In the ever more articulated perimeter of occupational health and safety, the issue of isolated work is assuming increasing importance, both from the point of view of prevention and from that of organisational and reputational responsibility. In complex operational contexts such as airport infrastructures, logistics hubs, industrial plants and energy sites, risk management can no longer be limited to formal compliance, but must evolve towards an integrated, technologically-enabled model geared towards preventive mitigation.

We have explored these aspects with Marco Belleri, Sales Manager of Irbema, who illustrated the strategic value of adopting man-down devices for the protection of lone workers, analysing the regulatory, economic and organisational implications.

The issue of working alone is often underestimated. Why is it a priority for organisations today?

Working alone constitutes a peculiar area of risk because it amplifies the consequences of any critical event. It is not necessarily the activity itself that is most dangerous, but the absence of operational proximity, immediate supervision or the possibility of timely intervention.

According to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety definition (CCOHS), isolated work occurs when an operator cannot be seen, heard or rescued within a short period of time. This element, the time factor, is decisive. In the event of an illness, fall, assault or accident, even a few minutes can make the difference between a manageable injury and an irreversible outcome.

In environments such as airports, logistics hubs, industrial plants and energy sites where activities take place over large areas, often at night or in peripheral areas, the isolation risk becomes structural and must be treated as such in the Risk Assessment Document.

From a regulatory point of view, what are the main responsibilities of the employer in the event of an accident or death of an isolated worker?

The picture is extremely clear and, at the same time, severe. The Legislative Decree 81/2008 imposes an obligation on the employer to assess all risks, without exception. Omitting the analysis of the work alone means exposing oneself to direct liability.

There are three levels of responsibility:

• Criminal. Failure to assess the risk or the absence of adequate preventive measures may constitute a violation of the Consolidated Law, up to and including, in the most serious cases, charges of culpable homicide or culpable personal injury.
• Civil. The organisation is liable to pay compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage. In addition to this, INAIL may bring an action to recover the sums paid out.
• Administrative. Pursuant to the Legislative Decree 231/2001, the entity may be held liable for administrative liability for offences if it has not adopted appropriate organisational models to prevent such events.

It is essential to emphasise that, in procurement contracts, Article 26 of Legislative Decree 81/2008 also comes into play: the principal may be held co-responsible for failure to supervise or for deficiencies in the assessment of interference risks.

In this scenario, how do man-down devices fit into the business strategy?

They fit in as an improvement measure with high added value. The adoption of wearable devices capable of detecting falls, immobility or emergency situations is a proactive measure that significantly increases the protection of isolated workers.

The solutions, for example, are designed to automatically trigger an alarm in case of loss of verticality or absence of movement, with immediate transmission of position. This allows drastically shorten intervention times.

From a strategic point of view, we are not just talking about safety: we are talking about reducing the residual risk, making serious accident costs more efficient and strengthening the company's organisational model.

Can you elaborate on the economic aspect? The adoption of new technologies is often seen as a cost.

This is a short-sighted approach. The analysis should be conducted in terms of Total Cost of Risk. A single serious accident leads to direct costs (absence, replacement, legal costs) and indirect costs (operational disruptions, reputational damage, increased insurance premiums).

In addition, there are incentive tools such as the average rate reductions for prevention provided by INAIL (e.g. OT23) that reward companies that adopt innovative solutions to reduce the risk of isolated work.

The investment in advanced technological devices is thus largely compensated by the reduction of economic exposure and access to reward mechanisms.

Besides regulatory compliance and risk reduction, what reputational benefits can a company achieve?

Today, security is an indicator of organisational maturity. A company that demonstrates that it goes beyond minimum regulatory compliance and takes proactive measures strengthens its credibility with stakeholders, clients and institutional partners.

In public or private tenders, proposing improved solutions for the protection of isolated workers can be a distinctive element, capable of affecting the qualitative evaluation of the tender.

Security thus becomes a competitive lever, not just a legal obligation.

In conclusion, what message would you like to address to top management and managers regarding safety at work?

Isolated work is not a residual case, but an increasingly widespread operational condition. To ignore it is to accept an ungoverned risk.

Integrating man-down devices within the prevention and protection system means taking a quantum leap from reactive emergency management to structured, documentable and technologically supported prevention.

The protection of the isolated employee is not only a regulatory obligation: it is an indicator of managerial responsibility, organisational solidity and strategic vision. And it is on this ground that a company can really distinguish itself.

+39 039 249121

 info@irbema.com