I have written several articles on the moral foundations of occupational health and safety (OHS). This week, I sought assistance from the Bible via artificial intelligence apps, Text with Jesus and others. Below is that conversation and some useful, but synthetic, Biblical advice on managing a business safely.
Walk through any corporate sustainability report and you’ll find the same familiar choreography: a glossy declaration of “unwavering commitment to safety,” a handful of photos featuring smiling workers in immaculate PPE, and a CEO foreword that reads like it was written by a risk‑averse committee. What you won’t find is any serious engagement with the economic structures that produce harm in the first place.
For decades, scholars have been mapping the relationship between capitalism and workplace injury. They’ve shown, with depressing consistency, that harm is not an aberration but a predictable by‑product of systems designed to extract value from labour while externalising risk. Yet when these same scholars propose alternative models — models that would reduce harm by redistributing power, stabilising labour markets, or democratising decision‑making — executives respond with a familiar repertoire of excuses.
This article examines why. In a couple of real-world case studies, corporations were presented with opportunities to adopt safer, fairer, more accountable models — and chose not to.
Because the truth is simple: executives don’t reject these proposals because they’re unworkable. They reject them because they work exactly as intended.
Australia has held an annual “Go Home on Time Day” for many years, but the amount of unpaid work workers give to their employers and the time their families miss out on remains high. Looking at new data in light of the legislative need for Australian employers to identify and assess psychosocial hazards, there are noticeable changes that employers need to make to comply with their occupational health and safety (OHS) obligations.
Victoria’s consultation on its work-from-home proposals closes this weekend. The government has claimed over 18,000 submissions and interactions, but none of them are yet publicly available. The Business Council of Australia (BCA) has garnered recent media attention, pre-empting the closure of the consultation. The BCA could have a more mature discussion on the concept and practice of working from home, but perhaps it realises that the argument has already been lost.
Safe Work Australia’s recent Research Summit conducted several workshops. Time allowed delegates to only attend two of the eight – a morning and an afternoon. The standout seminar I attended was for “Work as a determinant of our psychological health”.
Two major Australian media outlets are continuing to focus on the issue of working from home (WFH), criticising the concept and some local political moves. WFH offers some significant mental health benefits that are being largely ignored. The front page of The Australian newspaper for September 1, 2025, provides the latest example.
Australia’s Economic Roundtable recycled the same institutions and failed metrics that have long masked our productivity crisis. As Amy Remeikis notes, those who shaped past policy failures now feign surprise at the fallout. Meanwhile, important drivers of productivity, such as safe and quality work, remain ignored. OHS is treated as a compliance chore, rather than a strategic asset. If the Albanese government truly wants productivity reform, it must stop listening only to the “profit class” and start measuring what matters: worker health, dignity, and contribution.
