Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology, 2012, 2, 140-146

http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojsst.2012.24018 Published Online December 2012 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ojsst)

Effective Regulation and Level of Awareness: An Expos of

the Nigerias Construction Industry
Ikechukwu A. Diugwu, Dorothy L. Baba, Ashem E. Egila
Department of Project Management Technology, Federal University of Technology, Minna, Nigeria
Email: i.diugwu@aim.com, i.diugwu@futminna.edu.ng
Received August 28, 2012; revised October 3, 2012; accepted October 18, 2012

ABSTRACT
The preparedness of any organization to minimize the frequency and severity of work related accidents, ill-health, and
damage to property is demonstrated by the adoption of a health and safety management system. By its nature, a health
and safety management system through its provisions and demands, not only highlights the impact of poor health and
safety standards on organizational performance but also encourages greater awareness of health and safety issues and
responsibilities. Quite unfortunately, in Nigeria (as in many developing economies) statutory regulation, capable of ensuring the adoption and implementation of health and safety management systems by organizations, seems inadequate
or ineffective. The impact of this, as demonstrated by the outcome of survey and literature review, is a general lack of
awareness on important health and safety issues among Nigerian construction workers. Equally, there is an inability and
or unwillingness by organizations to pay adequate attention to health and safety management. Consequently, the overall
health and safety standard, operational capability and corporate image of Nigerias construction industry have been affected.
Keywords: Health and Safety Management; Construction; Health and Safety Management System; Safety Regulation

1. Introduction
The failure by employers to provide safe and conducive
work environment, or the inability to use these facilities
appropriately by employees, has cost implications on individuals, organizations, and the society [1-4]. The adoption of a health and safety management system (HSMS)
demonstrates in practical terms, the readiness of an organization to minimize the frequency and severity of work
related accidents, ill health, and damage to property. This
is because the provisions and requirements of HSMS encourage greater awareness of responsibilities and aspects
of health and safety, highlighting the impact of poor
health and safety standards on the performance of organizations [5]. However, the potency of HSMS in minimizing the frequency and severity of work related accidents,
injuries, ill-health, loss and damage to property is rooted
in the existence of functional health and safety laws.
Health and safety laws ensure that organizations safeguard the health, safety and welfare of workers and visitors by protecting them from risks emanating from their
work activities, and that employees use facilities and resources provided by their employers in a manner that will
neither lead to property damage nor put them or others at
risk [6]. Typical examples of health and safety Acts and
regulations include The Factory Act of 1990 (Nigeriaan
Copyright 2012 SciRes.

adaptation of UK Factory Act of 1961), the Occupation

Safety and Health Act of 1970 (USA), the Control of
Substance Hazardous to Health Regulations of 1988
(UK), the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations of 1992 (UK), the Management of Health and
Safety at Work Regulations of 1999 (UK), The Manual
Handling Operations Regulations of 1992 (UK), the Construction Design and Management Regulations of 2007
(UK).
In spite of these statutory provisions and expectations,
there is still a gap in health and safety management in
Nigeria. This gap is largely due to a dysfunctional health
and safety law, causing an apparent lack of regulation of
health and safety in almost every sector of the economy.
For instance, [7] observes that Nigeria lacks requisite
statutory regulations on health and safety. The promulgated ones, notably the Factory Act, are skeletal in nature
and non-functional, and may not have been adapted to
the Nigerian society as they originated from foreign countries such as UK and US; actually, it is only the Factory
Act that has a Nigerian version [8]. The Factory Act of
1990 establishes both the statutory basis for inspection
and enforcement of health and safety conditions in factories and ensures that systems and structures for reporting
accidents and injuries (where necessary) are put in place.
It also stipulates the nature of punishments for non-comOJSST

I. A. DIUGWU

pliance. These provisions notwithstanding, contractors in

Nigerias construction industry are left to use their discretion in managing health and safety issues. Consequently, contractors allocate little resources to health and
safety management, rarely keep, report, or release accurate records of accidents and injuries occurring at their
work sites [8].
With specific reference to the construction industry,
there are inherent limitations of the Factory Act (1990)
which affect its effective application. The provisions of
the Factory Act of 1990 (by omission or commission)
exclude some industry sectors from abiding by its requirements and provisions. For instance, it does not provide for the mandatory use of personal protective equipment within the construction industry as provided for in
the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) Regulations of
2002 of UK. Specifically, although Articles 47 and 48 of
the Factory Act (1990) stipulate the provision of PPE for
workers [8], citing [9], notes that the definition of a factory as given in Article 87 of the same Act technically
excludes construction sites and associated activities from
the coverage of the Act.
In view of the above, [8] notes that the inadequate
regulation of health and safety in the industry as a result
of the forgoing limitations in the provisions of the law,
leads to a dearth of accurate records on health and safety
performance, thus making it almost impossible to have
any meaningful improvement in health and safety standards of construction firms in Nigeria. Quite naturally,
the absence of functional and stringent health and safety
regulations could impact negatively on health and safety
performance as organizations are seemingly not dutybound to establish management systems that could improve
safety awareness and standards. The research reported
here seeks to fill this gap by establishing the level of
awareness of health and safety issues by construction
workers in Nigeria, and how health and safety regulation
has contributed to this.

2. Overview of the Construction Industry

2.1. Economic Contribution
The construction industry is regarded as the pillar of the
domestic economy in many countries. For instance, the
Office for National Statistics [10] notes that at the end of
the third quarter of 2011, there were over 2 million people employed in multiple roles in over 250,000 construction firms in UK; with about 75 billion contribution to
the UK economy in 2008 [11]. A similar impact is noticeable in Nigeria, where [12] note that the industry has
contributed substantially to economic growth (5% - 7%
improvement in the GDP growth, and over 42% of the
fixed capital growth) over the last four decades.
Copyright 2012 SciRes.

ET AL.

141

2.2. Health and Safety Outlook

The immense contributions of the construction industry
to economic growth notwithstanding, the frequency and
severity of accidents and ill health in the sector pose
great concern to stakeholders. As an example, the UK
construction industry accounted for about 40.7% of deferred prohibitions, 59.6% of immediate prohibitions,
and 30.8% of total notices issued by Health and Safety
Executive (HSE) for the period 2003/2004 [13]. This, according to [14], shows a prevalently higher level of recorded fatal injuries and major accidents in the construction industry than in most other sectors of the economy.
A similar view to that expressed by [14] could be held
about the about Spanish construction industry which has
its fatality figure fluctuating between 250 and 300 every
year [15]. These accidents, ill health and damages to
property also have a direct impact on the livelihood of
citizens, as statistics show that there are about 6300 fatalities per day in the construction industry [16]. The
provisional 2010/2011 statistics released by [17] shows
that the UK construction industry has the greatest number of fatal injuries, having accounted for about 29% of
all fatal injuries to workers in 2010/2011.
Although the sources of these accidents and ill health
vary, majority of the fatalities in the UK construction
industry result from falls from roofs, scaffolds and ladders, falling objects and materials, transportation equipment, (e.g. excavators and dumpers), excavation work,
etc. [18,19]. The 2010/2011 provisional statistics by the
[17] shows that the construction sector accounted for
28% of all reported injuries to employees resulting from
handling, 23% from slips and trips, 26% (247 cases)
from high falls, 29% (32 cases from collapses, 25% (3
cases) of drowning/asphyxiation, 16% (70 cases) involving electricity and 16% (10 cases) from explosions.
An interesting observation is that most of the reported
fatalities, injuries, ill health and damage to property statistics are from developed economies. This may give an
impression that there are prevalently more accidents in
developed countries such as UK and USA than in developing and third world countries (such as Nigeria). This
may well be a misconception! The volume of statistics
from the developed countries is caused less by poor
health and safety standards but more by the existence of
functional health and safety laws and regulations with
stringent enforcement and requirement for the establishment of management systems which ensure that accurate
records of incidents and accidents at work are kept and
reported to appropriate authorities. However, this is not
the case in some other countries with dysfunctional
health and safety laws and regulations. Nigeria falls
within this category of countries, where organizations
allocate little resources to health and safety management,
OJSST

142

I. A. DIUGWU

ET AL.

rarely keep, report, or release accurate records of accidents and injuries on site, leading to poor health and
safety performance [8].
Effective management of health and safety is motivated by various factors. This could be predicated on the
need to abide by extant rules and regulations (the legal
point of view), a consideration of human lives that are
involved (socio-humanitarian perspective), or on the direct and indirect cost involved (financial-economic perspective) [20]. These views apply to different countries
in different ways. In Nigeria, for instance, where there is
inadequate regulation of health and safety, this could be
influenced more by the socio-humanitarian and financial-economic consequences of accidents and injuries at
work than by the legal implication (or the need to abide
by statutory requirements).

where:
n = sample size
N = population size (40,000)
z = standard normal variable (z = 1.96 at 95% confidence level)
P = proportion or degree of variability = 50%
e = the level of precision = 5%.
The above formula yields a sample size (n) = 381. A
further 30% (114) of this figure was built in to compensate for non-responses in line with the suggestion by [27].
Thus, a total a 495 questionnaires were distributed randomly to construction workers in Minna.

3. Materials and Methods

3.3. Data Assembly and Management

3.1. Study Area

A geographical location for data collection was identified
in line with guidelines [21]. Subsequently, the survey
samples were geographically restricted and collection of
data used in this study was restricted to Minna, Nigeria.
In order to aid clarity of presentation, percentages would
be presented in rounded figures (where necessary) in line
with the suggestion by [22].
Although sampling was restricted to a given geographic area, in line with [23], questionnaires were randomly distributed to ensure that sampling was not restricted
to an enterprise size band. This was with a view to avoiding a skewed analysis by obtaining a representative view
on the questions asked, thus avoiding a skewed analysis.
This method is an economical way to sample without
losing the characteristics of the probability sample [23,
24]. These notwithstanding, there is a likelihood of bias
and sampling error in the choice of respondents [23], as
well as the extent of homogeneity or representativeness
of respondents. Nonetheless, the authors are confident
that this technique would not skew the results [23].

3.2. Sample Size Determination

In an exercise of this nature, it is not feasible to poll
every stakeholder in the construction industry; a representative population is surveyed. An appropriate sample
size that would not skew the outcome of the survey could
be determined using the formula proposed by [25,26]. In
this work, it is assumed that construction workers are
normally distributed in their interpretation of health and
safety requirements. In view of the fact that this assumption is similar to that underlying the Yamanes formula,
the original equation from which the Yamane formula
was derived from was chosen in preference to the CochCopyright 2012 SciRes.

ran formula:
n

z 2 P 1 P N

z P 1 P N (e) 2
2

(1)

The questionnaire elicited views on varying aspects of

health and safety such as awareness of health and safety
management, existence of health and safety policy, motivations for health and safety management, constraints
to health and safety management, among others. The
questions were informed by earlier works in health and
safety management [5,28-30]. The questionnaire was
piloted to ascertain clarity and relevance of questions asked before they were finally distributed to respondents.
As an exploratory research, analyses carried out are
mostly frequency analysis of relevant variables, as the
primary concern is to ascertain level of awareness and
not to make any inferential deductions.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Distribution of Respondents
From a total of 495 questionnaires distributed, 312 were
returned consisting of 271 valid and 41 invalid questionnaires. This represents a 69% response rate. This response
rate is in line with the response rates from other surveys
on health and safety management in Nigeria [8,31]. The
responses to different questions may not total up to 271
because of missing cases (unclear or non-responses).
The analysis of responses to this question revealed that
there were about 237 (87.5%) valid cases and about 34
(12.5%) classified as missing (unclear or no response).
The distribution of the valid responses to this question
according to enterprise size and nature of business is
shown in Table 1.

4.2. Implication of Health and Safety Standards

An analysis of the valid responses shows that 233 (91%)
respondents felt that poor health and safety has an impact
OJSST

I. A. DIUGWU
Table 1. Distribution of respondents.
Enterprise size
Nature of business
1-9

10 - 49

Total

Transportation

18

22

Masonry

54

20

74

Metal works

29

38

Quarrying

13

18

Carpentry

20

23

Plumbing

17

21

Electrical works

16

Others

22

25

Total

182

55

237

on their business operations, while 22 (9%) felt it has no

impact. With regards to business image, 187 (74%) respondents felt that poor health and safety standard affects
their business image, while 65 (26%) respondents do not
think that their image is affected by safety standard. The
above result is in line with conclusions drawn from earlier studies [5], which established that poor health and
safety standards affect the operations and image of an
organization.
The substantial number of respondents who felt that
their business image or operations could be impacted
upon by the standard of health and safety shows that with
proper motivation and guidance, organizations may be

ET AL.

143

receptive to initiatives that could shield them from the

negative impact of workplace accidents and ill health.
This is perhaps because an incident or accident causes
delay in operations and cost arising from treatment or
replacement of damaged items or personnel that are no
longer fit. Inferring from above, a safe and healthy workplace, by minimizing the frequency and occurrence of accidents and ill health to workers, leads to improved productivity.
Some interviewees observed that the financial cost of
accidents comes from compensations, medical bills, litigation, insurance, repair and replacement costs, as well
as from fatalities and injuries. The effect of this on the
performance of an organization could come in various
ways. For instance, a disruption in the operations of a
business associate could have a ripple effect along the
supply chain [32]. This is perhaps the reason why safety
conscious organizations take proactive steps to ensure
that potential problems from their outsourced activities
do not affect them [33]. Continuing, [33] notes that this
could also limit the human resources at the disposal of an
organization as poor safety standard leads to loss of
manpower while good health and safety standard leads to
low staff turn-over.

4.3. Awareness of Health and Safety Regulations

Figure 1 shows the perceived level of awareness of some
health and safety regulations by construction workers in
Minna, Nigeria.
While the above result seems encouraging, personal
observations from various construction sites reveal that
although respondents are aware of some regulations,
there are little or no tangible evidence to substantiate this.

Figure 1. Awareness of health and safety regulations.

Copyright 2012 SciRes.

OJSST

144

I. A. DIUGWU

For instance, although many claim to be aware of the

noise at work and the personal protective equipment requirements, workers on site were not using high visibility clothing, earmuffs, nose mask, gloves among others.
It is either that workers have not been provided with
these, or that they have refused to use them. Either or
both of the two scenarios point to a weak workplace health
and safety management. This observation is strengthened by the small percentage (31%) of respondents who are
aware of the management of health and safety at work
and the provision and use of work equipment regulations respectively. Site observations further revealed that
workers do not have adequate information about the
chemical composition of some of the materials that they
work with and how they can be affected by these. This is,
again, corroborated by the 6% that are aware of health
and safety information for employees, the chemical hazard information for packing supply (10%), as well as the
dangerous substances and explosive atmosphere regulation (40%). This is however, at variance with the 76%
that claim to know about the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH regulations). This suggests that
safety of workers is not a priority to those who manage
construction companies in Nigeria.

ET AL.

place to ensure safety of their workers. This reinforces

the picture painted of Nigerias construction industry as
one with poor health and safety management culture (see
Figure 1).

4.5. Appointment of Health and Safety

Representatives
Out of the 215 valid responses to this question, only 44
(20.5%) respondents indicated that they have health and
safety representative(s), while 171 (79.5%) said that they
do not have any (Figure 2).
This outcome is not surprising as there are no regulations that stipulate or enforce the appointment safety representatives. This could be contrasted with the situation in UK where the Safety Representatives and Safety
Committees Regulations 1977 (SRSC Regulations 1977)
of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, allowed only
organizations with organized trade unions to appoint health
and safety representatives. This implies that in situations where the management of an organization is not
pro-employee safety conscious, there may not be any
legally recognized voice to speak on their behalf. This is
also in alignment with the outcome of Section 4.3 which
suggests a low level awareness and or implementation of
certain health and safety regulations.

4.4. Health and Safety Management Policies

Table 2 shows a breakdown of views on the existence of
health and safety management policies in organizations.
It suggests that about 104 (44.1%) of respondents organizations have some form of health and safety policy distributed s follows: formal health and safety policy (7),
policy that requires written/incident reports (9), policy that
requires accident/incident investigation to be conducted
(37), and a policy that requires the documentation, investigation and discussion of near misses (51). About 132
respondents (55.9%) expressed a contrary view that they
do not have health and safety policies in place.
This indicates that although many construction companies may be aware of the impact of poor health and safety
on their activities, they, however, do not have any policy in

4.6. Regulation and Enforcement of Health and

Safety
Figure 3 shows the respondents views on the body that
regulate or enforce health and safety management in
Nigerias construction industry. About 112 (55.2%) respondents do not know who regulates or enforces compliance with health and safety management in Nigeria, 45
(22.1%) think it is the local authoritys environmental
health department, 26 (12.8%) feel it is the Nigerian Institute of Builders (NIOB), while 20 (9.9%) feel that this
responsibility resides with a Federal Ministry/Agency.
This simply implies that construction workers (and this
may be representative of the entire society) do not know
whose responsibility it is to regulate health and safety, or
enforce compliance.

Table 2. Evidence of health and safety policies.

Valid responses
Policy
Frequency

Formal health and safety policy

3.0

Policy that requires written/incident reports

3.8

Conduct accident/incident investigation

37

15.7

Document, investigate and discuss near misses

51

21.6

None

132

55.9

Total

236

100

Copyright 2012 SciRes.

Figure 2. Appointed health and safety representatives.

OJSST

I. A. DIUGWU

145

ET AL.
Table 3. Source of health and safety information.
Responses
Source
Frequency

Trade Union

Local Authority

29

12

Regulators and their websites

57

23

Health and safety journals

150

62

Total

242

100

Figure 3. Responsibility for regulation and enforcement.

4.7. Information on Health and Safety

There were 242 valid responses to the question on available sources of health and safety information (Table 3).
The result shows that over 62% of the respondents
claim to get their information from health and safety
journals, with about 24% getting these information from
regulators and their websites. The result clearly shows
the minimal impact of the government (at all tiers) and
its agencies in the regulation and management of health
and safety in the construction industry. The implication
of this is that because not all respondents have access to
the internet, information dissemination through this medium becomes less effective.
It could be argued that those respondents who use
regulators and their websites may have been accessing websites of regulators in other countries such as the Health
and Safety Executive, UK (HSE, UK). If this were to be the
case, then the small number of respondents that used this
medium could be explained by the low internet penetration and accessibility in Nigeria [34] among other factors.

4.8. Constraints to Health and Safety

Management
Table 4 shows the responses on factors that affect a companys ability to effectively manage health and safety.
It could be seen that lack of adequate regulation and
support are major constraints to an effective health and
safety management in Nigerias construction industry.
These factors could have cascaded effects on resources,
enlightenment and commitment, which were also identified as constraining factors by respondents.

5. Conclusions
This paper has highlighted that lack of effective regulation has impacted on health and safety management in
Nigerias construction industry. This trend if allowed to
continue may impact on the contribution of the sector to
national economic development. This situation not withstanding, it was established that construction workers,
Copyright 2012 SciRes.

Table 4. Constraint to health and safety management.

Frequency
Constraint
n

Lack of adequate regulation

85

32.4

Lack of support

71

27.1

Lack of resources (personnel/financial)

37

14.1

Lack of knowledge of details and implications

37

14.1

Lack of management commitment

26

9.9

None of these

2.3

perhaps through personal efforts, were aware of some

safety regulations and their implications. A general lack
of health and safety management systems and policies in
organizations were identified. Furthermore, respondents
noted that inadequate regulation and enforcement were
huge barriers to better safety management in the sector.
It is suggested that in order to fully harness the potentials of the construction industry to the economic development of Nigeria, there is need, for a revision of the
laws guiding health and safety management and regulation. Secondly, it is imperative that for this Act to be effective, a functional regulatory authority, perhaps modelled after the system in UK be established and empowered to carry out its regulatory and enforcement roles.
The authors recognise that in view of the intricacies associated with health and safety management, the outcome of this paper may not be a perfect one. The result
presented here is also an aggregated one; hence the issues
raised may further be refined to guarantee better result.
For instance, the questionnaire could be modified to incorporate questions on age, level of education, gender,
among others. There may also be a need to carry out further studies in other sectors of the economy in order to
have a balanced view of health and safety regulation in
Nigeria. The final outcome would be an increase in productivity of the nation and a possible attainment of the
vision 20:2020 of Federal Government.
OJSST

146

I. A. DIUGWU

REFERENCES
[1]

Health and Safety Commission, Health and Safety Statistical Highlights, Health and Safety Executive, Norwich,
2003.

[2]

Eurostat, European Social Statistics: Accidents at Work

and Work Related Health Problems (Data 1994-2000),
European Communities, 2002.

[3]

S. Pickvance, Arguing the Business Case for Occupational Health, Occupational Health Review, 2003.

[4]

Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, Professionals in Partnership, Institution of Occupational Safety
and Health, Leicester, 2001.

[5]

I. Diugwu, A Framework to Evaluate Critically the

Health and Safety Strategies in Supply Chains in the
UK, Coventry University, Coventry, 2008.

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Health and Safety Executive, A Guide to the Health and

Safety etc. Act 1974: Guidance on the Act, HMSO,
London, 1994.
G. I. Idoro, The Effect of Globalization on Safety in the
Construction Industry in Nigeria, Proceedings of International Symposium on Globalization and Construction,
Thailand, November 2004, 10 p.
G. I. Idoro, Health and Safety Management Efforts as
Correlates of Performance in the Nigerian Construction
Industry, Journal of Civil Engineering and Management,
Vol. 14, No. 4, 2008, pp. 277-285.
doi:10.3846/1392-3730.2008.14.27
Federal Government of Nigeria, The Factory Act of
1990, Federal Government Press, Abuja, 1990.

[10] The Office for National Statistics, Construction Statistics

No. 13, 2012 Edition, 2012.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/construction/construction-stati
stics/no--13--2012-edition/art-construction-statistics-annual-2012.html
[11] J. Dye and J. Sosimi, United Kingdom National Accounts
The Blue Book, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2010.
[12] O. A. Olatunji and N. Bashorun, A System View of the
Labour Profile Structure of the Construction Industry in
the Developing Countries: Nigeria, A Case Study, International Conference in the Built Environment in the
21st Century (ICIBE), Kuala Lumpur, 13-15 June 2006,
pp. 881-892.
[13] Health and Safety Executive, Occupational Ill Health in
the Construction Industry: Statistical Fact Sheet, 2004.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/factcon.pdf
[14] Health and Safety Executive, Health and Safety Offences and Penalties, 2003/2004, 2005.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/enforce/off03-04/off03-04.pdf
[15] A. Recio, R. de Alos-Moner and I. Olivares, Construction in Spain: Towards a New Regulation? Working Paper No. 13, Centre dEstudis Sociolgics sobre la Vida
Quotidiana i el Treball (QUIT), Universitat Autnoma de
Barcelona, 2006.
[16] International Labour Organization, Safety and Health at
Work, International Labour Organization, 2010.
[17] Health and Safety Executive, Construction Work Related Injuries and Ill Health, 2012.

Copyright 2012 SciRes.

ET AL.
[18] M. G. Helander, Safety Hazards and Motivation for Safe
Work in the Construction Industry, International Journal
of Industrial Ergonomics, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1991, pp. 205-223.
doi:10.1016/0169-8141(91)90033-I
[19] Health and Safety Executive, An Analysis of the Significant Causes of Fatal and Major Injuries in Construction in Scotland, Research Paper 443, Health and Safety
Executive, London, 2006.
[20] K. Dorji and B. H. W. Hadikusumo, Safety Management
Practices in the Bhutanese Construction Industry, Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, Vol. 11, No.
2, 2006, pp. 53-75.
[21] M. J. Baker, Sampling, Marketing Review, Vol. 3, No.
1, 2002, pp. 103-120.
[22] E. Saenger, An Investigation into a Future-Oriented Approach to Financial Reporting in South Africa, DCom
Thesis, University of South Africa, 1991.
[23] W. D. Crano and M. B. Brewer, Principles and Methods
of Social Research, 2nd Edition, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, 2002.
[24] P. Levy and S. Lemeshow, Sampling of Populations:
Methods and Applications, Wiley, New York, 1991.
[25] W. G. Cochran, Sampling Techniques, 3rd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1997.
[26] T. S. Yamane, An Introductory Analysis, 2nd Edition,
Harper and Row, New York, 1967.
[27] G. D. Israel, Sampling Issues: Nonresponse. Program Evaluation and Organizational Development, IFAS, University of Florida, Gainesville, 1992.
[28] D. Holt and C. Kockelbergh, Environmental Supply
Chain Management in the UKAn Exploratory Analysis
of Current Practices, Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Conference of the International Purchasing
and Supply Education and Research Association (IPSERA), Budapest, 13-16 April 2003, pp. 678-689.
[29] L. Vassie, J. M. Tomas and A. Oliver, Health and Safety
Management in UK and Spanish SMEs: A Comparative
Study, Journal of Safety Research, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2000,
pp. 35-43. doi:10.1016/S0022-4375(99)00028-6
[30] S. Lammin, Safety Management in Small Businesses,
Ph.D. Thesis, Loughborough University, Loughborough,
2001.
[31] O. A. Adenuga, A. A. Soyingbe and O. M. Ajayi, A
Study of Selected Safety Measures on Construction Companies in Lagos, Nigeria, Proceedings of the Construction and Building Research Conference of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, 6-7 September 2007, pp. 678-689.
[32] I. Dalling, The Future Is Unified: A Model for Integrated
Management, Quality World, Vol. 26, No. 4, 2000, pp.
34-39.
[33] J. Rimington, Managing RiskAdding Value: How Big
Firms Manage Contractual Relations to Reduce RiskA
Study, Health and Safety Executive, London, 1998.
[34] International Telecommunications Union (ITU), ITU Digital Access Index: WorldS First Global ICT Ranking, 2003.
http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press_releases/2003/30.html

OJSST