Why language comprehension gaps are a safety risk in construction

In a recent pilot survey, half the survey respondents agreed that non-English-speaking operatives are more at risk of injury or death on construction sites, and two-thirds perceive increased health and safety risks due to instructions being lost in translation.

The responses reveal critical issues around workforce composition, communication practices and structural barriers, highlighting why the sector must now take language competency as seriously as any other safety‑critical skill.

This initial survey will form the basis for a larger research project in due course on how safety‑critical communication problems arise from limited language comprehension and developing interventions to prevent 'lost-in-translation' moments on site.

The pilot provides the first national snapshot of how widespread linguistic diversity has become on UK sites. Respondents reported that non‑English-speaking operatives comprise up to 75% of their workforce, with an average of 34%.

In practice, this means that just over one in three workers may not fully understand site instructions, safety briefings or technical documentation.

More than 75% of respondents reported that gang leaders are 'always' or 'usually' expected to translate briefings, inductions, toolbox talks and daily instructions, almost always without any form of training.

These individuals are asked to interpret safety‑critical information while also managing their own operational responsibilities. 

Several respondents described relying on ad hoc translators who are frequently pulled away to other tasks, leaving operatives without comprehensive instructions for the job.

Although the pilot cannot yet quantify how often mistranslation contributes to incidents or near-misses, it clearly demonstrates that informal translation is a systemic risk issue.

This embedded structural issue means language risks are fundamentally a procurement problem.

Half of respondents reported that English language proficiency is not assessed on their sites, while just over 40% did not know whether any assessment takes place at all. 

Only one respondent used a formal language test as part of their health and safety programme.

This raises a fundamental question: how can responsible parties be confident that non-English-speaking workers understand instructions if comprehension is never verified?

The following are some of the comments participants left in the open response section.

• 'There would be groups of people speaking the same language and they would pass the information that comes from the supervisor to each other.'
• 'They are placed within gangs whereby someone can translate for them.'
• 'Site managers pass to those speaking good English and then those would translate to their colleagues.'
• 'It very much varies site to site. I am across four sites – one has opted for live screens and noticeboards, which have translation built in. Others rely solely on supervision effectively translating.'

These statements highlight that risk is often recognised only after a communication failure becomes visible.

Two‑thirds of respondents agreed that safety risks increase when communications are 'lost in translation', and half believed non‑English speakers face greater risk of injury or death.

While this aligns with international research, UK‑specific evidence has been limited until now. 

This pilot provides the first indication that frontline managers see language gaps as a significant safety risk yet lack the tools, guidance or training to manage it.

The study found a wide and inconsistent mix of communication strategies: bilingual supervisors, translated signage, Google Translate, AI earpieces and visual demonstrations. 

Many respondents described a reliance on 'someone who can speak English at all times', revealing just how improvised and variable these practices are.

Such variability reflects the absence of industry‑wide standards and reveals a gap that becomes increasingly concerning as sites grow more linguistically diverse.

1. Industry‑wide standards for multilingual safety communication must be established, with Chartered Institute of Building, Health and Safety Executive and RICS creating clear guidance that would set expectations across the supply chain.
2. Simple but consistent language assessment and targeted training would give managers an accurate picture of who understands what on site, reducing the risks that arise when comprehension is assumed rather than verified.
3. Language training should be recognised as a social value outcome, which aligns with government policy and supports the integration and upskilling of non-English-speaking operatives.
4. The industry should consider formal credentials, recognition or accredited training pathways for gang leaders, bilingual workers and supervisors who regularly translate safety‑critical information and make translation a managed competency, not an improvised task.

The industry has a moral, legal and business imperative to ensure the health and safety of every worker on site. The message from this research is unequivocal: lost in translation is not mitigation. 

This pilot study shows why miscommunication is a risk like any other. Like all risks, it must be managed, not ignored.

For more information concerning the pilot study and for those wishing to be included in further discussion regarding the initial recommendations, please contact the researchers.