If you ask ten people whether CPR training is required at work, you will probably get ten different answers.

Some will say OSHA requires it everywhere. Others will say only healthcare workers need it. Some will argue it depends on your company’s insurance provider or safety program.

The truth is more specific, and once you understand the logic behind OSHA’s rules, the confusion disappears.

This article breaks down when CPR training is required, when it is not, and how employers should decide what level of training is appropriate.

Many organizations believe that if they comply with OSHA regulations, they are “safe.”

That belief is understandable—and wrong.

OSHA compliance establishes a legal baseline. It defines the minimum requirements employers must meet to avoid regulatory penalties. It does not guarantee that workers are protected from real-world risk, complex tasks, or system failures.

Most organizations say safety is a priority. Fewer can demonstrate it consistently through management behavior. This gap is where safety climate lives.

Safety climate is not defined by policies, slogans, or posters. It is defined by what employees observe management actually doing when production pressure, schedule delays, and inconvenient hazards show up. Workers form their perception of safety based on patterns of decisions, not stated intentions

Hand injuries are often treated as “unavoidable” because cuts, punctures, chemicals, and heat show up everywhere. In reality, most glove failures trace back to one of three problems: the wrong performance rating was chosen, the glove material was incompatible with the chemical or exposure conditions, or the glove was used beyond its real service life. OSHA is explicit that employers must select and require appropriate hand protection when hands are exposed to hazards such as cuts, punctures, chemical burns, and temperature extremes, and that selection must be based on performance characteristics relative to the task, conditions, duration, and hazards identified

Workplace safety in 2026 is shifting from periodic, compliance driven activity to continuously updated risk management. The biggest change is not a single gadget. It is the convergence of sensing, analytics, and workflow automation into systems that identify hazards earlier, prioritize what matters, and verify controls in real time.

Below are the top emerging trends that are gaining traction in 2026, with an emphasis on what has accelerated based on research published in 2025 and newer.

Many organizations still “standardize” PPE by department or job title, then hope that coverage is sufficient. OSHA’s PPE framework pushes employers in a different direction: assess for hazards, then select PPE that protects employees from the hazards identified. In general industry, OSHA explicitly requires the employer to assess the workplace for hazards that necessitate PPE and to select PPE that protects the employee from those hazards.

For decades, safety professionals have had to make a frustrating tradeoff: you can get close enough to see hazards clearly, or you can keep people out of harm’s way. Too often, “getting the data” meant putting a competent worker or supervisor in a precarious position. Drones change that equation. When used correctly, unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) let safety teams collect better information, faster, from safer vantage points, while reducing the number of people exposed to high consequence hazards.

In the world of industrial safety, few documents carry as much practical weight as a well-executed pre-incident plan (PIP). When seconds matter during a fire, chemical release, or explosion, first responders don’t have time to “figure things out” on scene. That’s exactly why the National Fire Protection Association created NFPA 1620: Standard for Pre-Incident Planning.

Natural gas is one of the most common fuels used in manufacturing, food service, and building operations — but it’s also one of the most misunderstood hazards. Even small leaks can pose serious risks if not handled systematically. A strong response and investigation protocol protects people, property, and compliance standing with OSHA and NFPA requirements.

On October 21, 2024, OSHA issued a letter of interpretation titled “Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) Feasibility and ‘Alternative Methods’”.In that letter, OSHA addressed a question concerning when power must remain required for set-ups or change-over tasks (e.g., inching/jogging operations) and whether a true “alternative method” to energy isolation was allowed.

Most businesses have a snow removal plan — but few have a flash freeze response plan. That gap can be costly. A sudden temperature drop can turn wet pavement into black ice in minutes, creating dangerous conditions for workers, visitors, and vehicles before a plow or salter even arrives.

If you’ve ever read a JHA that listed “PPE” as the only control, you already know the issue. Most Job Hazard Analyses fail not because safety professionals don’t care — but because the process itself is misunderstood.

Most organizations treat safety as a regulatory requirement—something to satisfy OSHA and insurance carriers.
Forward-thinking companies know it can be far more: a competitive differentiator that attracts clients, investors, and top talent

When launching a new company, it’s easy to focus on product development, marketing, and investor pitches while treating safety as a future concern.
But workplace injuries can derail growth faster than a funding shortfall.
From unexpected medical costs to reputational damage, a single serious incident can cripple a young business.

Embedding a strong safety culture from the first hire is not just risk management—it’s a strategic advantage.

Lockout/Tagout (LOTO) procedures save lives.
Yet despite decades of regulation under OSHA 29 CFR 1910.147, failures remain a top cause of serious workplace injuries and fatalities.

For decades, OSHA’s Hearing Conservation Program (29 CFR 1910.95) has centered on annual audiograms—tests that measure how much hearing loss has already occurred.
While essential, audiograms are reactive. They can only tell you after damage has taken place.

For decades, the traditional 3×3 or 5×5 risk matrix has been the cornerstone of workplace safety assessments. It’s simple, familiar, and easy to print on a clipboard. But simplicity can be a liability. These matrices often reduce complex hazards into rigid “high, medium, low” boxes. They rarely capture multiple overlapping hazards, fast-changing work conditions, or the unpredictable human factors that drive real-world incidents.