Most lab safety programs do not fail because leaders ignore safety. They fail because safety lives somewhere other than where work actually happens. Policies get written. Training gets completed. Audit findings get logged. Yet the same issues resurface, near misses go unreported, and risky shortcuts creep in during busy weeks. The problem is not intent. It is design.
An effective lab safety program does not exist to satisfy regulators or survive inspections. It exists to support real work under real constraints. According to Dan Scungio, lab safety consultant, programs that work share a small set of fundamentals and avoid common traps that quietly weaken safety over time.
Leadership engagement is not optional for an effective lab safety program
Every effective lab safety program starts with leadership engagement.
“Leadership engagement in the lab safety program is the first non-negotiable,” says Scungio. “That means being visible, consistent with safety messaging, and always acting as a role model for safety.”
Lab managers often underestimate how much their daily behavior shapes safety culture. When leaders assume safety is owned by EHS or a safety committee, staff notice. When leaders cut corners, delay fixes, or stay silent in the face of unsafe behavior, staff notice that, too.
Leadership engagement requires consistency. This means addressing unsafe behavior when it appears, asking about risk during project planning, and making it clear that safety expectations do not change when timelines get tight.
Shift the focus from rules to risk
Another foundational gap Scungio sees is an overemphasis on rules without enough attention to risk. “Staff need to understand why controls exist, not just what the rules are,” he says.
Many safety programs train staff to follow procedures but not to think critically about hazards. That works until conditions change. When equipment availability shifts, staffing drops, or schedules compress, people rely on judgment. If that judgment was never developed, shortcuts follow.
Risk awareness gives staff context. It helps them recognize when something is off and understand which controls matter most. According to Scungio, this is where risk assessments often fall short—not because labs skip them, but because they describe ideal workflows rather than how work actually gets done.
Advanced Lab Management Certificate
The Advanced Lab Management certificate is more than training—it’s a professional advantage.
Gain critical skills and IACET-approved CEUs that make a measurable difference.
Risk assessments that involve staff and reflect real conditions support better decisions under pressure.
Accountability only works when it is consistent
Accountability remains one of the most misunderstood elements of lab safety programs. Too often, expectations tighten during audits and relax afterward.
“Safety expectations apply to everyone, every day, not just during inspections,” Scungio emphasizes. Inconsistent accountability sends a clear message: some behaviors matter only when someone is watching. Over time, that inconsistency normalizes risk. Unsafe practices persist because nothing happened last time.
Follow-through matters just as much. “Hazards identified are hazards corrected, not logged and forgotten,” Scungio says. When issues sit unresolved, reporting declines, and trust erodes. Fair accountability does not mean punishment-first responses. It means addressing issues every time, regardless of who is involved, and closing the loop so staff see that reporting leads to action.
Paperwork does not equal protection
Many labs invest heavily in documentation and still struggle with safety performance.
“Some labs over-engineer paperwork—they have great policies, manuals, and documents, but no one can speak to the important information within,” Scungio says. “The safety culture suffers.”
Written programs matter, but they do not change behavior on their own. If staff cannot explain key safety expectations or articulate why controls exist, the program is disconnected from daily work. At the same time, Scungio sees labs under-invest in observation and coaching—two of the most effective tools for preventing normalized risk. “We don’t educate staff on how to coach those who may be a friend or a boss when safety issues are noted.” Noticing unsafe behavior without addressing it reinforces the problem. Follow-up conversations, while uncomfortable, are what stop drift before it becomes routine.
Why policies and training do not stop repeat issues
Most labs with repeat safety issues already have policies and training in place. The breakdown happens between written expectations and real behavior.
“Safety policies describe how work should happen, but human behaviors reflect how work actually happens under pressure,” Scungio explains.
Training often reinforces this gap when it is treated as a one-time event. “Safety training is often treated as a one-time event instead of an ongoing conversation,” he explains. Staff learn the rules, but they also learn which rules can be ignored by watching what leaders tolerate.
According to Scungio, repeat issues rarely stem from ignorance. “Repeat safety issues usually aren’t knowledge problems; they’re normalization problems,” he says.
He also cautions against assuming willful noncompliance. “It actually takes work to violate safety regulations—learn the rule, know the rule, be capable of following the rule, defy the rule,” Scungio says. Understanding why someone chose that path often reveals system pressure rather than individual failure.
Safety ownership stays with lab leadership
Clear ownership separates effective safety programs from ineffective ones. “Lab safety ownership always sits with lab leadership—period,” Scungio says.
Safety professionals play a critical role, but they do not control daily priorities. Lab managers do. They set schedules, assign work, manage staffing, and respond when problems surface. EHS can provide expertise, but lab leadership turns that expertise into daily practice.
“Lab managers control staffing, workflow, priorities, and tone,” Scungio says. “Those factors have far more influence on safety outcomes than any policy written by lab safety.”
Reporting systems must lead to action
A safety program depends on what it hears. If staff stop reporting hazards or near misses, the program loses visibility.
Scungio emphasizes that reporting only works when leaders respond consistently. Silence after a report teaches staff that speaking up is not worth the effort. Visible follow-through builds trust and improves prevention.
Near misses deserve particular attention because they offer early warnings without injury or damage.
The single change that makes the biggest difference
If lab managers want to strengthen one element of their safety program, Scungio recommends focusing on leader presence.
“Focus on consistent leader presence in the lab with safety eyes in use,” he says. “That means regular walk-throughs, asking simple questions, noticing both good and unsafe behaviors, and responding every time. These are not audits, but conversations and coaching moments.”
Building a program that holds up under pressure
Effective lab safety programs are built for reality, not ideal conditions. They account for pressure, change, and human behavior.
When lab leaders stay present, follow through, and keep safety anchored to real work, programs stop feeling performative. They start doing what they were meant to do: protect people, support reliable results, and keep the lab running when conditions are less than perfect.
