From compliance to competency: Rethinking the purpose of training in high-risk industries

In high-risk industries, good training saves lives. But only if it does what it’s supposed to – prepare people for the on-ground realities of their work, writes Sharon Macquarie.

Human resources and learning and development professionals working in safety-critical, high-risk industries are never short on pressure. I see it every day: they are juggling fragmented site operations, decentralised contractor networks, and increasingly complex compliance demands. So often, when I ask leaders in this field if their organisation is compliant with safety training regulations, the answer is a resounding “yes”.

But, once we scratch the surface, the question posed must go deeper. Is every individual, including contractors on a high-risk jobsite, competent to perform their task today? Under pressure, in changing conditions, with new tools, or working alongside newly subcontracted teammates? Here, the answer becomes murkier.

The gulf between compliance and competency

In safety-critical industries like construction, manufacturing, infrastructure, utilities and mining, HR and L&D professionals too often confuse completion with comprehension, and certification with capability. And that confusion comes at a cost, because what’s rarely acknowledged is that many training programs may meet the legal requirements on paper, but still fail to reduce incidents.

That’s because compliance is a lagging indicator, and not a leading one. A worker may be technically “trained”, but unable to act decisively in a high-risk moment. A site may pass an audit while systemic gaps in competency for each role and each person go unresolved, or at times, unnoticed. Perhaps most significantly, L&D teams often inherit and manage training frameworks that were designed for cost containment, as opposed to operational performance.

In my role at Avetta, I’ve audited countless training and competency programs across high-risk industries and industries that employ a large contractor workforce. The gap I continue to see is that there’s a gulf between completion of regulatory adherent training and the ability to apply that knowledge capably and competently across an entire organisation, including subcontractors. Luckily, it’s HR leaders who are best qualified to close this gap.

The true cost of compliance-only training

It’s time to rethink the purpose of training. It’s not a compliance exercise – it’s a competency-building tool.

In 2023, a worker at a construction site in Victoria was fatally crushed while operating an elevated work platform. WorkSafe Victoria has since charged three companies with failing to maintain a safe workplace. Notably, the incident investigation found that the worker had appropriate licensing and had completed required theoretical training, yet lacked the practical guidance to safely manage real-world hazards. This is an incredibly tragic example of how easy it is for compliance to fail in practice.

It highlighted, in the worst possible scenario, a critical gap familiar to experienced HR and L&D professionals: that compliance, checked boxes and certifications are no substitute for demonstrated on-the-job competence. While theory-based modules may satisfy audit requirements, they often fail to teach operators how to navigate unpredictable site conditions or mechanical failure points. It’s a costly reminder that training effectiveness must be measured by real-world performance, not just training completion.

Training fatigue is rife across high-risk industries

Another major challenge I see across high-risk industries is training fatigue. When workers are required to re-do the same generic safety modules every six or 12 months, engagement tends to plummet. Over time, refresher courses become background noise: something that is completed on autopilot, retained for minutes, and applied rarely.

The irony then stems from the fact that Australian organisations spend millions of dollars a year on this type of training, often because legacy systems, site access rules, or insurance policies demand it. However, the return on that investment is weak when content is not contextualised to the actual job role, or not mobile accessible or available in multiple languages, or when there’s no clear visibility into the compliance status of contractor and subcontractor teams.

This is especially critical in industries with large subcontractor or labour hire workforces, where onboarding windows are tight and job sites are constantly shifting. A generic “manual handling” module might meet the compliance threshold, but it won’t teach a contractor how to safely unload a specific type of equipment in a live environment, as an example.

The power of centralised systems to deliver confidence beyond compliance

A significant enabler of the shift towards competency-outcome training is good technology. Centralised training and verification platforms are allowing organisations (particularly those managing complex contractor networks) to create consistent training pathways and verify workforce capabilities at scale. The impact of centralising training cannot be overstated, because it usually results in the removal of redundant refreshers while streamlining task-specific modules, which match learning content to real job functions, equipment, and site hazards.

For HR professionals managing compliance across vast ecosystems of workers, the benefits of this approach go beyond efficiency. It builds trust and engagement with various layers of your workforce. When every contractor, subcontractor, and team member receives the same high-quality, fit-for-purpose inductions and training, your proactive safety culture will improve, right alongside the shrinking of your liability risks.

In high-risk industries, good training saves lives. But only if it does what it’s supposed to – prepare people for the on-ground realities of their work. Compliance might protect a company on paper, but competency protects people on the ground. HR and L&D leaders have a crucial role to play in leading this evolution from passive certification to active capability. It’s not just a safer approach. It’s a smarter and more cost-effective one, too.

Sharon Macquarie is the head of global training at Avetta.