At Amazon and Elsewhere, Are Safety and Productivity Mutually Exclusive? (Depends on Who's Talking)

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), chair of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), released a 160-page report that he claims reveals “the shockingly dangerous working conditions at Amazon's warehouses…” “The 'Injury-Productivity Trade-off': How Amazon's Obsession with Speed Creates Uniquely Dangerous Warehouses,” highlights the findings of a sweeping, 18-month investigation led by Sanders into Amazon's workplace safety practices.

Sanders called working conditions at Amazon facilities “beyond unacceptable,” adding, “Amazon's executives repeatedly chose to put profits ahead of the health and safety of its workers by ignoring recommendations that would substantially reduce injuries at its warehouses. This is precisely the type of outrageous corporate greed that the American people are sick and tired of.”

Amazon, not surprisingly, disputes the findings of the report. In a statement, the company claimed Sanders “continues to mislead the American public on workplace safety at Amazon,” adding, “Our employees' safety is and always will be our top priority…”

How Amazon Stacks Up

As part of the investigation that led to the report, the HELP Committee analyzed Amazon's data and found that Amazon warehouses allegedly recorded over 30% more injuries than the warehousing industry average in 2023. The committee also found that in each of the past seven years, Amazon workers were nearly twice as likely to be injured as workers in other warehouses. According to the committee's research, more than two-thirds of Amazon's warehouses have injury rates that exceed the industry average. (Claims also disputed by Amazon).

“Amazon forces workers to operate in a system that demands impossible rates and treats them as disposable when they are injured,” Sanders declared. “It accepts worker injuries and their long-term pain and disabilities as the cost of doing business. That cannot continue.”

He points to Amazon's $36 billion in profit in 2023, Amazon founder Jeff Bezos' status as the second-wealthiest man in the world, and claims that current CEO Andy Jassey has received over $300 million in total compensation since 2021 as evidence that there is no lack of funding at Amazon for workplace safety initiatives. “Amazon should be one of the safest places to work, not one of the most dangerous,” said Sanders. “Amazon cannot continue to treat its workers as disposable. It must be held accountable.”

The HELP Committee uncovered new evidence that Amazon allegedly knows that its productivity standards for workers are the reason injury rates are high. According to the committee, Amazon even developed proposals to lower its injury rates, but chose not to implement them because productivity might suffer. The committee claims that Amazon instead chose to blame worker error and the human “frailty” of certain workers.

Amazon: This Investigation Wasn't a Fact-Finding Mission

According to Amazon, the report “features selective, outdated information that lacks context and isn't grounded in reality.”

Taking issue with the very title of the report, Amazon stated that if it was accurate to state that the company was trading higher productivity for safe working conditions, then “…[W]hat you'd see is that as our productivity and speed goes up, injuries go up. But what's actually happened over the past five years is exactly the opposite – we've increased our delivery speeds, while decreasing the injury rates across our network.”

Speedy delivery doesn't come from pushing workers harder, the company claims, but from expanding its network of warehouses and distribution hubs, bringing products closer to customers, and reducing the number of steps required to get products from suppliers to customers.

According to Amazon, from 2019–2023, the company reduced its recordable incident rate (anything requiring more than basic first aid is “recordable”) in the U.S. by 28% and its lost time incident rate by 75%. Lost-time incidents are those that require employees to miss a day or more of work to recover. “Contrary to the narrative in this report, these large safety gains occurred alongside surging demand, unprecedented organizational growth, and during a global pandemic,” stated Amazon.

Amazon claims much of Sanders' report is based on a debunked, “outdated” document - Project Soteria - that examined whether there's a relationship between employee performance feedback systems and injury rates. Project Soteria's methodology and hypotheses were evaluated by economists at Amazon, who determined that the project was flawed and inaccurate. “Nonetheless, Sen. Sanders and his staff chose to rely on the debunked Soteria analysis because it fits the false narrative he wanted to build.”

Amazon also cited the decision of Judge Stephen Pfeifer of Washington state's Board of Industrial Insurance Appeals, that vacated four citations issued to Amazon by the Washinton Department of Labor and Industries (L&I). In March 2022, L&I alleged that 10 of the 12 processes L&I evaluated at the company's Kent Fulfillment Center “created a serious hazard for work-related back, shoulder, wrist, and knee injuries.”

At the time of those citations, Amazon had been cited previously by L&I for similar alleged violations at three Washington locations, so L&I claimed “the company is aware of these hazards. Therefore, the most recent violation is classified as a willful violation and comes with a significantly higher penalty than those issued as a result of earlier inspections. The company has not yet made necessary changes to improve workplace safety and has consistently denied the association between pace of work and injury rates.”

Amazon appealed the citations and after six weeks of testimony from employees, ergonomists, and other experts, Pfeifer determined the company had a robust health and safety program, according to a copy of the ruling reviewed by The Seattle Times.

“In addition to hearing testimony on why Soteria was flawed and invalid, the judge ruled that L&I did not establish that pace of work at Amazon was hazardous,” claimed the company, noting that Pfeifer's decision was upheld on appeal.

Are Safety and Productivity Always at Odds?

In the battle between safety and productivity, is safety destined to lose? In an article <Safety and Performance Excellence: Safety vs. Productivity: If Either Wins, Both Lose | EHS Today> published in EHS Today intriguingly titled “Safety and Performance Excellence: Safety vs. Productivity: If Either Wins, Both Lose,” author Terry L. Mathis wrote, “Balancing these two priorities tends to enhance both, while letting either one triumph over the other will not only damage these efforts but also create collateral damage in other areas of the organization.”

Nicole M. Radziwill, PhD, MBA, International Academy for Quality (IAQ), and Fellow, American Society for Quality (ASQ), agrees, but points out that from a business standpoint, prioritizing productivity over quality and safety is often rationalized through pure economic reasoning.

“Higher productivity means increased output and revenue, at least in the near term, and enables companies to maintain competitive advantage,” said Radziwill. “Minor quality issues can often be addressed through warranty programs at lower cost than comprehensive quality controls, and basic safety compliance can be sufficient to avoid major incidents. The direct costs of extensive safety programs and quality controls often exceed short-term benefits, particularly if products are easily replaceable or services are readily substitutable.”

However, added Radziwill, author of “Connected, Intelligent, Automated: The Definitive Guide to Digital Transformation & Quality 4.0” (2020) and “Data, Strategy, Culture & Power” (2024), “A productivity-first approach fundamentally misunderstands how interconnectedness impacts contemporary business. Poor quality and safety practices inevitably lead to increased long-term costs through accidents, injuries, product recalls, reputation damage, and lost customer trust.”

Investments in quality and safety consistently yield positive returns in the long term through reduced waste, lower insurance premiums, increased employee retention, and enhanced brand value, she said, “But when short-term survival is in question, leaders won't feel as if they have the luxury to look beyond the long term.”

The High Human Cost of Prioritizing Productivity Over Safety

Ron Knox is senior researcher and policy advocate at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), which is a nonprofit organization that provides technical assistance to communities on sustainable development and fosters the idea that people should have power over their lives, including how they provide for their families, how resources are shared, and how decisions are made.

According to Knox, the HELP Committee's investigation “reaffirms what tens of thousands of workers around the country know intimately: Amazon exploits and abuses the workers who stock shelves and pick packages at its hundreds of warehouses around the country, putting them at extreme risk of injury, in order to expand its power in the logistics industry.”

Amazon claims that by and large, its 1.1 million employees globally feel empowered to take a break when necessary, seek medical attention if injured, speak up about safety concerns, and provide feedback regarding workplace safety initiatives.

The company points to its Dragonfly program, which allows employees to report potential hazards, near-misses, or incidents, and raise safety suggestions from an app on their phone or at terminals in sites where employees work. In 2023, Amazon claims it actioned on more than 200,000 pieces of feedback collected via Dragonfly. “We know that-with a workforce the size of ours-not everyone will have the same experiences. But we work hard to support our team, listen to their feedback, and keep getting better every day.”

The testimony during the committee hearings tells a different story. One of the Amazon employees who testified before the HELP Committee commented, “When I started, I thought the company was there for you. They told us to report any injuries. Then I got injured and saw what it really was and couldn't believe that a huge company that preaches how they're there for workers really treats people.”

“We understand Sen. Sanders and his staff spoke to 135 employees,” noted Amazon. “In a workforce of more than 800,000 in the U.S. alone, that represents about 0.018% of our current frontline employee population. Anonymous and unverified anecdotes like the ones in the report make it difficult for us to determine the details, and whether the claims are true or accurate.”

Amazon even issued this invitation: “If anyone wants to learn more, we encourage them to visit one of our sites, meet some members of our team, and decide for themselves.”

In July 2024, we published a breaking news article titled Amazon Pushes Back on Report that Worker Injuries Spike During Prime Days, Holidays concerning allegations made by Sanders that injuries spike during high-volume events. At that time, Amazon issued a similar invitation, with Kelly Nantel, Director of Corporate Global Media Relations at Amazon, stating, “If someone wants to truly understand the facts about our safety record and our progress toward being the safest company in the industries in which we operate, we encourage them to review our annual safety report or come visit one of our fulfillment sites to see for themselves.”

We wanted to take them up on that offer and reached out. We said we wanted to profile Amazon's safety initiatives, efforts at employee engagement, and interview one or more of their 9,000 safety professionals. We had our sights set on visiting one of Amazon's fulfillment centers as offered by Nantel. We exchanged emails with a member of Amazon's Corporate Communications team and met at one point to discuss article possibilities.

Unfortunately, our attempts to engage with Amazon were shut down. In an email follow up from the company, we were told: “This sounds like a great opportunity, but unfortunately, we don't have the bandwidth to participate at this time. We'll keep you on our radar for the future.”

We were never able to interview an Amazon safety professional or speak with employees about their experience with safety at the company. Likely, even if we had, those employees would have been chosen by the company because they have had positive workplace safety experiences.

But what of the employees who testified before Sanders and the HELP Committee, or who have been interviewed by state and federal regulators and investigators? Assuming some of them remain Amazon employees, why do they stay, seemingly going against their own best interests? Radziwill has an answer.

“Sadly, even when a company is known for a toxic emphasis on productivity, people will still take jobs that are physically grueling, psychologically intense, or materially unsafe to make ends meet. This is why regulation is so critical: it encourages businesses to make the best decisions for people - even when those decisions cost more and slow things down.”

(Photo courtesy of Amazon)

———–

Editor's Note: 3E is expanding news coverage to provide customers with insights into topics that enable a safer, more sustainable world by protecting people, safeguarding products, and helping businesses grow. Deep Dive articles, produced by reporters, feature interviews with subject matter experts and influencers as well as exclusive analysis provided by 3E researchers and consultants.