When Wolters Kluwer and the National Safety Council (NSC) conducted a comprehensive survey of U.S. health and safety professionals earlier this year, some findings came as little surprise. We expected strong interest in artificial intelligence (AI), varying levels of digital transformation across environment, health, and safety (EHS) programs, and clear signs that the role of the EHS professional continues to evolve.
What proved most interesting, however, were the findings we did not anticipate.
For this research, we surveyed 1,053 U.S. safety professionals on a broad range of EHS topics. The results were published in The Safety Shift: EHS Readiness in 2026, an initial analysis of the data and trends shaping the profession. We have since taken a deeper dive through a series of insight briefs, examining responses across industries, organizational types, and other respondent segments to uncover more nuanced perspectives and patterns.
Many of these findings were discussed during our August 19 webinar, which is now available on demand. The discussion generated a number of thoughtful questions from attendees. Below are responses to five of these questions, along with additional context drawn from the survey findings and subsequent analysis.
Question: "What finding(s) surprised you most?"
Among the most surprising findings was the speed and scale of AI adoption in EHS. We saw only 2% of survey respondents reporting no AI use, and 82% said their organizations have already moved beyond experimentation into limited, moderate, or extensive adoption. I didn’t expect those sorts of numbers.
Another surprising result was AI adoption and concern seem to be rising together. Despite strong confidence expressed in AI's ability to do things like predict incidents and improve compliance, 51% said overreliance on AI over human judgment was their biggest concern. Clearly, EHS leaders are certainly embracing AI but are extremely cautious about preserving human accountability.
We were also struck by the fact that organizational culture is not the primary barrier for AI adoption across many industries. Even sectors with lower adoption, such as construction and mining, reported relatively high AI readiness scores, suggesting the challenge is execution rather than employee acceptance.
Question: "Which result challenged your prior assumptions about the future of EHS?"
The finding that AI, digital literacy, and data analytics ranked ahead of traditional competencies for junior EHS professionals challenged our assumptions. We would have expected regulatory and field experience to remain top priorities, but responses show technology skills as prerequisites among many respondents. The expectation seems to be that foundational safety knowledge can be developed on the job, suggesting a strong move toward a more data-driven profession.
We also expected highly regulated industries such as pharma/biotech to be further ahead in AI adoption because of their strong data and compliance focus. Instead, the report shows a more cautious “test before scale” approach happening, with significant pilot activity but slower enterprise-wide adoption. Could governance and validation concerns be shaping the future of EHS AI as much as technology capabilities?
Question: "What differences did you observe between senior EHS leaders and frontline EHS managers?"
Frontline and day-to-day EHS managers appeared more focused on operational barriers and were much more likely than senior leaders to cite resource constraints, workforce engagement, and implementation challenges as significant obstacles. Senior leaders tended to emphasize strategic transformation, while managers reflected the realities of executing programs and maintaining compliance at the operational level.
Question: "Which traditional EHS skills remain irreplaceable?"
Human judgment for sure. Our research repeatedly emphasizes that AI should support decisions, rather than make them. Core practices such as hazard recognition, job safety and hazard analyses (JSA/JHA), safety leadership, regulatory expertise, and critical thinking remain fundamental to preventing serious incidents and translating requirements into action.
Obviously critical thinking depends heavily on context, observation, and professional judgment. Humans can recognize subtle warning signs, body language, changing work conditions, worker behaviors, and unique site-specific risks that may not be captured in data or predefined rules. Experienced safety professionals also draw on intuition, past incidents, organizational knowledge, and conversations with workers to identify emerging hazards before they lead to an incident.
So, traditional EHS skills such as risk assessment, safety leadership, regulatory compliance, incident investigation, worker engagement, and professional judgment remain essential. AI is a tool to improve prediction, efficiency, and decision support, but is not, and will hopefully never be, a replacement for human expertise and accountability.
Question: "What issue is receiving too little attention?"
Mental health and psychosocial risk appear under-prioritized relative to their importance. While 87% of respondents agree mental health belongs as an EHS responsibility, these risks don’t seem to be getting the same operational focus as other priorities. There appears to be a growing gap between acknowledging human-centered risks and how organizations are actively addressing them through programs, processes, and investment.
Download your copy of the Safety Shift: EHS Readiness in 2026 report to learn more.