May 25, 2012

The Top 10 Construction Risks

More than 800 construction workers die and another 137,000 are seriously injured on the job each year in the United States, according to the Department of Labor. Its a tragic number and the worst part is that so many deaths and injuries are preventable. Aside from simply being deadly, however, the industry is imperiled by as many risks as any other industry.

Aon recently documented as much in its report on the state of risk management in construction. The broker surveyed industry professionals and received at least one encouraging result: overall preparedness for the threats identified as the top 10 risks has risen from 60% in 2009 to 67% in 2011.

What are those risks? These.

Aon points out one major change over the past two years.

Damage to reputation/brand has risen significantly in ranking from 11th in 2009 to third in 2011. This change is likely to be caused by the challenges that the industry is facing in maintaining a client base in an increasingly competitive environment. Where construction firms are working hard to replace diminished backlogs, the temptation to bid work at or below cost increases. With these practices, the risk of completing the job on time and on budget also rises. This can have a negative impact on reputation. This is not indicative of the entire sector, but the pressures on margin and the ability to remain viable as the economy continues to falter will have a negative impact.

By and large, preparedness has increased across the board. With one notable, major exception: capital availability/credit risk. That isn’t so surprising, however. The industry has been crippled by the housing collapse, so profits and, thus, cash holdings are going to be low.

Perhaps more troubling is the other risk that companies are now less prepared for than they were two years ago: third party liability. I’m not smart enough to deduce the reasoning for this drop-off, nor does Aon offer any analysis, so I’ll leave it to you to speculate. Not a positive trend obviously, though.

In an ideal world, this improvement would be coming solely because everyone is finally realizing just how wonderful risk management is. But theoretical value only has so much utility in changing behavior. Instead, the economy and pressure from customers and regulators have been the driving force.

Oddly, however, construction respondents say that “natural weather events” are less of a factor than other industries do. Perhaps this is because the construction industry is more experienced when it comes to disaster losses? And it has already addressed disaster preparedness and is now “past” catching up more so than other industries? They learned the lessons of Katrina and the 2004 hurricane season and they adjusted?

I don’t know. But it strikes me as odd that construction companies haven’t felt increased pressure of late to improve in this regard following the most devastating first-half disaster-year in history. 8% seems low. But, again, I guess the economic factors trump everything.

For those that still have more preparedness to do — hint, everyone —  the Department of Labor is here to help. To promote safety, it developed a series of safety videos.

The one below centers on not getting backed over by a giant truck. Don’t let that happen is, I believe, the takeaway message they’re going for.

Risk Management Magazine and Risk Management Monitor. Copyright 2012 Risk and Insurance Management Society, Inc. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Senior Editor

Jared Wade is the senior editor of Risk Management magazine and the Risk Management Monitor blog.

212-655-5919

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.