Ensuring workplace safety and providing guidelines to the organization, safety standards play a crucial role. These standards enhance employee well-being and improve operational performance. But even though these standards exist the question lies with the inconsistent adoption and implementation success. And this raises a question about what factors drive these processes and how we can influence these factors to better support improving workplace safety.
Substantial research has been done on quality and compatibility standards adoption, but the research on safety standards remains limited, fragmented and unclear about the difference between adoption and implementation. This research addresses this gap by aiming to identify factors that influence these two distinct stages of adoption and implementation. While the current literature struggles to distinguish these stages, this research defines them clearly setting a guideline. Adoption is defined as internal decision by a company to encompass, whether to use or not use a safety standard, choosing between different available safety standards. Implementation is defined as the process of integrating the chosen safety standard into organizational operations. i.e. integration in the (safety) management systems such that the company complies with the chosen standard. Further, this research also evaluates the relative significance of these factors and explores how the most important factors can be influenced by different stakeholders. Thus, it provides organizations and policymakers with actionable insights to promote safer and more resilient workplaces.
A 3-step methodology was used for this research. First, to identify the factors influencing the adoption and implementation of safety standards, a systematic literature review and exploratory investigation were conducted. The factors were organized into two frameworks: one for adoption (13 factors grouped under four categories) and one for implementation (6 factors). The adoption factors divided into 4 categories, included External Influence (Regulatory Pressure, Value Chain Pressure, Broader Societal Pressure), Firm Characteristics (Management Commitment, Resources), Company Goals (Image, Operational Efficiency, Safe Working Environment, Cost Savings, Global expansion) and Standard Characteristics (Quality, Compatibility, Cost). For implementation, the factors relate to Commitment (from all the levels of the company), Communication & Training, Continuous Improvement Mechanisms, Resources, Compatibility with the Company, and Government Support.

The second step of the research used the Best Worst Method (BWM) to quantify the relative importance of each factor with the help of experts. The results show that the Management Commitment and Regulatory Pressure are the most significant factors in adoption, while Commitment and Communication & Training are key for implementation.
In the third step, a literature review was conducted, and the experts were interviewed to identify the stakeholders influencing the top 2 ranked factors from both adoption and implementation frameworks. This step also focused on providing insights on how these highly important factors can be influenced. The findings show that these factors are influenced by various stakeholders: governments provide external pressure, top leadership drives internal prioritization, and middle management shapes implementation through engagement and awareness. These findings align with institutional theory, emphasizing coercive, mimetic, and normative pressures in shaping organizational behavior.
The practical implications of this research are twofold. Policy makers can use the findings to develop more targeted regulatory policies, provide incentives, and offer support mechanisms tailored to organizational needs, particularly for SMEs. The key recommendations for policymakers include:
• Use financial incentives such as tax benefits or grants to encourage adoption.
• Offer subsidized training programs and access to safety equipment or consultancy services, helping overcome internal capability gaps in SMEs.
• Promote recognition programs (e.g., safety awards) that link compliance to public image and reputation.
• Support benchmarking and performance transparency by publishing industry-wide safety metrics.
Managers, on the other hand, can better structure their internal strategies by aligning safety goals with business objectives, improving training programs, and enabling open communication across levels. The recommendations for managers include:
• Frame safety as a strategic priority, not just a compliance requirement. Integrate safety-related KPIs into performance evaluation and business continuity planning.
• Develop a formal commitment strategy that links goals, resource allocation, and contingency planning. This ensures alignment and accountability.
• Empower middle management and safety officers to act as translators of safety vision into daily operations. Provide them with authority, tools, and training to lead implementation.
• Appoint individuals with strong safety values and past industry experience. These champions can help shape safety culture and mentor others.
• Foster involvement by enabling employee participation through safety committees, open communication channels, and continuous feedback loops.
• Benchmark safety performance against industry peers and learn from leaders.
• Ensure continuity by embedding safety into onboarding and leadership development programs, sustaining commitment even during organizational transitions.
In conclusion, this research offers a structured and actionable understanding of what drives safety standard adoption and implementation. By separating the two phases, identifying key influencing factors, and highlighting stakeholder roles, the study contributes to academic theory and provides practical value for creating safer organizational environments.