USA
United Kingdom
In 2026, decidedly less is being done to protect workers across the US. OSHA activity is in rapid decline, as are health and safety enforcement cases, and there appears to be a focus on shifting several aspects of health and safety enforcement from a penalty system to voluntary compliance.
So, with enforcement waning, is there still a business case for investing in workplace safety? The answer is unequivocally yes, and in fact, from a purely financial perspective, not much has changed. What has and will continue to change is the moral aspect of workplace protections.
In this article, we explain the validity of safety measures, such as ergonomics programs, in a climate of diminished legal responsibilities to protect workers.
The decline in workplace safety enforcement – an overview
Regardless of political perspective, recent federal actions have materially reduced workplace safety enforcement in the United States.
One of the earliest indicators was the closure of 11 OSHA offices, many in states with the highest rates of workplace fatalities, immediately limiting the agency’s on-the-ground reach.
At the same time, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has seen its funding dramatically reduced, with staffing levels shrinking from approximately 1,400 employees to fewer than 1501. This erosion of research capacity further weakens the infrastructure that informs evidence-based workplace protections.
Now, a report from Good Jobs First, a national policy resource center focused on accountability in economic development, highlights:
- The rate of OSHA penalties issued has fallen by 45%
- Total workplace health and safety penalties are down 47%
- Health and safety enforcement cases have declined by 35%
Looking ahead, the FY 2026 Labor Department budget proposal includes OSHA funding cuts that could reduce enforcement workforce by an additional 12%.
Combined, these trends suggest we’re heading for sustained reduction in inspections, citations and regulatory pressure, shifting the burden of workplace safety oversight increasingly onto employers themselves.
The MSD factor – Why the reduced workplace safety oversight is particularly relevant to ergonomics
The reduction in workplace safety enforcement is closely tied to the current administration’s executive order, “Unleashing Prosperity through Deregulation,”. This order is based on the premise that regulation creates unnecessary costs and slows business growth, a flawed outlook, as reduced worker protections often undermines growth initiatives.
In compliance with the executive order, federal agencies have been directed to scale back regulatory activity across multiple domains, including workplace health and safety.
In line with this directive, the Department of Labor announced it would halt OSHA’s proposed amendment to the agency’s 300 Log, a change that would have required employers to more clearly record work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSDs).
While this rollback reduces administrative requirements, it also removes a key mechanism for tracking one of the most common and costly categories of workplace injury.
At the same time, OSHA has signaled plans to narrow or eliminate protections related to hazards common in higher-risk occupations. These shifts reduce clarity around employer obligations and make ergonomic risks (often gradual, cumulative, and less visible) easier to overlook or deprioritize.
As OSHA enforcement declines and reporting requirements narrow, ergonomics risks become less visible at the regulatory level but no less present in day-to-day operations. This places musculoskeletal health in a uniquely exposed position, particularly for organizations operating in physically demanding or repetitive work environments.
Why it makes financial sense for businesses to continue investing in workplace safety
Diminished OSHA enforcement does not change the underlying economics of workplace injury. It only changes when and where the costs appear.
Musculoskeletal disorders remain one of the most common and expensive categories of workplace injury in the United States. Unlike acute incidents, MSDs develop gradually, often surfacing only after productivity has already declined, employees have taken repeated time off, or claims have escalated into long-term disability.
These costs rarely show up as a single line item, but they compound quickly through workers’ compensation claims, rising insurance premiums, overtime coverage, turnover, and retraining.
From a financial perspective, reduced regulatory pressure can actually increase risk exposure. When fewer inspections occur and fewer hazards are formally cited, ergonomic issues are more likely to go unaddressed until they result in injury.
At that point, the organization absorbs the full cost, often without the early warning that enforcement activity once provided.
There is also a timing risk. Workers’ compensation claims, insurance adjustments, and litigation lag well behind the initial exposure. Decisions to scale back safety investment may appear cost-effective in the short term, only to surface months or years later as higher premiums, restricted work capacity, or permanent impairment claims.
By contrast, proactive investment in ergonomics offers predictable, controllable costs. Ergonomic assessments, task redesign, and targeted interventions reduce injury frequency and severity, stabilize claims history, and improve workforce availability. For many organizations, these investments pay for themselves through reduced lost-time incidents and lower indirect costs long before they would ever attract regulatory attention.
In a low-enforcement environment, workplace safety is no longer driven by compliance pressure but financial discipline. Companies that continue to invest are managing risk on their own terms, rather than reacting to preventable costs after the fact.
The moral case for supporting employees
Reduced enforcement may change the rules of the game, but it doesn’t change the reality of work or the impact that poor ergonomics has on people’s lives.
Employees still feel the strain of repetitive tasks, awkward postures, and physically demanding work long after the shift ends. Chronic pain, reduced mobility, and shortened careers are borne by real people, not balance sheets.
Related – How to support your employees through uncertain times
Organizations that continue to invest in workplace safety send a message that employee well-being isn’t contingent on regulatory pressure. In periods of lighter oversight, those choices become more visible, not less, shaping trust, morale, and long-term workforce stability.
Looking ahead
Regulatory priorities shift. Enforcement ebbs and flows. Organizations that base their approach to workplace safety in short-term policy cycles often find themselves scrambling when expectations change.
The companies that remain steady are the ones that treat ergonomics and risk management as part of how they operate, rather than just a response to inspections or penalties.
We’ve long advocated for treating compliance as a jumping off point, and our ergonomics software and services make it practical and financially viable to go the extra mile, catching ergonomic hazards early, reducing musculoskeletal injuries, and creating safer, more resilient workplaces.
When the pendulum swings again, the organizations that invested early won’t need to catch up. Contact Cardinus today to learn more about how we can support your business and workforce through these complex times.
