A figure has been travelling since February: 73% of South African workplaces fail OHS inspections.
It is real, and it comes from the Department of Employment and Labour. It is also being asked to carry far more weight than it can, and the Department publishes the number that should be carrying it instead.
Where the 73% comes from
The Department's statement Workplaces in Overberg fail OHS compliance test dismally reports the results of its Taking Services to the People campaign in Hermanus, Gansbaai and Stanford. Inspectors conducted 99 inspections across finance, hospitality, iron and steel, wholesale and retail, and manufacturing.
Of those 99 workplaces, 73% were non-compliant with the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Three towns. One district. Ninety-nine workplaces. Five sectors. A targeted campaign, not a random sample.
What the national figure actually is
The Department reports OHS Act inspections separately from its other enforcement work. For the 2022/23 financial year:
109 464 workplaces inspections against a target of 98 856 which constitutes 111% of inspections. Of the 71 655 (65%) employers of those inspected were classified as compliant and 37 809 (35%) employers were found non-compliant
| Inspections | OHS non-compliance | |
|---|---|---|
| National, 2022/23 | 109 464 | 35% |
| Overberg campaign, February 2026 | 99 | 73% |
Both are OHS Act non-compliance rates, so this is a fair comparison. The targeted sweep found non-compliance at more than double the national rate, which is exactly what a targeted sweep is designed to do. Inspectors go where they expect to find problems. That is good enforcement. It is not a national baseline.
For completeness, across all the legislation the Department enforces in the same year, 312 792 employers were inspected and 76% were found compliant. That broader figure is often quoted alongside the OHS one, and the two are not interchangeable.
The finding everyone skipped
Here is the part of the Overberg statement worth more than its headline.
In the same 99 workplaces, inspected by the same inspectors, on the same visits:
- Non-compliance with the Occupational Health and Safety Act: 73%
- Non-compliance with the Basic Conditions of Employment Act: 16%
That comparison is internally controlled. Whatever made this sample unusual applies to both numbers equally, so the gap between them is real. The same employers, measured on the same day, were more than four times more likely to fail on safety than on basic employment conditions.
Read plainly: these employers largely knew how to do the paperwork of employment. Contracts, hours, wages, leave. What they had not done was the paperwork of safety.
The Department's list of findings supports that reading. Missing risk assessments. Undocumented asbestos. Insufficient first aid training. Absent employee facilities. No personal protective equipment. Uncertified electrical installations. Unserviced equipment. Inadequate training in workplaces where snakes are a genuine hazard.
None of those is a failure of goodwill. Every one is a document, a certificate or a register that either exists and is current, or does not.
Why the gap exists
Employment paperwork has a natural forcing function. Someone gets paid every month, and a payslip is generated whether or not anyone is thinking about compliance. The obligation is discharged as a side effect of running the business.
OHS paperwork has no such rhythm. A hazard identification and risk assessment does not announce that it is now thirteen months old. A first aid certificate does not flag its own expiry. A section 16(2) appointment stays valid on paper long after the person named in it has changed roles or left. Nothing in the ordinary running of a business surfaces any of it, until an inspector asks.
That is most of the distance between 16% and 73%. Not attitude. Rhythm.
What to do with this
If you are budgeting, reporting or making a board case on the basis that roughly three in four South African workplaces fail OHS inspections, the published national figure is about one in three, and someone will eventually check.
The better question is not what the national rate is. It is what an inspector would find in your file this week.
- Is your HIRA less than 12 months old?
- Is your section 16(2) appointment current, signed, named, and scoped to a person still in that role?
- Is your COIDA Letter of Good Standing unexpired?
- Is first aid provision matched to your actual headcount, with certificates in date?
Four questions. If any answer is "I am not sure", that is the same gap the Overberg inspectors found, and it has nothing to do with whether you care.
Sources
- Department of Employment and Labour, Workplaces in Overberg fail OHS compliance test dismally
- South African Government, Employment and Labour exceeds its target of inspections for 2022/23 financial year