2026 Volume 5 Issue 1 Article ID: pp.26-003
Occupational safety and health (OHS) systems generate extensive knowledge through litigation, accident investigations and administrative procedures, yet this information rarely contributes to preventive policy. This paper argues that the limitation does not lie in the absence of evidence but in the way it is institutionally conceptualized. Expert evidence is traditionally treated as a probative instrument aimed at resolving individual disputes; however, it also produces operational interpretations of the standard of care and reconstructs causal mechanisms within real work contexts. Adopting a regulatory governance perspective, the article advances the position that expert analysis should be understood as a policy feedback mechanism capable of linking adjudication with preventive adaptation. Institutional fragmentation and a predominantly reactive enforcement architecture prevent the knowledge derived from cases from accumulating as systemic learning. As a result, OHS regulation repeatedly resolves harm without fully integrating its lessons. The paper proposes a model of adaptive OHS governance in which aggregated expert knowledge informs inspection strategies, technical guidance and preventive prioritization. By reframing expert evidence as regulatory knowledge rather than solely evidentiary support, the article contributes a conceptual pathway for shifting OHS systems from reactive enforcement toward anticipatory prevention grounded in continuous learning from harm.
