields. Small construction employers have been shown to view EHS risks as the responsibility of employees instead of something integrated into their company management systems (37). Few understand accident prevention or detailed hazard awareness, often with controls unavailable or opting for the cheapest control measure (38, 39). Regulatory enforcement of control measure use is weakest with construction SMEs, and nearly nonexistent in most countries for accident and ergonomics‐related disease prevention (36, 39, 40). Effective enforcement as a means of promoting control solutions use requires intense and sustained efforts that is unlikely to occur given limited resources and expertise. Consequently, more effective approaches to communicating these risks and simplifying the identification of controls will involve better mechanisms for reaching SMEs with holistic solutions to industry challenges, rather than a reliance on enforcement and punitive strategies.
To address variability needs, the CB model for construction divides into two sub‐categories: task‐to‐control (T2C) and the more classic EHS professional risk assessment. As with the RLBMS, the key is the worker understanding the line delineating between RL2 and RL3 that divides these two categories. An important point for the use of CB toolkits in T2C activities is the potential to identify the appropriate control measures in the absence of expertise. At a training level, simplification and uniformity reinforce retention, implementation, and the sustainability of prevention. The design of the Construction Toolbox also affords the opportunity to consider these EHS prevention concepts at the planning, design, and engineering stages of construction projects (41). Such “prevention through design” approaches are available in many countries . Some hazards are simply not anticipated. Unnecessary risks may not appear until workers encounter them during the construction process. Therefore, additional risk prevention methods can be found within NIOSH supported research to gather case studies and to provide a conceptual framework for addressing safety and health at the project design phase (44). Utilizing a checklist approach known as the pre‐job hazard analysis (PJHA) for potential EHS severity and probability input factors that use the same risk matrix presented in in (Figure 3, the outcome becomes the project's RL that determines the level of worker and EHS expertise required on the jobsite. The PJHA then becomes a wonderful risk communication tool for pre‐project planning that can assist project managers, workers, and EHS staff in adjusting severity and/or probability input factors to reduce a project RL before work even begins 33). This would enhance the risk management aspect, communicate hazard‐to‐control needs to the worker, and offer field‐based advice to others in a participatory format. The SME manager can begin to consider all opportunities for hazard or task