A STUDY OF HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENT (HSE)

PRACTICES OF NIGERIAN CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES

BY

WINDAPO, A. O. * & JEGEDE, O.P.**

*Construction Economics and Management Department,
University of Cape Town, South Africa,
E-mail: Abimbola.Windapo@uct.ac.za

**Masters in Project Management Student,

Dept. of Building, University of Lagos, Akoka,

ABSTRACT
The paper presents a study of the health, safety and environment (HSE) practices of construction
companies. It examines whether there are differences in the HSE practices of construction companies
in Nigeria, based on size; and whether there is a relationship b/w the level of compliance to
regulations and incidents of fatalities on site. In achieving these objectives, relevant literature on the
subject matter was reviewed and a questionnaire, which was self-administered to construction
workers and professionals on site, was developed. The data collected was analyzed using descriptive
and inferential statistics such as chi-square and the spearman rank correlation. It emerged from the
study that the HSE practices in small and medium sized indigenous construction companies, was
significantly different to that obtainable in the large multi-national construction companies. It was
also found out that the small and medium sized construction companies do not comply with HSE
regulations, resulting in the high incidents of fatalities on construction sites managed by the
companies. The paper recommended that small and medium sized construction companies should
institute a company HSE policy and monitor its application on their sites.

KEY WORDS: Compliance, Construction Companies, HSE Regulations, Safety and Workers

INTRODUCTION

According to Wahab (1989), the construction industry is a vital component of the Nigeria economy.
The Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN, 2007) noted that the construction industry provided 12% of the
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in Nigeria. However, Williams (2002) opined that construction
workers face more on-the-job injury and fatality risks than workers in any other professional field
and that one out of every five-workplace fatality involves a construction worker. Furthermore,
construction sites are full of various dangers that have the potential to cause hundreds of thousands
of injuries and a multitude of deaths each year. These sites are filled with heavy equipment and
machinery, toxic substances, explosives, and other dangerous conditions, all of which can cause
serious injury or even death. Construction sites are privy to injuries resulting from fires, explosions,
and falls from high-rise buildings or scaffolding.

Ioannides Pisimisi and Papaioannou (2004) noted that bulldozers, backhoes, dump trucks, front-end
loaders, cranes, hoists and other construction equipment are meant to destroy buildings, not people.
But those accidentally struck by construction vehicles suffer terrible injuries. Being struck by falling
debris, flying objects, or collapsing concrete and masonry walls are also serious safety concerns on
construction sites as noted by Hamid, Majid and Singh (2008) and Dalton (2002) as well as falling
from heights. Ioannides et al (2004) also stated that every year, many people fall victim to injury,
harm and even death through accidents on construction sites. This according to Adeniye (2002) is
compounded in situations where construction activities are performed in multi-employer construction
sites, when workers from several different companies handling different tasks of the construction
project. Under these sometimes chaotic conditions, miscommunication or lack of preparation can
cause a construction worker (or innocent passersby) serious injury due to unsafe practices of the
workers.

Lin and Mills (2001) noted that, the higher the investment in safety, the better the safety
performance. However, personal observation by the authors reveal that keeping a project under
budget is often accomplished at the cost of safety to construction workers. Evidence of the lack of
reasonable care for labor is seen in different ways. For example, a contractor will skimp on required
safety equipment for workers - such as hard hats, goggles, gloves, respiratory equipment, harnesses
or other safety equipment, hire less experienced, cheaper labour to do the work, hire fewer workers
than required to keep the work site compliant with safety standards, use older and less efficient tools
and equipment that have a greater likelihood of harming construction workers all in a bid to keep the
project under budget.

Evidence of lack of reasonable care for construction workers are also evident in the Lagos University
Teaching Hospital (LUTH) Records (2001) where construction workers were found to have suffered
electrocution, shock and severe burns through contact with power lines; lack of ground-fault
protection; missing or discontinuous path to ground; equipment not used in the manner prescribed;
and improper use of extension or power cords. The same records from LUTH (2001) confirmed
some construction workers suffered mild and traumatic brain injuries, spinal cord injuries and severe
fractures as a result of falls. Bone (1994) noted that incidents of non-compliance with specified
requirements may be sudden and temporary, or they may persist for a long period, which according
to HSE (2002) leads to an increase in the incidents of accidents and loss of lives.

The paper examines the health, safety and environment (HSE) practices of Nigerian construction
companies and whether there are differences in the HSE practices of construction companies in
Nigeria, based on size. To do this, the paper will first of all review literature on HSE practices and
differences in HSE practices in construction companies based on size, secondly, the paper will
present the result of a survey into the practice and compliance to HSE regulations in Nigeria. Finally,
the paper discusses the implications of the findings to the increasing accidents and loss of lives on
Nigerian construction sites.

OVERVIEW OF THE CONSTRUCTION LABOUR FORCE AND INDUSTRY

The International Labour Organization (ILO) (2004) stated that a large portion of construction
workers are unskilled operatives, others are classified in any of several skilled trades such as
electricians, bricklayers, glaziers, carpenters, ironmongers, welders and so forth. ILO (2004) further
stated that construction workers include about 5 to 10% of the workforce in industrialized countries
and that in most countries; employers have relatively few full-time employees. Throughout the
world, over 90% of construction workers are male. In some developing countries, the proportion of
women is higher and they tend to be concentrated in unskilled occupations, whilst in others, the work
is left to migrant workers. In some countries, the industry provides relatively well-paid employment
and an avenue to financial security. For many, unskilled construction work is the entry into paid
labour force in construction or other industries (ILO, 2004).

Compared to some other industries, an increasing proportion of contractors in Nigeria, other

developing countries and Europe consist of individual workers hired as independent contractors by
prime-or sub-contractors who employed workers. Ordinarily, an employing contractor does not
provide subcontractors with health benefits, workers’ compensation coverage, unemployment
insurance, pension benefits or other benefits. Nor do prime contractors have any obligation to
subcontractors under health and safety regulations, these regulations govern rights and
responsibilities as they apply to their own employees (United States Bureau of Labour Statistics
BLS, 2002). This arrangement gives some independence to individuals who contract for their

2
services, but at the cost of removing a wide range of benefits. It also relieves employing contractors
of the obligation to provide mandated benefits to individuals who are sub-contractors. This private
arrangement subverts public policy and has been successfully challenged in court, yet it persists and
may become more of a problem for the health and safety of workers on the job, regardless of their
employment relationship. The US Bureau of Labour Statistics BLS (2002) estimates that 9% of the
US workforce is self-employed noting that in the construction industry, as many as 25% of workers
are self-employed independent contractors. This implies that there is a high ratio of independent
workers in the construction industry, when compared to other industries.

REVIEW OF HSE PRACTICES/PROCEDURES IN CONSTRUCTION

COMPANIES

Weil (2001) opined that the provision of health, safety and conservation of the environment, apart
from being a discipline subject to legislation, constitutes an asset and an added value within an
organization, both as a philosophy and as awareness that it is an essential and integral part of
products and services. According to Wolski, Dembsey and Meacham (2000), regulation is intended
to address and satisfy the public mandate for managing risks and benefits of technology. This view is
buttressed by Coglianese, Nash and Olmstead (2003), who opined that regulation is designed to
improve the performance of individual and organizational behavior in ways that reduce social harms,
whether by improving industry’s environmental performance, increasing the safety of transportation
systems, or reducing workplace risk. Compliance with HSE policy, regulations and procedures, all
fall within the responsibilities of the operative line that will be appropriately supported and aided by
management.

According to Weil (2001), OSHA achieves its intended effects on safety and health outcomes by
inducing regulated businesses to comply with its standards. The contractor compliance with OSHA
standards at a given site or across multiple sites reflects on their perceived benefits and costs of
adhering to health and safety standards. Bone (1994) opined that awareness of HSE in the
construction industry emanated from leadership and commitment. Walter (2000) stated that safety is
a subject to which people are quite willing to pay lip service, but which too few are willing really to
do something about. Cultural change in the successful management of health and safety at work in
recent years has highlighted new challenges for the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME).

According to the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work EC Directive (1989), the
requirement to attempt to anticipate and plan for unforeseen incidents and potential hazards requires
a more proactive approach to safety and health management. Particular issues pertaining to the SME
become relevant in the risk assessment context. For example, on the positive side they may be
uniquely aware of the special hazards associated with local construction company processes and
procedures. However, the economic pressure on the business may be such that, characteristically,
health and safety is viewed as something less than a priority.

Factors hindering compliance to HSE regulations

Tait and Walker (2000) stated that the main difficulty in addressing health and safety by small
construction companies is the time available within the very small business. The owner of the
business finds out that demands of the multiple roles he carries out in managing the business leave
limited time to address health and safety issues. Business issues such as cash flow, sales, staffing and
production are more critical for small firms than for larger ones – and health and safety is often given
a very low priority (Fairman and Yapp, 2005).

Tait and Walker (2000) reported that most small firms do not have a structured HSE unit to
implement compliance, and that a sufficient number of small construction firms flout almost all the
safety rules. For instance, alcohol drinks and controlled drugs are not to be used or allowed on the
construction sites, however, it is observed that many sites have their workers drunk. The rule says
anyone found under the influence of, or in possession of, alcohol or drugs will be immediately

3
removed from site and refused future access. Since the small firms have no HSE unit within their
organization, it is therefore impossible to control the unsafe acts of construction workers in these
firms. Further, smoking is not permitted except in specified areas of workplace, site or workshops;
Tait and Walker (2000) reported that some construction workers especially the operatives on private
construction sites are in the habit of smoking intermittently while on duty. They also found out that
construction workers in small firms are in the habit of disposing used liquid waste directly on the
ground, pit or storm drain as against the waste disposal procedure, which requires that the liquid
waste be properly disposed only in properly labeled containers for environmental control.

Constraining factors may be influential in curbing the extent of a number of practices within small
and medium sized construction companies. Restricted time and resources are frequently highlighted
as a barrier in attending health and safety seminars (EASHW, 2004). According to Griffin, Hall and
Watson (2005), reasons given for not taking part in the ‘Fair Chance at Work’ initiative for SMEs
(wherein only four out of 480 targeted businesses took advantage of free services to promote health
at work) included: No time to spend on project; Difficult year; Pushed timescales; Negligence; and
other construction priorities

Differences in the HSE practices of construction companies based on size

Differences in the SHE practices of construction firms were identified in Lin and Mills (2001) to
include the fact that smaller construction firms may not manage OHS risks as effectively as larger
firms, safety attitude varied by the size of the company and firms having more resources and
experience tend to deal with health and safety issues more effectively.

Adeniye (2002) in his study of health and safety on construction sites in Nigeria, found out that some
multi-national construction firms, apparently due to their level of awareness and exposure, have good
HSE practices, as some of them have well structured HSE department, which is responsible for
formulation, communication and implementation of HSE policies and procedures. A good number of
these firms have HSE manuals/handbooks, which are made available for all workers to read and
acquaint themselves with HSE rules and regulations both in the office and at construction sites. The
HSE manual from Moniac Construction Company (MCC) for example contains but not limited to the
following: duties and responsibilities; Incidence reporting procedure; Safety orientation and
education; General plant regulation; Smoking, alcohol and controlled drugs; Safety signs; Personnel
safety equipment; Food protection; Waste disposal procedure; Safety belt usage; Safety nets; Hand
protection; Fire Protection; First Aids; Chemical Handling procedure; Hand & Power tools handling;
Crane and Lifting equipment; excavation and trenching safety; Concrete forms and shoring
procedures; Ladders and Scaffolding; Steel erection procedure; Welding and Burning procedure;
Electrical works; Vessel and confined space environment; Abrasive Blasting; Pressure testing
procedure; etc.

RELATING STANDARDS AND HEALTH AND SAFETY OUTCOMES

Weil (2001) in a study to find out how closely the standards enforced by OSHA correspond to the
causes of workplace injuries and fatalities found out that there are significant discrepancies between
the major causes of construction fatalities and the most frequently cited OSHA standards in
construction. He found out that while 28 percent of all fatalities arose from falls on the workplace, 42
percent of all OSHA standards cited in that year pertained to falls or fall protection and in contrast,
although 18 percent of deaths at the worksite arose from motor vehicle-related causes, less than 5
percent of OSHA standards cited in that year relate to motor vehicles.

Weil (2001)’s study corroborates earlier studies by Mendeloff’s (1984) which found out that the
violation of standards accounted for only 13% to 19% of the 645 fatalities reported to workers’
compensation, and that only one half of these violations could have been detected in advance of the
accident. Weil (2001) stressed the importance of connecting the standards OSHA enforces to the
injury, illness and fatality outcomes of ultimate policy concern and that enforcement should be more
effectively focused on those standards that matter most.

4
ANALYTIC AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

Based on studies by Lin and Mills (2001), Weil (2001) and Adeniye (2002), the paper proposes a
conceptual framework of the study shown schematically in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Source: Lin and Mills (2001), Weil (2001) and Adeniye (2002)

The conceptual model shown in Figure 1 is used to evaluate two concepts. The first one is that large
sized construction companies are compliant with HSE regulations, they uphold good HSE work
practices and therefore have and maintain a safe work environment. The second concept is similar
but that, small and medium sized construction companies are non-compliant with HSE regulations,
and therefore do not have good HSE work practices, which results in high accident and fatality rates
on construction sites. In examining whether there are significant differences in the HSE practices of
construction companies based on size, compliance to regulations and the attendant loss of lives on
construction sites, the following hypotheses were analyzed:

• There are significant differences in the HSE practices of construction companies based on
size; and
• There is a relationship between the level of compliance to HSE regulations and construction
site accidents.

RESEARCH METHOD

This paper investigates the main Health Safety and Environmental practices of construction
companies on site. The paper examines whether there are differences in the HSE practices of
construction companies based on size and whether the attendant accidents and loss of lives on
construction sites can be related to the level of compliance by the construction companies to HSE
regulations. It is therefore justifiable that the data required for the study be collected from the two
major categories of construction workers who are either working in small construction firms or large
multi-national construction companies:

• The construction professionals such as project managers, construction managers, quantity

surveyors, engineers, architects, builders and estate surveyors both in small and medium
sized; and large multi-national construction companies; and

• Operatives, such as bricklayers, carpenters, iron benders, welders, roofers, operators, tilers,
electricians, plumbers, painters and construction helpers working with both small and
medium sized; and large multi-national construction companies.

5
The confidentiality of the surveys was also emphasized to prevent employees giving misleading
responses where they thought that reporting the truth might have implications for their relationship
with their employer or work colleagues.

The building sites surveyed included residential, industrial and commercial building sites. In other
words, this research work did not cover building sites for oil & gas projects. This is due to the fact
that this industry is believed to have excellent HSE awareness and performance record apparently as
a result of the complexity of its operations. The study area is basically Nigeria and limited to Lagos
State. The choice of Lagos State is based on the fact that Lagos is a commercial nerve centre as well
as the former Capital of Nigeria, where property development and Construction activities are always
going on, on a daily basis having a total of twenty (20) local government areas (Anthonio, 2003).

The non-random purposive sampling technique was used, whereby every professional and site
worker had equal chances of being chosen to fill the questionnaire. 80 questionnaires were self-
administered between May and August 2008 to construction professionals and other skilled
operatives on 80 construction sites, out of which a total of 61 questionnaires were filled and returned.
The data obtained from the questionnaire was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics such as
frequency tables and percentages, and inferential statistics such as the chi-square test and the
spearman rank correlation test.

DATA PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The data collected in the study are presented as follows:

Category of Construction Firms

Construction firms are categorized into two: Large multinational construction companies and
Indigenous medium and small construction firms (SMEs). Table 1 shows the category of
construction firms used in the study.

Table 1 – Category of Construction Firms

Type of Company Frequency Percentage
Indigenous SME 46 75
Multinational 15 25
Total 61 100

Table 1 shows that 75% of the sites surveyed were managed by indigenous SMEs, while
multinational construction companies managed 25% of the sites.

Knowledge of Respondents’ to the Existence of HSE rules and Regulations

The study sought to find out if the respondents have knowledge of HSE and this is presented in Table
2.

Table 2 – HSE Knowledge

Variables Frequency Percentage
Yes 30 52
No 20 34
Not Sure 8 14
Total 58 100

It can be seen in the Table 2 that 52% of the respondents are aware of the existence of HSE rules and
regulations, 34% are not aware at all while 13% of the respondents are not sure what to say.

It emerged from the findings above that there is a significant level of HSE awareness for both
multinational and indigenous construction companies as 52% of the respondents claim to be aware of
the rules and regulations of HSE.

6
Key HSE Practices in Respondents’ Construction Companies
Table 3 presents the key HSE practices in multinational construction companies.

Table 3 Key HSE Practices in Multinational Construction Companies

HSE Practices Yes No Not Mean Response Rank

Sure Average (Yes)
Safety Meeting 15 0 0 1 1
Wearing of PPEs 15 0 0 1 1
Walling off Danger Zones 15 0 0 1 1
Use of Warning Signs 12 1 2 0.8 4
First Aid Box 12 2 1 0.8 4
Safety Equipment 12 3 0 0.8 4
Safety Training 10 4 1 0.7 7
HSE Audits 10 4 2 0.7 8
Incident Reporting & Investigation 10 4 3 0.7 9
Protection of the Environment 10 5 2 0.7 9
Emergency Plan 9 8 0 0.6 11
Proper Waste Disposal System 9 7 3 0.6 12
Job Hazard Analysis 8 7 3 0.5 12
Clear Communication System 8 5 7 0.5 14
Tour Guide to Visitors 5 10 3 0.3 15

Table 3 shows that safety meeting, wearing of personal protective equipment (PPEs) and walling off
danger zones are predominantly practiced in all the multinational construction companies. Fourth
position in the ranking of HSE practices is the use of warning signs, first aid box and safety
equipment followed by safety training at the 7th position. HSE audit ranks 8th position while accident
reporting and investigation and protection of the environment are ranked 9th, Emergency plan takes
the 11th position. Proper Waste Disposal System and job hazard analysis are ranked 12th position
while the least ranked HSE practices are clear communication system and tour guide to visitors,
which are ranked 14th and 15th respectively.

The study also sought to know the key HSE practices in indigenous construction companies and
these is presented in Table 4.

Table 4-Key HSE Practices in Indigenous Construction Companies

HSE Practices Yes No Not Mean Response Rank
Sure Average (Yes)
First Aid Box 36 1 2 0.9 1
Wearing of PPEs 30 7 2 0.8 2
Clear Communication System 29 10 0 0.74 3
Walling off Danger Zones 25 10 4 0.6 4
Safety Meeting 20 15 4 0.5 5
Use of Warning Signs 18 5 16 0.5 5
Protection of the Environment 12 18 9 0.3 7
Safety Training 10 28 1 0.3 7
Proper Waste Disposal System 10 15 14 0.3 7
Safety Equipment 7 30 2 0.2 10
Incident Reporting & Investigation 6 30 3 0.2 10
HSE Audits 5 20 14 0.1 12
Emergency Plan 5 12 22 0.1 12
Job Hazard Analysis 2 33 4 0.1 12
Tour Guide to Visitors 2 20 17 0.1 12

Table 4 shows that the key HSE practices in this category are the use of first aid box and wearing of
PPEs ranked 1st and 2nd. The 3rd ranked HSE practice in the indigenous companies is clear

7
communication system. Walling off danger zones ranked 4th while safety meeting and use of warning
signs are ranked 5th. Protection of the environment, safety training and proper waste disposal system
are ranked 7th, while safety equipment and incident reporting and investigation are ranked 10th. The
least ranked HSE practices are HSE audit, emergency plan, and job hazard analysis and tour guide to
visitors.

Generally, the multinational construction companies engage in good HSE practices as revealed in
Table 3. They practice basic HSE rules such as having regular safety meeting, wearing of PPEs, and
walling off danger zones, having well kitted first aid box at locations, proper use of safety
equipment, having safety training to workers and conducting regular safety audits. This finding is
confirmed by Adeniye (2002) that some multi-national construction firms, apparently due to their
level of awareness and exposure, have good HSE practices, evident in the fact that some of them
have well structured HSE departments, which are responsible for formulation, communication and
implementation of HSE policies and procedures.

It can be inferred from Table 4 that the HSE practices of indigenous construction companies is far
more business/profit oriented than that of the multi national construction companies. This reveals
that the small companies tend to make cost savings at the expense of some basic HSE practices as
outlined above. This finding agrees with studies by earlier researchers that smaller construction firms
may not manage OHS risks as effectively as larger firms (Holmes, 1999); safety attitudes varied by
the size of the company (Wilson, 2000) and firms having more resources and experience tend to deal
with health and safety issues more effectively (Lingard and Rowlinson, 1994).

Level of Compliance with HSE Policies and Procedures

The study sought to know the level of compliance with HSE policies and regulations in the
construction industry using the guidelines prescribed by Weil (2001). The number and severity of
health and safety standards violations observed during the site visit gave an idea of the degree to
which a contractor’s operations comply with HSE regulations. Less than one violation was rated
high, between 2 and 5 was rated moderate, between 6 and 10 was rated as low while 11 and above
was rated as non-compliant. The result of this investigation is presented in Table 5.

Table 5 Level of Compliance

Type of Company Level of HSE Compliance No. of violations Percentage (%)
Multinational High 15 25
SMEs Moderate 16 26
SMEs Low 27 44
SMEs Non-Compliance 3 5
Total 61 100

Table 5 shows that 25% of the companies exhibited a high level of compliance to HSE policies and
procedures, 26% and 44% had moderate and low compliance while 5% did not comply.

Level of compliance with HSE policies and procedures is generally low apparently as a result of high
population of indigenous SMEs in the sample size. It can be seen from Table 5 that 44% of
construction companies in the survey have low compliance while only 25% (multinational
construction companies) have high compliance.

Fatality of Construction Site Accidents

The study investigated the fatality rate of accidents witnessed on construction sites by the
respondents and the results of the investigation are presented in Table 6.

Table 6 Fatality on Construction sites

Category of Company No. of Respondents Frequency Mean Response Average Rank
Indigenous SMEs 46 22 0.48 1
Multinational Company 15 1 0.07 2
Total 61 23

8
Visual inspection of data presented in Table 6 shows that there is high rate of fatality in SMEs as 22
fatalities had been witnessed by employees of the 46 indigenous SME sites surveyed while only one
fatality had been witnessed by the employees of the 15 multinational construction companies
surveyed.

Difference in the HSE Practices of the categories of construction companies surveyed

The study sought to test the hypothesis that there are differences in the HSE Practices of the different
categories of construction companies surveyed that is, between the indigenous SMEs and the large
multinational construction companies. The spearman rank correlation test was used in analyzing the
data obtained in Tables 3 and 4. The correlation coefficient obtained is presented in Table 7.

Table 7 The Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient of HSE practices of the different
categories of construction companies surveyed
Variable N Correlation (rho) Sig.
Difference in HSE Practice of Categories of Construction 61 .685 .000
Companies surveyed

Table 7 reveals that the calculated rho value of 0.685 is larger than the critical value of 0.2500 for
P<0.005 in the one tailed test. Therefore, the test is significant, and the alternative hypothesis that
there is a difference in the HSE practice of different categories of construction companies surveyed
is accepted. It can be inferred from this finding that most of the HSE practices that are considered
very important in indigenous SMEs are less important in multinational companies and vice versa.

The test of the hypothesis presented in Table 7 shows that there is a significant difference in HSE
practices of various categories of construction companies. This finding is therefore in line with other
studies by Holmes (1999), Wilson (2000) and Lingard and Rowlinson (1994) who stated that smaller
construction firms may not manage OHS risks as effectively as larger firms; safety attitudes varied
by the size of the company; firms having more resources tend to deal with health and safety issues
more effectively and business issues such as cash flow, sales, staffing and production are more
critical for small firms than for larger ones – and health and safety is often given a very low priority.
This finding is further buttressed by Adeniye (2002) who stated that the main difficulty in addressing
health and safety issues by small construction companies is the time available within the very small
business, and that the owner of the business finds out that demands of the multiple roles he carries
out in managing the business leave limited time to address health and safety issues.

Relationship between compliance with HSE policies and construction site accidents
The study also sought to test the hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between the level
of compliance with HSE policies and construction site accidents. In order to do this, the data
collected in Table 5 and Table 6 were analyzed with the use of the Chi-Square test. The results of
this test are presented in Table 8.

Table 8 Chi-Square Test Results of Relationship Between Level of Compliance with HSE
Policies and construction site accidents
Model Value Degree of freedom Asymp. Sig. (2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square 48.224a 2 .000
Likelihood Ratio 41.824 2 .000
N of Valid Cases 72
a
– 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .78.

It can be seen from Table 8 that the calculated χ2 – Coefficient of 48.224 obtained is greater than the
tabulated χ2 of 1.671. The test is therefore significant. Based on the test findings, the alternative
hypothesis that there is a significant relationship between level of compliance with HSE policies and
accidents on the construction sites surveyed is accepted. The χ2 test result presented in Table 8
confirms that there is a significant relationship between compliance with HSE policies and

9
procedures and accidents/loss of lives on construction sites in Nigeria. Although less fatal accidents
and more compliance to HSE rules were observed in the multinational construction companies, this
might be due to other factors which haven’t been considered by this study and not solely on
compliance to HSE policies (Weil, 2001).

CONCLUSIONS

The paper investigates the key HSE practices of companies on Nigerian construction sites. The paper
examines whether there are differences in the HSE practices of construction companies based on size
and whether the attendant accidents and loss of lives on construction sites can be related to the level
of compliance of the construction companies to HSE regulations. The literature reviewed suggests
very low level of compliance to HSE rules especially by the small construction firms, principally due
to lack of structured HSE department to disseminate information and implement HSE rules and
policies.

Data were obtained from two categories of construction workers, professionals and operational or
site workers with the aid of self-administered questionnaire. The questionnaire surveys were
supplemented by independent observations on working practices and compliance to HSE policies in
the small, medium indigenous and large sized multi national construction companies. It emerged
from the hypothesis tested for the study that:

• There is a significant difference between the HSE practices of small, medium indigenous and
large sized multi national construction companies;
• There is a relationship between the level of compliance with HSE policies and construction
site accidents; and
• There is low level of compliance with HSE policies and procedures in indigenous
construction SMEs, which is probably responsible for high level of accidents and loss of lives
in these companies;

Based on the above findings, it can be concluded that the HSE practices in indigenous construction
SMEs in Nigeria do not comply with HSE regulations, leading to a low level of compliance with
HSE policies and procedures; and its attendant knock on effect on accidents and fatalities on
construction sites. It is recommended that in order to reduce accidents and improve HSE
performance and practice, the management of small and medium sized indigenous construction
companies should develop an HSE culture which should be tailored towards compliance with
existing HSE regulations, which will bring about a safe work environment for their site workers.
The proposed HSE culture can be developed by:

1. Information, Instruction & Training: Workers need to be properly trained on HSE issues.
Information on safety techniques should be disseminated to workers i.e. safety policies as this
will reduce accidents on site and increase workers’ morale for better performance.

2. Management of the construction companies need to determine the specific training needs of
their workers in relation to HSE and then design a training programme that meets their needs.
This should take into account the time available, content, style of delivery, resources required
and venue, all of which may be specific to the site in question.

Management should organize facilitators to deliver short, focused training courses. These
could be incorporated into a toolbox training session for example where other practical issues
are covered. This toolbox talks should be backed up with refresher courses from time to time.

10
REFERENCES
Adeniye, A. A. (2002) Health and Safety on Construction Sites. The Professional Builder Journal,
ISSN 0795-8854, 39–43.

Anthonio, J. B. (2003) Mass Housing and Finance. Nigerian Property News, June – August, 43–47.

Bone S.K. (1994), E & P Forum, Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) Reports No 6.36/210

Central Bank of Nigeria (2007) Annual Report and Statement of Account for the Year Ended 31st
December, 2006; Abuja.

Coglianese, C., Nash, J., and Olmstead, T. (2003) Performance-based regulation: prospects and
limitations in health, safety and environmental protection. Administrative Law Review, 55, 4, 705–
730.

Dalton. M. (2002) Fatal Accidents in the Irish Construction Industry 1991–2001: A Survey of
Contributory Factors. Health and Safety Authority Publication, Dublin

European Agency for Safety and Health at Work (EASHW) EC Directive (1989) Introduction of
measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (No.
89/391/EEC)

EASHW (2004) Promoting Health and Safety in small and medium sized enterprises SMEs

European Council Directive Eurostat (2002) European social statistics: Accidents at work and work-
related health problems Data 1994-2000 (no KS –BP-02-002-3A-N, ISBN 92-894-3601-8).
Luxembourg: official publication of the European Communities.

Fairman, R and Yapp, C (2005) Making an impact on SME compliance behaviour, an evaluation on
the effect of interventions upon compliance to health and safety legislation in small and
medium-size enterprises (contract research report no 336).

Griffin, B. L. Hall, N, & Watson, N. (2005) Health at work in small and medium sized enterprises:
Issues of engagement. Health Education journal, 105, 2, 126-141.

HSE (2002) Annual Health Safety and Environment (HSE) Research Report.

Health and Safety Executive (2002) Revitalizing Health and Safety in Construction: Discussion
Document.

Hamid, A. R., Majid, M. Z., and Singh, B. (2008) Causes of Accidents at Construction Sites.
Malaysian Journal of Civil Engineering, 20, 2, 242 – 259.

Holmes, N. (1999) An Exploratory Study of Meanings of Risk Control for Long Term and Acute
Effect of Occupational Health and Safety Risk in Small Business Construction Firms.
Journal of Safety Research, 30, 4, 61 – 71.

International Labour Organization (2004), the International Labour Conference in Geneva on

promoting opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work, in
conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity, pp 23.

Lagos University Teaching Hospital (LUTH) (2001) Accident Records

11
Lin, J. and Mills, A. (2001) Measuring the Occupational Health and Safety Performance of
Construction Companies in Australia. Facilities, 19, 3/4, 131 – 138.

Ioannides, M. G., Pisimisi, M. S., and Papaioannou I. K., (2004) Electricity Hazards: Accident
Prevention at the Workplace.

Lingard, H. and Rowlinson, S. (1994) Construction Site Safety in Hong Kong, Construction
Management and Economics, 12, 501 – 510.

Tait R., and Walker, D. (2000) Marketing Health And Safety Management Expertise To Small
Enterprises. Safety Science, 36, 2, 95-10.

United States Bureau of Labor Statistics BLS (2002) Report

Wahab, K. A. (1989) The Place of Construction Management in the Economic Development of

Nigeria. Proceedings of the 1989 Annual Conference of the Nigerian Institute of Building,
held at Hotel Presidential, Port Harcourt, June 23.

Walters D. (2000) Health and Safety in small enterprises-Europe towards a sustainable system for
worker participation and representation. European Trade Union Confederation - Trade Union
Technical Bureau.

Weil, D., (2001) Assessing OSHA Performance: New Evidence from the Construction Industry.
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 4, 651–674.

Wilson, J. (2000) Safety Management: Problems Encountered and Recommended Solutions. Journal
of Construction Engineering and Management, 126, 1, 77–90.

Williams C.N., (2002) Risk Analysis Approach to Selection of Contractor Evaluation Method.
Journal of Construction, Engineering and Management, ASCE, 128, 4, 814-819

Wolski, A., Dembsey, A. N., and Meacham (2000) accommodating the perceptions of risk in
performance-based building fire safety code development. Fire Safety Journal, 34, 297-309.

12