‘Just Following the Law’ Isn’t Enough

‘Legal’ Isn’t Always ‘Right’

Why ‘Just Following the Law’ Isn’t Enough—And What It Cost Me to Learn That.

At one point in my career, I believed that staying “within the law” was the gold standard. If your policies matched the regulation and your paperwork passed inspection, you were doing your job.

But then I saw what happens when something goes wrong—when a preventable injury happens in the gap between the law’s letter and its spirit. I learned, painfully, that compliance is not protection. It’s the bare minimum. And in safety, the bare minimum is often one decision away from tragedy.

This isn’t just philosophy—it’s reinforced by legislation. Ontario’s Occupational Health and Safety Act (OHSA), for example, requires employers to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances for the protection of a worker” (OHSA, s. 25(2)(h)). In the U.S., OSHA’s General Duty Clause (29 U.S.C. § 654) expects the same. So why do so many workplaces stop at “just legal”? Because they treat the law as a ceiling. In reality, it’s the floor. And I have been there when employers learn that the hard way.

Why I Don’t Believe in ‘Just Following the Law’—And What It Cost Me to Learn That

Working across Canada and the U.S., from Ontario’s steel mills to Georgia’s pulp mills, I’ve seen just about every flavour of workplace culture you can imagine.

One thing I learned early: the law changes with geography—but safety shouldn’t.

You’d think that workplace protection would be universal. That a worker in Alberta deserves the same consideration as one in Arkansas. But the reality? Employers often treat legislation like a ceiling, not a floor. They do just enough to stay legal. And when your business model is built on “just enough,” one incident is all it takes to burn the whole thing down.

Same Work, Different Rules

It’s easy to assume one size fits all in EHS. After all, equipment is equipment. Hazards are hazards. But here’s the problem: legislation doesn’t travel well.

In Ontario, Regulation 851 for Industrial Establishments governs everything from machine guarding to confined spaces to PPE requirements (Ontario Regulation 851). In Alberta? Different structure, different language. Cross the border into New York or Michigan? Now you’re dealing with OSHA’s 29 CFR 1910 standards (OSHA 1910).

While many standards stem from common frameworks—CSA, ANSI, ISO—the enforcement, interpretation, and legal codification are different everywhere. And then there are the “nice to have” standards: best practices that only become mandatory when you’re audited by a client, regulator, or certifying body.

That disconnect creates a dangerous gap. And that gap is usually bridged by one thing: money. Or more accurately—what you’re willing to spend to protect your people.

The Turning Point

I once asked a VP why his Ontario plant had more fall protection protocols than the identical one in Indiana.

He laughed. “Because one’s regulated. The other’s not.”

I didn’t laugh.

Here’s the part that matters: you can be 100% legal in one province or state and still be 100% liable if something goes wrong. That’s where the general duty clause comes in.

In Ontario, Section 25(2)(h) of the OHSA requires employers to “take every precaution reasonable in the circumstances” (OHSA S.25(2)(h)).

In the U.S., OSHA’s General Duty Clause (29 U.S.C. § 654) holds employers accountable for known hazards, regardless of whether a specific rule exists. If a hazard is known and a solution exists, you’re expected to implement it.

That’s what investigators lean on. That’s what prosecutors build their case on. And frankly, that’s what any decent employer should do—because that’s where the moral obligation begins.

The Transformation

Eventually, I stopped asking, “Is it legally required?”

I started asking, “Would I want my own kid working here?”

That shift changed how I write policies, deliver training, and advise clients. Because the truth is, the law is only the starting line. Real safety starts where the legal minimum ends.

Organizations that lead in safety aren’t chasing compliance. They’re chasing integrity. They build systems that beat the standard—not just meet it. And when the Ministry, OSHA, or a certifying body shows up, they’re not scrambling. They’re proud to open the doors.

And yes, those systems cost more upfront. But the return shows up in fewer injuries, lower turnover, better contracts, and reputations that outlive any audit.

Your Turn

Have you ever had a moment where you realized “legal” wasn’t “enough”?

What was your turning point?

Let’s talk. I’ll go first.

Supporting Resources:

1. Government of Ontario. Occupational Health and Safety Act.
2. U.S. OSHA. OSH Act of 1970 – General Duty Clause.
3. Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (CCOHS). Due Diligence.
4. Government of Ontario. Regulation 851: Industrial Establishments.
5. U.S. OSHA. 29 CFR 1910 Standards.