By Dr. Srivathsan V. Raghavan, DrPH

Introduction

Workplaces are changing fast—and not just with new gadgets or software. Artificial intelligence (AI), global supply chains, and updated safety regulations are reshaping how we think about keeping people safe on the job. For occupational health and safety professionals, especially at the doctoral level, this isn’t just a technical shift—it’s a leadership moment.

Recent research shows that AI can either narrow or widen safety and health gaps, depending on how it’s designed and deployed (Fisher et al., 2023). At the same time, regulatory frameworks such as the Hazard Communication Standard (HazCom) are evolving to keep pace with increasingly complex chemicals, global harmonization, and new forms of risk (Ryan, 2022). International policy conversations are asking hard questions about how AI should be governed in the workplace (Mishiba et al., 2025), while comparative studies highlight how different countries approach occupational safety and health (OSH) regulation (International Labour Organisation [ILO], 2020; Occupational Safety & Health Administration, 2017; Smallwood & Haupt, 2007; Umar et al., 2022).

This blog pulls those threads together in plain language: what’s changing, why it matters, and how a DrPH-level leader can help organizations move from compliance to genuine protection and equity.

Analysis

Where Regulations, AI, and Equity Collide

Hazard communication: Still the backbone, now under pressure

Hazard communication may not be glamorous, but it’s foundational. The Hazard Communication Standard requires employers to inform and train workers about hazardous chemicals, maintain labels and safety data sheets (SDSs), and implement a written program that covers inventory, labeling, SDS management, and training (Ryan, 2022). In practice, this is the “Right to Know” law that ensures workers aren’t left guessing about what they’re handling.

Ryan (2022) notes that recent updates aim to align HazCom with newer revisions of the Globally Harmonized System (GHS), refining health and physical hazard criteria and clarifying how hazards are classified and communicated. This includes more precise definitions of health effects and clearer guidance on the use of human experience data in toxicity assessments (Ryan, 2022). For organizations, that means:

• More nuanced hazard categories that better capture real-world risks.
• Stronger expectations that manufacturers and importers fully evaluate and disclose hazards.
• Ongoing responsibility for employers to keep programs current as standards evolve.

From a leadership perspective, hazard communication is no longer just about having binders of SDSs—it’s about integrating chemical information into everyday workflows, training, and emergency planning.

AI in occupational health and safety: Promise and risk in the same package

Artificial intelligence is already creeping into OSH practice: predictive analytics for injury risk, computer vision for monitoring unsafe behaviors, automated scheduling, and algorithmic decision-making in hiring and task assignment. Fisher et al. (2023) conducted a scoping review to understand how AI affects OSH equity, and the findings are both exciting and sobering.

On the positive side, AI can:

• Identify patterns of risk that humans might miss, such as subtle trends in near-miss reports or ergonomic strain (Fisher et al., 2023).
• Support targeted interventions by flagging high-risk tasks, locations, or worker groups.
• Enhance monitoring in environments where continuous observation is difficult or dangerous.

But AI can also create or deepen inequities:

• Algorithmic bias may lead to unfair allocation of risky tasks or disciplinary actions, especially for already marginalized workers (Fisher et al., 2023).
• Opaque decision-making can make it hard for workers to understand why they’re being assigned certain jobs or flagged as “high risk.”
• Unequal access to benefits may arise if AI tools are deployed primarily in well-resourced workplaces, leaving smaller or lower-wage sectors behind (Fisher et al., 2023).

The key takeaway from Fisher et al. (2023) is that AI’s impact on OSH equity is highly contingent: it depends on who designs the systems, whose data is used, how decisions are audited, and whether workers have a voice in implementation.

Global policy conversations: AI, regulation, and the future of work

While individual workplaces experiment with AI, policymakers are trying to catch up. Mishiba et al. (2025) describe an international online conference focused on occupational health and safety policy in the AI era, bringing together experts to discuss how regulation should respond to emerging technologies.

Several themes stand out:

• Need for adaptive regulation: Traditional OSH rules were built around physical hazards and clearly defined exposures. AI introduces dynamic, data-driven systems that evolve rapidly, rendering static regulation insufficient (Mishiba et al., 2025).
• Cross-border implications: AI tools are often developed in one country and deployed globally, raising questions about how different regulatory regimes interact and who is responsible for oversight (Mishiba et al., 2025).
• Worker participation: There is growing recognition that workers must be involved in decisions about AI deployment, both to identify practical risks and to ensure that systems respect rights and dignity (Mishiba et al., 2025).

For a DrPH practitioner, these discussions underscore the importance of policy literacy and advocacy. It’s not enough to understand AI technically; leaders need to engage with how AI is governed, whose interests are prioritized, and how OSH protections are embedded into broader digital policy frameworks.

Comparing OSH regulations across countries: Lessons for leadership

Umar et al. (2022) provide a comparative analysis of OSH regulations in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and Oman. While each country has its own legal and cultural context, several insights are particularly relevant for AI and modern hazard communication:

• Regulatory maturity varies: Some countries have long-established OSH systems with detailed standards and enforcement mechanisms, while others are still building capacity (Umar et al., 2022).
• Different approaches to enforcement: The balance between prescriptive rules and performance-based regulation differs, affecting how easily new technologies like AI can be integrated (Umar et al., 2022).
• Context matters: Economic development, labor market structure, and political priorities shape how OSH regulations are implemented and enforced (Umar et al., 2022).

When AI tools or updated hazard communication practices are introduced into multinational organizations, these differences can create uneven protection. Workers in one country may benefit from robust oversight, while others face weaker safeguards. Umar et al. (2022) highlight the need for harmonization and capacity-building so that safety innovations don’t become another source of global inequity.

Pulling it together: A systems view for DrPH leaders

When analyzed together, these peer-reviewed research papers point toward a systems-level challenge:

• Regulations are evolving (Ryan, 2022; Umar et al., 2022).
• Technology is accelerating (Fisher et al., 2023; Mishiba et al., 2025).
• Equity concerns are rising (Fisher et al., 2023).

For a DrPH-level practitioner, the opportunity is to connect these dots and lead organizations toward integrated strategies that:

• Align hazard communication programs with the latest standards.
• Evaluate AI tools not just for efficiency, but for equity and transparency.
• Consider global regulatory differences when designing multinational safety strategies.
• Engage workers and communities in decisions about technology and risk.

This is where advanced public health training really shines—translating complex evidence into practical, ethical action.

Summary: What This Means for Real Workplaces

If we strip away the jargon, the message is straightforward: the future of workplace safety will be shaped by how we blend old-school fundamentals with new-school technology.

• Hazard communication remains non-negotiable. Workers still need clear, accurate information about chemical and physical hazards, and employers must maintain robust programs that keep pace with regulatory updates (Ryan, 2022).
• AI is a tool, not a magic fix. It can help identify risks and support prevention, but it can also introduce bias and opacity if not carefully designed and governed (Fisher et al., 2023).
• Policy and regulation are catching up—but unevenly. International conversations are underway, yet countries differ in their readiness to regulate AI and address modern OSH challenges (Mishiba et al., 2025; Umar et al., 2022).
• Equity must be front and center. Without intentional design and oversight, AI and advanced safety systems may benefit some workers more than others, reinforcing existing disparities (Fisher et al., 2023).

For organizations, the practical implication is that safety and health can’t be treated as a static compliance checklist. It’s a living system that needs continuous attention, especially as AI and globalized work reshape risk landscapes.

Call to action

From compliance to leadership

If you’re reading this as a safety manager, executive, or fellow public health professional, here’s the bottom line: this is a moment to lead, not just to comply.

1. Audit your hazard communication program with fresh eyes. Make sure your chemical inventory, labels, SDSs, and training reflect current standards and real-world use scenarios—not just what’s on paper (Ryan, 2022). Ask whether workers truly understand the hazards they face and how to respond.

2. Treat AI as part of your safety and equity strategy, not just your tech stack. Before adopting AI tools, evaluate how they might affect different groups of workers, what data they rely on, and how decisions can be explained and challenged (Fisher et al., 2023). Build in mechanisms for monitoring unintended consequences.

3. Engage workers in design and decision-making. Whether you’re updating HazCom procedures or rolling out AI-based monitoring, involve workers early and often. Their lived experience is critical for spotting blind spots and building trust (Mishiba et al., 2025).

4. Think globally, act locally. If your organization operates across borders, map how OSH regulations differ and where gaps may exist (Umar et al., 2022). Use that insight to raise internal standards above the minimum and advocate for stronger protections where needed.

5. Partner with DrPH-level expertise. Complex intersections of technology, regulation, and equity are exactly where advanced public health training adds value. A DrPH-led approach can help organizations move beyond reactive compliance toward proactive, evidence-informed strategy.

If you’re ready to explore how your organization can modernize its safety and health systems—integrating AI responsibly, strengthening hazard communication, and centering equity—reach out. This is the kind of work that doesn’t just prevent injuries; it builds healthier, more resilient workplaces for everyone.

References:

Fisher, E., Flynn, M. A., Pratap, P., & Vietas, J. A. (2023). Occupational safety and health equity impacts of artificial intelligence: A scoping review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(13), 6221. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20136221.

International Labour Organisation (ILO). (2020). Safety and health at work. https://www.ilo.org/global/topics/safety-and-health-atwork/lang–en/index.htm.

Mishiba, T., Brun, E., Anyfantis, I., McGarry, F., Kort, J., Suzuki, K., … & Yamagiwa, K. (2025). International online conference on occupational health and safety policy in the artificial intelligence era. Journal of Work Health and Safety Regulation, 4, 25–008.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (2017). Commonly used statistics. https://www.osha.gov/oshstats/commonstats.html

Ryan, M. G. (2022). Hazard Communication Standard update. Workplace Health & Safety, 70(10), 479–479.

Smallwood, J. J., & Haupt, T. C. (2007). Impact of the South African Construction Regulations on construction health and safety: Architects’ perceptions. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 5(1), 23–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/17260530710746588.

Umar, T., Umeokafor, N., Honnur Vali, M. S., & Zia, A. (2022). A comparative study of occupational safety and health (OS&H) regulations in United States, United Kingdom, Australia, South Africa, and Oman. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science (Vol. 1101, Issue 3, Article 032016). IOP Publishing.