Safety Solutions RSS Feed

Horizon scan — reports map WHS and workers compensation research landscape

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +1000

A suite of reports published by Safe Work Australia (SWA) identify areas of strength and opportunities in work health and safety and workers compensation research. Intended to support coordinated and impactful research for safe and healthy work, the SWA-commissioned project — delivered by the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia — mapped existing research across the five initial focus areas of SWA’s Research and Evaluation Strategy.

Where the evidence base is well established, where it is emerging and where there are opportunities to strengthen the evidence through future research is identified in the project, its findings presented in what SWA calls “a comprehensive suite of reports”. Included are an executive summary and technical overview, five focus area reports and methodology reports, to support broad use across industry, government and academia.

“The findings deepen understanding of WHS and workers compensation research in Australia,” SWA said. “They confirm significant research activity in psychosocial harm prevention and recovery, while identifying comparatively limited research on and evaluation of organisational and system‑level approaches. Despite rapid technological change reshaping work across many industries, the findings also show limited research on the WHS impacts of new and emerging technologies.

“These insights will guide future research priorities, partnership opportunities and policy development for Safe Work Australia and the broader WHS and workers compensation research community.”

For the project, more than 7000 Australian WHS and workers compensation research records were reviewed. You can read the suite of reports at www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/data-and-research/research/horizon-scan. SWA’s Research and Evaluation Strategy can be read at www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/research-and-evaluation-strategy.

Image credit: iStock.com/RyanJLane. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

The shift toward polymer-based engineering in Australian industrial safety

Mon, 25 May 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Corrosion starts eating infrastructure long before damage appears on the surface. A cabinet door still opens. A mounting frame still holds. A junction box still looks stable during inspection rounds, while months of chemical exposure, moisture, heat and salt air continue weakening the structure underneath.

Australian industrial sites are now rethinking the materials used across safety infrastructure because older assumptions no longer match modern operating pressure. Facilities handling chemicals, wastewater, mining operations, food production, transport systems, renewable energy equipment and electrical infrastructure face conditions that punish traditional materials daily. Polymer-based engineering has moved into that gap because it responds differently to corrosion, electrical exposure, washdowns and environmental stress.

This shift is changing how industrial safety gets planned across Australia. Material selection now affects maintenance schedules, fire-exposure planning, electrical separation, operational continuity and worker protection at the same time.

Australian sites now design around corrosion exposure

Australian industrial environments place constant pressure on exposed infrastructure. Coastal regions carry salt-heavy air that accelerates oxidation. Processing plants expose surfaces to chemical splash and vapour residue. Outdoor installations absorb prolonged UV exposure. Washdown routines trap moisture around seams, hinges and mounting points.

That combination creates long-term structural deterioration, even inside equipment that still appears functional.

Safe Work Australia states that hazardous chemicals can create corrosion, fire, explosion and health risks across workplaces handling chemical substances.¹ Those conditions directly affect the lifespan and reliability of industrial infrastructure.

This is one reason many facilities have started moving away from relying entirely on painted or coated metal systems in corrosive environments.

The issue extends far beyond appearance.

Corrosion can affect:

Door alignment
Emergency equipment access
Electrical separation
Structural stability
Locking systems
Mounting integrity
Inspection access

Small failures often stack slowly across months until maintenance teams face a much larger operational problem.

Polymer-based engineering changes how facilities approach material failure

Traditional metal systems usually depend on external coatings for protection. Once coatings crack, chip or degrade, moisture and chemicals begin reaching the material underneath.

Polymer-based systems operate differently because corrosion resistance exists throughout the material itself rather than only on the outer surface.

That difference matters heavily in environments exposed to:

Chemical handling
Wastewater processing
Coastal humidity
Food manufacturing washdowns
Fertiliser storage
Mining operations
Heavy outdoor exposure

Facilities are now evaluating infrastructure based on operational lifespan instead of focusing only on upfront purchase cost. Repeated replacement cycles create downtime, labour pressure, inspection demands and operational delays that continue for years after installation.

Many industrial planners now view long-term material reliability as a workplace safety issue instead of treating it strictly as a maintenance issue.

Electrical infrastructure is driving faster material changes

Australia’s industrial sector is rapidly expanding electrical infrastructure across transport systems, renewable energy projects, battery storage facilities and automated production environments.

That expansion has increased attention around conductive materials in high-exposure environments.

Metal conducts electricity. Certain polymer-based materials provide non-conductive properties that support electrical separation in areas exposed to moisture or chemical residue. That characteristic has pushed polymer engineering further into industrial electrical planning.

Comcare identifies fire, chemical reaction and corrosion exposure among major workplace chemical concerns.² When electrical systems operate inside those conditions, infrastructure planning becomes far more demanding.

Facilities now examine several factors together during material selection, including:

Electrical insulation properties
Chemical exposure resistance
UV stability
Moisture absorption
Structural performance
Maintenance frequency

That wider evaluation process is reshaping procurement decisions across Australian industrial projects.

Australian weather punishes weak material decisions fast

Australian environmental conditions create pressure that many imported infrastructure designs fail to anticipate properly.

UV exposure alone can weaken poorly selected materials over time. Remote industrial regions create additional strain because replacement work may involve transport delays, labour shortages, shutdown planning and extended operational disruption.

Coastal exposure creates another layer of pressure.

Salt air speeds up oxidation across exposed metal infrastructure. Once corrosion reaches internal hardware, deterioration often spreads faster around joints, hinges, mounting sections and fasteners.

This has forced many operators to rethink the old habit of selecting infrastructure based mainly on initial cost.

A cheaper installation can become far more expensive after years of corrosion management, repeated inspections, shutdown coordination and replacement work.

That operational reality is one reason polymer-based engineering continues gaining attention across Australian industrial safety planning.

Fire exposure is reshaping industrial material planning

Industrial facilities handling chemicals, fuel systems, combustible dust and electrical equipment now face tighter scrutiny around fire exposure and containment planning.

Material behaviour during extreme heat events has become a larger part of infrastructure discussions.

This includes examining:

Flame spread characteristics
Smoke generation
Structural stability during heat exposure
Chemical interaction during fire events
Long-term environmental degradation

Engineers are now evaluating infrastructure through connected operational categories. Fire exposure, chemical resistance, moisture protection and electrical safety influence each other during planning decisions.

That broader approach has shifted attention towards advanced polymer formulations developed for demanding industrial environments.

The discussion has become much more detailed across Australian industrial sectors during the past decade because material failure now carries operational consequences far beyond replacement expense alone.

Maintenance teams are influencing infrastructure decisions earlier

Many maintenance departments have spent years dealing with preventable material deterioration inside aggressive industrial environments.

Corroded frames create alignment issues. Seized hinges slow equipment access. Damaged enclosures complicate inspections. Moisture intrusion affects electrical reliability. Surface degradation increases cleaning demands, while maintenance workloads continue increasing across aging infrastructure.

Those problems consume labour hours continuously.

As a result, maintenance teams are now participating earlier during infrastructure planning and procurement discussions.

That has changed the questions facilities ask before installation begins.

**************************************************

Key questions

Instead of focusing only on upfront pricing, planners increasingly ask:

How will this perform after repeated washdowns?
What happens after prolonged UV exposure?
Can chemicals penetrate vulnerable sections?
How often will inspection work increase?
What maintenance pressure develops after five years?
How difficult will replacement become in remote locations?

Those questions often reshape procurement outcomes completely.

**************************************************

Industrial safety planning has shifted towards failure prevention

Australian industry has gradually moved from reactive infrastructure management towards earlier failure prevention.

That shift affects how facilities approach material selection from the beginning of project planning.

Infrastructure decisions now connect directly with:

Worker exposure reduction
Fire containment planning
Electrical separation
Chemical handling systems
Operational continuity
Inspection access
Maintenance scheduling

Safe Work Australia continues emphasising chemical risk control through stronger workplace systems, monitoring practices and infrastructure management.³ Material selection now sits inside that wider discussion instead of existing as a separate purchasing decision.

This is one reason polymer-based engineering has expanded across sectors facing aggressive environmental conditions and rising operational pressure.

Facilities are now asking what condition infrastructure will remain in after years of chemical exposure, washdowns, UV exposure, moisture, electrical pressure and operational strain.

That question is changing industrial safety planning across Australia.

Final word

Australian industrial infrastructure is entering a major material transition driven by corrosion exposure, electrical expansion, environmental pressure and tighter operational expectations. Polymer-based engineering has gained momentum because facilities now expect infrastructure to withstand aggressive conditions without creating constant maintenance pressure or increasing operational risk.

This shift reflects a larger change across industrial safety planning. Facilities are placing greater focus on preventing infrastructure failure before exposure develops instead of reacting after deterioration spreads through critical systems. In environments shaped by chemicals, moisture, heat, salt air and electrical exposure, material selection now influences operational stability every single day.

^{1. Safe Work Australia. Hazardous chemicals. Accessed May 11, 2026. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/chemicals}

^{2. Comcare. Chemical hazards. Accessed May 11, 2026. https://www.comcare.gov.au/safe-healthy-work/prevent-harm/chemical-hazards}

^{3. Safe Work Australia. Model Code of Practice for Managing Risks of Hazardous Chemicals in the Workplace. Accessed May 11, 2026. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-code-practice-managing-risks-hazardous-chemicals-workplace}

Image credit: iStock.com/Smederevac. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Why women's PPE is critical to workplace safety and readiness

Mon, 18 May 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Under Australia’s model Work Health and Safety Regulations, this is not a grey area.¹ Regulation 44 requires that a person conducting a business or undertaking ensure PPE is suitable for the hazard, a suitable size and fit for the worker, reasonably comfortable, and used correctly.

In practice, PPE that doesn’t properly fit a worker isn’t considered suitable. The responsibility is about each individual worker, not a one-size-fits-all approach. Women aren’t a special case to be accommodated; they are workers who must be protected under the same legal standard as everyone else.

Despite this clarity, ill-fitting PPE remains a long-standing and normalised risk in many industries, driven by default procurement practices and legacy design assumptions. The result is that women are often forced to ‘make do’ with equipment that compromises both safety and performance. Some are left with no option but to wear PPE that is too large, requires constant adjustment, or creates additional safety risks, including snag or entanglement hazards around machinery. Others may only have access to respirators that do not properly seal, increasing exposure to airborne contaminants or hazardous particles.

The hazards of improper protection

Poorly fitting PPE undermines its function as a last line of defence and introduces avoidable exposure to hazards. These include electricity, radiation, noise, temperature extremes, air and water pressure changes, oxygen deficiency, traumatic or stressful events, and chemical exposure.

Appropriate PPE is particularly critical in respiratory protection. Where respirators are required, they must comply with AS/NZS 1716:2012,² and their selection, use, fit testing, training, maintenance and storage must align with AS/NZS 1715:2009.³ Tight-fitting respirators must be fit tested before first use and at least annually, supported by a documented respiratory protection program.

If a respirator does not seal properly to the wearer’s face, it does not provide the intended level of protection. That is not a user issue; it is a system failure.

Similarly, poorly fitting hard hats, gloves, eyewear or body protection can create secondary hazards such as reduced visibility, impaired dexterity, snag risks or exposure gaps. In these cases, PPE can shift from a protective control to a contributing risk factor.

A systemic issue, not an individual one

Women’s PPE is not an emerging issue, but it is a long-standing risk that has been normalised through default design and procurement practices.

In many workplaces, PPE is still sourced on the assumption of a standard male body shape, with women expected to adapt. This includes equipment that is too large, requires constant adjustment, or fails to provide adequate coverage or seal.

The consequences are well documented in practice: equipment that shifts during use, respirators that do not seal correctly, gloves that reduce dexterity and protective clothing that increases entanglement risk in certain environments. These are not minor inconveniences — they are failures of risk control.

This is not about individual behaviour. It is about whether the control measures provided by an organisation are actually effective for the workforce using them.

Beyond the physical impact

Women have historically accepted wearing ill-fitting PPE, increasing their risk of harm, simply because it was the least-worst option available. But it doesn’t just increase their risk for injury; it also sends an unspoken message: ‘You don’t belong here.’ Workplace environments need to be built with inclusion in mind from the start, not as an afterthought, which must include PPE and other equipment being used by women. Women are hiding or suppressing their biological differences and the psychological realities that result, simply because they don’t want to risk being perceived as unable to do the job they were hired and paid to do.

Inclusion in workplace safety must therefore extend beyond policy statements. It must be reflected in the tools, equipment and systems used every day on the job.

This ultimately hits on the final impact of PPE for women: efficiency. In a workplace where PPE needs to be modified, continually adjusted or is simply not functioning as intended, it not only fails to provide protection but also reduces efficiency. Large gloves slow jobs that require fine motor skills. Misaligned vibration protection elements on gloves may necessitate more frequent breaks during the task. Adjusting uniforms, hard hats, glasses and respirators takes time and focus away from the task at hand. While safety comes first, efficiency matters to organisations and may be the catalyst needed for change in some instances.

Lifecycle changes and the need for adaptable PPE

It’s also important to note that women may need multiple sizes and styles of PPE to support natural life-cycle events, which have an outsized effect on women in the workplace. Pregnancy, mastectomy, hysterectomy and menopause can all lead to meaningful physical alterations to a woman’s measurements, weight and distribution of composition.

The historical approach of ‘shrink it and pink it’ may be an initially ‘cheap’ or ‘easy’ approach an employer could take, but it’s unacceptable, ultimately failing to safeguard employees, reduce risk or even meet legal compliance. PPE for women needs to be designed for women, not just men’s gear made in smaller sizes.

A compliant system is one that anticipates variation and provides options that remain suitable across different body types and changing needs.

**************************************************

Getting an entire workforce ready to work

The first step is pretty simple. Ask female workers if their PPE fits, meets their needs or if there is anything that can be done to make it easier to work safely while using PPE. Find out if there are specific instances when adjustments are always needed, if it seems to become an inconvenience or ultimately fails. The employees wearing PPE will know what works and what doesn’t.
A secondary approach is to observe how people are working in PPE. Often, if the PPE doesn’t look like it fits, is constantly being adjusted or does not seem to be functioning properly, it probably isn’t. Look at a variety of situations and across all tasks. This will also give you an idea of where PPE may be missing, not identified or not being used, which is a chance to really explore why.
Finally, review fit testing outcomes, incident reports, workers compensation claims and worker feedback to identify recurring fit issues or patterns that may indicate PPE is not functioning as intended.

**************************************************

Women, like their male counterparts, show up to work each day to complete the task at hand, be efficient members of their organisations, and contribute to the achievement of safety, quality and production. Lack of appropriate gear and fear of othering or retaliation are standing in the way and putting their health and even lives at risk. Unfortunately, it seems that many employers are waiting for a similar hands-on experience — seeing a female employee in an ill-fitting male harness or trying to figure out why a fit test keeps failing — to finally make a change. Instead, organisations need to proactively ensure their PPE systems, procurement practices and safety processes are meeting existing WHS obligations for all workers.

^{1. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/model-whs-regulations}

^{2. https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-nzs-1716-2012}

^{3. https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-nzs-1715-2009}

Image credit: iStock.com/sturti. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

How technology is improving onsite sanitation and productivity

Mon, 04 May 2026 00:00:00 +1000

For decades, portable sanitation was fairly crude, especially in remote areas where access and ability to service the facilities as needed was often an issue. Facilities were present on site — box ticked — but no real thought was given to servicing, operation or functionality.

The issues went beyond aesthetics; facilities of the past had separate waste tanks, required manual checking of waste, and servicing was reactive, often occurring only once facilities were full or unusable. The design and operational elements left significant room for human error, and meant when something went wrong, it often resulted in a spill or hygiene issue, which in turn became a health and safety hazard.

But these issues also impact productivity. Extra admin, reduced access to facilities and call out costs all have an effect on site operations, whether it’s taking staff away from other tasks or adding to project budgets.

It is a requirement that portable facilities are serviced regularly to remain clean¹ and the Hire and Rental Industry Association Code of Practice outlines best practice and acceptable standards for portable toilet servicing.²

However, as the growth of the industry continues, so too does the investment in advanced, integrated technology, lifting sanitation standards higher to the benefit of workplace safety, hygiene and ultimately, productivity.

Improved design, reduced touch points and the integration of monitoring technology have all contributed to improved hygiene outcomes, reduced potential for spills and overflow events, and better user experience.

The introduction of sensor technology has been one of the most significant advancements of recent years, allowing servicing to move away from being reactive or set to a rigid schedule, in favour of a proactive system that is based on actual use.

Portable facilities can now be monitored accurately, remotely and in real-time, providing information on usage, waste generated, water levels and fault conditions such as leaks and ventilation. Data is used to make evidence-based decisions around servicing and logistical elements such as location, rather than relying on guess work or a schedule set to the calendar.

Combined with automated alerts to replace manual, time-consuming visual checks and flashing lights, the technology has significantly reduced overflow events, environmental risks and reduced costs by minimising emergency call outs and unnecessary servicing.

In construction and mining environments in particular, this allows amenities to be treated in the same way as other critical on-site assets — monitored and maintained based on real conditions, which can change significantly from site to site.

The integration of renewable technology is also having an impact, creating the ability for facilities to be completely self-sufficient in terms of water and power supply. This is particularly beneficial on remote sites, where availability and reliability of facilities is essential.

In high-risk environments — such as construction and mining — poor sanitation is far more than an uncomfortable situation, it can present genuine health and safety, compliance and productivity risks.

**************************************************

The benefits

✔️ Reduced downtime

If facilities are blocked or unable to be used for whatever reason, that impacts workers’ ability to go about their day-to-day tasks.

✔️ Reduced costs

A reduction in emergency call outs and unnecessary servicing and cleaning has a positive impact on budget, freeing up capital for other areas.

✔️ Admin

Spills, blockages and additional servicing or cleaning can all result in extra paperwork, costs and time, taking site managers and staff away from other tasks.

✔️ Environmental

Environmental accountability is increasingly important, and toilet facilities are not immune. Improved technology can contribute to reductions in water use and reduced vehicle movements through optimised waste removal schedules. While minor adjustments, they can have a significant impact on overall environmental outcomes.

✔️ Improved morale

Potentially the most underestimated aspect of any site is the impact of facility standards on worker morale. Everyone deserves clean, high-quality facilities to use, regardless of location or job title. Providing sub-par facilities that are constantly overflowing or not fit for purpose makes workers feel underappreciated and impacts on-site culture.

✔️ Staff retention

As well as boosting morale, high-quality onsite amenities can make a difference in a competitive labour market, demonstrating a company’s commitment and care with its workforce.

**************************************************

The challenges

The challenge for industry now is to encourage widespread adoption of available technology.

Some worksites are embracing it, but others are still using outdated systems simply because that’s the way it’s always been done. In many of these cases, the true benefits of the advanced technology are not yet understood, or toilet facilities are still treated as an uncomfortable conversation, hidden at the back of site.

It’s true that toilet technology is not as attention-grabbing as automation or electrification, yet the potential benefits to safety, compliance and operational efficiency are there.

It’s a trend we’re already seeing globally, with the United States in particular already a few steps ahead of Australia.

US contractors are increasingly viewing sanitation as part of their overall safety system and not a standalone hire item. There’s an increased demand for data-driven servicing, tighter environmental controls and a greater focus on user experience with features such as touch-free operation and improved ventilation.

In the near future, we’re likely to see a continued shift toward predictive servicing, increased use of data to support company ESG reporting, and higher expectations around reliability and presentation.

These items are no longer on wish lists or considered ‘nice to have’. The modern technology and design elements are available now to provide cleaner, higher-standard facilities that contribute to a satisfied, strong workforce.

Improved sanitation doesn’t have to be complex or onerous. It’s about reducing risk, improving hygiene and creating safer, more productive worksites. The opportunity now is to ensure it becomes the norm, rather than the exception, lifting expectations for the industry as a whole.

_{1. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/managing_work_environment_and_facilities2.pdf}

_{2. https://hria.com.au/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2023/11/Code-of-Practice-Portable-Toilets-Nov-2021.pdf}

Image credit: iStock.com/kzenon. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Fewer breakdowns, fewer breaches: how automation tackles machinery risk and downtime together

Thu, 23 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Managing machinery safety and uptime is one of the most persistent operational challenges facing industries that rely on heavy equipment. Unplanned downtime, safety incidents and compliance failures carry serious consequences, financial losses, reputational damage, regulatory penalties and most critically, injuries to the workforce.

Yet across construction, mining, manufacturing and utilities, many organisations still manage machinery risk through manual processes: paper-based checklists, spreadsheet tracking, reactive maintenance schedules and compliance documentation scattered across filing cabinets and shared drives. These methods served their purpose for decades, but as fleets grow, regulations tighten and workforce expectations shift, the limitations of manual approaches are becoming harder to ignore.

Automation, specifically, digital platforms purpose-built for machinery safety and compliance, is offering a fundamentally different approach. Rather than digitising existing paper processes, these platforms are restructuring how organisations identify hazards, assess risk, schedule maintenance and demonstrate compliance.

The risks that manual processes struggle to contain

Machinery risk is multifaceted. Heavy equipment presents hazards from moving parts, electrical systems, hydraulics and high-pressure components. Operators and owners must navigate a web of legislation, regulations, standards and codes of practice, obligations that vary by jurisdiction, industry and machine type. A failure in any one area can trigger penalties, legal liabilities or operational shutdowns.

Beyond the regulatory layer, three operational risk areas consistently cause problems for organisations still relying on manual methods.

Inconsistent inspections and risk assessments

Every machine has a unique hazard profile. A 20-tonne excavator presents different risks to a concrete pump or an elevated work platform. Yet many organisations still use generic risk assessment templates across their entire fleet, relying on individual inspectors to identify machine-specific hazards. The result is inconsistency: different assessors evaluate the same machine differently, hazards are missed, and the quality of any given assessment depends entirely on whoever filled in the form that day. This subjectivity is one of the most underestimated risks in machinery safety management.

Reactive maintenance cycles

Without automated scheduling, maintenance tends to become reactive, machines are serviced when something breaks, not before. Many businesses struggle to track service intervals across a mixed fleet, leading to either over-servicing (wasting resources) or missed servicing windows (creating safety and reliability risks). The downstream effect is unplanned downtime, which is almost always more expensive and disruptive than scheduled maintenance.

Fragmented documentation

Accurate, up-to-date safety documentation is essential for demonstrating due diligence. But when records are spread across paper files, local drives and individual inboxes, pulling together a complete compliance picture for a single machine, let alone an entire fleet, becomes a significant undertaking. In the event of an incident or audit, organisations with fragmented documentation face an immediate credibility problem, regardless of how good their actual safety practices may be.

The manual process gap — click the image for a larger version. Source: Supplied

Why manual methods are hitting their limits

The issues above are not new; most safety managers could list them from memory. What has changed is the operating environment. Three trends are compounding the limitations of manual processes.

Fleet complexity is increasing

Organisations are running larger, more diverse fleets across more sites. A tier-two civil contractor that managed 30 machines from one depot a decade ago may now coordinate 150 assets across multiple projects, each with different principal contractor requirements. Manual tracking simply does not scale at this rate without exponential increases in administrative headcount.

Regulatory expectations are rising

Regulators are placing greater emphasis on demonstrable, systematic approaches to risk management. A completed checklist is no longer sufficient evidence of compliance, regulators want to see that the methodology behind the assessment is sound, that it accounts for machine-specific hazards and that the resulting control measures are appropriate and consistently applied. This is a standard that manual, template-based approaches struggle to meet.

Workforce dynamics are shifting

Experienced safety professionals who carried institutional knowledge about specific machines and site conditions are retiring. The workers replacing them need systems that embed that knowledge into the process itself, rather than relying on individual expertise that walks out the door at the end of a career.

How automation addresses these challenges

Automation in machinery safety is not about replacing human judgement, it is about providing a structured, consistent framework that supports better decision-making and removes the administrative friction that causes gaps in the first place.

Standardised, machine-specific risk assessments

The most significant shift automation enables is moving from generic templates to machine-specific assessments. Modern platforms maintain databases of pre-profiled machine types, each with its own hazard profile mapped to relevant legislative requirements. When an assessor initiates a risk assessment, the platform presents hazards specific to that machine type rather than relying on the assessor to identify them from scratch. This does not eliminate the need for human judgement, site-specific conditions still require expert input, but it ensures a consistent baseline that is far less susceptible to subjectivity or oversight.

Automated hazard control recommendations

Beyond identifying hazards, some platforms can recommend appropriate control measures based on the specific risk profile of a machine. Rather than leaving control selection entirely to the assessor, where experience levels, time pressure and personal judgement can produce wildly different outcomes, automation provides a standardised starting point. Controls such as guarding requirements, interlock specifications or PPE recommendations are matched to the identified hazards, ensuring a consistent and defensible approach across the organisation.

Proactive maintenance scheduling

Automated maintenance management replaces the reactive cycle with planned intervention. Platforms track service history against manufacturer specifications and operational hours, triggering alerts when maintenance is due and assigning work orders to relevant personnel. The shift from “fix it when it breaks” to “service it before it fails” has a direct impact on both uptime and safety.

Streamlined compliance documentation

Digital platforms consolidate safety reports, maintenance logs, operator certifications and risk assessments into a single, searchable system. When an auditor or regulator requests evidence of compliance for a particular machine, the organisation can produce a complete history in minutes rather than days. This is not merely an administrative convenience, it fundamentally changes the organisation’s ability to demonstrate due diligence.

Subcontractor machinery onboarding

For principal contractors and site operators, managing the compliance status of subcontractor-owned machinery is a persistent headache. Automated onboarding systems can verify that incoming equipment meets safety standards before it enters site, pre-qualifying compliance documentation, logging certifications and flagging non-compliant assets. This shifts the compliance burden from manual checking at the gate to a systematic pre-qualification process.

Real-time visibility and reporting

Automated platforms provide dashboards and reporting tools that give safety managers a live view of fleet compliance status, outstanding maintenance tasks and inspection completion rates. This visibility enables proactive management rather than periodic reviews, and supports data-driven decisions about where to allocate safety resources.

The automated machinery safety lifecycle — click the image for a larger version. Source: Supplied

Practical considerations for adoption

Transitioning from manual to automated machinery risk management is not an overnight exercise, and organisations considering the shift should approach it methodically.

The starting point is an honest assessment of current processes, specifically, where the biggest gaps exist between what the organisation does on paper and what actually happens on site. Automation delivers the most immediate value when applied to areas with the highest risk of inconsistency or non-compliance.

Scalability matters

The platform selected should accommodate fleet growth, multiple site operations and varying regulatory requirements without requiring a fundamental rearchitecture. Integration with existing business systems, fleet management, ERP, project management, is also a practical consideration that can determine whether automation simplifies workflows or adds another disconnected system to the stack.

Training is critical but often underestimated

The most sophisticated platform will fail if frontline workers, operators, supervisors and site managers, do not understand how to use it or, more importantly, why it matters. Adoption is strongest when the tools demonstrably make their daily work easier rather than adding another layer of bureaucracy.

Automation should be treated as an evolving capability rather than a one-time implementation

The data generated by automated systems, inspection trends, maintenance patterns, compliance gaps, is itself a valuable input for continuous improvement. Organisations that use this data to refine their processes will see compounding returns over time.

Looking ahead

The direction of travel is clear. As fleets grow, regulations evolve and the expectation of demonstrable compliance increases, manual machinery risk management will become progressively harder to sustain. Automation is not a silver bullet, it still requires competent people, sound processes and organisational commitment to safety. But it provides the infrastructure to manage machinery risk at a scale and consistency that paper-based methods cannot match.

For safety professionals evaluating their current approach, the question is no longer whether to automate, but how quickly the transition can be made, and which risks are accumulating in the meantime.

Top image credit: iStock.com/gorodenkoff. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

45-year data links leisure physical activity with work ability in later life

Tue, 21 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Finnish researchers who analysed longitudinal LISE study data following the same participants for 45 years have found that leisure-time physical activity improved work ability in later adulthood. Measured at school age (10–19), mid-adulthood (35–44) and late adulthood (55–64), higher levels of leisure-time physical activity throughout were clearly linked to better work ability in the study, which was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2025-110339).

Based on these measurements, the researchers from the University of Jyväskylä defined a lifetime leisure-time physical activity level and examined its association with work ability in late adulthood. The study demonstrates — by utilising repeated measurements — that regular leisure-time physical activity promotes work ability later in life, a link, the researchers say, that could not previously be conclusively verified.

“In previous studies, physical activity and work ability have been measured at the same point in time, or nearly so, which creates a risk of reverse causality,” said postdoctoral researcher Perttu Laakso from the Faculty of Sport and Health Sciences at the University of Jyväskylä. “This is because health problems that reduce work ability can also lead to a decrease in physical activity.”

The researchers also make the point that investing in young people’s physical activity is economically profitable — particularly in childhood and adolescence, as previous studies show that individuals tend to maintain physical activity habits adopted at a young age into adulthood. “From an economic perspective, prioritising physical activity among young people is essential,” Laakso said. “This is an investment in a healthy and productive future workforce.”

Image credit: iStock.com/Simon Hutton. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Staying alive: how technology can minimise the risks of distracted driving

Mon, 20 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Twiddling with the sound system, sipping on a hot or cold drink, surreptitiously scrolling or messaging on a phone… There’s a plethora of ways drivers can have their attention taken away from the road, manually, visually and mentally.

And when that happens, the chances of a road accident or incident increase significantly. So much so that distracted driving is the main contributing factor in about 16% of serious casualty road crashes, according to the Australian Automobile Association.

In recent years, mobile phones have emerged as one of the chief causes of driver distraction, here in Australia and around the world.

Taking responsibility for workers’ behaviour on the road

If one of your employees is involved in an incident or accident while they’re on the job and driving a company vehicle, it’s not only a problem for them and the individuals they’ve endangered or injured; it’s a serious risk for your business.

Damage to company vehicles can disrupt operations and push up your insurance premiums; putting a dent in your profitability and bottom line.

Your brand and business reputation may take a hit too, if driver distraction has led to a worker causing serious harm, or worse, to other road users or pedestrians, as well as themselves.

And in today’s times, the legal responsibility for that harm may not fall on the perpetrator alone.

Your organisation could be deemed responsible, as could the individuals who lead it. There’s an onus on directors to mitigate known risks and that means those who don’t take steps to address the danger posed by distracted drivers could potentially find themselves held personally liable for any adverse outcomes that ensue.

Turning to technology to tackle driver distraction

Responsible businesses will already have policies in place to keep their employees safe. Typically, these will preclude eating, drinking, vaping and using devices while driving.

Policies should also mandate regular breaks when workers are travelling long distances. But setting strict rules is one thing; enforcing them can be quite another matter.

That’s where technology has an important role to play. It can help ensure that when workers are behind the wheel they’re not zoning out or turning their attention to text messages and social media feeds on their phone when they should be keeping their eyes on the road.

Devices today can sense worker environments, deliver precise location awareness and create intelligent connections between devices, systems and people, via connectivity, telematics and applications, including vehicle-mounted camera arrays.

The signals they detect and transmit can be swiftly and seamlessly interpreted and forwarded to key personnel responsible for instigating an immediate and appropriate response.

Smart antennas seamlessly integrated with third party applications, such as telematics, can be a game changer. There are several compelling use cases, from context aware tracking to enhance lone worker safety via the use of a smart antenna, to detecting mobile phone usage with a dash camera integrated with edge AI.

The latter can provide accurate, up-to-the-second intelligence on how employees are conducting themselves behind the wheel, along with the ability to correct aberrant behaviour immediately, via alerts, nudges and messages that remind distracted drivers to focus on the road.

Implemented across your company fleet, this technology can be an effective means of reducing the risk of an accident in the moment, and the catalyst for positive changes to your organisation’s driving and workplace culture over the longer term.

Taking smart steps to protect the public and your business

Whatever the nature of your business, ensuring your employees act in a safe and responsible manner when they’re on the job and on the road is critical.

Implementing platforms and processes that demonstrate you’re serious about doing so can help you protect the public, your organisation’s assets and its reputation and bottom line. Having access to technology that allows you to monitor and manage worker safety and on-road behaviour means you can be secure in the knowledge you’re doing all you can to mitigate the risk posed by driver distraction when your workers are behind the wheel.

If having a mobile workforce that’s an asset not a liability is important to your business, it’s an investment that makes excellent sense.

Image credit: iStock.com/Photon-Photos. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Barriers to a drug and alcohol safety program in high-risk industries

Tue, 14 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Dr Kirrilly Thompson from Flinders University’s College of Medicine and Public Health and the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA) is the lead author of a study published open access in Addiction (doi.org/10.1111/add.70348) that explored whether a health-based approach called Screening, Brief Intervention and Referral to Treatment (SBIRT) could boost drug and alcohol safety for workers in high-risk industries.

“SBIRT starts with a short questionnaire, followed by a quick personalised conversation or provision of information to motivate healthier choices, and referral to treatment if needed. It’s simple and effective in clinics, but workplaces are a different story,” Thompson said, noting that SBIRT is widely used in health care and proven to reduce harms from substance use, but it’s rarely been tried in workplaces.

Dr Kirrilly Thompson. (Source: Flinders University)

The study interviewed construction and manufacturing WHS professionals to understand challenges to the effective adoption of the drug and alcohol program. “While most agreed it could save lives and improve wellbeing, they also highlighted challenges, with the biggest issue being that of trust,” Thompson said.

“Workers fear that admitting to drinking or drug use could cost them their job. Strict zero-tolerance policies and routine drug testing in some workplaces make people reluctant to open up — something that is central to seeking and receiving support.

“Even where disciplinary action may not be a concern, stigma around using alcohol and other drugs can prevent workers from accessing support from confidential services such as employee assistance programs.”

SBIRT would be most acceptable, the research suggests, if delivered outside the workplace, outside work hours, and by trusted external providers rather than by management. There are also other practical issues to consider, which include time pressures on busy worksites and workers not considering their drinking or drug use a problem, which means they are unlikely to volunteer for help.

“For employers, tackling alcohol and drug risks is not just about rules and testing. It’s about creating a culture where people feel safe to seek help. That means framing substance use as a health issue, not a moral failing, and guaranteeing confidentiality and support for anyone who reaches out,” Thompson said.

“Workplaces can play a huge role in preventing harm, but success depends on trust. If workers believe they’ll be punished for speaking up, they won’t engage,” Thompson added. “Employers need to show that support is genuine and separate from disciplinary action.”

It is recommended in the study that SBIRT be integrated into broader wellbeing programs and that external peer-based organisations be partnered with. More research involving workers themselves to co-design solutions that fit real-world conditions is also called for.

“This isn’t just about individual health. Creating workplace cultures that support physical and psychological safety makes for stronger businesses. A proactive, supportive approach would benefit everyone,” Thompson concluded.

If you have concerns about your own, or someone else’s, alcohol and/or other drug use, the 24/7 National Alcohol and Other Drug Hotline can help; please call 1800 250 015.

Image credit: iStock.com/Suratsak Noikerdmee. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Rethinking machine safety: a systems-based approach for safer workplaces

Mon, 13 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +1000

Australia’s workplace safety record has improved steadily over the past decade, but one question is still troubling industries such as mining, construction and materials handling: why do the most serious incidents continue to involve machinery and moving equipment? According to Safe Work Australia, machine operators and drivers account for a disproportionate share of injuries and fatalities, with a rate of around 6.7 deaths per 100,000 workers.¹ That’s more than five times the national average across all workplaces. It’s a pattern we’ve seen emerging for some time, even as safety frameworks, training programs and compliance standards have matured. If progress has been made in these areas, why do these risks remain so stubbornly embedded in industrial, construction and mining environments?

Part of the answer is that these industries, in particular, are moving faster than some safety practices can keep up with. Worksites in 2026 are faster, more complex and far less predictable than traditional safety models were originally designed for. Heavy vehicles, automated systems and human workers now operate side by side in environments that are constantly shifting, and visibility is sporadic and limited. Conditions change by the minute, decision-making happens under pressure and machine safety is still too often treated as a checklist or set of isolated controls. This points to something far broader and more systemic, shaped by how people, equipment and environments interact in real time. The challenge facing these environments is unique — it’s not enough to simply attempt to prevent accidents in isolation; teams need to gain a deeper understanding of how risk emerges across the entire site and how it can be anticipated before it leads to harm.

Have traditional safety models reached their limit?

Machine safety has typically been built on a simple premise — identify hazards, put controls in place and expect operators to follow procedures. In more stable and predictable environments, like a small, well-organised warehouse, that approach can be effective. But in larger, fast-paced industrial settings, the cracks start to show. Operators are unfairly expected to maintain full and complete awareness of their surroundings while they manage incredibly complex equipment, navigate unpredictable terrain and keep their eyes “on the job.” Dust clouds and fog can obscure vision, rain can change ground conditions, workers can unknowingly step into blind spots, and that’s only scratching the surface.

The reality is that many of these environments place an extraordinary mental burden on individuals, asking them to process multiple streams of information at once while making split-second decisions. Add to this the reliance on alarms, cameras and warning systems that aren’t always accurate or calibrated to real risk, and a new problem begins to emerge. When alerts are too frequent or poorly timed, or false flags are constantly raised, operators become desensitised to them. It’s important to stress that this isn’t the fault of operators, it’s simply a natural result of humans being placed in environments where noise, fatigue, distraction and pressure are common. We call this the ‘boy who cried wolf’ effect. If a poorly implemented or calibrated system flags too many non-critical events or false alarms, it gradually loses credibility, and the moments that truly matter get overlooked. How can an operator be expected to trust in a system that is constantly bombarding them with unnecessary lights, sounds and prompts?

Most incidents aren’t the result of carelessness on the part of the operator, but a mismatch between the demands of the environment and the way safety systems have been designed, with too much responsibility placed on human attention and not enough consideration given to how those systems behave under real-world conditions.

Why machine safety is systemic issue

If traditional models focus on individual hazards, a systems-based approach asks a different question: how do risks emerge from the interaction between people, machines and the environment as a whole? On a busy worksite, these elements are constantly influencing one another. A vehicle changes direction, a worker steps into a shared space, visibility shifts due to dust or lighting, and suddenly a routine task carries a different level of risk. None of these factors exist in isolation, and yet safety is often managed as though they do. Looking at the system instead of the individual event makes it easier to see how seemingly minor changes can combine to create dangerous situations.

This perspective also highlights something else: many incidents that appear unpredictable at the moment they occur are, in fact, the result of patterns that develop over time. Repeated near misses, consistent blind spots or common movement paths between people and machinery all point to underlying risks that can be identified earlier if the system is being observed as a whole. Truly designing for safety means moving beyond static controls and thinking about how workflows, site layouts and real-time conditions shape behaviour. Site managers need to recognise that risk is dynamic, not fixed, and that effective safety strategies need to adapt to what is happening on-site rather than relying on assumptions about what should happen in theory.

From reactive compliance to predictive resilience

The good news is that technology is catching up and things are beginning to change. For a long time, safety improvements have been driven by investigation. An incident happens, it is analysed in detail and controls are introduced to prevent it from happening again. That process is still important, of course, but it’s inherently retrospective. It depends on something going wrong first, and that’s not acceptable in such a high-stakes environment, particularly when many incidents are preceded by patterns that go unnoticed in day-to-day operations.

Those patterns often take the form of near misses, repeated interactions between people and machinery in high-risk zones, or small deviations from expected workflows that gradually become normalised. On their own, these events may not trigger formal reporting, but taken together they offer valuable insight into where risk is building. The challenge here is visibility. Without a clear view of what is happening in real time, these signals are easy to miss. When operators are given timely, relevant feedback, it changes how they respond in the moment, allowing them to adjust behaviour before a situation escalates.

**************************************************

Designing machine safety systems that operators trust

Prioritise signal over noise

Focus on real, actionable risk. Too many alerts dilute attention and reduce response times.

Make interventions immediate and intuitive

In fast-moving environments, operators should not have to interpret or second-guess a warning.

Reduce cognitive load wherever possible

Safety systems should simplify decision-making, not add another layer of complexity.

Align with real-world workflows

Systems must reflect how work actually happens on site, not how it is assumed to happen.

Maintain consistency in how risk is communicated

Clear, predictable signals help build trust and enable faster reactions.

**************************************************

What’s needed is a different approach to how risk is detected and communicated on site. Rather than relying on operators to interpret camera feeds or respond to constant streams of alerts, newer safety approaches are beginning to focus on delivering clear, context-aware signals only when they are needed. By combining AI-powered machine vision with real-time processing at the edge, these systems can distinguish between routine activity and genuine risk, identifying when a person enters a hazardous proximity zone and triggering a response that is immediate, accurate and completely unambiguous. This also builds trust in the system itself, because the volume of unnecessary alerts is massively reduced. When a warning is delivered, it carries weight and prompts action. At the end of the day, safety technology in these environments only works if it can earn trust, support operators and provide a “joined up” overview of risk that can feed into broader safety policies and processes.

^{1. Key Work Health and Safety Statistics Australia 2025 now available. Safe Work Australia. Accessed 13 April, 2026. https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/key-work-health-and-safety-statistics-australia-2025-now-available}

Image credit: iStock.com/gorodenkoff. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

When PPE becomes negotiable: understanding glove use through a behavioural science lens

Mon, 30 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +1100

PPE compliance rarely breaks down through defiance — it breaks in moments that begin with four quiet words: “just for this bit.” That phrase captures the moment when a worker makes a micro-decision that feels small, reasonable and temporary. The task is familiar. The deviation seems minor. The glove comes off for a fiddly adjustment, a precise grip, a quick connector or one last touch. The hazard has not changed. The rule has not changed. But the decision has — and sometimes that is all it takes.

For senior safety leaders, this matters because it reframes the problem. PPE non-compliance is often treated as a rule issue, a supervision issue or a discipline issue. Yet across mature safety systems, strong policies and repeated training still produce patchy, situational compliance. The reason is simple: PPE use is not driven by policy alone. It is a behavioural outcome shaped by context, friction, culture and task design.

That is why the better question is not, “Why do workers ignore the rule?” The better question is, “What is happening in the moment that PPE use becomes negotiable — and what has the system done to make that decision easier to justify?”

Why gloves expose the real issue

Gloves are an especially revealing case study because they do not merely sit around the work. They intervene in the work. They can affect dexterity, tactile feedback, grip, speed and comfort. In other words, they make the trade-off visible.

Research on protective gloves has repeatedly shown that glove design can affect manual performance, including dexterity, grip and tactile sensitivity. That matters because workers do not make a single compliance decision at the start of a shift. They make repeated micro-decisions throughout the day: is the protection worth the performance cost right now?

This is why glove removal is so instructive for safety leaders. The same behavioural forces that influence glove use — friction, performance trade-offs, norms, identity and habit — also shape the use of other PPE. Gloves simply make those forces easier to see. When protection and performance compete, performance usually wins — not because workers do not care, but because the system has made safe behaviour harder than doing the job.

Rules do not fail in isolation; systems do

Behavioural science gives safety leaders a more useful lens for understanding this tension. Icek Ajzen’s ‘The theory of planned behavior’ argues that intention is one of the strongest predictors of behaviour, and that intention is shaped by three key drivers: attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control.¹

Translated to the job, attitude is the worker’s judgment about whether PPE helps or hinders the task. Subjective norms are the social signals people read from supervisors, leading hands and respected operators. Perceived behavioural control is the worker’s belief about whether they can still do the job effectively while complying.

This matters because the workplace is constantly shaping those beliefs. If a glove makes fine motor work harder, attitude deteriorates. If experienced operators routinely remove gloves for precision tasks, the norm shifts. If workers believe they cannot perform effectively while gloved, their sense of control collapses. Once that happens, intention becomes fragile even in organisations with good policy, good training and good people.

In practice, immediate experience often outweighs distant consequence. A hand injury may be low frequency but high-consequence. Heat, sweat, poor feel and slower task completion are immediate, repeated and memorable. Over time, the glove can start to feel like the problem rather than the barrier protecting the worker from it.

Why culture matters even when no one is watching

The rational drivers of behaviour are only part of the story. Safety behaviour also has a moral dimension. Shalom H. Schwartz’s Norm Activation Model is useful here because it explains how personal norms are activated by awareness of consequences and a sense of responsibility.²

This is where strong safety cultures distinguish themselves from superficial compliance. Most critical decisions are made in ordinary moments, not under direct observation. People act on what they believe matters, what they believe is expected and what they believe says something about who they are. When hand protection is tied to craftsmanship, responsibility and care for others, compliance becomes more durable than when it is tied only to surveillance or enforcement.

That moral dimension is especially important in routine work. Many hand injuries do not occur during the most visibly dangerous tasks. They occur during familiar tasks, where repetition reduces perceived risk and creates permission for shortcuts. Experience can help people manage hazards, but experience can also normalise deviation. Competence does not cancel hazard.

The leadership challenge: redesign the decision point

Once we accept that PPE compliance is a system-design issue, the leadership task becomes clearer. The goal is not merely to increase effort around compliance. The goal is to redesign the decision point so that compliance is easier, faster and more credible than non-compliance.

That means moving beyond blanket rules and generic campaigns. It means understanding exactly where gloves come off, which tasks trigger removal, what workers are trying to achieve in those moments and what the current glove is doing to the job. In many workplaces, the phrase “non-compliance” conceals an unresolved design problem.

It also means acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: if the system creates a trade-off between working safely and working well, workers will often choose the option that helps them maintain pace, precision and identity. No poster can outcompete poorly designed workflow.

**************************************************

Five leadership levers that scale

1. Audit perceived control

Ask where gloves make the task harder, where removals happen and what is driving the choice in that moment.

2. Select by task, not by site alone

A single glove strategy often fails when the performance penalty is too high for the work being done.

3. Design choice architecture

Put the right gloves at the point of decision, not down the corridor or behind unnecessary hurdles.

4. Use peer trials and feedback

Well-run trials improve attitude, increase perceived control and establish credibility for change.

5. Activate identity, not fear

Frame hand protection around pride, craft, reliability and responsibility — the values skilled workers already respect.

**************************************************

From campaign language to operational design

For many organisations, the practical shift is to stop treating PPE as a communications problem and start treating it as an operating design problem. Leaders do not need more slogans about compliance. They need better diagnostics, better task matching, better access, better supervisor reinforcement and better worker involvement in selecting what is fit for purpose.

A useful portfolio mindset is to think in terms of good, better and best. The “good” option is the habit builder: comfortable, available and easy to default to. The “better” option is the task-fit performer that improves control for more demanding work. The “best” option is reserved for high-hazard, high-salience tasks where protection requirements are unmistakable. The behavioural win condition is straightforward: workers must experience the glove as helping them perform the task, not obstructing it.

When that happens, compliance stops feeling like an external demand and starts functioning as part of the way good work is done.

**************************************************

A practical 30-day reset for hand protection

Week	Priority action
Week 1	Diagnose: map the moments when gloves come off — task type, glove type, location, time pressure and supervisor context.
Week 2	Redesign: fix sizing, stock quality, access and availability. Review whether current glove selection matches the task.
Week 3	Run structured peer trials: test task-fit options with crews, capture feedback, and equip supervisors to use small, consistent reinforcement in the field.
Week 4	Institutionalise: publish task-based guidance, simplify decision rules, and reinforce identity-based messages around craft, care and responsibility.

**************************************************

Design smarter, not harder

The most dangerous moment in safety is not when workers lack information. It is when the system quietly teaches them that the rule can be relaxed in the name of getting the job done.

That is why leading organisations are moving beyond compliance messaging alone. They are reducing friction, matching PPE to the work, improving point-of-use access, involving workers in selection, and reinforcing the idea that protection and performance belong together rather than in opposition.

For safety leaders, the implication is direct. Stop focusing solely on enforcing compliance and start examining where the work itself makes compliance feel optional. When protection and performance align, compliance no longer has to be chased, it becomes the natural way the work gets done.

^{1. Ajzen I. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 1991;50(2):179–211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T}

^{2. Schwartz SH. Normative influences on altruism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 1977;10:221–279. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5}

Image credit: iStock.com/Liderina. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Ways manufacturers can make human-robot collaboration safer

Mon, 23 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +1100

As manufacturing moves toward Industry 5.0, production systems are becoming more human-centred — combining human creativity, judgement and dexterity with robotic precision, strength and speed. However, proximity between human workers and robots also raises safety issues. Now, a team of Australian and Chinese researchers set out to review how manufacturers can make human-robot collaboration safer, more adaptive and efficient.

What they found is that improving the way robots predict human behaviour in shared industrial environments is key to avoiding potential collisions, risks and injuries. The review, published open access in International Journal of Production Research (doi: 10.1080/00207543.2026.2639732), examines the major approaches used to predict human behaviour in human-robot collaboration.

These include data-driven models that learn from sensors and artificial intelligence, mechanism-based models built around physical motion and interaction rules, and hybrid approaches combining both. Although each method has strengths, the reviews argues that more integrated approaches are likely to be the most effective for future human-centric manufacturing systems.

“Industry 5.0 is about designing manufacturing systems around people as well as technology. By improving how robots predict human behaviour, we can move towards production environments that are not only more productive, but also safer, more adaptive and more human-centred,” said Dr Yunlong Tang, co-author of the review, Assistant Director of the Monash Centre for Additive Manufacturing, and Senior Lecturer in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and Materials Science and Engineering.

Several key challenges requiring attention are also pointed out by the review. These include:

variability of human behaviour,
limited scope of physical world models,
absence of standardised multimodal datasets, and
during collaboration, the need to more effectively consider human trust, workload and cognitive state.

A unified framework is proposed by the researchers to address these gaps. Such a framework that integrates multimodal data, physical world modelling, behaviour prediction and adaptive control. Further, combining physical models, sensor data and AI in ways that allow robots to respond more intelligently to human movement, intent and changing working conditions will be crucial to future progress, the review suggests.

As Industry 5.0 continues to evolve, these kinds of human-centred approaches are expected to play an important role in shaping the future of advanced manufacturing, the researchers suggest; the review highlighting how more intelligent prediction and planning tools could help manufacturers improve safety, strengthen collaboration between workers and robots, and build production systems that are more resilient, efficient and responsive.

Image credit: iStock.com/eyesfoto. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Critical protection at altitude: why head protection must match the risk profile

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +1100

Working at height remains one of the most unforgiving risk environments across modern industry. Construction, utilities, energy, telecommunications, manufacturing and industrial maintenance all depend on workers operating above ground in dynamic, constrained and often unpredictable conditions. Despite decades of progress in fall prevention and arrest systems, serious head injuries continue to occur, frequently not from the fall itself, but from what happens during and after fall arrest.

While harnesses, anchors and engineered controls are rightly prioritised, head protection is often treated as a secondary consideration. In many workplaces, helmet selection remains anchored to legacy procurement norms rather than a clear understanding of contemporary injury mechanisms. With the release of AS/NZS 1801:2024, that gap is no longer defensible.

The reality of head injury risk at height

Falls from height remain a leading cause of fatal and life-altering injuries in Australia and New Zealand. Even where fall arrest or restraint systems function as designed, workers are still exposed to significant secondary hazards. Pendulum swings, uncontrolled rotation and collisions with surrounding structures are common outcomes of fall events.

A worker suspended following a fall may experience:

Secondary and multiple head impacts
Lateral or rear impacts during pendulum swing
Rotational forces and off-axis strikes
Helmet dislodgement due to poor retention
Impact during assisted or self-rescue

These hazards occur regardless of whether a worker ultimately reaches the ground. Yet many workplaces continue to rely on traditional industrial hard hats that were never designed to manage these forces.

Where traditional hard hats fall short

Conventional industrial hard hats were developed around a vertical object-drop hazard model. Earlier versions of AS/NZS 1801 focused on protection against tools or materials falling from above, a risk profile aligned with ground-based construction rather than dynamic height work.

As a result, traditional hard hats typically lack:

Side, front and rear impact protection
Management of rotational energy
Secure retention during dynamic movement
Low-profile geometries suitable for confined or cluttered environments

Common design limitations include single-axis impact testing, basic or optional chin straps, bulky shells prone to snagging, and suspension-only energy management systems. In the context of fall arrest, these shortcomings are no longer theoretical; they are well-documented contributors to injury severity.

What are the AS/NZS 1801:2024 changes, and why it matters

The 2024 revision of AS/NZS 1801 represents the most significant update to industrial helmet standards in decades. Rather than simply refining existing requirements, it introduces a more nuanced, hazard-based framework that acknowledges different risk environments.

The introduction of Type 4 helmets

The most important change for working-at-height environments is the introduction of Type 4 helmets. These helmets are specifically intended to address fall-related head injury risks through:

Multi-directional impact attenuation
Enhanced helmet stability
Stronger retention system performance
Reduced likelihood of dislodgement during a fall

For any task involving fall risk, even where fall arrest systems are in place, Type 4 helmets more accurately reflect the hazard profile than traditional Type 1 industrial helmets.

A shift in design intent

The introduction of Type 4 helmets signals a deliberate shift away from a ‘falling object’ paradigm towards a ‘fall consequence’ paradigm. Injury data consistently shows that serious head injuries at height occur due to lateral and rear impacts, rotational forces and helmet displacement, not simply vertical strikes.

Type 4 helmets explicitly recognise these mechanisms. They permit and anticipate the use of energy-attenuating liners and secure retention systems designed to keep the helmet correctly positioned throughout dynamic movement and fall events. Importantly, Type 4 does not replace other helmet categories; it clarifies that working at height is a distinct risk context requiring a different protection envelope.

Updates to other helmet categories

AS/NZS 1801:2024 also modernises other helmet types. Type 1 helmets now allow greater design flexibility, including soft energy-absorbing liners and a broader range of shell materials. While this enables lighter and more comfortable helmets, Type 1 still lacks mandatory multi-directional impact requirements and remains unsuitable for height-risk applications.

Type 3 helmets have been aligned with AS/NZS ISO 16073.5 for bushfire and wildland firefighting, reinforcing that these helmets are not intended for industrial height work.

The removal of the mandatory stiffness test allows for lighter materials and more flexible shells, but stiffness alone does not equate to lateral impact protection. The standard makes clear that performance, not material rigidity, is the critical factor.

Why climbing-style helmets already align with the standard’s intent

Many climbing-style and industrial mountaineering helmets already align closely with the intent of AS/NZS 1801:2024, particularly for height-exposed workers. These helmets are often dual-certified to AS/NZS 1801 (earlier editions) alongside EN 12492 or EN 397 Type 2, standards developed specifically for fall-related hazards.

Key advantages include:

Multi-directional impact protection

Technical helmets are designed to attenuate impacts around the entire circumference of the head, not just the crown.

Secure retention systems

Integrated four-point chin straps, typically rated to at least 150 N, ensure the helmet remains in place during falls, swings, rescues and high-movement tasks.

Low-profile, snag-resistant design

Compact geometries reduce the risk of catching on scaffolding, steelwork or confined structures.

Energy-absorbing liners

Expanded foam liners and composite shells manage energy more effectively than suspension-only designs.

Accessory integration

Purpose-designed mounts for visors, hearing protection, lighting and communications allow accessories to be fitted without compromising helmet performance.

Legal and regulatory implications

Under Australian and New Zealand WHS legislation, PCBUs are required to ensure PPE is fit for purpose, suitable for the hazard, and does not introduce additional risk. With AS/NZS 1801:2024 now formally recognising multi-directional impact protection as a helmet class, continuing to issue traditional hard hats for height-exposed work may be difficult to justify where better-matched options exist.

In the event of an incident, failure to provide appropriate head protection may be interpreted as a breach of the primary duty of care, inadequate risk management or non-compliance with PPE selection obligations.

Managing the transition

While Type 4 certified helmets are not yet widely available in the local market, internationally certified helmets such as EN 397:2025 Type 2 and EN 12492 continue to offer a practical, defensible pathway. When supported by documented risk assessments and performance equivalence, these helmets allow duty holders to address known risks now rather than waiting for certification availability to catch up with standard evolution.

Selection Criterion	Type 1 (AS/NZS 1801:2024)	Type 2 (AS/NZS 1801:2024)	Dual-Certified AS/NZS 1801:1997 + EN (eg, EN 12492 / EN 397 Type 2)	AS/NZS 1801:2024 Type 4 (when available)
Primary hazard addressed	Falling objects (vertical impact).	Falling objects plus high-temperature exposure.	Falls and multi-directional head impacts, with continued compliance to legacy AS/NZS 1801.	Falls and multi-directional head impacts (explicitly).
Foreseeable fall risk	Not reasonably foreseeable or fully controlled.	Low or residual; heat risk dominates.	Reasonably foreseeable (slips, trips, loss of balance, partial falls).	Reasonably foreseeable (design intent).
Impact direction coverage	Crown (top) impact only.	Crown (top) impact only.	Crown, side, front, and rear impacts (via EN certification).	Crown, side, front and rear impacts (mandated).
Helmet stability during movement or fall	Limited — relies on suspension harness; chinstrap optional.	Limited — similar to Type 1.	High stability — close-fitting shells and mandatory retention under EN standards.	High stability — dynamic retention and stability testing required.
Retention system	Chinstrap optional (≥15 mm if fitted).	Chinstrap optional; heat-rated materials.	Mandatory chinstrap under EN 12492 / EN 397 Type 2.	Mandatory chinstrap with performance testing.
Thermal/heat environment suitability	General environments.	High-temperature and ignition risk environments.	Suitable for general and moderate heat; not for molten metal exposure.	General environments; not intended for molten splash.
Ventilation and comfort	Generally good ventilation.	Restricted ventilation.	Often more enclosed; comfort dependent on liner and vent design.	Likely enclosed; comfort dependent on manufacturer design.
Availability in AU/NZ market	Widely available.	Widely available.	Currently available and widely used in height-related work.	Limited or unavailable at present.
Regulatory alignment	Meets AS/NZS 1801:2024.	Meets AS/NZS 1801:2024.	Meets AS/NZS 1801:1997 plus higher EN performance requirements; supports risk-based justification.	Meets AS/NZS 1801:2024 intent for height protection.
Reasonably practicable justification	Appropriate where fall risk is not foreseeable.	Appropriate where heat risk outweighs fall risk.	Reasonably practicable interim control where fall risk exists and Type 4 helmets are unavailable.	Preferred option when available and suitable.

Safety from the neck up

Working at height is not just about preventing falls; it is about managing what happens when falls occur. Collisions, swings and impacts are not anomalies; they are predictable outcomes that demand appropriate protection.

Head protection deserves the same level of scrutiny applied to harnesses, anchors and lifelines. Helmets that manage multi-directional impacts and remain in place under dynamic load are not a luxury. They are an evidence-based response to a clearly defined risk.

The question for industry is no longer whether upgrading head protection is possible, but whether continuing to rely on outdated models is acceptable.

Image credit: iStock.com/CharlieChesvick. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

On the road and in the field — how technology can safeguard workers

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +1100

While Australia’s stringent occupational health and safety frameworks have helped ensure our country’s workplaces are among the safest in the world; in recent decades, workplace fatalities remain a sad reality of life.

In 2024, 188 workers across the country lost their lives due to traumatic injuries incurred at work. Four in five fatalities occurred in just six industries: agriculture, forestry and fishing; public administration and safety; transport, postal and warehousing; manufacturing; health care and social assistance; and construction.

Machinery operators and drivers accounted for 32% of those fatalities, with vehicle incidents the leading cause of fatal injuries (42%), according to Safe Work Australia.

Ensuring the businesses they work for don’t add to these tragic statistics in 2026 should be an overarching goal for all occupational health and safety teams.

Tackling risk head on

How best to do so is the question, particularly for businesses and organisations which employ large teams of mobile and field workers.

For many of these organisations, identifying the gamut of potential risks their workers face when they’re out on the road is a sensible place to start.

And then there are the incidents and events over which employees have rather more control — think erratic braking, speeding events and unsafe overtaking.

Developing policies to mitigate these unavoidable and avoidable risks should be a priority for businesses that have not already done so. Mandating employees drive to conditions, avoid speeding and seek shelter during severe storms, for example, is a straightforward way of reducing the likelihood of them coming to grief on the road.

Obtaining insights from the field

But having policies in place that require workers to take sensible precautions is just one piece of the puzzle. Being able to enforce them is the other. To do so necessitates having access to up-to-date insights into how workers behave when they’re behind the wheel of company vehicles.

That’s where technology has a vital role to play. Devices today can sense worker environments, deliver precise location awareness and create intelligent connections between devices, systems and people through connectivity, telematics and applications such as duress and lone worker safety alarm tools.

The signals they detect and transmit can be swiftly and seamlessly interpreted and sent on to key personnel, who can use that intelligence to enhance worker safety on several fronts.

However, what’s required is reliable coverage anywhere, with alerts able to be transmitted kilometres away across the likes of a farm, mining site or national park. Smart antennas and seamless integrations with third-party applications such as telematics can help here and provide robust information on issues such as driver speed, braking, acceleration and cornering performance.

This type of connected fleet safety is ultimately about visibility and proof. By combining radio-based safety features with telematics, organisations can better understand risk, improve behaviour and demonstrate that safety controls are operating in practice.

Striving to improve worker safety

That’s reassuring for workers, particularly those who are regularly sent out on the road solo. For businesses, meanwhile, it demonstrates a willingness to walk the walk when it comes to occupational health and safety.

The data collected can also be used to build detailed pictures of driver behaviour; identifying individuals who regularly exceed the speed limit and those whose driving patterns are erratic or unsafe.

Training and coaching can then be employed to help these drivers modify their behaviour. In the long term, that can foster a more accountable, safety-oriented workplace culture, while reducing the risk of accidents and injury for the individuals involved and those with whom they share the road.

Creating a safer future for your team

An engaged, high performing workforce is the most powerful asset any business can have. Protecting the people whose contributions are pivotal to your organisation’s success is a moral imperative and one that makes excellent commercial sense too. Technology can help you do so, when they’re in the field and on the road.

If creating a safer workplace is a priority in 2026, it’s an investment that will pay dividends now and for many years to come.

Image credit: iStock.com/Sunan Wongsa-nga. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Infrastructure, agriculture, construction and health care WorkSafe Awards winners

Mon, 02 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +1100

The winners of WorkSafe Victoria’s 2025 WorkSafe Awards were announced on 26 February, with inspiring stories of strength, innovation and leadership being this year’s theme. There were eight winners across seven award categories, honoured for their commitment to improve workplace health and safety or remarkable determination to return to work following an injury. Here’s a selection of some of the winning safety solutions according to industry.

Infrastructure

Seymour Whyte team — winner in the OHS Leadership/Achievement category. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Civil construction company Seymour Whyte won the OHS Leadership/Achievement Award for the second consecutive year. Leading the Healesville-Koo Wee Rup Road upgrade — a major infrastructure project which saw 2100 machines on site and 600,000 tonnes of material moved — the company demonstrated its commitment to the health and safety of its workforce by challenging traditional approaches and implementing bespoke solutions to redefine safety in infrastructure.

“We weren’t willing to accept that what’s worked once, will work again, given the job possessed some unique challenges,” said Matthew Owen, Seymour Whyte’s Senior Project Engineer, who also said that the scale of the project required challenging the traditional approaches to high-risk work. Learn more in the video below.

Video about Seymour Whyte’s winning solution in the 2025 WorkSafe Awards. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Agriculture

Winner of the Farm Safety Solution Award was Warakirri Cropping, who through data review and genuine consultation, were able to establish trust to drive engagement with the on-site psychology service model — designing and delivering a tailored and proactive intervention to reduce the risk of psychological harm to its remote and isolated workers. Learn more in the video below.

Video about Warakirri Cropping’s winning solution in the 2025 WorkSafe Awards. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Construction

Natural Growth Partners team — winner for Tree Coach in the Workplace Health and Safety Solution of the Year category. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Designed to reduce the risk of manual handling and repetitive strains on site installations of trees, Tree Coach by Natural Growth Partners won the Workplace Health and Safety Solution of the Year Award. The solution is designed to eliminate the need for stake ramming and heavy lifting. Once Tree Coach is installed in the ground with the tree and excavation is backfilled, the surrounding compacted earth holds Tree Coach in place, and the tree is tied to Tree Coach stakes for support. Learn more in the video below.

Video about Natural Growth Partners’ winning solution Tree Coach in the 2025 WorkSafe Awards. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Health care

The Royal Melbourne Hospital’s Injury Management Team — winner in the Leading Return to Work Practice category. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

The Royal Melbourne Hospital won the Leading Return to Work Practice Award in recognition of the significant transformation in its approach to return-to-work practices. The hospital’s Injury Management Team cultivating a supportive and proactive environment through its “recovery at work” collaborative approach between injured workers and their managers. Learn more in the video below.

Video about The Royal Melbourne Hospital’s winning approach in the 2025 WorkSafe Awards. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Other industries’ winners

The other winners in the 2025 WorkSafe Awards were:

Manor Lakes Community Learning Centre in the Excellence in Preventing and Managing Psychosocial Risk category;
Maree McLean St Mary’s Primary School Swan Hill and Dennis Gabriel — Yarrawonga Riverlands Tourist Park in the Worker Return to Work Achievement category;
Manny Mason City of Ballarat in the Health and Safety Representative of the Year category; and
Tracey Browne Outstanding Leadership and Contribution to Health and Safety category.

Spotlight

Manny Mason, City of Ballarat — winner in the Health and Safety Representative of the Year category. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

To spotlight one of the above, Manny Mason from the City of Ballarat’s win recognised an ability to combine empathy with assertive advocacy to ensure a vulnerable worker was protected and supported through a traumatic experience. Holding the employer accountable to their legal obligations and advocating for the worker’s safe return to work, his actions set a precedent for how such matters should be handled across the organisation. Learn more in the below video.

Video about Manny Mason from the City of Ballarat’s winning approach in the 2025 WorkSafe Awards. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

“The quality of this year’s entries was outstanding and I want to congratulate all of our finalists along with the worthy award winners,” WorkSafe Victoria CEO Cathy Henderson said. “It’s inspiring to hear stories of resilience from those who have returned to work after injury and see the meaningful contribution of those dedicated to protecting the health and safety of their colleagues and workers across Victoria.”

2025 WorkSafe Awards winners. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

Top image: Warakirri Cropping team — winner in the Farm Safety Solution category. Source: WorkSafe Victoria

What are the psychological costs when both partners work from home?

Mon, 23 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +1100

Constant digital interruptions increasing after-work frustration, strained couples’ relationships, and a heavier psychological burden on women; these are some of the challenges that a study with more than 100 participants who lived with their partners while both worked from home full-time through the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed.

The 10-day diary study was published in the Journal of the Association for Information Systems and conducted by UNSW Business School’s Scientia Professor Manju Ahuja — in the School of Information Systems and Technology Management — together with Dr Rui Sundrup from University of Louisville and Associate Professor Massimo Magni from Bocconi University.

What the researchers found was heightened frustration and relationship conflict among work-from-home couples, where technology allowed the intrusion of work into family time. They explored what academics call ICT permeability. This is the way in which information and communication technologies — such as email, text messaging, mobile phones and remote meeting applications — pierce the once-solid barrier between work and home life.

A blurring of boundaries that has been associated with distinct challenges. Challenges that differ markedly from households where only one partner worked remotely, according to this research, is a situation where women bear a disproportionate psychological burden from the digital interruptions.

For the study, participants responded to three daily online surveys over consecutive workdays, providing real-time insights into their experiences. This allowed the researchers to capture daily, real-time fluctuations in work-family dynamics and to reduce the retrospective bias common in traditional surveys.

The study follows previous work by Ahuja on the psychological and relational costs of working from home, despite the benefits of flexibility and avoiding the daily commute. “This overall stream of research explores the double-edged sword of technology (such as Zoom and Teams) and anytime-anywhere connectivity,” Ahuja explained.

“The previous research found that, while employees reported significantly improved productivity, they also tended to suffer from stress-related physiological symptoms (like headaches), and their relationships were adversely affected.

“With this new study, we wanted to examine whether these effects are exacerbated when both partners work from home. We were trying to understand what employees can do if they wish to maintain some form of work-life balance in the face of relentless connectivity and constant negotiations of home and work tasks with their partners.”

Scientia Professor Manju Ahuja. Image: Manju Ahuja / UNSW Sydney

According to the researchers, simple planning strategies can help reduce the negative impacts of work technology on home life for couples — the research suggesting that planning behaviour is particularly salient in the context of working from home. In fact, planning was associated with more effective resource allocation, reducing the sense of being overwhelmed by competing demands.

“This suggests that when the remote-working partners engage in joint daily planning to account for meetings and video calls each has scheduled (which can be problematic in certain home office setups) and the domestic and childcare tasks that need to be accomplished at certain times, they face lower levels of frustration with each other and internally,” Ahuja said.

Top image credit: iStock.com/MilanMarkovic. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Do early-life natural disaster experiences shape safer workplaces?

Tue, 17 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +1100

As in Australia, workplace safety is a major issue for employers and workers in the United States, with important social and economic implications. According to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the U.S. National Safety Council figures, there were more than 2.6 million workplace injuries in 2023, costing some $176 billion and 103 million workdays.

To consider whether experiencing a natural disaster in childhood can shape how business leaders approach workplace safety decades later, a Concordia University-led study (doi: 10.1111/eufm.70036) mapped the records of more than 500 CEOs. They did this by identifying large US companies listed on the S&P 1500 index between 2002 and 2011, then used an executive tracking database to identify CEOs.

Publicly available biographical details about each one — usually from corporate websites, news articles, public records and online databases — was then collected, this data including birth year, birthplace and the counties where the CEOs lived during their formative years (between ages five and 15).

To allow the team to identify who had lived through such events, collected information on the CEOs was merged with a database of US county-level natural disasters that occurred when the CEOs were at formative ages. Then, data from OSHA was used to examine company injury data, which helped identify safety outcomes, as well as companies run by CEOs with and without early disaster exposure.

What the researchers found was that CEOs who have lived through events like major earthquakes, floods or hurricanes early in life run firms that prioritise safer workplaces. Their companies report fewer work-related injuries and illnesses than similar ones run by executives who have not lived through those types of events, according to mandatory disclosure statistics supplied to OSHA.

And the work-related injuries in firms run by CEOs who experienced natural disasters during their formative years were significantly fewer — by almost 24%. That consistency was maintained — even after controlling for firm size, industry, financial pressure and union strength, plus CEO workplace authority, gender and age — meant that the findings were robust. The results are even starker in firms with powerful CEOs and in industries with weaker union influence and higher earning pressure, the researchers found.

“We can read these results as saying that less powerful CEOs will back down from pressure from their boards when they are confronted with arguments that better workplace safety entails higher costs and lower profits,” said paper co-author Michel Magnan, Distinguished University Research Professor in the Department of Accountancy at the John Molson School of Business.

Michel Magnan. Image: Concordia University

“But if you are a powerful CEO and you strongly believe that workplace safety is important, and that it is a value-creator in the long term, you’ll charge ahead anyway. You’ll have the leeway to make things happen.”

Disaster exposure early in life does not necessarily make someone a better CEO, Magnan acknowledged. But the research does reveal how events in an executive’s past may influence their behaviour, which can be relevant to boards, investors and policymakers as they address worker safety, especially in high-risk industries.

Top image credit: iStock.com/chaiyapruek2520. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

LGBTIQ+ workers are 1.5x more likely to experience discrimination and/or harassment

Tue, 03 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +1100

Data from Diversity Council Australia’s (DCA) 2025–2026 Inclusion@Work Index has revealed that LGBTIQ+ workers are 1.5 times more likely to experience discrimination and/or harassment at work — with 46% of LGBTIQ+ workers reporting experiencing discrimination and/or harassment at work in the past year, compared with 26% of non-LGBTIQ+ workers.

The findings also reveal that — with respect to the Inclusion@Work Index — discrimination and/or harassment against LGBTIQ+ workers has increased; when the last Inclusion@Work Index was released in 2024, 39% of LGBTIQ+ workers reported experiencing this type of exclusion.

“Our findings point to a persistent challenge within Australian workplaces. Organisations need practical, evidence-based approaches that address the systemic issues contributing to LGBTIQ+ exclusion,” Diversity Council Australia CEO Catherine Hunter said.

“Workplaces that invest in inclusive cultures, visible and supportive leadership and clear policies are better positioned to reduce discrimination and create environments where all employees feel safe and respected.”

Other key findings from DCA’s latest data include that:

49% reported that people had made incorrect assumptions about their abilities based on their identity, compared with 33% of non-LGBTIQ+ workers;
41% said they had been ignored or treated as if they didn’t exist, compared with 30% of non-LGBTIQ+ workers;
39% of LGBTIQ+ workers reported being left out of work social gatherings, compared with 29% of non-LGBTIQ+ workers.

In a statement, DCA said that such behaviours are often dismissed as less serious in comparison to more overt forms of discrimination or harassment, yet its research shows they have real consequences for both employees and organisations.

By way of example, DCA pointed to the fact that workers who were frequently excluded from social gatherings were more likely to report work negatively impacted their mental health, lower job satisfaction, reduced engagement, and a higher likelihood of leaving their job. Such exclusion was also shown to undermine collaboration, innovation and customer service, DCA said.

“Everyday exclusion matters. It undermines wellbeing, drives people out of organisations, and weakens team performance, all of which can negatively impact productivity,” Hunter said.

“Organisations that take a deliberate, evidence-based approach to inclusion are better placed to reduce exclusion and support LGBTIQ+ employees so they can feel safe to be themselves at work.”

If you are affected by any of the issues discussed in this article, 1800RESPECT has a 24/7 support service that can help; please call 1800 737 732.

Image credit: iStock.com/skynesher. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Victoria in 2025: $17m+ in penalties and 137 prosecutions and enforceable undertakings

Mon, 02 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +1100

In 2025, Victoria had $17,391,325 in fines, costs and undertakings for breaches of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Dangerous Goods Act, WorkSafe Victoria has revealed.

Last year also saw the state first workplace manslaughter conviction being increased to a record $3 million on appeal, and three other seven-figure penalties. There were also 29 outcomes worth more than $100,000.

At 64, employers in construction made up the largest proportion of prosecutions. This was followed by manufacturing (at 30), and transport, postal and warehousing (at 8).

Offences involving working at height accounted for the highest number of outcomes, with a total of $3.74 million in fines, costs and undertakings associated with 52 employers — almost exclusively from the construction industry.

Breaches involving mobile plant, such as forklifts and cranes, were the second most common offence type, accounting for 26 successful results, followed by unguarded machinery with 17.

Thirty-five duty holders were prosecuted by WorkSafe Victoria over observed or reported safety issues last year.

Victoria’s deadliest industry

“Construction remains Victoria’s deadliest industry with 69 fatalities in the last five years, largely due to preventable falls from height, but we also continue to see significant workplace harm in both the manufacturing and transport sectors,” WorkSafe Victoria’s Chief Health and Safety Officer Sam Jenkin said.

“By keeping a close eye on these industries, we’re able to identify both known and emerging risks and take strong enforcement action, even in cases where an incident has not yet occurred.”

To help drive down the number of injuries and deaths in key priority areas, Jenkin also said that the regulator will work to further improve its enforcement approach.

“We want to ensure we’re using the most appropriate tools to influence behaviour change when it comes to common offences, such as those involving working at height,” Jenkin said. “Not putting up guard rails for a quick roofing job or letting an apprentice work alone may seem like easy ways to save a bit of time or money, but the reality is you’re gambling with a person’s life.”

Deaths and life-changing injuries

Tragically, of Victoria’s 137 successful prosecutions last year, 17 arose from incidents where a worker had died, while other matters involved life changing injuries such as paraplegia, brain damage and amputation; matters that, Jenkin said, highlight what was at stake when safety was not at the forefront.

“When employers fail to manage risks in their workplaces, the consequences can be catastrophic — both physically and mentally,” Jenkin said.

“Through our work, we see this reality. We see the pain and heartbreak family members endure when their loved one is killed, the guilt and regret that often consumes employers and even co-workers after a tragedy, and the ongoing suffering of workers whose lives are forever changed after a serious injury.”

Psychological health

Regarding psychological health, WorkSafe Victoria also took action against workplace bullying and harassment, with four duty holders fined for failing to protect workers from psychological harm.

Victorian employers now have a specific duty to identify psychosocial hazards, take reasonable steps to eliminate or control the associated risks, and review risk controls, under new psychological health regulations that came into effect in December 2025.

Enforcement activity, WorkSafe Victoria stated, is a key part of its constructive compliance strategy, which balances deterrents and positive motivators for duty holders.

The full list of Victoria’s prosecution result summaries and enforceable undertakings is available here.

Top image credit: iStock.com/FrankRamspott. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

Is reporting workplace sexual harassment 'worth it'?

Fri, 23 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +1100

Despite recent legal reforms and increased emphasis on upholding workplace conduct policies, two recent Flinders University studies — supported by the 2023 SafeWork South Australia Augusta Zadow Awards — suggest that it is not just the fear of retaliation that stops people from speaking, but also feeling unsupported by systems that will not protect them.

The first study, a survey of more than 200 Australian workers who had experienced or witnessed sexual harassment, sought to understand the internal psychological factors — beyond external barriers like fear of retaliation — that influenced their decision on whether to report or not. The second study, a historical review of workplace sexual harassment reporting and investigation, supported the first by suggesting that the challenges it revealed are not new.

Survey

Only around one in five people who experienced harassment went on to report it. In the context of the survey, Senior Lecturer in Mental Health and Wellbeing, and Director of the Flinders Workplace Wellbeing Lab, Dr Annabelle Neall, said the research identified three key psychological needs that influence reporting.

Dr Annabelle Neall (Source: Supplied).

These were: autonomy (feeling in control), competence (feeling capable), and relatedness (feeling respected and supported). And when — by unclear processes, fear of backlash or a lack of trust in the system — these needs are undermined, people are far less likely to speak up.

“The decision not to report wasn’t just about external risks like losing a job, it was also deeply tied to internal struggles,” Neall explained. “People weigh up whether reporting will make things better or worse and they often concluded it wasn’t worth the emotional toll, the risk to their reputation or the likelihood that nothing would change.”

Survey participants described feeling unsure whether their experience ‘counted’ as harassment, fearing career damage and doubting that reporting would lead to meaningful action. With burdensome steps and little reassurance, some said the process itself felt punishing, while many worried about being labelled as weak or troublemakers. In the words of one worker: “It didn’t seem like it would be worth the emotional upheaval.”

Professor Lydia Woodyatt, a co-author and Professor in Psychology, adds further insight — noting that reporting is not just a procedural step.

“Victims and witnesses feel that they’re having to choose between protecting themselves and speaking up, and that pressure makes the decision emotionally charged and very difficult,” Woodyatt said. “If people believe the system won’t provide them justice or protect them, they stay silent. That silence isn’t about indifference, it’s about survival.”

Review

Revealed by the historical review of workplace sexual harassment reporting and investigation was that, while laws and policies have evolved since the 1980s, reporting systems remain largely ineffective. The review highlighted persistent problems that include: mistrust in investigations, fear of retaliation, and organisational cultures that normalise and perpetuate this kind of harassment.

“For decades, organisations have focused on legal compliance and punitive measures, but these approaches often fail to address the cultural and psychological barriers that keep people silent,” Neall said.

The review also warns that mandatory reporting schemes that have been introduced in some sectors can backfire by eroding survivor autonomy and trust. Neall added: “Paper compliance doesn’t create cultural change; we need systems that feel safe, supportive and genuinely transformative.”

The call

Called for in both studies is a shift towards trauma-informed and transformative justice approaches; such approaches address the root causes of harassment and create cultures of respect, moving beyond punishment. This includes fostering a sense of belonging and trust, co-designing reporting channels with employees, and providing timely feedback.

“People told us they didn’t want revenge, but rather that they wanted assurance that it wouldn’t happen again,” Neall said. “Reporting should feel like a step towards positive change, not a risk to your wellbeing.”

Underscoring the studies is the suggestion that organisations need to rethink their strategies. “If reporting feels unsafe, ineffective and isolating, people won’t do it. To break that cycle, we need to design systems that restore autonomy, competence and connection for victims who are already hurting,” Neall concluded.

If you are affected by any of the issues discussed in this article, 1800RESPECT has a 24/7 support service that can help; please call 1800 737 732.

Top image credit: iStock.com/skynesher. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.

The crucial role of line managers in managing psychosocial risk

Wed, 21 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +1100

Line managers sit at the intersection of people and performance. Every day, they shape how work is planned, communicated and experienced — how it feels to show up, speak up and be supported. Increasingly, they also stand on the frontline of managing psychosocial risk.

Why line managers matter more than ever

Work design, team dynamics, workload and recognition: these are some of the key levers that influence psychological health at work. And they sit largely in a line manager’s hands.

Managers influence how work is distributed, how change is communicated and how concerns are addressed, or overlooked. Their leadership style, emotional intelligence and responsiveness to early warning signs can either reduce risk or exacerbate it.

Yet many managers are under strain themselves. Our psychosocial risk audits consistently show that line managers experience high workloads, cognitive overload and emotionally demanding roles, often without adequate training, support or clarity about how to manage psychosocial hazards effectively.

The legal and regulatory shift

Across Australia, psychosocial risk management has moved from a best-practice recommendation to a legally enforceable obligation. Under WHS and OHS laws, employers must now identify and manage psychosocial hazards with the same diligence as physical risks.

Recent developments include:

The model Code of Practice: Managing Psychosocial Hazards at Work, adopted or adapted across all harmonised jurisdictions.
Victoria’s Occupational Health and Safety Amendment (Psychological Health) that came into effect from 1 December 2025, which introduces specific duties to control psychosocial risk.
A growing body of legal cases showing that failure to act on known psychosocial hazards can result in serious financial and reputational consequences.

These frameworks place responsibility not only on the organisation as a whole but also on individuals — especially managers — who shape daily working conditions.

Legal lessons: what happens when we get it wrong

Several recent court cases in Australia highlight the consequences of failing to manage psychosocial hazards:

Mathews v Winslow Constructors — $1.3 million awarded due to prolonged bullying and harassment, and a failure to act.
Court Services Victoria — $379,000 awarded following exposure to traumatic content, high demands and toxic culture.
Elisha v Vision Australia — nearly $1.5 million awarded for psychiatric injury linked to poor management response and breached duty of care.

In each case, the hazards were known but left unaddressed. Early signs were missed or dismissed. Patterns of harmful behaviour continued unchecked. These weren’t isolated failures, they were systemic issues in culture and capability.

What good looks like

Line managers aren’t expected to be mental health professionals. But they are expected to:

Understand what psychosocial hazards are.
Recognise when work is becoming harmful (eg, whether due to high workload, poor change processes or interpersonal conflict etc.).
Regularly check in with their teams and notice early signs of stress.
Take reasonable steps to reduce and report risks.
Implement practical control measures as part of everyday team leadership.

When managers are trained and empowered to do this well, they become a powerful early intervention. When they’re not, psychosocial risks are overlooked, leading to preventable harm, disengagement and even litigation.

**************************************************

What organisations can do

To build confidence and capability among line managers, organisations should:

Train managers on psychosocial hazards, legal obligations and practical controls.
Embed capability frameworks into WHS, leadership and performance systems.
Assess manager confidence and behaviour through surveys, 360 feedback or audit tools.
Resource managers properly, giving them time, tools and clear escalation pathways.
Align expectations across HR, WHS and leadership to reinforce consistency.

Line managers are not just implementers of policy. They are culture carriers, risk mitigators and frontline influencers of psychological safety. Their ability to connect with their teams and act early makes them one of the most powerful — and often underutilised — levers for preventing harm.

**************************************************

Image credit: iStock.com/FatCamera. Stock image used is for illustrative purposes only.