Brand Hero

Lakeland Europe Blog

Lakeland Europe Blog Lakeland Europe Blog – Français Lakeland Europe Blog – Deutsch Lakeland Europe Blog – española Lakeland Europe Blog – Italiano Lakeland Europe Blog – Nederlands Lakeland Europe Blog – Polski
 English  Français  Deutsch  española  Italiano  Nederlands  Polski

PPE Safety Standards: Is your equipment actually safe?

PPE Safety Standards: Is your equipment actually safe?

Does just meeting the relevant PPE safety standard actually make the equipment safe?

When an organisation buys PPE that meets a safety standard, it’s acquiring nothing more than compliance to the minimum acceptable performance levels.

When it comes to Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) just meeting the relevant compliance standards is not enough. The safety of employees on the ground, operating in any environment, is of the utmost importance.

Of course, while current PPE safety standards ensure that PPE offers greater protection than previous generations, it is by no means comprehensive. Standards are often reviewed in response to events; learnings from accidents, car crashes, and chemical spills all inform the development of new standards. As a result, PPE is designed to cover a vast array of potential risks within diverse environments – a catch-all approach that is responsive rather than preventative.

Subsequently, some PPE equipment, while suitable for general application, is utterly useless in new, or unforeseen scenarios. And, when standards have multiple levels of compliance – from Class 1 to Class 6 – how can organisations ensure they acquire the PPE most suitable for individual applications? And what are they really assured of when they invest in a product that only complies with a specific standard?

Typically, organisations are relying on the CE marking on PPE.

The CE marking on a product is a manufacturer’s declaration that the product complies with the essential requirements of the relevant protection legislation. But while standards may be legal requirements, the testing process that ensures the PPE is suitable for its intended environment is often inconsistent.

Testing organisations may sometimes interpret the parameters of a test differently, resulting in small, but potentially significant variations in the testing results. For example, testing houses may use a ‘crawl’ test to assess the durability of a suit around the knees, but the surfaces they use could vary from a smooth laboratory floor, to a highly abrasive carpet; both delivering vastly different results.

With testing parameters sometimes being misinterpreted – and PPE equipment being passed despite not adhering to the parameters – what are organisations actually buying?

PPE safety standards cannot replace robust safety assessment. Organisations need to think beyond the question of ‘does it meet the standard?’ to best safeguard their employees.

In an era of heightened risk awareness, an over-reliance on safety standards is short-sighted. With standards that are created in response to events, organisations need to realise the truth that PPE alone is not enough.

In our eBook, ‘Safety standards: Does meeting the standard actually make it safe?’ we assess the implications of PPE that just meets the minimum acceptable safety levels, analyse what the standards actually mean, highlight how misinterpreted PPE test parameters can potentially be disastrous, and convey why an organisation’s approach to workforce safety and risk needs to be proactive.

Ten Common PPE Misconceptions

 

© 2017 Lakeland Inc. All Rights Reserved.