The evidence

What the research shows

Independent studies consistently find that structured, well-implemented risk control produces measurable reductions in claims and cost.

OSHA 3885 · Ohio BWC, 2011

Structured safety programs (OSHA SHARP)

Small employers that worked with OSHA's SHARP program to adopt structured safety and health programs saw dramatic workers' compensation improvements.

Read the source
52%
fewer claims on average
80%
lower cost per claim
87%
less lost time per claim
88%
fewer claims per $M of payroll
Wurzelbacher et al., 2014

Insurer-supported engineering controls

A 2014 study of insurer-supported engineering control interventions found large reductions for affected employees — evidence that specific, well-implemented risk control produces measurable claim and cost reductions.

Read the source
66%
lower total claim frequency
78%
lower lost-time claim frequency
81%
lower paid cost per employee
CDC Stacks · NIOSH, 2022

State insurer onsite risk control services

A 2022 study compared employers that received a state workers' comp insurer's onsite risk control visits with matched employers that did not. Cost rates fell, and the impact accumulated up to the fourth visit — broader evidence beyond a single intervention type.

Read the source
↓
workers' comp cost rates
4 visits
where cumulative impact peaked

The framework behind the evidence

Safety improvement is a process, not an inspection

OSHA’s Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs provide a public framework for proactive safety management — and the basis for much of the evidence above.

01

OSHA Recommended Practices

Seven core elements of an effective safety and health program — continuous improvement, not a one-time visit.

Management leadership Worker participation Hazard identification & assessment Hazard prevention & control Education & training Program evaluation & improvement Communication & coordination

What we're exploring

Open questions for the next wave of research

Where the evidence is thinnest — and where Loss Control Labs wants to help build it.

01

Research gaps

The questions the industry most needs answered next.

Digital loss control adoption Policyholder-led risk assessments Recommendation completion rates Which recommendations improve risk most How risk control affects retention How transparency affects engagement How AI-supported guidance affects implementation How dashboards change underwriting decisions How to attribute outcome improvements The economics of broader, tech-enabled reach

Planned writing from this research

  • Loss Control Has a Measurement Problem
  • From Inspection to Implementation
  • The Case for Policyholder-Facing Risk Reports
  • Engineering Controls and the Economics of Risk Improvement
  • Why Recommendation Completion Should Be a Core Carrier Metric
  • What Every Carrier Should Report About Loss Control
  • Risk Control Is Not a Cost Center If You Measure It Correctly

The library

Sources & citations

Every claim on this page traces to a public source. The full list is below — and growing.

OSHA Safety Management — Recommended Practices osha.gov Recommended Practices for Safety and Health Programs (OSHA 3885) osha.gov · PDF OSHA Worker Participation Guidance osha.gov OSHA Program Evaluation and Improvement osha.gov Insurer-Supported Engineering Control Interventions (Wurzelbacher et al.) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov Insurer-Supported Engineering Control Interventions — full text pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov State-Based Insurer Risk Control Services (NIOSH / CDC Stacks) stacks.cdc.gov