News and Events

Is a workplace safe simply because it is neither too hot nor too cold? Can a temperature that falls within prescribed limits still have a negative impact on employees? And to what extent can inadequate microclimatic conditions affect concentration, work performance and the risk of occupational injuries?

Microclimatic conditions are an important aspect of occupational safety and health, yet their significance is often reduced to whether employees feel comfortable or uncomfortable in the workplace.

In reality, air temperature, relative humidity and air velocity directly affect the body’s thermoregulation, physiological strain, concentration and working capacity.

Inadequate microclimatic conditions can contribute to faster fatigue, reduced attention, an increased number of errors and health complaints. In industrial settings, particularly during physically demanding work, the consequences can be more serious.

Microclimate is therefore not merely a matter of comfort. It is also an employer’s legal responsibility and an important factor in workplace risk management.

What Do We Mean by Workplace Microclimate?

Under the prescribed assessments of the working environment in the Republic of Serbia, three basic parameters are measured:

• Air temperature (°C): affects heat exchange between the human body and its surroundings.
• Relative humidity (%): expresses the actual amount of water vapour in the air relative to the maximum amount possible at a given temperature, and affects the efficiency of sweat evaporation.
• Air velocity (m/s): affects convective heat exchange and the evaporation of moisture from the skin.

However, a comprehensive assessment of thermal comfort and heat stress must also take additional factors into account, particularly the mean radiant temperature of surrounding surfaces, the intensity of physical activity and the thermal insulation provided by clothing.

This means that two workplaces with identical air temperatures may offer very different working conditions.

An employee performing office work at 26°C may experience a completely different physiological response from an employee performing strenuous physical work at the same temperature, particularly when protective clothing is worn.

Temperature: When Do Working Conditions Begin to Threaten Safety?

The human body continuously exchanges heat with its surroundings in an effort to maintain a stable core temperature.

When heat stress increases, the body activates its cooling mechanisms, primarily by increasing blood flow to the skin and producing sweat.

If environmental conditions, physical activity or clothing restrict the body’s ability to dissipate heat, body temperature may rise excessively.

Potential consequences include dehydration, an increased heart rate, fatigue, heat cramps, heat exhaustion and, in the most severe cases, heatstroke.

The risk is not limited to outdoor work. Excessive heat stress can also occur inside industrial facilities, particularly in foundries, bakeries, boiler rooms, production halls and areas with intensive heat sources.

Low temperatures present a different set of risks. Exposure to cold can reduce finger dexterity, cause stiffness, slow motor responses and increase the likelihood of errors when operating equipment.

More severe cold exposure can lead to hypothermia and localised tissue damage.

It is important to understand that the same temperature does not represent the same level of risk for every type of work.

Relative Humidity: Why 26°C Does Not Always Feel Like 26°C

Relative humidity significantly affects how the body experiences thermal conditions.

When relative humidity is high, sweat evaporates less readily from the skin, particularly when the air is close to saturation with water vapour. This limits one of the body’s most important cooling mechanisms.

As a result, working in a warm, humid room can impose a greater heat load than working at the same temperature with lower relative humidity.

Conversely, very dry air can contribute to dry eyes and mucous membranes, particularly during prolonged stays in air-conditioned spaces.

High humidity, combined with cold surfaces and inadequate ventilation, can encourage condensation and mould growth, creating an additional indoor air quality concern.

Relative humidity should therefore never be assessed in isolation from temperature and other workplace conditions.

Airflow: Helpful Cooling or Uncomfortable Draughts?

Air velocity plays a dual role.

In warm conditions, appropriate airflow can help the body release heat and promote sweat evaporation. At lower temperatures, however, or when cold air is directed straight at employees, it can cause local thermal discomfort.

It is particularly important to distinguish ventilation from airflow itself.

Ventilation should provide adequate air exchange and remove airborne contaminants, whereas air velocity describes the local movement of air at the measurement point.

A fan that merely circulates existing air does not necessarily supply enough fresh air or remove hazardous chemicals present in the workplace.

In certain industrial settings, poorly positioned fans can even contribute to the unwanted spread of dust, vapours or other airborne contaminants.

Ventilation and air-conditioning systems must therefore be designed, operated and maintained in accordance with the purpose of the workspace and the characteristics of the technological process.

What Do the Regulations of the Republic of Serbia Require?

Employers’ obligations regarding workplace microclimatic conditions are primarily governed by the Law on Occupational Safety and Health (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 35/2023) and the relevant secondary legislation.

Article 7 of the Law provides, among other things, for preventive measures to ensure that microclimatic conditions comply with the prescribed measures and standards applicable to the relevant industry and workplace.

Article 10 establishes the employer’s obligation to provide appropriate working environment conditions, while Article 15 also covers the engagement of a licensed legal entity to carry out prescribed assessments of workplace environmental conditions.

More detailed requirements are set out in the Rulebook on Preventive Measures for Safe and Healthy Work in the Workplace (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 21/2009 and 1/2019).

Under Section 6 of the Schedule of Measures for Safe and Healthy Work in the Workplace, temperatures in work and ancillary rooms must be appropriate to the work methods, activities and physical demands of employees, except where conditions are determined by the technological process.

Section 6.4 refers to Table 1, which specifies air temperature, relative humidity and air velocity values according to the type of work and the outdoor temperature.

What Are the Specific Permissible Values?

For outdoor temperatures of up to +5°C, as well as for the period when outdoor temperatures range from +5°C to +15°C, the Rulebook specifies:

• Light physical work: temperatures between 18°C and 28°C.
• Moderate and heavy physical work: temperatures between 15°C and 28°C.
• Relative humidity: maximum 75%.

When the outdoor temperature exceeds +15°C, the maximum air temperature in the workplace is 28°C, with maximum relative humidity values depending on the air temperature.

For example, Table 1 specifies maximum relative humidity levels of 55% at 28°C, 60% at 26°C and 65% at 24°C.

Air velocity is also subject to limits depending on the category of work:

The values shown are the maximum permissible air velocities specified in Table 1 of the Rulebook.

These values represent regulatory criteria for workplaces covered by the Rulebook. They should not be confused with optimal temperatures or treated as universal thresholds for safe heat exposure.

For example, the fact that 28°C is listed as the maximum permissible temperature does not mean that every work process or level of physical exertion is equally safe at that temperature.

Workplace Microclimate Assessments: When, Where and Who Is Responsible?

The procedure for assessing workplace microclimatic conditions is further regulated by the Rulebook on the Procedure for Inspection and Testing of Work Equipment, Inspection and Testing of Electrical and Lightning Protection Installations, and Testing of Workplace Environmental Conditions (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, Nos. 76/2024, 38/2025, 118/2025 and 57/2026).

Under Article 12, microclimate assessments are carried out at workplaces and in working environments where work is performed, or where employees move around or remain for more than two hours during a work shift.

The prescribed assessments are conducted during both the summer and winter periods. For summer assessments, the outdoor temperature must exceed 25°C; for winter assessments, it must be below 5°C.

The Rulebook requires at least one measurement point in a workplace room of up to 100 m². Larger rooms require a corresponding increase in the number of measurement points. Where the technological process or characteristics of the building require it, the number of measurement points is determined accordingly.

Article 22 requires periodic assessments of workplace environmental conditions to be conducted no later than three years after the previous assessment. Article 21 addresses preventive assessments, including those required after changes that may affect workplace environmental conditions.

For certain working environments with specific technological conditions, such as cold storage facilities, drying rooms and fermentation rooms, Article 12 provides an exemption from this microclimate assessment regime. However, this does not release employers from their obligation to assess and control risks arising from workplace temperature conditions.

Assessments must be carried out by a legal entity holding the appropriate licence, using an accepted methodology, suitable measuring equipment and the relevant regulations and standards.

Why Is Regulatory Compliance Not Always Enough to Assess Actual Heat Stress?

A standard microclimate assessment provides important information about air temperature, relative humidity and air velocity.

However, work involving significant heat stress requires a broader technical assessment.

International practice uses the WBGT (Wet Bulb Globe Temperature) index for preliminary assessment of heat stress by combining relevant thermal measurements.

The standard SRPS EN ISO 7243:2017 governs the use of the WBGT index to assess heat stress.

For the assessment of thermal comfort in moderate thermal environments, SRPS EN ISO 7730:2025 is relevant. It uses the PMV and PPD indices to predict the average thermal sensation and the percentage of people likely to be dissatisfied with the thermal environment.

SRPS EN ISO 7726:2025 is relevant to instrument characteristics and measurement procedures.

These standards provide a more detailed understanding of thermal conditions, but their purpose must be distinguished from mandatory regulatory criteria for workplace microclimate assessments.

In particular, thermal comfort indices should not be used as a substitute for assessing health risks associated with excessive heat stress.

How Much Does Microclimate Affect Productivity?

The impact of inadequate microclimatic conditions extends beyond health complaints.

Heat stress can contribute to fatigue, reduced concentration and a greater likelihood of errors, potentially lowering work performance and increasing the risk of injuries.

In its 2025 technical material on occupational heat stress, the World Health Organization (WHO) reports an estimated 2–3% reduction in productivity for every additional degree Celsius of WBGT above 20°C.

It is important to note that this estimate relates to changes in the WBGT index, not directly to every one-degree increase in ordinary indoor air temperature. Nor is it a universal prediction of productivity loss for every individual workplace.

Nevertheless, it highlights an important business reality: thermal conditions can have a measurable effect on working capacity and efficiency.

In production facilities, this may affect operational quality, work pace, error rates and the need for more frequent breaks.

In office environments, inadequate thermal conditions can contribute to discomfort, increased strain and a reduced perceived ability to concentrate.

Effective microclimate management is therefore both a preventive measure to protect employee health and an investment in the quality of the work process.

What Should Employers Do When Microclimatic Conditions Are Inadequate?

The first step is to establish the actual situation reliably through prescribed assessments and an analysis of the results.

If deviations are identified, their causes should be investigated. These may include inadequate ventilation capacity, process-generated heat, insufficient building insulation, direct solar radiation or an unsuitable layout of workstations.

Preventive measures may include improving ventilation and air-conditioning, insulating heat sources, installing barriers against radiant heat and implementing other technical solutions.

Where technical measures cannot eliminate the heat load entirely, employers should consider work organisation, task scheduling, appropriate rest periods, access to drinking water and procedures for responding to symptoms of heat stress.

Particular attention should be given to employees performing heavy physical work, wearing impermeable protective clothing or working in technological processes involving significant heat stress.

Measures must be defined according to the results of the risk assessment, the characteristics of the work process and employees’ actual exposure.

Conclusion: Microclimate Is a Measurable Safety Factor, Not Just a Subjective Feeling

Microclimatic conditions directly affect employee health, safety and working capacity.

Temperature, relative humidity and air velocity must be assessed together, in the context of the type of work, physical demands and technological process.

The regulations of the Republic of Serbia establish employers’ obligations to provide appropriate working environment conditions, carry out periodic microclimate assessments and implement preventive measures.

However, effective risk management requires more than formal compliance with prescribed values. It requires understanding their impact on employees, recognising specific sources of strain and addressing the causes of inadequate conditions in a timely manner.

A microclimate that meets prescribed values is an important prerequisite for safe work. A microclimate that is also adapted to employees and their work activities provides a foundation for a healthier and more productive working environment.

During a meeting, a manager asks why a job was not completed by the end of the shift. The employee explains that they noticed a fault on the equipment and did not want to continue until it had been checked. The response they receive at that moment will probably influence what they do the next time. They may hear: “It’s good that you stopped. Let’s see how we can resolve the problem.” Or they may hear a sigh, followed by a question about who will now explain the delay to the client.

Both organisations may have the same work instructions and the same form for reporting deviations. Yet, the message the employee takes away from the meeting is not the same. It will influence how openly they discuss problems they identify. This is why safety is a useful indicator of organisational maturity: it reveals what happens when rules meet deadlines, costs and the expectations of the people responsible for delivering the work.

The maturity of a system is often assessed through what can be counted: the number of training sessions, the percentage of implemented measures, the number of reported injuries. These data are useful, but they require interpretation. A low number of reports may mean that conditions are good. It may also mean that people have stopped reporting because they do not believe anything will change. Only conversations with employees and an understanding of day-to-day work can help explain what lies behind the numbers.

For example, employees may regularly skip one preparation step because the protective equipment they need is located at the other end of the facility. If nobody talks about it, the problem can easily be reduced to “failure to follow the procedure”. However, when the same deviation is repeated by several people, it is worth looking at how the work is organised. Is the protective equipment available when it is needed? Does the planned deadline allow enough time for preparation? Who checks whether the work can actually be carried out in the prescribed manner?

This is also where the role of managers becomes evident. Employees rarely assess the importance of safety based solely on messages from training. They look at what happens when someone stops work, asks for additional equipment or says they need more time. A manager who asks a few questions at that point and helps develop a new plan sends a clear message. That message is remembered far longer than a reminder on a noticeboard.

This does not mean that every request can be fulfilled immediately or that every delay has a simple solution. What matters is that the conversation does not end with determining who slowed the work down. If the problem cannot be resolved that day, the employee should know what the next step is, who is responsible for it and when they can expect an answer. Otherwise, the call to report risks gradually loses its meaning.

Safety is also connected to the way an organisation talks about mistakes. In a team where every mistake is perceived as a personal failure, people will be more selective about what they admit. Some situations will remain known only to the colleagues who witnessed them. When a manager knows how to ask what contributed to a mistake without avoiding the issue of personal accountability, they create room for genuine learning. That conversation is not always comfortable, but it can help prevent the same situation from happening again.

It is particularly important to hear from people whose work is rarely visible from the office. They are often the first to notice when access to equipment is inconvenient, when the work plan is constantly changing in practice, or when a new instruction does not correspond to actual working conditions. If their observations are taken seriously only after an incident, the organisation is missing an opportunity to act earlier. Regular conversations about where work gets stuck often provide more useful information than the general question of whether “everything is fine”.

In practice, there can also be fatigue caused by constant adaptation. Over time, people may come to accept it as normal to work with too little time, wait for equipment or rely on a more experienced colleague who will “somehow sort things out”. This resourcefulness may help get the job done today. If it is necessary every day, however, it conceals a planning problem. The organisation is then functioning thanks to an effort by employees that is rarely visible in reports.

Another useful indicator is how an organisation introduces new people to the job. If a new employee receives instructions and is then immediately expected to keep pace with experienced colleagues, they may not know when they are allowed to stop and ask questions. During the first few weeks, it is particularly important that someone checks what they have understood, shows them what to do when conditions are inadequate and clearly explains whom they can turn to. This kind of support influences how a new employee will later make decisions when working independently.

Maturity can be seen in whether plans leave enough room for safe work, whether reports are followed through to their outcome, and whether managers can change a decision when they receive new information from the field. It can also be seen in whether employees can ask questions without fearing that they will appear incompetent or insufficiently committed to their work.

No organisation has complete visibility of every risk, nor can it prevent every deviation. It can, however, decide how it will respond when people point out a problem. If every report is treated as an inconvenience, there will gradually be fewer of them, but the problems will not disappear. If reports are considered carefully and the organisation explains what action it has taken, it builds the trust that allows difficulties to be raised in time.

The question worth asking is not only how many injuries occurred last year. It is equally important to ask employees what happened the last time they said that something was unsafe. Their answers will show how well procedures have become part of everyday work and how effectively the organisation learns from the people who actually perform it.

Safety is not only a matter of procedures and protective equipment. It is the result of everyday decisions, behaviours, and messages communicated by leaders at every level of an organization.

Occupational safety is not simply a matter of procedures, regulations, and personal protective equipment (PPE). Above all, it is about how people behave within a system and the decisions made every day across an organization. That is why leadership plays a critical role in developing an effective HSE culture.

An organization may have well-defined procedures, completed risk assessments, and clearly established standards. However, if key decision-makers – particularly managers – do not demonstrate through their actions that safety is a genuine priority, employees will quickly adapt to unsafe practices.

Safety culture is not built by what is written on a poster or in a company policy. It is built by what leaders do when there is pressure to complete a job faster, when an unexpected risk emerges, or when an employee raises a concern.

HSE Leadership Starts at the Top, But It Does Not End There

Responsibility for safety is often associated with HSE managers, safety professionals, and occupational health and safety specialists. However, a successful HSE culture requires leadership at every level of the organization:

• Senior management sets the direction and strategic objectives and provides the support and resources needed to achieve them.
• Middle management translates strategic objectives into everyday priorities. Line managers and supervisors have a direct influence on employee behaviour in the workplace.
• Every employee can contribute to the safety of their colleagues through their own actions.

HSE leadership is therefore not a function or a position on an organizational chart. It is a way of making decisions and behaving.

Top Management: Safety as a Business Value

The role of senior leadership is to clearly demonstrate where safety stands among the company’s priorities.

The statement “safety comes first” only has value when it is supported by concrete decisions: allocating resources, investing in employee competence, reviewing performance indicators, and being prepared to stop or change work when the level of risk is unacceptable.

If bypassing a procedure is implicitly accepted because a deadline has to be met, employees receive a clear message that the result is ultimately more important than how it is achieved.

Conversely, when management supports the decision to stop an activity until safe working conditions are established, it demonstrates that the principles it communicates and the safety of its people have real weight.

Middle Management: Where Strategy Becomes Practice

Managers responsible for production, maintenance, logistics, and other functions play a particularly important role because they connect the company’s strategic HSE objectives with operational work.

Their decisions determine whether a task is given sufficient time, an adequate number of people, appropriate equipment, and the necessary competencies.

HSE leadership at this level means asking questions such as:

• Do we understand the risks before work begins?
• Are employees competent to perform the task?
• Do available resources allow the work to be carried out safely?
• What can we learn from previous incidents and near misses?

These questions shift the focus from reacting after an incident to managing risk before an unwanted event occurs.

Supervisors and Line Managers: The Strongest Everyday Influence

For an employee, the immediate supervisor is often the most visible representative of the company’s culture.

The way a supervisor leads a morning briefing, responds to unsafe behaviour, discusses risks, or reacts when an employee raises a concern can significantly influence how employees perceive and approach safety.

Imagine an employee reports that a task cannot be performed in accordance with the established procedure.

“We have to finish this today. Figure it out.” ≠ “What is preventing us from doing this safely, and what can we change?”

The difference between these two responses is, in practice, an indicator of the level of safety culture.

The first teaches employees over time to remain silent and adapt the rules to the situation. The second encourages them to identify and report risks and participate in finding solutions.

Visible Leadership in the Field

One of the most effective ways leaders can demonstrate their commitment to HSE is by being present where the work actually takes place.

Workplace visits should not be limited to checking compliance with procedures. They are an opportunity to talk to employees.

Questions such as:

• What concerns you most about this task right now?
• Which part of the activity carries the greatest risk?
• Is there anything making it more difficult to perform the job safely?
• What could we do differently to make this work safer?
• What do you think we could improve in terms of safety at your workplace?

In this way, the HSE conversation stops being a one-way compliance check and becomes a source of information for improving the system.

A Culture Where People Speak Up

One of the most important indicators of a mature safety culture is not the absence of reported problems, but people’s willingness to speak openly about them.

An organization reporting a high number of hazards, unsafe conditions, and near misses is not necessarily less safe. On the contrary, this may indicate that employees trust the system and believe that reporting problems leads to improvement.

Leaders should therefore pay particular attention to how they respond when they receive bad news.

If the first reaction is to look for someone to blame, employees will quickly learn not to report problems. If the first question is, “What happened and what can we learn from it?”, the organization creates space for learning and preventing recurrence.

This does not mean removing accountability. Accountability remains an important part of any HSE system. Its purpose, however, should be to understand the causes of an event and prevent recurrence—not simply to identify someone to blame.

Consistency Builds Trust

Employees pay close attention to whether rules are applied consistently to everyone.

If operators are required to wear PPE, the same rule must apply to the CEO visiting the workplace. If a permit-to-work procedure is mandatory, it must remain mandatory even when there is client pressure, a deadline, or a production stoppage.

These everyday situations shape safety culture far more strongly than formal HSE messages.

Consistency builds trust. Trust encourages open communication. Open communication enables an organization to identify risks earlier.

From Incident Management to Risk Management

Traditional safety approaches often focus on indicators such as injury rates or lost workdays. These indicators are important, but they describe consequences of events that have already occurred.

HSE leadership should also focus on the activities that precede incidents: the quality of risk assessments, hazard reporting, corrective actions, workplace HSE conversations, training quality, management of change, and employee involvement in improving safety.

Safety Is What Leaders Allow, Encourage, and Require Every Day

Safety culture cannot be changed through a single campaign, training session, or new procedure. It develops through hundreds and sometimes thousands of decisions made every day at every level of an organization.

Every time a leader listens to an employee raising a concern, insists that work is performed correctly, recognizes safe behaviour, or refuses to accept a compromise that increases risk, they strengthen the safety culture.

And the opposite is also true. Every time risk is ignored because of speed, cost, or deadlines, an equally strong negative message is sent.

Building a strong HSE culture starts with leadership – not only the leadership of directors or HSE managers, but the leadership demonstrated by every manager, supervisor, and employee whose decisions can affect the safety of the people around them.

The working day is over. Employees have left the premises, but some electrical equipment remains switched on. In the distribution board, one connection is overheating. There are no visible signs from the outside, and the power supply is still functioning.

This scenario illustrates why electrical installations require attention even when there is no interruption to operation. The fact that equipment is functioning does not confirm that the installation is safe.

Electrical faults represent a significant cause of fires in buildings and facilities. Their position among the most common causes depends on the type of facility, the period observed, and the method used to record and classify incidents.

For this reason, statistics from other countries should not automatically be applied to Serbia, nor should all electrically caused fires be attributed to fixed electrical installations. The source may also be connecting cables, appliances, and other electrical equipment.

For a company, the key practical question is: Are electrical installations being inspected and deficiencies corrected before they become a source of ignition?

How Can an Electrical Installation Cause a Fire?

A fire can occur when heat or an electric arc ignites insulation or nearby combustible material. A short circuit is not always the cause. Problems can develop gradually over a longer period of use.

Overloading. Connecting additional loads without checking the capacity of the installation can lead to excessive heating. Temporary solutions that become permanent are particularly problematic, including extension cords, power strips, and unverified modifications or additions.

Poor connections. Loose or corroded contacts can experience localised overheating due to increased contact resistance. Critical points may include connections inside distribution boards, sockets, and junction boxes.

Damaged insulation and electric arcing. Wear, crushing, and other forms of conductor damage can create conditions for faults and the development of an electric arc. The heat generated by an arc can ignite surrounding materials.

Inappropriate modifications. Changes made without professional verification and prior design may compromise the coordination between conductors, loads, and protective devices.

Replacing a protective device with one having a higher rated current simply to prevent it from tripping can leave the installation inadequately protected.

The risk increases further when cardboard, paper, or other combustible materials are stored near electrical equipment. Good housekeeping and proper storage therefore have a direct preventive role.

Why Might a Circuit Breaker Not Trip?

“If there were a problem, the circuit breaker would switch off the power.”

This assumption can create a false sense of security.

Fuses and circuit breakers have specific protective functions and operating characteristics. Not every poor connection, localised overheating, or electric arc is accompanied by a current level that will cause them to operate in time.

A residual current device (RCD), commonly referred to as an “FID” device, is also not universal protection against all electrically caused fires. For example, a series arc fault can occur without sufficient leakage current to earth to activate an RCD.

AFDDs (Arc Fault Detection Devices) are available for detecting certain types of arc faults, and their use may be considered when professionally selecting protection for a specific circuit.

Protective devices, installation quality, and maintenance should therefore be considered as an integrated system.

Warning Signs That Should Not Be Ignored

The USFA, in its recommendations for workplaces, specifically emphasises checking damaged and overloaded outlets, cables, and connections, as well as keeping combustible materials away from electrical equipment.

The following signs require reporting and professional inspection in particular:

• a smell of burning or heated plastic;
• darkening, deformation, or melting marks on sockets or connections;
• crackling, sparking, or unusual sounds;
• repeated tripping of protective devices;
• visibly damaged cables and loose connections;
• repeated flickering of lights or interruptions of operation with no known cause.

Employees should know whom to notify when they identify a problem and how further use of potentially unsafe equipment is prevented.

They should not open distribution boards, touch suspicious components to check their temperature, or attempt improvised repairs.

If smoke or fire occurs, the priority is to alert people in the area, evacuate the premises, and contact the fire and rescue service.

What Do Professional Inspection and Testing Provide?

A visual inspection can identify some problems, but it is not sufficient for a comprehensive assessment of an electrical installation. The scope of a professional inspection is determined by the type of installation, operating conditions, and applicable requirements.

An assessment should connect the actual condition of the installation with documentation, modifications that have been made, actual loads, and the results of appropriate measurements and tests.

Particular attention should be given to sections of the installation that have been modified subsequently or that supply equipment critical to business continuity.

For management, the quality of the information provided in the final report is also important: where the deficiency is located, what risk it represents, what action is required, and under what conditions the equipment may continue to be used until remediation is completed.

The value of an inspection is realised when a finding is translated into a specific and verified corrective measure.

Where Does Thermography Help and What Are Its Limitations?

Thermographic inspection can indicate abnormal heating of electrical connections and components. It is particularly useful in preventive maintenance and monitoring changes over time.

The result depends on the load at the time of imaging, accessibility of the inspection point, surface characteristics, and professional interpretation.

An installation operating under a light load during the inspection may not show the heating that occurs under peak operating conditions. A similar thermal pattern may also have several possible causes, meaning that the finding requires further verification.

Thermography complements other inspections and tests; it does not replace them. Inspecting energised equipment requires qualified personnel and appropriate safety measures.

New Equipment Requires Verification of the Existing Power Supply

Consider a production facility where the electrical installation was originally designed for a certain number of loads.

Over the years, air-conditioning units, heating equipment, and new production machinery have been added. The installation has been expanded, but the documentation and load assessment have not kept pace with these changes.

This is an illustrative example of an organisational gap: equipment procurement and infrastructure management are treated separately.

Before connecting a new load, a qualified professional should assess the power supply conditions and determine whether modifications to the installation or protective measures are required.

This verification is particularly important when increasing capacity, changing the purpose of a space, or carrying out reconstruction works.

How Should a Company Organise Prevention?

A practical prevention plan should include five interconnected steps:

1. Establish the actual condition. Collect documentation, previous inspection findings, fault records, and information on modifications that have been made.
2. Set priorities. Identify sections of the installation whose failure could endanger people, cause ignition, or interrupt a critical process.
3. Carry out professional inspections. Plan inspections, testing, and, where justified, thermographic surveys in accordance with applicable requirements and conditions of use.
4. Correct deficiencies. For every finding, assign a responsible person, deadline, and necessary temporary measures. Unsafe equipment should not remain in operation simply because remediation has been scheduled.
5. Verify the result. Document completed works, carry out the necessary post-remediation checks, and update the documentation with the involvement of an authorised company qualified to inspect electrical installations.

Protecting People and Business Continuity

A fire in a distribution board can have consequences far beyond the equipment itself: injuries, evacuation, production downtime, damage to goods, and failure to meet customer commitments.

Electrical installation maintenance should therefore be integrated with fire protection, occupational safety and health, and business continuity planning.

The most important outcome of an inspection is that an identified hazard is eliminated before it puts people or the facility at risk.

When discussing HSE systems, attention has traditionally focused on what is easiest to identify: physical hazards, personal protective equipment, procedures, training, risk assessments and technical protective measures. All of these are essential elements of safe work, but there is another part of the picture that is often harder to see and even harder to measure – the mental health of employees.

Stress, chronic fatigue, deadline pressure, lack of rest, poor communication and a prolonged sense of being overwhelmed are not simply matters of employee satisfaction. They can directly affect the way a person performs their work. In high-risk activities, the consequences of errors can be far more serious than a simple decline in productivity.

For this reason, mental health is increasingly becoming a topic that also belongs within the HSE function. Not because HSE should take over the role of psychologists or HR, but because the conditions in which people work are part of the overall risk to which they are exposed.

Mental Risks Are Not Always Easily Visible

With physical hazards, there is often a clear warning sign: a defective machine, a slippery floor, inadequate protection or a hazardous material. Mental strain is different. A problem may remain unnoticed for a long time while an employee continues to come to work, perform tasks and appear, on the surface, as though everything is fine.

That is why it is important to look at the organization of work as well. Are deadlines realistically set? Are employees expected to be constantly available? How are shifts and rest periods planned? Do people have enough time to recover between demanding tasks? How do managers respond when an employee reports feeling overwhelmed?

These are not questions that concern workplace atmosphere alone. The answers may be directly connected to work safety.

It is particularly important to understand the relationship between fatigue and decision-making. When a person is exhausted, simply telling them to “be more careful” is not enough. If work organization is such that fatigue continuously accumulates, responsibility cannot be placed solely on the individual. This is precisely where the HSE approach needs to make a difference – by looking not only at employee behaviour, but also at the conditions that contributed to that behaviour.

What Can an Organization Do?

The first step does not necessarily have to be the introduction of a large mental health programme. Many improvements can be achieved through the way work is planned and managed.

Employees need to know whom they can approach when they feel they can no longer maintain the expected workload. It is equally important that such a conversation is not perceived as a sign of weakness or lack of professionalism. If employees are expected to report physical hazards, it is logical that there should also be space to discuss factors that may affect their ability to work safely.

Managers have a particularly important role. They are often the first people who can notice changes in an employee’s behaviour, reduced concentration, withdrawal from communication or unusual irritability. Their role is not to diagnose, but to respond in a timely manner, listen to the employee and, when necessary, direct them towards appropriate support.

At the same time, responsibility must remain at the organizational level. It is not enough to offer employees a stress-management workshop while maintaining a way of working that constantly creates excessive workload. Mental health cannot be addressed solely through individual coping techniques when the causes of the problem are built into the organization of work.

HSE That Looks at the Cause, Not Just the Consequence

Modern HSE systems are increasingly moving from reacting to incidents towards identifying factors that can contribute to them. In this context, mental health is not an isolated topic, but part of a preventive approach.

An incident rarely has only one cause. Its occurrence may be influenced by an unclear procedure, insufficient training, poor communication, time pressure, lack of rest and human error. If the analysis stops at the final step and concludes that “the employee made a mistake”, an opportunity is missed to understand why the error occurred in the first place.

This is why mental health should be considered within the broader context of psychosocial risks. These may be associated with job demands, workplace relationships, the level of control employees have over their tasks, working hours, and the way an organization manages change and pressure.

The Goal Is Not to Eliminate Stress from Work

A completely stress-free workplace is probably not a realistic goal. Deadlines exist, responsibility exists, and a certain level of effort is part of almost every profession. The problem arises when stress becomes a permanent condition, when there is insufficient opportunity for recovery and when an employee begins to operate at the limits of their capacity.

It is therefore more useful to discuss sustainable working conditions than about trying to eliminate every source of stress.

A good HSE system does not only protect an employee from a machine, chemical, noise or fall. It also considers the person operating that machine, making decisions, working shifts, communicating with colleagues and maintaining concentration throughout the working day.

Integrating mental health into HSE means exactly that: broadening our understanding of safety and recognizing that a person is not merely an executor of a work task, but part of a system that can simultaneously be its greatest strength and one of its points of vulnerability.

When an organization recognizes this, prevention takes on a different meaning. It does not wait for an incident, serious conflict or complete employee exhaustion to occur. Instead, attention is directed towards working conditions and early warning signs.

This is an approach in which HSE is not simply a set of rules to be followed, but a way of organizing work so that people can perform it safely and sustainably over the long term.

Traditional HSE – an administrative approach

For many years, the traditional approach to managing health, safety and environmental protection was primarily based on meeting regulatory requirements, which essentially establish minimum standards. In practice, this meant preparing risk assessment documents, policies and procedures, maintaining mandatory records, addressing inspection findings and fulfilling other regulatory obligations. Such systems were focused on demonstrating compliance, i.e. the organization’s ability to show that the required documentation was in place and that formally prescribed activities had been completed. As a result, the HSE function in many organizations was viewed primarily as an administrative and control function.

The problem arises when documentation becomes an objective in itself. The existence of a procedure does not necessarily mean that employees understand it, apply it or that it reflects actual working conditions. An organization may have well-maintained records, numerous completed training sessions and formally closed corrective actions, while serious risks remain present in the field without being properly identified or addressed. Modern HSE therefore does not reject administration and documentation; instead, it treats them as support for genuine risk management. A document should be evidence and a control tool- not a substitute for actual safety.

Why an administrative approach is not enough

One of the key shortcomings of a predominantly administrative HSE system is the assumption that work will be performed exactly as described in procedures. In real working conditions, there are often time pressures, limited resources, changes in work organization, equipment failures, workarounds and situations that were not anticipated in advance. This creates a gap between how work is designed and described in documentation and how it is actually performed. Understanding the real way work is carried out and the actual needs of workers therefore becomes one of the fundamental tasks of a modern HSE system.

An administrative approach also often reacts only after an unwanted event has already occurred. Following an injury or incident, an investigation is conducted, a procedure is revised, additional training is organized, or a new checklist is introduced. Although such activities are necessary, they represent a reactive approach. A modern HSE system seeks to identify weaknesses before an incident occurs. The focus therefore shifts from asking, “Do we have the document?” to questions such as, “Do we understand the risk?”, “Are the controls effective?” and “How do we know that the system will function when unplanned circumstances arise?”

Moving to a risk-based HSE system

A risk-based approach starts from the premise that an organization can never eliminate all hazards, but it can systematically identify, assess and control risks. The focus of the HSE system therefore shifts from fulfilling individual administrative requirements to understanding scenarios that could result in injuries, events with serious consequences for people and property, environmental pollution or business interruption.

The key questions become:

• What could happen?
• How likely is it to happen?
• What could the consequences be?
• Which controls prevent or mitigate the event?

Different methodologies can be used for this type of management, depending on the complexity of the process and the nature of the risk. Simpler activities can be analyzed through risk assessments, JSA/JHA analyses and checklists, while complex industrial processes may require HAZOP, Bow-Tie, FMEA or other structured methods. The hierarchy of controls is particularly important. It prioritizes the elimination of hazards, substitution of hazardous processes or materials, engineering controls and technical safeguards, while administrative measures and personal protective equipment are considered lower levels of protection. This shifts responsibility for safety from individual behavior toward the quality of the system itself.

From monitoring injuries to monitoring risk controls

Traditional HSE systems often measure performance using indicators that describe events that have already occurred. These may include the number of occupational injuries, lost workdays, environmental incidents or employee injury rates. Known as lagging indicators, these measures are important because they allow organizations to track historical performance and compare results over time. However, their main limitation is that they provide a view of the past. A low number of injuries does not automatically mean that a system is safe because an organization may still have serious uncontrolled risks that have not yet resulted in an incident.

For this reason, modern HSE increasingly relies on leading indicators – measures that provide insight into the status of preventive activities and protective controls. These may include the percentage of completed inspections, the number of identified near-miss events, the condition of safety-critical equipment, the time required to close corrective actions, the quality of risk assessments or the percentage of verified critical controls. The key change is that the organization does not wait for a negative event to obtain information about its safety performance. Instead, it continuously monitors signals that may indicate a weakening of the system. HSE thus becomes a tool for preventive management rather than merely a system for recording consequences.

Critical risks instead of treating all risks equally

Not all risks within an organization are equally significant. A minor cut and a fall from a significant height may appear in the same incident database, but their potential consequences are not comparable. Modern HSE systems therefore focus particular attention on risks that can result in serious consequences, including activities that may lead to severe injuries, major fires, explosions, exposure to hazardous substances or significant environmental impacts. Depending on the industry, these may include high-risk activities associated with the working environment, processes, equipment or long-term consequences arising from the work itself.

For every critical risk, key controls should be defined and verified to ensure they are present and functional enough to prevent a serious event. For example, when working at height, it is not enough to have a procedure and proof that an employee has received training. It is also necessary to verify the condition of fall-protection equipment, connection methods, anchor points, opening protection, rescue arrangements and the competence of the people performing the work. A modern system therefore does not ask only whether a control exists, but whether it is actually present, effective and reliable when needed. Managing critical controls is one of the most important differences between a formal HSE system and a genuinely effective one.

Management’s role – HSE is no longer the responsibility of the HSE department alone

In the traditional model, the HSE department was often viewed as the primary owner of safety responsibilities. HSE professionals were expected to inspect workplaces, identify non-conformities, develop procedures, conduct training and request corrective actions. This approach can easily create the misconception that production, maintenance, logistics and other departments are responsible for business results, while the HSE department is responsible for safety.

However, the people who manage processes, resources, deadlines and equipment are also making decisions that determine the level of risk.

The modern approach therefore emphasizes that managing HSE risks is primarily the responsibility of operational management. The HSE function acts as a technical advisor, analyst, facilitator and independent assurance mechanism, but it cannot manage every organizational risk on its own. Managers must understand the key risks within their areas, know which controls are critical and regularly verify their effectiveness. This integrates HSE into day-to-day management, production planning, maintenance, investment decisions and work organization rather than treating it as a parallel system managed only by a specialized department.

Safety culture and the human factor

When an incident occurs, the simplest explanation is often that an employee was careless, failed to follow a procedure or made a mistake. However, this is rarely the full explanation. Human behavior is influenced by the quality of work instructions, equipment design, workload, fatigue, deadline pressure, resource availability, communication, supervision, experience and organizational culture. If a particular rule is difficult to apply or significantly slows down the work, employees may gradually develop an alternative way of working that the organization eventually begins to accept informally.

Modern HSE therefore increasingly examines human and organizational factors instead of automatically treating individual error as the root cause. Learning from events and encouraging open reporting are intended to enable employees to raise concerns without fear that every mistake will automatically result in punishment. This does not mean eliminating accountability; it means distinguishing between an unintentional error, at-risk behavior and a deliberate violation of rules. An organization with a mature safety culture uses information from the field as a source for improving the system, not merely as a basis for assigning responsibility.

Digitalization of HSE systems

Digital technologies are significantly changing the way organizations manage HSE processes. Paper checklists can be replaced by mobile applications and platforms, corrective actions can be tracked in real time, and sensor data can provide information on hazardous-substance concentrations, temperature, vibration, employee location or equipment condition. Advanced software can also use predictive analytics to identify changes in behavior within a team or among individual employees. Digital dashboards allow management to quickly understand trends, open actions, critical risks and the status of preventive activities. This enables HSE professionals to shift their time away from administrative data entry toward analysis and risk management.

However, digitalization alone does not make an HSE system more effective. If a complicated paper form is simply transferred from paper to a smartphone, the essence of the process remains unchanged. Modern digitalization should simplify work, improve information quality and enable earlier risk identification. Advanced analytics and artificial intelligence also create opportunities to connect large volumes of data and identify patterns that may not be easily visible to humans. However, the quality of digital analysis always depends on the quality of the underlying data and how the organization uses that information when making decisions.

Integrating HSE with business management

HSE risks are not only a matter of employee safety or regulatory compliance. They can have direct business consequences. A serious incident can cause production downtime, property damage, loss of customers or even entire markets, regulatory penalties, legal proceedings, increased insurance costs and long-term reputational damage. An environmental incident can have consequences that last for years and require significant financial resources for recovery. HSE risk management should therefore be viewed as an integral part of the broader business risk management system.

Integration means considering HSE when making investment decisions, purchasing equipment, designing new processes, selecting contractors, planning maintenance and setting production targets. For example, a decision to postpone equipment maintenance is not solely a maintenance or financial decision if it simultaneously increases the likelihood of a serious incident. A modern HSE system enables management to understand these connections and make decisions based on the organization’s overall risk profile. In this way, HSE ceases to be an isolated specialist area and becomes part of the company’s strategic and operational management.

What a mature HSE system looks like

A mature HSE system cannot be recognized simply by the number of procedures, certifications or injury-free days. Its defining characteristic is the organization’s ability to understand and manage its own risks. Management knows which events have the potential for the most severe consequences, which controls prevent them and what the current condition of those controls is. Employees understand the risks associated with their work, have the ability to stop unsafe work and can report problems, while incidents and near misses are used as opportunities for learning. Procedures exist, but they are practical, understandable and connected to the way work is actually performed.

The highest level of maturity is achieved when an organization does not simply react to incidents but actively looks for weak signals that may indicate a future problem. These may include recurring minor deviations, temporary solutions that become permanent, maintenance delays, increasing overtime, declining inspection quality or repeated similar near-miss events. In such a system, HSE is not assuming that the absence of incidents means the absence of risk. Instead, the organization continuously tests how resilient its system is to errors, changes and unexpected events.

Conclusion

The transformation of modern HSE systems can be described as a shift from asking, “Have we met the requirement?” to asking, “Is the risk actually under control?”. Administration, procedures, records and regulatory compliance remain important elements of the system, but they are no longer sufficient to assess its effectiveness. The true value of an HSE system lies in its ability to identify critical risks, establish reliable controls, monitor their effectiveness and recognize weak signals before they develop into serious incidents.

Modern HSE is therefore more than a function responsible for occupational safety and environmental protection. It is becoming an integral part of organizational management. Companies with mature HSE systems do not simply seek to comply with rules; they seek to understand how their systems operate under real conditions, how people make decisions and where future risks may emerge. The fundamental shift is therefore from managing documentation to managing risk, from reacting to consequences of preventing them, and from seeing HSE as the responsibility of one department to recognizing it as a shared responsibility across the entire organization.

Without Their Competence, Safety Remains Just a Procedure

An employee may know exactly how to perform a task safely. They may understand the prescribed safety measures, use personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly, and be aware of the risks associated with their workplace.

But if a manager simultaneously insists on speed, tolerates shortcuts, delays the correction of deficiencies, or approves work to begin without the necessary conditions in place, the effect of the employee’s training can disappear within the very first shift.

That is why occupational safety and health cannot be the sole responsibility of an OSH advisor or associate, nor can it be treated as a topic intended only for operational employees. OSH is part of management, and managers are the people whose day-to-day decisions determine how the system actually functions.

In the simplest terms:

Employees apply occupational safety and health measures, but managers create the conditions in which those measures can — or cannot — be implemented.

Is Manager Training Just a Legal Requirement?

The applicable Occupational Safety and Health Law of the Republic of Serbia (“Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia”, No. 35/2023), in Article 50, specifically identifies participation in the development of training programmes for managers, as well as the organisation and delivery of their training, among the duties of OSH advisors and associates.

Managers are therefore clearly recognised as a specific target group whose role differs from that of other employees.

However, reducing manager training to a matter of formal legal compliance would mean missing an important opportunity.

A well-designed training programme enables managers to:

• understand their authority, duties and responsibilities;
• identify risks before an activity begins;
• make decisions that do not place production and safety in conflict;
• respond appropriately to reported hazards or deviations;
• manage contractors and high-risk activities;
• analyse the causes of events instead of looking only for an immediate person to blame;
• turn OSH requirements into a daily way of organising work.

Legal compliance is therefore the starting point. The real objective is a manager who knows how to manage risk.

Who Actually Manages Risk During the Working Day?

An OSH advisor or associate assesses risks, proposes measures, monitors their implementation and provides professional support. However, they generally do not assign employees, set production deadlines, approve contractor activities or directly determine the priorities of every shift.

Managers do.

A manager decides:

• who will perform a particular task;
• whether an employee has the necessary knowledge and competence;
• whether additional instructions or supervision are required;
• whether equipment and the workplace are safe;
• whether work must be stopped when an unacceptable risk arises;
• how a reported hazard will be addressed;
• whether a deviation will be tolerated “just this once”;
• whether safety will receive the same level of importance as quality, deadlines and productivity.

A manager is therefore not simply a person who communicates OSH rules. They are a critical control point between a prescribed safety measure and actual behaviour in the workplace.

Why Is Training Employees Alone Not Enough?

What Happens When a Manager Does Not Understand the OSH System?

When an employee is trained but their manager is not, a dangerous gap can emerge between what the employee has been instructed to do and what is actually expected of them in practice.

For example, an employee may have been trained to follow a procedure before intervening in a process, while their manager insists that a production stoppage be resolved as quickly as possible.

An employee may know that a particular task requires a permit to work, but be told that the documentation will be completed afterwards.

An employee may report damaged safety equipment, while the manager decides that the machine “can handle one more shift.”

In such situations, the employee receives two different messages:

• the formal message from the training;
• the operational message from their manager.

In a real working environment, the operational message will often carry greater weight.

Employees Do Not Just Follow Procedures — They Follow Managers’ Behaviour

Safety culture is not created by what is written in a company policy. It is created by what is approved, rewarded, overlooked or stopped on a daily basis.

If a manager:

• enters a production area without the required PPE;
• walks past an unsafe condition without taking action;
• ignores a reported near miss;
• praises speed even when safety measures have been skipped;
• considers OSH discussions a waste of time,

employees will quickly conclude that safety is not a genuine priority.

By contrast, a manager who asks questions, responds to reports, stops high-risk work and follows the rules by personal example sends a far stronger message than any poster or procedure.

That is why international good practice recognises leadership as a foundation of an effective OSH management system. ISO 45001 identifies leadership commitment, worker participation, competence, operational control and continual improvement among the key elements of the system.

The Manager Is the First Point of Contact for a Reported Hazard

Employees most often report an unsafe condition or irregularity to their immediate manager first.

The manager’s response determines whether:

• the hazard will be addressed in a timely manner;
• work will be temporarily stopped;
• the information will reach the OSH professional;
• a temporary control measure will be introduced;
• other employees will be warned;
• hazard reporting will be encouraged or discouraged.

If a manager perceives a report as criticism, a problem or an obstacle to production, the employee will probably remain silent the next time.

If the manager treats the report as valuable information that could prevent an injury, the organisation has an opportunity to act before consequences occur.

For this reason, managers must learn during training not only how to receive reports, but also how to provide feedback to employees, document the actions taken and monitor the implementation of corrective measures.

Does “Human Error” Really Explain an Incident?

When an injury or dangerous event occurs, the easiest conclusion is often: “The employee did not follow the procedure.”

But a proper investigation must ask additional questions:

• Was the procedure applicable under the actual working conditions?
• Did the employee have sufficient time, equipment and support?
• Did the immediate manager monitor implementation of the safety measure?
• Were there conflicting production and safety objectives?
• Had the same deviation been tolerated before?
• Had previous employee warnings gone unanswered?
• Were responsibilities clearly defined?
• Had changes to the process, equipment or organisation been assessed?

A manager trained in root cause analysis will not stop at the final error in the chain. They will look for the organisational, technical and management conditions that made the error possible.

This approach helps prevent recurrence. Punishing an individual without addressing the underlying systemic cause usually creates only the appearance of control.

Safety and Productivity Are Not Opposing Goals

An unplanned stoppage, equipment damage, employee injury, regulatory enforcement action or loss of a skilled worker can have consequences far greater than the time required to properly prepare for a task.

The International Labour Organization estimates that around 2.93 million people die each year from work-related factors, while approximately 395 million workers suffer a non-fatal occupational injury. ILO – Safety and Health at Work.

These figures demonstrate the scale of the problem. But for every company, another fact is equally important: many incidents develop through a chain of small, everyday decisions that appeared acceptable at the moment they were made.

The role of a trained manager is to recognise the point at which a short-term operational benefit begins to create an unacceptable risk.

Effective safety management therefore does not slow down business. It reduces unplanned downtime, errors, damage, absences, process disruptions and the loss of employee trust.

What Should Effective OSH Training for Managers Include?

Manager training should not be a shortened version of employee training, nor should it consist of several hours of simply reading legislation.

It should be tailored to the actual authority, responsibilities and decisions associated with a particular management role.

An effective programme should cover:

The Role and Responsibilities of Managers

Understanding the relationship between the responsibilities of the employer, managers, employees and OSH professionals.

Applying the Risk Assessment Act

Turning assessed risks and prescribed control measures into specific tasks, work orders, instructions and effective work supervision.

Planning Safe Work

Verifying conditions before an activity begins, the competence of those performing the work, the condition of equipment, required permits and necessary supervision measures.

Managing High-Risk Activities

Working at height, work in confined spaces, work involving electrical energy, LOTO (Lockout/Tagout), work with hazardous substances, hot work and other specific risks.

Contractor Management

Checking documentation, coordinating activities, exchanging information about risks, monitoring the implementation of safety measures and responding to deviations.

Safety Communication

Conducting short toolbox talks, giving clear instructions, asking open-ended questions and encouraging employees to report hazards.

Responding to Deviations

Establishing criteria for stopping work, introducing temporary control measures, escalating issues and reauthorising activities.

Investigating Incidents and Near Misses

Identifying immediate, underlying and systemic causes without automatically placing responsibility on the employee.

Monitoring OSH Performance

Using leading indicators such as the number of reported hazards, completed workplace inspections, implemented corrective measures, safety conversations and recurring deviations.

Leading by Example and Building a Safety Culture

Understanding how managers’ behaviour shapes employees’ actual priorities and behaviour.

How Can You Determine Whether Training Has Delivered Results?

The number of participants and a signed attendance record confirm that training was delivered. They do not confirm that management practices have changed.

The real impact of training can be seen when managers:

• check risks and working conditions before work begins;
• regularly conduct short safety talks;
• respond to reported hazards and provide feedback;
• stop work when required safety measures are not in place;
• involve employees in finding solutions;
• monitor the implementation of corrective measures;
• analyse near-miss events;
• incorporate safety into planning, procurement, maintenance and change management;
• do not allow deadlines or production targets to justify unacceptable risk.

That is why, following training, specific management activities, responsible persons, deadlines and performance indicators should be defined.

Only then does training become a tool for improving the system rather than simply another document for the archive.

Without Trained Managers, There Is No Sustainable Safety Culture

It is unrealistic to expect employees to consistently apply OSH measures if managers do not understand their purpose, fail to provide the necessary conditions or send a different message through their own behaviour.

An OSH professional can design the system, assess risks and propose control measures. However, managers are the ones who turn that system into everyday work organisation, decisions and behaviour.

Investing in manager training is therefore not just an investment in compliance. It is an investment in better decision-making, process stability, accountability, employee trust and genuine prevention.

Safety does not begin when an employee starts a task. It begins earlier — with the manager’s decision about how that task will be organised.