A Justification for Creative Expertise in Safety Management
Abstract
The internal branding of workplace safety programs often fails to engage employees, a consequence of approaches that overlook the specialized nature of branding and the limits of safety professionals’ expertise. This article contends that effective safety branding requires a deliberate sensitivity to its distinct demands—transparency, employee agency, and functional design—while recognizing the pitfalls of amateur efforts that alienate rather than inspire. Drawing on organizational psychology, design theory, and professional boundaries, it explores the nature, necessity, and approach to internal branding, advocating for safety teams to prioritize authenticity and collaboration over misguided creativity. The argument underscores a critical shift in how safety programs are framed to ensure credibility and impact.
Introduction
Workplace safety programs depend on employee trust and participation, yet their internal branding frequently undermines these goals through messaging perceived as inauthentic or dismissive. This disconnect stems from a fundamental oversight: branding is a discipline distinct from safety management, requiring skills that most safety professionals do not possess. When safety teams venture into branding without this awareness, the result is often communication that employees reject as inadequate or patronizing, jeopardizing program efficacy. As organizations increasingly leverage internal branding to enhance workforce engagement (Millns, 2025), safety professionals must adopt a sensitive approach to this craft. This article examines the nature of internal safety branding, its critical importance, and the need for a mindful strategy, arguing that sensitivity to its demands is essential for success.
The Nature of Internal Branding for Safety Programs
Internal branding for safety programs differs markedly from external branding, which prioritizes public perception, and from operational safety management, which focuses on compliance and risk mitigation. Its essence lies in shaping how employees perceive and interact with safety initiatives within the organizational context. Key characteristics include:
Demand for Authenticity: Unlike external campaigns, internal branding must resonate with employees’ lived experiences, requiring unvarnished communication over polished narratives (Smith & Carter, 2024).
Employee as Co-Creator: Effective branding incorporates workers’ perspectives, transforming safety from a directive into a shared endeavor (Rodda, 2025).
Utility Over Ornamentation: Design must serve practical ends—e.g., clear risk communication—rather than aesthetic appeal, aligning with employees’ operational needs (Elvins, 2025).
Expertise Dependency: Branding demands competencies in visual and narrative design, areas typically outside safety professionals’ training (Harrington, 2023).
This nature underscores a central tension: safety teams, skilled in hazard analysis, often lack the tools to navigate branding’s subtleties, risking missteps that erode trust.
The Necessity of Sensitivity in Safety Branding
The stakes of internal branding for safety programs are high, necessitating a deliberate and informed approach. Several factors highlight its importance:
Trust as a Prerequisite: Employees’ skepticism toward organizational messaging has intensified, with poorly executed branding perceived as manipulative (Smith & Carter, 2024). Without trust, safety initiatives falter.
Engagement Through Agency: Organizational psychology demonstrates that autonomy enhances motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2023). Branding that ignores employee input risks disengagement, undermining safety culture.
Workforce Expectations: Contemporary employees prioritize authenticity, a trend evident in professional preferences (LinkedIn, 2025). Insensitive branding clashes with these values, diminishing receptivity.
Consequences of Expertise Gaps: Safety professionals’ lack of branding acumen often produces condescending or ineffective outputs—e.g., trite slogans or cluttered visuals—that alienate rather than inform (Harrington, 2023). This gap explains the prevalence of inadequate safety branding.
Impact on Outcomes: Authentic branding, sensitive to its craft, correlates with improved compliance and reduced incidents, as it aligns with employees’ intrinsic priorities (Millns, 2025).
These imperatives reveal that branding is not a peripheral concern but a linchpin of safety program success, demanding careful consideration.
Approaching Sensitivity: Strategies for Safety Professionals
To address internal branding effectively, safety professionals must adopt a strategy that respects its complexity while leveraging their strengths. This approach requires awareness, restraint, and collaboration:
Recognize Professional Boundaries:
Argument: Safety experts excel in risk assessment, not design or storytelling. Attempting branding without expertise risks losing credibility (Harrington, 2023).
Implication: Sensitivity begins with acknowledging this limit, avoiding efforts that overreach and alienate.
Prioritize Employee Voice:
Method: Solicit workers’ insights on safety concerns and communication preferences through structured feedback mechanisms.
Rationale: This leverages safety teams’ facilitation skills, ensuring relevance without requiring branding proficiency (Rodda, 2025).
Example: A team might learn employees value incident data over motivational rhetoric, shaping a fact-based approach.
Embrace Functional Simplicity:
Approach: Focus on clear, practical outputs—e.g., a log of recent hazards—rather than stylized designs that demand external skills.
Basis: Utility aligns with safety expertise and employee needs, avoiding the pitfalls of amateur aesthetics (Elvins, 2025).
Example: A plain-text summary of risks outperforms a glossy poster in clarity and trust.
Collaborate with Specialists:
Strategy: Where resources permit, partner with design or communication professionals to refine execution, while retaining control of safety content.
Evidence: Cross-disciplinary collaboration enhances output without compromising intent (Harrington, 2023).
Illustration: A safety team might draft risk narratives, with a designer formatting them for legibility.
Monitor and Adapt:
Process: Assess employee responses to branding efforts through direct feedback, adjusting to maintain authenticity.
Rationale: Sensitivity requires responsiveness, ensuring the approach evolves with workforce dynamics (Zeitlyn, 2025).
Illustrative Context
Consider a manufacturing facility where safety branding has historically relied on generic posters, met with employee indifference. A sensitive approach might involve safety professionals gathering worker input, revealing a preference for real-time incident updates. They produce a simple bulletin of recent risks, enlisting a designer to ensure readability. The result: increased engagement, as the effort respects both employee needs and professional limits.
Discussion
The argument for sensitivity in safety branding rests on its dual role as a connector and a potential divider. When mishandled by safety teams lacking branding expertise, it risks alienating the very audience it seeks to protect—a failure rooted in overconfidence or ignorance of disciplinary boundaries (Harrington, 2023). Yet, when approached with awareness, it bridges safety goals and employee trust, amplifying impact (Millns, 2025). Challenges include resource constraints for collaboration and resistance to abandoning familiar tactics. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that sensitivity is not optional but essential, warranting a shift in how safety professionals conceptualize their role in branding.
Conclusion
Internal branding for safety programs demands a nuanced sensitivity that safety professionals must embrace to avoid undermining their efforts. Its nature as a distinct craft, its necessity for trust and engagement, and the need for a restrained, collaborative approach collectively argue for a reevaluation of current practices. By recognizing their expertise limits and focusing on authenticity, safety teams can craft branding that resonates rather than repels. While this perspective does call for further empirical study to refine its application across organizational contexts, an arguement could be put forth to seek out safety professionals with cross-diciplinary training in design and branding. Another option would be to, as resources allow, engage with an agency or other expert in the fields of design and branding who might have an understanding of the difficult but important psychological environment of workplace safety culture.
References
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2023). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. Guilford Press.
Elvins, S. (2025). “Crafting Internal Brand Tools for Accessibility.” In Design Week: The Balance is Shifting. London: Centaur Media.
Harrington, P. (2023). “The Limits of Expertise: Why Cross-Disciplinary Collaboration Matters.” Journal of Workplace Safety Management, 12(4), 287-301.
LinkedIn. (2025). 2025 Workplace Trends Report. Sunnyvale, CA: LinkedIn Corporation.
Millns, D. (2025). “The Rise of Internal Communications Design.” In Design Week: The Balance is Shifting. London: Centaur Media.
Rodda, A. (2025). “Co-Creation in Organizational Branding.” In Design Week: The Balance is Shifting. London: Centaur Media.
Smith, J., & Carter, L. (2024). “Trust Dynamics in Post-2020 Organizations.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 45(3), 321-339.
Zeitlyn, E. (2025). “Balancing Internal and External Brand Identities.” In Design Week: The Balance is Shifting. London: Centaur Media.
“the balance is shifting” – internal brand work on the rise. Design Week. (2025, February 20).