The recent building collapses in South Africa have forced a difficult but necessary shift in how the industry thinks about risk.

For years, safety was often treated as a site-level responsibility. Something managed through compliance checklists, safety officers, and periodic inspections. That view is no longer sustainable. Incidents such as the George building collapse and the more recent failures in Johannesburg have exposed deeper structural issues. These are not isolated events but symptoms of a system under strain.

What is becoming clear is that South Africa does not lack regulation. It is struggling with enforcement, accountability, and, in some cases, basic competence across the project lifecycle.

Regulation is tightening, but it is also shifting

The regulatory environment is evolving in response to these failures. The Housing Consumer Protection Act 25 of 2024, which came into effect in 2025, strengthens the National Home Builders Registration Council’s role and introduces stricter accountability for homebuilders and developers.

At the same time, the Department of Employment and Labour has published draft Construction Regulations that signal a move toward more defined responsibilities for clients, designers, and contractors, as well as stricter requirements around permits and site management.

These changes are important. But they are only part of the story. The more significant shift is how risk is being allocated and understood.

Risk is moving up the chain

There is growing pressure, both from government and organised labour, to ensure that accountability does not stop at the contractor. Parliamentary statements following recent incidents have called for stronger enforcement and greater accountability across the value chain, including developers and project owners.

This reflects a broader trend. Risk is moving up the chain. Clients can no longer assume that appointing a contractor transfers responsibility. Designers cannot assume that compliance on paper guarantees compliance on site. And contractors cannot rely on fragmented oversight to shield poor decisions.

In practical terms, this means that regulatory risk is no longer separate from commercial risk. It affects insurability, approvals, programme certainty, and ultimately whether a project can proceed.

The real challenge is not regulation, it is execution

Much of the recent commentary has focused on the need for stricter rules. That is understandable. But it risks missing the underlying issue.

South Africa already has a relatively well-developed regulatory framework. The problem is that enforcement is inconsistent, municipal oversight is uneven, and the industry itself faces structural constraints.

There is a well-documented skills gap. Experienced professionals are leaving the sector, while less experienced individuals are being pushed into roles that carry significant technical responsibility. At the same time, project timelines and cost pressures are tightening, increasing the likelihood of shortcuts and poor decision-making.

The result is a breakdown in execution. As highlighted in recent analysis, South Africa’s infrastructure challenges are not only about funding or policy. They are also about whether projects are being properly planned, monitored, and delivered.

This is where the risk becomes systemic.

When failure happens, the consequences are wider

A building collapse is not just a construction failure. It is a legal, financial, and reputational event.

Legal processes that follow can be complex and protracted, involving multiple parties across the value chain. Questions of liability extend beyond immediate contractors to include developers, professional teams, and, in some cases, regulatory bodies.

At the same time, the commercial consequences are immediate. Projects are halted. Funding is delayed or withdrawn. Confidence in the sector is eroded. For an industry already under pressure, these are not isolated setbacks. They are compounding risks.

What this means for the industry

If the regulatory environment is tightening and the risk profile is expanding, then the response cannot be limited to compliance. It requires better visibility, earlier engagement, and stronger co-ordination across the project lifecycle.

This is where I believe the industry needs to shift its focus. At Databuild, we see how projects move from concept to execution. We see where delays occur, where approvals stall, and where activity accelerates. That visibility matters. It allows teams to identify potential risks earlier, engage more effectively with project stakeholders, and make more informed decisions about where and how to participate.

Better information does not eliminate risk. But it does make it easier to manage.

A more disciplined approach to delivery

The reality is that South Africa’s construction sector is entering a more demanding phase. In such an environment, success will depend less on navigating individual projects and more on managing the system around them. This means understanding where risk sits, knowing when to engage, and ensuring that decisions are informed by accurate, up-to-date information.

The industry does not need more rules. It needs better execution. And that starts with seeing the full picture.

Expert insights by Morag Evans, CEO of Databuild