Why Global Initiatives Won’t Prevent Workplace Harm

Every few years, a new global initiative arrives promising to reshape corporate behaviour. The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were meant to align business with human well-being. The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) promised transparency. ESG (Environmental, Social and Governance) reporting was sold as the market‑friendly mechanism that would finally make corporations care about people and the planet.

Yet here we are, decades into these frameworks, and the pattern of harm inside workplaces looks remarkably familiar. Catastrophic failures still occur in companies with immaculate sustainability reports. Precarious work continues to expand. Psychosocial harm is rising, not falling. And the gap between what corporations say and what they do has never been wider.

The uncomfortable truth is that these global initiatives are not designed to prevent harm. They are designed to signal responsibility without redistributing power. And harm prevention, as we know from decades of occupational health and safety (OHS) experience, is fundamentally a question of power.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

When Work Kills and No One Counts the Dead

An open letter about workplace suicides was published to support World Mental Health Day in 2024. The research work of some of the signatories has continued and appeared in a 2026 editorial in Volume 46 of “Crisis – The Journal of Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention“, calling for action.

[This article, unavoidably, discusses suicide]

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Has Having Safe and Healthy Work as a Human Right Improved OHS in Australia?

When the International Labour Organisation declared safe and healthy work a fundamental human right in 2022, Australia quietly joined a global shift that reframed workplace safety from a technical discipline to a matter of human dignity. It didn’t make headlines. It didn’t trigger a legislative overhaul. But it did change the ground rules.

The question is whether this shift has improved worker health and safety in Australia—or whether it risks becoming another layer of symbolic language sitting comfortably above the realities of work.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Agriculture Has the Injuries of a Regulated Industry, But Not the Regulation

Over the past few months, I have increasingly encountered the term “regulated industries” in the context of occupational health and safety (OHS) laws. In OHS in Australia, these industries seem predominantly to include:

  • Construction
  • Mining and
  • Major Hazards.

I can identify no reason why farming should not also be a “regulated industry”.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Inside the Psychosocial Safety Challenge: A Conversation with Ian Neil SC

“[Psychosocial hazards] is not coming, it’s arrived, and prosecutions will happen unless [employers] take serious steps to address the issue.”

Recently, I had the opportunity to interview Ian Neil SC on some occupational health and safety (OHS) matters related to psychosocial health.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here

Why Corporations Reject the Models That Would Prevent Harm

Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.

For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.

This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.

Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.

Subscribe to SafetyAtWorkBlog to continue reading.
Subscribe Help
Already a member? Log in here