Contractors start before compliance checks finish

Almost one in four contractors say they have started work before compliance checks were completed, according to research from SafeContractor, highlighting a gap between formal assurance policies and activity on operational sites.

The contractor-management study surveyed 200 hiring organisations and 300 contractors across social housing, facilities and property management, manufacturing, transport and logistics. It found that 23% of contractors had begun work before checks were finished.

Only 14% of hiring organisations said they fully verify every contractor they engage, despite 96% saying they understand their statutory obligations. Among contractors, 92% said they understood their own duties.

The difference between stated awareness and completed verification is significant because contractor assurance is intended to establish competence, insurance, certification and compliance before work begins. Retrospective checks provide less protection if an incident or regulatory breach occurs during the intervening period.

SafeContractor technical director Dale Jones said: “Allowing contractors to begin work before compliance and competence checks are complete creates a preventable gap in assurance.”

The research found that compliance problems remain relatively common. Forty-four per cent of hiring organisations and 47% of contractors said issues arise often or very often, suggesting weaknesses are not confined to rare exceptional cases.

Hiring organisations identified reliance on documentation rather than site verification as the most common cause, cited by 31%. Limited subcontractor visibility and weak supervision were each identified by 29%.

Contractors pointed to a different set of pressures. Inconsistent client requirements and conflicting standards were each cited by 34%, while 32% highlighted tight project programmes.

The difference illustrates a recurring supply-chain problem. A main contractor or customer can specify detailed controls centrally, but assurance becomes harder as work passes through several subcontracting tiers. Organisations may know which primary supplier has been appointed without having equivalent visibility over every business or individual ultimately entering a site.

Time pressure can widen that gap. Construction, facilities and logistics projects often operate to fixed programmes, creating an incentive to begin activity while paperwork catches up. That may protect a short-term schedule but transfers additional risk into safety, legal and operational performance.

Hiring organisations recognised several consequences. Forty-nine per cent identified project delays as a potential result of non-compliance, 42% cited safety incidents and 40% reputational damage. Legal or regulatory penalties and cost overruns were also identified by more than a third.

Respondents highlighted better subcontractor visibility, stronger ongoing monitoring and clearer accountability as potential improvements. Contractors put greater emphasis on standardised client requirements, suggesting that compliance itself can become inefficient when each customer requests similar evidence in a different form.

Independent accreditation schemes can establish a common baseline, although they cannot remove the need to understand risks specific to an individual project. Verification at onboarding also becomes outdated if subcontractors, work scopes or site conditions change.

The findings come as supply-chain governance receives greater attention under building-safety, health-and-safety, ESG and procurement requirements. Companies increasingly need evidence that controls extend beyond employees on their own payroll.

The research suggests the principal weakness is not always a lack of awareness. Most respondents say they understand their responsibilities. The more difficult problem is ensuring that commercial deadlines, subcontracting structures and inconsistent requirements do not allow work to begin before those responsibilities have been translated into completed checks.