As global workforces adapt to hybrid models, emerging technologies, and shifting expectations, organisations must re-evaluate how they manage office ergonomics risk.

The key question: is regulation really driving progress — or are other, more powerful incentives shaping safer workplace practices?

In this article, Cardinus Director Jon Abbott examines how ergonomics programs are shaped by different forces in Europe and the US — and what both regions can learn from each other.

The Changing Shape of Workplaces and Risks

The workplace continues to evolve at a remarkable pace. Our devices are changing rapidly, as are our workplaces and working habits. A few years ago, the move to homeworking felt revolutionary. Today, hybrid work is the norm, and managing ergonomics across varied environments is more complex than ever.

We’re also seeing a demographic shift among workers. Millennials and Generation Z — many of whom developed technology habits in their school years — now make up a majority of the workforce. Generation Alpha, already tech-native, will soon follow, never having known a time without social media or smart devices.

These trends are reshaping how employees interact with their work environments. Across the world, different approaches are being taken to meet the resulting risks — and much can be learned by comparing Europe and the United States, who approach office ergonomics from very different angles.

Europe Leans on Regulation

For many years, Europe has taken ergonomics risk seriously. EU Directive 89/391, the OSH “Framework Directive”, requires each member country to manage ergonomics through regulation. In the UK, this has meant compliance with the Display Screen Equipment (DSE) Regulations 1992 (amended 2002). These regulations have now been in place for over 30 years.

The DSE regulations are prescriptive: employers must educate employees on the correct setup of their equipment and environment. A self-assessment helps to identify those at risk or in discomfort.

This is a valid approach — but not without challenges. In practice, the literal interpretation of the regulations can become a barrier. Training materials often focus on how to adjust a chair or monitor, assuming a traditional desk setup. But in today’s flexible world, that isn’t always relevant. Many people work from dining tables, kitchen counters, or sofas — and some are perfectly comfortable doing so, while others are not.

Too often, employers cling tightly to outdated guidance without adapting to the individual’s needs or environment. I’ve heard customers say, “but that doesn’t follow the regulations,” when in fact, their broader Duty of Care requires an adaptive, responsive approach. There’s little benefit in training someone to use a five-caster office chair if they’ve never used one — and likely never will.

I firmly believe in regulation. It raises awareness and drives better outcomes, particularly for organisations without in-house expertise. But regulation can also limit progress if interpreted rigidly. To gain the full benefit, employers must go beyond compliance and embrace flexibility.

The US Focus on Financial Outcomes

The situation in the US is different. The absence of socialised healthcare means that ergonomics-related injuries come at a higher cost to employers. Workers’ compensation insurance and medical coverage often fall directly on the business when an employee files a claim.

In this context, money talks — and in many ways, the US has a stronger incentive to improve employee comfort. While regulation is often less strict, financial risk is a powerful motivator. Fast diagnosis and early intervention can prevent minor discomfort from escalating into expensive, long-term issues that affect both productivity and morale.

As a result, many US organisations focus more intently on outcomes. Programs are often geared towards behaviour change, encouraging employees to understand and manage their own risk factors. The challenge is that many of these programs are reactive rather than proactive — which increases costs and limits impact.

Reactive Programs Increase Employer Cost

In a reactive ergonomics model, the burden falls heavily on the employer. Typically, an employee only seeks help once their discomfort has become significant. They may lack awareness of their condition and miss opportunities to intervene earlier.

In this scenario, I would argue that 80% of the burden lies with the employer — responsible for intervention, remediation, and ongoing management. The employee plays a passive role, following advice once the problem is reported.

A Proactive Model Reduces Risk and Cost

By contrast, a proactive approach — often guided by regulation — helps identify and address issues before they escalate. Employees gain the knowledge and tools to recognise early signs of discomfort and adjust their behaviours or setup accordingly.

This flips the burden: now 80% rests with the employee, who is empowered to self-manage their wellbeing. The employer supports and intervenes only when needed, which is both more efficient and more sustainable.

Why a Hybrid Strategy is More Relevant Than Ever

In both Europe and the US, external pressures are changing the landscape. The rise of hybrid working, growing awareness of musculoskeletal and mental health risks, and the development of standards like ISO 45003 on psychological safety have all elevated ergonomics on the business agenda.

At the same time, economic pressures are rising — especially in the US, where healthcare costs and insurance premiums continue to climb. In Europe, evolving legislation and broader ESG expectations are demanding greater employer accountability for employee wellbeing.

These factors make it more important than ever to adopt a hybrid, proactive strategy: one that blends the structure of regulation with the flexibility of outcome-driven models. By focusing on the tasks each employee undertakes and delivering tailored ergonomics support — as we often see in the US — we empower employees to take ownership of their health into the future.

In Summary

The best ergonomics programs combine the strengths of both European and US approaches. Regulation provides a valuable framework. Financial risk encourages urgency. Together, they point toward a proactive model that empowers employees, protects organisations, and delivers better long-term outcomes.

Cardinus Risk Management is a global leader in the development and implementation of ergonomics programs, including the world’s most widely used online office ergonomics eLearning and self-assessment program, Healthy Working. Our customers include Fortune 500 companies, government departments, and other organisations worldwide.

If you would like to discuss your program or get pointers to improve your ergonomics provision, please contact us today.