Omolabake Fasogbon
From 1974 to 2025, Nigeria recorded no fewer than 600 building collapse incidents, according to the Building Collapse Prevention Guild (BCPG). Beyond the lives lost, these tragedies have left businesses ruined, while the economy has not been spared.
In two decades, an estimated $3.2 trillion worth of property has been lost to building collapse in the country. Lagos was once reported to have lost about N66.37 billion to collapsed buildings within 24 months.
In 2024, a 27-year-old factory worker in Ogun State was crushed to death by an engine roller after slipping on a machine. Such incidents are not uncommon in factories. In the same year, the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) processed about 22,350 workplace compensation claims, paying N90 million to one injured worker, N76 million to the family of a deceased worker and N31 million in medical bills for another.
These are not isolated events. Experts say they are the visible consequences of safety compromises rooted in decisions taken much earlier in boardrooms, procurement offices and project planning rooms.
Across industries, companies are losing money in ways that often go unnoticed. This time around, not from inflation or foreign exchange pressures, but operational safety failures.
CEO of Safety Consultants and Solutions Providers Limited (SCSP), Antonia Beri noted many organisations have safety policies on paper, but weaknesses built into projects from planning through daily operations leave them vulnerable to disruptions, regulatory penalties and costly losses.
Beri, speaking amid renewed concerns over workplace safety following the N25 million compensation awarded to a Lagos factory worker who lost an arm in an industrial accident, argued that safety is not merely a compliance issue but a financial one.
She maintained that safety audits remain a fundamental business imperative
“The most successful organisations recognise that safety is not merely a compliance requirement. It is a business discipline that must be embedded into every stage of an asset’s lifecycle,” she said.
Pitfalls of safety audits
Drawing from years of field experience, Beri observed safety failures begin long before a facility is built.
She faulted the tendency of investors to prioritise production targets and profitability, with little attention to safety and asset integrity.
“When hazards are overlooked at the planning stage, risks become built into the project itself. From a business perspective, this can prove costly. Eliminating risks during design is far cheaper than correcting them after a facility becomes operational. What appears to be cost savings at the outset often turns into a much larger expense later,” she said.
She identified some misses that plunge organizations into costly crisis thus:
Safety ignored at planning stage
According to Beri, many businesses focus heavily on cost, schedules and production targets while leaving safety considerations till later.
The consequence is that risks become embedded in projects from inception, making them far more expensive to eliminate when operations commence.
Weak leadership commitment
Poor leadership commitment is deemed a major driver of audit failure. Beri noted approved safety policies are often not matched with the resources and oversight required for implementation.
The consequences extend beyond regulatory sanctions. Weak safety culture can lead to compensation claims, production disruptions and reputational damage.
Poor asset integrity management
Another major gap highlighted is poor management of critical assets. Many businesses continue to operate ageing equipment without structured inspection programmes or proper condition monitoring.
Pressure vessels, pipelines, electrical installations, lifting equipment and fire protection systems all require regular checks.
“Safety audits frequently uncover overdue inspections, undocumented equipment conditions and inadequate management of safety-critical elements,” Beri observed.
The implications go beyond compliance issues. Equipment failure can halt production, trigger emergency spending, increase insurance costs and expose companies to compensation liabilities. Data by NSITF illustrate the scale of such risks.
Repairing only after breakdown
Many companies still operate a “repair when broken” philosophy. While this may appear cheaper in the short term, reactive maintenance often creates the conditions for unexpected failures and adverse audit findings.
By contrast, organisations with stronger audit records rely on preventive and predictive maintenance systems backed by regular inspections and performance monitoring.
Choosing price over quality
Also identified as a trigger for safety risks is the pursuit of the lowest bid during procurement decisions. “Substandard materials, counterfeit components and incompatible equipment may reduce initial costs, but they often increase maintenance expenses and heighten operational risks in the long run”, Beri said.
She maintained safety-critical systems require procurement decisions that prioritise technical integrity and long-term reliability over short-term savings.
Contractor Management Failures
The safety expert further pointed to lapses in contractor supervision, warning that the cost ultimately falls on the organisation.
Poor vetting and weak supervision frequently result in contractors carrying out safety-critical work without the required competence or certifications.
For businesses that depend heavily on outsourcing, Beri warned of consequences. “Accidents involving contractors eventually become the responsibility of the company that engaged them”, she stated.
Waiting until audit season
Beri advised organisations against the temptation of cosmetic preparations whenever audits are imminent, stressing the need for routine monitoring.
“Companies often intensify safety activities shortly before inspections but relax once auditors leave. Over time, deficiencies accumulate and remain unnoticed until the next assessment.
“Without ongoing monitoring, deficiencies remain undetected until external auditors identify them. The most effective organisations treat every day as an audit day,”she noted.
Her submissions resonate with local realities, with studies suggesting that enforcement of occupational safety regulations remains weak and many businesses still operate outside formal oversight.
She argued that companies relying solely on external inspections leave themselves exposed for most of the year.
Skills and competency gaps
Beri also identified shortages of qualified personnel as another contributor to poor audit outcomes.
According to her, gaps in engineering, operations, maintenance, quality assurance and HSE management often result in poor decisions, procedural violations and inadequate emergency preparedness.
She stressed the need for continuous training, certification and professional development to strengthen organisational resilience.
Weak compliance to standards
Another recurring cause of audit failure, she said, is the inconsistent application of recognised industry standards and regulatory requirements.
Compliance, she argued, should not be viewed as a periodic exercise but as a continuous operational requirement. Where standards are poorly understood or inconsistently applied, audit findings increase significantly.
Poor change management
Business environments constantly evolve through process modifications, technological upgrades and organisational restructuring.
Beri noted absence of formal management-of-change procedures often drive new hazards, as existing controls become ineffective.
She added that many organisations pay little attention to decommissioning and end-of-life planning, including asset retirement, environmental remediation and knowledge transfer, despite their implications for long-term safety performance.
According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO) the economic and human toll of occupational accidents falls disproportionately on low- and middle-income countries such as Nigeria. Data show disasters cost developing countries an average of four per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is believed can still rise to 10 per cent.
Corroborating Beri, Managing Director of NSITF, Oluwaseun Faleye, outlined the direct consequences of compromising safety.
“There is the organisational cost where companies suffer reputational damage, loss of productivity, equipment losses, litigation and downtime. Many businesses underestimate these costs until tragedy strikes and then the price becomes too high.
“There is also the national economic cost. Injuries and fatalities contribute to lost GDP, reduced manpower, higher health costs and a weakened labour force,” he said.
Investigations into the more than 600 building collapse incidents that cost the country trillions of naira in investments, often point to safety lapses like poor design, inferior materials, weak workmanship and excessive loading.
Experts say these shortcomings reflect deeper weaknesses in the way many businesses manage risk.
For Beri, the message is clear. “Safety is not an audit exercise. It is a lifecycle management philosophy that protects people, preserves assets, safeguards the environment, strengthens reputation and ensures sustainable business success.”