Content uploaded by Irewolede Ijaola
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Irewolede Ijaola on Jul 15, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
15:1 (2021) 16-26 | intrest.utm.my | e-ISSN: 2231-7643
Full paper
International Journal of Real Estate Studies
INTREST
Perceived Implications of Non-Compliance with Safety Practices in
Construction Projects: Construction Professionals’ Awareness Level
Irewolede Aina Ijaola*, Olatunbosun Hezekiah Omolayo, Adebimpe Omorinsola Akerele,
Ehigiator Faith Osas, Samuel Ayobami Sonibare
Department of Building Technology, School of Environmental Studies, Yaba College of Technology , Yaba, Lagos, Nigeria
*Corresponding author’s email: iredbuilder@gmail.com
Article history: Received: 31 August 2020 Received in revised form: 12 November 2020
Accepted: 11 January 2021 Published online: 23 June 2021
Abstract
Despite the numerous implications of non-compliance with safety practices in construction projects, there are still reports of a low level of compliance with
safety rules on construction sites. The study seeks to investigate the awareness level on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices among
professionals in construction projects. From the existing literature, two major types of implications namely; direct and indirect cost implications of non-
compliance with safety rule were investigated. Questionnaires were used to elicit information from respondents. A hypothesis that examines the differences
in the level of awareness on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices among construction professionals was postulated. Kruskal-Wallis test
was used to test the hypothesis. The findings show that the awareness level on the implications of non-compliance with safety practice among each
professional is high and that there are significant differences in the level of awareness on six implications of non-compliance with safety practices; ‘physical
injury/fatality to persons’, ‘workmen’s compensation’, ‘liability insurance premiums’, ‘low morale of supervisor s and workers’, ‘costs of delay’ and ‘time of
cost’. The study concludes that professionals are aware of the implications of non-compliance with safety practices and their professional background
affects the awareness level of six of the implications of non-compliance with safety practices. The study contributes to knowledge by identifying the six
implications of non-compliance with safety practices where disparity exists in the awareness level among construction professionals. In cases where
disparity exists in the awareness level among professionals, construction firms should adopt group discussion as a means of sensitisation to increase
awareness levels.
Keywords: Construction professionals, construction project, implications, non-compliance, safety practices
© 2021 Penerbit UTM Press. All rights reserved
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Compliance with safety rules and regulations is important for the avoidance of accidents and the general well-being of workers on
construction sites. Compliance with safety practices is conforming to the rules, standards, specifications, or laws of health and safety in the
construction industry. Although compliance with safety rules could be difficult due to new construction techniques, a diverse workforce
and an aging workforce, yet it is important for improvement in production and quality, better employee morale, improved employee
recruiting and retention and a good image and reputation (OSHA, 2016). It is also important for the reduction of accidents (Subramaniam
et al., 2016). To ensure compliance with safety practices on site, there is a need to plan, organise, control, monitor and review safety rules
and regulations (HSE, 2006).
Despite the enormous effort towards compliance with safety practices and procedures in the construction industry, the occurrence rate
of accidents on construction sites remains high. ILO (2005) reported that every year at least 60,000 fatal accidents occur on construction
sites. Furthermore, 25% to 40% of work-related death occur on construction sites. In Nigeria, ILO (2017) reported that the construction
industry accounts for 39% of the total number of work-related accidents/injuries in all industries between the years 2014 and 2015. This
implies that the construction industry in Nigeria reported the highest number of work-related accidents/injuries between the years 2014 and
2015. In addition, Adekunle et al. (2018) reported increases in the fatality rate of accidents from 2001 to 2015. A total of 4,777 fatalities in
construction industry in Lagos state were reported with 68% occurring in non-residential construction. Various literature identified the
reasons for the high rate of accidents in Nigeria (Falana & Ghazaly, 2019). Among the reason is non-compliance with safety rules by
construction workers (Okoye et al., 2016; Falana & Ghazaly, 2019). Okoye et al. (2016) reported a low level of compliance with health and
safety practices among construction workers in Nigeria while Dodo (2014) concluded that health and safety practices in Nigerian
construction firms are yet to be fully implemented. The main reasons associated with the low level of compliance in Nigeria include lack of
commitment from management, lack of monitoring and enforcement, cost of compliance and lack of awareness (Adebiyi et al., 2020). In
other countries, the reasons for the low level of compliance are; lack of knowledge or understanding of health and safety practices by
17 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
construction workers, profit maximisation and motive (Windapo & Oladapo, 2012). Others include negligent attitudes by workers on site
and most contractors and designers regard the cost of compliance as an unnecessary additional financial burden (Windapo & Oladapo,
2012). Furthermore, Zin and Ismail (2012) identified the behaviour of workers as the reason for non-compliance with safety practices. This
calls for a need to consider the compliance level of contractors with safety rules on site and the awareness level of construction
professionals on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices.
The implications of non-compliance with safety practices are enormous, although non-compliance with safety practices has been
identified as a major cause of accidents (Zin & Ismail, 2012). Diverse literature identified various consequences of non-compliance with
safety practices (Hedayat & Shaniani, 2017; Othman 2012), however, sparse research effort has been made towards determining the
awareness level of implications of non-compliance with safety practices among construction professionals. Previous literature focused on
different aspects of safety practice compliance. Windapo (2011) investigated the influence of factors such as site location, building type,
project value, attitude and disposition of site manager/agent on compliance with health and safety legislation on construction sites. Zin and
Ismail (2012) identified employers’ behavioural safety compliance factors that encourage employees toward the behaviour of safety
compliance. Windapo and Oladapo (2012) investigated the level of compliance with safety regulations and motivation by contractors in
South Africa and found that the level of compliance is low. Also, Okoye et al. (2016) examined the level of compliance of building
construction workers on site with safety rules and regulations in Nigeria. A low level of compliance was observed among the workers.
Focusing on the consequences of non-compliance, Hedayat and Shahniani (2017) examined the costs of non-compliance with safety rules
while Othman (2012) investigated the causes and effect of contractors’ non-compliance with health and safety procedures. Although
Hedayat and Shaniani (2017) and Othman (2012) investigated the consequences of non-compliance with safety rules, the two studies failed
to examine non-compliance with safety rules from the perspective of professionals’ awareness of the implications. Simard and Marchand
(1997) concluded that micro organisational factors such as workgroup characteristics are the primary determinants of compliance with
safety practices. Construction professionals are workgroups on construction sites and since workgroups are determinants of compliance
with safety behaviour, it is important to investigate the consequences of non-compliance among them. Thus, this study aims at
investigating the awareness level of professionals on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices in construction projects. The
specific objectives are; to investigate the awareness level of direct and indirect implications of non-compliance with safety practices in
construction projects; to examine the differences in the perception of construction professionals on the awareness level of the implications
of non-compliance with safety practices.
Although Zin and Ismail (2011) identified behavioural safety compliance factors required of employers, it is also important that
emphasis is made on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices to serve as warnings to non-compliant workers.
Understanding the awareness level of the implications of non-compliance with safety practices among construction professionals will
reduce the occurrence rate of accidents through the development of safety compliance behaviour. Furthermore, knowledge of the
awareness level will help identify the training needs, especially in the area of the consequences of non-compliance with safety practices.
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Non-Compliance with Safety Practices in Construction Projects
The issue of safety in the construction industry has received a lot of attention, yet the occurrence rate of accidents is high. One of the major
factors responsible for the high rate of accidents on construction sites is the issue of non-compliance with safety rules (Windapo, 2011).
Developing compliance safety behaviour will encourage compliance with safety rules. Safety behaviour is the conduct of an individual
towards safety practices and activities (Zin & Ismail, 2012). Positive conduct towards safety practices will encourage compliance with
safety practices while a negative attitude will result in non-compliance with safety practices. Management responsibility and safety
precautions influence employees’ safety attitudes and perceptions on overall safety (Ratnasingam et al., 2010). It is thus necessary to
emphasise the influence of management in the development of the safety behaviour of employees. Simard and Marchand (1997) identified
micro organizational factors such as workgroup characteristics, supervisor characteristics and work processes and risks as the key
determinants of propensity to safety compliance behaviour. Ugwu et al. (2020) echoed that transformational leadership behaviour will
increase compliance with safe work behaviour, while managerial safety practices are less significant in complying with safe work
behaviour. Zin and Ismail (2011) identified employers’ behavioural safety compliance factors as management commitment, organisational
commitment, safety communication, safety leadership, effective safety training, safety motivation, safety management system, safety rules
and regulation, safety and health officer and personal protective equipment. While factors for safety compliance behaviour exist in the
literature, so also do factors for non-compliance behaviour. Ugwu et al. (2015) stated that personality type A, accident optimism and
fatalism relate to non-compliance with safety behaviour.
Non-compliance with safety practices is unsafe work practices (Ratnasingam et al., 2010), which is due to different factors.
Umeokafor (2020) argued that one of the major reasons for non-compliance with safety rules in Nigeria is that legislation, standards and
measures are copied, transposed and adopted from developed countries in which there is no enabling environment for their functionality.
Also, personnel responsible for enforcing safety compliance fails to comply with some occupational safety and health regulations in their
organisation (Umeokafor et al., 2014a). This, indeed reveals that the responsibility for non-compliance does not only lie on the workers,
professionals and management of construction firms but also on regulating bodies and clients. Umeokafor et al. (2014b) identified client
influence, inadequate enforcement, lack of regulations as factors responsible for non-compliance with safety regulations. Thus, it is
pertinent that activities of regulating bodies be checked for proper enforcement. While authors like Umeokafor et al. (2014a; 2014b)
focused on regulating bodies and clients as key factors responsible for non-compliance, authors (Ugwu et al., 2020; Windapo, 2013)
focused on the contractors as the main source of non-compliance with safety rules. Windapo (2013) adduced the reason for low compliance
18 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
with safety practices to the cost of compliance. In other words, contractors see the money spent in complying with safety rules as an
unnecessary cost. Adeyemo and Smallwood (2017) reiterated that contractors are more profit conscious than securing the safety of their
workers. Ugwu et al. (2020) identified work pressure as a reason for low compliance with safety behaviour. The implications of non-
compliance must be examined to encourage contractors not to consider complying with safety rules as an unnecessary cost.
2.2 Implications of Non-Compliance with Safety Practices
Different terms like cost of accidents (Smallwood & Haupt, 2006), consequences of non-compliance with safety (Hedayat & Shaniani,
2017) and effect of non-compliance with safety (Othman, 2012; Udo et al., 2016) are used to describe implications of non-compliance with
safety rules. Despite the various terms used for describing non-compliance, the fact remains that failure to comply with safety rules and
requirements will result in accidents. The implication includes payment of compensation by contractors to ensure compliance by workers
on safety measures on site. According to Li and Poon (2009), most victims of accidents are compensated under the loss of earnings, pain
suffering and loss of amenities. Furthermore, the implications are not only on the contractors but also on the victim. Hrymak and
Pérezgonzález (2007) reported a wide range of implications of accidents. The implications were majorly divided into two; employers and
employees. On the part of the employers, they discovered that financial costs varied from €0 to over €3.8 million. The costs include;
salary costs for replacement staff or overtime payment, loss in production and productivity, retraining costs, etc. Employee financial costs
varied from less than €1,000 to €112,000. Apart from financial costs, employees endured pain and suffering and they suffer negative
psychological consequences. Furthermore, family and friends were indirectly affected. Teo and Feng (2011) discovered that average
insured accident costs, average uninsured accident costs and average total accident costs account for 0.15%, 0.1% and 0.25% of the
contract sum of a project respectively.
According to European Commission (2011), the implications of work-related accidents are not always easy to identify. They increase
the company costs, decrease revenues and hinder economic growth. In addition, the implications of work-related accidents go beyond the
workplace and are partly shifted to society and individuals. Asanka and Ranasinghe (2015) summarised three types of cost models,
namely; Singapore accident cost model, European cost model and Australian cost model. In the model, the cost bearers of accidents were
identified. In other words, those that bore the implications of accidents were identified. In the Singapore cost model, the employers,
workers and community bear the cost while individuals and their families, employers and government/community bear the cost in
European cost models. The cost bearers in the Australian accident cost model are the workers, employers and society. Despite the cost
model, the implications on the bearer are either direct or indirect implications.
While authors like Arunkumar and Gunasekaran (2018) and Ahmed (2019) generally identified the implications of non-compliance
with safety rules, others like Hrymak and Pérezgonzález (2007) classified the implications of non-compliance into two namely; costs to
employer and employee. European Commission (2011) classified the implications of accidents as ‘non-tangible or ‘tangible’. Examples of
non-tangible implications are pain and suffering, lifestyle changes, strain on relationships, lowered self-esteem while tangible implications
are loss of salary and premiums, medical costs, loss of time due to medical treatment and reduction of professional capacity. Tang (2004)
examined the financial and social costs of construction accidents. He defined financial cost accidents as losses incurred by contractors due
to the occurrence of accidents on site. Examples include; loss due to the injured person, loss due to fines and legal expenses, loss of
productivity of other employees. Social costs of construction accidents are losses incurred by society due to the occurrence of construction
site accidents (Tang, 2004). Smallwood and Haupt (2006) categorised the implications of non-compliance with safety rules into two direct
costs and indirect costs. Arunkumar and Gunasekaran (2018) concluded that the most effects of accidents due to non-compliance with
safety practices are; costs of medical expenses, time loss of project execution, productivity loss, distrust of firm and cost of training given
to new workers. Likewise, Ahmed (2019) identified five major effects of accidents which are also due to non-compliance with safety
practices as loss of human lives, demotivation of workers/reduce morale, conflict with workers, loss of productivity of project and delay in
work progress. These costs could be categorised into direct and indirect costs and at the same time have impacts on employer and
employee.
2.2.1 Direct Cost Implications
Smallwood and Haupt (2006) defined direct cost as “cost associated with the treatment of the injury and any unique compensation offered
to workers as a consequence of being injured and covered by workmen’s compensation insurance premiums”. They are sometimes referred
to as insured costs (Teo & Feng, 2011). In other words, direct costs are costs implications require in the treatment of victims and any other
compensation. Direct costs are costs that are easily identified (Pillay & Haupt, 2008) and they include, physical injury/fatality to person,
property damage, workmen’s compensation, liability insurance premiums, low morale of supervisors and workers, money paid annually to
victims of work-related accidents (Othman, 2012; Smallwood & Haupt, 2005, 2006). In addition, direct costs can be determined from
historical records (Pillay & Haupt, 2008). Research conducted by Othman (2012) shows that 14% of the effect of non-compliance is due to
repair of damages and 11% due to insurance and compensation of affected parties. Haupt and Pillay (2016) discovered that R10,087,350
were attributed to direct costs of accidents.
2.2.2 Indirect Cost Implications
Indirect cost implications are costs borne by contractors (Smallwood & Haupt, 2006). They are hidden costs that usually exceed the direct
costs and are difficult to access due to non-capturing or quantifying of information as it accrues (Pillay & Haupt, 2008). Indirect costs
include costs due to reduced productivity, clean-up costs, replacement costs, costs due to delay, costs related to rescheduling,
transportation and wages paid to victims while idle (Othman, 2012; Smallwood & Haupt, 2006). 14% of the indirect effect of non-
19 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
compliance is due to repair of damages, 11% is due to loss of productivity during accident and loss of productivity by the injured party
(Othman, 2012). Azman et al. (2019) discovered that the ratio of direct cost to indirect cost for permanent disability is 1:1.94 while that of
temporary disability is 1:1.19. When the costs of permanent and temporary disabilities are combined, the ratio of direct and indirect costs is
1:1.28. Furthermore, the ratio of direct and indirect costs for overall construction accidents is 1:1.23 (Azman et al., 2019). Haupt and Pillay
(2016) explained that R22, 890,850 was attributed to indirect costs of accidents in South Africa. Azman et al. (2019) discovered that the
ratio of direct cost to indirect cost for permanent disability is 1:1.94 while that of temporary disability is 1:1.19. When the costs of
permanent and temporary disabilities are combined, the ratio of direct and indirect costs is 1:1.28. Furthermore, the ratio of direct and
indirect costs for overall construction accidents is 1:1.23 (Azman et al., 2019). Haupt and Pillay (2016) explained that R22, 890,850 was
attributed to indirect costs of accidents in South Africa.
2.3 Theoretical Framework
Empirical research on the relationship between different independent variables and compliance level with safety requirements as a
dependent variable abound in the literature. For example, Windapo (2011) tested the relationship between four independent variables
namely; location, building type, project value, site manager’s attitude and level of compliance to health and safety requirements achieved
on site. The result shows a significant relationship between building type and site manager’s attitude and level of compliance to health and
safety requirements achieved on site. Dahl and Olsen (2013) examined how workers’ perception of leadership involvement affects the level
of safety compliance. Leadership involvement in daily work operations has a significant positive influence on the level of safety
compliance. Smallwood (2004), and Smallwood and Haupt (2005, 2006) examined the perception of engineers, designers and project
managers on health and safety regulations from the perspective of direct and indirect costs while Othman (2012) examined the implications
of non-compliance with safety on construction project performance from the perspective of direct and indirect cost. However, empirical
research on the level of awareness on the implications of non-compliance with safety rules among construction professionals (architects,
builders, quantity surveyors and engineers) is sparse. This study, therefore, proposes that:
H1: There is no significant difference in the level of awareness on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices among
professionals in construction projects.
Figure 1 shows the effect of professions (Architecture, Building, Structural Engineering, Quantity Surveying, Service Engineering) on
the awareness level of implications of non-compliance with safety practices. The dependent variable which is the awareness level of
implications of non-compliance with safety practices is broadly divided into two latent variables; direct cost implications and indirect cost
implications. The independent variables are the major professions on construction sites namely; architecture, building, quantity surveying,
structural engineering and service engineering.
Figure 1 Effect of professions on the level of awareness of non-compliance with safety practices’ implications
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 Data Collection
A survey research design and quantitative research approach were employed in eliciting the perceptions of professionals on the
implications of non-compliance with safety practices. A quantitative research approach was adopted because it explains the phenomenon
of non-compliance with safety practices through the gathering of data in numerical form (Apuke, 2017). Five categories of construction
professionals namely, architects, builders, quantity surveyors, structural engineers and service engineers working on construction sites in
Lagos state were the target respondents. Lagos state was chosen as the study area because it is the commercial capital of the country and as
such major construction works are carried out there. Furthermore, Adekunle et al. (2018) reported a total number of 4777 fatalities in
Lagos State in the year 2015. This shows a high occurrence rate of accidents on construction sites in Lagos state. Respondents were first
asked to indicate whether they have been involved or witness accidents on construction sites. Thereafter, the ones that indicated ‘yes’ were
asked to participate in the survey. This is because they would know the implications due to their involvement or witnesses of accidents.
The data collection instrument adopted was a structured questionnaire. A total of 300 questionnaires was purposely distributed to the
named professionals working directly on construction sites and 200 questionnaires were retrieved and valid for analysis representing a 67%
response rate. Purposive sampling technique is a technique where respondents are deliberately adopted as samples due to meeting the
criteria of research purposes (Gupta & Rangi, 2011). In purposive sampling, researchers only seek information from those who in their
opinion are likely to have the required information and willing to share (Kumar, 2011). Thus, the questionnaires were purposely distributed
20 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
because respondents who had the required information about accidents and their implications and willingly gave their consent were
requested to participate in the survey.
3.2 Measures of Variables
The variables for the study were adapted from Othman (2012). 21 observable variables describing the implications of non-compliance with
safety practices were divided into two major latent variables namely direct and indirect implications. Respondents were asked to state their
level of awareness on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices using 1 for very low, 2 for low, 3 for moderate, 4 for high
and 5 for very high. The reliability of the research instrument was measured using Cronbach’s alpha, which gave values of 0.947 and 0.943
for direct and indirect implications respectively. The values are within the acceptance value of 0.7 (Field, 2009). The convergent validity of
the research instrument was achieved by calculating the factor loadings for the items using principal component analysis with varimax
rotation. The factor loadings for all the items are above the threshold value of 0.04 ( Field, 2009). Table 1 presents the factor loadings and
Cronbach’s alpha values for the items. Kruskal-Wallis test was used in testing the hypothesis. Kruskal-Wallis test is a non-parametric test
and it is used when the dependent variable is measured on an ordinal scale and the independent variable has three or more dif ferent groups
(Gupta & Rangi, 2011). Since the dependent variable (non-compliance with safety practices) for this study was measured on an ordinal
scale and the independent variables are 5 groups of construction professionals, hence the use of the Kruskal-Wallis test for testing the
hypothesis.
Table 1 Factor loadings for implications of non-compliance items
21 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
4.0 RESULTS OF ANALYSIS
A total of 200 professionals participated in the survey. Table 2 shows the demographic details of the respondents.
Table 2 Demographic profile of respondents
61.5% of the respondents in Table 2 are builders by profession while 12.5% are structural engineers. A greater percentage of the
respondents are builders because the majority of the tasks are on site. A greater percentage (46%) of the respondent possesses a Bachelor
of Science (BSc) as a qualification while a smaller percentage (7.5%) have an Ordinary National Diploma (OND) as a qualification. This
shows that the respondents are well informed and can give reliable information on the implications of non-compliance with safety rules on
site. The respondents are not only academically qualified, but they are also professionally certified. 58% have affiliation with the Nigerian
Institute of Building (NIOB) while 12% are affiliated with the Nigerian Institute of Architect (NIA).
4.1 Awareness Level on Implications of Non-Compliance with Safety Practices
The awareness level of all professionals on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices is presented in Table 3. The result
shows that the awareness level of direct and indirect implications of non-compliance with safety rules is high, although, indirect
implication (3.98) has a higher awareness level than direct implications (3.85). The awareness level on all the 9 sub-variables of direct
implication is high with ‘physical injury/fatality to persons’ and ‘damages to property’ having the highest mean value of 4.03. Also, the
22 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
S/N Implications of non-compliance 1 2 3 4 5 TS MS RMK
A
Direc
t Implication
7
16
37
81
59
200
3.85
High
1
Physical injury/fatality to persons
7
18
10
93
72
200
4.03
H
ig
h
2
Damages to property
3
4
44
82
67
200
4.03
High
3
Payment of
w
orkmen’s comp
ensatio
n
4
25
48
61
62
200
3.76
H
igh
4
Purchase of
l
iability insurance premiums
9
22
3
9
68
62
200
3.76
High
5
The low morale of supervisors and workers
5
8
48
90
49
200
3.
8
5
High
6
Attractiveness to client as a result of perceived
holistic quality
5
9
45
83
58
200
3.90
High
7
Soci
o
-
econo
mi
c loss to fam
ilies of
v
i
ctims
2
25
24
90
59
200
3.
90
High
8
Money
paid annually to victims of work
13
13
45
83
46
200
3.68
High
9
Pu
b
li
c liability insurances
13
20
33
75
59
200
3.74
High
B Indirect Implication 3 12 38 81 66 200 3.98 High
1
Re
placeme
nt
costs of los
t workers
1
0
23
20
77
70
200
3.87
Hig
h
2
Costs
of su
pervision
4
13
37
88
58
200
3.92
High
3
Reduced productivity by the returned workers
and the workfor
ce
2
7
36
93
62
200
4.03
High
4
Clean up costs
2
9
46
91
52
200
3.91
High
5
Costs of
de
lay
2
24
26
80
6
8
200
3.94
High
6
Time c
o
st
2
2
5
4
72
70
200
4.03
High
7
Cost
s rel
ated to rescheduling
0
14
35
89
62
200
4.00
High
8
Co
sts of transportation for inj
ured party
2
11
37
70
80
200
4.08
High
9
Wages paid for unproductive injured
party
2
16
28
89
65
200
4.0
0
High
10
Dama
ges to and
loss of
materials, plant and
….
2
10
46
69
73
200
4.01
High
11
Damage to the environment
3
1
3
4
4
78
62
200
3.92
High
1
2
Uninsured costs which are invariably included
….
5
2
48
81
64
200
3.99
High
awareness level of all the 12 sub-variables of indirect implication is high with ‘cost of transportation for injured party’ having the highest
mean value of 4.08.
Table 3 Awareness level on Implications of non-compliance of safety practices
Note: MS = Mean Score, TS = Total Score, RMK = Remark, 1.00-1.49 = very low; 1.50-2.49 = low; 2.50-3.49 = moderate, 3.50-4.49 =
high and 4.50-5.00 = very high
4.2 Differences in Awareness Level on the Implications of Non-Compliance with Safety Practices among Professionals
The differences in awareness level among professionals on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices were determined by
testing the hypothesis, ‘there is no significant difference in the perception of professionals on the implications of non-compliance of safety
practices in construction projects. The hypothesis was tested using the Kruskal-Wallis test. The results are presented in Table 4.
23 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
Table 4 Differences in professionals’ perception of the awareness of non-compliance with safety practices
Implications 1 2 3 4 5 Kruskal-Wallis
MR M MR M MR M MR M MR M X
2
df p-
value
Direct Implications
Physical injury/fatality
to persons
114.02 4.5 104.35 4 99.18 4 83.55 4 66.47 4 10.197 4 0.037
Damages to property 114.19 4 98.24 4 101.22 4 108.14 4 91.5 4 2.419 4 0.659
Payment of workmen’s
compensation
138.1 5 96.12 4 100.76 4 95.05 4 82.26 3 13.629 4 0.009
Purchase of liability
insurance premiums
135.9 5 97.83 4 95.5 4 98.23 4 78.65 3 12.866 4 0.012
The low morale of
supervisors and workers
119.88 4 97.46 4 108.26 4 120.45 4 70.79 3 10.523 4 0.032
Attractiveness to the
client as a result of
perceived holistic
quality
107.1 4 98.53 4 115.06 4 85.05 4 94 4 3.4 4 0.493
The socio-economic loss
to families of the
decea
sed/injured
119.69 4 98.68 4 100.32 4 111.64 4 79.65 4 6.109 4 0.191
Money paid annually to
victims of work-related
accidents
124.08 4 96.79 4 108 4 84.45 4 93.41 4 6.645 4 0.156
Public liability
insurances
127.42 4 98.02 4 100.72 4 99.73 4 80.62 3 8.107 4 0.088
Indirect Implications
Replacement costs of
lost
workers
111.63 4 100.78 4 94.7 4 112.05 4 83.79 4 3.337 4 0.503
Costs of supervision 120.67 4 98.69 4 106.78 4 96.82 4 78.29 3 6.648 4 0.156
Reduced productivity by
the returned worker(s)
and the workforce
106.73 4 105.35 4 99.42 4 88.5 4 65.94 3 8.897 4 0.064
Clean up costs 124.1 4 98.45 4 103.48 4 103.82 4 75.47 3 8.479 4 0.076
Costs of delay 118.75 4 97.56 4 106.86 4 126.14 4 70.09 3 11.041 4 0.026
Time cost 122.13 4.5 98.09 4 105.7 4 114.59 4 70.62 3 10.045 4 0.040
Costs related to
rescheduling
118.27 4 98.08 4 101.76 4 103.32 4 89.24 4 3.605 4 0.462
Costs of transportation
for injured party
118.54 4.5 102.91 4 90.66 4 89.41 4 79.26 4 6.721 4 0.151
Wages paid for an
unproductive injured
party
114.85 4 100.28 4 95.14 4 120.68 4 76.62 4 6.776 4 0.148
Damages to and loss of
materials, plant and
equipment
129.02 5 97.19 4 100.26 4 103.14 4 82.82 4 8.728 4 0.068
Damage to the
environment
113.21 4 100.53 4 95.22 4 107.5 3 85.59 4 2.949 4 0.566
Uninsured cost which
are invariably included
in the contractor’s cost
structure
126.88 4.5 101.83 4 87.28 4 104.05 4 70.82 4 12.247 4 0.016
Note: MR = Mean Rank, M = Median, X2 = Chi-square, df = difference, 1 = Architect, 2 = Builder, 3 = Structural Engineer, 4 = Quantity
Surveyor, 5 = Service Engineer
A Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to determine whether the awareness level on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices
varies among construction professionals; architects, builders, quantity surveyors, structural engineers and service engineers. The result in
Table 4 reveals that of the 9 sub-variables of direct implications, 4 sub-variables are significant namely; ‘physical injury/fatality to
persons’, ‘workmen’s compensation’, ‘liability insurance premiums’ and ‘low morale of supervisors and workers’. Thus, the test rejects
24 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
the hypothesis for the four sub-variables. There was a significant difference in the level of awareness of physical injury/fatality to persons
among professionals, (4) X2 = 10.197, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.72 with a mean rank of 114.02 (median = 4.5) for architects, 104.35 (median = 4) for
builders, 99.18 (median = 4) for quantity surveyors, 83.55 (median = 4) for structural engineers and 66.47 (median = 4) for service
engineers. The implication is that architects tend to be more aware of physical injury/fatality to persons (M=4.5) compare to other
professionals. According to Cohen’s criteria (Field, 2009), when an effect size is ≥ 0.5, then it is classified as a large effect size. Thus, the
effect size of differences in the level of awareness on the implications of physical injury/fatality to persons is high. Also, there was a
significant difference in the level of awareness of workmen’s compensation as an implication of non-compliance with safety practice, X2
(4) = 13.629, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.96 with a mean rank of 138.10 (median = 5) for architects, 96.12 (median = 4) for builders, 100.76 (median =
4) for quantity surveyors, 95.50 (median = 4) for structural engineers and 82.26 (median = 3) for service engineers. This implies that the
awareness level of workmen’s compensation is high among architects compare to other professionals and the difference is high based on
Cohen’s criteria. There was a significant difference in the awareness level of liability insurance premiums as an implication of non-
compliance with safety practice among the various professions, X2 (4) = 12.866, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.91 with a mean rank of 135.90 (median =
5) for architects, 97.83 (median = 4) for builders, 95.50 (median = 4) for quantity surveyors, 98.23 (median = 4) for structu ral engineers
and 78.65 (median = 3) for service engineers. Again, architects reported a high level of awareness compare to the other professionals and
the difference is high from the effect size calculated. A significant difference existed in the awareness level of the sub-variables ‘low
morale of supervisors and workers’, X2 (4) = 10.523, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.74 with a mean rank of 119.88 (median = 4) for architects, 97.46
(median = 4) for builders, 108.26 (median = 4) for quantity surveyors, 120.45 (median = 4) for structural engineers and 70.79 (median = 3)
for service engineers. This means that the level of awareness on ‘low morale of supervisors and workers’ as an implication of non-
compliance with safety practice is low among service engineers compared to other professionals. For the four significant direct variables, it
implies that the level of awareness of the four sub-variables varies among construction professionals.
Furthermore, the results in Table 4 show that 2 sub-variables namely; ‘costs of delay’ and ‘time of cost’ out of the 12 indirect
implications of non-compliance with safety practices are significant. The test, therefore, rejects the hypothesis for the two sub-variables.
There was a significant difference in the awareness level of ‘costs of delay’ as an indirect variable of non-compliance with safety practice,
X2 (4) = 11.041, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.78 with a mean rank of 118.75 (median = 4) for architects, 97.56 (median = 4) for builders, 106.86 (median
= 4) for quantity surveyors, 126.14 (median = 4) for structural engineers and 70.09 (median = 3) for service engineers. Also, there was a
significant difference in the awareness level of ‘time of cost’ as a sub variable of indirect non-compliance with safety practices, X2 (4) =
10.045, p ≤ 0.05, r = 0.71 with a mean rank of 122.13 (median = 4.5) for architects, 98.09 (median = 4) for builders, 105.70 (median = 4)
for quantity surveyors, 114.59 (median = 4) for structural engineers and 70.62 (median = 3) for service engineers. This implies that the
level of awareness of the cost of delay and time of cost as implications of non-compliance with safety varies among construction
professionals.
5.0 DISCUSSION
The 22 variables measuring implications of non-compliance with safety practices measured under two major categories of direct and
indirect implications were determined using a mean score. The results in Table 2 show that the level of awareness of professionals on the
implications of non-compliance with safety practices is high. This implies that professionals are aware of the consequences of non-
compliance with safety rules, yet the compliance level with safety rules and regulations is low as reported by Okoye et al. (2016). The
reasons for the non-compliance with safety rules even when the awareness level of the implications is high could be due to the negligent
attitude of management or profit maximisation as stated by Windapo and Oladapo (2012). While most of the reasons cited for non-
compliance fall within management in construction firms (Windapo, 2011; Windapo & Oladapo, 2012), Okoye et al. (2006) reported a
moderate knowledge of safety practices among construction workers and Adebiyi et al. (2020) concluded that on average, construction
workers have knowledge of health and safety information but demonstrated a low level of compliance. This shows that workers are aware
of safety practices as well as the consequences of not complying with safety rules. Thus, the enforcement of penalties for non-compliance
with safety rules must be given utmost consideration.
On whether profession affects the level of awareness of implications of non-compliance with safety practices, the result reveals that
profession affects the level of awareness of ‘physical injury/fatality to persons’, ‘workmen’s compensation’, ‘liability insurance
premiums’, ‘low morale of supervisors and workers’, ‘costs of delay’ and ‘time of cost’. Architects reported a high awareness level in the
areas of ‘physical injury/fatality to persons’, ‘workmen’s compensation’, ‘liability insurance premiums’, ‘low morale of supervisors and
workers’, ‘costs of delay’ and ‘time of cost’. The high awareness level could be due to the call from previous literature such as Smallwood
and Haupt (2007) on the need to make construction health and safety more prominent in architectural education and training. Furthermore,
the differences could be due to various sources of acquisition of health and safety. This supports Smallwood and Haupt's (2004) conclusion
that health and safety knowledge acquisition is due to different sources such as experience and the workshop attended which is informal. In
addition, Chaswa et al. (2020) concluded that the awareness level of risk associated with accidents is affected by factors such as expert
knowledge, personal knowledge and educational level. Thus, differences in the awareness level of certain implications of non-compliance
with safety practices may be due to expert knowledge of the professionals and their individual knowledge.
Differences in the level of awareness on implications of non-compliance with safety practices suggest a disparity in the training of
construction professionals on safety practices in construction projects. This calls for the management of construction firms to train
professionals equally on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices. Regardless of professional background, awareness level
on implications of non-compliance with safety rules should be equal among professionals working on construction sites. It is thus
important that there should be no disparity in training especially in the area of compliance with the safety rules by all professionals
involved in construction projects. Simard and Marchand (1997) suggested a social relationship that influences management in developing a
25 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
safety program and joint regulation mechanisms. Social relationships will encourage interaction among professionals on construction sites
which will promote group discussion. Ijaola et al. (2021) identified group discussion as a significant training delivery method. Hence,
group discussion must be encouraged among professionals on construction sites for proper dissemination of information on the
consequences of non-compliance with safety rules on site.
6.0 CONCLUSION
The study sought to investigate the awareness level of construction professionals on the implications of non-compliance with safety
practices. A hypothesis which states that there is no significant difference in the level of awareness among construction professionals on
the implications of non-compliance with safety practice was postulated. Mean score was used to analyse the level of awareness while the
Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to test the hypothesis. The results of the analysis show that the awareness level on implications of non-
compliance with safety practice is high among construction professionals. Furthermore, the awareness level on six of the implications
(‘physical injury/fatality to persons’, ‘workmen’s compensation’, ‘liability insurance premiums’, ‘low morale of supervisors and workers’,
costs of delay’ and ‘time of cost’) of non-compliance with safety practice varies among construction professionals. The study, therefore,
concludes that the awareness level of professionals on the implications of non-compliance with safety rules is high and there is disparity
among them on the awareness level of certain implications. Thus, professional background affects the awareness level of ‘physical
injury/fatality to persons’, ‘workmen’s compensation’, ‘liability insurance premiums’, ‘low morale of supervisors and workers’, costs of
delay’ and ‘time of cost’ as implications of non-compliance with safety practices. This study contributes to knowledge by identifying six
implications of non-compliance with safety practices where disparity exists in the awareness level among construction professionals. In
cases where disparity exists in the awareness level among professionals, construction firms should adopt group discussion among various
professionals involved in construction projects as a means of sensitisation to increase awareness level.
6.1 Implications for Practice
Despite the high level of awareness on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices in construction projects, the occurrence
level of accidents is high. Management of construction firms should enforce compliance among workers on site. Furthermore, knowledge
of the high awareness level and the implications of non-compliance among construction professionals should propel regulatory agencies to
focus on the enforcement of safety compliance by management in construction firms. Construction firms should also adopt the six
implications of non-compliance with safety practices in their safety curriculum and training programme since there is a disparity in the
level of awareness among professionals.
6.2 Recommendations for Future Research
The awareness level on the implications of non-compliance with safety practices has been established in this study using questionnaires,
which are known for their limitation in terms of reliability and validity. Although Cronbach’s alpha and convergent validity were
calculated to check these limitations, future studies should adopt other survey methods such as interviews to validate the result of this
study. Also, future studies should examine the implications of non-compliance with safety practices from a case study perspective and
quantify the implications in monetary terms.
Acknowledgment
The authors acknowledge the construction personnel who took part in the survey.
References
Adebiyi, R. T., Babalola, O., Amuda-yusuf, G., Rasheed, S. A., & Olowa, T. O. (2020). Eff ect of knowledge and compliance of health and safety information on
construction sites workers’ safety in Nigeria. International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering, 10(2), 269-277.
Adekunle, A., Umanah, I. I., Adewale, A. K., & Egege, C. C. (2018). Analytical study of casualties in the construction industry in Nigeria with a view to provide
remedial measures: Case study of Lagos State. International Journal of Engineering Research and Advanced Technology, 4(8), 6-14.
Adeyemo, O., & Smallwood, J. (2017). Impact of occupational health and safety legislation on performance improvement in the Nigerian construction industry.
Procedia Engineering, 196, 785-791.
Ahmed, S. (2019). Causes and effects of accident at construction site: A study for the construction industry in Bangladesh. International Journal of Sustainable
Construction Engineering and Technology, 10(2), 18-40.
Apuke, O. D. (2017). Quantitative research methods: A synopsis approach. Arabian Journal of Business and Management Review (Kuwait Chapter), 6(10), 40-47.
Arunkumar, K., & Gunasekaran, J. (2018). Causes and effects of accidents on construction site. International Journal of Engineering Science and Computing, 8(6),
18102-18110.
Asanka, W. A., & Ranasinghe, M. (2015, December). Study on the impact of accidents on construction projects. Paper presented at the Sixth International Conference
on Structural Engineering and Construction Management, Kandy, Sri Lanka.
Azman, N. N. K. N. M. A., Ahmad, A. C., Derus, M. M., & Kamar, I. F. M. (2019). Determination of direct to indirect accident cost ratio for railway construction
project. MATEC Web of Conferences, 266, 03009.
Chaswa, E. N., Kosamu, I. B. M., Kumwenda, S., & Utembe, W. (2020). Risk perception and its influencing factors among construction workers in Malawi. Safety, 6,
33.
Dahl, Ø., & Olsen, E. (2013). Safety compliance on offshore platforms: A multi-sample survey on the role of perceived leadership involvement and work climate.
Safety Science, 54, 17-26.
26 Ijaola et al. / INTREST – International Journal of Real Estate Studies 15:1 (2021), 16-26
Dodo, M. (2014). The application of health and safety plan in Nigerian construction firms. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 8(1), 81-87.
European Commission. (2011). Socio-economic costs of accidents at work and work-related ill health: Key messages and case studies. Retrieved on 20 December
2020 from http://ec.europa.eu/social/publications
Falana, J. N., & Ghazaly, N. M. (2019). Examination of causes and effects of accident on construction sites: (Case study of Lagos, Lagos State, Nigeria ). International
Journal of Advanced Science and Technology, 28(16), 1687 – 1694.
Field, A. (2009). Discovering statistics using SPSS (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Gupta, S. K., & Rangi, P. (2011). Research methodology (2nd ed.). Ludhiana: Kalyani Publishers.
Haupt, T. C., & Pillay, K. (2016). Investigating the true costs of construction accidents. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 14(2), 373-419.
Health and Safety Executive (HSE). (2006). Health and safety in construction (3rd ed.). Retrieved on 20 August 2020 from
https://www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/books/hsg150.htm
Hedayat, A. A., & Shahniani, M. (2017). Investigating the safety culture and costs arising from safety non-compliance on building sites. Journal of History Culture
and Art Research, 6(1), 315-325.
Hrymak, V., & Pérezgonzález, J. D. (2007, March). The costs and effects of workplace accidents: Twenty case studies from Ireland (Health and Safety Authority
Research Series 02/2007). Retrieved on 20 October 2020 from
https://www.hsa.ie/eng/Publications_and_Forms/Publications/Research_Publications/The_costs_and_effects_of_workplace_accidents_Twenty_case_studies_fro
m_Ireland.pdf
Ijaola, I. A, Idoro, G. I., & Oladokun, M. G. (2021). Key training practice indicators for optimal site supervisors’ utilisation in construction firms. Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 19(1), 149-163.
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2005). Facts on safety and health at work. Retrieved on 20 October 2020 from
https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_105146.pdf
International Labour Organization (ILO). (2017). Nigeria country profile on occupational safety and health - 2016. Retrieved on 16 December 2020 from
https://www.ilo.org/africa/countries-covered/nigeria/WCMS_552748/lang--en/index.htm
Kumar, R. (2011). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners (3rd ed.). London: SAGE Publications.
Li, R. Y. M., & Poon, S. W. (2009). Workers’ compensation for non-fatal construction accidents: Review of Hong Kong court cases. Asian Social Science, 5(11), 15-
24.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). (2016, October). Recommended practices for safety & health programs in construction. Retrieved on 20
August 2020 from https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/OSHA3886.pdf
Okoye, P. U., Ezeokonkwo, J. U., & Ezeokoli, F.O. (2016). Building construction workers’ health and safety knowledge and compliance on site. Journal of Safety
Engineering, 5(1), 17-26.
Othman, A. A. E. (2012). A study of the causes and effects of contractors' non-compliance with the health and safety regulations in the South African construction
industry. Architectural Engineering and Design Management, 8(3), 180-191.
Pillay, K., & Haupt, T. (2008, March). The cost of construction accidents: An exploratory study. In J. Hinze, S. Bohner & J. Lew (Eds.), Proceedings of the CIB W99
14th International Conference on Evolution of and Directions in Construction Safety and Health (pp. 456-464). Gainesville, FL: CIB.
Ratnasingam, J., Ioras, F., & Bennet, M. (2010). Malaysian wooden furniture industry: Study of safety standards, compliance and consequential implications.
International Wood Products Journal, 1(1), 15-20.
Simard, M., & Marchand, A. (1997). Workgroups' propensity to comply with safety rules: The influence of micro-macro organisational factors. Ergonomics, 40(2),
172-188.
Smallwood, J., & Haupt, T. (2005). The need for construction health and safety (H&S) and the Construction Regulations: Engineers' perceptions. Journal of the South
African Institution of Civil Engineering, 47(2), 2-8.
Smallwood, J., & Haupt, T. (2006). Impact of the South African construction regulations as perceived by project managers. Acta Structilia, 13(2), 127-144.
Smallwood, J. J. (2004). The influence of engineering designers on health and safety during construction. Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering,
46(1), 2-8.
Smallwood, J. J., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Impacts of the South African Construction Regulations on construction health and safety: Architects’ perception. Journal of
Engineering, Design and Technology, 5(1), 23-34.
Subramaniam, C., Shamsudin, F. M., Zin, M. L. M., Ramalu, S. S., & Hassan, Z. (2016). Safety management practices and safety compliance in small medium
enterprises: Mediating role of safety participation. Asia-Pacific Journal of Business Administration, 8(3), 226-244.
Tang, S. L. (2004). Financial and social costs of construction accidents. In S. Rowlinson (Ed.), Construction safety management systems (pp. 374-385). London: Spon
Press.
Teo, E. A.-L. & Feng, Y. (2011). Cost of construction accidents to Singapore contractors. International Journal of Construction Management, 11(3), 79-92.
Udo, U. E., Usip, E. E., & Asuquo, C. F. (2016). Effect of lack of adequate attention to safety measures on construction sites in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. Journal of
Earth Sciences and Geotechnical Engineering, 6(1), 113-121.
Ugwu, F. O., Onyishi, I. E., Ugwu, C., & Onyishi, C. N. (2015). Type A behavior pattern, accident optimism and fatalism: An investigation into non-compliance with
safety work behaviors among hospital nurses. International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 21(4), 464-470.
Ugwu, F. O., Idike, A. N., Ibiam, O. E., Akwara, F. A., & Okorie, C. O. (2020). Transformational leadership and management safety practices: Their role in the
relationship between work pressure and compliance with safety work behaviour in a health-care sector industry. Journal of Psychology in Africa, 30(1), 1-8.
Umeokafor, N. (2020). Why copied or transposed safety, health and well -being legislation and standards are impracticable and irrelevant in developing economies.
Policy and Practice in Health and Safety, 18(1), 41-54.
Umeokafor, N., Umeadi, B., Jones, K., & Igwegbe, O. (2014a). Compliance with occupational safety and health regulations in Nigeria's public regulatory entity: A call
for attention. International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, 4(5), 1-3.
Umeokafor, N., Umeadi, B., & Jones, K., (2014b, March). Comp liance with occupational health and safety regulations: A review of Nigeria's construction industry. In
O. Ejohwomu & O. Oshodi (Eds.), ICIDA 2014. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Infrastructure Development in Africa (pp. 70-84). Ota:
College of Environmental Sciences, Bells University of Technology.
Windapo, A., & Oladapo, A. (2012, September). Determinants of construction firms' compliance with health and safety regulations in South Africa. In S. D. Smith
(Ed.), Proceedings of the 28th Annual Association of Researchers in Construction Management (ARCOM) Conference (pp. 433-444). Edinburgh: ARCOM.
Windapo, A. O. (2011, August). Investigation into the level of compliance to construction health and safety requirements within the South African construction
industry. Paper presented at the CIB W099 Conference on Safety and Health in Construction, Washington, DC.
Windapo, A. O. (2013). Relationship between degree of risk, cost and level of compliance to occupational health and safety regulations in construction. Australasian
Journal of Construction Economics and Building, 13(2), 67-82.
Zin, S. M., & Ismail, F. (2012). Employers’ behavioural safety compliance factors toward occupational, safety and health improvement in the construction industry.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 742-751.
