Britain’s most serious workplace risks are nothing new so why are they still causing fatalities?

Risk management experts Stallard Kane say the latest HSE fatality figures should prompt insurers, brokers and businesses to question why all too familiar workplace risks continue to result in serious incidents. 

Britain’s latest workplace fatality figures reveal a persistent challenge for businesses and the insurance industry because many of the risks still costing lives are not emerging threats, but hazards organisations have been managing for decades.

The latest figures (2025/26) from the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) show that 126 workers were killed in work-related accidents across Great Britain, with construction and agriculture continuing to record some of the highest numbers of fatalities. Falls from height remain the leading cause of fatal workplace injury, while incidents involving moving vehicles and objects continue to account for a significant proportion of deaths.

Nathan Jones, Managing Director at risk management specialists Stallard Kane, who work alongside Everywhen, says the figures should shift the conversation away from simply identifying workplace risks towards understanding why known hazards continue to result in serious incidents.

“The striking thing about the latest figures isn’t that we’re discovering new workplace risks, it’s the fact that many of the same risks continue to appear year after year. We know falls from height are dangerous and we know the risks associated with moving vehicles, machinery and high-risk working environments. The question for businesses, brokers and insurers is why those risks are still translating into serious incidents despite decades of legislation, guidance and experience aimed at preventing them?”

Emerging gaps between compliance and control

According to Stallard Kane, serious workplace incidents are rarely the result of one isolated failure. Instead, they can often emerge when several smaller weaknesses combine; an outdated risk assessment or safe system of work, gaps in or lack of training, lack of adequate supervision, changes in working practices that have not been reviewed, inconsistent contractor management, weak communication or insufficient management oversight. Individually, these shortcomings can appear relatively minor. Combined, they can create the conditions for a much more serious incident.

Nathan Jones maintains that this highlights an important distinction between being able to demonstrate compliance and ensuring risk controls are genuinely working in practice:

“A business can have policies, procedures and risk assessments in place, but risk management cannot become just a paperwork exercise. Workplaces change. People change. Equipment changes. Businesses grow, contractors come and go and working practices evolve. The risk assessment and safe system of work that was appropriate two years ago may not accurately reflect what is happening on the ground today.

“Prevention is better than cure, but prevention requires businesses to keep questioning whether their controls remain effective rather than assuming a completed document means the risk has been dealt with.”

Should every serious claim trigger a risk review?

What happens after workplace incidents and insurance claims is key consideration that should be prioritised.  While claims handling naturally focuses on supporting those affected and resolving the immediate financial and operational consequences, Nathan Jones argues that closing a claim without addressing its underlying causes risks leaving businesses exposed to repeat incidents.

“The end of a serious claim should therefore become a trigger for brokers, insurers and businesses to examine what happened and what needs to change. One of the most important questions after an incident is not simply ‘what happened?’ but ‘what allowed it to happen?’ This isn’t about assigning blame, it’s about understanding the immediate, underlying and root causes as well as making sure that the same conditions aren’t still present after the event.

“Most people working in insurance will have encountered businesses that experience multiple accidents or claims over a prolonged period. Settling an individual claim doesn’t necessarily remove the risk that caused it.”

A post-claim review should involve revisiting risk assessments, improving employee or management training, strengthening contractor controls, examining fire safety arrangements or reviewing wider operational practices. For insurers and brokers, this approach can potentially reduce repeat losses while helping businesses demonstrate that lessons have been learned and appropriate controls implemented.

From claims management to claims prevention

Nathan Jones believes this represents a wider opportunity for the insurance industry to place prevention and organisational resilience more firmly alongside traditional claims management.

Effective risk management increasingly requires businesses to consider the connections between health and safety, employee competence, leadership, workplace culture, fire safety, operational processes and governance rather than treating individual risks in isolation.

“There is a significant opportunity for brokers, insurers, claims professionals and risk consultants to turn the experience of a claim into something positive. “If we can help a client understand why an incident occurred and then put practical improvements in place, the business becomes more resilient, future claims become less likely and insurers have greater confidence that meaningful action has been taken. The most valuable claim isn’t simply one that has been handled well. It’s one that ultimately helps prevent the next claim from happening.”

“Behind every workplace fatality is a person, a family and colleagues whose lives have been changed. There are also significant operational, legal and financial consequences for the organisations involved. The latest HSE figures should therefore be more than an annual health and safety statistic. They should be an opportunity for businesses and the insurance industry to ask whether the risks we already understand are actually being managed as effectively as we think they are.”

Image provided by Stallard Kane