ReportWire

Tag: Safeguards

  • How to Handle Unsanctioned AI Tool Use at Your Company

    [ad_1]

    AI is undeniably useful for certain simple tasks, and more and more people are using it when searching for information, but not every company allows or encourages AI tool use in the office. That’s not stopping workers from using AI anyway, according to a new report. In fact staggering amounts of people may be guilty of using “shadow AI,” including executives and cybersecurity experts.

    The report comes from California-based cybersecurity outfit UpGuard, which surveyed 1,500 workers in the U.S., U.K. and other nations. Its most eye-popping result is that over eight in ten workers are guilty of using unapproved AI tools at work. Half of the respondents admitted they did this regularly. More embarrassingly, 90 percent of cybersecurity professionals surveyed by UpGuard do this too, despite the fact that they really should know better. 

    The report notes “regardless of company size, geography, industry, employee function or seniority, a sizable majority of workers use AI tools at work that they know are not approved.” The data show that regular use of “shadow AI” may be more common in smaller firms rather than larger corporations. Workers in financial firms, the information industry and manufacturing were also more likely to regularly use unapproved AI tools than people in healthcare, education and retail. 

    Why are workers doing this? It’s probably because their company either lacks any kind of AI use guidelines, has approved only a limited range of tools that workers may not find useful, or has banned AI use, tempting users who can see AI’s value from trying to lower their workplace burden by using the tools anyway.

    This confidence in AI may be driven by surprisingly high levels of trust in AI. The UpGuard report notes that about a quarter of workers surveyed said they felt the AI tools they used were their “most trusted source of information,” placing the level of trust almost level with the trust they have in their managers and higher than reported trust levels regarding their colleagues. UpGuard links this trust with greater AI use, noting that “employees who view AI tools as their most trusted source of information are far more likely to use shadow AI tools as part of their regular workflow,” news site HRDive noted. 

    Shadow AI use also isn’t confined to just frontline workers: midlevel managers were as guilty of using unapproved AI as low-level workers were, but UpGuard found that executives were reporting the highest use of unapproved AI tools, underlying once again the wide division between executives and their workforce. 

    Using unapproved AI tools may be risky because it typically involves accessing an externally-supplied third party service, which may even result in any inputs users make being used to train later AI models. So if someone uploads sensitive company data it may leak out to other users at a later date, or security lapses by a third-party supplier may expose sensitive information in other ways.

    UpGuard’s survey looked into this and found that despite widespread awareness of these risks, shadow AI users felt they could manage the situation safely. Meanwhile, fewer than half of the respondents said they understood their company’s AI use guidelines, and fully 70 percent said they knew that workers had shared sensitive data with AI models. This points to a training issue in companies rolling out AI — a problem previously reported on — where having the risks explained to workers isn’t enough to deter them from exposing the company to risk anyway.

    The big takeaway from this data for your company is clear: If you don’t have an AI use policy, it’s definitely time to get one. If you have one already then it’s time to retrain your workers on why it’s important to use only the approved AI tools, and to be very very careful in their choice of data shared with AI tools. Just chatting with your workers about why they’re using unsanctioned AI systems may also be useful, since it will show you if you’ve made the wrong choice in “official” AI tools, compared to the actual frontline tasks that your employees are using shadow AI to tackle.

    The final deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, December 12, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Kit Eaton

    Source link

  • How Tariffs Are Making Workplaces More Dangerous

    [ad_1]

    Recent data on consumer spending ahead of the holiday season suggests that price increases from import tariffs may already be reducing shoppers’ purchases. But another, less obvious effect of duties may also make it less safe to go to work. According to a new report from a trade association representing construction, manufacturing, energy agriculture, medical, and other companies, many member businesses are delaying procurement of workplace safety materials made abroad. That adjustment to higher costs risks creating a downstream effect of potentially rising accidents on the job.

    The International Safety Equipment Association (ISEA) says many businesses that rely on personal protective equipment (PPE) as a workplace safeguards are buying less of it. Imported first-aid kits, respiratory protectors, high-visibility clothing, and even steel-toed work boots are among the many items that now cost more, according to ISEA. A survey of association members blamed the purchasing cuts on those higher outlays since import tariffs were imposed. The move not only increases the risk of injury for the 125 million employees who use those materials to ensure their protection on the job. It also exposes their employers to greater threats of accidents that already cost U.S. businesses $176.5 billion each year.

    According to “The Hidden Costs of PPE Tariffs “report, the ISEA says import levies are forcing many businesses whose employees face higher risk of workplace mishaps to make a very hard choice. Either they pay the increased costs of protective equipment that duties have created immediately, or scale purchasing plans back in the hopes customs taxes will be lowered over time — or perhaps be overturned by a looming Supreme Court ruling.

    In most cases, business owners have decided to bide their time.

    Nearly 60 percent of companies surveyed said they’d delayed planned purchases of safety materials, “in many cases using PPE far beyond its useful lifespan.” Another 41 percent of participating businesses said they’d sought to offset the higher costs tariffs have generated by switching to cheaper made, often less effective protection equipment.

    The reason? Fully 93 percent of respondents reported their costs for safety materials have risen since import duties were announced in April. By contrast, the study didn’t establish a figure for the average increase of PPE prices under tariffs, or even offer an ballpark percentage of those hikes.

    However, it did find 90 percent respondents believe that companies cutting procurement of costlier PPE materials “will have a negative impact on the safety” of workers. But faced with choice of paying more now or waiting to see if tariffs decrease, many employers have decided to take a calculated risk.

    “Workplaces will cut corners to accommodate the extra costs,” said one unidentified ISEA member cited in the report. “They’ll use PPE too long, buy inferior and less protective PPE, and not use PPE when they should. We haven’t yet seen the full consequences.”

    The report projected how the resulting increase in workplace risks might play out.

    It warned that if “worker injuries increase by just a single percentage point, over 40,000 workers will be injured on the job, costing the American economy $1.8 billion.” That’s on top of the $176.5 billion accidents already cost companies each year. ISEA CEO Cam Mackey called that a tragic waste in more ways than one.

    “When tariffs make it harder to afford quality protective gear that keeps workers safe, everyone pays the price,” Mackey said in comments about the report’s release this week. “This isn’t about politics. It’s about protecting the people who make America run — the workers building the infrastructure that keeps our cities moving, manufacturing the machinery that defends our nation, powering the energy systems that drive our economy, and caring for our families. Ensuring their safety should be a national priority.”

    Injuries aren’t the only way higher PPE costs are affecting business owners and employees. The survey found 44 percent of participating companies — which collectively contribute $15 trillion in annual GDP growth — have already delayed hiring plans in reaction to rising costs, including those of safety materials. Another 33 percent of respondents said they’re considering doing likewise.

    Release of the report is part of the ISEA’s continued drive to convince the Trump administration and members of Congress to exempt PPE and other safety materials from import tariffs. Doing that, it argues, would prioritize the protections of U.S. workers exposed to workplace risk by sparing their employers the cost of trade war duties.

    “Businesses don’t want to cut corners on safety,” said Mackey. “But when costs rise and budgets tighten, difficult choices follow. We’re asking policymakers to help prevent that situation before it starts.”

    The early-rate deadline for the 2026 Inc. Regionals Awards is Friday, November 14, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply now.

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • After a Long Nosedive, Boeing Ascends Into Clearer Skies

    [ad_1]

    Ever since a side panel on one of its 737 Max passenger jets blew out at nearly 15,000 feet in January 2024, news from aviation giant Boeing has been almost unrelentingly awful. At times it was so dire the very future of U.S. industry’s former crown jewel looked doubtful, amid revelations about its flippant attitude toward production safety, and customer threats to turn to European rival Airbus for new airframes Boeing struggled to deliver.

    But now, 21 months after that Alaska Airlines incident terrified the 171 passengers aboard — and goaded the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) into ordering Boeing to entirely revamp its flawed assembly and safety inspection system — the company finally appears to be ascending back toward business success through an overhaul of its once famed culture of safety first. For starters, just this week Boeing announced it delivered 55 planes to customer airlines in September — the highest number for the month since 2018. That wasn’t all.

    The company also said it’s looking to increase output of its best-selling 737 Max to 42 aircraft per month, up from the 38 monthly rate allowed under the production cap the FAA imposed after the Alaska Airlines incident. That’s part of Boeing’s wider return to manufacturing form, which it confirmed today with the additional news it delivered a total of 440 commercial planes to customers during the first nine months of 2025. It also inked gross orders for 96 planes in September, bringing its running total for 2025 to 870 craft.

    That’s the result of an ongoing Boeing workplace revolution of culture, employee attitudes, and manufacturing procedures. That required the company to revamp its assembly and safety inspection processes, and also forced executives to regain the trust of floor workers. Many of those employees were subjected to scorn, retaliation, and even dismissal for alerting superiors to production flaws they’d seen in planes, or reporting dangerously shoddy assembly practices.

    That continuing reform effort is feeding the new, virtuous cycle of business activity Boeing reported this week. It’s also generating cash the company badly needs after losing nearly $12 billion since 2024 — and a whopping $36 billion since 2019. It also appears to have halted the succession of what appeared to be near-death developments following the 2024 Alaska Airlines side panel blowout.

    A critical moment in the turnaround drive came in August 2024, when the Boeing board tapped aviation industry veteran Kelly Ortberg to take controls of the nosediving company. In doing so, Ortberg focused on restoring the manufacturing giant’s former culture of industrial and safety excellence that had been lost in recent decades.

    That occurred as C-suite executives prioritized profitability and shareholder dividends over other considerations — including spending the time and money to fix aircraft flaws employees had reported. It also involved selling off suppliers of essential aircraft components that had long been integrated into Boeing’s manufacturing and assembly operation.

    The new signs that Ortberg’s internal reform campaign is bearing fruit comes at a critical time for the wider airline industry, too. Many carriers complain of having to pare back or delay expansion plans because of a shortage of new planes.

    Indeed, about the only good news Boeing had received since the 737 Max side panel blowout was Airbus’s inability to fully capitalize on the turbulence rocking its American competitor. Enduring post-pandemic disruptions in the European consortium’s supply chain limited its production capabilities, even as Boeing’s own output was reduced by the FAA cap.

    But despite the continued improvements, Boeing still has a way to go before returning to top form.

    Its 440 plane deliveries so far this year are still lower than the 568 aircraft it handed off to customers during the same period in 2018 — when the company’s real problems began. That year the crash of one of its 737 Max planes killed 189 people aboard, and sparked investigations that revealed the manufacturer’s shocking disregard for reported safety lapses.

    Then, in 2019, a second 737 Max operated by Ethiopian Airlines crashed, resulting in 157 deaths. Additional fallout and damning revelations that arose after that accident continued battering Boeing’s reputation for safety, and fueled increasingly miserable financial results. With the 2024 Alaska Airlines incident looking like it could become the coup de grâce, the company’s board replaced the management veteran it appointed in 2020 with the trained engineer and aviation sector executive Ortberg.

    The turnaround at Boeing since Ortberg’s arrival has been dramatic. But the key to keeping that progress going will be convincing the FAA that the company’s internal safety revamp has advanced enough to increase the 737 Max production cap to 42 jets per month. During comments made at a Morgan Stanley investor conference last month, Ortberg seemed confident getting the regulator’s approval was within reach soon.

    “I think we’re pretty aligned,” Ortberg said, according to CNBC. “We’ve got to get this final metric stabilized … (and we’re) planning to be producing at 42 a month by the end of the year.”

    Awaiting that, Boeing got still more good news this week — this time from Europe.

    In another step forward in the company’s reform drive, European Union regulators approved the company’s planned $4.7 billion reacquisition of fuselage manufacturer Spirit AeroSystems, which was previously an integrated part of Boeing’s business and manufacturing structure.

    But the unit was sold off in 2005 under the drive by executives at that time to generate cash and reduce costs by outsourcing production. They then applied relentless pressure on those newly independent suppliers to speed output and reduce prices eating into Boeing’s bottom line.

    Ortberg clearly viewed that decision as a bad move in both industrial and strategic terms. As a result, even as it struggles to return to profitability, Boeing is now corralling considerable finances to reintegrate Spirit AeroSystems — and promising doing so will both streamline production and improve quality control.

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link

  • AI Might Just Make the Workplace Safer. Here’s Why

    [ad_1]

    Much of the focus on artificial intelligence now centers on its actual and potential capability to improve business productivity and profitability, and its threat to automate countless employees out of their current jobs. But a new analysis of workplace safety data broadens the scope of AI’s likely impact, estimating that the new technology could lower occupational injuries by an average 6 percent annually over the next five years.

    That forecast was the top finding from a recent study by Arizona injury law firm Lambert Goodnow. It crunched years of data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, World Economic Forum, and other organizations to make two important conclusions. The first was that nearly one-third of all current work tasks are expected to be automated using AI by 2030, at an average rate of 22 percent across all economic sectors. The second was that as a result of that tech-driven change, accidents in U.S. workplaces are anticipated to decrease by nearly 6 percent each year over the same period.

    “The predicted automation of 30 percent of tasks by 2030 is expected to reduce U.S. workplace injuries by 5.9 percent, preventing approximately 161,000 injuries annually within five years,” the Lambert Goodnow analysis said, noting improvements will vary considerably across different jobs and business activities. “(W)hen looking at an industry-level breakdown, some of the most dangerous are likely to only become 2 (percent) safer.”

    The study examined workplace injury rates in various sectors and industries in both public and private businesses — a blend that makes some comparisons challenging. But its overall conclusions show the AI safety improvement trend will likely affect a much larger number of employees than the forecast’s percentages of declining incidence might suggest.

    For example, injury rates at private healthcare companies are expected to drop by 6.3 percent through AI automation. While that decrease is only slightly higher than the expected 5.9 percent U.S. average, “this change could prevent nearly 30,000 injuries annually at the national level,” the report said.

    The study noted that forecasted the rate at which tasks are automated with AI over the next five years vary significantly across business sectors. They ranged from as much as 40 percent by administrative, support, waste management, remediation, professional, scientific, and technical services, to as low as 22 percent in arts, entertainment, recreation, accommodation, and food businesses.

    But using a historically substantiated calculation that a 10 percent increase in automation has typically produced a 2 percent drop workplace injuries, the report said safety gains from AI would be considerable across industries and individual businesses, regardless of their adoption rates.

    Still, the study indicated the biggest beneficiaries of AI workplace safety improvements are those likely to integrate it fastest over the next five years. But even sectors that are slower to embrace the new technology are expected to see injury rates drop. Those include agriculture, forestry, and fishing businesses; real estate, rental, and leasing companies; and finance, management, and insurance firms.

    Similarly, the report said sectors with lower potential for introducing AI tech are still expected make significant workplace safety gains in simple human terms.

    “Arts, entertainment, and recreation, for example, is predicted to see a 4.3 percent drop in injuries,” the study said, noting that would be 1.5 percent lower than the national average. “A 1,600 drop in injuries annually in the industry is, however, still an impressive figure.”

    Despite the forecast of increased AI-linked safety improvements over the next five years, the report said the tech won’t eliminate the risks in businesses or sectors whose activities lead to higher injury numbers in the first place. It also won’t alter their individual incidence rates to the same degree.

    “Four of the ten most dangerous (professions) have low automation potential and are likely to remain at least 97 percent as dangerous as they are today.” the study said of businesses whose large workforces will limit how much their injury per 100 employees rates decrease. “For example, while the national average injury incidence rate is projected to fall to 2.29, the rate in state-run nursing and residential care will only fall to 8.7, which is close to four times higher. Others, like couriers and scientific professional services, are far more automatable, but also are significantly larger than some others on this list.”

    Still, even small declines in accidents from AI automation translate into thousands of employees being spared injuries and deaths that would have happened otherwise.

    [ad_2]

    Bruce Crumley

    Source link