TY - GEN
T1 - The influence of contextual factors on health and safety performance of construction contractors in Nigeria
T2 - a comparative assessment
AU - Umeokafor, Nnedinma
N1 - Note: Published in: Carter David, Onjewu, Adah-Kole, Kitsos, Anastasios, Dexter, George, Haddoud, Mohamed Yacine, El Hakimi, Imane, Dhakal, Mamata and Kong, Sophie Dejie (eds) (2015). UKPDC 2015 Proceedings : Challenging practice through research., pp.43-47. ISBN: 9781841023946.
Organising Body: Plymouth University
Organising Body: Plymouth University
PY - 2015/6/5
Y1 - 2015/6/5
N2 - The health and safety (H&S) performance of construction contractors in Nigeria is documented as poor in various studies (Idoro 2008; Umeokafor et al. 2014; Windapo & Jegede 2013). The industry does not see the safety of its employees as a watchword (Umeokafor et al. 2014) and all the risks fall on the construction workers (Ajayi & Thwala 2014). However, multinational construction firms (MCFs) are demonstrated as performing better than indigenous construction firms (ICFs) in various areas including H&S. Typically, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) who are mostly ICFs are prosecuted more than MCFs in terms of H&S related issues (Arewa & Farrell 2012). Similarly, scholars demonstrate that in Nigeria, MCFs comply with H&S standards more than ICFs (Windapo & Jegede 2013) and perhaps wholly government owned construction agencies (GOCAs). Further, evidence from literature also shows that MCFs have better
H&S records and management systems than the ICFs in Nigeria (for example see Windapo & Jegede2013). Although little or no literature exists on GOCAs, it is also possible that their H&S performanceis worse than that of ICFs and MCFs. These differences can be attributed to contextual influences, as the construction industry exists in the environment (cf. Hofstede, 1980). In particular, MCFs get adequate governmental attention unlike ICFs (Odediran et al 2012). SMEs are unable to secure loans (Odediran et al. 2012) thus are unable to bid for
contracts or finance projects like MCFs do. Also, it is believed that MCFs have better management and planning skills than ICFs thus are preferred in the award of contracts. These may explain why studies (Idoro 2010; Jimoh 2012) note that MCFs execute most of the construction projects in Nigeria. Also, SMEs are unable to compete in the international market thus operating in only local markets (Kheni etal. 2007). It is then believed that these make MCFs to be better placed financially than ICFs, thus
allocating more resources to H&S and in turn performing better in terms of H&S.Studies comparatively assess MCFs and ICFs in various areas (see: Idoro 2010; Windapo & Jegede
2013). However, little or no study has assessed the impact of contextual factors on H&S performance of Nigerian construction contractors (including GOCAs) comparatively. A study that addresses the aforesaid premise will help in policymaking. It will also help in bridging the gaps among the various categories of the industry. Against this premise, this study comparatively assesses the impact of contextual factors on H&S performance of ICFs, MCFs and GOCAs.
AB - The health and safety (H&S) performance of construction contractors in Nigeria is documented as poor in various studies (Idoro 2008; Umeokafor et al. 2014; Windapo & Jegede 2013). The industry does not see the safety of its employees as a watchword (Umeokafor et al. 2014) and all the risks fall on the construction workers (Ajayi & Thwala 2014). However, multinational construction firms (MCFs) are demonstrated as performing better than indigenous construction firms (ICFs) in various areas including H&S. Typically, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) who are mostly ICFs are prosecuted more than MCFs in terms of H&S related issues (Arewa & Farrell 2012). Similarly, scholars demonstrate that in Nigeria, MCFs comply with H&S standards more than ICFs (Windapo & Jegede 2013) and perhaps wholly government owned construction agencies (GOCAs). Further, evidence from literature also shows that MCFs have better
H&S records and management systems than the ICFs in Nigeria (for example see Windapo & Jegede2013). Although little or no literature exists on GOCAs, it is also possible that their H&S performanceis worse than that of ICFs and MCFs. These differences can be attributed to contextual influences, as the construction industry exists in the environment (cf. Hofstede, 1980). In particular, MCFs get adequate governmental attention unlike ICFs (Odediran et al 2012). SMEs are unable to secure loans (Odediran et al. 2012) thus are unable to bid for
contracts or finance projects like MCFs do. Also, it is believed that MCFs have better management and planning skills than ICFs thus are preferred in the award of contracts. These may explain why studies (Idoro 2010; Jimoh 2012) note that MCFs execute most of the construction projects in Nigeria. Also, SMEs are unable to compete in the international market thus operating in only local markets (Kheni etal. 2007). It is then believed that these make MCFs to be better placed financially than ICFs, thus
allocating more resources to H&S and in turn performing better in terms of H&S.Studies comparatively assess MCFs and ICFs in various areas (see: Idoro 2010; Windapo & Jegede
2013). However, little or no study has assessed the impact of contextual factors on H&S performance of Nigerian construction contractors (including GOCAs) comparatively. A study that addresses the aforesaid premise will help in policymaking. It will also help in bridging the gaps among the various categories of the industry. Against this premise, this study comparatively assesses the impact of contextual factors on H&S performance of ICFs, MCFs and GOCAs.
KW - Architecture and the built environment
M3 - Conference contribution
BT - Published in: Carter David, Onjewu, Adah-Kole, Kitsos, Anastasios, Dexter, George, Haddoud, Mohamed Yacine, El Hakimi, Imane, Dhakal, Mamata and Kong, Sophie Dejie (eds) (2015). UKPDC 2015 Proceedings : Challenging practice through research., pp.43-47. ISBN: 9781841023946.
Organising Body: Plymouth University
Organising Body: Plymouth University
ER -