
Contractor Safety Is a Governance Test, Not a Procurement Checklist
The client cannot outsource accountability for the conditions it creates, the interfaces it controls or the standards it chooses to enforce.
Read article →Topic focus
This is the area I've spent the most time on, professionally and academically: how organizations actually govern the safety of contractors doing work on their behalf. The collection below brings that work together in one place, from the operational case for governance through to an MSc research project built to test it.
Why this is the focus
Most organizations I've worked with or studied run contractor safety well at the site level: procedures exist, inductions happen, supervision is present. What's usually missing is the layer above that, the governance that makes contractor safety consistent, owned, and visible to leadership rather than dependent on whoever happens to be running a given project. Everything below is about that missing layer.

The client cannot outsource accountability for the conditions it creates, the interfaces it controls or the standards it chooses to enforce.
Read article →
Why operationally sound contractor safety can still leave an organization unable to answer basic questions about its own risk.
Read article →
Seven recurring gaps kept surfacing across interviews and a maturity survey. None of them were about people failing to care.
Read article →
A model built around risk tiering, lifecycle oversight, and independent three-line assurance, connecting the safety work that already exists instead of adding a new program on top of it.
Read article →
Why a well-designed governance model can still fail, and what actually determines whether it survives contact with a live project.
Read article →More from the library
The rest of the article library covers critical risk, safety leadership, human factors, culture and governance more broadly.
Browse all articles →