Standard Workplace Safety Metrics Don’t Prevent Serious Injuries and Fatalities: EHS Leaders

While standard safety metrics still dominate the dashboards of many organizations, EHS leaders say they do little to prevent serious, life-altering harm.

Marina M Headshot
Platoo Studio Adobe Stock 583188206
Platoo Studio AdobeStock_583188206

Environment, health and safety (EHS) leaders will start 2026 at a critical crossroads, according to results from a new report released by the What Works Institute and Evotix.

While standard safety metrics still dominate the dashboards of many organizations, EHS leaders say they do little to prevent serious, life-altering harm.

“Leaders agree on the destination—preventing life-altering harm—but not yet on the common language or tools needed to get there,” says Jonathan English, CEO, Evotix. “This misalignment slows progress at a time when safety leaders won’t be satisfied with incremental change.”

“AI advances and a deeper understanding and appreciation for human-centric approaches present a compelling opportunity to radically improve risk prevention in 2026, but leaders must first recalibrate their approaches,” says John Dony, co-founder and CEO, What Works Institute. “That means refining definitions and metrics, investing in human-centric systems and governing new technologies wisely.”

Key takeaways:

 

·        Most (80%) have serious injuries and fatalities (SIF) prevention efforts in place today, yet they do so with different definitions, scopes and maturity levels. Nearly one in five EHS leaders say current safety metrics have no relation to real risk.

·        Nearly all (94%) EHS programs use some form of digital management, with 42% piloting AI in limited scopes; 33% exploring use cases; and 17% haven’t started.

·        Organizations are exploring or implementing AI for automated dashboards and reporting (44%), chatbots, copilots to support Standard Operating Procedures or training (44%) and incident investigations (29%).

·        While AI can offer speed, insights and real-time field guidance, enthusiasm and scale are tempered by concerns over data quality (58%), bias (36%) and governance (27%).

·        Many organizations acknowledge psychosocial contributors, including control of work conditions (71%); mental health strain (66%); and fatigue/cognitive overload (60%).

·        89% say psychosocial contributors are not or only partially embedded in EHS or SIF strategy.

Page 1 of 23
Next Page