However, three-quarters of participants also considered regulation to be burdensome, fragmented or ineffective in practice. These concerns were especially prominent among private-sector respondents, who highlighted the administrative strain of overlapping reporting requirements, compliance fatigue and the operational disconnect between global standards and local implementation. Several noted that current policies often divert attention towards meeting audit requirements rather than investing in lasting improvements. Others cited limited enforcement capacity, particularly in jurisdictions with large informal economies, and expressed concern that regulations too often arrive “after someone gets hurt”. These frustrations echo broader critiques of sustainability efforts, including the mismatch between compliance tasks and true performance improvement.A smaller but significant group, roughly a quarter, voiced more nuanced or mixed views, emphasizing that the effectiveness of regulation is highly context-dependent. In these discussions, participants acknowledged the need for a balanced approach: regulation that sets a floor but also allows for innovation and collaboration. Public–private partnerships and convergence across jurisdictions were viewed as potential levers to increase efficacy. Several also underscored the need for regulation to evolve in parallel with emerging business models, technological shifts and the realities of work on the ground. These varied perspectives were shaped, in part, by institutional roles. Private-sector participants often framed regulation as an unavoidable requirement – one that could occasionally prompt new strategies, but more often created compliance complexity. Some expressed concern that overly prescriptive rules could dampen innovation or drive companies to de-prioritize worker well-being when economic pressures rose. In contrast, civic society and advocacy stakeholders viewed regulation as a critical mechanism for protecting labour rights and health – especially where voluntary corporate action has lagged. These participants emphasized the importance of enforceable standards and consistent oversight, while also acknowledging the persistent challenges of implementation and local governance. Collectively, these insights suggest that regulation is experienced simultaneously as a scaffold for action and a site of friction, influencing how organizations navigate the intertwined imperatives of climate resilience and workforce well-being. Yet as regulatory frameworks begin to align and mature, there is a window for convergence, where overlapping mandates, investor scrutiny and social accountability begin to cohere into achievable norms. This alignment can offer not only a stable foundation for action but also a shared direction for cross-sector collaboration. The expectation is increasingly not just to disclose risks but to demonstrate due diligence and mitigation efforts.62,63 Materiality assessments increasingly call for the integration of occupational health, heat exposure and other climate-linked risks into corporate strategy. Transparency is no longer about reporting what is known but discovering what needs to be known in order to adapt.64 Sometimes regulatory channels do change behaviour and sometimes they do not. For example, you can arrange a tax break, and companies may act to avoid the fine. So you use the regulatory carrot and stick. But to cement change you have to build from within business. I think if you want to figure out what the role of employers is, it has to come from ‘This helps you solve a business need’ and then change will be more sustainable. Cynthia Hansen, Managing Director, Innovation Foundation empowered by the Adecco Group Workforce Health Across the Value Chain: Organizational Insights to Mitigate Risk and Create Sustainable Growth 17

Workforce Health Across the Value Chain 2025