Footnotes
1 Bruce
K. Lyon, N. Prasad Kadambi, and Georgi Popov, "Costs and Benefits of Managing Risk:
Taking a Risk-Informed, Performance-Based Approach," Professional Safety, June 1, 2022, pp.
29–36.
2 Jimmie Hinze,
Matthew Hallowell, and Kevin Baud, "Construction-Safety Best Practices and
Relationships to Safety Performance," Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, June 11, 2013.
3 Bruce K. Lyon and Georgi Popov, Assessing and Managing Risk: An ERM Perspective,
American Society of Safety Professionals, February 15, 2021.
4 Ryan Olson,
Alexandra Varga, Annie Cannon, Jamie Jones, Illa Gilbert-Jones, and Erika
Zoller, "Toolbox Talks To Prevent Construction
Fatalities: Empirical Development and Evaluation," Safety Science, July 2016, pp. 122–133.
5 Gabriel Dadi, Farshid Taherpour, Seth Atkins, Ashtarout
Ammar, and Jon Wilcoxson, "Evaluating the Use of a Near-Miss Reporting Program To
Enhance Employee Safety Performance," Kentucky Transportation Center,
College of Engineering, University of Kentucky, August 2023.
Special thanks to Justin Morrow, customer success manager at FactorLab, for coauthoring this article.
Traditionally, safety systems focus on hazard recognition and compliance. Since the emergence of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, safety practitioners in the United States have been educated and trained to identify and correct workplace hazards and manage regulatory compliance. 1 Exercises like checklists, audits, and observations create leading indicators intended to prevent accidents and meet safety-related regulatory requirements. This focus has significantly improved processes and provided a starting point for industries that value safety. However, as the workplace has evolved and societal expectations of acceptable levels of risk have changed, the hazard recognition approach to safety continues to fall short.
The study of safety for 40 years shows that our industry still has more work to do to improve safety outcomes. The catalyst for change and improvement is obvious. Everyone should agree that the loss of human life is unacceptable. Furthermore, the means and methods for getting there continue to shift. For example, in organizations worldwide, a ritual occurs each morning: the prejob safety meeting, known as job hazard analysis, job safety analysis, or pretask planning. Whatever the industry chooses to label it, the intent is the same. Work crews gather to align on the day's tasks, discuss potential hazards, and strategize mitigation measures before work begins. These morning conversations are considered safety best practices, a leading indicator associated with hazard recognition intended to prevent incidents. 2
Over time, our learnings have come through the ever-prevailing incidents, including fatalities, that plague businesses in dangerous industries. Using hazard recognition safety processes typically only scratches the surface of understanding organizational risk. These tools are only one piece of the puzzle. To prevent and mitigate loss, hazard recognition and control must become regarded as only one component of a comprehensive risk management framework within an organization's strategy to define and achieve operational excellence.
According to the American Institute for Chartered Property Casualty Underwriters, risk frameworks include the following four risk quadrants that group organizational risk.
Operational and hazard risks are considered pure or absolute risks, which can only result in loss or negative outcomes. Financial and strategic risks represent speculative risks, which have the possibility of a positive outcome, negative outcome, or both. For most occupational safety professionals, the primary focus is hazard risk. Hazard risks often cascade into other parts of the organization, impacting its operations, financial strength, and sometimes its reputational and strategic capabilities. 3
Seeking the Ever-Elusive Safety Culture
Hazard recognition and controls, including predictive risk assessments and proactive hazard identification, are intended to create that difficult-to-attain "safety culture." Some organizations regard safety culture as wishful thinking or new age jargon, an unachievable or unsustainable transformation. Yet new technology in the safety space is creating clarity around what it takes to design a risk strategy that could lead to culturally sustainable, repeatable shifts.
Barry Nelson, CEO of FactorLab, has created an opportunity to shift the written job hazard analysis (JHA) activity each morning to a video-recorded daily planning conversation. Moving from static communication on paper and checklist-based applications, he identified several challenges with the "paper problem," including the overreliance on written documentation and boilerplate hazard statements. Over the last 6 years, working with large construction organizations like TD Industries, Joseph J. Albanese Inc., Flintco., and Jordan Foster Construction, his organization evolved the JHA process. It transformed the JHA into a true daily planning conversation, capturing and studying over 800,000 videos in real time in the field. Using recent technological innovations in artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning, and natural language processes, these companies transform paper-based checkbox hazard recognition and complaint systems into worksite planning conversations analyzed with advanced language models.
AI pinpoints key traits that enhance project safety and performance, measure psychological safety, comprehensive hazard analysis, effective communication, more substantial care-based leadership, and positive cultural attributes like engagement, trust, and respect. 4
Analyzing the daily planning conversations has revealed three key elements of a highly effective culture. Companies focusing on trust, ability, and value can shift their risk framework, ultimately engraining safety into operational excellence.
Trust: The Foundation of Honest Reporting
When it comes to engaging with safety systems, employees don't withhold safety information because they don't care—they may do so because they perceive their input isn't valued or could be used against them. One recurring theme in safety conversations was "What happens next?" Employees were more likely to engage in reporting when they trusted that their input would lead to meaningful action rather than disciplinary measures.
The workplace is full of well-meaning compliance-based activities that contribute little to the desired outcome and often hinder organizational change. For example, safety training videos are a standard tool to ensure compliance communication with those performing work, meant to prevent accidents by transferring knowledge on best practices. Unfortunately, videos are often very long, old, not engaging, and frequently mocked on social media for their bland, outdated content. The method creates distrust because the receiver sees no value in the time it takes to complete the training.
The same can be said for checklists and safety reporting. Yet, checklists and training are the cornerstone of safety reports. The most hazard recognition and compliance-based approach one can hope for is an employee participating in watching the video or completing the form, which is not necessarily a trust-building activity.
Trust is a firm belief or confidence in a person's, group's, or system's reliability, truthfulness, ability, or integrity. It reflects a sense of assurance that others will act predictably and ethically in beneficial or, at a minimum, not harmful ways. Trust involves emotional and rational elements, where people feel safe and willing to be vulnerable based on positive expectations of another's behavior.
Building and maintaining trust requires consistency, transparency, and adherence to shared values. Breaking trust leads to losing credibility, cooperation, and overall effectiveness. When an employee is asked to watch an outdated video or complete an overcomplicated checklist, there is a low expectation of trust that this activity will change behavior or prevent an accident.
Another example of a process that leads to mistrust is the aftermath of incident reporting. All employees are expected to report all incidents to management. Most safety manuals have some language embedded stating something like "report injuries, no matter how slight, to your supervisor." The report starts the incident management process, including an investigation, a drug test, a potential medical treatment, a root cause meeting, statements, and potential work modifications. The supervisor's response to an incident report may be positive, which could lead to trust. However, the behavior will not build trust if the supervisor is irritated, doubts the incident report, doesn't acknowledge the report, or complains to the employee about completing a report. Employees hesitate to provide critical information if they feel it could be used against them. This results in underreporting hazards, creating blind spots and a false sense of security in the organization's safety landscape.
When trust is lacking, employees may only report what they believe is safe to disclose out of a fear of reprisal or a concern over damaging their reputation. This creates a significant barrier to understanding the real risks that exist in the workplace. Cultural barriers, such as language and traditions, can also exacerbate communication and trust.
Trust is built with intentionality, consistency, and time. Some key attributes for building confidence in the realm of safety include breaking down outdated safety silos and processes. Studies have indicated that fostering a culture of trust and open communication within organizations, coupled with a robust near-miss reporting system, can lead to a reduction in incidents. Research has shown that a well-defined, comprehensive near-miss reporting program leads to lower total recordable incident rates, increases communication and trust about safety, and helps workers identify hazardous conditions and unsafe worker behavior. 5 Some obvious starting points include the following.
How To Build Trust
By building trust, employees are more likely to share detailed information about risks, enabling the organization to address opportunities for improvement before incidents occur.
Ability: Streamlining the Process
The second element is ability—the ease with which employees can engage with safety systems. Human nature may cause people to default to the path of least resistance, providing just enough information to meet the organization's process requirements. This can lead to a mechanical approach to safety activities, where the depth and quality of information are sacrificed for speed and convenience. This often shows up in the outdated JHA process. Typically, the pencil whipping actions to complete a meaningless task are only discovered after the occurrence of an accident. During the root cause analysis or discovery in a lawsuit, the company often finds out that the JHA was incomplete or unsigned.
FactorLab's research revealed that many employees want to report safety concerns but find the process too time-consuming, confusing, or irrelevant. One worker described filling out a form that asked for a "hazard code" but had no idea what that meant—so they just selected a random option. This highlights how overly complex or jargon-filled systems discourage meaningful engagement.
Organizations must make it simple and efficient for employees to provide meaningful data to move beyond compliance.
How To Enhance Ability
When reporting is made easy and nonintrusive, employees are more likely to contribute valuable insights that help address the underlying risks.
Value: Focusing on Purpose, Not Process
Value is about aligning employee perception with the true purpose of safety activities. In many organizations, safety processes are seen as ends, leading employees to complete safety briefings or reports because management requires them, not because they believe they contribute to their safety.
FactorLab's study of the JHA process and daily planning conversations with workers consistently revealed a disconnect between compliance activities and real-world safety outcomes. One employee summed it up perfectly, stating, "If they want me to fill this out, fine—I'll do it. But does anyone actually read these?" This sentiment reflects a fundamental lack of perceived value. Employees engage more deeply when their input is heard, acknowledged, and respected.
For genuine engagement, employees need to regard safety systems not as checklists but as tools that protect their well-being. They must understand the "why" behind the safety activities in which they are asked to participate.
How To Instill Value
Employees who see the value in the purpose of a safety activity—rather than the process itself—are more likely to engage and communicate effective prevention strategies.
Training people effectively requires more than just teaching them how to perform a task—it demands understanding the "why" behind the activity. Jordan Foster Construction uses a program called Giant Worldwide Toolkit Concepts—training focused on developing self-awareness, communication, and leadership skills alongside technical expertise. People learn best when they grasp the purpose behind their work, as it fosters ownership, engagement, and adaptability. When individuals understand why a process or safety measure is essential—whether in construction, risk management, or leadership—they are more likely to internalize and apply the knowledge consistently. Leaders should use clear, intentional communication and leverage visual tools, storytelling, and interactive learning to reinforce key concepts. By prioritizing the "why" before the "how," organizations build a culture of continuous improvement, where employees think critically, anticipate challenges, and take proactive steps to ensure success.
Most employees already understand the value of safety. They want to work in environments where they can go home unharmed, and they recognize that safe work practices help prevent injuries. However, FactorLab's research—including insights from over 800,000 workplace safety conversations—has found that knowing the value of safety is not the issue. Instead, the challenge is that workers are often pressured to prioritize other "more important" factors, such as production deadlines, efficiency goals, and cost control.
The Pressure To Prioritize Production over Safety
Workers frequently face implicit and explicit signals that production comes first. While leadership may emphasize safety in meetings and policies, the daily reality on the ground often tells a different story.
These mixed signals create a disconnect between the value of safety and the reality of workplace pressures. As a result, safety can become a "check-the-box" activity, where workers complete safety reports, attend training, and follow procedures when convenient—but defer to production demands when under pressure.
What We Learned from 800,000 Conversations about Value
FactorLab's research uncovered a recurring sentiment among workers, "I know safety is important, but my job is to get the work done." This shows that the real barrier is not awareness—it's execution. Employees often feel like they have to choose between safety and keeping their jobs secure, staying on schedule, or avoiding conflict.
This is why safety programs must go beyond communication and focus on removing the underlying pressures that force workers to choose.
How To Align Safety with Workplace Priorities
Make safety a productivity enabler, not a trade-off. Leaders must reinforce that safe work is productive work by ensuring that safety measures are seen as critical to success, not obstacles to efficiency.
Reward real safety actions often. Recognizing employees for identifying and addressing risks proactively (rather than just completing required paperwork) strengthens engagement.
Ensure that leadership actions match their words. If supervisors emphasize safety but push workers to cut corners when under pressure, employees will quickly learn where the real priorities lie.
Integrate safety into processes. Simplifying safety procedures and embedding them into the daily routine removes the perception that safety is an extra task rather than an essential part of work.
Moving from Awareness to Action
The true challenge of workplace safety isn't convincing workers that it's valuable—it's ensuring that safety is never seen as secondary to productivity. Safety must be a component of operations, no longer separate and siloed.
When organizations bridge the gap between knowing and doing, they move beyond compliance-based safety programs and create a culture where workers feel empowered to make safety-driven decisions without a fear of consequences.
Conclusion: Moving Beyond Compliance
Shifting the perception of safety from hazard recognition and compliance to risk management requires a cultural change within the organization. Organizations can unlock more profound insights into risks and hazards by fostering trust, simplifying ability, and demonstrating the value of safety activities, which addresses the underlying causes that lead to incidents. This trust, ability, and value framework allows safety systems to evolve from bureaucratic exercises into powerful operational excellence best practices that contribute to creating safer workplaces.
Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.