Stop Arguing About Titles. Start Fixing Systems.

There’s a trend on LinkedIn right now.

HSE vs WHS. HSEQ vs SHEQ. Safety Business Partner vs Safety Advisor. “Head of Safety” vs “Safety Lead.”

We are debating letters.

Meanwhile, people are still getting hurt. Investigations are still shallow. Corrective actions are still administrative. And organisations are still surprised when the same events happen again.

In 2026, safety leadership is not about what your job title says. It’s about whether your work meaningfully reduces risk and improves organisational learning.

So let’s move past semantics.

Here are the top 10 things safety leaders and incident investigators should be focused on in 2026- if they genuinely want to make a difference, not only thsi year, but beyond.

1. Moving From Event-Based Thinking to Systemic Thinking

Most organisations still think in terms of:

• “What happened?”

• “Who was involved?”

• “What rule wasn’t followed?”

That is event-based thinking.

But serious injuries and fatalities do not come from single events. They emerge from systems-decisions, pressures, trade-offs, blind spots, normalised deviations, and design weaknesses.

If your investigations are still centred around:

• Human error

• Failure to follow procedure

• Inadequate supervision

…then you are investigating symptoms, not causes.

In 2026, investigators must be fluent in systems thinking. That means understanding:

• Organisational drivers

• Competing goals (production vs safety)

• Work-as-imagined vs work-as-done

• Latent conditions

• Cultural signals

• Decision environments

This is where ICAM remains incredibly relevant.

ICAM (Incident Cause Analysis Method) was developed by Gerry Gibb while at BHP, working alongside Professor James Reason, whose work on organisational accidents fundamentally reshaped safety thinking. Gerry later founded Safety Wise in 2002, and since 2021, under new ownership, the method continues evolving to support deeper organisational learning.

ICAM was never about finding a better way to blame individuals. It was about understanding how systems shape behaviour.

In 2026, if your investigations don’t explore organisational factors with the same seriousness as frontline actions, you are not doing an investigation. You are documenting failure.

2. Designing Controls That Actually Control Risk

Let’s be honest.

Most corrective actions fall into three buckets:

• Retrain

• Remind

• Revise procedure

These are weak controls.

They look good on paper. They close actions. They satisfy auditors. They do not prevent recurrence.

Safety leaders in 2026 must be relentless about control effectiveness.

Ask:

• Does this control reduce reliance on human memory?

• Does it remove the hazard?

• Does it reduce complexity?

• Does it simplify the task?

• Does it account for real-world variability?

The hierarchy of controls still matters- but not just in theory.

Engineering, elimination, simplification, automation, error-proofing- these are where serious risk reduction lives.

Investigators should not be satisfied with recommendations that simply reinforce expectations. They should challenge leaders:

• “What are we redesigning?”

• “What are we simplifying?”

• “What decision are we removing from the frontline?”

• “What hazard are we physically controlling?”

If you’re not influencing design, you’re not influencing risk.

3. Focusing on Work-as-Done, Not Work-as-Imagined

Procedures are neat.

Reality isn’t.

One of the most important shifts for 2026 is recognising that frontline workers constantly adapt:

• To time pressure

• To equipment limitations

• To conflicting goals

• To incomplete information

• To production expectations

Those adaptations are not misconduct. They are what keep systems functioning.

Incident investigators must understand:

• Why did that adaptation make sense at the time?

• What goal was being optimised?

• What trade-offs were being made?

If you treat deviation as the cause, you will never see the pressures that shaped it.

Safety leaders should spend less time asking:

“Why didn’t they follow the procedure?”

And more time asking:

“Why is the procedure so hard to follow in real conditions?”

In 2026, credible safety leaders are visible in operations. They understand workflow. They observe friction. They know the difference between policy and practice.

That credibility matters.

4. Strengthening Decision-Making at All Levels

Many incidents are not caused by unsafe acts.

They are caused by normal decisions under uncertainty.

Consider:

• Delaying maintenance to meet production targets.

• Accepting known equipment degradation.

• Adjusting staffing ratios.

• Modifying isolation steps to reduce downtime.

• Allowing temporary fixes to become permanent.

These are management decisions.

If your investigation framework cannot analyse decision-making quality, you are missing critical risk drivers.

In 2026, safety leaders must:

• Understand cognitive bias in leadership.

• Analyse how information flows upward.

• Assess whether bad news is filtered.

• Examine whether leaders are exposed to real risk data.

ICAM’s organisational factor model supports this by exploring:

• Management decisions

• Organisational processes

• Resource allocation

• Supervision systems

• Risk assessment quality

But using the model requires courage.

It means being prepared to challenge senior leaders- not just frontline teams.

If your investigations never identify management or organisational contributors, you don’t have a safety system. You have a blame system.

5. Measuring Learning, Not Just Lag Indicators

Lost Time Injury Frequency Rates are comfortable.

They are numeric. They trend. They look clean in board reports.

They also tell you almost nothing about how well your organisation learns.

In 2026, safety leaders should be asking:

• How quickly do we identify systemic contributors?

• How strong are our corrective actions?

• Do we verify control effectiveness?

• Do we see repeat contributing factors?

• Are near misses analysed with the same rigour as injuries?

Learning organisations don’t just count harm.

They measure:

• Depth of investigations

• Quality of recommendations

• Closure effectiveness

• Recurrence rates

• Organisational factor themes

If you’re not trending systemic weaknesses, you’re not managing risk strategically.

Investigators should not see themselves as report writers. They are intelligence analysts for organisational resilience.

6. Building Investigation Capability, Not Just Compliance

Too many organisations treat investigation as a procedural requirement.

An incident happens. A form is completed. A report is filed. Actions are assigned.

Tick.

But high-quality investigation is a skill.

It requires:

• Interview technique

• Bias awareness

• Systems thinking

• Evidence integrity

• Organisational courage

• Analytical discipline

In 2026, safety leaders must invest in building deep investigation capability—not just rolling out templates.

That means:

• Training that goes beyond checklists.

• Coaching investigators on questioning techniques.

• Teaching how to identify latent conditions.

• Reviewing investigation quality.

• Challenging superficial root causes.

If your root cause section regularly reads:

• “Complacency”

• “Lack of awareness”

• “Failure to follow procedure”

…then you have a capability gap.

Investigation is one of the most powerful organisational learning tools available.

Treat it that way.

7. Addressing Psychological and Cultural Signals

Safety culture is often discussed in vague terms.

But culture becomes visible in:

• What leaders tolerate.

• What gets rewarded.

• What gets ignored.

• How people respond to bad news.

• Whether speaking up is safe.

In 2026, safety leaders must focus on psychological safety- not as a buzzword, but as a risk control.

If workers cannot report:

• Near misses

• Equipment degradation

• Fatigue concerns

• Poor supervision

• Unsafe planning decisions

…then your risk picture is distorted.

Investigators should assess:

• Was there hesitation to report?

• Had similar issues been raised before?

• Were previous warnings dismissed?

• Were workers afraid of consequences?

These cultural signals often precede serious incidents.

Ignoring them because they are “soft” is negligent.

8. Integrating Safety Into Business Strategy

Safety still sits on the sidelines in too many organisations.

It is treated as:

• A compliance function.

• A reporting function.

• A training function.

But serious risk is shaped by strategic decisions:

• Market pressures

• Cost reduction programs

• Outsourcing models

• Contractor management

• Technology adoption

• Asset lifecycle decisions

If safety is not involved in strategic planning, it becomes reactive.

In 2026, safety leaders must understand the business:

• Commercial drivers

• Margin pressures

• Operational constraints

• Investor expectations

And they must speak that language.

Not emotional arguments. Not fear-based messaging. But risk-informed business analysis.

The strongest safety leaders are commercially literate.

They can explain:

• The cost of system fragility.

• The risk exposure of underinvestment.

• The long-term liability of poor controls.

• The reputational consequences of weak governance.

Safety must influence strategy- not chase it.

9. Leveraging Technology Without Outsourcing Judgment

AI, predictive analytics, wearables, and real-time monitoring technology in safety is accelerating.

But technology does not replace thinking.

In 2026, the danger is not the underuse of technology.

It is over-reliance.

Dashboards are helpful. But they can create false confidence.

Predictive models are useful. But they are built on historical data, which may already reflect flawed systems.

Investigators should use technology to:

• Capture richer evidence.

• Analyse trends.

• Identify recurring systemic factors.

• Improve data accuracy.

But interpretation still requires human expertise.

A graph does not explain organisational decision-making.

A dashboard does not reveal production pressure.

A wearable does not explain why someone felt compelled to take a shortcut.

Technology should enhance investigation- not automate it.

10. Reframing the Identity of the Safety Professional

Here’s the uncomfortable truth.

If your value is tied to a job title, your impact is limited.

In 2026, the most effective safety leaders will not define themselves by acronyms.

They will define themselves by influence.

Are you:

• A compliance monitor?

• A paperwork generator?

• A training coordinator?

Or are you:

• A systems thinker?

• A risk strategist?

• An organisational learning specialist?

• A decision-quality advisor?

Titles don’t reduce fatalities.

Capability does.

Courage does.

Influence does.

Safety professionals must stop debating:

• HSE vs QHSE

• Advisor vs Business Partner

• Manager vs Lead

And start asking:

• Are we preventing recurrence?

• Are we identifying systemic weaknesses?

• Are we influencing design?

• Are we improving decision-making?

• Are we strengthening controls?

Because if those answers are unclear, your title is irrelevant.

The Bigger Question for 2026

The next 12 months will not be defined by new acronyms.

They will be defined by:

• Economic pressure

• Workforce changes

• Technological acceleration

• Complex contractor ecosystems

• Increasing regulatory scrutiny

Safety leaders who survive and thrive will be those who:

• Think systemically.

• Investigate deeply.

• Challenge respectfully.

• Influence strategically.

• Measure learning.

• Design stronger controls.

ICAM’s foundation- built on James Reason’s understanding of organisational accidents and developed in industry by Gerry Gibb- remains powerful because it forces us to look beyond the obvious.

It pushes us to examine:

• Organisational factors

• Task and environmental conditions

• Individual and team actions

• Absent or failed defences

But frameworks are only as powerful as the courage of the people using them.

If we use them to reinforce surface-level findings, they become bureaucratic tools.

If we use them to expose systemic weakness, they become transformative.

A Direct Challenge to Safety Leaders

As you head into 2026, ask yourself:

1. When was the last time one of our investigations identified a management decision as a contributor?

2. How many of our corrective actions eliminate or engineer out risk?

3. Do we track recurring organisational factors?

4. Do our investigations meaningfully influence executive decisions?

5. Would frontline workers describe us as credible?

6. Are we known for paperwork, or for insight?

7. Do we close actions, or verify effectiveness?

8. Do we measure learning, or just injuries?

9. Are we visible in operations?

10. Are we brave enough to challenge the system?

If those questions feel uncomfortable, that’s a good sign.

Growth starts there.

Final Thought

The world does not need more debate about what the “S” in HSE stands for.

It needs safety leaders who:

• Understand systems.

• Analyse decisions.

• Design better controls.

• Influence strategy.

• Build investigative capability.

• Strengthen culture.

• Prioritise learning over optics.

In 2026, the job title is not the differentiator.

Depth is. Courage is. Capability is.

And ultimately, the measure of our profession is not what we call ourselves.

It’s whether fewer people get hurt because of the systems we helped improve.