From Risk to Response: Aligning PPE with Smarter Jobsite Planning

By applying the hierarchy of controls and integrating safety planning with field operations, employers can better determine when PPE is truly needed—and ensure it's the right protection for the job.

• By Peter Furst
• Sep 08, 2025

According to the Bureau of labor Statistics, based on hours worked, workers in construction tends to experience a greater number of injuries than many of the other industries. To address this OSHA has developed special standards for construction from that of the other industries. In spite of this in the fifty-five years that OSHA has been in effect construction workers still experience a relatively large number of injuries.   

As a result, this requires greater efforts to find means and methods to better control the risk of injuries in this industry. See “Figure 1 - Hierarchy of Risk Management Elements,” for a representation of various methods to deal with the risk of worker injuries: 

Figure 1 - Hierarchy of Risk Management Elements 

One of the methods of dealing with the risk of injury is to provide workers with personal protective equipment (PPE). This Requires the identification of the existence of the risk of injury associated with a worker’s task and providing them with the equipment that will provide them with some level of protection. This is the easiest more simplistic way to try to address the risk problem. A look at the risk assessment triangle above highlights the fact that as one moves up the triangle the effectiveness of dealing with the risk of injury increases. This also requires a greater amount of effort on the operational staff to find a way to change the risk picture.  

Risk Management   

Ideally, to effectively deal with the risk of construction injuries, you need to identify the hazard, assess the risks, determine the potential severity, identify possible ways to address this, select the “best” solution, and then impellent it. To ensure expected outcome, evaluate the solution’s functionality as well as effectiveness. Any shortcoming may require modifications to improve outcome results. Consider this risk process: 

1. Hazard Identification: 
 

• Thoroughly assess the construction site or task location. Identify potential hazards, including physical, biological and/or chemical, risks, as well as ergonomic and/or psychosocial factors.  

• Review project plans and specifications. covering the scope of work as well as the potential hazards associated with the task.  

• Involve workers. Encourage workers to participate and identify hazards as well as share their knowledge and experiences.  

• Conduct regular inspections. Regularly inspect the site or area for hazards and ensure compliance with safety regulations and expectations.  

2. Risk Assessment: 
 

• Evaluate the likelihood and severity of each hazard. Determine the potential impact of each hazard on worker safety. 

• Prioritize risks. Focus on the most critical hazards followed by other important ones. 

• Document the assessment. Maintain a record of identified hazards and their associated risks and selected solution.  

3. Implement Control Measures: 
 

• Eliminate hazards. If possible,eliminate the hazard entirely., or contractually transfer the work to others.  

• Loss prevention. Replace hazardous materials or change processes steps with safer alternatives.  

• Loss reduction. Implement physical changes to the workplace to reduce exposure to hazards, such as installing guardrails, covering openings, or using ventilation systems.  

• Administrative controls. Implement policies, procedures, aa well as provide training in order to minimize exposure to hazards or resulting impact.  

• Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Ensure workers use appropriate PPE, such as hard hats, safety glasses, and gloves, etc. as well as check for proper and timely usage.  

4. Monitoring and Improvement: 
 

• Regularly monitor the effectiveness of the control measures. Conduct safety inspections as well as audits to ensure that control measures are working as intended and ensure correction or improvement where needed.  

• Investigate incidents and near misses. Learn from past incidents to identify areas for improvement.  

• Continuously improve safety practices. Regularly and systematically review and update safety policies, practices as well as procedures, assess effectiveness of performance and provide training upon identification or need or weaknesses.  

• Promote a positive safety culture. Encourage involvement of workers to report hazards and participate in improved safety initiatives. Fostering engagement and improving the work climate. 

Construction Operations 

Historically construction has been around for thousands of years. It grew in importance with the coming of the industrial revolution and mass production. Industrialist identified a need for some form of structure which was designed by a designer and constructed by a contractor. The development of technology, mass production, and innovation drove growth in demand. The Gantt chart, a visual project management tool, was developed and popularized by Henry Gantt around 1910-1915.  

The growth in the construction industry had a negative side effect by the increase in accidents and worker injuries. Public concerns ultimately drove the states to the enactment of workers compensation laws (Wisconsin 1911 to Mississippi 1948). Though it served to improve worker safety, it resulted is considerable differences of protection and outcomes in the different states. To foster some uniformity in outcomes and gain national implementation; social activism eventually induced congress to enact the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970. 

Risk Sources in Field Operations 

This brought about a change in construction operations. Traditionally construction firms assigned staff to oversee field operations and ensure project success. This primarily involved meeting the project schedule, deal with owner, designers, various agencies and subcontractors, solve problems, as well as ensure project success. After the passage of the OSHA standards construction organizations determined that this required specialized knowledge, added oversight and responsibilities, as well as specific reporting, recordkeeping and providing training to the workforce.  

This would over burden and distract field staff from operational requirements of the project delivery and contractual obligations. The most efficient and effective way to deal with this was to separate project management from safety by create a safety management function with the sole responsibility to oversee and manage workforce safety. This primarily entailed visiting the worksite to identify physical hazards in the areas workers were performing their work as well as ensuring they were perfuming their tasks in a safe manner.  

The field staff was responsible for worksite operations involving all planning, scheduling, organizing, hiring, directing, task assigning, problem solving, expediting as well as control of the work. This meant that field staff oversaw task design and by making work assignments effecting task demand, and indirectly affecting risk. While the safety function had the authority and was required to visit the site to observe the workforce performing their assigned tasks so as to ensure that they were not exposed to physical hazards as well as performing their work in a safe and proper manner.  

Given the safety function’s responsibilities as it relates to the hierarchy of risk management elements, one sees that they can identity risk sources, but are not fully enabled to eliminate all risks. They certainly cannot contractually transfer it, they cannot substitute or redesign the tasks, they cannot reduce the effect of risk. The only thing that they can do is place a barrier between the identified risk and the worker. That entail’s providing PPE. But according to the hierarchy of risk management elements PPE is the least effective means of providing the most effective protection to the workforce. 

The other issue is that there are a lot of disadvantage to the use of PPE.  

• PPE does not eliminate the risk or the hazard, but it can provide a false sense of security 

• If the risk changes, which is likely in construction, this will renderer the PPE ineffective to some degree 

• The PPE can add new hazards 

• Cause fatigue 

• Restrict movement and comfort 

• Elevate heat stress or dehydration 

• Must be properly fitted and cannot be shared 

• Should not be taken home due to contamination possibilities 

• Must be replaced if damaged or worn, thereby requiring oversight 

• Written procedures for selection and use 

• Possible medical clearance for use 

In spite of the listed disadvantages there are instances where the use of PPE may be necessary as well as useful. However operational staff (superintendents, and foremen) should try to eliminate risk where possible or diminish the adverse effect of risk to a manageable level before making task assignments and commencing work. This will require the safety personnel to be present at these planning and organizing meetings in order to assist finding the best means and methods to safely perform those tasks.  

Conclusion 

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) requires that employers protect their employees from workplace hazards that can cause injury or harm. Construction work inherently has risk, some of which should have been dealt with during the planning stage. But as construction work progresses, the nature of the inherently risk changes. To be able to effectively deal with that, project staff will need to watchful in order to be able to effectively manage the changing situation.    

The hierarchy of risk management (discussed above) provides a process with which risk can be addressed from elimination to various levels of risk diminishment, to the utilization of protective barriers such as PPEs. Although the more effective options are preferable there may be situations where employers may need to provide personal protective equipment (PPE) to their employees and ensure its proper use. 

This article originally appeared in the September 2025 issue of Occupational Health & Safety.