Safe Health Zones (SHZ)
A Systems-Based Prevention Framework Integrating Occupational, Psychosocial and Environmental Risk Governance
Document Code: NRE-HI-SHZ-WP-01-2026
Issued by: NRE Health Institute
Publication Date: March 2026
Status: Technical White Paper – Edition 1.0
Safe Health Zones White Paper Draft - Download pdf here
Executive summary
Work health and safety regulation in Australia[1] has historically been strongest where hazards are acute, visible, and measurable (for example, falls, machinery, and chemical exposures). Contemporary harm, however, increasingly arises from cumulative and interacting exposures: fatigue, high cognitive load, psychosocial hazards, poor indoor environmental quality, and unstable work design. Recent national workers’ compensation statistics show that serious claims for mental health conditions have risen sharply and now account for a material share of serious claims, with markedly higher time lost and compensation paid than physical injuries and diseases.[2]
Safe Health Zones (SHZ) are proposed as a practical, evidence-based, and regulator-compatible framework to complement existing Work Health and Safety (WHS) duties by establishing measurable “zones” (physical, organisational, and sociotechnical) where exposure to known drivers of physical and psychological harm is prevented or controlled by design. SHZ are not a replacement for existing codes, standards, or management systems. They provide a unifying operational layer that translates current evidence and guidance into measurable baseline expectations, leading indicators, and a continuous-improvement cycle.
The policy case is strong. Safe Work Australia[3] estimated the cost of work-related injury and illness as $61.8 billion in 2012–13 (economic costing), with an average cost per incident of about $116,600 and most costs borne by workers and the community.[4] Separately, the Productivity Commission[5] has estimated the total cost to Australia of mental ill-health and suicide at around $200–$220 billion per year.[6] Safe Work Australia has also published modelling suggesting that in the absence of work-related injuries and illnesses, Australia’s economy would be $28.6 billion larger on average each year, with 185,500 additional full-time equivalent jobs and average wages 1.3% higher.[7] These estimates provide an economic basis for prevention policy and for insurer-pricing and employer-investment mechanisms that reward verified risk reduction.
This draft white paper sets out: a problem statement; an evidence base spanning fatigue, cognitive load, psychosocial hazards, ergonomics, and indoor environmental design; a regulator- and standards-oriented gap analysis; a cost–benefit modelling template; an SHZ implementation framework (metrics, monitoring, governance); a pilot and evaluation methodology deliverable over four years; analogous programs and case-study lessons; a risk and pushback analysis; policy recommendations; and a practical appendix containing instruments, KPI sets, and an audit/reporting template compatible with Aletheos monitoring.
Key recommendations for regulators, insurers, employers, and standards bodies are summarised as follows:
A staged implementation pathway is recommended: begin with a voluntary SHZ pilot standard and regulator guidance, adopt common measurement sets and dashboards, demonstrate effect in pilots (including insurer claims outcomes), then integrate SHZ into procurement, assurance, and codes of practice as a “reasonably practicable” prevention layer. This mirrors successful performance-based approaches already used in safety-critical sectors such as aviation fatigue risk management systems.[8]
Problem statement, scope and SHZ concept
Problem statement
The dominant regulatory challenge is not the absence of WHS duties, but the operational gap between high-level duties and the measurement and governance required to prevent chronic, multifactorial harm. In multiple Australian datasets, mental stress and mental health conditions are now prominent contributors to serious claims, with substantially greater time lost than physical injuries and diseases.[2] In addition, regulators and insurers report that psychological injury claims are rising and disproportionately driving scheme costs, including in New South Wales[9].[10]
At the same time, health risk is being amplified by organisational and environmental conditions that are often treated as outside WHS, “soft”, or “HR issues”: long working hours, insufficient recovery, intrusive surveillance, poorly managed organisational change, poor role clarity, high work pressure, and degraded indoor environmental conditions.[11] These are now increasingly recognised as WHS-relevant hazards, including in recent Commonwealth regulatory changes and codes addressing psychosocial hazards.[12]
What SHZ are
Safe Health Zones are defined here as:
A bounded environment (a workplace, site, facility, operational unit, or digital work system) in which (a) exposure to established drivers of physical and psychological harm is assessed and controlled using a hierarchy-of-controls approach, (b) minimum performance metrics are monitored as leading indicators, and (c) governance makes responsibility and corrective action auditable.
The “zone” concept is important: harm prevention frequently fails at the boundary between building operations, work design, rostering, and psychosocial conditions. SHZ treat these as a single interacting system and require integrated controls and integrated monitoring, aligned to existing WHS duties rather than creating a parallel regime.
Audience, scope and assumptions
This draft is aimed at technical policymakers and implementers: WHS regulators, workers’ compensation insurers, large employers, and standards bodies.
Jurisdictional focus is Australia, with explicit reference to Safe Work Australia model materials and Commonwealth and state-level developments. Where the reader’s jurisdiction differs, the SHZ design is intended to be portable into other duty-of-care frameworks (for example, the Health and Safety Executive[13] approach in the United Kingdom[14], or performance-based standards regimes).[15]
A key assumption is that SHZ should begin as a voluntary verifiable standard and pilot program, with later regulatory escalation only where evidence supports net benefits and feasibility. This is consistent with how Australian WHS codes and standards commonly evolve and how recent model-law amendments are adopted by jurisdictions over time.[16]
Evidence base for Safe Health Zones
Fatigue, long working hours and recovery
The central scientific premise for fatigue controls is that human cognitive performance and error risk are meaningfully impaired by inadequate sleep and insufficient recovery, and that these impairments accumulate under chronic restriction. Controlled studies show that chronic sleep restriction (for example, ≤6 hours per night) produces neurobehavioural deficits and performance declines comparable to multiple nights of total sleep deprivation.[17] Classic experimental evidence has also linked sustained wakefulness to performance impairment comparable to alcohol intoxication.[18]
At the population level, World Health Organization[19] and International Labour Organization[20] estimates identify long working hours as a material occupational risk factor contributing to cardiovascular disease burden. WHO/ILO reporting summarises associations where working ≥55 hours/week is linked to higher risk of stroke and higher risk of ischaemic heart disease mortality compared to standard hours, and quantifies attributable deaths and DALYs at global scale.[21]
These findings justify SHZ controls that treat fatigue as a design and systems issue: scheduling, recovery time, work intensity, and monitoring—rather than relying exclusively on individual coping. The policy implication is not a universal hour limit, but a requirement for risk-based fatigue governance proportionate to hazard, similar to Fatigue Risk Management Systems (FRMS) in aviation.[22]
Cognitive load and mental workload
Workplace harm and error are not only functions of fatigue, but of task design and mental workload. International Organization for Standardization[23] standards directly define and structure “mental workload” concepts, including the relationships between mental stressors, mental strain, and short- and long-term consequences. ISO 10075-1 defines terminology and conceptual relations in mental workload; ISO 10075-2 provides guidance on design principles for work systems including social and organisational factors that influence mental workload.[24]
In operational settings, validated measurement instruments exist for mental workload, notably the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX), developed through extensive experimental and applied research as a practical subjective workload assessment tool.[25]
In SHZ terms, cognitive load is a leading indicator domain. High mental workload in high-consequence environments (healthcare, transport, control rooms, mining, emergency services) is a predictable precursor to errors, burnout, and harm. The SHZ framework therefore treats mental workload governance akin to other hazards: assess, control by design, monitor, and intervene before harm occurs, using ISO-aligned definitions and validated tools.[26]
Psychosocial hazards and mental health outcomes
The evidence base linking psychosocial working conditions to mental health outcomes has matured to the point where prevention is no longer speculative. Systematic review and meta-analysis evidence indicates that job strain is associated with increased risk of clinically diagnosed depression.[27] This supports regulator attention to structural psychosocial hazards (job demands, control, support, role clarity, organisational justice) rather than focusing solely on individual resilience or downstream treatment.
International and national guidance reflects this evidence. WHO guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations aimed at promoting mental health at work, preventing mental health conditions, and enabling participation at work for people living with mental health conditions, including organisational interventions and manager training.[28] ISO 45003 provides guidance for managing psychosocial risks within an OH&S management system based on ISO 45001.[29]
The UK HSE Management Standards further operationalise psychosocial hazard management in a regulator-facing form, and the HSE Stress Indicator Tool (a structured questionnaire aligned to six core work design domains) provides a practical monitoring instrument.[30] SHZ can incorporate these instruments directly as compliant monitoring approaches where culturally and legally appropriate.
Ergonomics and work design as prevention
Ergonomics provides a long-standing design rationale for SHZ: systems should be made compatible with human characteristics, abilities, and limitations, rather than requiring humans to adapt to harm-inducing conditions. ISO 26800 sets out the general ergonomics approach and principles applicable to tasks, jobs, systems, organisations, and environments.[31] ISO 6385 establishes principles for the design of work systems with attention to human, social, and technical requirements in a balanced manner.[32]
Evidence for ergonomic interventions also exists in systematic review form. A Cochrane review examined ergonomic interventions aimed at preventing work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs) among office workers.[33] While results can vary by intervention type and implementation quality, the existence of a mature evidence base supports SHZ’s emphasis on design controls and measurement rather than declarative policy alone.
Environmental design and indoor environmental quality
A defining feature of SHZ is treating “the work environment” not only as a safety compliance matter but as a measurable determinant of cognitive performance and health.
Indoor air quality and ventilation have been linked to cognitive performance in controlled and field studies. Experimental evidence shows that moderately elevated indoor CO₂ can impair decision-making performance, suggesting that indoor conditions can have direct cognitive effects beyond comfort.[34] Field and laboratory evidence has also found that cognitive function scores can be significantly higher under enhanced ventilation and lower VOC/CO₂ conditions compared with conventional indoor conditions, with both VOCs and CO₂ independently associated with cognitive scores in those study designs.[35]
Ventilation guidance is supported by standards frameworks such as the ASHRAE[36] ventilation and indoor air quality standards, which specify minimum ventilation rates and measures aimed at minimising adverse health effects for occupants.[37] SHZ should align with such standards while recognising ASHRAE’s caution that CO₂ is not a single-variable determinant of acceptable IAQ and should be treated primarily as a proxy/indicator within a broader IAQ approach.[38]
Noise and thermal environment are also evidence-based determinants of health and performance. WHO environmental noise guidelines provide public health recommendations for protecting health from noise exposure and summarise evidence linking chronic noise exposure to health effects including mental health outcomes.[39] For heat exposure, standards and guidance allow measurable prevention. ISO 7243 provides a screening method using the Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) index to evaluate heat stress, while ILO reporting projects substantial working-hour losses due to heat stress by 2030, linking heat exposure directly to labour productivity and decent work.[40] In Australia, Safe Work Australia guidance exists to manage risks of working in heat, providing a local policy anchor for SHZ heat controls.[41]
Trauma exposure and cumulative psychological harm
In high-risk sectors (emergency services, healthcare, corrections, defence, child protection, and some frontline customer services), exposure to traumatic events and material is itself a hazard category recognised in psychosocial frameworks.[42] Reviews of occupational PTSD note that many workers remain vulnerable to occupational PTSD and its consequences, supporting SHZ inclusion of trauma-informed controls, recovery pathways, and monitoring.[43] Empirical evidence in healthcare settings, for example among intern physicians, shows elevated PTSD prevalence relative to general population baselines, indicating that exposure and systems controls matter.[44]
Regulatory and standards gap analysis
Current regulatory direction in Australia
Australian WHS law has moved toward explicit psychosocial hazard management. Safe Work Australia materials state that under model WHS laws, PCBUs must manage psychosocial hazards, and the model Code of Practice provides practical guidance on identifying and managing psychosocial hazards at work.[45] At the Commonwealth level, Comcare describes regulatory changes and codes of practice that prescribe how PCBUs identify and manage psychosocial hazards and risks to workers’ psychological and physical health and safety, and it enumerates psychosocial hazards including fatigue, poor physical environment, intrusive surveillance, job insecurity, and organisational change management.[46]
State regulators have also adopted psychosocial codes (for example, SafeWork NSW[47] has an approved code of practice on managing psychosocial hazards).[48] Insurers underscore the claims impacts. In NSW, the State Insurance Regulatory Authority[49] reports that psychological injury claims are rising and disproportionately contribute to scheme costs.[10]
Safe Work Australia has also recently published amendments to model WHS laws, including incident notification extensions to violent incidents, work-related suicide and attempted suicide, and extended worker absences, signalling increasing regulator attention to psychological harm as a safety outcome.[50]
Evidence of outcome severity and cost
Safe Work Australia has repeatedly reported that mental health conditions are among the costliest forms of workplace injury, resulting in more time off work and higher compensation paid than physical injuries and diseases. The median time lost and compensation paid for mental health conditions have been reported as several multiples of physical injuries and diseases in recent years.[51] In the Comcare scheme, a published factsheet similarly states that psychological injury accounts for a disproportionate share of claim costs and longer time away from work.[52]
These outcome differentials are operationally important: where high-cost harm is concentrated, prevention frameworks that integrate design, monitoring, and governance yield high leverage for regulators and insurers.
Why a gap remains
Despite stronger psychosocial regulation, the implementation gap persists for four reasons.
First, current requirements remain fragmented across building/environmental standards, work design, rostering, and psychosocial risk management. SHZ provide an integrating “zone” unit for measurement and accountability.
Second, regulators and employers often rely on lag indicators (claims, incidents, prosecutions) rather than leading indicators (fatigue risk, workload, environmental conditions, psychosocial survey scores). SHZ institutionalise leading indicators as part of duty compliance.
Third, measurement is inconsistent. Psychosocial hazard identification is often conducted as a one-off survey or training program; indoor environmental quality is often managed as facilities maintenance; and fatigue is often addressed by policy statements. SHZ require these domains to be measured and managed as interacting risk determinants.
Fourth, enforcement becomes contested when control measures are not anchored to measurable baselines. SHZ help operationalise “reasonably practicable” controls by specifying measurable expectations derived from existing standards and evidence.
Comparison table of relevant frameworks
The SHZ concept is designed to sit above existing frameworks and provide an operational integration layer rather than duplicating requirements.
Framework
Primary scope
Strengths for policymakers
Gap SHZ addresses
ISO 45001 OH&S management systems
System-level OH&S management requirements
Provides a structured management system with continuous improvement logic.[53]
Does not prescribe domain-specific leading indicators for fatigue, IEQ, or psychosocial hazards.
ISO 45003 psychosocial risk
Guidelines for psychosocial risk within ISO 45001
Provides psychosocial risk management guidance aligned to ISO 45001.[54]
Does not integrate physical environment monitoring or define “zone-based” measurable baselines across domains.
Safe Work Australia model psychosocial code
Practical psychosocial hazard guidance for PCBUs
Regulator-compatible hazard identification and control guidance.[55]
Often implemented as documentation/training rather than continuous monitoring and integrated controls.
Comcare psychosocial regulatory approach
Commonwealth WHS regulations and codes
Specifies psychosocial hazard classes and emphasises hierarchy of controls.[46]
Needs operational tools that bind work design + environment + monitoring into auditable units.
UK HSE Management Standards and Indicator Tool
Work-related stress risk domains and survey tool
Practical measurement tool, clear domains, and templates.[56]
Does not by itself integrate fatigue governance and environmental design metrics.
NIOSH Total Worker Health
Integrated worker safety, health, and wellbeing
Evidence base for integrated approaches and implementation research.[57]
Not a regulator-enforceable standard; requires translation into metrics and assurance mechanisms.
Aviation FRMS (performance-based fatigue management)
Data-driven fatigue risk management with regulator approval
Proven model for performance-based risk governance with monitoring and continuous improvement.[58]
Sector-limited; SHZ generalises the performance-based model beyond fatigue/aviation to multi-domain health risk.
Built environment health ratings (NABERS IE, Green Star, WELL)
Indoor environment quality, comfort, and health-oriented building features
Demonstrates measurable IEQ elements and benchmarking; provides building-level levers.[59]
Largely voluntary and building-focused; SHZ extends into work design, psychosocial hazards, and organisational governance.
Economic rationale and cost–benefit modelling
Scale of the problem and the prevention opportunity
Safe Work Australia estimated that work-related injury and disease cost $61.8 billion in 2012–13, with the majority of costs borne by workers and society and a reported average cost per incident of about $116,600.[4] These cost estimates are important for regulators because they reflect system-wide burden and therefore the potential value of prevention policies.
The Productivity Commission has estimated that mental ill-health and suicide cost Australia around $200–$220 billion per year, including direct economic costs and lost productivity.[6] The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development[60] similarly reports that mental ill-health drives economic costs exceeding 4% of GDP in OECD contexts, reinforcing that mental health is a macroeconomic issue rather than a marginal workplace program matter.[61]
Safe Work Australia’s economy-wide modelling (“Safer, healthier, wealthier”), undertaken with Deloitte Access Economics[62], states that absent work-related injuries and illnesses, Australia’s economy would be $28.6 billion larger on average each year and would support more jobs and higher wages.[7] For insurers and employers, the key implication is that harm reduction is not merely compliance; it is a productivity and labour-force participation strategy.
Why SHZ has a favourable cost–benefit profile
SHZ focuses on domains where marginal reductions in harm yield large savings because the severity and duration of outcomes are high: mental health conditions and mental stress claims, fatigue-induced errors and incidents, and environmental/ergonomic determinants that drive high-volume injuries such as musculoskeletal disorders.
Safe Work Australia statistics show that mental health conditions have substantially higher median time lost and compensation paid than physical injuries and diseases, and this gap has widened over time.[63] These are exactly the kinds of claims insurers identify as cost drivers. In NSW, SIRA reports psychological injury claims comprise a larger share of total costs than their share of active claims.[64]
International evidence indicates that integrated approaches can be effective when design, leadership, and systems integration are treated as core, not optional add-ons. Systematic reviews of Total Worker Health interventions and approaches describe an evidence base supporting integrated policies and programs, though effectiveness depends on implementation quality and organisational factors.[65] A systematic review of ROI studies for workplace preventive interventions highlights that ROI evidence exists but varies by topic, design, and calculation method, underscoring the importance of specifying a rigorous economic evaluation design in SHZ pilots.[66]
Cost–benefit modelling template
This white paper proposes an evaluation model that can be applied at three levels:
A social welfare (regulatory impact) perspective, using economic cost of injury and illness (including productivity losses and quality-of-life components);
An insurer scheme perspective, using claim frequency, claim duration, and claim cost distributions; and
An employer perspective, using claims costs/premiums, absenteeism, presenteeism proxies, turnover, incident rates, and operational quality proxies (for example, error rates in safety-critical sectors).
At minimum, the pilot design should quantify:
Baseline annual harm cost = (incident/claim counts × unit costs) + (absenteeism × wage replacement/operational loss) + (turnover × replacement cost proxy) + (safety incidents × severity cost proxy).
Annual program cost = (capex amortisation + opex) for monitoring, work design changes, ventilation/IEQ upgrades, training, and governance.
Benefit = baseline harm cost × measured reduction attributable to SHZ, estimated through quasi-experimental or experimental design.
A recommended approach is to publish results transparently with sensitivity analysis (best case, base case, worst case), and to separate measured outcomes (claims reduction, time lost) from modelled outcomes (productivity impacts) to preserve defensibility.
Illustrative cost–benefit chart
The following chart is illustrative only. It uses Safe Work Australia’s reported average economic unit cost per incident as a proxy for annual harm cost, and varies program cost per employee. It is included as a template for how regulators and insurers can think about break-even thresholds under different cost assumptions, not as a claim about any specific workplace.[4]
Illustrative SHZ benefit–cost ratio
Interpretation: where major harm drivers (notably mental health conditions) have high time lost and compensation paid, reductions of even low double-digit percentages can produce strong benefit–cost ratios, particularly when SHZ measures leverage existing controls and fit-for-purpose monitoring.[67]
Implementation framework for Safe Health Zones
Design principles
SHZ implementation should follow five principles drawn from the evidence and successful safety governance models:
Prevention by design: treat fatigue, psychosocial hazards, workload, and indoor environmental conditions as hazards addressed at source (system design), aligned to hierarchy of controls.[68]
Measurement as governance: require a small set of validated leading indicators plus lag indicators, measured consistently.
Integration: embed SHZ into existing OH&S management systems (ISO 45001) and psychosocial risk guidance (ISO 45003), rather than creating a separate compliance silo.[69]
Contextual proportionality: use risk-based tiers calibrated to sector, hazard profile, and workforce vulnerability (for example, trauma-exposed work).
Performance-based improvement: adopt FRMS-style continuous monitoring and corrective action cycles, with clear roles and audit trails.[22]
SHZ maturity tiers
This draft proposes three maturity tiers to support proportional implementation:
Foundational SHZ: baseline governance, hazard identification, core metrics, and corrective action cycle.
Enhanced SHZ: expanded measurement set, higher-frequency monitoring, and design interventions (rostering, IEQ optimisation, workload redesign).
Assured SHZ: third-party or insurer-supported verification, benchmarked performance targets, and continuous improvement reporting integrated with procurement/assurance.
This tiering is consistent with how performance-based safety systems are introduced in complex industries and avoids a one-size-fits-all mandate.[70]
Core SHZ metrics and measurement map
The table below provides a defensible baseline measurement set. Where numeric thresholds differ by jurisdiction or standard edition, SHZ should reference the applicable local standard and treat any simplified indicator as a proxy rather than a substitute (for example, CO₂ as a ventilation proxy).[71]
Domain
Metric
Measurement instrument
Minimum frequency
Standards/guidance anchor
Fatigue and recovery
Hours worked, rest opportunity, shift patterns, overtime, break compliance
Rostering data + fatigue risk assessment
Monthly (plus event-based checks)
WHO/ILO long-hours risk evidence; FRMS governance model.[72]
Cognitive load
Mental workload score; task complexity and interruption index
NASA-TLX; task analysis
Quarterly (or per change)
ISO 10075 mental workload concepts & design.[73]
Psychosocial hazards
Work design domains (demands, control, support, role, relationships, change/justice)
HSE Stress Indicator Tool or equivalent validated survey
6–12 monthly
ISO 45003; Safe Work Australia psychosocial code.[74]
Trauma exposure
Exposure events, critical incident debrief uptake, access to supports
Incident logs + validated screening pathways
Event-based + quarterly review
Occupational PTSD evidence; psychosocial hazard guidance on traumatic events.[75]
Indoor air quality
Ventilation performance indicators; CO₂ proxy trends; VOC proxy; particulate measures where relevant
Building management data + calibrated sensors
Continuous where feasible, otherwise weekly spot checks
ASHRAE ventilation standards; cognitive performance evidence.[76]
Thermal environment
Heat stress risk; indoor comfort measures
WBGT for heat stress; comfort assessment aligned to standards
Heat: daily in hot conditions; comfort: quarterly
ISO 7243 heat stress; Safe Work heat guidance.[77]
Noise
Exposure risk indicators where relevant
Noise mapping/measurement
Quarterly or per change
WHO noise guideline evidence.[39]
Ergonomics and MSD risk
Workspace risk assessment, break patterns
Ergonomic assessment tools, work-break tracking
Quarterly
ISO ergonomics principles; Cochrane ergonomics evidence.[78]
Lag outcomes
Claims rate, time lost, compensation paid; RTW outcomes; serious incidents
Insurer and employer administrative data
Quarterly
Safe Work Australia claims data.[79]
Governance, assurance and data ethics
SHZ requires explicit governance that is auditable. Minimum governance roles should include:
An accountable officer (senior executive) responsible for SHZ performance.
A joint worker-management SHZ committee to ensure consultation and prevent “paper compliance”.
A designated “zone steward” for each SHZ boundary (site or operational unit) responsible for controls, data quality, and corrective actions.
Integration into an OH&S management system (ISO 45001 logic) and psychosocial risk guidance (ISO 45003) for document control, change management, and continuous improvement.[80]
Data ethics is critical. Intrusive surveillance is itself recognised as a psychosocial hazard in Commonwealth guidance.[46] SHZ monitoring must therefore be designed to minimise surveillance harms: use de-identified and aggregated reporting where possible, limit access, document purpose limitation, and provide clear worker consultation and appeal processes.
Aletheos monitoring compatibility
Aletheos can be used as a monitoring and assurance layer if it supports:
A standardised metric dictionary (units, sampling frequency, acceptable ranges, and alert thresholds referenced to relevant standards);
Audit trails for each metric breach (time, location/zone, contributing factor, corrective action, closure date);
Versioning for control measures and change events (for example, rostering changes, ventilation system maintenance, organisational restructure);
Privacy-preserving aggregation at the reporting boundary (for example, minimum cohort sizes for survey reporting consistent with HSE anonymity approaches).[81]
These requirements are operational rather than ideological, and they align with regulator expectations for evidence of hazard identification, risk control, and review.
Pilot program design and evaluation
Recommended pilot sectors and sites
Pilot selection should prioritise high-burden sectors and diverse work models. Safe Work Australia data show serious claims are concentrated in certain industry divisions, and mental stress claims are a major mechanism contributing to serious claims.[82] This supports prioritising pilots in at least three categories:
High psychosocial hazard exposure: healthcare, education, public administration and safety, call centres, and frontline services.
High fatigue and safety risk exposure: transport, logistics, emergency services, and 24/7 operations.[83]
High physical environment exposure: construction, warehousing, manufacturing, outdoor work in heat.[84]
Pilot design options
To maintain defensibility, pilots should use an evaluation design capable of attributing observed changes to SHZ implementation rather than external trends.
Preferred design (where feasible): stepped-wedge cluster trial, where sites are randomly assigned to different implementation start times, allowing all sites to eventually receive SHZ while enabling causal inference.
Alternative design: matched control sites + difference-in-differences evaluation, using baseline and follow-up periods, with matching on sector, workforce size, and claim history. This can be acceptable for regulators if pre-specified and transparently reported.
Process evaluation should run in parallel (implementation fidelity, worker perceptions, leadership behaviours), because many interventions fail due to implementation gaps rather than concept failure. Evidence from Total Worker Health implementation research supports the importance of methodology and evaluation design.[85]
Suggested pilot KPIs
Pilot KPIs should include both leading and lag indicators, aligned with national compensation datasets so results can translate into insurer and regulator expectations.
Lag KPIs:
Serious claim frequency per 1,000 FTE (overall and mental stress).
Median time lost and median compensation paid for mental stress/mental health conditions.
Return-to-work timeframes and recurrence indicators (where available).
Leading KPIs:
Fatigue risk index (rostering-derived).
Psychosocial survey domain scores (HSE domains or equivalent).
NASA-TLX workload score in selected critical roles.
Indoor environment indicators relevant to site (ventilation proxy trends; heat stress days; noise exceedances where relevant).
Safety culture/process:
Corrective actions completed on time, and time-to-close for high-risk findings.
Worker consultation participation rate.
Data collection instruments
A defensible pilot should use validated tools and standardised administrative datasets:
Psychosocial hazards: HSE Stress Indicator Tool or equivalent validated instrument, with attention to anonymity thresholds.[86]
Mental workload: NASA-TLX.[25]
Fatigue: rostering data + fatigue risk assessment approach analogous to FRMS principles.[87]
Heat stress: WBGT-based screening where heat exposure is a hazard.[88]
Indoor air quality: aligned measurement plan referencing ventilation standards and the evidence linking indoor conditions to cognitive outcomes.[89]
Administrative outcomes: claims, time lost, compensation paid, and serious incident data aligned to Safe Work Australia data definitions wherever possible.[79]
Case studies and analogous programs
SHZ pilots should explicitly adopt lessons from mature analogues:
Aviation FRMS provides a performance-based regulatory model where operators develop tailored fatigue risk controls approved by regulators and supported by continuous monitoring and documentation. This structure addresses both complexity and variability across contexts.[90]
In Australia, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority[91] FRMS handbook provides an example of regulator-aligned documentation expectations and auditability, and it explicitly references ICAO oversight manuals.[92]
Built environment rating tools such as NABERS[93] Indoor Environment and the Green Building Council of Australia[94] Green Star IEQ credits demonstrate that indoor environment quality can be measured and benchmarked, including thermal comfort aligned to international standards.[95] While these tools are voluntary and building-focused, they show how SHZ can integrate with facilities governance without inventing new measurement science.
The International WELL Building Institute[96] WELL framework demonstrates a broad conceptual model linking building interventions to health and wellbeing across domains (air, water, light, sound, thermal comfort, mind/community), providing a language bridge for employers and building owners.[97] SHZ differs by embedding these domains into WHS governance and insurer-relevant outcomes.
Illustrative risk reduction trajectory
The following chart is illustrative only and represents the expected pattern where early governance and low-cost controls produce modest reductions, followed by larger reductions as redesign and monitoring mature and feedback loops stabilise.
Illustrative SHZ risk reduction trajectory
Four-year rollout timeline
A four-year phased rollout balances urgency with evidentiary requirements and accommodates jurisdictional adoption pathways.
gantt
title Safe Health Zones phased rollout over four years
dateFormat YYYY-MM-DD
axisFormat %b %Y
section Standard and governance foundations
SHZ reference standard draft and consultation :a1, 2026-04-01, 180d
Metric dictionary and Aletheos reporting spec :a2, 2026-05-01, 210d
Ethics, privacy, and data governance model :a3, 2026-05-15, 180d
section Pilot mobilisation
Site selection and baseline measurement :b1, 2026-09-01, 120d
Pilot implementation wave 1 (high-risk) :b2, 2027-01-01, 365d
Pilot implementation wave 2 (general) :b3, 2027-07-01, 365d
section Evaluation and scaling
Interim evaluation and standard refinement :c1, 2027-10-01, 180d
Insurer premium incentive trials :c2, 2028-01-01, 365d
Public benchmarking and voluntary certification:c3, 2028-04-01, 365d
section Regulatory embedding
Guidance update and procurement integration :d1, 2028-10-01, 180d
Code/standard adoption options consultation :d2, 2029-01-01, 180d
Targeted regulatory embedding for high-risk sectors :d3, 2029-04-01, 270d
Policy recommendations, adoption risks and appendices
Policy recommendations
A policy package that is both feasible and defensible should include levers for each stakeholder group.
For regulators:
Publish SHZ guidance as a voluntary best-practice framework aligned to existing WHS duties and psychosocial codes, emphasising that SHZ operationalises hazard identification, risk control, and review rather than adding new duties.
Create a regulator-supported pilot accreditation pathway with published minimum metric sets and reporting templates, enabling consistent evaluation.
Integrate SHZ expectations into guidance for high-risk contexts already under scrutiny (for example, organisational change processes where psychosocial harm risk is high), consistent with recent regulatory actions targeting psychological harm.[98]
For insurers:
Develop premium incentive pilots tied to verifiable leading indicators and reductions in claim duration/cost, especially for psychological injury, which insurers report as a disproportionate cost driver.[64]
Fund SHZ measurement capacity (surveys, workload assessments, sensors) as prevention investments, and require transparent evaluation designs (for example, stepped-wedge approach) to avoid paying for unevidenced programs.[99]
For employers:
Embed SHZ governance into ISO 45001 OH&S systems and ISO 45003 psychosocial risk guidance, ensuring existing compliance systems become measurable and preventive rather than document-driven.[80]
Adopt a tiered rollout that starts with high-burden units (for example, trauma-exposed or 24/7 operations) to maximise early ROI and learning.
For standards bodies:
Open a pathway to an Australian voluntary standard (for example, “AS/NZS SHZ”) aligned to ISO ergonomics, ISO 45001/45003, and existing Australian WHS codes. A standards pathway supports harmonisation without immediate legislative change, and allows procurement and assurance markets to develop.[100]
Risk and pushback analysis
SHZ will attract pushback primarily through institutional and operational pathways rather than overt opposition. The following risk classes and mitigations are recommended.
Perceived compliance burden: organisations may argue SHZ adds cost and documentation. Mitigation: tiered implementation, minimal core metric set, and integration into existing management systems to avoid duplication.[80]
“Woke” framing risk: psychosocial regulation has been politicised in public commentary. Mitigation: position SHZ as a design and risk-control framework grounded in claims costs and measurable outcomes, not ideology. Use insurer data and Safe Work statistics to centre the economic and harm-reduction case.[101]
Privacy and surveillance: monitoring may be perceived as intrusive. Mitigation: explicit prohibition on individual surveillance as a default, aggregation rules, and worker consultation, consistent with recognition of intrusive surveillance as a psychosocial hazard.[102]
Metric gaming: organisations may optimise metrics without real improvement. Mitigation: triangulate metrics (for example, survey + claims + workload + environmental indicators) and require narrative explanations and audit trails for material changes.
Equity risk: SHZ must not create a “two-tier” workforce where office staff receive SHZ conditions but frontline or precarious workers do not. Mitigation: pilot selection includes frontline sectors; publish equity KPIs; require minimum standards across worker types. This aligns with WHO emphasis on working conditions as determinants of mental health.[103]
Appendices
Measurement tools catalogue
This appendix lists validated or widely adopted tools suitable for SHZ pilots. Tools should be selected based on sector, legal context, and workforce size, and should maintain anonymity thresholds consistent with best practice.
Psychosocial hazard survey: HSE Stress Indicator Tool (35 items across core work-design domains).[104]
Psychosocial risk management system guidance: ISO 45003.[105]
Mental workload assessment: NASA TLX materials.[25]
Mental workload definitions and design principles: ISO 10075-1 and ISO 10075-2.[106]
Heat stress screening: ISO 7243 (WBGT).[107]
Working in heat risk management: Safe Work Australia working-in-heat guide.[108]
Indoor air quality standards reference: ASHRAE indoor air quality and ventilation standards; use CO₂ with caution as part of a broader IAQ approach.[109]
Sample pilot KPI set
A SHZ pilot KPI sheet should be published per site with:
Baseline values (12 months pre) and follow-up values (12 months post), plus interim reporting;
Definitions consistent with Safe Work Australia claims and time-lost reporting where possible;[79]
A pre-specified attribution method (stepped-wedge or difference-in-differences);
A data quality plan and an ethics and privacy plan.
SHZ audit and reporting template compatible with Aletheos
The following template defines minimum reporting objects. It is designed to be implementable as a structured report and also as an event-based log for Aletheos dashboards.
SHZ boundary definition:
Zone name and type (site / unit / team / digital system)
Workforce profile (FTE, contractors, shift work, trauma exposure)
Hazard profile (top hazards, rationale)
Controls register:
Control ID, hazard domain, control type (elimination/substitution/engineering/admin/PPE), owner, evidence, review date
Metric set:
Metric ID, definition, unit, sampling frequency, data source, quality checks, threshold reference (standard/citation), alert level mapping.
Event log fields:
Timestamp, zone, metric ID, observed value, threshold, alert level, contributing factor category, action initiated, action owner, action completion date, verification evidence.
Assurance statement:
Attestation by accountable officer and worker representative that metrics and controls reflect actual conditions; summary of corrective actions and unresolved risks.
One-page non-technical policy brief
Safe Health Zones are a practical way to prevent the kinds of workplace harm that quietly accumulate over time: fatigue, burnout, mental stress claims, and avoidable health impacts from poor work design and poor environments.
Safe Work Australia data show mental health conditions in workplaces lead to far more time off work and higher compensation paid than physical injuries. They are also increasing.[79] This means prevention is both a moral and an economic imperative.
Safe Health Zones do not add new legal duties. They make existing duties easier to meet by defining a measurable baseline: a workplace “zone” must monitor a small number of leading indicators (fatigue risk, psychosocial hazard scores, workload, and environmental indicators such as heat exposure risk) and show it is actively controlling risks using the hierarchy of controls.
SHZ should start with pilots in high-risk sectors, evaluated rigorously, and then scale through procurement and insurer incentives. This approach mirrors how other performance-based safety systems have been implemented successfully in safety-critical industries.[110]
Outcome: less harm, lower compensation costs, improved retention, and more sustainable productivity.
Press summary
Safe Health Zones are a new evidence-based approach to preventing workplace harm by design. Instead of waiting for injuries and mental health claims to rise, Safe Health Zones require workplaces to monitor and control the upstream causes: fatigue, excessive workload, psychosocial hazards like bullying or poor change management, and physical conditions like heat exposure and poor indoor air.
National workers’ compensation statistics show workplace mental health conditions are among the costliest injuries, with much higher time off work and compensation paid than physical injuries.[79] Meanwhile, Safe Work Australia has estimated work-related injury and illness cost tens of billions of dollars, and the Productivity Commission has estimated mental ill-health and suicide cost Australia around $200–$220 billion per year.[111]
Safe Health Zones don’t replace existing WHS laws. They make them practical by defining a measurable “zone” standard: identify risks, apply controls, monitor leading indicators, and prove continuous improvement. The model is similar to performance-based fatigue risk management systems used in aviation, where monitoring and prevention reduce safety risk.[110]
The proposal is to run rigorously evaluated pilots over four years with regulators, insurers, employers, and standards bodies. If pilots show reduced claims, lower time lost, and improved wellbeing, Safe Health Zones can be scaled through voluntary certification, procurement requirements, and insurer incentives—delivering better health outcomes without sacrificing productivity.
[1] [53] [69] https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html
https://www.iso.org/standard/63787.html
[2] [67] [79] [82] [101] https://data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/insights/key-whs-statistics-australia/latest-release
https://data.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/insights/key-whs-statistics-australia/latest-release
[3] [11] [12] [20] [42] [46] [68] [102] https://www.comcare.gov.au/safe-healthy-work/prevent-harm/changes-to-whs-laws
https://www.comcare.gov.au/safe-healthy-work/prevent-harm/changes-to-whs-laws
[4] [9] [111] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/system/files/documents/1702/cost-of-work-related-injury-and-disease-2012-13.docx.pdf
[5] [70] [87] [90] [110] https://www.iata.org/en/programs/safety/operational-safety/fatigue-risk/
https://www.iata.org/en/programs/safety/operational-safety/fatigue-risk/
[6] [62] https://www.pc.gov.au/media-speeches/speeches/mental-health/
https://www.pc.gov.au/media-speeches/speeches/mental-health/
[7] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/safer-healthier-wealthier-economic-value-reducing-work-related-injuries-and-illnesses
[8] [22] [58] [92] https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/fatigue-risk-management-systems-handbook.pdf
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-12/fatigue-risk-management-systems-handbook.pdf
[10] [64] [94] https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/news/Recovery-at-work-insider-SIRAs-Claims-Management-Review
https://www.sira.nsw.gov.au/news/Recovery-at-work-insider-SIRAs-Claims-Management-Review
[13] [23] [37] [76] [89] [109] https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standards-62-1-62-2
https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standards-62-1-62-2
[14] [27] [47] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5471831/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5471831/
[15] [30] [36] [56] [74] [86] [104] https://books.hse.gov.uk/stress-indicator-tool-sit
https://books.hse.gov.uk/stress-indicator-tool-sit
[16] [50] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/amendments-model-whs-laws-published
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/amendments-model-whs-laws-published
[17] [19] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12683469/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12683469/
[18] https://www.nature.com/articles/40775
https://www.nature.com/articles/40775
[21] [72] [83] https://www.who.int/news/item/17-05-2021-long-working-hours-increasing-deaths-from-heart-disease-and-stroke-who-ilo
[24] [26] [93] [106] https://www.iso.org/standard/66900.html
https://www.iso.org/standard/66900.html
[25] [73] [91] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20000021488/downloads/20000021488.pdf
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20000021488/downloads/20000021488.pdf
[28] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240053052
[29] [54] [105] https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html
https://www.iso.org/standard/64283.html
[31] [78] https://www.iso.org/standard/42885.html
https://www.iso.org/standard/42885.html
[32] https://www.iso.org/standard/63785.html
https://www.iso.org/standard/63785.html
[33] https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008570.pub3/full
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008570.pub3/full
[34] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3548274/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3548274/
[35] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4892924/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4892924/
[38] [49] [60] [71] https://www.ashrae.org/file%20library/about/government%20affairs/public%20policy%20resources/briefs/indoor-carbon-dioxide--ventilation-and-indoor-air-quality.pdf
[39] https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053563
https://www.who.int/europe/publications/i/item/9789289053563
[40] [77] [88] [96] [107] https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/67188/5a4c5553da5945aa872478c36755cded/ISO-7243-2017.pdf
https://cdn.standards.iteh.ai/samples/67188/5a4c5553da5945aa872478c36755cded/ISO-7243-2017.pdf
[41] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/guide-managing-risks-working-heat
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/doc/guide-managing-risks-working-heat
[43] [75] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245752/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7245752/
[44] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780781
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2780781
[45] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/managing-health-and-safety/mental-health/psychosocial-hazards
[48] https://www.safework.nsw.gov.au/resource-library/list-of-all-codes-of-practice/codes-of-practice/managing-psychosocial-hazards-at-work
[51] [63] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/latest-trends-mental-health-conditions
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/media-centre/news/latest-trends-mental-health-conditions
[52] https://www.comcare.gov.au/about/forms-pubs/docs/pubs/safety/psychological-injury-and-performance-factsheet.pdf
[55] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-08/model_code_of_practice_-_managing_psychosocial_hazards_at_work_25082022_0.pdf
[57] [65] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M16-0626
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M16-0626
[59] [95] https://www.nabers.gov.au/sites/default/files/_nabers_indoor_environment_guide_bv_edit.pdf
https://www.nabers.gov.au/sites/default/files/_nabers_indoor_environment_guide_bv_edit.pdf
[61] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/a-new-benchmark-for-mental-health-systems_4ed890f6-en.html
https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/a-new-benchmark-for-mental-health-systems_4ed890f6-en.html
[66] [99] https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/4/612/7192365
https://academic.oup.com/eurpub/article/33/4/612/7192365
[80] https://www.comcare.gov.au/safe-healthy-work/healthy-workplace/whs-system
https://www.comcare.gov.au/safe-healthy-work/healthy-workplace/whs-system
[81] https://books.hse.gov.uk/free-stress-indicator-tool
https://books.hse.gov.uk/free-stress-indicator-tool
[84] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/working-heat
https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/safety-topic/hazards/working-heat
[85] https://journals.lww.com/joem/fulltext/2018/11000/research_methodologies_for_total_worker_health__.2.aspx
[97] https://www.wellcertified.com/certification/v2-pilot/
https://www.wellcertified.com/certification/v2-pilot/
[98] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/03/uts-job-cuts-paused-safework-nsw-warning
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/sep/03/uts-job-cuts-paused-safework-nsw-warning
[100] https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-nzs-iso-45001-2018
https://www.standards.org.au/standards-catalogue/standard-details?designation=as-nzs-iso-45001-2018
[103] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/mental-health-at-work
[108] https://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-10/Guide%20for%20managing%20the%20risks%20of%20working%20in%20heat.pdf