Forum Insight

When Work Changes, Risk Changes

Why workplace innovation should consider performance and safety together

Changes to tasks, pace, staffing, equipment, automation and workflow can alter physical and cognitive demands. This insight explains why performance, human factors and safety should be evaluated together.

September 2026 · 5 pages · PDF

Download PDF View all publications

Cover of When Work Changes, Risk Changes

Publication overview

Publication record

Publication type: Forum Insight
Length: 5 pages
Geographic focus: Canada
Main subjects: Safety, Human performance, Work design
Evidence period: 2024–2025 working-conditions data; five-year provincial claims to February 2026
Format: PDF

At a glance

Three things this publication establishes

54.3%

of workers reported frequent exposure to ergonomic risks

2024–2025 · Canadian workers

Source: Statistics Canada, Canadian Survey on Working Conditions, 2024–2025 (opens in a new tab)

Provincial claims burden

WorkSafeBC reported more than 88,000 accepted time-loss musculoskeletal claims over five years, with more than $2.35 billion in claim costs. One provincial system; not extrapolated nationally.

Measure before the intervention

Define the task, document the baseline, change something specific, measure intended and unintended effects, then decide whether to scale.

Summary

What this publication examines

Workplace change alters more than output. A credible workplace-innovation model evaluates operational performance, human performance and safety together — and measures the effects before scaling.

Ergonomic exposure is not a niche issue

Key findings

What the evidence shows

Ergonomic exposure is not a niche issue
Ergonomic risks were the most commonly reported physical risk in 2024–2025: 54.3% of workers reported frequent ergonomic exposure, rising to 74.9% in natural resources, agriculture and related production.
The burden is substantial — but compensation data require care
WorkSafeBC reported in February 2026 that more than 88,000 time-loss claims for musculoskeletal injuries had been accepted over five years, with more than $2.35 billion in claim costs. These figures describe one provincial system and should not be extrapolated nationally.
Measurement should begin before the intervention
Define the task, document the baseline, change something specific, measure intended and unintended effects, then decide whether to scale.

Contents

Inside the publication

Ergonomic exposure is not a niche issue
The burden is substantial — but compensation data require care
Measurement should begin before the intervention

Evidence and sources

Sources and evidence notes

Statistics Canada, Canadian Survey on Working Conditions, 2024–2025 (opens in a new tab)
National exposure estimates.
Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders
Canadian ergonomics and WMSD risk-factor guidance.
WorkSafeBC, Musculoskeletal injuries remain the most common workplace injury in B.C. (Feb. 2026)
Provincial claims burden; not extrapolated nationally.
Association of Workers’ Compensation Boards of Canada, statistics and comparability guidance
National compensation-statistics context and comparability limitations.
Institute for Work & Health, Effectiveness of participatory ergonomics
Systematic-review evidence and methodological cautions.
IRSST, ergonomic intervention at the task-design stage
Canadian participatory task-analysis and workplace transformation example.
NIOSH, Elements of Ergonomics Programs
Baseline assessment, job analysis, intervention and evaluation framework.
NIOSH, The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Future of Work
AI-enabled sensors and computer-vision applications in occupational safety.
ISO 6385:2016, Ergonomics principles in the design of work systems
Human-social-technical systems approach to work design.
Federal, provincial and territorial privacy commissioners, Protecting Employee Privacy in the Modern Workplace
Necessity, proportionality, privacy-impact assessment and human-oversight principles.

Official statistical and regulatory sources are used for core factual claims where available. Survey, think-tank, consulting and international evidence is used as complementary context and is identified by source type. Descriptive associations are not presented as causal effects, and measures with different populations, definitions or reference periods are not treated as directly comparable.

Download

Read the full publication