Occupational health and safety: a performance issue

A company that tries to “move fast” by cutting corners on workers’ health and safety believes it is saving time. It is not. Organisations that set health and safety against performance are making a risky bet on accidents, employment law, employer liability and business continuity. By contrast, embedding the core principles of risk prevention, occupational health and safety training, the transfer of real working practices and the monitoring of skills strengthens collective effectiveness, while remaining fully compliant with labour law.

Setting occupational health and safety against performance remains a common mistake in organisations with high levels of hands-on, operational work. Drawing on the regulatory framework, this article explains why this false opposition increases risk and weakens effectiveness. Protecting employees’ health and improving on-site safety can readily go hand in hand with operational continuity and sustainable performance.

In the workplace, performance does not conflict with to protecting health. Across jurisdictions, employers have a clear duty to prevent risks and ensure safe working conditions. This framework is technical and professional, built on decades of research and internationally recognised safety standards, notably those developed by the International Labour Organization.

When workplace safety is treated as a cost, working conditions deteriorate. The situation becomes risky. Workers compensate, improvise and work around constraints. A common example in logistics facilities is speeding up tasks at height without appropriate protection. The consequences may occur the same day, or months later. Workplace accidents give no warning.

Workplace accidents and occupational illnesses are not inevitable. They have well-documented organisational causes. Public reports regularly highlight their impact on social security systems, compensation, penalties and, in some cases, findings of inexcusable fault. At site level, disruption, absenteeism, the loss of an experienced employee and increased social tension all carry a heavy cost.

Management teams that neglect risk assessment and the formal documentation of occupational risks expose themselves to inspections, legal action and regulatory sanctions. Public authorities regularly issue guidance and recommendations. They all point in the same direction: without regular updates and the implementation of preventive actions, performance becomes fragile.

High-performing organisations treat occupational health and safety as a strategic priority. Three levers make the difference.

• Observe work as it is actually carried out, not only as it is described in procedures.
• Adapt facilities, workstations and the working environment.
• Address chemical exposure, asbestos, psychosocial risks, and both physical and mental health.

To prevent risks, effective occupational health and safety training is contextual, repeated and evaluated. It involves occupational health services, prevention professionals, management and employee representatives. It is embedded over time, with ongoing monitoring and measurement.

Securing work depends on tracking operational skills and tacit know-how. Making these competencies visible and monitored over time helps avoid blind spots and strengthens both quality of working life and performance.

Building an effective feedback culture also plays a key role. Providing a clear, factual framework to report hazards without blame.

The legal framework governing working life is clear. The general principles of prevention require risks to be avoided, assessed and tackled at source, and work to be adapted to the individual. These principles are aligned with European Union directives and with ILO conventions.

The role of the site director is central: making trade-offs, ensuring safety, coordinating teams, engaging in dialogue with committee members and monitoring data. Public health and social protection policy take shape at workstation level, day in, day out.

On the ground, what drives employees to leave is working conditions that fail to improve despite repeated warnings, risky situations known to everyone, and minor incidents that recur until the day a workplace accident occurs. Numerous public and industry reports have documented this phenomenon for years: in sites where occupational risk prevention remains a formal exercise, seen as just another administrative requirement, wear and tear sets in and departures become a way for individuals to protect their physical integrity.

By contrast, where occupational health and safety is treated as a concrete reality — discussed openly and adjusted as closely as possible to real practices — a very different signal is sent. Recognising safe know-how, adapting the organisation, correcting a hazardous situation: this is not only about preventing risk. It creates the conditions for sustainable talent retention by sending a clear message to workers: “you can build your future here without wearing yourself down”. And that promise, lived out day after day, often weighs far more heavily than a bonus when deciding whether to stay or leave.

Setting occupational health and safety against performance is a risky gamble that weakens the organisation. Companies that invest in prevention, occupational health and safety training, the transmission of practices and ongoing monitoring create a virtuous circle: fewer accidents, greater reliability and sustainable performance. And what comes next? It falls to the site director to coordinate teams and ensure that each one has the skills required to work safely — today and tomorrow.