Keeping safety uniform

Health and safety priorities in 2026 are increasingly shaped by the gap between compliance on paper and protection in practice. Across many high-risk environments, particularly those involving live electricity, organisations are discovering that meeting regulatory requirements does not automatically translate into consistent, real-world safety outcomes.

Despite well-established standards governing electrical PPE, non-compliance remains a persistent issue. Protective uniforms that technically meet the required criteria are still being modified, partially worn or removed during tasks. This behaviour presents a serious challenge for health and safety professionals, not because regulations are unclear, but because the practical realities of work are not always reflected in uniform design and wearability.

As the industry plans for conversations and forward movement at events such as HSM Live Leeds, there needs to be a growing recognition that uniform design and fabric choice must move higher up the health and safety agenda. These factors are no longer secondary considerations or matters of personal preference; they are central to compliance, behaviour and risk reduction in 2026.

The compliance challenge behind the paperwork

In sectors ranging from manufacturing and utilities to transport infrastructure, facilities management and local authority services, workers are routinely exposed to electrical hazards. Arc flash, thermal burns and secondary ignition events remain low-frequency but high-impact risks, capable of causing life-altering injuries in seconds.

Regulatory frameworks governing electrical PPE are robust and well established. Yet on site, non-compliance persists, often in subtle but dangerous ways.

Protective garments may be partially worn, layered incorrectly, removed during physically demanding tasks or substituted with personal clothing. These behaviours are rarely driven by ignorance. Instead, they point to a deeper issue: garments that technically comply but fail to support the realities of modern work.

As organisations look at their health and safety strategies for 2026 with fresh eyes and objectives in mind, understanding why this happens is essential.

Comfort is no longer optional

Evidence from recent industry research makes it increasingly difficult to treat comfort as a secondary consideration in protective clothing. Last year, alsico commissioned a survey, and the data gathered from UK workers operating in environments with live electricity shows that discomfort is not a marginal issue, but a primary driver of non-compliance.

Less than half of workers surveyed said they always wear the protective uniform they are provided with, and only 40% reported that they consistently wear every required component. More than a quarter admitted to wearing their own clothing instead of issued protective garments, with a significant proportion acknowledging that they do so despite being aware of the risks associated with live electrical work.

When examined more closely, the reasons behind this behaviour are revealing. Almost half of wearers said they would be more likely to wear their protective uniform if it were more comfortable. Requests for softer fabrics, improved fit and greater stretch featured repeatedly, indicating that many garments currently in use are perceived as physically restrictive rather than supportive.

These findings challenge the assumption that non-compliance is primarily an awareness issue. Instead, they point to a mismatch between garments designed to meet technical standards and the physical realities of modern work. When protective clothing is heavy, slow to put on, limits movement or contributes to overheating, wearers are more likely to modify how it is used – or avoid it altogether.

Comfort also has direct implications for performance and wellbeing. Prolonged discomfort increases fatigue and reduces concentration, particularly during long or physically demanding shifts. In electrical environments, where precision and situational awareness are critical, this creates additional risk. Heat stress, restricted movement and poorly fitting garments can all undermine the effectiveness of other safety controls.

Importantly, the data also highlights a gap between the priorities of wearers and those responsible for uniform selection. While safety features dominate procurement decisions, comfort consistently ranks highest among the factors that would encourage correct and consistent wear. If garments are not worn as intended, even the highest levels of certified protection cannot deliver their intended benefit.

In 2026, treating comfort as an integral part of protective performance is no longer optional. It is a prerequisite for compliance, and therefore for safety. Organisations that fail to account for how uniforms feel, move and perform over a full working day risk continuing the cycle of partial wear and avoidable exposure to harm.

Fabric science and real-world wear

Fabric choice sits at the centre of effective protective uniform design, because the fibres used determine not only how a garment performs in laboratory testing, but how it behaves throughout its working life. Protection, comfort and durability are all engineered at fibre level, and must be considered together rather than in isolation.

Inherent flame-resistant fibres provide protection that is built into the structure of the fibre itself, rather than applied as a chemical finish. This means their protective properties remain stable over repeated industrial laundering, helping garments retain both their shape and performance over time. Other fibres are incorporated to address wearer comfort, contributing softness, breathability and moisture management that directly affect how a garment feels during extended wear.

The challenge for designers is not simply to select a “protective” fabric, but to engineer a balanced fibre blend that delivers thermal protection while remaining wearable in demanding environments. Fabrics that focus solely on achieving certification can meet the required standards, but if they are heavy, restrictive or uncomfortable, they risk inconsistent wear on site. Equally, fabrics that prioritise softness or flexibility without sufficient thermal performance or durability can introduce unacceptable safety risks.

As highlighted by recent developments in flame-retardant and arc-rated textiles, real progress comes from treating fabric performance as a system. Protection, comfort, durability and wash-life are interdependent, and effective uniform design depends on understanding how these elements interact under real working conditions, not just how they perform during initial testing.

Managing heat stress and workload

Heat stress is emerging as a key concern across many industries, driven by a combination of heavier PPE requirements, physically demanding roles and increasingly variable working conditions.

In electrical PPE, higher arc protection levels often correlate with heavier fabrics or multi-layer systems. While these approaches enhance thermal protection, they can also exacerbate heat build-up, particularly during summer months or in enclosed environments.

This creates a strategic challenge for health and safety professionals: how to maintain high levels of protection while reducing physiological strain. Advances in fabric construction, fibre blending and moisture management are beginning to address this, but their benefits are only realised when garments are specified with wear conditions firmly in mind.

In 2026, proactive organisations will treat heat stress mitigation as part of their PPE strategy, rather than an afterthought.

Fit, movement and inclusivity

Another area gaining momentum is fit. Poorly fitting protective clothing restricts movement, increases snagging risk and encourages modification – all of which undermine safety.

Historically, PPE sizing has been limited and inconsistent, often failing to reflect the diversity of today’s workforce. As more women and people with varied body types work in technical roles, inclusive design is becoming essential to compliance.

Uniforms that accommodate movement, provide appropriate ease and align with modern sizing standards support safer behaviour simply by being easier to wear correctly. In the context of 2026 planning, fit should be recognised as a compliance issue, not merely a comfort preference. Uniform suppliers should be driving these conversations too and ensuring that uniform decision-makers have the information required on their workforce for informed selection. 

Aligning specifiers and wearers

One of the most important shifts required over the next few years is improved alignment between those who specify protective clothing and those who wear it.

Procurement and H&S teams must balance compliance, durability and cost. Wearers prioritise comfort, flexibility and how garments perform over a full shift. When these perspectives are not aligned, even well-intentioned decisions can result in low adoption.

Education is key. Understanding arc ratings, ELIM values, fabric classifications and the differences between inherent and treated flame resistance allows for more informed specification. Equally, structured wearer feedback – through trials, surveys and post-issue reviews – provides valuable insight that data sheets alone cannot offer.

Organisations that embed this dialogue into their PPE processes will be better positioned to achieve consistent compliance.

Setting the agenda at HSM Live Leeds

Industry events such as HSM Live Leeds offer a timely opportunity to elevate these conversations. Beyond showcasing innovation, they provide space for shared learning across sectors facing similar challenges.

Uniform design and fabric choice may not always dominate health and safety agendas, but their influence on behaviour, comfort and protection is undeniable. Bringing these topics into strategic discussions helps move the industry away from checkbox compliance and towards more effective, human-centred safety systems.

Looking ahead

As 2026 continues, the question for health and safety professionals is not whether standards should be met, that is a given. The question is how organisations can ensure those standards translate into real protection on site.

Uniform design and fabric choice must be recognised as strategic tools in achieving that goal. When garments are designed around the realities of work – considering comfort, movement, heat stress and durability alongside protection – compliance becomes far easier to achieve.

If uncomfortable or poorly designed uniforms continue to be accepted as unavoidable, compliance will remain inconsistent. But if the industry treats wearability as a core safety issue, the path forward becomes clear: better design, better decisions and safer outcomes for those working in high-risk environments.

David Ward is technical development manager at Alsico. For more information, visit www.alsico.com