Alberta Partnerships in Injury Reduction set out on a mission to reduce workplace injuries across the province. Through certifying partners and the Certificate of Recognition (COR program), employers are incentivized to take safety seriously and in many cases, it has worked. Injury rates have declined, programs have matured, and safety is far more embedded in operations than it was 20 years ago.
But like many well intended government adjacent programs, COR and SECOR have also developed layers of bureaucracy that sometimes leave safety professionals scratching their heads.
Here are three real examples from audits and QA reviews that highlight where the system starts to drift away from meaningful risk reduction and toward box checking.
1. The COR Owner Operator Orientation Paradox
For small employers with 10 employees or fewer, SECOR is the appropriate program. Many of my clients are very small. Some are literally two person owner operator businesses.
For years, these businesses completed their audits the same way by documenting training, hazard assessments, inspections, investigations, and management commitment in a way that reflected how they actually operated.
This year, two owner operators were told they could no longer answer questions as owners. Instead, each owner had to formally orient the other, despite having worked together for 10 years and having built the business together.
So now, two equal owners had to pretend one was orienting the other like a new hire.
Why?
What risk is being reduced here?
What behaviour is being changed?
This is a perfect example of a rule being followed that technically meets a requirement but adds no safety value.
2. The Safety Stretch That Misses the Point with COR
Organizations that consistently score in the 90s are often told they need a stretch goal, something new to improve compliance or maturity.
In theory, this makes sense.
In practice, what often emerges are conversations about developing procedures for changing printer ink, using the office microwave, or completing hazard assessments when driving to work.
Meanwhile, far more impactful areas such as advanced root cause analysis, emergency response beyond fire drills, psychological safety, fatigue management, or contractor integration are often overlooked.
Some may argue that this must fit within the confines of the partnerships model; however, I have an argument back.
Instead of asking, what are your biggest risks and how can we manage them better? We ask, what new document can you write this year?
3. The COR QA Review That Breaks Morale
Certifying partner assessors see hundreds of audits every year, and the QA review process is heavily standardized. Sometimes, it becomes too standardized. The worst part is, I don’t blame them! Imagine reviewing hundreds of the same document and questions…
In a recent audit, I was asked to revise the description of a first aid kit location. Located in office hallways was not specific enough. I was asked to provide something like near the northeast washroom.
Technically fair. Practically meaningless.
What is worse is the emotional impact.
Clients work all year to improve training, inspections, hazard identification, and incident reporting. They finally feel proud of their system and then they are told to create yet another document or rewrite something trivial that has no practical effect on safety.
You can watch the energy drain out of them in real time.
And that is the part that hurts the most.
The Bigger Question
Alberta and the certifying partners are actively working to revise and modernize the audit process, and that is encouraging. But it raises a bigger question.
Is there a future where alternative standards such as ISO is recognized as equivalent? Similar to Ontario.
Is there room for audits that are risk based, contextual, and tailored to the organization rather than structurally identical for everyone?
Is there a way to reward effective systems rather than just complete systems?
Because when safety becomes bureaucracy, we risk losing the very thing we are trying to build, ownership, engagement, and continuous improvement.
And that would be a loss for everyone.
Final Thought
COR and SECOR have done a lot of good. They have raised the baseline of safety across Alberta, and that matters.
But if we want organizations to move from compliant to excellent, we have to stop confusing documentation with protection.
