Introduction

Recently staff surveillance has become a hot topic in Australian workplaces. As a result we went looking for research related to AI and IoT (Internet of Things) and its impact on WHS. Unsurprisingly what we found is that IoT is a technology with two very different faces. On one hand it offers new tools for improving safety and health outcomes. On the other, it introduces risks that can undermine trust, fairness and even wellbeing at work.

Based on my reading of current research, it is clear that IoT in WHS is best described as a two edged sword. The benefits are real, but so are the unintended consequences. The following sections outline the opportunities and the risks, and what these mean for organisations and workers.

Opportunities of IoT in WHS

IoT devices are already in use across industries. They include wearables that track fatigue, sensors that detect gas leaks, GPS enabled boots and helmets, and apps that monitor stress or workload.

Accident prevention: The most obvious benefit is in preventing accidents. Devices can alert workers when fatigue, unsafe driving or environmental hazards are detected. This reduces the likelihood of serious incidents and gives supervisors a clearer picture of risks in real time.

Health and wellbeing: IoT is also being used to track health indicators. Stress sensors, heart rate monitors and wellness platforms can provide early signs of strain. This helps workers make healthier choices and allows managers to intervene before conditions such as burnout develop.

Data driven decision making: Another opportunity lies in the use of data. Employers now have access to continuous streams of information rather than occasional audits. This supports more accurate risk assessments, targeted interventions for specific groups, and faster emergency responses.

Organisational and societal benefits: IoT can also help organisations demonstrate accountability in the event of incidents and support compliance with regulatory requirements. At a broader level, aggregated data may contribute to public health research, inform policy and even help track disease outbreaks.

These benefits explain why IoT is being adopted so widely. However, each positive application comes with challenges that cannot be ignored.

Surveillance and Data Repurposing

A major risk with IoT is the way data can be repurposed. Devices introduced for safety can easily be used for monitoring attendance, productivity or other employment related outcomes. Once data is available, it becomes difficult to control how it is used.

This type of “function creep” shifts the balance of power further towards employers. It also creates a perception among workers that every action is being watched. Over time this undermines trust and can change workplace culture from one of openness to one of constant monitoring.

The possibility of data being sold to third parties or shared with government agencies only adds to concerns. Even if these uses are not intended, the potential exists.

Information, Participation and Consent

In many workplaces, IoT has been introduced without meaningful consultation. Workers often do not have a say in design or deployment. They may be told that devices are mandatory or may be asked to consent without full understanding of what they are agreeing to.

True informed consent is rarely achieved. Technical language is difficult to interpret, and the power imbalance between employer and employee means workers may feel unable to say no. Even when workers do understand, refusing may lead to stigma or exclusion from certain opportunities.

The result is that many deployments proceed without the trust and buy in of the people most affected. This reduces effectiveness and can lead to resistance, poor use of devices or incorrect data.

Unintended Consequences

IoT is often promoted as a solution to workplace risks, but it can also introduce new problems.

Health impacts: Being constantly monitored can increase stress rather than reduce it. Workers may feel anxious about how data will be interpreted or may develop unhealthy habits of self monitoring. Some devices cause discomfort or distraction.

Loss of skill and confidence: When risk detection is outsourced to technology, workers may lose their own ability to assess situations. Over reliance on devices weakens judgement and critical thinking. This has long term implications for safety culture.

Disruption to work practices: IoT can change workflows in unintended ways. Workers may compete to outperform each other, find ways to game the system, or become overly cautious to avoid negative readings. Normal team communication may suffer if devices replace human interaction.

Inequality and exclusion: Not all workers adapt to technology in the same way. Older workers or those with less digital literacy may be disadvantaged. Devices that assume a particular type of user can stigmatise those who do not fit the model.

Dehumanisation: At the extreme, workplaces can begin to feel dominated by algorithms rather than people. Decisions about workload, scheduling and even employment can become automated. Workers may feel like data points rather than individuals.

Data Management Problems

Even when IoT is introduced with good intentions, there are consistent problems in how data is managed.

• Too much data is collected and stored unnecessarily.
• Access rights are often unclear, with too many stakeholders involved.
• Security measures are sometimes weak, creating risks of breaches.
• Algorithms may be biased or trained on poor quality data, leading to inaccurate results.
• Multiple devices in the same workplace create complexity and reduce central oversight.

These problems reduce trust in the systems and increase the likelihood of harm.

Contextual Pressures

IoT adoption does not happen in a vacuum. Certain factors make ethical problems more likely.

• Remote work blurs the line between work and home, and IoT extends monitoring into private life.
• Many managers display overconfidence in technology and underestimate limitations.
• Emergency situations such as COVID 19 lead to rapid deployments without proper checks.
• The complexity of devices makes it difficult for workers to understand or challenge decisions.
• High costs deter organisations from investing in strong ethical safeguards.
• Regulatory frameworks are underdeveloped and vary by jurisdiction.

These pressures create conditions where IoT may be rolled out faster than it can be responsibly managed.

Practical Observations for WHS

From a WHS perspective, several clear lessons emerge:

1. Ethics must be built in. Devices should be designed and deployed with transparency, limited data collection and clear safeguards.
2. Workers must be consulted. Participation in design and deployment ensures devices meet real needs and builds trust.
3. Consent must be genuine. Workers need simple, understandable information and real options to decline.
4. Human responsibility must remain central. IoT should support decisions, not replace accountability.
5. Data governance is critical. Organisations must know what data is collected, who can access it and how long it is stored.
6. Policy and regulation need to catch up. Clear standards and oversight are essential to balance innovation with protection.

Conclusion

IoT is neither good nor bad in itself. It is a tool that can reduce risks, improve health outcomes and support better decision making. At the same time it can also increase stress, erode trust and entrench surveillance.

The reality is that IoT in WHS is a two edged sword. Used well, it can protect workers and improve workplaces. Used poorly, it can undermine the very goals it is meant to serve.

The challenge for organisations is to recognise both edges of the sword. That means approaching IoT with caution, consulting workers, embedding ethics into design, and pushing for stronger governance.