Daily security increasingly relies on technological tools that change the way risks are identified, assessed, and managed. Since the entry into force of the European regulation on AI (AI Act) on August 1, 2024, a new regulatory layer governs these resources and requires organizations to train their teams on the systems they deploy.
AI Act and AI Literacy: An Obligation Redefining Workplace Safety
Article 4 of the European regulation on AI introduces a central concept: AI literacy. Specifically, any company using an artificial intelligence system must prove that its employees understand the health, safety, and fundamental rights risks associated with this tool.
This requirement, gradually applicable from February 2, 2025, and reinforced by August 2, 2026, is not limited to a simple e-learning module. The employer must create a comprehensive compliance file: an inventory of AI systems in use, a training plan tailored to each role, individual certifications, and incident tracking.
Technological mastery thus becomes a legal compliance obligation. A useful resource for keeping up with the news on these regulatory issues is the site blueprintforsafety.org in detail, which aggregates analyses on prevention policies.
This framework changes the perspective: safety training is no longer solely about physical actions or wearing equipment. It now includes understanding the algorithms that influence decisions made in the workplace.
Prohibited AI Uses: Red Lines for People’s Safety
The European regulation does not just provide a framework. It categorically prohibits certain practices classified as unacceptable risks from February 2, 2025.
- Social scoring, which would involve assigning a behavior score to employees or citizens based on aggregated personal data.
- Subliminal or manipulative techniques aimed at altering a person’s behavior without their awareness, with a risk of harm.
- Emotion recognition in the workplace or in educational institutions, except for strictly regulated medical or safety reasons.
- Certain predictive profiling systems for criminal behaviors, based solely on personal characteristics.
These prohibitions draw a clear line between useful innovation and abusive surveillance. For companies, the risk is not only legal: deploying a prohibited tool destroys employee trust and undermines any prevention strategy.
Physiological Sensors and Exoskeletons: Field Experience Feedback
Sensors worn directly by employees represent a concrete lever for preventing physical risks. Airbus, for example, has shared feedback on the use of physiological sensors designed to measure muscle fatigue and postural constraints in real production conditions.
The value of these devices lies in their ability to provide objective data before an injury occurs. Instead of waiting for the declaration of a musculoskeletal disorder, the company can adjust positions or rotations based on the signals detected.
The Specific Case of Industrial Exoskeletons
The market for industrial exoskeletons is experiencing notable growth. These mechanical structures, worn by the employee, redistribute loads and reduce stress on the most exposed joints (shoulders, back, knees).
An exoskeleton does not replace an adapted work organization. Its effectiveness depends on prior analysis of the position, the choice of model based on actual movements, and acceptance by the employee who wears it for several hours a day. Without this analysis, the tool may shift the strain to another area of the body.
Prevention Strategies and Safety Culture: What Technology Alone Cannot Achieve
No sensor, no algorithm produces lasting results without a shared prevention culture at all levels of the organization. Technology provides data, but it is human interpretation and managerial decision-making that transform this data into actions.
The AI Act illustrates this logic well. It is not enough to purchase a compliant system: it is necessary to document its use, train teams, track incidents, and adjust practices. Regulatory compliance becomes an ongoing process, not a checkbox.
Employee Training: Beyond the Mandatory Module
Companies that make the most of these innovative resources are those that integrate safety training into daily professional life. A practical workshop on the biases of a decision-support tool, a demonstration of the limitations of a sensor, a debriefing after a minor incident: these short, contextualized formats instill behaviors much better than a standardized annual session.
Effective prevention combines technology, regulation, and managerial practices. Isolating one of these three pillars amounts to building on an incomplete foundation.
The framework set by the European regulation on AI accelerates this convergence. By August 2026, every company using AI systems will need to demonstrate that its employees have an appropriate level of understanding of the specific risks of their roles. Organizations that anticipate this deadline by structuring their inventory, training plan, and incident tracking now will be in a stronger position, both legally and in terms of the actual safety of their teams.
