Digital Work Systems and WHS Strategic Implications and Preparing for Change

8 min read

Governance, Supply Chains and Future Regulatory Direction

Parts 1 and 2 of this series examined the duty framework and inspection related provisions introduced by amendments to the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW). With the legislation now assented, digital work systems are formally embedded within the WHS framework in NSW.

PCBUs are now shifting from simply watching the reform progress to getting their governance systems ready for how digital tools shape work in real time.

In practice, it means organisations will start feeling these changes in everyday decisions much sooner than many expected. They reflect a progression in WHS regulatory thinking, acknowledging that workplace WHS risk environments are shaped not only by physical and organisational factors, but also by digital decision making mechanisms.

This final article considers the broader governance implications for PCBUs and how organisations can prepare for the developing WHS regulatory change.

With commencement in the very near future, what was previously an emerging WHS issue is now a core WHS governance responsibility. Organisations need to show that they understand how their digital systems shape every day not just how those systems are described on paper.

A change in WHS risk thinking

The amendments indicate a shift in how work is considered and assessed for workplace health and safety purposes. WHS law has traditionally focused on physical hazards, environmental conditions and organisational controls. The Act now explicitly recognises that digital systems particularly those influencing work allocation, monitoring and performance assessment can shape WHS risk outcomes.

For example, digital tools can shape workload, pace, supervision and behavioural expectations, often without any change to physical tasks, job roles or the physical work environment.

A common example is when a scheduling system automatically reorders tasks throughout the day in response to changing priorities. Nothing about the physical job changes, but workers may suddenly find themselves with tighter deadlines, fewer natural breaks, or increased supervision signals as the digital system updates. The work looks the same on paper, yet the pace and pressure feel very different in practice for workers.

Importantly, this shift does not replace established WHS principles. Instead, it extends those principles into settings where digital systems shape how work is organised and experienced. The foundations of WHS, reasonably practicable WHS risk management, consultation, and due diligence, remain the same.

What changes is the need to recognise that these obligations now apply just as much to digital decision making as they do to physical or organisational factors.

For organisations, this is a reminder to look closely at how work really happens, not just how the procedure says it should happen.

Governance implications

The Act introduces a controlled and significantly a staged regulatory model. While digital work systems are now clearly within the WHS scope, certain inspection related powers are conditionally activated and dependent on SafeWork NSW future issued guidelines.

This staged approach indicates that what matters now is genuine governance maturity, not just ticking compliance boxes when something changes.

For PCBUs, readiness now involves

• Understanding which digital tools influence work allocation or monitoring

• Ensuring oversight visibility across functions

• Monitoring regulator guideline development

• Preparing structured responses to potential WHS regulator engagement

In simple terms, early preparation helps organisations avoid scrambling later once WHS regulators begin engaging more actively within industry.

Organisations may find it useful to establish an early readiness plan that includes mapping all digital systems influencing work, identifying governance visibility gaps, and clarifying which roles or committees oversee digital decision making processes.

The Act does not introduce prescriptive or stand alone digital governance structures, nor does it mandate the creation of new committees, reporting lines, or technical oversight bodies solely because digital systems are in use. Instead, it reinforces that digital work systems must be incorporated into existing work health and safety governance frameworks.

In practical terms, this means that where digital systems are used to design, allocate, monitor, or influence work, they must be treated like any other element of work design within the organisation’s current WHS risk management processes. Boards, officers and senior managers are expected to ensure that digital systems are identified as part of the organisation’s WHS risk management profile, assessed through established risk management procedures, and monitored using existing assurance and reporting mechanisms.

The emphasis is therefore not on creating a separate digital compliance regime, but on ensuring that digital work systems are appropriately embedded into established governance structures, including due diligence processes, WHS risk registers, consultation arrangements, procurement controls and performance monitoring, so that their safety implications are actively managed rather than treated as a purely technical or IT matter.

Supply chain and vendor considerations

A notable feature of the Act is that responsibility rests with the PCBU using the digital system, rather than the designer or supplier of the technology. This creates a clear division, vendors control the architecture and updates, but PCBUs carry the WHS accountability. That gap is likely to become one of the most challenging aspects for organisations to manage.

Digital system risks may arise from

• Platform architecture

• Embedded algorithms

• Default configuration settings

• Update cycles

• Vendor controlled structures

This reinforces the importance of integrating safety considerations into procurement and vendor management processes for digital systems.

Given many vendors control system architecture, updates and data structures, PCBUs may need stronger procurement assurance processes. This could include requesting transparency about how updates are tested for WHS impact, confirmation of how allocation logic works, and contractual clauses ensuring cooperation if WHS regulator interaction is required.

Structured vendor communication such as scheduled update briefings, change notifications, or shared WHS risk assessments, can help organisations maintain visibility over external digital influences that affect work.

For example, a routine software update that changes how tasks are queued can unexpectedly increase pace or reduce recovery time between jobs and the PCBU will be the one accountable for managing those impacts.

This highlights a growing challenge, vendors often control the logic, architecture and update cycles, while PCBUs retain WHS accountability. This misalignment is likely to become one of the significant issues arising from the reforms.

PCBUs may benefit from reviewing

• Contractual cooperation clauses relating to WHS regulator engagement

• Access pathways for system explanation or data extraction

• Transparency regarding system configuration settings

• Escalation protocols for vendor updates that alter work allocation logic

The Act does not shift liability to software suppliers, it requires organisations to understand how technology influences work within their business.

Capability, Resources and Implementation

The definition of digital work systems is intentionally broad and technology neutral. This ensures future relevance but means organisations of varying size and complexity will interpret the obligations differently.

Smaller organisations using off the shelf commercial platforms may have limited insight into system logic. Larger organisations operating integrated systems may require cross functional governance arrangements.

The real challenge is striking the right balance without overcomplicating things. Most organisations won’t need to become experts in algorithm design, but they do need enough insight to spot when a system is shaping workload or behavioural expectations

The Act does not expect technical reverse engineering of proprietary systems. Instead, it reinforces the importance of understanding how systems influence work allocation, workload, monitoring and behavioural expectations.

For smaller organisations using off the shelf platforms, governance will involve understanding basic configuration settings and monitoring for workload effects. Larger organisations operating integrated digital ecosystems may require cross functional digital governance groups to review system changes and assess WHS implications.

Practical capability should involve

• Identifying which systems influence work conditions

• Understanding configuration decisions affecting pace or oversight

• Ensuring change management processes consider WHS impacts

• Maintaining clarity on who holds internal oversight responsibility

Suggested Industry Sectors and Digital Systems

While the Act has application across all industries, sectors in which digital systems are integral to allocating, monitoring, or structuring work are likely to encounter earlier and more immediate action with its requirements.

Emerging tools such as AI enabled scheduling assistants, gig work style task allocation systems, or CRM driven workflow platforms can also create digital workload dynamics that fall within the scope of these safety reforms.

These changes won’t affect every workplace at the same time or in the same way.

In some sectors, like logistics, retail and professional services, digital systems already drive most of the workload and performance signals workers respond to.

Anyone who has felt their workload quietly ramp up after a system update will recognise how these digital nudges can change work without changing the workplace itself.

The legislation is not industry specific rather, its relevance increases where digital mechanisms influence workload, pace, supervision or behavioural expectations. For many organisations, the question is not whether digital systems are used, but how significantly they shape work as performed.

This doesn’t require complex analysis, often it’s as simple as asking, will this change make people feel rushed or monitored in a new way?

Integration with existing governance

The Act highlights the intersection between technology governance and WHS governance. In practical terms, this means managers will need a much clearer sense of how digital tools shape everyday work in practice, not just how those tools are described in IT documents.

Decisions relating to

• System acquisition

• Configuration

• Deployment

• Monitoring

• Performance metrics

All these can carry safety implications where they influence work conditions.

One practical approach is to integrate digital system changes into existing WHS approval pathways. For example, system configuration changes or new monitoring features could trigger a WHS review step before deployment, ensuring safety impacts are considered alongside operational and IT factors.

Officers may also require visibility over key digital WHS risks as part of their due diligence obligations, particularly where these systems influence workload, supervision or behavioural expectations

This does not require duplication of governance structures. Rather, it encourages visibility between operational decision makers, IT specialists and those responsible for WHS.

Organisations should also consider WHS consultation obligations. Where digital systems alter work design, monitoring practices or workload expectations, existing WHS consultation duties are applicable. Integrating digital system changes into established WHS consultation and change management processes supports both WHS compliance and governance.

For instance, if IT enables a new monitoring feature that tracks task completion speed, someone needs to ask whether that change could heighten psychosocial pressure.

National regulatory approach

The Act includes review mechanisms and links to broader nation model WHS considerations. This signals that digital work systems are not viewed as a temporary or isolated issue.

Regulatory expectations are likely to evolve over time, influenced by

• Technological development

• Industry practice

• Enforcement experience

• National model law review processes

Future regulatory development may explore clearer expectations around algorithmic transparency, benchmarks for reasonable monitoring intensity, or minimum oversight requirements for digital workload allocation systems

For organisations operating across jurisdictions, developments in NSW may provide insight into emerging national WHS regulatory directions.

Historically, emerging WHS risk areas often begin in one jurisdiction and inform harmonised approaches over time.

SafeWork NSW guidance in shaping practical expectations

A defining element of the final Act is the formal role given to SafeWork NSW in developing guidance relating to digital work systems. Certain inspection related powers are linked to the publication of guidelines, and those guidelines must undergo public consultation before being finalised. This places regulatory guidance as the central operational part of the framework.

In practical terms, the WHS legislation establishes a guidance led model rather than a prescriptive based approach. The statutory provisions express broad duties and concepts such as “excessive or unreasonable” workload allocation or monitoring while leaving interpretive detail to regulatory guidance.

Before formal guidance is issued, organisations can begin preparing by reviewing their digital systems, documenting how each influences work, and identifying where monitoring or allocation logic may contribute to psychosocial risk.

Establishing an internal process for tracking and responding to draft guidance will also support smooth adaptation once expectations are finalised. In short, organisations won’t be left guessing, but they shouldn’t wait passively either.

This approach reflects recognition that digital technologies evolve rapidly and that operational expectations will need flexibility. Guidance may provide clarification on how to assess digital allocation practices, how to evaluate monitoring intensity, what constitutes reasonable assistance during WHS inspections, and how proportionality may apply across different organisational contexts.

For PCBUs, this means that compliance expectations will likely develop progressively as guidance is issued and refined. Monitoring SafeWork NSW publications, consultation drafts and industry engagement processes will therefore become an important element of governance.

The consultation requirement also provides an opportunity for industry and professional input. Organisations, union, industry bodies and WHS practitioners may influence how practical thresholds and examples are framed. Engagement at this stage can assist in ensuring that regulatory expectations remain balanced and workable across diverse industry sectors.

Importantly, guidance does not replace statutory duties. Rather, it informs how those duties are understood and applied. Organisations that treat guidance development as part of their WHS intelligence and governance monitoring processes will be better positioned to respond with clarity and confidence as the WHS regulatory landscape changes.

Practical Thinking for PCBUs

With the legislation now assented, organisations are best served by adopting a measured, structured approach rather than implementing reactive or ad-hoc approach.

Practical questions to ask

• Which digital tools influence work allocation or monitoring?

• How are potential psychosocial or workload impacts understood?

• Who holds responsibility for system configuration decisions?

• Are safety implications visible in procurement and change management processes?

• Is there preparedness for WHS regulator engagement once guidance is issued?

Over the coming months PCBUs may benefit from focusing on

• Mapping digital systems that influence work and identifying related WHS risks.

• Establishing clear responsibility for digital configuration decisions.

• Monitoring WHS regulator updates and preparing for engagement once guidance is released

These considerations align with long standing WHS principles of understanding work as performed and ensuring reasonably practicable WHS risk management.

In many cases, this represents an extension of existing safety experience rather than a wholesale governance transformation.

Final perspective

The enactment of digital work system provisions confirms WHS regulatory recognition that technology shapes work in ways relevant to safety outcomes. The Act adopts a staged, guidance led implementation approach rather than imposing immediate operational disruption.

For PCBUs, the strategic implication is clear, digital awareness should form part of modern WHS governance.

Organisations that take the time now to understand how their digital systems influence workload, supervision and behavioural expectations will be well placed to adapt as WHS regulatory expectations evolve.

Most organisations are already doing many of the right things, this shift simply asks them to apply familiar WHS principles through a more digital, system aware approach.

Lane Safety Systems continues to monitor regulator guidance development and supports organisations in translating emerging WHS requirements into proportionate, practical WHS governance frameworks.