WORKPLACE SAFETY E
ffective safety compliance in manufacturing depends on more than documented procedures. It depends on whether incidents, non-conformances, corrective actions and audit evidence can be captured consistently across sites, shop floors, shifts, production lines and teams. Organisations are expected to capture incidents, report them within defined timeframes, investigate causes and demonstrate that corrective actions have been verified effective. Each stage depends on accurate information moving consistently across teams, sites and functions, often under time pressure. Where this flow works well, safety teams can respond quickly, identify patterns and maintain clear oversight of risk. Where it does not, even well-defined processes can break down, creating a gap between what is being done in practice on the shop floor and what can be demonstrated later through audit or investigation.
THE SAFETY COMPLIANCE GAP IN MANUFACTURING
By Josephine Coombe, Nulogy CCO, Europe
LEGACY SYSTEMS AND COMPLIANCE CHALLENGES In many organisations, the systems behind safety reporting have not kept pace with regulatory requirements or operational complexity. Paper records, spreadsheets and disconnected tools are still widely used to capture and manage safety data, particularly across multi-site environments. While these systems may work at a basic level, they often struggle to provide a consistent or real- time view across the organisation. The scale of the challenge becomes clearer when considering the volume of information that must be managed. In 2024/25 alone, more than 59,000 work-related incidents were formally reported under RIDDOR, each requiring investigation, documentation and follow-up. At the same time, research shows that almost half of businesses continue to operate physical paper filing systems, which limits the ability to access, share and maintain consistent records. Taken together, these gaps create a practical problem. For example, safety teams may have the information they need, but not in a form they can use quickly or confidently across sites. Limited visibility affects how risks are identified, how quickly incidents are responded to and how confidently organisations can demonstrate control. As compliance expectations become more data- driven and audit scrutiny increases, these limitations become more difficult to sustain.
REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AND OPERATIONAL REALITIES The gap between expectation and reality is most evident in incident reporting, where regulatory requirements are both clear and time sensitive. Organisations are expected to report incidents promptly and submit formal reports within defined timeframes, depending on the nature and severity of the event. The intention is clear: incidents should be captured accurately and acted on quickly. In practice, however, the reporting process is rarely that straightforward. In many manufacturing
14 SUMMER/AUTUMN 2026 | INDUSTRIAL COMPLIANCE
environments, reporting still relies on multiple manual steps. An incident may be recorded on a form, passed between supervisors, entered into a spreadsheet and later transferred into another system for reporting. Each stage introduces delay, but more importantly, it introduces variation. Details may be interpreted differently, information may be duplicated or partially lost, and responsibility may not always be clearly defined. This becomes more complex where operations span multiple shifts, contractors or production sites, all of which can follow slightly different processes for capturing and escalating incidents. When reporting depends on manual handovers and repeated data entry, consistency becomes difficult to maintain. Reporting becomes something that is done to meet a requirement, rather than a process that feeds meaningful insight back into the organisation. When data is incomplete, delayed or inconsistent, investigations are less effective and corrective actions are harder to track. This limits the organisation’s ability to learn from incidents and increases the risk that similar issues occur again. Safety teams are therefore under pressure to meet strict reporting timelines while working within systems that do not support speed, integration or visibility at scale.
AUDIT READINESS AND DATA GAPS
These challenges come into sharper focus during audits, where the ability to demonstrate compliance is tested directly. Manufacturing organisations are subject to a range of inspections, including regulatory audits, customer evaluations and internal reviews. Each requires clear, consistent evidence that safety processes are in place and operating effectively. The expectation is not only that actions have been taken, but that they can be traced, verified and presented as part of a coherent audit trail.
In reality, this is often where existing systems fall short. Information needed for audits is rarely held in one place. Incident records may be stored in spreadsheets, training data in HR systems, maintenance activity in separate platforms and procedures in shared drives or paper files. Pulling this information together requires coordination between teams and considerable manual effort. Where data is incomplete or inconsistently recorded, this process becomes even more difficult.
Research highlights how widespread these issues are. A study of more than 2,000 organisations found 42 per cent of respondents still use paper- based methods and 86 per cent acknowledged a need to improve the quality and completeness of their data. This has a direct effect on audit readiness. Even when organisations are taking the right actions in practice, they may still struggle to demonstrate that clearly when required. The result is a reactive approach to audits, where effort is focused on preparing documentation ahead of inspections rather than maintaining systems that are continuously audit ready. Teams often need to reconcile data from multiple sources, check for missing information and ensure consistency before it can be presented. This not only increases workload, but also introduces risk, particularly when audits occur with limited notice. In this environment, the issue is not simply compliance, but proof. Organisations need to show clearly what has been done, when and by whom, and fragmented systems make this significantly more difficult.
CENTRALISING SAFETY MANAGEMENT THROUGH DIGITAL SYSTEMS
To address these challenges, many manufacturers are shifting toward more centralised and connected approaches to safety management. The focus is moving away from isolated tasks and towards systems that link reporting, investigation, corrective action and documentation within a single structured framework. The objective is to improve visibility and create a reliable audit trail as part of everyday operations. Digital platforms support this shift by standardising how information is captured and shared. Incidents can be logged in a consistent format across sites, reducing variation and improving data quality. More importantly, these systems enable structured workflows, where each stage of the safety process is connected. Reporting can trigger investigation tasks, actions can be assigned and tracked and outcomes can be recorded in the same system. This reduces reliance on manual coordination and ensures that information moves more efficiently across the organisation.
Centralisation also plays a critical role in audit readiness. When data is stored in one place with clear traceability, organisations can retrieve evidence quickly and confidently. Audit trails are generated as part of normal activity rather than assembled retrospectively. This changes the nature of audits, moving them away from a reactive exercise and toward a proactive continuous state of readiness. Solutions such as Nulogy’s Quality, Supplier Compliance and Environmental Health & Safety solutions reflect this approach by helping manufacturers connect frontline events, investigations, corrective actions and audit evidence into one view of risk. As part of a wider Manufacturing Operating
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
