COMPLIANCE WITH OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND

HEALTH REGULATIONS: A REVIEW OF NIGERIAS

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
1
Nnedinma Umeokafor, Nnedinmaik@hotmail.com;
2
Boniface Umeadi,
B.Umeadi@nanomindidc.com;
3
Keith Jones, K.G.Jones@gre.ac.uk
1,3
School of Architecture, Design & Construction, University of Greenwich. UK.
2
Nno!in" #DC, Co$$unictions %ouse, 2& 'or( Street, )on"on *1U &+,, UK.
ABSTRACT
-he stte of occu.tionl sfety n" helth /0S%1 in Nigeri is .oor, es.ecilly in the
construction in"ustry. Co$.lince with 0S% regultions /0S%21 is one of the $3or
fctors for 0S% i$.rove$ent4 regrett5ly, its level is low in Nigeri. Although stu"ies on
co$.lince with 0S%2 in "evelo.e" countries 5oun", un"erstn"ing the issues .eculir
to the Nigerin construction in"ustry s .er co$.lince with 0S% regultions is
.ertinent, s conte6tul issues cn $(e the "ifference. As result, this stu"y, which
conte6tulises Nigeri7 e6$ines co$.lince with 0S%2 in the Nigerin construction
in"ustry4 unerths the (ey issues to co$.lince with 0S%2 in the in"ustry4 "e$onstrtes
the stte of co$.lince with 0S%2 in the in"ustry. Syste$tic review of
vil5le literture gthere" through "es( literture serch n" content nlysis
were "one. #t unerthe" tht (ey issues to co$.lince with 0S%2 in the Nigerin
construction in"ustry inclu"e7 client8s influence, in"e9ute enforce$ent /which rn(s
highest1, lc( of "e9ute regultions n" une$.loy$ent, which rn( lowest. #t
conclu"es tht in the 5sence of govern$ent8s involve$ent n" "e9ute enforce$ent,
st(ehol"ers in the in"ustry n" $nge$ent co$$it$ent cn hel. co$.lince with
0S%2 .roliferte. #t lso reco$$en"s tht7 0S% .rofessionls shoul" use the econo$ic
5enefits of co$.lince with 0S% to ttrct $nge$ent co$$it$ent4 contrctors8 0S%
recor"s shoul" 5e .rere9uisite for ten"er selection.
Keywords: Co$.lince, Construction in"ustry, Nigeri, 0ccu.tionl helth n" sfety,
2egultions.
INTRODUCTION
ccu!ational safet" and health #$%& in Nigeria has not recei'ed ade(uate attention and
su!!ort. )s a result, $% statuar" regulations and !ro'isions are non* functional
#+iug,u, Ba-a, . /gila, 2012&, ,hile the state of $% in Nigeria is !oor #+iug,u et al.,
2012; kolie . ko"e, 2012&. )ccording to +iug,u et al. #2012&, the failed $% s"stem
in Nigeria is due to the ,eak statutor" $% regulations and !ro'isions. )lso, it can -e
argued that the a!!alling le'el of com!liance ,ith $% regulations in Nigeria #+iug,u
et al., 2013; 1du-or . isamo2e, 2013; kolie . ko"e, 2012& contri-utes to the !oor
$% in the construction industr". 3ean,hile, the continued e4clusion of the Nigerian
construction industr" -" the e4isting 5actories )ct of 1660 #+iug,u et al., 2012; 1doro,
2007&, and the inefficienc" of the 5ederal 3inistr" of 8a-our and 9roducti'it"
1ns!ectorate +i'ision in o'erseeing $% in Nigeria as em!o,ered -" the 5actories )ct
#Umeokafor, 1saac, Jones and Umeadi, 2013& do not hel! com!liance either, des!ite the
higher likelihood of construction ,orkers to -e killed at ,ork if com!ared ,ith other
industries #de"inka, +a'ison, . lomolai"e, 200:&. ;onse(uentl", the construction
contractors ado!t regulations from the UK and the U$) #1doro, 2007; +iug,u et al
2012&, hence com!liance and enforcement are marginal #Umeokafor et al., 2013&. <he
a-o'e cou!led ,ith the tremendous im!act of conte4tual issues on $% management
#Kheni, +aint" and Gi--, 200=& and that no detailed stud" of the su-2ect of Nigerian
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
conte4t ,as found make it !ertinent to in'estigate the issues that determine com!liance
,ith $% regulations in Nigeria, as strict com!liance ,ill im!ro'e $%. )lthough
com!liance ,ith $% regulations is not a standalone solution to the necessitous ste! to
im!ro'ing $%, it is a core element to $% im!ro'ement. )gainst these -ackdro!s, this
stud", ,hich conte4tualises Nigeria and !art of a doctoral stud" -" the lead author
e4amines and e4!lores matters in regard to com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the
Nigerian construction industr". 1t also identifies issues relating to com!liance ,ithin $%
regulations in the ,ider )frican construction firms and then relates them to the Nigerian
construction industr". ;ritical s"stematic re'ie, of a'aila-le literature gathered through
desk re'ie, of e4isting literature #using a mi4ed literature search strateg"&, and content
anal"ses of the data ,ere done. <hereafter, recommendations for im!ro'ing com!liance
,ith $% regulations in Nigerian construction industr" are noted.
CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION
1n addressing the conce!tual clarification of $%, it is im!ortant to ask in this conte4t
>?hat are regulations@A )ccording to ?inda!o #2013&, regulations are !roducts of legal
efforts designed to instil la, and order in the societ". <he" should -eB !ro!erl" enforced,
unam-iguous, u!dated as re(uired #)nderson, 200=& and !ro!erl" com!lied ,ith if the
!ur!oses for design are to -e achie'ed, ,hile $% is defined -" Kale2ai"e #2013& to -e an
interdisci!linar" area mainl" -urdened ,ith !rotecting the safet", health and ,elfare of
!eo!le in the ,ork!lace and !eo!le that ,ill -e affected directl" or indirectl" -" the
acti'ities in a ,ork!lace. )s such, $% regulations are enforcea-le, une(ui'ocal
and com!lia-le legal !roducts designed to enforce the !rotection of
safet", health and ,elfare of !eo!le that ma" -e directl" or indirectl" affected -" the
acti'ities in a ,ork!lace.
THE NIGERIAN STATUS QUO IN BRIEF
)ccording to 1doro #2007&, the origin of $% regulations in Nigeria is traced to the UK
and U$, ,here ma2orit" of them are ado!ted from. 5oremost, the $% Bill of 2012 in
Nigeria is designed to ensure a safe ,orking en'ironment in all industrial sectors -oth the
formal and informal sectors; the National ;ouncil for ccu!ational $afet" and %ealth is
em!o,ered to o'ersee the Bill. 1t seeks to re!eal the 5actories )ct 1660 and ser'e as
com!rehensi'e $% legislation for the ,ork!lace #8a-our, $afet", %ealth and ?elfare
Bill, 2012&. Before $e!tem-er 2012, ,hen the 8a-our, $afet", %ealth and ?elfare -ill of
2012, ,hich a,aits !residential assent ,as !assed, there ,ere no legislation or Bill
co'ering the Nigerian construction industr". <he e4isting 5actories )ct of 1660 does not
include the construction industr" in its definition of !remises #+iug,u et al., 2012; 1doro,
2011; 1doro, 2007&; therefore it is not enforcea-le as !er construction sites and acti'ities
#Umeokafor et al., 2013&. ;onse(uentl", the construction industr" remains unregulated
,ith accident and in2ur" rates increasing; thus, construction firms resort to ado!ting
UKCU$ regulations, ,hich are not enforcea-le in Nigeria #+iug,u et al., 2012; 1doro,
2011; 1doro, 2007&, hence lea'ing the im!lementation at the discretion of the construction
firms or em!lo"ers #1doro, 2007&, there-" resulting to nonchalant attitudes in regard to
$% issues. <here is a consensus among $% !rofessionals on the need for strict
com!liance ,ith $% regulations in $% im!ro'ement. %ence, 1doro #2007; 2011& use
com!liance ,ith $% regulations as one of the management efforts to determine if it
correlates ,ith $% !erformance; ,hile keola #2006&; $mall,ood and %au!t #200=&
argue that com!liance ,ith $% regulations -rings a-out -enefits not limited to a'oiding
direct . indirect costs #?inda!o . ladi!o, 2012& -ut also contri-utes to organisationsD
com!etiti'e ad'antages. %o,e'er, it is difficult to com!rehend ,h" these -enefits seem
not to attract the construction com!anies in Nigeria to com!l" ,ith $% regulations.
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
DETERMINANTS OF COMPLIANCE: OSH IN AFRICA (NIGERIA)
Belief
$mall,ood #2002& argues along the general notion that accidents are ine'ita-le in the
construction industr" -ecause it is -elie'ed that the industr" is inherentl" dangerous;
therefore, used as an anchor for non*com!liance ,ith $% regulations and also a-ridge
the im!ortance of $% to secondar" issues. 1n su!!ort of this, Kale2ai"e #2013& asserts
that !rior to the enactment of the safet" la,s in /ngland in 1733, it ,as -elie'ed that
accidents ,ere !redestined and ine'ita-le, -ut this ,as no longer acce!ta-le after the
enactment of the a-o'e la,s. 5urthermore, 1du-or and siamo2e #2013&
identif" religious -eliefs to determine com!liance ,ith $% regulations; the" o!ine that
some em!lo"ers resort to fetish rituals to sto! accidents instead of taking ade(uate safet"
!recautions. 1du-or and siamo2e #2013& also !osit that some -elie'e accidents are acts
of God i.e. accidents occur -ecause God allo,s them. <his is further em!hasised -"
$ade( and )hmad #166E& cited in $mall,ood #2002& ,ho note that the 1slamic
F<a,hidicD !rinci!les of 2ustice . e(ualit", dignit" of la-our and remo'al of hardshi! do
not su!!ort inter'ention decisions -ased on cost -enefits. )s a result of the a-o'e
arguments, contractors ma" do little or nothing to !re'ent these accidents; the" ma" not
take safet" guidelines seriousl". <hese therefore suggest that -eliefs, -e it religious or
su!erstitious often filters into ,ork en'ironments resulting to lack of com!liance ,ith
$% regulations in the construction industr" )frica ,ide.
Te!"e#i!$ %#&'e
;om!liance ,ith $% regulations has !rom!ted consumer -u"er organisations to list
1$*6000 certification as a re(uirement for (ualit" standard and a ,a" of com!l"ing ,ith
$% regulations #NGu'e . 8a,rence, 2012&. <he literature so far re'ie,ed sho,s that
there is no standard of this nature in the Nigerian construction industr"; most contractual
documents a!!ear not to highlight the im!ortance of $% com!liance and the
im!ositions of fines #!enalties& for non*com!liance. <he action -" consumer -u"er
organisations stated a-o'e can -e ado!ted -" the )fricaDs construction industr" and its
clients; the" can standardise com!liance ,ith $% regulations, not onl" in tenders as !art
of contract agreements #?inda!o, 2013& -ut also in the instances ,here it is !ossi-le to
that safet" records and references from !re'ious clients can -e !rere(uisite for tendering
for contracts to indicate the $% !erformance of contractors. <herefore, !riorit" should
-e gi'en to construction firms ,ithout in2ur" records; gi'en that, +a'ies . <omasin
#1660& in thman #2012& contend that successful !ro2ects ha'e a 100H in $%, time,
cost and (ualit" res!ecti'el".
E!f&#'e(e!) &f OSH #e$*l+)i&!
NGu'e and 8a,rence #2012& found that lo, le'el of ins!ection and e4amination of
,ork!laces might determine the le'el of com!liance ,ith $% regulations as e'ident in
,ork!laces in Nairo-i. <he same can -e said of Nigeria, ,here lack of enforcement
characterises regulator" institutions #1du-or . siamo2e, 2013&, most la,s a!!ear to
fulfill all righteousness or are used for !olitical or 'ictimisation reasons, and the
institutions alleged and !ro'ed to -e corru!t and ar-itraril" e4ercise its !o,ers
#n"eoGili, 200:&. <hese ill characteristics of the regulator" institution in Nigeria also
,eaken its legal s"stem. <he contention -eing that the efficienc" and effecti'eness of the
$% enforcement -odies ma" determine the le'el of com!liance ,ith $% regulations
in ,ork!laces. <hese e4!lain ,h" researchers !osit, that lack ofB strict legislation
enforcement #1du-or . isamo2e, 2013; n"eoGili, 200:&; com!etent !rofessionals i.e.
$% officers #5ederal 3inistr" of 8a-our and 9roducti'it" 2010 in 1du-or . isamo2e,
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
2013&; trained safet" officers #keola, 2006&, all ena-le non*com!liance ,ith $%
regulations in Nigeria. %o,e'er, although the (ualit" of enforcement ma" -e marginal,
enforcement at organisational le'el !erha!s 'ia safet" officers should -e made
mandator" to Nigerian construction contractors #keola, 2006&, as it ,ill im!ro'e $%
enforcement. /(uall" im!ortant, 1du-or and isamo2e #2013& argue that the ,eak legal
structure and a-sence of la, enforcement in Nigeria allo, foreign com!anies to take
ad'antage of the ineffecti'e statutor" regulation. <he same can -e said of the
construction industr". <hat ma" also suggest that these foreign firms ma" not ha'e !lans
to com!l" full" ,ith the $% regulations in Nigeria or ha'e a $% management s"stem
similar to those o-tained in their countries of origin, as the" intend to reduce e4!enses
and added cost to construction out!uts.
Re%*)+)i&! &f fi#(
1n light of 1du-or and isamo2eDs arguments a-o'e, it is e'ident that multinational
cor!orations are a-le to !ro'ide de'elo!ing countries such as Nigeria ,ith critical
financial infrastructure for economic and social de'elo!ment, and at the same time the
much*needed $% regulations. %o,e'er, these institutions ma" also -ring ,ith them
rela4ed codes of ethical conduct that ser'e to dilute the de'elo!ing nationDs regulations
rather than to !ro'ide the critical su!!ort to com!liance that ensures im!ro'ed $% in
organisations. 3ultinational cor!orations should !romote their re!utation through good
$% !ractices instead of cutting corners in countries ,here $% s"stems are not as
rigorous, granted that the images of organisations to the !u-lic should contri-ute to their
com!etiti'e strength in the market. 1ndeed, NGu'e and 8a,rence #2012& maintain that
non*com!liance ,ith $% regulations often reflects the organisationDs image and
-ottom*line, ,hich must -e !rotected; Jaco-i #2012& also su!!orts this 'ie, -" arguing
that organisationDs image determine the le'el of their com!liance ,ith $% regulations.
Hi$,e# %#&fi) (+#$i!
)ccidents result to in2uries, loss of materials and time, !a"ment of com!ensation and
!a"ments to in2ured staff ,hen off dut", hence increasing the cost of !roduction and
affecting the !rofit margin of the organisation. )s such, to reduce the cost of !roduction,
im!ro'e !roducti'it" and ma4imiGe !rofits, man" firms seek to im!ro'e $% in their
organisations and this includes com!liance ,ith $% regulations #?inda!o . lada!o,
2012&. <his e4!lains ,h" NGu'e and 8a,rence #2012&, $mall,ood and %au!t #200=&
!osit that increased and sustained le'el of !roducti'it" often reflect on the le'el of
com!liance ,ith $% regulations. )s such, the (uestion as to ,h" com!liance is not at
its !eak is 'ital, as com!liant organisations ,ill -enefit economicall". %o,e'er,
ignorance of these -enefits of com!liance ma" -e the ans,er the (uestion. Be it as it
ma", organisations ma" com!l" ,ith $% regulations to sa'e cost there-" increasing
their !rofit margin, -ut ma" not com!l" if the cost of com!liance is too much ,hen
com!ared ,ith the !rofit margin.
I!+"e-*+)e f*!"i!$
NGu'e and 8a,rence #2012&; 1du-or and isamo2e #2013& contend that ca!ital is
re(uired to !ro'ide ade(uate facilities in order to a'oid cutting corners. 1n that lack of
facilities such as clam!s, safet" -elts ma" mean that des!erate ,orkforce ,ill risk li'es
instead of going hungr", hence ,ill not com!l" ,ith $% regulations. <his e4!lains
,h" +iug,u et al. #2012& argue that lack of resources can hinder $% management
efforts. n the other hand, most enforcement -odiesCinstitutions in the de'elo!ing ,orld
lack the -asic tools and amenities, ,hich need funds to !romote $% regulations,
educate the societ", enforce the regulations, and disseminate information.
Pe#'e%)i&! &f )+.e,&l"e# i! ),e i!"*)#/
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
1t is generall" -elie'ed that construction industr" is one of the most e4!ensi'e industries;
therefore, an"thing that ,ill increase cost of construction should -e a'oided. <his 'ie,
is echoed -" ?inda!o #2013& that construction contractors in $outh )frica !ercei'e
com!liance ,ith construction regulations as costl", time consuming and unnecessar",
hence the" deem com!liance ,ith $% regulations as unnecessar". <he same argument
is re!eated in Nigeria, ,here most construction organisations s!end little or nothing on
$% management #+iug,u et al., 2012&, !erha!s -ecause the" !ercei'e it as cost. <his
'ie, sim!l" results to nothing in terms of -udget allocated to $% management;
conse(uentl", there is likel" to -e high le'el of non*com!liance ,ith $% regulations in
these organisations.

I!+"e-*+)e )#+i!i!$ &f )+ff +!" 0&#.%l+'e i*e
<echnical failure and inade(uate training cou!led ,ith harsh ,ork en'ironment and
unsafe methods of ,orking inter li are among the causes of non*com!liance ,ith $%
regulations in de'elo!ing countriesD construction like $outh )frica #thman, 2012&. <his
'ie, is su!!orted -" ?inda!o and lada!oDs stud" of 2012, ,hich demonstrates that
lack of ade(uate training and unsafe ,ork en'ironment can determine ho, construction
firms handle the issues of com!liance ,ith $% regulations. 1n concordance, )denuga,
$o"ing-e, and )2a"i #200=&; 1du-or and siamo2e #2013& highlight that inade(uate
training is a hindrance to $% regulations com!liance. 1n corres!ondence, 1du-or and
siamo2e #2013& maintain that the !erformance and !roducti'it" of staff is a function of
the le'el of their e4!ertise and skill, ,hich is a function of the standard of training and
education recei'ed. <hese im!l" that if ade(uate $% training and education are not
gi'en to staff, their $% !erformance e.g., com!liance ,ith $% regulations ,ill -e
affected. 1t can therefore -e misunderstood, in sim!le terms to 2ust result to lack of
kno,ledge and information ,hich in*turn de!end on the le'el of ac(uired training and
education. <he facts are that management related issues, indi'idual ,illingness to
!artici!ate in self*de'elo!ment, self*determination ,ithin a 'alue oriented ,ork
en'ironment ,ill encourage com!liance to $% Iegulations.

M+!+$e(e!) '&((i)(e!)
)rgument must -e made that the a-sence of safet" consciousness in ma2or construction
organisations in Nigeria is common and must -e deemed as -ad e4am!les. )denuga et
al. #200=& further sho, that some construction com!anies do not attach im!ortance to
,orkersJ safet". $imilarl", $mall,ood #2002& agrees that to! management should 'alue
safet" not,ithstanding that lack of 'alue for safet" ma" -e as a result of the !erce!tion
that safet" is onl" cost related as argued -" %inGe #166=& in $mall,ood #2002&. $hould
that -e the case, it therefore indicates that the construction industries are not concerned
,ith the safet" of their em!lo"ees as their ,atch,ord; instead, it suggests the a-sence of
management commitment to $% in the Nigerian construction industr". <his e4!lains
,h", ?inda!o and ladi!o #2012& contend that management commitment should -e
seen as the determinant factor to com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the construction
industr".
A')i1i)ie &f ),e i!f&#(+l '&!)#*')i&! e')&#
<anko and )nig-ogu #2012& !en that the informal construction sector in Nigeria engages
in informal construction acti'ities, ,hich constitute a-out =0H of construction out!uts;
mean,hile, Kale2ai"e #2013& !osits that the informal construction sector has little or no
access to occu!ational health. <heir main methods of !ro2ect e4ecution in'ol'e
em!lo"ing ,orkforce ,ho do not ha'e ideas of ade(uate safet" !ractices re(uired,
therefore cannot ad'ise the client to com!l" ,ith $% regulations. <he argument
therefore is that if =0H of the construction acti'ities are e4ecuted through the informal
!ractice, the construction industr" is shooting itself on the foot, as the" ,ill ne'er
conform to $% regulations; rather, the" contri-ute to ma2orit" of the unsafe
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
construction acti'ities, thus hindering $% im!ro'ement. )s such, to im!ro'e $%
regulation in Nigeria, greater attention should -e gi'en to this sector #<anko and
)nig-ogu, 2012& !erha!s through ade(uate regulation. %o,e'er, 1t can -e argued that
the informal sector is difficult to regulate -ecause of the nature of its o!erations. 5rom
the a-o'e, it is therefore not misleading to state that this sector contri-utes hugel" to
non*com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the Nigerian construction industr".
U!e(%l&/(e!)
1du-or and isamo2e #2013& identif" unem!lo"ment as one of the factors that em-olden
non*com!liance ,ith $% regulations. <he le'el of unem!lo"ment in Nigeria is so high
and increasing. )ccording to <rading /conomics #2013&, unem!lo"ment in Nigeria rose
from 21.10 H in 2010 to 23.60 H in 2011, this amounts to high 'olume of men and
,omen gi'en to the em!lo"er to !a" lo, ,ages or im!unit" to take ad'antage of
,orkers to ,ork under dehumanising conditions !ro'ided the" ha'e 2o-s. <herefore, if
construction ,orks -eing carried out 'iolate $% regulations at the same time under
dangerous conditions, the ,orkers are una-le to com!lain, for the" risk losing their 2o-s.
Fe+# &f le$+l +!')i&!
NGu'e and 8a,rence #2012& maintain that orgainsations ma" also com!l" ,ith $% for
fear of legal actions. 1n affirmation, 1du-or and isamo2e #2013& assert that legal
sanctions organisations ma" face if the" do not com!l" ,ith $% legislation ma" result
to high financial cost to the organisations, there-" reducing their !rofit margin, in that
the" com!l" ,ith $% regulations. <his im!lies that fear of legal sanctions ma" make
coo!erate organisations com!l" ,ith $% regulations. %o,e'er, gi'en ,hat this stud"
has esta-lished so far, it ,ill -e the -igger organisations that -enefit most either ,a".

B#i2e#/ +!" '&##*%)i&!
n"eoGili #200:& states that NigeriaDs regulator" institutions and the !olice force are
!ercei'ed and ha'e -een !ro'ed to -e corru!t; FGod*fatherismD determines the decisions
of the ins!ectors. <his is reinforced -" <rans!arenc" 1nternational #2012& ranking
Nigeria 136 out of 1=E in terms of corru!tion !erce!tion inde4. 1n su!!ort, 1du-or and
siamo2e #2013& assert that -ri-er" and corru!tion are the -iggest hindrances to !ro!er
com!liance ,ith $% regulations in Nigeria; citing an instance ,here com!anies ,ould
not com!l" ,ith the standard regulations and still get an Foka"D from the ins!ectors
during ins!ection as a result of -eing -ri-ed.
Ne$le') &f ,*(+! #i$,)
5rom the human right !ers!ecti'e, 1du-or and siamo2e #2013&; 9u!lam!u and Karte"
#2012& de-ate that human rights are the core elements of $%. 1n that human rights are
not ,ell rooted in $% rights of cor!orations -ecause of lack of strict 2udicial references
in Nigeria #1du-or . siamo2e, 2013&. <his suggests that la,makers neglect human
rights, and this ma" lead to human rights a-use. )lso, 9u!lam!u and Karte" #2012&
argue that human rights must -e accessi-le to !romote $%. <herefore if inferred, the
a-senceCneglect of human rights ma" influence $% and !erha!s its com!liance.
We+. le$+l )#*')*#e
+iscussing the a-o'e, 1du-or and siamo2e #2013& maintain that the legal structure in
Nigeria is ,eak in terms of inter!reting and a!!l"ing the go'erning la,s. 1n the Nigerian
construction industr" ,here different regulations are in use, there is no uniformit" in
inter!retation of regulations, ,hile 1doro #2007& argues that im!lementation of the
regulations are left to !ersonal discretion. ?ith regard to the !enalt" for non*com!liance
,ith $% regulations, ?inda!o and lada!o #2012& found that non*se'ere !enalties for
non* com!liance ,ith $% regulations determine com!liance ,ith $% relegations in
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
the $outh )frican construction industr". <he same can -e said of Nigeria, ,here the
!enalties for 'iolation of some $% la,s are insignificant. %o,e'er, the 8a-our, $afet",
%ealth and ?elfare Bill of 2012, sti!ulates stronger !unishment for offenders #1du-or .
siamo2e, 2013&. ) do,nside of the legal s"stem in Nigeria is the !rocedure in realit",
,here court cases take longer than allotted time frame, and $% regulations are onl"
enforcea-le u!on trial and con'iction #1du-or . siamo2e, 2013&. <his suggests that
ma2orit" of causalities ma" -e discouraged from going to court -ecause of the ,eak
legal s"stem in the countr" and the high cost of seeking 2ustice ,ithout legal aid, as such
encouraging em!lo"ers to 'iolate the regulations.
Clie!) i!fl*e!'e
5amakin and 5a,ehinmi #2012& ackno,ledge the influence of clients in im!ro'ing $%
in the construction industr" -" citing %uang and %inGe #200E&, ,ho assert that clientsD
in'ol'ement is a core re(uirement for ensuring a Gero accident rate in construction
!ro2ects. <his is reinforced -" $mall,ood and %au!t #200=&, ,ho !ro!ose that clients
should take the lead ,hen it comes to $% in their !ro2ects, as the $% regulations like
the $outh )frican ;onstruction Iegulations of 2003 !lace high le'el of res!onsi-ilit" on
the client. <hese a-o'e suggest that lo, le'el of com!liance ,ith $% regulations can -e
traced to the client ,ho should ensure that the regulations are adhered to, hence ensuring
o!timum $% in all !ro2ects. 8amenta-l", this is not a!!lica-le or e'ident in the Nigeria,
es!eciall" in the informal construction !ractice ,here 'iolation of $% is endemic, and
some clients ha'e not heard of $%. 3oreo'er, keola #2006& records that one in si4 of
the contractors in the 13 !ro2ects studied took an insurance !olic". <his suggests clients
and contractorsJ neglect, as the client is re(uired -" la, to ensure that the contractors
com!l" ,ith $% regulations.

L+'. &f +0+#e!e +!" i(%#&%e# (e"i*( f&# i!f&#(+)i&! "ie(i!+)i&!
<he argument that lack of kno,ledge and understanding of $% regulations determine
the le'el of com!liance ,ithin construction regulations is made -" ?inda!o and
lada!o #2012&, in that there is lack of a,areness in most de'elo!ing countries #e.g.,
Nigeria& for $% regulations and !ractice, an issue that is also echoed -" 1du-or and
siamo2e #2013&. <herefore, +iug,u et al. #2012& contend that lack of kno,ledge for
details and im!lications hinder $% management in the construction industr". <he"
found that construction ,orkers in 3inna, Nigeria #if not the ,hole countr"& do not
kno, the enforcer of $% regulations in Nigeria. 1f ,orkers do not kno, or understand
the regulations, the" ,ill not kno, ,hen their rights ha'e -een 'iolated. 9u!lam!u and
Kuarte" #2012& note a similar issue that lack of ade(uate 1nformation and statistics
hinder the com!liance ,ith $% in )frica; ,hile +iug,u et al. #2012&, 1du-or and
siamo2e #2013& identif" same for Nigeria. <he a-o'e is e4!lained -" +iug,u et al.
#2012&, ,hose stud" argues that $% information dissemination in Nigeria is
ineffecti'e, and has minimal im!act to target grou!s, hence -laming the go'ernment for
it. <his demonstrates that enacting la,s ,ithout ade(uate effort to make it a'aila-le to
the !u-lic is as a good as not formulating one at all.

M&#+l 1+l*e
NGu'e and 8a,rence #2012& -elie'es that managers com!l" ,ith $% regulations due to
the !resumed se'erit" of in2ur" that the ,orkers ma" suffer if accidents ha!!en, this
e4!lains ,h" keola #2006& argues that if morall" o-ligator", com!liance should -e on
humanitarian grounds. 1n affirmation, $mall,ood and %au!t #200=& demonstrate
statisticall" the humanitarian moti'ation for $% related regulations and the need for
!utting construction regulations into la, through !u-lic announcement; asserting that
anal"ses of se'erit" rates of accident, disa-ling in2ur" rates to -uttress the a-o'e must -e
deemed ke" and relati'e to moral 'alues. 1n contrast, ?inda!o #2013& sho,s that the
e4tent of risk and !ercei'ed se'erit" of !h"sical haGard that ma" ha!!en due to non*
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
com!liance ,ith $% regulations are not connected to the standards com!lied -" $outh
)frican construction contractors. Ne'ertheless, it can -e argued on moral grounds, that
em!lo"ers in construction industr" ma" often consider the $% of their em!lo"ees as
su!erficial, therefore con'enient to com!l" ,ith $% regulations ,hen re(uired.
C&) &f '&(%li+!'e3%#&"*')i&!
?inda!o #2013& found that increase in the cost of com!liance ,ith the $%
re(uirements determines the -uilding constructorsD com!liance ,ith statutor"
regulations in $outh )frica. 1n that some contractors ma" ,eigh the cost of com!liance
,ith $% regulations and the o'erall cost of !roduction against the !rofit margin and
decide to com!l" at a con'enient le'el. <he im!lication of the a-o'e ,hen factored in is
that the cost of com!liance #a factor of !roduction& increases the cost of !roduction, in
most cases is often high and e4!ensi'e. <his su!!orts 1du-or and siamo2e #2013& ,ho
agree that the high cost of !roduction in Nigeria like cost of !ro'iding electric !o,er
dri'es organisations to cut corners as !er $%. 1n contrast, a'oiding direct . indirect
cost of accidents #a cost of !roduction& can make them com!l" ,ith $% regulations as
argued else,here in this !a!er. 1n short, it can -e argued that factors of !roduction
influence com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the Nigerian construction industr".
A2e!'e &f OSH #e%#ee!)+)i1e
<he a-sence of $% re!resentati'es in NigeriaDs construction industr" has detrimental
im!act according to +iug,u et al. #2012&; ,ho argue this in their stud" of > construction
!ractices in 3inna, Northern NigeriaA. <he" found that =6.:H of most of their
res!ondents do not ha'e $% re!resentati'es in their organisations. %ence, the a-sence
of these re!resentati'es is a 'iolation of the $% regulations, ,hich re(uire
organisations to ha'e trade union a!!ointed re!resentati'es or em!lo"ee elected safet"
re!resentati'es. <hese re!resentati'esD main dut" are to !rotect the $% interest of the
,orkforce. <he argument -eing that these $% re!resentati'es ,ill hel! in ensuring
com!liance ,ith $%. <hese im!ortant factors and the role of safet" officers are
identified and re'er-erated -" keola #2006& in facilitating and encouraging the
construction contractors on safet" issues, hence recommends mandator" roles for them.
L+'. &f +"e-*+)e #e$*l+)i&!
1du-or and siamo2e #2013& u!hold that !oor national $% standards hinder com!liance
,ith $% in Nigeria. <his factor is e'ident in the Nigerian construction industr", ,here
the local $% la, #5actories )ct of 1660& does not technicall" co'er it #+iug,u et al.,
2012; 1doro, 2007; 1doro, 2011&, thus not enforcea-le in the industr". ;onse(uentl",
some construction firms ado!t regulations from de'elo!ed countries, and enforcement is
at ado!terDs discretion #1doro, 2007&. %ence, +iug,u et al. #2012& found that lack of
ade(uate regulation, lack of su!!ort as some of the constraints to $% management in
the Nigerian construction industr". 1t ma" also determine com!liance ,ith $%
regulations.

C*l)*#e: T,e +fe)/ '*l)*#e
?hile Kale2ai"e #2013& highlights lack of safet" culture in the famil", education sector
as some of the challenges facing the $% en'ironment in NigeriaDs ,ork!lace, 1du-or
and siamo2e #2013& contend that cultural dimension determines com!liance ,ith $%
regulations. <he" further !osit that an organisation ,ith safet" culture ,ill ha'e a lo,er
accident rate than one ,ithout safet" culture. 5urther on culture, Nigeria as a nation has
its o,n cultural norms; ho,e'er, there is neither enforcement culture nor
im!lementation culture. 1du-or and siamo2e #2013& descri-e this culture #i.e. ,a" of
doing things& in Nigeria as Flack of !olitical ,ill #<he Nigeria factor e.g.,
inade(uateCunsuita-le la,s&D. <he" maintain that lack of im!lementation of !lans is a
ma2or set-ack to the com!liance ,ith $% regulations. kolie and ko"e #2012& ma"
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
agree ,ith the a-o'e, the" !osit that national cultural dimension is correlated ,ith safet"
climate that constantl" influence the safet" !erce!tion and -eha'iour of construction
,orkers in Nigeria. <he findings of their stud" that the safet" !erce!tion and attitude of
construction ,orkers in Nigeria are influenced -" culture, further -uttress the 'ie,
a-o'e. $uggesting that com!liance ,ith $% regulations -" construction ,orkers is
determined -" national cultural dimension.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

<his stud" relied on secondar" data through desk stud". $"stematic and e4tensi'e
searches of data-ases like #/B$;%$<, $ci'er'e $ciencedirect, $,ets,ise, )$;/
8i-rar", /3/I)8+, inter li& ,ere done. 1t used lunch ,ords like Fccu!ational
health and safet" regulations in NigeriaD, ,hich "ielded onl" three indirectl" related
!a!ers to the a-o'e to!ic, so further searches ,ere done ,ith lunch ,ords like Fhealth
and safet" management in NigeriaD, Fccu!ational health and safet" regulations in
)fricaD and some data ,ere found. <hose that are directl" or indirectl" related and
rele'ant to the to!ic ,ere chosen for the second search strateg". <he a-o'e methodolog"
,as used in order to eliminate -ias, ensure trans!arenc" and create room for
re!eata-ilit". Because of the shortage of $% literature as !er Nigeria and its
construction industr", the citation search a!!roach that is an acce!ted and ,idel" used
search strateg" for a !a!er of this nature ,as ado!ted. <his strateg" re(uired the use of
useful article#s&, reference lists of !a!ers and -ooks rele'ant to the re(uired to!ic #+e
3ontfort Uni'ersit" 8eicester, 2007&. )s a result, the citation a!!roach ,as used on
!a!ers found in the search sessions. ;ontent anal"ses of all the data collected ,ere also
done and the result !resented. ;ontent anal"sis is a methodolog" in research used for
anal"sing and understanding the content of collected te4t #<harenou, +onohue, .
;oo!er, 200=&. <his can -e done s"stematicall" and o-2ecti'el" #%olsti, 16E6 in
<harenou et al., 200=& andCor -" inference. 1n this stud", all three techni(ues and theme*
grou!ing !attern ,ere ado!ted; inducti'e and deri'ed e4!lanations of the themes
identified ,ere done and the inter!reti'e st"le used, as this stud" generates ne, insight
in line ,ith <harenou et al. #200=&.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

<his stud" ,as a-le to unearth and e4amine ke" issues to com!liance ,ith $%
regulations in the Nigerian construction industr". <hese ma2or issues areB socio*cultural,
socio*economic, institutionalClegal, organisational and industrial issues. rganisational
issues identified -" this stud" includeB re!utation of firms #Jaco-i 2012; NGu'e .
8a,rence 2012&; higher !rofit margin #NGu'e . 8a,rence, 2012; $mall,ood . %au!t
200=; ?inda!o . lada!o, 2012&; inade(uate training of staff and ,ork!lace issues
#)denuga et al., 200=; 1du-or . siamo2e, 2013; thman, 2012&. <hrough critical
anal"ses of )denuga et al. #200=&; $mall,ood #2002&; ?inda!o and ladi!o #2012&; it
,as inferred that management commitment to $% ,ould determine com!liance ,ith
$% regulations. ne of the ke" arguments -eing that as long as the Nigerian
go'ernment do not tackle $% challenges in the construction industr", organisations
should endea'or to cham!ion the im!ro'ement of $% as the" ,ould -enefit
immensel". 8iterature re'ie,ed so far suggests gross negligence in the !art of -oth the
go'ernment or enforcement authorit". )s the go'ernment does not take reasona-le
measures to !re'enting unsafe !ractices, then little is e4!ected of the construction
industrial o!erati'es; thereof, $mall,ood #2002& h"!othesises that cultural norms start
from the u!stream of management to the do,nstream sector. <herefore, it can -e argued
that the recorded neglect -" the go'ernment and industr" suggest the a-sence of safet"
culture in Nigeria and lack of go'ernmental su!!ort.
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
1n terms to institutionalClegal issues relating to com!liance ,ith $% regulations, it ,as
e'ident that the construction industr" issue ,as technicall" omitted ,hen the 5actories
)ct of 1660 ,as drafted and during im!lementation. /nforcement of $% regulations
#5ederal 3inistr" of 8a-our and 9roducti'it" 2010 in 1du-or . siamo2e, 2013; keola,
2006; NGu'e . 8a,rence, 2012; n"eoGili, 200:; 1du-or . siamo2e, 2013&; ,eak legal
structures #1du-or . siamo2e 2013&; -ri-er" and corru!tion #1du-or . siamo2e, 2013;
n"eoGili 200:&; lack of funding #1du-or . isamo2e, 2013; NGu'e . 8a,rence,
2012&; a-sence of $% re!resentati'es #+iug,u et al., 2012; keola, 2006&; lack of
ade(uate regulations #1du-or . siamo2e, 2013& ,ere found to -e determinants to
com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the Nigerian construction industr". <hrough critical
re'ie, of 1du-or and siamo2e #2013&; 9u!lam!u and Karte" #2012&, it ,as inferred that
neglect of human rights ,ould also determine com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the
Nigerian construction industr". )dditionall", critical re'ie,s of a conce!tual stud" -"
1du-or and isamo2e #2013&; an em!irical stud" -" NGu'e . 8a,rence #2012&
highlighted that fear of legal sanctions can also determine com!liance ,ith $%
regulations in the said industr".
5urthermore, unem!lo"ment #1du-or . isamo2e, 2013&; lack of a,areness and
im!ro!er medium for disseminating information #+iug,u et al., 2012; 1du-or .
siamo2e, 2013& ,ere the socio*economic issues recognised -" this stud" that also
determine com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the Nigerian construction industr". )
!o!ular sa"ing in Nigeria states that >Kno,ledge is !o,erA; should that -e the case, it
could -e assumed that the Nigerian societ" is not em!o,ered in terms of $% due to
lack of kno,ledge in this instance. <he studies further sho, that in2ur" and accident are
common in the construction sites in Nigeria; ho,e'er, !eo!le that suffered from
occu!ational diseases or incidents ,ould not kno, the necessar" ste!s to take for
com!ensation or to sto! the reoccurrence.
1n addition, socio*cultural issues ,ere ,ell co'ered -" em!irical studies -" thman
#2012&, $mall,ood #2002& and a conce!tual stud" -" Kale2ai"e #2013&. <he" re!orted
that -eliefs determine com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the construction industr".
?hile culture #safet" culture& #1du-or . siamo2e, 2013; Kale2ai"e, 2013&; clientDs
influence #5amakin . 5a,ehinmi, 2012; keola, 2006; $mall,ood . %au!t 200E& ,ere
identified as determinants to com!liance ,ith $% regulations, critical re'ie, of NGu'e
and 8a,rence #2012&; keola #2006&, $mall,ood and %au!t #200=&; ?inda!o #2013&
sho,ed that moral 'alues influence com!liance ,ith $% regulations in NigeriaDs
construction industr". )lso, clientJs influence on com!liance ,ith $% regulations
seems o'erlooked in the Nigerian construction industr", as has -een unearthed -" this
stud".

1ndustrial issues such as tendering !rocess #NGu'e . 8a,rence, 2012; thman 2012;
?inda!o, 2013&; !erce!tion of stakeholders in the industr" #?inda!o, 2013&; cost of
com!lianceC!roduction #1du-or . isamo2e 2013; ?inda!o, 2013& ,ere re'ealed as
factors that determine com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the construction industr".
;ritical anal"ses of studies #Kale2ai"e, 2013; <anko and )nig-ogu, 2012& indicated that
acti'ities of the informal sector determine if the said industr" ,ould com!l" ,ith $%
regulations. 1t should also -e noted that the informal sector contri-utes to a-out =0H of
construction acti'ities in Nigeria #<anko . )nig-ogu, 2012&; im!l"ing that the informal
sector could -e a ma2or contri-utor to the high le'el of accidents in the construction
industr".
5rom the a-o'e, it can -e seen that a greater !ercentage of the authors #3:H&, discussed
enforcement of $% regulations as a reason for non*com!liance ,ith $% regulations in
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
Nigeria, ,hile 30H -elie'e that lack of go'ernmental su!!ort and ,eak legal structure
,hich accounts for 2:H influence com!liance, hence ranking second and third
res!ecti'el". n the other hand, :H of the academic !a!ers re!orted unem!lo"ment,
-ri-er" and corru!tion, lack of ade(uate regulations, ,here the three rank the lo,est as
determinants of com!liance.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
<his stud" demonstrates that the state of $% and com!liance ,ith $% regulations in
the Nigerian construction industr" is !oor; it has re'ealed that the ke" issues to
com!liance ,ith $% regulations in the Nigerian construction industr" and !erha!s the
,hole countr" are mostl" related to socio*cultural issues, institutionalClegal issues,
organiGational issues, socio*economic and industrial issues, ,ith the acti'ities of the
informal sector as a ma2or contri-utor. <his stud" goes further to recommend that to
sustain the ra!id economic gro,th and infrastructural de'elo!ment in Nigeria and
im!ro'e $% in the nationDs industr", go'ernmentDs in'ol'ement in $% ,ith ade(uate
enforcement mechanisms, management commitment and su!!ort from stakeholders, can
hel! im!ro'e com!liance ,ith $%, hence im!ro'e !roducti'it", chances of
com!etition in the market inter li. 3ost im!ortantl", go'ernments of de'elo!ing
countries like Nigeria should im!ro'e $% a,areness and education -" using
enlightening agencies like the National rientation )genc" of Nigeria; $% education
and training should -e mandator" and integrated in the school s"lla-us right from
secondar" le'el. $% !ractitioners and !romoters should use increase in !rofit margin
inter li as $% !romotion instruments to attract the !u-lic and to! management
interest. 5urthermore, mandator" $% section in contract documents should -e ado!ted
and strictl" enforced in the de'elo!ing countriesD construction industr", !refera-l"
'erified and referenced -efore !a"ment. )lso, reference as !er $% !erformance form
contractorsD !re'ious clients should -e a !rere(uisite for tender selection, hence
!reference gi'en to those ,ith good $% records. 3ean,hile, naming and shaming
organisations of !oor and a!!alling $% records should -e ado!ted, as the" ,ill not like
their images ,ith the !u-lic and com!etiti'e le'els in the market to -e affected.
Go'ernment and stakeholders should strictl" regulate acti'ities of the informal
construction sector in order to !romote $% in de'elo!ing countries; ,here-", the
-uilding !lanning de!artments in local councils ,ill -e used as an $% enforcer in the
grassroots le'el 2ust as the" enforce !lanning !ermission.
REFERENCES
)denuga, .)., $o"ing-e, ).)., and )2a"i, 3. ). #200=&. ) stud" on selected safet"
measures on construction ;om!anies in 8agos, Nigeria. 2#CS /Co5r1.
)nderson, J. #200=&. %ealth and safet"* 3atching legislation and enforcement.
+rocee"ings of the #nstitution of Civil :ngineer. !nge$ent, +rocure$ent n"
)w, 11*1:.
%ow to un"ert(e literture serch n" review7 ;or "isserttions n" Cnl yer
.ro3ects #2007&. +e 3ontfort Uni'ersit" 8eicester, +e!artment of 8i-rar" $er'ices
Ietrie'ed 27 )ugust, 2013 from
htt!BCC,,,.mech.hku.hkC-seC3/B$E012C8iterature$earch.!df .
+iug,u, 1. )., Ba-a, +. 8., . /gila, ). /. #2012&. /ffecti'e regulation and le'el of
a,arenessB )n e4!ose of the NigeriaDs construction industr". 0.en Dournl of
Sfety Science n" -echnology, Lol. 2.1M0*1ME.
5amakin, 1. ., and 5a,ehinmi, . $. #2012&. Kuantit" sur'e"orsD !erce!tion of
construction health and safet" regulation in Nigeria. Dournl of Euil"ing
+erfor$nce, Lol 3 #1&.
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
5ederal Ie!u-lic of NigeriaB )5our, Sfety %elth n" welfre Eill of 2A12.
1doro, G. 1. #2007&. %ealth and safet" management efforts as correlates of !erformance
in the Nigerian construction industr". Dournl of Civil :ngineering n"
!nge$ent. Lol 1M#M& 2==*27:.
1du-or, /. /., and isamo2e, 3. +. #2013&. )n e4!loration of health and safet"
management issues in NigeriaDs efforts to industrialiGe. :uro.en Scientific
Dournl. Lol. 6#12&.
Jaco-i, J. #2012&. <he com!liance tra! * <oo much focus on regulations ,ill
shortchange "our !eo!le . !rofits. ASS: +rofessionl Sfety Dournl. 9!E6*=0.
Kale2ai"e, 9. #2013&. ccu!ational health and safet"B 1ssues, challenges and
com!ensation in Nigeria. +e( Dournl of +u5lic %elth n" !nge$ent, Lol.
1#2&, !! 1E*23.
Kheni, N. )., +aint", ). I. J and Gi--, ). G. 5 #200=&. 1nfluence of 9olitical and $ocio*
;ultural /n'ironment on %ealth and $afet" 3anagement ?ithin $3/sB ) Ghana
;ase $tud". #n Eoy", D /:"1 +rocs 3r" Annul Conference, 3?F Se.te$5er 2AA>,
Eelfst, UK, Assocition of 2eserchers in Construction !nge$ent, 1:6*1E7.
NGu'e, $. N. 3., and 8a,rence, B. ). #2012&. <he e4tent of com!liance ,ith
occu!ational safet" and health regulations at registered ,ork!laces in Nairo-i.
#nterntionl Dournl of Eusiness, %u$nities n" -echnology, Lol. 2 #2& 11:*120.
de"inka, %., +a'ison, ;. and lomolai"e, 9. #200:&. )n assessment of factors
inhi-iting designers from com!l"ing ,ith health and safet" regulations in their
design. +roc. of 21
st
Annul A2C0! Conference, >?@ Se.te$5er, S0AS, University
of )on"on, Lol. 2, 60:* 613.
keola, . G. #2006&. ccu!ational health and safet" #%$& assessments in the
construction industr". #st Annul Civil :ngineering Conference, 2&?2G August
2AA@, University of ##orin, Nigeria.
kolie, K. ;., and ko"e, 9. U. #2012&. )ssessment of national culture and construction
health and safet" ;limate in Nigeria. Science Dournl +u5liction, Lol. 2012, E !!.
n"eoGili, /. ;. #200:& -stacles to effecti'e !olicing in Nigeria. Africn Dournl of
Cri$inology n" Dustice Stu"ies, Lol 1 N #1&, 32* :M.
thman, ). ). /. #2012&. ) stud" of the causes and effect of contractorsD non*
com!liance ,ith the health and safet" regulations in the $outh )frican construction
industr". Architecturl :ngineering n" Design !nge$ent, Lol.7, 170*161.
9u!lam!u, B. B., and Kuarte", $. %. #2012&. Ke" 1ssues on occu!ational health and
safet" !ractices in GhanaB ) Ie'ie,. #nterntionl Dournl of Eusiness n" Socil
Science. Lol. 3#16&, 1:1 *1:E.
$mall,ood, J. J. #2002&. <he 1nfluence of health and safet" #%.$& culture on %.$
9erformance. 1nB Green,ood, + #/d&, 17th annual )I;3 conference, 2*M
$e!tem-er 2002, Uni'ersit" of Northum-ria. Assocition of 2eserch in
Construction !nge$ent, Lol.1, 21=*22E.
$mall,ood, J.J., and %au!t, <. ;. #200=&. 1m!act of $outh )frican construction
regulations on construction health and safet"B )rchitectsD 9erce!tions. Dournl of
:ngineering, Design n" -echnology, Lol :#1&.
<anko, B. 8., and )nig-ogu, N. ). #2012&. <he use of !ersonal !rotecti'e e(ui!ment
#99/& on construction sites in NigeriaD. 1nB 8ar"ea, $., )g"e!ong, $ )., 8eiringer,
I. and %ughes, ?. #/ds& +roc Bth *est Afric Euilt :nviron$ent 2eserch
/*AE:21 Conference, 2B?2& Duly 2A12, A5u3, Nigeri, !! 13M1*137M.
<harenou, 9., +onohue, I., and ;oo!er, B. #200=&. !nge$ent 2eserch !etho"s.
;am-ridge Uni'ersit" 9ress, ;am-ridge UK.
Nigeri une$.loy$ent rte #2013&. Ietrie'ed )ugust 23, 2013 from <rading
/conomics. ?e-site,
htt!BCC,,,.tradingeconomics.comCnigeriaCunem!lo"ment*rate
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B
C0!+)#ANC: *#-% 0CCU+A-#0NA) SA;:-' AND %:A)-% 2:GU)A-#0NS7 A 2:<#:* 0; N#G:2#A8S
C0NS-2UC-#0N #NDUS-2'.
<rans!arenc" 1nternational #2012& -rns.rency interntionl corru.tion .erce.tions
in"e6 2A12. Ietrie'ed from
htt!BCC,,,.e".comC9u-licationC',8U)ssetsC2012N<1N;91C
O518/C2012H20<1H20;91.!df
Umeokafor, N., 1saac, +., Jones, K., . Umeadi, B. #2013&. /nforcement of
occu!ational safet" and health regulations in NigeriaB ) e4!loration.
+rocee"ings of the 1st #nterntionl Scientific ;oru$, 3, 62*103.
?inda!o, )., and lada!o, ). #2012&. +eterminants of construction firmsD com!liance
,ith health and safet" regulations in $outh )frica. 1n $mith, +.+ #/d& 9rocs 27th
)nnual )I;3 conference, 3*: $e!tem-er 2012, /din-urgh, UK. Assocition of
2eserch in Construction !nge$ent, M33*MMM.
?inda!o, ). #2013&. Ielationshi! -et,een degree of risk, cost and le'el of com!liance
to occu!ational health and safet" regulations in construction. Austrlsin Dournl
of Construction :cono$ics n" Euil"ing, Lol 13#2&, E=* 72.
+rocee"ings of the 3
r"
#nterntionl Conference on #nfrstructure Develo.$ent in Afric = A5eo(ut, Nigeri, 1>
th
?1@th !rch, 2A1B