Inconsistency in contractor verification and oversight can expose businesses to increased risk of safety incidents, project delays, reputational damage as well as legal and regulatory penalties.

SafeContractor’s Control or Assumption? The State of Contractor Management in 2026 report surveyed 200 hiring clients and 300 contractors working across social housing, facilities and property management, manufacturing, transport and logistics. The report explores how contractor compliance and competence is checked and managed amid increasing supply chain expectations under the Building Safety Act 2022, the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2015, and wider health and safety, ESG and procurement requirements. 

Awareness not translating to assurance

While 96% of hiring clients said they fully understand their organisation’s statutory obligations and 92% of contractors said they understand their own duties; this awareness is not consistently translating into control and oversight.

Although 65% of hiring clients and 62% of contractors said contractor compliance checks take place before people start, nearly a quarter of contractors (23%) report starting work before checks are complete, and just 14% of hiring clients said they fully verify every contractor they engage.   

Dale Jones, technical director at SafeContractor, said, “Allowing contractors to begin work before compliance and competence checks are complete creates a preventable gap in assurance. Without completing verification, organisations cannot be confident that the appropriate checks and controls are in place before work begins. 

“Pre-qualification processes must be considered as a condition of starting work and completed before a contractor steps onsite. It should not be completed retrospectively – if checks are delayed, inconsistent or in the worst case, not completed, organisations expose their workers, site users and business to avoidable safety, legal and financial risks.” 

The gap between policy and practice was also identified in ongoing monitoring and reassessment of contractors. Although a majority of hiring clients (85%) and contractors (77%) say that reassessment takes place regularly or before a new project, the findings suggest that oversight is not consistently applied throughout project or contract delivery.  

The findings reinforce the need for compliance to move beyond a tick-box exercise completed during contractor onboarding to periodic monitoring that keeps pace with changing site conditions and subcontractors as well as programme pressures.

The causes of the gap 

Compliance issues remain common with 44% of hiring clients and 47% of contractors saying that compliance issues arise often or very often. 

Hiring clients identified reliance on documentation rather than site verification (31%) as the main cause, followed by limited subcontractor visibility (29%) and weak supervision (29%). Contractors highlighted unclear or inconsistent client requirements (34%), conflicting standards (34%), tight programmes (32%), and regulatory misunderstanding (29%). 

Hiring clients also recognised the consequences of non-compliance, with nearly half (49%) identifying project delays as a potential risk, 42% pointing to safety incidents and 40% citing reputational damage. More than a third also identified legal or regulatory penalties (36%), and cost overruns (35%) as potential risks. 

Driving industry best practice  

The research also revealed what hiring clients and contractors believe would improve compliance. Hiring clients highlighted stronger visibility and oversight, with nearly four in ten (39%) saying improved subcontractor visibility would strengthen contractor compliance – for example, having a clearer picture of which subcontractors are engaged, where they are working and whether the required checks have been completed. Meanwhile, 36% cited stronger ongoing monitoring as a way to improve compliance, while the same proportion (36%) pointed to more time and dedicated resource, and 36% also highlighted better understanding of legal duties such as CDM, the Building Regulations and the Health and Safety Act. Clearer accountability was also identified by 35% and 31% believe that greater use of independent verification schemes would help.

Contractors focused more on consistency, with 42% stating standardised client requirements would improve compliance and engagement. More than a third (36%) selected better explanation of legal duties and intent as an area for improvement, while 34% highlighted earlier engagement before site work begins. Contractors also highlighted the role of independent certification schemes, with 25% suggesting greater recognition of these certifications. 

The role of independent verification schemes also featured prominently. Contractors reported that 32% of hiring clients use them as their primary assurance method.  Among hiring clients, 35% use independent schemes to verify contractor compliance, while 52% combine schemes with internal checks.

Dale Jones added, “It’s clear that organisations and contractors understand what compliance requires but their challenge is ensuring that requirements are consistently communicated, verified and applied before work begins, and monitored regularly while work is ongoing. Independent assessment and verification schemes can play a crucial role in supporting an organisation’s internal pre-qualification process to create a consistent baseline across complex supply chains and help standardise contractor compliance.”  

For more information on SafeContractor and to download Control or Assumption? The State of Contractor Management in 2026 report visit: https://www.safecontractor.com/state-of-contractor-management-in-2026/